The Nature of Truth

atl we ain't talking salads no mo, we talking about something everyone here can all agree on, a good old fashioned sloppy super charged turbo deluxe petal to the metal hummer!

I don't see how any of the rest of you can argue against O'Rourk's initial point, unless you do indeed believe Sarah Palin et al were responsible for the massacre in Arizona.

The piece that PJ linked to describes 21st Century Democrats as "extreme and left-wing", not a group associated with the mainstream. Go to 21st Century Democrats website, http://www.21stcenturydems.com/ and to the wikipedia page for the group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century_Democrats. They are indeed using the assassinations in Arizona as a fund raising ploy. And the group was created by Tom Harkin, Jim Hightower, and Lane Evans, not Republicans trying to pin something bogus on Democrats.

I can't vouch for the last part of PJ's article, as I don't have all day to fact check. But I will purchase a one hour package with London for anyone here that can find a significant inaccuracy in the first six paragraphs. Unless he's from Texas of course.

Charles, you ask for "comments on the nature of truth". My comment -- truth stands on its own. Don't try to obscure it. If you want to listen to MSNBC (or Fox News) all day long and take every word as either (a) the gospel because it confirms your prejudices or (b) lies because it doesn't, then, hey, go for it. Just don't insist that everyone else should base "truth" on its source, instead of facts.

.

I don't see how any of the rest of you can argue against O'Rourk's initial point, unless you do indeed believe Sarah Palin et al were responsible for the massacre in Arizona.

PJ fell for the oldest trick in the book which was put forth by Breitbart. And you. The link that PJ posted took you to a page that accused 21st Century of using the attack to fund raise. It is very clear from the context (pay attention PJ & Tiny), that the message that appeared did not in any way solicit money.

Yes, there was a "Donate" button on the page, but it is the organization's homepage. There is such a button on every organization's homepage from GOP (http://www.gop.com/) to the Red Cross (http://www.redcross.org/). This includes the Tea Party (http://www.theteaparty.net/). And based on the webpage template, I suspect it stays there no matter what.

So, look at the context. The organization did NOT use the tragedy to solicit funds. The button has probably been there since the website went up, and you and PJ fell for Brietbart's misdirection like toddlers.

The piece that PJ linked to describes 21st Century Democrats as "extreme and left-wing", not a group associated with the mainstream. Go to 21st Century Democrats website, http://www.21stcenturydems.com/ and to the wikipedia page for the group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century_Democrats. They are indeed using the assassinations in Arizona as a fund raising ploy. Not true. See above. And the group was created by Tom Harkin, Jim Hightower, and Lane Evans, not Republicans trying to pin something bogus on Democrats. They do not describe themselves as "extreme" or "left wing." They describe themselves as "progressives" who are listening to the "grass roots."

I can't vouch for the last part of PJ's article, as I don't have all day to fact check. But I will purchase a one hour package with London for anyone here that can find a significant inaccuracy in the first six paragraphs. Unless he's from Texas of course. First of all, not interested, and second, you're discriminating. But I would expect nothing less. And finally, I've cited the inaccuracy...that 21st is using the tragedy to fund raise. Their homepage is no different than lots of others.

Charles, you ask for "comments on the nature of truth". My comment -- truth stands on its own. Don't try to obscure it. If you want to listen to MSNBC (or Fox News) all day long and take every word as either (a) the gospel because it confirms your prejudices or (b) lies because it doesn't, then, hey, go for it. Just don't insist that everyone else should base "truth" on its source, instead of facts. Facts are facts. What those fact mean are open to interpretation. It is a fact that Breitbart has a history of lying and twisting facts to support his political position. He has even admitted it and not apologized for doing so. And you want to base your opinion on any alleged facts he proposes as true? Please. And follow Breitbart's links in the article. You'll find the page it takes you to is 21's home page, and is no different than scores of others, especially non-profits. Originally Posted by Tiny

Rudy, you ever notice how some posts aren't worth the effort it takes to push the button?

Rudy, you ever notice how some posts aren't worth the effort it takes to push the button? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Absolutely!! But then its easy to be wise and give advice when no one counts on you to deliver the goods.

