Funny Rolling Stone article on McCain

[Juddog]

There is a funny but long article up at Rolling Stone about McCain:
Make Believe Maverick

In my opinion McCain gave up on his moral grounds when he decided that it was OK to let America torture suspected terrorists. That's flip-flopping on a far grander scale than the likes of Kerry.

 

[Robor]

Unless it gets better I wouldn't call it funny. I'm only 3 pages in and it's outright nasty.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Woah - that's pretty harsh.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Woah - that's pretty harsh.

They still have some good points though.

 

[Red Dawn]

In his current campaign, however, McCain has become the kind of politician he ran against in 2000. He has embraced those he once denounced as "agents of intolerance," promised more drilling and deeper tax cuts, even compromised his vaunted opposition to torture. Intent on winning the presidency at all costs, he has reassembled the very team that so viciously smeared him and his family eight years ago, selecting as his running mate a born-again moose hunter whose only qualification for office is her ability to electrify Rove's base. And he has engaged in a "practice of politics" so deceptive that even Rove himself has denounced it, saying that the outright lies in McCain's campaign ads go "too far" and fail the "truth test."

 

[Robor]

Reading between work and on page 5 now. It does not get better. It is clearly written with an agenda but if only 1/2 of it is true it's pretty alarming. Yeah, I understand no one is perfect but there's some real harsh stuff in there.

 

[Mursilis]

This article is only news to the people naive enough not to recognize McCain's "maverick" persona for what it always was - merely a persona, to be used and then discarded when a new skin is required. Obama's the same, which will be obvious to all but the zealots soon enough.

 

[ProfJohn]

Rolling Stone is completely in the tank for Obama.

They have put Obama on the cover at least 2 times.
COVER 1
cover 2
And check out the start of this 2007 Rolling Stone article:

All love stories are beautiful at the beginning, and what we're witnessing now is the beginning of a new one: America and Barack Obama.

Why would anyone believe anything they wrote after a line like that?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rolling Stone is completely in the tank for Obama.

They have put Obama on the cover at least 2 times.
COVER 1
cover 2
And check out the start of this 2007 Rolling Stone article:

All love stories are beautiful at the beginning, and what we're witnessing now is the beginning of a new one: America and Barack Obama.

Why would anyone believe anything they wrote after a line like that?

Because it's the truth, regardless of the source?

 

[ProfJohn]

Give me a break. A legit news source would never start an article about a politician with a line like "All love stories are beautiful at the beginning"

A line like that is the stuff of blogs. Anyone who is looking at Rolling Stone magazine as a good source of political information is a fool.

 

[jackschmittusa]

ProfJohn

"political information"? Seemed like biographical information to me.

They provided direct quotes, credible sources, and publicly available information. They presented character assessments from his peers, some of which have no discernible agenda or integrity issues.

Great to see that you're still good at trying to discredit the messenger when you have no valid arguments against the message.

I wonder if Palin could beat you in a debate .

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rolling Stone is completely in the tank for Obama.

They have put Obama on the cover at least 2 times.
COVER 1
cover 2
And check out the start of this 2007 Rolling Stone article:

All love stories are beautiful at the beginning, and what we're witnessing now is the beginning of a new one: America and Barack Obama.

Why would anyone believe anything they wrote after a line like that?

jann wenner and his magazines are unabashedly in the tank for Obama.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2163185

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Give me a break. A legit news source would never start an article about a politician with a line like "All love stories are beautiful at the beginning"

A line like that is the stuff of blogs. Anyone who is looking at Rolling Stone magazine as a good source of political information is a fool.

What I like about Rolling Stone's articles is that they aren't afraid to call it like they see it. It's refreshing. Of course Matt Taibbi's articles are op-ed pieces, they are just written in a more entertaining fashion. (I'm guessing he's attempting to be the heir to Hunter S. Thompson... he's not bad at it) Just because he has an opinion doesn't make him wrong, it's just important to keep that opinion in mind.

 

[evident]

this is pretty scathing, im sure it's biased against him but still. someoen needs to factcheck this!

 

[bdude]

Harsh and scathing does not begin to describe that article. Again, it is RS so it won't be seriously looked at...

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rolling Stone is completely in the tank for Obama.

