327 replies and 202 rec's for some hearsay?

[trumad]

Yep, that Sambo thread is one of DU's finer moments eh? :eyes:

[slinkerwink]

1. you're being a nice, logical liberal

but it comes down to the framing of the candidates, and right now, Sarah Palin has the chance of appealing to a cross-spectrum of American society, thus peeling off votes we can't afford to lose. That's why we work hard to define her based upon emotional appeals. Voters vote on emotion, not logic.

[Doremus]

2. Yup. Like the woman I talked to yesterday who likes Palin

but admits she doesn't know anything about her.

WTF?

Uncover the dirt and disseminate it. If it true it's fair game, imo. We are fighting for our country.

[slinkerwink]

5. mention "Did you know she cut funding for special education?"

"Did you know that she tried to ban books at the library?"

"Did you know that she lied about selling the plane on Ebay?"

Use the "Did you know?" as a hook to draw in the voter.

[trumad]

9. Those are facts aren't they?

Not hearsay, but facts and I'm perfectly OK with that.

[Doremus]

24. Believe me, I'm working on her -- and others I run into.

I don't see her very often, unfortunately, and she's the obstinant type. I have to finesse it or she gets her hackles up.

I'm not giving up though, no way no how no mccain, lol

[Chan790]

30. There's a thread of true "rumors" about Palin that most Americans don't know.

It's our friend. Of course though, the fatalist sensationalists come out in that thread too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6953813&mesg_id=6953813

[trumad]

7. Well---I come from a fact based community...

We can destroy her on facts alone--- but when we succumb to making up shit or just plain hearsay, well---- if you can live with it... oh well.

[slinkerwink]

13. That's cute. Perception is what shapes voters' opinions, and facts serve

to buttress that perception. The facts are just the icing on the cake.

[Doremus]

20. Making stuff up -- you mean like claiming someone said something when they didn't?

Or maybe you think you're exempt from the advice you like to dish out for others to follow ...?

Here is what I said:

If it true it's fair game, imo.


Now STFU. Thank you.

[trumad]

44. If...

So that's how you operate---with an if.

[OneGrassRoot]

3. More information; not some random, anonymous blogger...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6956476

[goldcanyonaz]

4. Yeah, but... The author is an *cough* acclaimed *cough* journalist!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chascarrillo]

22. You lost. Get over it.

[goldcanyonaz]

25. Are you still living in primary mode? How sad, you poor, poor thing.

*sad face*

[chascarrillo]

27. I'm not the one defending Palin's racism here.

[goldcanyonaz]

31. Defending a rumor? You go ahead and roll with rumors, I will roll with fact.

Don't complain...



CAMPAIGN!


Making any phone calls?

[Captain Hilts]

28. Grow up. nt

[progressivebydesign]

6. It's NOT hearsay. The writer is a repsected journalist, and had multiple sources.

What IS it that is making people freak out over this? Did you read the article at all? Did you google the writer of the article, that was obviously valid enough to pass editorial for the publication.

This is the strangest thing I've seen on DU lately.. .so many people defending republicans.

[trumad]

8. What are the multiple sources to the Sambo comment?

It's hearsay from a waitress....period.

[thoughtcrime1984]

10. I'd rather talk up the "hearsay from a waitress" than spend 4-8 more years in Republican hell.

Much of the voting public IS that simple, and we unfortunately must start appealing to the undecided mushbrains out there, while Obama and Biden continue to make their highly educated pitch to the electorate.

[vaberella]

12. Exactly. n/t

[vaberella]

11. I'm not above wanting this to be true.

However this situation is similar to the 'whitey' tape. It was damaging and it was used with similar elements by an idiot who was at one point credible. People who are considered credible and have some sources (in this case one source who didn't give her last name) who do not want to be named or one of their names not mentioned is actually quite common. Don't jump on everything because you see a possible damaging sign. We need the proof before we can see it as true...as in solid proof of the woman saying it herself.

