Comments on: Secrets of the American Future Fund

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:26:38 +0000

"So what in God's own name have you and your little scurrying buddies been blathering about for the last five days?"

Start at the beginning and re-read the posts. We called Ia Indy on their hypocrisy. Jason's story really didn't say much other than to pontificate to a conservative group about something he himself is guilty of by being associated with this covert website.

And I just noticed Chase didn't write the article, Jason Hancock did. Apologies to both.

By: Guardian32

Guardian32 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:54:42 +0000

Can't let that one pass …
“Iowa Independent doesn't like AFF because of what they stand for and because they're beating them at their own game. Other than that, there's really no meat to this story.”
Really? So what in God's own name have you and your little scurrying buddies been blathering about for the last five days?
And you can bet your sweet patoot I don't like what the AFF and its congeners stand for – they're a stench in the nose of civilization.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:13:20 +0000

Iowa Independent doesn't like AFF because of what they stand for and because they're beating them at their own game. Other than that, there's really no meat to this story.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:02:52 +0000

You know, I didn't even post that much on this particular thread so WHERE are you getting all this stuff about bashing and name-calling?

You are the one who's overly sensitive.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:54:47 +0000

Quitter.

By: Guardian32

Guardian32 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:54:26 +0000

You know, Peggy, it's becoming obvious that the one thing you DON'T want to talk about is the content of the article, and the AFF itself.
As a result, you're starting to bore me – and I'm sure we're both boring a lot of other people who have much better things to do than listen to the rattle of a closed mind (Yours? or mine? – who cares. We're talking past each other…). So -
Have a nice day, and always remember – today is the very next day of the rest of your past.

By: Guardian32

Guardian32 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:39:10 +0000

"I call you gutless because you don't use your real name to post, so this is quality is not limited to you but everyone who posts here who does the same."
Including you, Peggy2.
" What's to stop me from posting under several different face names?"
The fact that we've registered with the site.
"It's compromises the debate and it's dishonest."
Only you could have called the name-calling and smears a debate.
"That points you listed from Chase's AFF article were never disputed by me, were they?"
Gee gosh, no - you were too busy bashing to ever address them.
"AFF is obviously working to further Republican ideals"
God help us, those are "ideals?" Horton? Swift Boats? I think the term I'm looking for is "morally and ethically bankrupt"
"- so it's not going to be an earth-shattering scandal to point out to people that they're....Republicans."
No, Peggy (or should I call you by your last name - 2?), it's not an earth-shattering scandal. So why are you so disturbed by it? For the rest of us, it's just more of the same old same old.
By the way Ms 2, the four principles of propaganda that got under your skin weren't, in the beginning, intended as a comment on you, but rather on the AFF, that great idealistic Republican Truth Machine.
A little sensitive, aren't we?
Sincerely,
Ms 32

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:51:21 +0000

Chase's lie:

Posted by Peggy2:
"King has declined to participate in a forum sponsored by The Sioux City Journal and League of Women Voters because he is upset with a story The Journal published about the level of his effectiveness in Congress." [ quoting a D. Burns article]

Another classic case of spin by Doug Burns.

Chase's reply:
"Nope, not spin. Steve King gave that as his reason for declining the Sioux City Journal's forum. "

Peggy2's dissection of the spin:
Again, Burns purposefully misleads his readers with what he gives as King's reason for not debating, i.e. the Journal questioned his effectiveness, when he knows full well there was a cheap shot printed in that article and King thought it was below the belt for the Journal to include it.

So, Burns lied and Chase repeated his lie.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:34:04 +0000

Continued….. (sorry about all the typos above, and the multiple posts – not sure what happened!)

“purposefully misleading” – you're qutoing me directly here but taking it out of context. I said this outfit's name, Iowa Independent, is purposefully misleading but you tried to tie it to disclosures of funding. ???

“WHERE precisely did Chase lie?”, you ask. I don't see where anyone has accused him of lying – on this thread. But he did lie on one of the other threads. But maybe he-and you-would call it spin. I call it lying. I'll find it and post it here.

YOU are the one who first accused others of lying so the burden of proof is on you, my friend.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:21:30 +0000

You're right, these questions aren't hard at all; I'll just start from the top and pick them off one-by-one:

That points you listed from Chase's AFF article were never disputed by me, were they? I'll go back to my point from several days ago - AFF is obviously working to further Republican ideals so it's not going to be an earth-shattering scandal to point out to people that they're....Republicans.

I call you gutless because you don't use your real name to post, so this is quality is not limited to you but everyone who posts here who does the same. What's to stop me from posting under several different face names? It's compromises the debate and it's dishonest.

You deny calling me a Nazi but then say, "if the shoe fits." Need I say more?

Lies? I won't address posts made by other commentors because I don't have access to their brains and their information but I'll dissect what I said:
"immoral, corrupt liberals" - this is in reference to a group of journalists operating under the title Center for Independent Media, whose name conjurs up visions of righteous, idealistic journalists, when, in reality, as has been proven here, they are liberals and they're activists, plain and simple. This website, their careers, the entire endeavor is based on deception of the public.