Newsweek shows Obama as Hindu god.

[edthecynic]

i was never "in hiding" moron, i had already posted in this thread BEFORE you

i neg repped you and got you to WHINE about it
that was exactly what i expected you to do
and you didnt let me down
now i'm here laughing at your pathetic moronic ass and mocking you as well

You neg repped MY POST without rebutting the POST like the coward you are! You weren't afraid of replying to another's post, but you were too terrified to rebut MY post in public with your perpetual "moron" rebuttal. You need a Thesaurus!

dipshit, no one HAS to respond to a post to neg rep it


get up to speed, moron

I didn't say it was required, CON$ can't debate without their straw Men, I said it was GUTLESS!!!!!!!

 

[Si modo]

You neg repped MY POST without rebutting the POST like the coward you are! You weren't afraid of replying to another's post, but you were too terrified to rebut MY post in public with your perpetual "moron" rebuttal. You need a Thesaurus!

dipshit, no one HAS to respond to a post to neg rep it


get up to speed, moron

I didn't say it was required, CON$ can't debate without their straw Men, I said it was GUTLESS!!!!!!!

Psssssst. There is no whining in debate, thus no debate to be had.

 

[DiveCon]

You neg repped MY POST without rebutting the POST like the coward you are! You weren't afraid of replying to another's post, but you were too terrified to rebut MY post in public with your perpetual "moron" rebuttal. You need a Thesaurus!

dipshit, no one HAS to respond to a post to neg rep it


get up to speed, moron

I didn't say it was required, CON$ can't debate without their straw Men, I said it was GUTLESS!!!!!!!

yet here i am responding to you and laughing my ass off
LOL
and if you havent noticed, i'm not the only one laughing at your pathetic ass

 

[RadiomanATL]

Obviously I struck a nerve since I've singlehandedly reduced all of you to nothing but personal attacks.
Thank you!

You're confusing "struck a nerve" and "mocking" again.

You Alinskyites can only mock, as you were programmed to do by your MessiahRushie, because you can't debate in the arena of ideas.

Alinsky Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.

Yes, thats why I was mocking Rush even more than you. Retard.

 

[Si modo]

You're confusing "struck a nerve" and "mocking" again.

You Alinskyites can only mock, as you were programmed to do by your MessiahRushie, because you can't debate in the arena of ideas.

Alinsky Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.

Yes, thats why I was mocking Rush even more than you. Retard.

Amazing, isn't it?

 

[Madeline]

The fairness doctrine would not alleviate media bias.

From Fox or MSNBC. You should look up what it actually does

Of course it would, if it didn't CON$ wouldn't be against it!

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

Of course it would, if it didn't CON$ wouldn't be against it!

Wrong-o.

False logic.

The fairness doctrine would do absolutely nothing to the cherry-picking and slanting of facts that goes on in news-shows. It would just effect opinion shows by forcing an alternate view.

Opinion shows and news shows are not the same thing sparky. News would still be biased. Fox and MSNBC would still have their smarmy news that skews one way or the other. OReilly and Maddow would have some competition inside their respective networks, but Shep and his counterpart over at MSNBC wouldn't.

If cherry-picking and "SLANTING" of facts goes on in news shows then the Fairness Doctrine would require other opposing "SLANTS." Nowhere does the Fairness Doctrine make a distinction between news and opinion, and slanting the news would change it from news to opinion anyway!

In reality, CON$ want no other facts but their own cherry-picked and slanted "facts." The "liberal" media is not Liberal at all or the CON$ would insist on equal time and demand the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

There's very little sense in arguing that there is no liberal bias in the media after the JournoList scandal, edthecynic.

 

[edthecynic]

i neg repped you to get you to publicly whine about it like you are continuing to do

BULLSHIT

You negged me because you are a cowardly bully, afraid of anyone and everyone who will stand up to you! And I don't whine about your negs, I brag about how they SCORE how many times I have reduced you to nothing but SPITE.

Rep is completely worthless and meaningless except to you worthless and meaningless CON$. Only because it is everything to you is it an accurate measurement of how many times you feel you can't compete.
Thank you again!

 

[Si modo]

i neg repped you to get you to publicly whine about it like you are continuing to do

BULLSHIT

You negged me because you are a cowardly bully, afraid of anyone and everyone who will stand up to you! And I don't whine about your negs, I brag about how they SCORE how many times I have reduced you to nothing but SPITE.

Rep is completely worthless and meaningless except to you worthless and meaningless CON$. Only because it is everything to you is it an accurate measurement of how many times you feel you can't compete.
Thank you again!

 

[DiveCon]

i neg repped you to get you to publicly whine about it like you are continuing to do

BULLSHIT

You negged me because you are a cowardly bully, afraid of anyone and everyone who will stand up to you! And I don't whine about your negs, I brag about how they SCORE how many times I have reduced you to nothing but SPITE.

Rep is completely worthless and meaningless except to you worthless and meaningless CON$. Only because it is everything to you is it an accurate measurement of how many times you feel you can't compete.
Thank you again!

LOL keep whining ed

 

[edthecynic]

Of course it would, if it didn't CON$ wouldn't be against it!

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

Wrong-o.

False logic.

The fairness doctrine would do absolutely nothing to the cherry-picking and slanting of facts that goes on in news-shows. It would just effect opinion shows by forcing an alternate view.

Opinion shows and news shows are not the same thing sparky. News would still be biased. Fox and MSNBC would still have their smarmy news that skews one way or the other. OReilly and Maddow would have some competition inside their respective networks, but Shep and his counterpart over at MSNBC wouldn't.

