If Rush or Sean Would Have Said This......

[actsnoblemartin]

You're right, im sorry. I'll take it to the taunting area.

 

[red states rule]

Libs say there is no liberal bias at CNN

To bad their "reporting" gets in the way

CNN's Softball Cleland Interview, Bush with 'Blood on Hands'
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on April 28, 2007 - 22:10.
On Friday's The Situation Room, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer gave former Democratic Senator Max Cleland a forum to rail against the Bush administration's Iraq policy, during which the former Georgia Senator charged that President Bush would be "signing in blood" his expected veto of the Democratic plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. While Blitzer did ask a few mildly challenging questions, the CNN anchor did not question some of Cleland's more dubious assertions, including his claim that half a million Iraqis had been killed, and that Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss had called Cleland "un-American" and "unpatriotic" in the past.

While the interview originally ran live during the 5 p.m. hour of The Situation Room, it was repeated during the 7 p.m. hour, which gave Blitzer the opportunity to plug the interview, quoting the former Democratic Senator's charge that Bush would be signing his veto "in blood." Blitzer: "Tonight, the former U.S. Senator, Max Cleland, charges Mr. Bush will be signing that veto in blood." Blitzer later plugged: "Vietnam War veteran and former Senator Max Cleland says President Bush could wind up with blood on his hands." (Transcript follows)

http://newsbusters.org/node/12391

 

[Diuretic]

You're right, im sorry. I'll take it to the taunting area.

Those words, even blotted out, aren't taunting - that's straightforward threatening. I'm not fussed about the words used against me by some posters, I imagine it's cathartic for them to vent their frustration against me, but those words - and I'm no prude - just aren't on.

 

[red states rule]

Come on, that's their job.

But not mine. I live to cut and paste. But you're telling a half-truth here:



Because there's not enough liberal media bias on CNN? This dhimmie wannabee thinks so:

"We were certainly squeamish about it at first, given its reputation in the United States," said Tim Nulty, director of Burlington Telecom. "But if you look at it, it looks like BBC. I think it's more mainstream and more objective than CNN."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/04/22/rider_is_killed_in_motorcycle_accident/

Scroll way down, 'coz the Boston Globe is so objective too, you know. That channel is Al-Jazeera.

Still no liberal media bias????????????


CBS Leads with Protests by Illegals, Paints as Victims by Showing Kids Split from Parents
Posted by Brent Baker on May 1, 2007 - 20:58.
While the ABC and NBC evening newscasts led Tuesday night with President George W. Bush's veto of the Iraq funding bill with pull-out deadlines, CBS began with back-to-back stories trumpeting the cause of illegal immigrants and portraying them as the victims. “Tonight,” Katie Couric teased the CBS Evening News, “tens of thousands of protesters take to the streets of America to rally in support of illegal immigrants” and then, over video of a teen girl and her little sister, Couric fretted, “she was born here, but her parents were deported and there are many more like her.” Of course, it was the choice of the parents to not take the kids with them back to Mexico.

Citing how “it's estimated there are as many as 12 million in this country illegally,” Couric framed CBS's coverage around their agenda: “What are they and their supporters demanding?” Bill Whitaker highlighted the protests and the views of their advocates before acknowledging “the chance for real immigration reform seems slim again this year, so these marchers plan to keep up the pressure to change the laws and stop the deportations, which they say are breaking up families.” The next report picked up the theme: “I'm Sandra Hughes in San Diego, where nine-year-old Adeline Munoz packs for her weekly trip to Tijuana, Mexico. It's the only place she can see her parents. In February, Abel Munoz and Zulma Miranda were deported by immigration officials.” After obligatory heart-rendering soundbites from the kids, Hughes featured the mom: “The deportation was inhumane. Our kids will never forget it. The little one always tells will me, every time I hear a knock on the door, I think it's Immigration." Not until the very end of her piece, about six minutes into the newscast, did viewers hear from someone not so enamored with the cause of the illegals. Hughes set up a clip: “Critics of illegal immigration concede it's a tough situation, but one the parents themselves created.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/12453

 

[Superlative]

Still no liberal media bias????????????


http://newsbusters.org/node/12453

I guess the news should only ever be delivered in a conservative manner, - We should keep out all illegal immigrants and build a great wall accross the boarder and shoot all the mexicans, and not give them any health care, they dont belong in America.

I guess they didnt teach you in history class that america is made of immigrants who basically wiped out the native americans.

now its a horrible horrible thing these mexicans are doing by taking jobs Americans dont want, and working for less money.

So the stupid mexicans should stay in mexico, cause America stopped taking in immigrants a long time ago.-

Showing a story from another angle isnt a good example of Liberal bias in the media, not every story has to agree with your conservative view, You make it very obvious when it doesnt and you call it "Liberal Bias"

Ive noticed that you arent posting absolutely EVERY story printed, could that be because you agree with whatevers NOT liberal? and the rest are conservative stories?
Would you like me to start a thread of conservative stories, and you start a liberal one, and see which fills up faster?

