Nuff said.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

Hell yes



http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/39179-mccain...ame-a-nightmare

Why grasp at pathetic straws like that when we have lumber about our ankles?

Should be "fewer jobs"

Run by a nutcase named Ted Sampley.

Check out his SourceWatch article.

'nuff said.

There's plenty to use against McCain, without relying on swiftboat rightwing nutjobs (one of his buddies assaulted the Vietnamese ambassador in Washington DC).

What source watch article? This site has very little to do with McCain's service than it does his whole life. Your starting to sound like a McCain apologist. Give me specifics.

Pathetic straws? Did you go to the web page? Examine whats on it?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ted_Sampley

You know, one day, maybe people will realize source criticism is not apology or support for the target being criticized.

Read it. The guy is an utter fucking RIGHTWING loon, and ran a similar site against John Kerry and John Murtha in the last election.

Did you?

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccai...tedmancurin.htm

Do you really think it's logical to assert that McCain is a mind-controlled "Manchurian candidate" programmed by Vietnamese Communists?

Here's the picture that Sampley uses of Obama on his website...

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/01/fro...t-ointment.html



Do you still think this right wing moron is a reliable source?

Why do people not bother checking out the background of their sources?

Can you prove he's not? I read, I assimilate what I think is bs and go on, as most free thinking people do. We are all entitled to free speech are we not? I found a few useful articles and videos as I would assume others might. He may be a nut job but he has some interesting things on that web site.
I do find it interesting your jumping to McCain's defense as you did.
Nuff Said.

As I said I'm educated enough to take what I need and assimilate the bs.

*sigh*

Please tell me what in this sentence doesn't make sense to you?

"You know, one day, maybe people will realize source criticism is not apology or support for the target being criticized"

But.... I won't hold my breath.

Maybe, just maybe, source criticism means that we can avoid using things against a candidate that turn out to be a) false and embarrassing to our own cause.

Just a thought.

I think you need to go hang out in the 9/11 section. You appear to share their warped epistemology.

No, and I cannot prove he is not really secretly from Mars and doing the bidding of the Martians, either.

So, do you encourage cherry picking the parts of Mister Sampley's work that you like and leaving the rest?

I actually quoted an article by Mister Ted Sampley in another post about Senator McCain. This was before I realized more about his past activities. His stance (Mister Sampley's) is simple. ANYONE who at ANYTIME mentions their service to their country while running for political office is abusing the use of their service record. A mere mention of ones' service in a resume is about all he'll tolerate. He has been involved in physical altercations in the past (if one believes various websites).

Rumored membership in his organization is very low.

Best Regards,

No I saw the article about McCain's ex wife and a few of the videos that I thought were interesting but other than that nothing I would have used out in a forum. Like you I wasn't aware of Mr Sampleys past and had Seeker1 informed me in a different manner I may not have replied as I did.

While your thinking why don't you think about your delivery. It was your smartazz reply that set me off not what you said about the web site.

"Nuff Said", Seeker has it down as it should be laid down. Before you post something that looks amusing, do a little research.

Sampley runs Vietnam Veterans against McCain and before that Vietnam veterans against Kerry and is not fond of Obama either and a lot more to boot. A true Swift Boat Snake and your "NUFF SAID" ing his work?
Maybe you are educated and know more about Sampley than meets the eye.

"The Merry Prankster:"
Ted Sampley in Action
Summary. In my discussion of the attacks on Senator John McCain, I rely on work published by Ms. Susan Katz Keating in her book Prisoners of Hope: Exploiting the POW-MIA Myth in America. Ms. Keating, while she was a reporter for the Washington Times, was convinced that live American POWs remained in Vietnam. As time went on and she became more and more acquainted with the issue, she discovered the facts of the charlatans who take advantage of MIA families and who flim-flam the public, as well as discovering that the US government could have done a better job of managing the issue.

