Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez hits out at the biased media

Like continuing to try to take the high ground in a thread based on a lie?
Sounds alot like the war you support, built on lies

I guess lies are ok for you, you've proven it over and over as long as it's on your side.

 

Where are these personal attacks?
Gtech if anyone goes personal I suggest you look in the mirror

Report me if you feel I am attacking personal. Calling something a lie when it's a lie is not personal. The truth is not personal, or did the definition change?

 

What lie? the only lier in this thread is you saying the reporting is fair

 

More personal attacks from Grim, calling me a liar.

Fortunately, denial isn't an offense, or we could add up some more infractions

 

I was waiting to see what he says about me calling him a lier (GRIM knows it's not personal though)

 

Lie ghee, look at the first post you made, my 2nd post showed this entire thread is built on a lie. At which point you tried to squirm your way out of it.

It was shown they did infact post his views. Yes not in your opinion fair, but they did in fact post them. It's not fair on your side of course unless they totally bypass his words against the war and only attack the so called liberal media.

I never said it was fair now did I? You didnt' say it wasn't fair to start, you said they did not report on it, an outright lie.

Nope Gtech you've proven it time and time again
You've proven denial is not an offense, otherwise you'd of been banned long ago..

BTW, I for one would like to read all he said. If anyone has a link please post it up.

 

Someone is really upset they got owned, again

 

You have a funny definition of 'owned' the only one who got 'owned' is the OP.

Seriously Gtech you might feel you're right here, but wow you're so far off base it's pretty sad even for you. It was shown the thread was built on a lie, you must be in your own reality to believe otherwise.

If that's the extent of your thought process I might just have to hit the ignore button as it's simply annoying above anything.

 

The media headlines used were anti war headlines (news titles to the stories) the stories themselves were 99.5% anti war (with a little mention of the press bashing), they did not report fairly his overall views, that's biased media pure & simple, it really is a shame you defend such corrupt media when it suits.

 

Yet you defend media biased the other way

I also am simply pointing out the truth, biased or not they DID in fact report on it..

 

Suddenly I'm thinking of an old song by Elton John (which really gives me the heebie jeebies, but...)

 

Nothing at all to add to the discussion, totally blind, totally in your own world, totally ignored

First person to have that honor, wear it well. It might not be forever but I honestly am not in the mood for your annoying, tunnel visions and untruths built on your own little reality you've built for yourself.

 

Oh goodie! *Someone* can't deal with their own dishonesty, so is going to put me on ignore!

Viva la Creatine!

 

I'm sorry GRIM but the media in general did not report the media bashing at all, i know it upsets you, but they simply reported the biased anti-war propaganda.

Your attempts to say the media did report the media bashing, by posting an msnbc.com story link, in which they mention the media bashing (in a few lines) after 99.95% of their story was anti war is a false attempt in vain to prove the media did report the media bashing.

Incase you didn't know msnbc.com doesn't represent the media as an whole, they are merely one outlet (although still biased).

Here's other reports:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/w...ka/blZQWqhkP8LXA&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7042805.stm

Did the media cover it? don't go flip flopping

 

Facts don't matter to some people. You could be wearing blue shoes, and *some* would argue until they were dead that you were wearing red shoes.

Biased agendas and dishonesty on the part of *some* here always leads to their demise.

 

Where did GRIM go?

 

• It's going to be a cakewalk.
• Mission Accomplished
• The oil will pay for reconstruction
• The war will only cost $50 billion
• They will welcome us with flowers as liberators
• Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Iraq was involved in 9/11

Are these the arguments that the neocons will carry to their graves?

I love you so much, but you've been duped by marxists and it's sad that no matter how hard I try, I cannot reach you.

 

I'm glad you have shown up; Was this fair reporting IYO?

 

Toopac it's not hard to admit you were wrong, other sources are not all media as well
Yet show you have no problem with biased reports that are pro war

The link already posted on the forums here for the story did in fact talk about the media, yet your thread started AFTER the original on here claimed they did not talk about it at all = a blatant lie.

Anything else is an attempt to twist your way out of it after the fact. Your prowar cheerleaders can cheer all they want, it just makes your crowd wrong just as you've been for years

 

I was sleeping if you must know

BTW it's a bit different 'biased' compared to not reporting at all.
Fox is very biased, that doesn't stop you from using it now does it?

In order to know if something is biased one would need to see the entire transcript would we not? How on earth can you say if something is biased without knowing the entire picture, unless of course you just want to jump to that conclusion.

Biased or not that still is not the point, there is a difference from not reporting at all to not reporting as much of a side as you wished.