RWA - Omg, get real.

[Syntax_Divinity]

Hey dmp. Okay, I know you evidently think that was a stupid remark. But I dare you, try to articulate just what exactly was so stupid about it. Go ahead. I'll understand if you don't want to waste the time (are totally incapable of substantiating that assertion), but go ahead if you want. You're making a fool of yourself.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Ah, but you do need to disprove my arguments to chip away at my reasoning that there isn't a liberal bias. I mean come on, this is simple logic. If there isn't a liberal media bias, then there can't be one, can there?

"If there isn't a liberal media bias, then there can't be one, can there?"

OMG. Did you really just write this.

This is really simple.

Yes you are.

But, since I, and Not YOU, choose to address the arguments of the other side, and since I, not YOU, have intellectual honesty, I will talk about the negativity in relationship to "liberal media bias". You have a fatal flaw in your reasoning RWA. The reporting of “negative” news stories is nothing new to the Bush administration. The New York Times, considered to be a liberal newspaper, attacked Gore relentlessly during the 2000 campaign. MSNBC, CNN, AND ABC all ran highly negative coverage about Clinton’s Kosovo campaign. Very few news sources from the “liberal media” reported anything positive about the bombing, even though this likely saved thousands of lives. That is the problem with your reasoning. It’s not just George Bush. It’s relative to the current administration, and you clearly don’t want to see that, because it totally and completely defeats your argument. Now, how about you address my arguments, since I addressed YOURS, and let's see if you really want to debate or whether you'll start dodging again.

Ok. So liberal bias isn't new. ANd the NY times attacked gore once. And noone reported anything positive about bombing(we already established this one in my post, that's one of MY arguments.) There were libs negatively spinning military efforts during clinton's campaign as well, what's that prove? What's relative to the bush campaign? you're getting loopy on me.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I mean it. Seriously. I would LOVE to hear you try to explain what was stupid about that. Go ahead. Explain it. Substantiate your assertion.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

What are you OMGing about? That statement makes total sense. Try to refute it. It's logically impossible. Even a third grader would understand if there isn't a liberal media bias, then there can't be one, can there? What are you OMGing about. Don't dodge this one. Try to answer it. I'd love to hear it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
I mean it. Seriously. I would LOVE to hear you try to explain what was stupid about that. Go ahead. Explain it. Substantiate your assertion.

What's that frangrance you're wearing, "L'eau de desperacion"?

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
What's that frangrance you're wearing, "L'eau de desperacion"?

Brother - don't feed the trolls.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by dmp
Brother - don't feed the trolls.

Yep, Zeke, I s'pose you're right. These critters have had enough fur the evenin'. I'm headin' up to the house.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

By the way, You're facts are totally wrong. Totally wrong. The NY times had 13, count 'em, 13 negative EDITORIALS about Al Gore during the 2000 election. Not to mention dozens and dozens of articles concerning the "exaggeration" of Gore. RWA, you can't just go on a public forum and lie. It's wrong. I'm serious. You can read about this shit on the Pew Charitable Trust Project for Excellence in Journalism. Don't try to dodge this. This is about accountability. You just said that was totally false. You either did this out of ignorance, or you simply lied. Neither are acceptable. "One negative Gore article." I can't believe you have the audacity to even make a bullshit claim like that that's so easily checked.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
By the way, You're facts are totally wrong. Totally wrong. The NY times had 13, count 'em, 13 negative EDITORIALS about Al Gore during the 2000 election. Not to mention dozens and dozens of articles concerning the "exaggeration" of Gore. RWA, you can't just go on a public forum and lie. It's wrong. I'm serious. You can read about this shit on the Pew Charitable Trust Project for Excellence in Journalism. Don't try to dodge this. This is about accountability. You just said that was totally false. You either did this out of ignorance, or you simply lied. Neither are acceptable. "One negative Gore article." I can't believe you have the audacity to even make a bullshit claim like that that's so easily checked.

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:




Good for the new york times. I guess I stand corrected. I don't feel this alters our discussion in any meaninful way. Your outrage and righteousness are a real hoot however.
Thanks for the entertainment!