Look for instance at what happened to the issues of the AIP. Her husband takes the rap, but because he supposedly didn't attend a meeting, probably because the AIP people don't take proper membership, then it's not so bad. Her address to them means nothing in light of the fact she we have no proof she really and truly supported them with funding, with her appearance (even if many people say she was there) or voicing it.

MSM mentioned it as a blurb and when the Camp came out with their TP's it was tossed. So get a bit serious about this. If we want this to be real to take effect and not go away. We can't just depend on something that can be glazed over as a vicious rumor. That's the real problem. Hearsay doesn't count any more if you don't really have some visible proof so that the damage doesn't go away and that's what we want.

Credibility of the author only goes so far.

[trumad]

14. .

hear·say (hîrs)
n.
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

[OneGrassRoot]

17. Agreed...but there is something else happening here as well:

all of these things, even if mentioned in passing, are adding up. It's the cumulative effect.

Even on "The Daily Show" and late-night talk shows, these things are being mentioned. Yes, in passing, but they are adding up because enough people who have the spotlight are shining a light on it, even in the form of comedy.

[OneGrassRoot]

15. The elephant (!) in the room.....

forget Palin.

Forget whether or not she said that.

Who can deny their base -- their voting base -- thinks this way?

Why should that be ignored? Why should we tiptoe around the obvious?

And they're not only racist. We know that. They are against anyone who isn't white, Christian and, supposedly, heterosexual.

What you people who are denouncing exposing the truth seem to forget is these people are PROUD OF BEING RACIST.

And they're TERRIFIED of Obama.

If called on it, encouraging them to quit being so "politically correct" and say what you really mean -- that they hate him because he's BLACK -- then they'll stop the other shit: muslim, his name, etc., etc.

It IS all about race.

Why are some here afraid of confronting that reality?

Sure, Palin is their adored leader now. I have no doubt she is a racist. No doubt whatsoever given her background. And, yes, that makes her dangerous.

BUT THIS ISN'T ONLY ABOUT PALIN. It's about THAT ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT I DON'T WANT TO IGNORE ANY LONGER AND LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.


Edit for clarity: This story is different than the rumors of her having an affair, the babygate thing and such, because this particular subject specifically applies to and describes her base, and it would turn off (I would hope) undecided voters if known. Most people see it - if they tuned into the Republican Convention at all it was obvious given their "token" people of color on display; but it's not confronted head on as it needs to be. These are the same people who are creationists, like Palin. Things the average people who don't read as much as we do would be appalled to discover about a presidential candidate.

[vaberella]

26. Now you're talking. We have to deal with the Republican party not one stupid woman. n/t

[RollWithIt]

16. Message from Attack Dog Democrat to Weak Kneed Concerned....

We have barrels of ink built on 8 long years of lies, step aside.

[Forkboy]

18. Does this mean your gloves are back on?

Or is it one glove on, one glove off, Michael Jackson style?

:hide:

[dailykoff]

19. The NYT published hearsay every day

from those nameless "sources close to the White House" which usually turn out to be liars in Cheney's operation. Frankly I trust the alternative press more than the Times.

[backscatter712]

21. As LBJ once said,

"I don't care if it's true or not. I just want to hear the son-of-a-bitch deny it."

Don't think the rethugs haven't done it to us repeatedly, and don't think they'll hesitate for a nanosecond to do it again.

We're more than justified in hitting back below the belt.

[slinkerwink]

33. exactly

[GoneOffShore]

34. Absolutely -

LBJ was one of the smartest politicians of the the last 60 years. Would that he were still around. He would not have let the pig effers get away with the shit they've gotten away with over the last 20 years.

[Beausoir]

23. Personally, I think the DU Baby-Swapping threads were among our finest moments ever.

You can't beat that kind of nuttery with a stick.

Absolute fringe loons. Page after page after page.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. Yes, it's hearsay. And it may well be false. But it is not shameful.

I was a vociferous opponent of the baby-swap bullshit and left DU for a couple of days because I couldn't even look at the stuff, so I'm not a total bomb-thrower. The Sambo story is different. For starters, it's not implausible on its face.

An author says, "somebody who doesn't want to be named recounted this experience..."

