Big time blogger, Instapundit, shows us how to mislead people by quoting dubious sources. The technique is quite simple really, much like those who fall for it.
Actually, those folks who fall for tactics like this may be more intellectually lazy than simple...much like our president.
So you quote someone who may be saying something that isn't true and then you just agree with them.
Like this, for instance:
So we have a quote that says Pat Robertson is batshit crazy, which we all agree with; and then the quote continues and says Hugo Chavez is a dictator and actually it is probably OK to assassinate dictators!
And then Instapundit says, Yeah!
Only this is not true! Hugo Chavez is not a Dictator!
Hugo Chavez, love him or hate him, was elected by landslide margins and has the support of a huge percentage of the people of Venezuela. He was elected President by the largest margin of victory in 40 years and has the support of over 70% among Venezuelans.
So if 70% of the people love Hugo Chavez...Who hates him?
George Bush, Don Rumsfeld, International corporations, Rich people...The Catholic Cardinal.
Chavez called George W. Bush, President of the United States, a Pendejo, a vulgar term of abuse.
To call a person a "pendejo" is essentially to call him stupid, although it also carries implications of willful stubbornness and rank ineptitude.
George Bush? Stupid, willfully stubborn, and rankly inept?
Where would anyone get that idea?
So Chavez was elected by a landslide and has a 70% approval rating and Instapundit calls him a dictator.
George Bush was elected by a 5-4 vote of the Supreme court, actually lost the vote in Florida, and he's a what?
Bottom line has nothing to do with George, though. Here's the headline:
"Right wing blogger, Instapundit, supports assassination of lawfully elected Leaders of Foreign Countries"
He also doesn't allow comments on his website...
Here is the whole unbiased story, warts, freckles, and all, on Hugo Chavez. Make your own mind up, people!