Last Year Liberals Tried To Destroy Kavanaugh's Life; Those SOBs Are At It Again

[Darryl]

I thought their behavior last fall was the most deplorable thing I personally have ever seen in American politics. All because they wanted free reign to kill babies with no restrictions. I personally stay away from the abortion debates but the Liberals were absolutely Hell bent on destroying Judge Kavanaugh to ensure any decisions he would make would have an asterisk by it.

Incredibly, those clowns are at it again. The recent story simply has no basis; truth matters little to the Democrats. Lie, frame people, destroy them; anything to get the power back. Familiar pattern.

Unreal

Darryl

[ukpumacat]

This one backfired imo. NYT writes an op ed and leaves out some pretty critical info. A bunch of people jump on the bus and tweet about it. And then they have pie on their face once the NYT fixes the story.
Everyone is always looking for a narrative to get people riled up.
They aren't the only ones who do it but its awful no matter who does it.
If we posted every example in the last year of NYT, Fox News, ONN, MSNBC, etc doing this we would have the longest thread in history.
Its gross.

[kingcat]

Yep

[CitizenBBN]

This one backfired imo. NYT writes an op ed and leaves out some pretty critical info. A bunch of people jump on the bus and tweet about it. And then they have pie on their face once the NYT fixes the story.
Everyone is always looking for a narrative to get people riled up.
They aren't the only ones who do it but its awful no matter who does it.
If we posted every example in the last year of NYT, Fox News, ONN, MSNBC, etc doing this we would have the longest thread in history.
Its gross.

Agreed.

And they all do it, but traditionally it was done by the "rag" sources. The Post used to dance that line at times, and the Boston Globe, of the bigger papers, but the NYT was far more reserved. Most of their writers are liberal, that's a given, but they held themselves to a standard of journalism.

That appears to be utterly gone even for the "paper of record".

And it did backfire, b/c this story actually is awful on so many levels it would be stunning even for a rag, much less for the Times. Among the obvious omissions:

1) The Supposed "victim" doesn't remember the event.
2) they never even spoke to the victim, as she won't talk.
3) the "source" was a hearsay source that happens to be a liberal who has worked for Clinton based organizations, which was not disclosed
4) None of this is new: the Senate Democrats had all of this info and never used it b/c it was so flimsy and had no support

and then there is IMO the biggest omission:

5) The book confirms through texts that a potential witness to confirm the story of Kavanaugh's accuser was tampered with, threatened with being defamed if she didn't support her and outright lie.


So there's a great story there, that a witness was intimidated by certain liberal groups. There are apparently texts, enough for a real investigation. It's the only solid evidence in the story, and they don't even mention it.

The "Paper of Record" has become deeply scratched and warped.

[dan_bgblue]

Hardly fit to wrap fish in these days