Ill just cut and paste EVERYTHING from fox news for the past 2 weeks and be done.

While you leaf through your little liberal busting sites and post the other half of the news.

There is just as much liberal bias as conservative bias.

Move on.

 

[red states rule]

You say there is no liberal media bias - so why do the posts bug you?

 

[Superlative]

You say there is no liberal media bias - so why do the posts bug you?

Its not so much the posts, as it is the poster.

 

[red states rule]

Its not so much the posts, as it is the poster.

It is not the post, but the truth in the post

 

[hjmick]

Its not so much the posts, as it is the poster.

My sister once had a poster that bothered me. It was Hervé Villechaize in a Speedo. I shudder just thinking about it.

 

[red states rule]

Journalism Dept. Attacks Bill O'Reilly, Compares Him to Nazi Sympathizer
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on May 2, 2007 - 16:43.
Many conservatives don't like Bill O'Reilly. He's an advocate for gun control, amnesty for illegal immigrants, believes in global warming, etc. Still, you have to respect the fact that an entire journalism department just created a "study" which accuses him of being the most vile type of propagandist, going so far as to compare him to a Nazi sympathizer.

You'd think that the Indiana University department has better things to be doing (how about teaching kids about real diversity and fairness in journalism?) than studying a one-hour show on cable, but there it is.

According to the gurus of IU, O'Reilly is eerily similar to Father Charles Coughlin, a Nazi sympathizer during World War II:

"In this study, O'Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin," the geniuses tell us.

I think the operative word is "this study." A more objective department might have compared O'Reilly to a myriad of other media figures such as Bill Moyers or Dan Rather who hardly present the news in an objective fashion, all while saying that's exactly what they do. Click past the jump to read an excerpt.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12477

 

[red states rule]

Its not so much the posts, as it is the poster.

Tell us again how there is no liberal media bias............

No Conflict? NPR's Nina Totenberg Takes on John Edwards Daughter As Summer Intern
Posted by Tim Graham on May 3, 2007 - 08:27.
Here's another sign that public broadcasters aren't worried about the appearance of Democratic favoritism. National Public Radio reporter Nina Totenberg -- legendary (or infamous) for championing Anita Hill's unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges against Clarence Thomas, and then yawning at all harassment claims against Bill Clinton -- is hiring the daughter of liberal Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards as a summer intern, and her NPR bosses "gave the green light, since the election is still 18 months away."

The Washington Post gossip column that broke the story couldn't even get word from NPR as to whether Cate Edwards will stop making campaign appearances during the internship. Here's what the "Reliable Source" column by Roxanne Roberts and Amy Argetsinger passed along:

NPR legal correspondent Nina Totenberg narrowed hundreds of summer intern applications to a dozen promising candidates and began phoning the finalists, but swears it wasn't until after she interviewed Harvard Law School's Catharine Edwards that she realized the 25-year-old -- better known as Cate-- is the daughter of presidential candidate John Edwards.

"I said to myself, 'Oh, you idiot,' " said Totenberg, who wanted to offer Edwards the job and appealed to her bosses; they gave the green light, since the election is still 18 months away. Totenberg's new intern starts later this month; no word on how much time she'll spend in Washington and how much on the campaign trail.

Now that's one way to get in good with major sources in the rare chance that there's a President John Edwards. Meanwhile, Totenberg is still being honored by liberals for trying to take town Thomas and helping take down Reagan Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg. In April, she joined a long list of liberals in being honored with the Joseph Rauh Lecture at the University of the District of Columbia Law School. One account of the April 9 speech reported:

Moderating the lecture was Wade Henderson, the school’s Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. Professor of Public Interest Law, who asked Totenberg questions that focused on her long and esteemed journalism career, including her award-winning work on the sexual harassment allegations of Anita Hill against then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas and the revelation of Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg’s marijuana use, which in 1987 led him to withdraw his nomination.

Speaking about the 1991 Hill–Thomas story (which Henderson said “forever altered the landscape of judicial appointments”), Totenberg said she had heard rumors about possible misconduct on the part of Thomas, but for a while was unable to pin down anything definite.

“The amazing thing to me is that it stayed secret as long as it did,” she said. “It really was extraordinary to me how many people knew about this but didn’t tell.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/12489

 

[Rosotar]

You say there is no liberal media bias - so why do the posts bug you?

A truly "liberal" media would have crucified Bush long ago!

 

[no1tovote4]

A truly "liberal" media would have crucified Bush long ago!

They seem to be doing quite a good job at it.

 

[red states rule]

A truly "liberal" media would have crucified Bush long ago!

and knowing what a kind and peace loving liberal you are - you would have provided the cross and nails

 

[LuvRPgrl]

bar fine.... isn't that the same as a fine bar? or the cover charge? I have no idea what you are talking about...but your obsession with this is kind of funny given the way you have been slanderously disrespectful to ME since post numero uno.....

and I ain't afraid of nuthin', pal...least of all an LBFM rider like you!