They have put Obama on the cover at least 2 times.
COVER 1
cover 2
And check out the start of this 2007 Rolling Stone article:

All love stories are beautiful at the beginning, and what we're witnessing now is the beginning of a new one: America and Barack Obama.

Why would anyone believe anything they wrote after a line like that?

The article clearly has an agenda but the Rolling Stone being in the tank for Obama doesn't matter if this stuff is true.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rolling Stone is completely in the tank for Obama.

They have put Obama on the cover at least 2 times.
COVER 1
cover 2
And check out the start of this 2007 Rolling Stone article:

All love stories are beautiful at the beginning, and what we're witnessing now is the beginning of a new one: America and Barack Obama.

Why would anyone believe anything they wrote after a line like that?

Quick thing Pro-Jo, while I agree that the source should be taken into account when reading something if I remember right in other threads you have complained about people attacking the messenger. Isn't that what you're doing here?

 

[nakedfrog]

It's Rolling Stone, do they ever print anything favorable about Republicans?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Ignoring the messenger issue, the article appears to be well researched and provides all sorts of sources, and quotes, for the information presented, while clearly written from a certain point of view.

Those who want to ignore the information and the obvious conclusions will attack the messenger. It's the ostrich way. PJ anyone?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Ignoring the messenger issue, the article appears to be well researched and provides all sorts of sources, and quotes, for the information presented, while clearly written from a certain point of view.

Those who want to ignore the information and the obvious conclusions will attack the messenger. It's the ostrich way. PJ anyone?

^^ Co-signed; the article backs up what it states with sources if anybody wants to further check the validity of their claims.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Robor
Reading between work and on page 5 now. It does not get better. It is clearly written with an agenda but if only 1/2 of it is true it's pretty alarming. Yeah, I understand no one is perfect but there's some real harsh stuff in there.

What do you mean an agenda? An agenda of telling the truth?

How do you want it written? "Critics say mosquitos are known to bite people"?

Saying 'agenda' implies that it wants the conclusion of attacking McCain so much that it will use false things to get its point across, exaggerate, distort. Does it do that?

Or is the truth the problem for McCain?

 

[Craig234]

Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

For anyone who won't just attack them as liars for simply reporting that the facts lead them to side with the democrats, who want to judge the magazine:

Read the following story that first showed me how they had started doing some very useful reporting, and tell me if you can make a case for the article not being a good one, as it has some blunt commentary on 'what needed to be said' that's missing from a lot of reporting on the *last* Congress, the one the American people went on to throw out in 1006 a month after this was publiished:

Story on 2005-2006 Congress, the 'worst ever'

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

For anyone who won't just attack them as liars for simply reporting that the facts lead them to side with the democrats, who want to judge the magazine:

Read the following story that first showed me how they had started doing some very useful reporting, and tell me if you can make a case for the article not being a good one, as it has some blunt commentary on 'what needed to be said' that's missing from a lot of reporting on the *last* Congress, the one the American people went on to throw out in 1006 a month after this was publiished:

Story on 2005-2006 Congress, the 'worst ever'

1006? Damn that was a long time ago!


-- just teasin' ya! --:laugh:

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rolling Stone is completely in the tank for Obama.

They have put Obama on the cover at least 2 times.
COVER 1
cover 2
And check out the start of this 2007 Rolling Stone article:

All love stories are beautiful at the beginning, and what we're witnessing now is the beginning of a new one: America and Barack Obama.

Why would anyone believe anything they wrote after a line like that?

jann wenner and his magazines are unabashedly in the tank for Obama.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2163185

How about you quote something from the article that isn't true instead? Where's the beef? Scathing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

For anyone who won't just attack them as liars for simply reporting that the facts lead them to side with the democrats, who want to judge the magazine:

Read the following story that first showed me how they had started doing some very useful reporting, and tell me if you can make a case for the article not being a good one, as it has some blunt commentary on 'what needed to be said' that's missing from a lot of reporting on the *last* Congress, the one the American people went on to throw out in 1006 a month after this was publiished:

Story on 2005-2006 Congress, the 'worst ever'

1006? Damn that was a long time ago!


-- just teasin' ya! --:laugh:

Whoops Did you read the linked article?