[identity profile] blackdwarv.livejournal.com 2015-11-07 03:04 pm (UTC)(link)
No, no, no...

Leftists always are guilty of sex-scandals.

It's the Righties that always go down to money scandals. Taking bribes. Illegal fundraising. Kickbacks. Racketeering.

[identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com 2015-11-07 05:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Leftists always are guilty of sex-scandals.

Absolutely. In fact, the Governor did have folks probe his land looking for lube. . . .
phildegrave: (Default)

[personal profile] phildegrave 2015-11-07 10:09 pm (UTC)(link)
I remember the joke going around after the Larry Craig scandal:

How do you know John Edwards is a Democrat?
He had sex with a woman.

[identity profile] moonshaz.livejournal.com 2015-11-09 06:19 pm (UTC)(link)
With all due respect, I suggest you read some of these:

http://correctrecord.org/clinton-cash-debunked/
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/30/twenty-plus-errors-fabrications-and-distortions/203480
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/25/republican-clinton-cash-scandal-collapses-book-released.html

[identity profile] moonshaz.livejournal.com 2015-11-10 03:15 pm (UTC)(link)
Not all of those sources are so-called "liberal media" but suit yourself.

The other side of this coin is that I can't see any reason why I should look at a heavily biased book about the Clintons that has already been thoroughly debunked.

This particular avenue of discussion seems to have reached a dead end. Not going to lose any sleep over it, personally.
phildegrave: (Default)

[personal profile] phildegrave 2015-11-10 03:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Not all of those sources are so-called "liberal media" but suit yourself.

You don't understand - anything source that deviates from the Faux News orthodoxy is "liberal media" and therefore not to be trusted. How else are you going to keep the cultists inside the bubble?

The other side of this coin is that I can't see any reason why I should look at a heavily biased book about the Clintons that has already been thoroughly debunked.

Not to mention one where the publisher had to make "significant revisions" two weeks after publication to correct factual errors in reporting:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-cash-publisher-corrects-errors-in-book/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/15/politics/clinton-cash-book-revisions/

The house of cards fell almost as soon as it was propped up.
Edited 2015-11-10 15:52 (UTC)

[identity profile] moonshaz.livejournal.com 2015-11-10 04:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks for these links! I don't have time to look at them right now, but I look forward to doing so later today.
phildegrave: (Default)

[personal profile] phildegrave 2015-11-10 06:54 pm (UTC)(link)
You're welcome!
phildegrave: (Default)

[personal profile] phildegrave 2015-11-18 05:58 pm (UTC)(link)
phildegrave: (Default)

[personal profile] phildegrave 2015-11-18 06:11 pm (UTC)(link)
My reading comprehension is just fine. Your quote above is just the publisher trying to cover their ass. There is nothing "routine" or "minor" about this:

According to Politico, the updated version removes a passage outlining how Bill Clinton gave paid speeches to TD Bank, a shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline, and the bank said it would begin selling its shares in Keystone after Hillary Clinton left the State Department. But author Peter Schweizer reportedly cited a fake press release as his source for TD Bank's plans to sell its Keystone shares.

Dan Rather was fired for less.
Edited 2015-11-18 18:18 (UTC)

[identity profile] moonshaz.livejournal.com 2015-11-11 09:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Politifact.com is an "independent, nonpartisan news organization ... not beholden to any government, political party or corporate interest." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/blog/2011/oct/06/who-pays-for-politifact/
phildegrave: (Default)

[personal profile] phildegrave 2015-11-18 06:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I am pretty good in sifting through.

ROTFLMAO!!! Dunning–Kruger much?