Oh yea, bar fine, fine bar, same thing. sure.
Its not an obsession, you kept responding with lies and I kept calling you on it.
And you dont see the difference between slanderously disrespectful of each other and being that way towards a guys wife? I feel sorry for you, I hope you arent married and dont have any kids.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't mind a bit of biff. I am an arrogant, opinionated prick, I admit that. I can be really nasty with people who have a go at me. I delight in slicing them up. I've taken many shots at you and I have to say you've handled them well. So, yes, I agree, spouse and family are off limits. I'd like to say personal attacks are of limit but in a way who cares. I'm anonymous here so who gives a toss.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I agree - but the attacker needs to be reported and sorted out by the admins. I'd ban his arse forever for that remark.

Ha, when I read the first four sentences, I thought it was one of my own posts !
Oddly enought though, those guys dont bug me a bit. They aint saying it to my wife face to face, they wouldnt dare, but I do like showing how lowly and truly classless they are. You are right, family and wife are off limits, if someone crosses that line, they deserve to be booted or at least harrassed by the other posters until they apologize and knock it off.
I knew maineman wouldnt apologize, and I knew he would deny it. But its there, big as shit. You can go read his post, he asked me how much my wifes bar fine was. Then you go to ANYONE who knows anything about the philippines and they will tell you there is one, and absolutely ONLY ONE thing that refers to.
His spinning is akin to askiing a woman how much she charges for sex, and she gets pissed off claiming you called her a whore, and the guy (maineman) claims "I never called you a WHORE"

when in fact, its basically the exact same thing.

maineman, you can still apologize ya know.

 

[red states rule]

Oh yea, bar fine, fine bar, same thing. sure.
Its not an obsession, you kept responding with lies and I kept calling you on it.
And you dont see the difference between slanderously disrespectful of each other and being that way towards a guys wife? I feel sorry for you, I hope you arent married and dont have any kids.

What do expect from him? His is your typical, run of the mill, arrogrant liberal

To bad, he does have a wife and he probably passed his stupidity on to another generation

 

[red states rule]

Ha, when I read the first four sentences, I thought it was one of my own posts !
Oddly enought though, those guys dont bug me a bit. They aint saying it to my wife face to face, they wouldnt dare, but I do like showing how lowly and truly classless they are. You are right, family and wife are off limits, if someone crosses that line, they deserve to be booted or at least harrassed by the other posters until they apologize and knock it off.
I knew maineman wouldnt apologize, and I knew he would deny it. But its there, big as shit. You can go read his post, he asked me how much my wifes bar fine was. Then you go to ANYONE who knows anything about the philippines and they will tell you there is one, and absolutely ONLY ONE thing that refers to.
His spinning is akin to askiing a woman how much she charges for sex, and she gets pissed off claiming you called her a whore, and the guy (maineman) claims "I never called you a WHORE"

when in fact, its basically the exact same thing.

maineman, you can still apologize ya know.

MM will apologize when Ted Kennedy gives up drinking and Bill Clinton gives up cheating on Hillary

 

[maineman]

Oh yea, bar fine, fine bar, same thing. sure.
Its not an obsession, you kept responding with lies and I kept calling you on it.
And you dont see the difference between slanderously disrespectful of each other and being that way towards a guys wife? I feel sorry for you, I hope you arent married and dont have any kids.

so let me get this straight: when YOU are - quote - slanderously disrespectful - unquote -to ME, that is perfectly acceptable, and totally honorable behavior, but when I poke fun at you by suggesting that a lovely woman like your wife would never have gone for a loser like you without other incentives, I am a horrible heinous person. Have I got that right? You can impugn my character and besmirch my service and call me a traitor all day long and that is totally OK...but when I suggest that I could not imagine a fucking loser like you getting a nice girl to marry you, I am totally off base?

eat shit. I'll apologize the day you do.

Oh..and I am married to a lovely woman and have three delightful children - 32, 20, 18 - all very smart, and successful and all who love their dad.

 

[red states rule]

so let me get this straight: when YOU are - quote - slanderously disrespectful - unquote -to ME, that is perfectly acceptable, and totally honorable behavior, but when I poke fun at you by suggesting that a lovely woman like your wife would never have gone for a loser like you without other incentives, I am a horrible heinous person. Have I got that right? You can impugn my character and besmirch my service and call me a traitor all day long and that is totally OK...but when I suggest that I could not imagine a fucking loser like you getting a nice girl to marry you, I am totally off base?

eat shit. I'll apologize the day you do.

Oh..and I am married to a lovely woman and have three delightful children - 32, 20, 18 - all very smart, and successful and all who love their dad.

MM once again shows his warm and fuzzy side