How does it feel to be a poster who refuses to read well researched articles? How does it feel to be a poster who attacks the source--rather than the ideas?

How does it feel to be in bed politically with fundamentalist extremists?

Unless you have evidence to back your claims that the research in the article is inaccurate, your attack post is just that. Not worth my time.

You've showed no evidence that the information in the article is false or misleading. You calling me a liar is just more of your tactics of blowing smoke without substance. What you think of me is none of my business.

I think they're just pissy because McCain took the wind out of Hubris Boy's sails by making his announcement on Friday, and they didn't have months to criticize his choice. Nobody was talking about Obama on Friday. I find that HILARIOUS. McCain made the Dems look like chumps. Poor babies.

And just what "well researched article" would you be referring to? Surely, you're not proposing that DailyKOS be taken as a serious reference?

Bring me an idea ... not a fabricated character assassination ... and I'll consider it.

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

Do the research and get back to me. The writer of this article has done his homework. The Kos article is full of links to sources which back the claims.

I know you naysayers won't even read the article. You're wasting my time.

I have no research to do -- you put liberal propaganda bull(*)(*)(*)(*) out here, become offended when its authenticity is challenged, and then expect me to do the research?

Your input was nothing but a cheap hit piece, and you ought to be ashamed for even considering it to be relevant. So much for intelligent discourse, huh? It's okay to lie as long as you advance your position ... who cares about the truth? Apparently, not you. But then, it's a lot easier to sit behind the keyboard, do a google search until you find some idiot who agrees with you, and then use him as a credible source. Disgusting .....

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

Who is getting all pissy and moaney now? Stop whining and do your homework.

Refute the claims the author has researched with evidence of your own.

I provided a link to the fact that the article is inaccurate, as well as text from the link. Spare refuted others. I can see you didn't bother to pay attention.

Let me help you again:

1) sloppy, haphazard vetting process - The article is dated September 1, and the information is outdated.

2) going "into seclusion" - link does not substantiate this claim, and in fact, repudiates the claim. Taking the case directly to voters does not equal seclusion.

3) some of the highest per capita earmarks funding - Clearly biased source that does not examine the commensurate Democratic positions.

4) predisposition to cancer - Some 90% of people in the U.S. aged 70+ will experience a melanoma. This does not equate to having a predisposition to cancer.

5) empty acceptance speech that nonetheless had the media swooning - Source does not say what is implied in this sentence.

6) She's a hard-bitten creationist - Source does not substantiate the claim.

7) an abortioNazi - Again, the source does not back up this claim. In fact, it primarily discusses the gas pipeline. It does rehash the now-tired rape in the case of your daughter discussion. Choosing life, in the scenario of YOUR DAUGHTER is different than being an abortinazi who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. We've discussed this. Personal ethics versus seeking legal changes are two separate issues. If Palin is an abortinazi for saying she would PERSONALLY choose life for her and her family, then SO ARE YOU.

Iraq Oil invasion was "God's will." - Her actual quote:

That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's will."

This does not imply certainty. It implies hope that there IS a plan. What exactly do you hope for when you pray for peace?

I'm going to stop there out of boredom, but I can do more, if you'd like.

The article was NOT well-researched. It makes spurious claims that are unsupported by the links.

At least, I take time to read and carefully consider links. That makes one of us.

Personal attack. JESUS, CATZ. You are the last one to talk to anyone about board ethics! I'm thinking you lost a wad of money when you took the anger management class. It didn't work. Bitterness and rage leak out of everything you post.

Happiness isn't the goal, it's the journey.

__________________
You, you, and you, panic. The rest of you follow me.

"This year I have come to terms with the idea that I might be my own best hope to defend my future. Hopefully all of us will realize that we are the ones we have been waiting for." - Tim DeChristopher

No, you are wasting our time. You've already stated that the OP was "well-researched." I've refuted that claim several times, and you've ignored it. NOw, you proclaim that the Daily Kos (which broke the story about Sarah Palin's falsified pregnancy) is a bastion of truth and research.

Yeah. I guess that is "wind-speak" for "says what I want to hear."

Actually, THE ABOVE is a personal attack. My comments to angel attacked her incredibly sloppy and poorly researched post.

Do you have something to say about that article, and its links to nowhere? Or, did you even bother to click the links?

I strongly suspect that Angel's post was cut/pasted from elsewhere without a source. And, that Angel didn't bother to check the links, because if she/he had, he/she would not have posted the article. The links DO NOT SUBSTANTIATE the claims made.

Saying this is not ad hominem. It's being intellectually thorough.

But thanks for the incredibly substantive contribution here. I can see why you chose your avatar. It's truly representative of your posts.