The IRS and the spy

[LDB]

Want a job? Call the IRS. They'll hire anyone.

Taxpayers Paying Salary of Convicted al-Qaeda Spy Now Working for IRS

 

[layoutshooter]

Not everyone. They don't hire those who believe in freedom or the Constitution.

 

[RLENT]

The story from Godfather Politics is problematic in a number of ways - two of them being that it's both inaccurate and misleading - as evidenced by the reporting done by actual news organizations.

One would think that after having the above issues crop up repeatedly with respect to the particular source in question, that someone who was actually interested in the truth would avoid using that source.

This does, of course, assume that they were actually capable of accurate observation ...

What was it Einstein said ... something about "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" ?

 

[scottm4211]

A troll is no different than a spammer.

 

[Turtle]

The story from Godfather Politics is problematic in a number of ways - two of them being that it's both inaccurate and misleading - as evidenced by the reporting done by actual news organizations.

Both inaccurate and misleading, but I'm not sure sure that either of those is evidenced by the reporting done by actual news organizations. Real, actual news organizations aren't reporting it at all, far as I can tell. That's not evidence of inaccuracy or being misleading, though. The story may very well be true (except for the parts they got wrong), and still not be reported in the real, actual news media. There have certainly been several stories that actual news organizations stayed away from (like, remember the one where Ron Paul actually ran for president and no news organizations even mentioned it? <snort>).

Here's the source of the story at PJ Media » (EXCLUSIVE). and more information at the Washington Times. At this point it appears the story is unconfirmed, and until it is, no news organization will consider it news. However, the original story from PJ Media was dated March 6, which is ample time for independent confirmation by investigative news reporters. If there was a story there, the mainstream media would almost certainly be all over it by now, but even the normal conservative rags aren't reporting this, and they would be if there was anything to it, I would think.

 

[davekc]

Waiting to see if it pops up on Fox.

 

[Ragman]

Waiting to see if it pops up on Fox.

I'm sure if there was anything to this, Fox would have been all over it like flies on s**t.

 

[RLENT]

Both inaccurate and misleading, but I'm not sure sure that either of those is evidenced by the reporting done by actual news organizations.

Actually, they are (evidenced by the reporting)

Real, actual news organizations aren't reporting it at all, far as I can tell. That's not evidence of inaccuracy or being misleading, though.

The story - or significant parts of it - goes back several years.

And yes, aspects of the story have been reported by actual news organizations - including the Washington Post, and as you note below the Washington Times.

The story may very well be true (except for the parts they got wrong),

Or deliberately perverted to serve an agenda.

Of course, when a story contains errors or factual misrepresentation, it's a bit of a stretch to say that such a story is "true" ...

and still not be reported in the real, actual news media.

No argument that true stories do not at times get reported in the news media.

There have certainly been several stories that actual news organizations stayed away from (like, remember the one where Ron Paul actually ran for president and no news organizations even mentioned it? <snort>).

Indeed.

Here's the source of the story at PJ Media » (EXCLUSIVE). and more information at the Washington Times. At this point it appears the story is unconfirmed, and until it is, no news organization will consider it news.

Clearly not the case, as evidenced by the link to the Washington Times article above.

However, the original story from PJ Media was dated March 6, which is ample time for independent confirmation by investigative news reporters. If there was a story there, the mainstream media would almost certainly be all over it by now, but even the normal conservative rags aren't reporting this, and they would be if there was anything to it, I would think.

There is a story there - however it is not exactly the story that GFP and PJM - or (un-convicted) terrorist Allen West - are portraying.

 

[RLENT]

Here's a little bit from back in 2007 about the clown over at PJ Media - Patrick Poole - whose original article was the "source" of this current hysteria taking form in the right wing-nut echo chamber that some apparently like to frequent.

