I've seen this story. This is why the media is losing more and more credibility every second. Reuters does this sort of thing with wide angle lenses and underneath lighting as well. The picture of McCain with bloody shark teeth is really particularly sickening.

That's right- you just see them organizing a group of "veterans" (only one of whom actually served with the candidate) who mock that candidates military service, state that he faked or caused his own wounds in combat and wear purple bandages to mock his 3 purple hearts. You know, lighthearted kind of stuff!

And, btw, I saw plenty of nasty, nasty commercials in the last congressional election that bordered on the bizarre. In one commercial, the republican candidate basically accused the democratic candidate of fostering and encouraging pedophiles because he supposedly wasn't tough enough on crime and the like.

So yes, both sides do it. You also have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, and a whole host of mainstream media icons that rail away on a daily basis.

I find it entertaining when Artysim and Stevendelaus come to the Democratic rescue trying to point out just how equally bad both sides are at the same game yet neither was able to provide decent proof to disclaim Brad. From what I have seen, I have yet to find a single Republican site that is as crazy as any of those Brad mentions. Sure, some people on this site rail on the Democrats, but can you truly say anyone on this site treats them like some kind of monster who will destroy the planet 5 minutes after becoming President or Senators? Sure, Rush, O'Reily and others bash the hell out of them, but they do it in a professional manner and without these ridiculous pictures and stories.

My question to these 2 JUers and to others is just how good is Obama, just how much do you trust him to win that the Democratic party and all those who follow them feel the need to say and do such horrible things about the opposing party in order to win? Do you not trust in the ability of your own candidate to win becasue he, supposely, promotes what most Americans want? Or is this more proof that the Democratic party truly believes most Americans are too stupid to know what is best for themselves, that they are too naive to tell right from wrong, too ignorant to not be persuaded by the Republican "BS" you claim they pu out there?

And I might point out that JU may be "right wing" only in that Island Dog and myself are right of center and prolific posters but we don't censor people for their opinions.  

Last time I checked, Calor's (Sanity from the Left) has gotten his articles featured as well as Stevendedalus.  We don't discriminate based on ideology.

There are indeed right wing "loonie" sites just like there are left wing "loonie" sites. BTW, I don't consider either to be crazy or wrong, it's just that both are extreme opinions of a particular ideology. The right has sites like Free Republic, while the left has sites like Smirking Chimp.

For the record, I don't consider JU to be a right wing site. Yes, there are plenty of folks here who are to the right but as Draginol/Brad/Frogboy has pointed out people from all over the spectrum get their articles featured.

Furthermore, on the extreme sites you tend to get a lot of polarization, which is equally nasty. Righties get bashed on the lefty sites, and lefty's get bashed just as bad on the rightie sites. Don't believe me, go post a pro-Obama comment on Free Republic and see what happens!

Well, CharlesCS, to start, and as I've stated before MANY times, I have no love for the democratic party. In fact, I'm not even American. So, in short Obama definitely isn't my candidate. Furthermore, it really doesn't matter who you vote for in this election, just FYI. Obama will be a little more populist with his taxation policy and a little more hesitant to send in the troops. HOWEVER, this redistribution of taxation will be mostly for show, to give the appearance that he's for the little guy.

The reality will be that he really can't change things too much as he'll be beholden to the same paymasters as McCain will be if he gets in. Also, while he may be more hesitant to use military force, the truth is that neither candidate will be able to justify very much military action unless things get REALLY bad, thanks to the economic situation at home (Lehman brothers, 158 yr. old bank filing chapter 11 this morning) and the fact that as a strategic force the U.S military needs at least 5 years at home to repair and reconstitute after nearly 7 years of constant increased deployments abroad.

Both candidates will inherit a bad situation. The best thing that can happen for republicans, truth be told, is if the next president is a democrat because he'll be inheritting a very bad situation which the republicans can then point and say "look at this catastrophe!!"

If you really research things, going beyond the "Obama is a racist" and the "McCain is a warmonger!!" You'll find that core foreign policy for both candidates is mostly the same. The language and wording is a little different, but for the most part they both believe in Globalization. They both believe in using the U.S military and intelligence aparatus to protect and carry out U.S foreign policy. In fact, they largely agree on many things, the difference just lies in to which extent they agree on these things.

So, don't fret. No matter who gets into office, there's a rough ride ahead!

Well if you really want to know, I lost most of my respect for the democratic party in 2006 when they re-took the congress. They didn't do anything. They talked a good game but certainly didn't walk it.

The democrats I truly do respect (Conyers, Kucinich, Webb) were largely sidelined by their own party when it came to actually doing anything decisive.

But its their favorite toy, and it fun to watch em "play" with it.

IN a society that puts a premium on free speech, there are no illegal sites.  But right and wrong?  yes, I would have to say that rejoicing in someone's cancer is wrong.  I would say that wishing death on an opponent, only because they do not agree with you philosophically is wrong.  They have the right to say it, but that does not make it right. Just as Nazi's have the right to say what they want, but that does not mean I have to agree that it is right what they say.

And I suggest (as I have done before) that those who think there are right wing sites (other than Nazi's, Skinheads, KKK, etc. - which are not right wing at all - just hate sites) that say the same thigns the kooks on the left say, link to them!  I really want to see them rejoicing in Elizabeth Edwards Cancer.

So far my challenge has gone unmet.

No arguement there, but I asked for a link for a proven fallacy.  On that I am still waiting.

Oh Dr. Guy. I do enjoy this banter! I respectfully disagree with your statement that I have proven your point. In fact, I believe I have done exactly the opposite. Stating that they "presented facts in an unflattering light" is a nice way for couching the word "lies" just as using the words "coercive interrogation methods" is a pretty way of saying "torture" and "collateral damage" as unarmed civillians killed by suppressive fire.

 If you read over the link I provided, it quite plainly proves that these allegations were unfounded, and every single one of Kerry's boat crew who was questionned (save one, who later mostly recanted anyway) contradicted them as being false. If an allegation is false, that is a lie.

Saying "Grant was a Minor player in the Battle of Shiloh" is not a lie.  He did not fire a single shot.  Yet it is an unflattering portrayal of his role.  Saying "Grant was not at the battle of Shiloh" is a lie. 

Unflattering is not a lie.  It is merely minimizing the contributions of the individual.    The SBVT merely minimized Kerry's accomplishments.  The truth is that Kerry did not do what he say he did (he did outright lie), but was probably not the pansy that they inferred upon him either.  In the end, that is what politics is all about.

I did.  But they refuted nothing.  They merely claimed "yes he was there and yes he was wounded".  If you read what the SBVT stated, no one said that he was not there, or that he was not wounded, only that in their opinion (as that is all medals are after all - an award based upon a retelling of an event) his exploits were exagerated. There is a big difference between saying "I was there" when you are not, and "I killed all the huns" when you were there, but just did your duty.  The first is a lie (and there are enough of them who claim to have been in Nam) the second is an exageration.

And who are the professionals doing the spreading?