More evidence of misleading bias on TV

[Annie]

Nicely done... you've fallen from factual researcher to hurler of insults and yet another mis-quoter for expediency and effect.

I never said "4=1000". I said (in your mathmatical format) 4 + [link to 996+ more] = 1000+

That's adequate defense of an offhand comment.

If you cared about an honest discussion you'd stop spinning your wheels trying to play "gotcha" games and discuss the underlying point (that the media sucks on a bi-partisan basis).

Whether I provide 4, 4+link, 1000, or 1,000,000 examples makes no difference. The mere fact that I can find 1 shows an absence of bias.

No asshat, you provided links to your sites and †hen sent me and others on a search, like we didn't know what a search was. You are cementing the title of

 

[rtwngAvngr]

jaz is a broken record. "It goes both ways.It goes both ways.". I think this relates to his gender issues.

Actually jaz, more often than not, its the libs leading the misleading.

 

[jAZ]

No asshat, you provided links to your sites and †hen sent me and others on a search, like we didn't know what a search was.

Wow, you've reached a point where you are unable to respond to me without attacking me. I don't feel the same is necessary in return, so don't expect me to refer to you as an "asshat" in return. Not gonna happen.

However, I will correct your errors and I will start by pointing out that I provided direct links to 4 different articles... the first 4 I came across.

As I said before (and as is fairly self evident) I didn't feel it necessary (or worth my time) to post the other 996 links directly.

My purpose in providing the root link to MM was not to say that you "didn't know what a search was". It was to provide the very link I used to grab the first 4 so that you could continue if you felt it necessary.

The fact that you are expending so much energy debating the "missing" 996 links rather than taking my point at face value and moving forward with the discussion of the role of the MSM in reporting... well is interesting to say the least.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wow, you've reached a point where you are unable to respond to me without attacking me. I don't feel the same is necessary in return, so don't expect me to refer to you as an "asshat" in return. Not gonna happen.

However, I will correct your errors and I will start by pointing out that I provided direct links to 4 different articles... the first 4 I came across.

As I said before (and as is fairly self evident) I didn't feel it necessary (or worth my time) to post the other 996 links directly.

My purpose in providing the root link to MM was not to say that you "didn't know what a search was". It was to provide the very link I used to grab the first 4 so that you could continue if you felt it necessary.

The fact that you are expending so much energy debating the "missing" 996 links rather than taking my point at face value and moving forward with the discussion of the role of the MSM in reporting... well is interesting to say the least.

Dude, you lie, you misrepresent, you backtrack, you change the subject, you're like a child.

 

[jAZ]

Dude, you lie, you misrepresent, you backtrack, you change the subject, you're like a child.

ROFL

Talk about Orwellian.

I'm trying to keep people from changing the subject, lying, misquoting, backtracking... and yet you (without one single example) try to brand me as doing all of those things.

ROFL

 

[rtwngAvngr]

ROFL

Talk about Orwellian.

I'm trying to keep people from changing the subject, lying, misquoting, backtracking... and yet you (without one single example) try to brand me as doing all of those things.

ROFL

I didn't just try, I succeeded.

 

[jAZ]

I didn't just try, I succeeded.

Declare victory and get out, right? It's a good strategy for saving lives.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Declare victory and get out, right? It's a good strategy for saving lives.

:blah2:

 

[Annie]

Wow, you've reached a point where you are unable to respond to me without attacking me. I don't feel the same is necessary in return, so don't expect me to refer to you as an "asshat" in return. Not gonna happen.

However, I will correct your errors and I will start by pointing out that I provided direct links to 4 different articles... the first 4 I came across.

As I said before (and as is fairly self evident) I didn't feel it necessary (or worth my time) to post the other 996 links directly.

My purpose in providing the root link to MM was not to say that you "didn't know what a search was". It was to provide the very link I used to grab the first 4 so that you could continue if you felt it necessary.

The fact that you are expending so much energy debating the "missing" 996 links rather than taking my point at face value and moving forward with the discussion of the role of the MSM in reporting... well is interesting to say the least.

Well I wasn't the one that went to hyperbole, then tried to backtrack, so no, that wouldn't do. No errors on my part, I just called you out.

You should feel it necessary to provide, IF you find it necessary to put in a post to overwhelm someone else. That is why you are an 'asshat.' See, if I'm going to say a lib has done something stupid, I'll quote that lib. I won't say 'all' libs feel this way. Got it?

 

[jAZ]

Well I wasn't the one that went to hyperbole, then tried to backtrack, so no, that wouldn't do. No errors on my part, I just called you out.

You called out hyperbole (however accurate it was) at the expense of the actucal disucssion. That's the behavior of someone who's hiding from the primary discussion. It's a "gotcha" game.

In a literal sense, you've proven nothing, because you refuse to explore the link I provided. It is quite literally filled with hundreds (certainly over 1000) examples of the kind of failures expressed in this thread only helping the Republican's cause through misinformation.

You should feel it necessary to provide, IF you find it necessary to put in a post to overwhelm someone else.

What does this mean? What are you refering to?

See, if I'm going to say a lib has done something stupid, I'll quote that lib. I won't say 'all' libs feel this way. Got it?

