Posted on 10/13/2009 4:58:50 PM PDT by HorowitzianConservative
When I'm engaging NewsReal's leftist commenters in the threads to our blog posts, some of our conservative regulars often caution me that I'm wasting my time. I'm not. I know exactly what I'm doing. There is indeed method to my madness.
And this is the secret: give a leftist enough rope through continual engagement and they will eventually hang themselves. Continue to poke and prod them and soon the "liberal" mask will slip and the destructive, radical monster will reveal itself.
That happened with Terry "Con Web Watch" Krepel in his most recent response to my calling out him and his employer Media Matters for deciding that the circumstances surrounding the death of Glenn Beck's mother need to be rehashed and investigated.
Krepel's critical stumble comes in his third point:
3) Swindle accuses us of "dig[ging] into [Beck's] past to try and destroy him personally." As if that has never been done by conservatives looking to attack liberals. (See Clinton, Bill.) But really, how exactly does this little incident "destroy him personally"? Further, Beck has made the claim publicly on numerous occasions, which opens it up to public scrutiny.[Emphasis Added.]
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
Media Matters when media really does not matter.
Media Matters .. that be spelled Merde Matters
Typical liberal response. We believe you did it so its OK for us to do it to you.
So, the “everybody does it” argument.
Except that everybody doesn’t do it. I don’t recall anyone in the media attacking clinton’s family at random like this—except for Hillary, who was his partner in crime.
Media who?
In other words, he's not saying, "I didn't do it, and oh by the way you did it too". He's saying, "I didn't do it, but you did."
“As if that has never been done by conservatives looking to attack liberals.”
If someone was accused of murder and denied it and then pointed out that other people had murdered as well (to try and downplay the act of murder) I’d take that as a form of confession.
If he’s not smearing and he knows he’s not smearing then he’s not going to bring up that conservatives have allegedly smeared as a way of downplaying what he and MM did.
So my use of the term “confession” basically indicates this: he might not be willing to admit that they’re smearing, he might be able to intellectualize it away in his head that they’re not smearing, but deep down he knows they’re smearing. His comment reveals it.
Agree
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.