I'm guessing they lie about other Democrats, perhaps even Hillary Clinton.

I perused that site. I'm not wasting any more time there.

From the timesargus article

Snip

Snip

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01

...which logs all expenses an contributions?

But this teabagger source (the owner of the site is, in fact an active member of the Tea Party) is conflating payment for work done with "funneling." Funneling of course implies a behind-the-scenes, under-the-table, shady activity.

Amid all sorts of other ugly, asinine smears against democrats. All of 'em. it's not just anti-Sanders. The crap there about Hillary is pretty amazing, too.

If they did actual work I don't see a problem with it.

filings since she keeps claiming they exist.

....word of what that source said, you just reference back to various DU OPs, one of which you deleted anyway.

If progressivetoday lied, why not state when/how. Seems easy enough to do, if it's true.

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

progressivetoday story claiming Sawant would not endorse Sanders and the other of which showed Sawant had endorsed Sanders. You can tell from reading the posts on the thread whose OP that I deleted due to falsehood that the deleted OP had said that Sawant would not endorse Sanders. www.democraticunderground.com/128036499 The progressive today story was a flat out lie. The two stories were directly contradictory, with the one from progressivetoday.com being flat out false.

If you can see or admit that, too bad.

If you are looking for me to re-post a link to the story I deleted from my own OP due to falsity, no, I am not going to do that

...the story itself. So how do we know that your interpretation of that story is correct without being able to read the story itself?

This is all going around in a circle with you failing (or refusing) to say specifically what was said in the story that you're calling lies.

And my final post on that thread makes clear that I deleted the OP because the story from that source about Sanders was false. You have been being willfully ignorant about this. I don't have a high opinion of your credibility, based on this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251640125 and some of your other posts, including about this; and therefore I don't much care what you think of mine. People I do respect think highly of my credibility and that is good enough for me.

I am not going to link intentionally to a false story from a ratfucking, racist site, which I would consider irresponsible, nor am I going to reply to more hectoring from you about it.

...."lying article".

So without the article on which you based your judgement, we can only assume that it didn't lie.

Bye....

You do realize they make money from all the traffic she's driving there, right?

Of Course: Hillary Clinton Rushed To POLITICIZE The #SanBernardino Shooting

SURPRISE! Hillary Clinton Used State Department TO MEET WITH TOP DONORS

Hillary Clinton Claims Blocking Syrian Refugees Will Make MUSLIMS MAD AT COPS

Hillary Clinton Backtracks After Being Called Out For Saying ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT
http://www.progressivestoday.com/?s=hillary+clinton

Really pointed photo editorial choices as well, go take a look, that's all on one page, plus more and the photos!!!

And attacking the people who called it what it is?

After reading Blue's information I can't believe anyone thinks that kind of source is acceptable.

story in a new thread. Both the deleted Op thread and the truth telling thread are linked in the OP.

"Rep. Bernard Sanders' wife Jane was paid about $30,000 from 2002 to 2004 for work on his campaigns, while his stepdaughter Carina Driscoll got about $65,000 over a five-year period ending last year, a Sanders aide said Wednesday.

Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees."

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01

according to the argus story. In any event, no one "funneled" campaign funds to family. They were either commissions or very modest payment for services rendered.

it is relevant.

funneling campaign funds to family members. However, my OP says this source lied about Sanders in the past and links to a Christmas song, so proceed with caution. Nothing about that is false.

Got it. LOL!

racist filth. My argument, as always, has been consistent. Much to your endless annoyance as an engineer of divisive acts of political recklessness.

Do people really want to open this can of worms? Clinton FOundation anyone?

He must be a threat if they are trying to smear him.

about Bernie in the past and linked to a Christmas song as its source for this story. LOL!

Pity they're so upset.

A real tragedy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=877047

Somehow, I now have an obligation to defend Hillary against everything posted about her by anyone on DU. You have to laugh.

Doing a shitty job, definitely, but playing it nonetheless.

They simply know very, very little about their chosen candidate. So it never occurs to them that the bullshit they are throwing to see what sticks could come back to hurt them.

That website is right wing filth. Muslim bashing, immigrant bashing, Democrat bashing right wing nonsense.

caution."

That place bashes the ever living crap out of Hillary. And everyone else. It's Tea Bag rat fuckery.

once voted for Paul, even though all his other votes all his life were for Democrats. But I cannot even say "proceed with caution" about a totally RW source that lies and links to a Christmas song as its source.

No double standards at all.

So it's true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=876953

Even here! What a sad commentary on DU.

Here's one to get you started. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876200#post1

them here and vouched for the honesty of the source, strongly.
Of Course: Hillary Clinton Rushed To POLITICIZE The #SanBernardino Shooting

SURPRISE! Hillary Clinton Used State Department TO MEET WITH TOP DONORS

http://www.progressivestoday.com/?s=hillary+clinton

with the post that seems to bother you. It's ludicrous for you to expect me to refute everything on DU that you disagree with or suggest I have some duty so to do. Not surprising, but ludicrous.

About right wing sources, but not time to say anything when Bernie supporters do it daily. Got it.

merrily isn't the one who is spreading tea party filth all over the place.