Again, what are you talking about specifically. I don't believe I've been overly broad and asserted something about "(all) cons" as you seem to be suggesting (by way of contrast with your own views).

If I've done this, please lead by example and "quote that lib" (me) doing so.

 

[jAZ]

:blah2:

Exactly.

 

[KarlMarx]

There's an old saying that actions speak louder than words.

If Donna Brazile and her fellow Democrats actually believe that the majority of Americans are in favor of abortion, then why do they worry about Roe vs Wade so much?

Each time there is a judicial nomination to the Supreme Court or any of the lower courts, the Democrats have gone all out to filibuster. They "borked" Robert Bork, the impugned the character of Justice Thomas in order to preserve Roe vs. Wade.

And why? Because Roe vs. Wade did not make abortion legal. It took aways the States' rights to ban abortion. If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, then the voters of each state would have to decide whether to allow abortion or ban it and, if they allow it, to what extent (confined to the first trimester, only in cases of rape, etc).

And that is where the whole issue should be decided, by the voters of each state.

But, the Democrats know that if Roe vs Wade is overturned that the majority of American voters do not support abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, and not informing the parents of a child that is going to get an abortion... THAT'S what they're afraid of.

The Left does not have much faith in people, nor is it in love with the notion of popular mandates.

 

[Gunny]

Again, I am well aware of mediamatters. You however, came here to act superior and have failed. You are a troll of the worst order. Ill informed and pompous.

If you wish to discourse, do it on a topic, research for you pov and defend. You have FAILED, big time, with both Abbey, MM, and myself to defend your claims. You say 1k, then send me to search for...

Don't forget "Master of Deflection."

 

[jAZ]

There's an old saying that actions speak louder than words.

If Donna Brazile and her fellow Democrats actually believe that the majority of Americans are in favor of abortion, then why do they worry about Roe vs Wade so much?

Each time there is a judicial nomination to the Supreme Court or any of the lower courts, the Democrats have gone all out to filibuster. They "borked" Robert Bork, the impugned the character of Justice Thomas in order to preserve Roe vs. Wade.

And why? Because Roe vs. Wade did not make abortion legal. It took aways the States' rights to ban abortion. If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, then the voters of each state would have to decide whether to allow abortion or ban it and, if they allow it, to what extent (confined to the first trimester, only in cases of rape, etc).

And that is where the whole issue should be decided, by the voters of each state.

But, the Democrats know that if Roe vs Wade is overturned that the majority of American voters do not support abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, and not informing the parents of a child that is going to get an abortion... THAT'S what they're afraid of.

The Left does not have much faith in people, nor is it in love with the notion of popular mandates.

Actually, like many here I'm sure who refuse to discuss limitations on speech, guns, religion or whatever, they are "afraid" of the slippery slope.

Not saying you are wrong in your views on abortion, but let's not confuse your opinions on the subject for sound political strategy.

 

[archangel]

Actually, like many here I'm sure who refuse to discuss limitations on speech, guns, religion or whatever, they are "afraid" of the slippery slope.

Not saying you are wrong in your views on abortion, but let's not confuse your opinions on the subject for sound political strategy.

ya know there is a old saying...'Change that which you can and give into reality when ya can't"(paraphrased) this is that moment!

 

[manu1959]

Actually, like many here I'm sure who refuse to discuss limitations on speech, guns, religion or whatever, they are "afraid" of the slippery slope.

Not saying you are wrong in your views on abortion, but let's not confuse your opinions on the subject for sound political strategy.

i do not belive in the slippery slope argument....i belive each case, each event, each decision is unique

 

[Gunny]

ya know there is a old saying...'Change that which you can and give into reality when ya can't"(paraphrased) this is that moment!

That's quite a unique rendition of the "Serenity Prayer."

 

[jAZ]

i do not belive in the slippery slope argument....i belive each case, each event, each decision is unique

Sounds like you think that's how it should be, but I'm not sure if you are saying that the notion of a slippery slope doesn't exist.

I think your instincts are pretty effective as a political compass (each case, event, decision are unique). Kudos for that.

At the same time, I think the slippery slope comes from a very real thing - politilcal momentum. I think that between banning all guns and letting people drive around in tanks... there is a reasonable reality.

I believe that between abortion on demand in the 9th month... and all illegal all the time... there is a reasonable reality.

I'm a pragmatist at heart.

Politics (on both sides) doesn't organize well around pragmatism.

 

[archangel]

That's quite a unique rendition of the "Serenity Prayer."

learned that one in a wet foxhole...ahhh reality sunk in...lol

 

[manu1959]

Sounds like you think that's how it should be, but I'm not sure if you are saying that the notion of a slippery slope doesn't exist.

I think your instincts are pretty effective as a political compass (each case, event, decision are unique). Kudos for that.

At the same time, I think the slippery slope comes from a very real thing - politilcal momentum. I think that between banning all guns and letting people drive around in tanks... there is a reasonable reality.

I believe that between abortion on demand in the 9th month... and all illegal all the time... there is a reasonable reality.

I'm a pragmatist at heart.

Politics (on both sides) doesn't organize well around pragmatism.

give me an example of a slippery slope argument