Facts are facts. What those fact mean are open to interpretation. It is a fact that Breitbart has a history of lying and twisting facts to support his political position. He has even admitted it and not apologized for doing so. And you want to base your opinion on any alleged facts he proposes as true? Please. And follow Breitbart's links in the article. You'll find the page it takes you to is 21's home page, and is no different than scores of others, especially non-profits.

Charles, I don't know why you maintain Breitbart wrote the article, placed the links, and alleges facts. Warner Todd Huston wrote the article, not Breitbart. Are you going to blame Rupert Murdoch for everything said on Fox News? For everything written in the Wall Street Journal, including the op-ed's?

Yes, what facts mean are open to interpretation. My interpretation is that the very large "donate" and "sign up" buttons on the web site in question are much more prominent and obtrusive than advertisements on Google search results, advertisements that Google makes billions from. The 21st Century Democrats web site does not exist to publish news or opinion or educate the public. It exists to raise money to elect political candidates.

I did not base my opinion on alleged facts proposed by Breitbart or Huston or anyone else. I read wikipedia and the 21st century democrats web site.

Absolutely!! But then its easy to be wise and give advice when no one counts on you to deliver the goods. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Yes, the sad cruelty of diminished expectations.

Yes, the sad cruelty of diminished expectations. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Charles, I don't know why you maintain Breitbart wrote the article, placed the links, and alleges facts. Warner Todd Huston wrote the article, not Breitbart. Originally Posted by Tiny

If you had read the OP, you would have found this statement:

And so, with regard to the article PJ posted, I think it is important to note that Brietbart (although not the author, he does own the site and presumably approves what is said in the article) not only shades the truth but uses flat-out lies to support his position.

The point is: since it is Breitbart's site, it is important to identify the kind of conduct in which he has engaged in the past to understand how credible he (or the author) might be now.

I don't think you could get a lot of people to agree with you regarding the "Donate" button. It's a very common button found all over the web. And clearly, if you read the posting on the page, there is no effort in the writing to obtain a donation. Just a message of sympathy to the families of the victims. And that's a fact.

I don't think you could get a lot of people to agree with you regarding the "Donate" button. It's a very common button found all over the web. And clearly, if you read the posting on the page, there is no effort in the writing to obtain a donation.

Charles, This group exists for one reason and one reason only: To elect political candidates. The foremost reason the web site exists is to raise the money to elect those political candidates. When a newspaper runs articles, it does so in order to sell advertisements. When 21st Century Democrats wrote "We also know that Sarah Palin and Rep. Giffords' opponent used violent imagery last year urging her opponents to target her", on their home page, they did it in order to raise money.

And so what if the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army and whoever else also have donate buttons on their home pages. What's the primary reason for the content on their web sites, regardless of whether they're describing the world as it is or their good works or directly soliciting a donation? Answer: To raise money.

So Chuckie, based on the standard you've laid out, I guess we should disregard everything put out by CBS during the period that Dan Rather was head of its news operation. After all, it was demonstrated that he fabricated his attack on W's service record -- even using a MS Word generated memo that was supposedly produced years before Word was invented.

Wow, I'm impressed how cool it is to be cynical for it's own sake. The heady self-absorption of a group of college freshmen posturing and trying on "shocking" new (to them) ideas like they are in the local department store can't begin to hold a candle to this.

Is Charles really Howard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4i_...eature=related

Is Charles really Howard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4i_...eature=related Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Approximately 40 years ago. How did you know????

Truth, it seems, is flexible in our modern age; you might even say Orwellian.

Charles,

This is for you. Enjoy!

August 31, 2010
CNN's Ali Velshi looks at the history of Iraq and explains some little known facts about the country.

I happened to be watching CNN last summer when this segment aired. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Did you know the Ottoman Empire was ally to the Axis Powers during WWII? Notice where Velshi places Iraq when he says “Illinois” (I didn’t notice this until I replayed this segment).

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/08/31/nr.velshi.iraq.history.cnn?ire f=videosearch

I do not believe Velshi is intentionally distorting history, but I cannot imagine why he, or any of the chattering class, would not be better prepared to give such a lecture on national TV. Unintentional distortions have consequences, e.g., my earlier references to the media’s coverage of the toppling of Hussein’s statute in Baghdad or the Yippie (“police”) riot in Chicago in 1968.