Kerry picks Gephardt for VP!
July 6, 2004 5:29 AM Subscribe
Kerry picks Gephardt for VP...and he picks Edwards too! Gore wins... or not!
Don't you just love unfounded pronouncements and anonymous sources? Maybe it's time to hang them all out to dry...
Don't you just love unfounded pronouncements and anonymous sources? Maybe it's time to hang them all out to dry...
This post was deleted for the following reason: contain it, yo!
As discussed approximately 5 minutes ago.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:37 AM on July 6, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:37 AM on July 6, 2004
Yahoo says Edwards, so it must be Edwards.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:55 AM on July 6, 2004
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:55 AM on July 6, 2004
Um, guys . . . have you read this other little thread? It's really keen.. Did you notice the link from stavrosthewonderchicken above? Does anyone read anything before posting? Is this a room full of people shouting to nobody?
posted by Outlawyr at 6:05 AM on July 6, 2004
posted by Outlawyr at 6:05 AM on July 6, 2004
Does anyone read anything before posting? posted by Outlawyr at 8:05 AM CST on July 6
This post has more in it than VP choice. Did you read anything before posting? Did you click any of the other links?
In fact, it has 5 links, only 2 of which have anything to do with the VP choice.
I'll provide some remedial help for those who are slow:
This post is about anonymous sources, not about the VP choice.
Damn. You'd think a bunch of smart people could figure this out.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:17 AM on July 6, 2004
This post has more in it than VP choice. Did you read anything before posting? Did you click any of the other links?
In fact, it has 5 links, only 2 of which have anything to do with the VP choice.
I'll provide some remedial help for those who are slow:
This post is about anonymous sources, not about the VP choice.
Damn. You'd think a bunch of smart people could figure this out.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:17 AM on July 6, 2004
Can I check I'm getting this right? (Seriously) Are they saying that all sources quoted in papers should be named in those papers? That would put paid to a huge amount of political information as well as investigative journalism.
posted by biffa at 6:27 AM on July 6, 2004
posted by biffa at 6:27 AM on July 6, 2004
"This post has more in it than VP choice."
Right. So does the first thread.
posted by Outlawyr at 6:43 AM on July 6, 2004
Right. So does the first thread.
posted by Outlawyr at 6:43 AM on July 6, 2004
Maybe, XQUZYPHYR, but can you actually refute any of their claims, or are you stuck just blaming the messenger?
posted by BlueTrain at 6:45 AM on July 6, 2004
posted by BlueTrain at 6:45 AM on July 6, 2004
Right. So does the first thread.
posted by Outlawyr at 8:43 AM CST on July 6
Your point? This is about something different. It is in no way, shape, form, or fashion a double post.
Feh I say to you. FEH!
posted by Ynoxas at 6:49 AM on July 6, 2004
posted by Outlawyr at 8:43 AM CST on July 6
Your point? This is about something different. It is in no way, shape, form, or fashion a double post.
Feh I say to you. FEH!
posted by Ynoxas at 6:49 AM on July 6, 2004
I would rather see Edwards name as top billing than Kerry.
This is a newsfilter post, and it has been posted already. The attempt to pass it off on the anonymous tipster is weak at best.
posted by a3matrix at 6:58 AM on July 6, 2004
This is a newsfilter post, and it has been posted already. The attempt to pass it off on the anonymous tipster is weak at best.
posted by a3matrix at 6:58 AM on July 6, 2004
*swings machete indiscriminately*
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:35 AM on July 6, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:35 AM on July 6, 2004
Not even zip guns? Hey, who keeps swinging that machete?!?
posted by Outlawyr at 7:39 AM on July 6, 2004
posted by Outlawyr at 7:39 AM on July 6, 2004
*nervously snaps his fingers, waiting for the rest of the Jets to assume the dance formation*
posted by chicobangs at 7:47 AM on July 6, 2004
posted by chicobangs at 7:47 AM on July 6, 2004
What's worse, the double post or the endless whining and posting about the double post?
Chicken or egg?
Orange or the color?
