Stewart's making fun of NARAL's ad.

[Guaranteed]

Says it was factually incorrect. :shrug:

[Pirate Smile]

1. It was and they fucked up.

[madeline_con]

2. Like I said...

If it's libel, someone would sue. No one has.

[K-W]

3. That is horrific logic.

First off not everybody sues.
Secondly the ad can be misleading and even downright dishonest without neccessarily being libel.

I havent seen the ad myself but that is just not a good argument.

[madeline_con]

7. "... that is just not a good argument ..."

It works for me.

Not everybody sues, but RWers are grasping at straws right now trying to stay afloat. Anythig they could od to shut down speech they don't want heard, they'll do.

They haven't sued yet.

[aaronnyc]

8. Well, Kerry didn't sue the Swifties either

By your logic, since Kerry didn't sue for libel - that is proof that the Swift Boat vets were telling the truth.

Do you have any idea how hard it is for a public figure to win a libel case in America? There is a reason that politicians never sue for libel - and it is not because nobody ever makes up lies about them.

[madeline_con]

12. Kerry coulda shoulda sued that bunch of liars.

They were formed by some Houston attorney, the whole thing was a big fat lie worthy of a defamation lawsuit.

[Pirate Smile]

13. Remember, Faux suing Al Franken was a godsend for Al and Faux was

literally laughed out of court by the judge.

[Pirate Smile]

4. They don't need to sue. The controversy is helping Roberts, not

hurting him. NARAL is who comes off looking bad.

I'm sorry but that is just my take on the issue.

[madeline_con]

6. That's cool.

I just see it a different way. :)

[Pirate Smile]

10. No sweat. I love it when people can disagree on DU without insulting

each other. :) :hi:

The insulting happens way too much. We are all on the same side but, of course, we all have different takes on things. That is life.

[hedda_foil]

5. Heard on AAR that NARAL is pulling the ad.

[achtung_circus]

9. It was over the top

on chronology and facts.

<http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html>

[Clovis Sangrail]

11. NARAL got bullied into pulling it

I'm just hearing about this and I don't see how NARAL is in the wrong.
What's amazing is reading factcheck.org's take.
http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html

They're saying the ad is false, but they confirm everything they say is false.

And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber.

OK... next sentence....

It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all.

So he DID support a convicted clinic bomber.
The NARAL ad doesn't say anything about what he supported him in, just that he supported him.... which HE DID.

Then further on

The ad contends that Roberts "filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."

OK... next sentence

Indeed, Roberts' name appears on the "friend of the court" brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic that the ad shows.


Call it misleading if you want, but none of what's in the NARAL ad is false.
I actually don't even see it as being particularly misleading in comparison to the bullshit that's been shoveled over the last 5 years.

In fact, I'd say there's a pretty good arguement to made that providing legal assistance to a convicted clinic bomber and a clinic bombing 7 years later ARE related topics.

on edit: changed 'events' to 'topics'

[Blue-Jay]

17. Misleading is nearly as bad as false.

Lookit - I was goddamn pissed off when Shrubya kept mentioning "9/11" and "Saddam" in the same sentence. It was misleading without being technically false. It was also a shitty thing to do.

Deliberately misleading people, even if it's not totally a lie, is a shitty thing to do.

[Clovis Sangrail]

19. how did the NARAL ad mislead you?

I am interested in what you think.

[Clovis Sangrail]

14. bwahahahhaha

Ira Stoll, the editor of the NY Sun got all bent out of shape about the NARAL ad for being false and misleading.

I guess it's kind of a strectch to say Bray et al. v. Alexandria Clinic
show that "John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber".
'He was just one in a group'.
(even though Eric Bray is a convicted clinic bomber and the case had his name on it)


That's COMPLETELY not the same as Stoll on the OReilly Factor talking about the "far left factions" supporting Cindy Sheehan.
From http://movies.crooksandliars.com/John-Gibson-smears-Cindy.wmv">Crooks and Liars

"some of these people are the same people who were throwing rocks at Starbucks in Seattle against free trade. They want socialism."

[KingFlorez]

15. Gave into neocon whining

I don't see the problem with the ad

[SeveneightyWhoa]

16. You dont see a problem with an ad making obviously misleading claims?

Wow..

[KingFlorez]

18. But he argued in favor of Operation Rescue

It's not a lie that he did that. It might have been an over the top ad, but he still argued in favor of the protesters.

[formernaderite]

20. Look...the word has gone out...

the dems seem to be throwing the pro choice groups overboard or at the very least they've been told to go stand in the corner. I'm personally as an atheist anti-abortion. However, I would never assume that others share my principles on life. The DLC and Hillary have been mouthing off calling abortion a tragedy....this is emotionally weighted language. So, I'm not surprised that Stewart got the memo too.