IN a society that puts a premium on free speech, there are no illegal sites.  But right and wrong?  yes, I would have to say that rejoicing in someone's cancer is wrong.  I would say that wishing death on an opponent, only because they do not agree with you philosophically is wrong.  They have the right to say it, but that does not make it right. Just as Nazi's have the right to say what they want, but that does not mean I have to agree that it is right what they say.

And I suggest (as I have done before) that those who think there are right wing sites (other than Nazi's, Skinheads, KKK, etc. - which are not right wing at all - just hate sites) that say the same thigns the kooks on the left say, link to them!  I really want to see them rejoicing in Elizabeth Edwards Cancer.

So far my challenge has gone unmet.

And again you prove my point. They are not stating lies, they are saying Kerry lied - or exagerated.  The latter is probably true.  They called him to task for his lies (documented) and his exagerations.  Nowhere did they state a fact that has yet to be disproven. 

Which is what Swiftboating means.  Presenting the facts in an unflattering light.  All facts can be presented that way.  Look what they did to Bush and his ANG duty.  Until Dan Rather crossed the line and lied, all they were doing was presenting the facts in an unflattering light, and in Kerry's case, calling him a liar - which has been proven.

No arguement there, but I asked for a link for a proven fallacy.  On that I am still waiting.

What about the e-mail saying that Clinton refused to meet the gold star moms?

Or then one that says Obama refuses to say the pledge of allegiance or that he was sworn into the senate on the Quoran?

Oh Dr. Guy. I do enjoy this banter! I respectfully disagree with your statement that I have proven your point. In fact, I believe I have done exactly the opposite. Stating that they "presented facts in an unflattering light" is a nice way for couching the word "lies" just as using the words "coercive interrogation methods" is a pretty way of saying "torture" and "collateral damage" as unarmed civillians killed by suppressive fire.

 If you read over the link I provided, it quite plainly proves that these allegations were unfounded, and every single one of Kerry's boat crew who was questionned (save one, who later mostly recanted anyway) contradicted them as being false. If an allegation is false, that is a lie.

I've already provided links. One slick site that's very well done is

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

If you look at the top there's some gems such as  "homosexual agenda" and "Obamatruthfile"

Click on the Obama tag at the top and you'll see such headlines as

"Obama admits a terrorist launched his career"

and

"Obama's gay mentor speaks out" cause, you know, having a mentor whose gay is bad how???

Also, another goodie is

http://townhall.com/blog/issue/10

If you scroll down to sept 9, there's a picture of Joe Biden smirking evily accusing him of playing politics with children with developmental disabilities (which is exactly what he was accusing republicans of doing) regardless, his words were taken out of context in regards to stem cell research. He was stating honestly that stem cell research is very promising for treating many of these disabilities. This was interpreted and replayed as "ZOMG, he's playing politics with disabled children and wants to even kill babies on top of it for their stem cells!!!11"

Never mind the fact that soon enough stem cell's will be able to be cultured independently, the author of the blog immediately assumed that Biden was talking of killing babies.

I found this in a matter of minutes, if you go to the townhall link above and look at the blogroll on the right you'll find plenty of other blogs that are nice and biased to the right.

So, going back to my earlier position that BOTH sides are just as kooky!

Saying "Grant was a Minor player in the Battle of Shiloh" is not a lie.  He did not fire a single shot.  Yet it is an unflattering portrayal of his role.  Saying "Grant was not at the battle of Shiloh" is a lie. 

Unflattering is not a lie.  It is merely minimizing the contributions of the individual.    The SBVT merely minimized Kerry's accomplishments.  The truth is that Kerry did not do what he say he did (he did outright lie), but was probably not the pansy that they inferred upon him either.  In the end, that is what politics is all about.

I did.  But they refuted nothing.  They merely claimed "yes he was there and yes he was wounded".  If you read what the SBVT stated, no one said that he was not there, or that he was not wounded, only that in their opinion (as that is all medals are after all - an award based upon a retelling of an event) his exploits were exagerated. There is a big difference between saying "I was there" when you are not, and "I killed all the huns" when you were there, but just did your duty.  The first is a lie (and there are enough of them who claim to have been in Nam) the second is an exageration.

How about http://hillarypig.com/?

How about Obama face on Osamas body?

www.exposebarackobama.com

For more of the same just search for obama bin laden

And who are the professionals doing the spreading?

I don't know, and frankly I can't be bothered to find out how many of these people earn money from it. 

But the answer to the question posed by Draginol is now.

No, not unless you can show the professionals.  As we see in this age of the internet, anyone can photoshop anything, and we have a couple of good ones right here on this site.  But they are not professionals.  There is a BIG difference.

Ever gotten a Nigerian email?  Ever gotten one from Merril Lynch?

Note the use of the word 'or' in Draginols post not the word 'and'.

Note that the "or"  is most likely not supposed to be there. (nor and for the matter)

This just shows your grasping at straws mate and arguing sematics.

sorry for answering the question as it was posed.  I should have know that he didn't write what he meant.

Hahahaha.  I love it.