The attacks on John McCain can be traced largely to the work of one man, Ted Sampley, of Kinston, NC. The following is a direct quote of the entire chapter about Sampley from Ms. Keating's book; she titled the chapter "The Merry Prankster." Below is the first page of the chapter in jpeg format -- I want readers to see that I really do have the book. The remainder of the chapter is in text format; I did this because the chapter is thirteen pages long and I did not want to put thirteen jpeg files on my web server.


http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm

Surprise somebody claiming to be a veteran knows nothiing about this snake Sampley, or just maybe one does.
NUFF SAID

Maybe you should inform your bro.

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...ost&p=66935

although he did forget the link.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccai...lost_five_u.htm

I see all these claims of veteran status but no dd214. Maybe we should just cut the tuff guy veteran stuff and talk about things we can prove.

Barack Hussein Obama-Who Is He?
Posted by: Mike in News & Views, News
Ted Sampley at US Veterans Dispatch.

NUFF SAID


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

Attacking McMain this way lowers us to "their" level.

Barack is trying to get us to rise up and rise above this kind of politics.

This website seems to be Nader + Limbaugh + Hanidy + that skinny blonde chick, forgot her name and Glen Beck, all without anti psychotic meds.

Sen. McCain I truely believe is unfit to be president, but we have all we need to prove that with his behaviour during the last 20 years or so.

We should let Vietnam rest. Instead we shoud all watch "Generation Kill" on HBO.

Move on! Nothing to see here!

'Yep he's a turd.

Your right.

Ted Sampley is the total smear package.
The latest salvo appears to be a new smear site, MurthaLied.com," Bob Geiger wrote June 27, 2006, in AlterNet, "which is about to be drawn out from under a rock and it certainly has all the looks of the same people who brought you pure fiction about Kerry in 2004. The website is run by a woman named Amanda Doss, who has a long alliance with—guess who?—the Swift Boat Liars and a whack job named Ted Sampley, who runs the hate site, The U.S. Veteran Dispatch."

The MURTHALIED.COM website was inactive as of July 5, 2006.

Geiger wrote June 25, 2006, in AlterNet that Sampley's "name may sound familiar to you. This is the same guy who once wrote of John McCain as 'The Manchurian Candidate' and suggested that McCain had been brainwashed during his lengthy captivity while a POW in Vietnam. Oh, yeah, he also said McCain was a KGB Spy. It's also the same Sampley who headed Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry and was responsible in 1992 for faking a photo of Kerry allegedly shooting an American MIA in Vietnam.

"It was Republican McCain who called Sampley 'one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter' and said 'Sampley has a nose for publicity and knack for making money from invented controversies'," Geiger wrote.

"If you want to know what kind of people are going after a legitimate American hero like John Murtha, look no further than the likes of Sampley, Doss, and David Thibault, the editor in chief of Cybercast News Service—"who picked up the prevailing tactic of the GOP, which is to smear the patriotism and good name of any Democrat who dares question Bush and the war — even if, like Murtha, you happen to be a 37-year military veteran and a former Parris Island drill instructor decorated for valor in combat, the likes of a smear machine like Sampley will fabricaate anything to make his hate and swiftboat tactics known for the Bush cause.

If you feel so strongly against him why did you post one of his articles?

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...ost&p=66935

Even I didn't do that. As I said before, I was interested in the article about his exwife, which incidentally wasn't written by Mr Sampley

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-...eft-behind.html

btw wasn't Sampley an "In Country" Vietnam veteran?

Alright, all of you knock it off! If you can't play well with others, you won't be allowed to play at all. We will not tolerate these games on this message board, do you ALL understand?

Good, now stop it!

I think Sampley should somewhat redefine his meaning about using one's military service on their resume to run for politicial office. To define Sampley's definition of 'mere mentioning' would also help. Since every politician has to air all of his or her laundry, per demand of the voters, listing their military service is one aspect of one's past history record. In my opinion, all that is fine until one, such as McCain, brought his military service to the front and made it his qualification for being president. Especially at a time when McCain supporters had gone after Michelle Obama about her basically being not proud of America prior to this year, or when those same supporters are saying Obama is a Muslim, or McCain reminding Obama that he didn't serve in the military that may not qualify him to be worthy for the presidency. That's where and when I feel one's service record is fair game for inspection, but done so in a proper manner.