If cherry-picking and "SLANTING" of facts goes on in news shows then the Fairness Doctrine would require other opposing "SLANTS." Nowhere does the Fairness Doctrine make a distinction between news and opinion, and slanting the news would change it from news to opinion anyway!

In reality, CON$ want no other facts but their own cherry-picked and slanted "facts." The "liberal" media is not Liberal at all or the CON$ would insist on equal time and demand the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

There's very little sense in arguing that there is no liberal bias in the media after the JournoList scandal, edthecynic.

Where would I find this "JournoList" media channel? It's not on cable, satellite, broadcast TV or radio in my area.

 

[Madeline]

I'll be around if the pissing contest edthecynic has been conducting by himself ever ends, and anyone would like to actually discuss this issue.

BTW, anyone read the Newsweek article that cover art pertains to? My Google Fu has failed; I can pull up the image but not the article.

 

[RadiomanATL]

BTW, anyone read the Newsweek article that cover art pertains to? My Google Fu has failed; I can pull up the image but not the article.

If it is as I suspect, then Newsweek is most likely correct.

But no, I have not read it.

 

[Madeline]

BTW, Palin made some sort of call for censorship on Thanksgiving......

“Hope springs eternal” as the poet says. Let’s hope that perhaps, just maybe, they might get it right next time. When we the people are effective in holding America’s free press accountable for responsible and truthful reporting, then we shall all have even more to be thankful for!

A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States | Facebook

I dun think Palin is representative of the majority of conservatives -- for starters, she has zero grasp of the First Amendment. But no one can claim with a straight face that there are no media outlets with a conservative bias, or that only liberals complain about bad press.

 

[DiveCon]

BTW, Palin made some sort of call for censorship on Thanksgiving......

“Hope springs eternal” as the poet says. Let’s hope that perhaps, just maybe, they might get it right next time. When we the people are effective in holding America’s free press accountable for responsible and truthful reporting, then we shall all have even more to be thankful for!

A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States | Facebook

I dun think Palin is representative of the majority of conservatives -- for starters, she has zero grasp of the First Amendment. But no one can claim with a straight face that there are no media outlets with a conservative bias, or that only liberals complain about bad press.

thats not a call for censorship

 

[Madeline]

As with most all of Palin's more outre' POVs, it is subtle and indistinct. I dun know how else you'd read it though, Divey.

BTW, it is ironic that she calls for "truthful reporting" in the same message where she claims she was unfairly roasted for a gaffe in speaking. What is "untruthful" about quoting someone?

 

[DiveCon]

As with most all of Palin's more outre' POVs, it is subtle and indistinct. I dun know how else you'd read it though, Divey.

BTW, it is ironic that she calls for "truthful reporting" in the same message where she claims she was unfairly roasted for a gaffe in speaking. What is "untruthful" about quoting someone?

you will never get it, maddy

 

[daveman]

Obviously I struck a nerve since I've singlehandedly reduced all of you to nothing but personal attacks.
Thank you!

You're confusing "struck a nerve" and "mocking" again.

You Alinskyites can only mock, as you were programmed to do by your MessiahRushie, because you can't debate in the arena of ideas.

Alinsky Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.

You mean like by calling people "CON$ervofascists"?

Predictably, you will tell me that's different. Somehow. It just is.

 

[edthecynic]

No, it wouldn't. It's unprovable, in court, that they did it on purpose to advance an agenda.

Take Fox's "Obama worships Sitting Bull" story.

100% accurate, no opinion. Pure news story. Under the fairness doctrine, no opposing viewpoint would be required.

HOWEVER, this ignores the fact that the emphasis placed on a minor fact totally changes the skew of the story.

Bullshit! "Worship" is an opinion. It would only be accurate is Obama attended the "Sitting Bull Church of Worship." Since there is no such church of worship, it is not accurate, factual or even remotely news and the Fairness Doctrine would require an opposing opinion, which is why CON$ are against the Fairness Doctrine.

CON$ want to call their opinions "facts" and they want to attack other media as "Liberal" when they do not "report" CON$ervative opinions as "facts."

Moron, I was paraphrasing the title of the article.

The point still stands 100%.

OK, let's see just how "factual" FOX was.

Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General - President Obama - Fox Nation

You were paraphrasing the title because the title as originally posted by FOX was not a fact. In fact, even FOX changed the title because it was not a fact. There was also no mention of Custer in the book.

Here is the quote from Obama's book:

Have I told you that you are a healer?

Sitting Bull was a Sioux medicine man who healed broken hearts and broken promises. It is fine that we are different, he said. "For peace is not necessary for eagles to be crows." Though he was put in prison, his spirit soared free on the plains, and his wisdom touched the generations.

 

[edthecynic]

Then why are you crybabies always whining about a media bias against CON$ervoFascism?

You're confusing "struck a nerve" and "mocking" again.

You Alinskyites can only mock, as you were programmed to do by your MessiahRushie, because you can't debate in the arena of ideas.

Alinsky Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.

You mean like by calling people "CON$ervofascists"?

Predictably, you will tell me that's different. Somehow. It just is.

Predictably, you can't tell the difference between CON$ervoFascISM, a political philosophy, and CON$ervoFascIST, a person!

 

[daveman]

Then why are you crybabies always whining about a media bias against CON$ervoFascism?

You Alinskyites can only mock, as you were programmed to do by your MessiahRushie, because you can't debate in the arena of ideas.

Alinsky Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

November 11, 2009
RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to ridicule and make fun of the people that you're having problems with.

You mean like by calling people "CON$ervofascists"?

Predictably, you will tell me that's different. Somehow. It just is.

Predictably, you can't tell the difference between CON$ervoFascISM, a political philosophy, and CON$ervoFascIST, a person!

I was right. It's different. Somehow. It just is.