LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 04:55 PM
Original message |
This is why I've been giving articles from Fire Dog Lake an automatic unrecommend. |
|
This is to encourage integrity in the liberal blogosphere.
Judging each article by its own merits leaves a source with little incentive to publish truthful articles. They can keep attempting to publish untruthful ones because if it works, great, but if it doesn't work, they can just try again.
If the risk is that the cost of an untruthful article extends beyond the one article, there's more incentive not to publish it.
And if an article is truthful, I could probably read similar information from a difference source anyways.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 04:56 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Thank you, whoever you are, for the one recommend. |
Hell Hath No Fury
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-13-10 05:03 PM by Hell Hath No Fury
Using that logic, you just showed us how important it is to stop voting for shitty, RW Dems anymore -- after all, if we keep putting them in office what incentive is there for the Party to produce quality candidates who adhere to modern Democratic principles?
:rofl:
I actually agree with you!
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
- Can a person read only one web site, the same way that there can only be one person holding an elected office? - If you reject one particular liberal web site, then are you forced to read only a right-wing one for the rest of the day, the way that a Republican candidate will take the place of a Democratic one who loses for a certain period of time?
There are huge discrepancies in your analogy.
|
BzaDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:07 PM
Response to Original message |
4. This is why I give posts by LoZoccolo an automatic unrec. nt |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. People have been doing that since unreccomend came out. |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-13-10 05:09 PM by LoZoccolo
Remember the L<0L avatar?
Some have even suggested that it was my posts which provoked the unrecommend feature.
|
Hell Hath No Fury
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. I helped you a little msyelf. |
|
I couldn't resist. :evilgrin:
|
City Lights
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
Bluebear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
MannyGoldstein
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:17 PM
Response to Original message |
7. can you point to an untruthful example? nt |
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. Only if he has a mirror handy. nt |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
MannyGoldstein
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
20. That's generally regarded to be truthful |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-14-10 12:12 PM by MannyGoldstein
I believe the NY Times carried much the same info.
Is there something specific that's incorrect?
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
22. Yes, he did not call liberals "fucking retarded". |
|
He, as a partisan, reacted to a stupid idea against his party.
|
madinmaryland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:22 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Do you read TruthOut?? |
|
I'm still waiting for the "24 business hours" to end.
:wtf:
|
littlewolf
(920 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. ouch that is gonna leave a mark ..... |
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:26 PM
Response to Original message |
10. If you call them liars, the proof is on you to provide evidence. |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
21. All you gave me was that about Rahm Emanuel. |
|
Are you saying he did not say what was quoted by Peter Wallsten that Jane alluded to?
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
23. The quote cannot be twisted into the headline. n/t |
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
25. Are you saying liberals did not run the ads? |
|
Or are you saying he wasn't calling them f'ing retarded but that running ads against conservadems was f'king retarded? And isn't that splitting hairs? Afterall, weren't these ads during the primaries and weren't they running against Democratic Party challengers?
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
26. Yes, a group of some liberals ran the ads. |
|
I am a liberal and I think the idea is stupid.
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
27. If someone supports the other candidate |
|
and there are issues they are running against the other candidate on, are they supposed not to mention those issues? We really ought to be fair here. Just because Emanuel was against the position the liberals had on healthcare legislation doesn't mean the ads were stupid.
|
flvegan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:40 PM
Response to Original message |
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 05:53 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Unrec for trying to stir shit when there's no shit to begin with. nt |
deaniac21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-13-10 06:11 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Damn, they figured out Will Pitt's gig. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 13th 2024, 01:53 AM
Response to Original message |