If memory serves me correctly, I don't remember John Kerry entering the presidential race stating that he was qualified for the presidency because he was a Vietnam Veteran who served in Vietnam.

Mister Sampley ran a Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry website as well. Senator Kerry may not have made his service to the nation an cornerstone of his campaign in 2003 and 2004, but Mister Samply took issue with it nonetheless.

Best Regards,

No need to get hostile LibLaw. You want my SS# and telephone number as well? Not a tuff guy LibLaw, very far from it. What are you trying to prove with those URL'S? Nobody posted in favor of the Swiftboat con artist Sampley but you.
Mistakes happen LibLaw , no offense meant.

In which supports the proper way in which a Democrat presents himself who has military experience when running for high office, such as Sen Kerry did. Your comment correctly defines how Sampley should practice being part of a proper solution rather than part of a misguided problem when addressing those with military backgrounds. It's clear that Sampley abused his intentions towards Sen Kerry, whereas it would be proper to question McCain's qualification for high office based on his partially hidden military past that he himself has introduced into the political picture.

The Center for Media and Democracy, which Sourcewatch is affiliated with, is a cover name for a right-wing hack group. Not good at all.

"Skinny blonde chick" = Coultergeist.

Looked yellow as hell to me. It was like reading a lemon.

Come on though, if the criticism's irrational or questionable, then using it just cuts into your credibility, and it actually helps McCain, cause it makes it seem as if any criticism of him is scurrilous lies.

Jeez, why do people have to be so irrational about these candidates? It's a job interview for Pete's sake, not an audition for all powerful, perfect Messiah of the universe.

I'm starting to wonder if most democrats these days are any better than Anne Coulter. Are we turning into a party of crazy extremists or something? It's too easy to pick McCain apart with legitimate criticism to discredit ourselves by being no better than swift-boaters.

There are some people who appear to disagree with you.

http://prwatch.org/node/5965

"You cannot underestimate the importance of truth-tellers in our society in an age when the truth is swept under the bed, kept in the closet, or recycled to come out as government spin and corporate propaganda.” – Journalist Bill Moyers, speaking about the importance of the Center for Media and Democracy’s work at a reception for CMD in April 2005

[snip]

One of problems I dealt with was all these groups suddenly attacking me, coming out of the woodwork, and some journalists being misled that these might truly be legitimate groups. Thank God for SourceWatch as a resource—no seriously—so I could tell [journalists] about front groups and they could take two minutes on line and see that this is true.” – Eric Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation" and "Chew on This"
-- Eric Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation" and "Chew on This"

[snip]

“CMD rocks the free world. The work they are doing exposing the PR industry and battling fake news is indispensable. I do not know what we would do without them.” – Bob McChesney, co-founder of Free Press and author of "Rich Media, Poor Democracy" and "The Problem of the Media"

[snip]

Now, there was a guy a while back claiming that this was yet another "left gatekeeper" site -- apparently based on the fact that it, like many other liberal organizations, gets its money from foundations, and that those foundations in turn get some money from corporate America.

If that's the best argument against SourceWatch -- sorry I consider it a bullshit one -- you'll have to come up with something better.

I've found they have all the hallmarks of reliability:

a) they cite their sources, and their sources are reliable
most of the info there can very easily be cross-confirmed in other reliable sources

Therefore, I will continue to use them.

For the uninitiated:

Liblaw's error in saying "Can you prove he's not" is called an "Appeal to ignorance" or "Argumentum ad Ignorantum". This is a known logical fallacy.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...tml#ignorantiam

And an opinion is still an opinion. For the record Seeker1 and I have come to an understanding and I see his point and it is well taken.

Thank you Seeker1 for pointing out my short comings.