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

OKay, wuss out and refuse to stop dodging the questions. After you just lied on public forum. Whatever, I can't believe you RWA. Any intelligent objective person could see that you are logically in the wrong. You just won't debate. You don't have an argument. I wish we could talk in person, because I wouldn't let you off the hook. This is about accountability, and your lack of intellectual honesty. Fine, it's your picnic, but we both know that you backed down because you didn't have conviction in your arguments.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
OKay, wuss out and refuse to stop dodging the questions. After you just lied on public forum. Whatever, I can't believe you RWA. Any intelligent objective person could see that you are logically in the wrong. You just won't debate. You don't have an argument. I wish we could talk in person, because I wouldn't let you off the hook. This is about accountability, and your lack of intellectual honesty. Fine, it's your picnic, but we both know that you backed down because you didn't have conviction in your arguments.

Dude, what you don't get is that I've already won and you're just parading around like an overly strong adolescent ape that's been dropped on it's head too many times. Someone had to say it.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT YOU'VE WON?!?! You won't stop dodging the questions I pose, and you won't attempt to refute the arguments I make, after I refute clearly and address your arguments. Again, you say that I've lost, another bald, unsubstanitated assertion, and you can't back it up. I know you're not a complete moron, so I have to think that you're doing it deliberately. Go ahead, if you think you won, try to explain why!! You can't. You're spinning and dodging again.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT YOU'VE WON?!?! You won't stop dodging the questions I pose, and you won't attempt to refute the arguments I make, after I refute clearly and address your arguments. Again, you say that I've lost, another bald, unsubstanitated assertion, and you can't back it up. I know you're not a complete moron, so I have to think that you're doing it deliberately. Go ahead, if you think you won, try to explain why!! You can't. You're spinning and dodging again.

We shall build a sanctuary out of chocolate and populate it with elves, and gnomes, and fairies. ANd they will settle by the chocolate stream and have pillsbury dough slaves harvesting cotton candy day and night. We will call it Syntax_Divinity Land.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Ok, by that statement, and again, refusing to engage in a debate over the substance of my arguments, you have ultimately conceded the debate to me. Not that it was much of a debate. Think what you like, I'm going to have a hoot showing this to my political science prof. I really don't have any hard feelings towards you, just a kind of frustration. But, whateva', it's cool.

 

[_dmp_]

did anyone see Stargate - SG1 last night?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Ok, by that statement, and again, refusing to engage in a debate over the substance of my arguments, you have ultimately conceded the debate to me. Not that it was much of a debate. Think what you like, I'm going to have a hoot showing this to my political science prof. I really don't have any hard feelings towards you, just a kind of frustration. But, whateva', it's cool.

As you refused to address mine. My case was much more convincingly explained. Repeatedly I might add. I'm certain you'll edit this any way you want before you turn in it. Lefties do that stuff. No hard feelings, I'm sure you'll overcome your mental difficulties someday, you have a strong spirit. May the road rise to meet you.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Ok, by that statement, and again, refusing to engage in a debate over the substance of my arguments, you have ultimately conceded the debate to me. Not that it was much of a debate. Think what you like, I'm going to have a hoot showing this to my political science prof. I really don't have any hard feelings towards you, just a kind of frustration. But, whateva', it's cool.

No - it just means your comments/arguments aren't worth the time it would take to show them as retarded

 

[_dmp_]

Somebody is refusing to respond to my refusal to address those refused items I mentioned in my first refusal to concede the refucation of the first guy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by dmp
No - it just means your comments/arguments aren't worth the time it would take to show them as retarded

Yeah. I actually took the time. You're right, it wasn't worth it. Just another day older and deeper in debt.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Welcome Syntax_Divinity. Its best just to ignore rwa's posts because they contain no substance.

Poor Alan Colmes. Hannity took his christmas vacation week during the week of christmas and made alan wait til the next week. And I don't remember Alan going on any book tours.
I guess thats what happens when you're a liberal on Fox News and the Ego's cohost(though I do use the "co" lightly).