Haven't noticed any of you to mind when your crowd does it. How come?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876200#post1

If you think that kind of source belongs here (and you obviously do since you cited it) you have no right to complain about anyone else.

attacks any and all Democrats, voters and officials alike. Are they part of your crowd?

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01

I just used the first link to teach you all a lesson about right wing sources. And it was fun!

Their hatred makes them so desperate to find anything to swift boat Bernie they don't care what they get into bed with.

Unfortunately they brought it back here with them so there it sits, stinking up this forum like an open sewer.

Good catch, merrily, thanks for the warning.

oh wait... http://www.democraticunderground.com/110728945

Critiquing HRC's Wall Street ties is JUST LIKE when people had "Bush derangement syndrome" -- b/c now that's a thing for HRC supporters. When you're in Krauthammer's corner it's time to question how you got there.

I honestly believe bigotry is what's behind a lot of this hatred for Bernie.

but they're so eager to "get a hit" i suppose, they just don't care. it's the worst kind of bad faith.

When someone links to a racist site or a hate group and then defends their actions it's no accident.

folks with no moral compass could use racist/stormfront material as a stand-in for authentic cultural discourse.

there does come a point when it appears over and over again where you have to wonder if it's not intended for that audience. if i were a white guy, i'd be really disgusted that folks in my party thought this is what i'd respond to. time for white guys to distance themselves.

HRC herself is known for ugly dogwhistles. remember the whole thing when she was on 60 Minutes and wouldn't distance herself with the dogwhistle smears of Obama being a Muslim. she could have taken the high road and said hell no, and put that shit to bed. but instead she weaseled around with "you'll have to ask him."

That's like cage fighting trash talk -- not presidential debate.

After her 2008 campaign I'm not surprised that her supporters are using this tactic again.

It's only a matter of time before her campaign employs the same method against Bernie.

admitting I never said it. I don't expect diddly squat.

But it does burn through ones credibility in very short order. Having the patience to allow things to play through until what's what becomes clear is a virtue. I salute you.

Salute!

it wouldn't surprise me if the person who posted the *original* Gateway Pundit stuff, had been flacked. they might be aware that they're doing the bidding of the PR/Comms team, maybe not.

having the "third party" site to direct to is classic.

we have "progressed " to our current state oligarchy .Progressivestoday is a trolling handbook .

an offshoot of the DLC and its founder signed the PNAC letter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710158

Lies, lies, lies is all they got.

Some background:

http://www.progressivestoday.com/about/

Jim Hoft, founder and proprietor of The Gateway Pundit, brings you the new online project “Progressives Today.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

"MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock"

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/books/review/david-brocks-killing-the-messenger.html

"In Brockworld no criticism of the Clintons has ever contained a shred of truth."

OK then.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/09/21/jim-hoft-dumbest-man-on-the-internet/170927

"With a few exceptions, the upper echelon of the conservative blogosphere is a mess.

Breitbart's "Big" websites traffic in misleading non-scandals and have published people like 9-11 truther Michael Moriarty, racist penis-enlarger/vagina-tightener Kevin Pezzi, and former SNL actress/spouter-of-incomprehensible nonsense Victoria Jackson. NewsBusters and The Media Research Center spend a lot of time finding the liberal bias in television shows that don't treat their gay characters as ostracized sub-humans.

Atlas Shrugs is run by a woman that is haunted at every turn by Islamic crescents, and whose hatred for the president once compelled her to claim that his penchant for "purple" (actually blue) neckties meant that Democrats were "Flying the Gangsta Colors at the White House." Confederate Yankee Bob Owens - who also writes for Breitbart and the Washington Examiner - openly speculates about whether he and an army of "freshly-experienced combat veterans and graying patriots" are going to have to start killing people to combat the "slavery" of health care reform.

But despite all this stiff competition, Jim Hoft (aka Gateway Pundit) stands out as uniquely incompetent. Hoft runs with (or spawns) almost every inane story that bubbles up in the conservative blogosphere, has proven that he has absolutely no vetting process for the sources he cites, and apparently has a hard time with basic reading comprehension."

Lol; that's just the warm-up!

I'm devastated to learn some Democrats find his site worth visiting as a source of reliable information. And I'm also shocked and dismayed. (but mostly devastated)

http://www.progressivestoday.com/about/

About

Jim Hoft, founder and proprietor of The Gateway Pundit, brings you the new online project “Progressives Today.”

Many Americans who consider themselves left of center have an antiquated sense of today’s Democrat party. This is not their father’s Democratic party. Democrats today are controlled by, and answer to, the most radical elements of their party. Yet, with cover generously provided by the mainstream media, progressives are able to push their influence in the shadows. And they have no shame.

Progressives Today follows and publicly exposes the radical elements of the institutional left. It will be the go to resource for all elements of the progressive movement through old school investigative journalism. We will cover their conferences with undercover reporters, we will interview their leaders, we will follow their writings, teachings, social media presence. Our goal is to finally hold the left accountable for their radical opinions, their destructive policies and their dangerous anti-American agenda.

One of the goals of PT, in addition to simply exposing progressives, is to expose their views to moderates and Democrats so that a choice must be made. It is our strong belief that, Progressives Today will cause many on the left to re-evaluate their political alliances.