He looks to be a somewhat minor player in Islamophobia Inc ... but he's certainly trying:

Wingnuts at it again

by Brian on October 8, 2007

Patrick Poole is busy slinging anti-Muslim rhetoric again, and RABid is only too eager to lap it up. Now, I'm just way too busy to pick apart this most recent article line-by-line (Update: IOW, I'm going to go ahead and assume it follows his typical pattern of drawing dubious conclusions from tenuous "evidence"), but allow me to point something out about Mr. Poole:

In 1999 FISA was eeeeeviil. In 2005, it’s a necessary tool on the WoT, and Bush’s use of it is no different than Clinton's or Carter's (which is a demonstrably false statement).

And there’s this amusing “rebuttal” of OSU's National Security Studies' chair Dr. John Mueller statement that there almost no terrorists in the United States, and few who have the means or inclination to strike us from abroad.

Patrick Poole is a hack. I'm not surprised that his publishing history includes writing for WorldNetDaily and most currently FrontPageMag, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies as "supporting efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable." In searching for Mr. Poole's history, I found one reference that listed him as a "lecturer in government and economics" at the Bannockburn College (alternately: Bannock Burn College) in Franklin TN.

Interestingly, I was unable to locate a Bannockburn College in my searching this morning; however I was able to locate a King's Meadow Study Center that is "seeking to establish a classical Christian college that serves as a missional extension of Christ’s church", and who are seeking to be authorized by the state of Tennessee as a college. Bannockburn College appears to be the "college" of King’s Meadow.

Interestingly, King’s Meadow's founder is a Dr. George Grant, a Christian Reconstructionist with close ties to Dr. D. James Kennedy, a founder of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and original member of the Moral Majority's board of directors. Additionally, Kennedy served on the initial executive board of the Coalition for Religious Freedom (CRF), a group established by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church while Moon was in prison in 1984. Also on CRF's executive board: Jerry Falwell, James Robinson, Jimmy Swaggart, and Tim LaHaye (co-author of the 'Left Behind' books).

It seems reasonable to believe that Poole and Grant share a number of opinions, since Poole served as a lecturer at Grant’s unaccredited religious college. Thankfully, Dr. Grant's views can be found on YouTube: here is just one example of many. Grant's views can also be found at ForeRunner.

I think we'd all be better off ignoring Patrick Poole. Even 30%ers who still approve of President Bush. Sadly, I suspect much of Ohio's right-wing blogosphere will continue to listen to Poole's sloppily constructed conspiracies.

Wingnuts at it again

Franklin, TN - that's gotta be like Wing-nut Central for Islamophobia in the Volunteer State ...

 

[RLENT]

I'm sure if there was anything to this, Fox would have been all over it like flies on s**t.

Ragman,

There are some kernels of truth in the story - so there is "something" to it ... but the story as portrayed is inaccurate and misleading ...

Whether Fox takes it up or not remains to be seen ... but given their history and track record, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did ...

What will be interesting to see is how many times it is repeated, essentially verbatim, in the echochamber ...

 

[Turtle]

I'm not as quick to dismiss any story just because the messenger is a less-than reputable nutjob. The source is certainly something to consider, and can contextually color what they say, but it's the information they convey that's most important.

I'm also not as quick to consider the Washing Times as a real, actual news organization with any modicum of journalistic integrity. At best they blur the lines, heavily.

 

[RLENT]

I'm not as quick to dismiss any story just because the messenger is a less-than reputable nutjob.

I didn't dismiss the story ... in fact, I readily acknowledged that there are some true and factual elements in/to it ... but that doesn't compensate for the fact, that other parts or aspects of it have been twisted or perverted by some to serve an agenda ...

The source is certainly something to consider, and can contextually color what they say, but it's the information they convey that's most important.

Of course.

In this instance, the source has a history that is well worth considering (IMO)

I'm also not as quick to consider the Washing Times as a real, actual news organization with any modicum of journalistic integrity. At best they blur the lines, heavily.