The reader accepts it or not.

As long as it's identified as hearsay then that's what it is. We all rely on hearsay everyday.

"I talked to the boss and he said you can go home early."

"Jimmy said he wants you to pick him up at the library."

And if some shaky journalism caused somebody to view a subsequent Palin development through a race-prejudice lens, so be it.

[ruggerson]

38. You mean you didn't believe that a sitting Governor wore a pillow under her shirt for months??

how could you not believe such a logical, likely tale?

[Union Thug]

32. I don't think it matters. Voters don't care much about facts...

...hence two terms of Bush. Fire with fire. Smear trailer park barbie and her redneck spawn and soon to be spawn-in-laws.

[TexasObserver]

35. dupe

MOST of communications in life is HEARSAY. Most of the communications in life we daily depend upon are HEARSAY. The only people who use the word HEARSAY as you do are those who don't really know what HEARSAY is, or why it has limited admissibility in court. This is not a court, but even if it were a court, there are many forms of HEARSAY that are admissible.

One type of HEARSAY that is always admissible in court is AN ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST. Another is AN ADMISSION BY A PARTY OPPONENT. Both would apply to this circumstance, were this a court of law.

The point is that calling the story HEARSAY is your attempt at characterizing the story as less than reliable. Certainly, the story has not been sourced to your satisfaction, but it's the same kind of anonymous report that you lap up with a soup ladle in news every day.

If you don't want to follow the story, then don't. But stop trying to play lawyer, because you clearly don't know when the HEARSAY objection is valid, and when it isn't.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. Maybe it was an excited utterance (joking)

[TexasObserver]

36. Yours is a ridiculous argument.

MOST communications in life are HEARSAY. Most of the communications in life we daily depend upon are HEARSAY. The only people who use the word HEARSAY as you do are those who don't really know what HEARSAY is, or why it has limited admissibility in court. This is not a court, but even if it were a court, there are many forms of HEARSAY that are admissible.

One type of HEARSAY that is always admissible in court is AN ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST. Another is AN ADMISSION BY A PARTY OPPONENT. Both would apply to this circumstance, were this a court of law.

The point is that calling the story HEARSAY is your attempt at characterizing the story as less than reliable. Certainly, the story has not been sourced to your satisfaction, but it's the same kind of anonymous report that you lap up with a soup ladle in news every day.

If you don't want to follow the story, then don't. But stop trying to play lawyer, because you clearly don't know when the HEARSAY objection is valid, and when it isn't.

[dysfunctional press]

39. check out the threads about the jet sale for some more real ridiculousness

to fufill a campaign promise, she sold a used state jet for- GASP! less than the state had paid for it!!!! :eyes:

[greguganus]

46. Why can't I sell my 15-yr old 200,000 mile car for more than I paid for it?

It boggles the mind!

[Caribou Barbie]

40. Its true

BECAUSE IF WE PREACH IT LONG ENOUGH IT WILL BECOME REALITY!

Stop playing nice and fight this race to win. I don't give a shit whether its true or not, there is too much at stake. You know in a murder investigation the police can lie to you and tell you that they have videotape of you doing it to elicit a confession, so what is the problem of spreading this far and wide? You know she thinks this way. I mean, did you even see her go near McCain's daughter Bridgett? Its like some of that darkness might have rubbed off and tainted her! Fucking disgusting!

[Lars39]

41. Welcome to DU,Caribou Barbie!

:toast::D

[Caribou Barbie]

42. Been lurking for a long time

I finally had it after last night listening to that shit and needed to join up and beat this fuckstain!

[BklnDem75]

43. Why do you care?

You act as if merely discussing something will, somehow, reflect badly on Obama's campaign. Who cares if it's hearsay? We're not in court. More can get done looking for ways to keep the opposition out of the White House instead of wasting time criticizing DU members. Is that what you want?

[lamp_shade]

45. Oh Yuh... sure does make me proud to be a member.

Crap like that makes me want to take the DU sticker off my car and stop recommending this site to folks (though I won't/don't). Know what I mean?