Double post or silly impatient know-it-alls whose self-proclaimed mission is to "save" metafilter.
Personally I want to know more about the babies from the botched abortions. What gives?
posted by fluffycreature at 7:48 AM on July 6, 2004
Chicken or egg?
Orange or the color?
Double post or silly impatient know-it-alls whose self-proclaimed mission is to "save" metafilter.
Personally I want to know more about the babies from the botched abortions. What gives?
posted by fluffycreature at 7:48 AM on July 6, 2004
The currency of anonymous sources has become sufficiently devalued that there's no risk to it anymore. "The Stevens Elementary School cafeteria in Ballston Lake NY served expired baked beans for lunch today, an anonymous source revealed..."
This current furor over Anonymous sources (they've been banging that drum for many a month in "Today's Papers") strikes me as a baby:bathwater thing.
The problem is not that there are anonymous sources, or even per se that there are so many of them -- it's that there are too many (a subtle difference, it's true, so not one suited to a thread already raided by the Metaquette Police).
The real problem isn't the sources, in other words. It's whether it means anything that they're anonymous.
Sometimes, it's painfully clear that anonymous sources are important. Can we all say "Deep Throat"? Other times, it's just deniability cover for a press release.
And Bluetrain, regarding the laundry list of accusations against Edwards: Why refute them, when in many cases you can just edit the document to read "George W. Bush" instead of "John Edwards"? (Oh, wait, GWB was runnng for President, not Vice President, so it's different. Much more important to have a long history of elected office in a VP than a Pres...)
On Preview: The whining. Definitely the whining.
posted by lodurr at 7:52 AM on July 6, 2004
This current furor over Anonymous sources (they've been banging that drum for many a month in "Today's Papers") strikes me as a baby:bathwater thing.
The problem is not that there are anonymous sources, or even per se that there are so many of them -- it's that there are too many (a subtle difference, it's true, so not one suited to a thread already raided by the Metaquette Police).
The real problem isn't the sources, in other words. It's whether it means anything that they're anonymous.
Sometimes, it's painfully clear that anonymous sources are important. Can we all say "Deep Throat"? Other times, it's just deniability cover for a press release.
And Bluetrain, regarding the laundry list of accusations against Edwards: Why refute them, when in many cases you can just edit the document to read "George W. Bush" instead of "John Edwards"? (Oh, wait, GWB was runnng for President, not Vice President, so it's different. Much more important to have a long history of elected office in a VP than a Pres...)
On Preview: The whining. Definitely the whining.
posted by lodurr at 7:52 AM on July 6, 2004
Kerry-Edwards: a decent ticket. Might make me reconsider Kerry (and vote for him). It depends if Kerry stops the BS criticisms of the Iraq War, and admits it was a good, even visionary thing. In any case, very good for the political process; much better than picking someone Gephardt.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:55 AM on July 6, 2004
posted by ParisParamus at 7:55 AM on July 6, 2004
Edwards/Rodham-Clinton, 2012!
posted by piskycritter at 8:18 AM on July 6, 2004
posted by piskycritter at 8:18 AM on July 6, 2004
Personally I want to know more about the babies from the botched abortions. What gives?
meh. nobody would give a damn about those babies if one hadn't stolen the presidency in 2000.
posted by quonsar at 8:25 AM on July 6, 2004
meh. nobody would give a damn about those babies if one hadn't stolen the presidency in 2000.
posted by quonsar at 8:25 AM on July 6, 2004
Edwards/Rodham-Clinton, 2012!
um, piskycritter, the object of running for elected office, is to actually be elected to that office.
Just wondering if you knew that.
posted by jonmc at 8:29 AM on July 6, 2004
um, piskycritter, the object of running for elected office, is to actually be elected to that office.
Just wondering if you knew that.
posted by jonmc at 8:29 AM on July 6, 2004
« Older El Viaje al Infierno | Rats Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Sniff. You have to have been following England's progress in Euro 2004 for that to make sense...
posted by tapeguy at 5:34 AM on July 6, 2004