And some would say the very same thing about the NYT, WaPo, or ________ (you fill in the blank)

 

[Turtle]

And some would say the very same thing about the NYT, WaPo, or ________ (you fill in the blank)

I dunno, maybe. But considering who founded the Washington Times, and who they are owned by and are so closely aligned with, I'm not sure I'd put the NYT, WaPo or any other MSM newspaper outlet in the same category. At least the others will, at least sometimes, make the attempt to pretend to be impartial. The Washington Times does not.

 

[layoutshooter]

Many of those in the press are just a bunch of hot dogs anyway.

http://news.yahoo.com/anthony-weiner-finally-gets-media-job-wanted-along-174000400.html

 

[RLENT]

I dunno, maybe.

You dunno whether some would be "not as quick to consider [the NYT or WaPo] as a real, actual news organization with any modicum of journalistic integrity" ?

By my observation there are quite a few folks - from both sides of the political aisle interestingly enough - that will charge either of them [NYT or WaPo] as being utterly partisan organizations, without any journalistic integrity whatoever ...

At best they blur the lines, heavily." But considering who founded the Washington Times, and who they are owned by and are so closely aligned with, I'm not sure I'd put the NYT, WaPo or any other MSM newspaper outlet in the same category.

LOL ... yes ... but it's been said that Ronny Raygun read the WT every day. In 1997 he said:

"The American people know the truth. You, my friends at The Washington Times, have told it to them. It wasn't always the popular thing to do. But you were a loud and powerful voice. Like me, you arrived in Washington at the beginning of the most momentous decade of the century. Together, we rolled up our sleeves and got to work. And—oh, yes—we won the Cold War."

At least the others will, at least sometimes, make the attempt to pretend to be impartial. The Washington Times does not.

Well, there ya go: if you at least make the attempt to pretend to be impartial [even when you aren't] it can apparently make all the difference in the world ...

 

[Turtle]

I don't know what others think, all I know is that I personally don't consider the Washington Times a reliable news source that I can rely on to be honest and accurate about what they are reporting.

 

[RLENT]

I don't know what others think, all I know is that I personally don't consider the Washington Times a reliable news source that I can rely on to be honest and accurate about what they are reporting.

From where I sit it's a mixed bag ... like almost any of them ...

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't know what others think, all I know is that I personally don't consider the Washington Times a reliable news source that I can rely on to be honest and accurate about what they are reporting.

The very same thing could be said about the New York Times, especially considering the admission of liberal bias from two of it's own editors: Arthur Brisbane and Margaret Sullivan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/o...the-times-transforms.html?_r=4&smid=tw-share&

NY Times Public Editor Admits Paper Has a Liberal Bias [Video]

 

[Turtle]

The very same thing could be said about the New York Times...

No it can't, because I heavily qualified it by saying "I personally..." So, no, I can't say the very same thing about the NYT. I commented that regular, traditional news outlets weren't reporting this story and RLENT disagreed, citing the fact that the Washington Times had an article on it, and I simply noted that I didn't consider them to be a real news outlet. If others think they are, then great. But not me. I'm not here to argue who is and is not a good source, nor to list those I think are good sources, other than to state, in my opinion, a newspaper founded by and operated by Moonies is not my go-to news source for reliable Ws.

 

[RLENT]

No it can't, because I heavily qualified it by saying "I personally..." So, no, I can't say the very same thing about the NYT. I commented that regular, traditional news outlets weren't reporting this story and RLENT disagreed, citing the fact that the Washington Times had an article on it, and I simply noted that I didn't consider them to be a real news outlet. If others think they are, then great. But not me. I'm not here to argue who is and is not a good source, nor to list those I think are good sources, other than to state, in my opinion, a newspaper founded by and operated by Moonies is not my go-to news source for reliable Ws.

Actually, in the interests of accuracy, I pointed out that both the WT and WaPo had coverage on this story - or aspects of it - which includes the backstory and the non-current, historical portions.