This is why I've been giving articles from Fire Dog Lake an automatic unrecommend.

[LoZoccolo]

This is to encourage integrity in the liberal blogosphere.

Judging each article by its own merits leaves a source with little incentive to publish truthful articles. They can keep attempting to publish untruthful ones because if it works, great, but if it doesn't work, they can just try again.

If the risk is that the cost of an untruthful article extends beyond the one article, there's more incentive not to publish it.

And if an article is truthful, I could probably read similar information from a difference source anyways.

[LoZoccolo]

1. Thank you, whoever you are, for the one recommend.

:fistbump:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Using that logic, you just showed us how important it is to stop voting for shitty, RW Dems anymore -- after all, if we keep putting them in office what incentive is there for the Party to produce quality candidates who adhere to modern Democratic principles?

:rofl:

I actually agree with you!

[LoZoccolo]

3. No I haven't.

- Can a person read only one web site, the same way that there can only be one person holding an elected office?
- If you reject one particular liberal web site, then are you forced to read only a right-wing one for the rest of the day, the way that a Republican candidate will take the place of a Democratic one who loses for a certain period of time?

There are huge discrepancies in your analogy.

[BzaDem]

14. +1

[laughingliberal]

4. This is why I give posts by LoZoccolo an automatic unrec. nt

[LoZoccolo]

5. People have been doing that since unreccomend came out.

Remember the L<0L avatar?

Some have even suggested that it was my posts which provoked the unrecommend feature.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. I helped you a little msyelf.

I couldn't resist. :evilgrin:

[City Lights]

13. !

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

24. You said it

[MannyGoldstein]

7. can you point to an untruthful example? nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Only if he has a mirror handy. nt

[LoZoccolo]

18. Yes, I can.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/26/rahm-emanuel-liberals-are-f-king-retarded/

[MannyGoldstein]

20. That's generally regarded to be truthful

I believe the NY Times carried much the same info.

Is there something specific that's incorrect?

[LoZoccolo]

22. Yes, he did not call liberals "fucking retarded".

He, as a partisan, reacted to a stupid idea against his party.

[madinmaryland]

9. Do you read TruthOut??

I'm still waiting for the "24 business hours" to end.

:wtf:

[littlewolf]

11. ouch that is gonna leave a mark .....

[mmonk]

10. If you call them liars, the proof is on you to provide evidence.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Here.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/26/rahm-emanuel-liberals-are-f-king-retarded/

[mmonk]

21. All you gave me was that about Rahm Emanuel.

Are you saying he did not say what was quoted by Peter Wallsten that Jane alluded to?

[LoZoccolo]

23. The quote cannot be twisted into the headline. n/t

[mmonk]

25. Are you saying liberals did not run the ads?

Or are you saying he wasn't calling them f'ing retarded but that running ads against conservadems was f'king retarded? And isn't that splitting hairs? Afterall, weren't these ads during the primaries and weren't they running against Democratic Party challengers?

[LoZoccolo]

26. Yes, a group of some liberals ran the ads.

I am a liberal and I think the idea is stupid.

[mmonk]

27. If someone supports the other candidate

and there are issues they are running against the other candidate on, are they supposed not to mention those issues? We really ought to be fair here. Just because Emanuel was against the position the liberals had on healthcare legislation doesn't mean the ads were stupid.

[flvegan]

12. Score one for Oasis!

[blondeatlast]

15. ...

:spray:

[blondeatlast]

16. Unrec for trying to stir shit when there's no shit to begin with. nt

[deaniac21]

17. Damn, they figured out Will Pitt's gig.