Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Thursday, March 20, 2008

A weak jab from the left and a counterpunch from the right

Comarad Lupke is up to his usual tricks again.

This gem was posted to a discussion thread in the MPDN online version.

Statement by Lupke
"To my knowledge, that kind of coordinated effort has never been carried out. I think there would be a lot more agreement on doing something like that than there would be on the kind of tactics Wal-Mart uses -- always attempting to divide communities and start fights between local citizens."

And the response
"Chris,
In looking back over the record, Wal-Mart didn't start the fight. The first shots were fired by PARD and its members. There is a fight because reasonable and responsible people in the community refuse to allow a special interest group to run the show."

3 comments:

Tom Forbes said...

The words "the kind of tactics Wal-Mart uses -- always attempting to divide communities and start fights between local citizens" are lifted straight out of the anti-Wal-Mart playbook. If you haven't read "Battle-Mart 101," I urge you to do so. Every step in there has been followed to the letter by PARD.

#7 under "More Principles" reads:

The battle will get hot. Wal-Mart may create a "citizens" group and hire PR firms to turn people against you.

The PARDners are so supremely arrogant (and ignorant,) that they believe that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with them; that nothing they could do or say would ever alienate the rest of the community. No, in their minds, any voice that disgarees or raises up against them must be from a paid lackey of Wal-Mart. Lupke often refers to them (us) as Wal-Mart's "surrogates."

Since the PARDners feel they are dealing with corporate shills, not real people and their neighbors, they act accordingly. If there is division in Pullman, it was created by this paranoid attitude.

Scott M. said...

Hey Tom, have you seen that Lupke calls you homophobic at MDPN.com?

Tom Forbes said...

Yes, I have seen it.

Lupke's unhinged hatred of me has possibly landed both him and the Daily News in a lot of hot water.

Libel is difficult to prove in court because the plaintiff has to show "actual malice" was the motive for the libelous statements.

Lupke has been responding to comments made by "tjkong" at Dnews.com. Lupke uses the word "Tom" and also employs a long laundry list of other rants that he has previously posted specifically about me. So it is obvious he believes that I am "tjkong."

The problem for Lupke and the Daily News is that I am not "tjkong." I do not post at Dnews.com. The fact that I am not "tjkong" can be conclusively demonstrated by Daily News computer records. "tjkong" has never claimed to be me and has denied being me on several occasions in the past. This can also be proven. Lupke therefore has no rational reason to believe that I am "tjkong."

I have been informed that cases of mistaken identity such as this demonstrate reckless disregard for whether a statement is true or false and wanton and reckless disregard of the rights of another. In the court's eyes, this can be considered nearly the equivalent of actual malice.