Today's Terrorists

What is bias is someone who prints his opinion as fact, when it is pure fiction.

Yeah, the sky is falling. The world is coming to an end. Doom and gloom. That's all you ever spout is doom and gloom. It's a real downer.

 

I agree with you GTech, when are you going to quit the Fox News Propaganda game you play, everyone knows they are phony

Look up these keywords folks.

Rupert Murdock Republican Propaganda

Do a search on the above keywords and you will see how GTech follows in the same path as Fox News and Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson

 

No, Nixon actually had a VP that was a crook, and resigned as such. He had two VP's durning his presidency, one of which went on to be President.

What concerns me when it comes to your grasp of reality is why you always bring Nixon into every debate that concerns Bush. This insecurity on your part worries me. Are you ok?

You honestly need to give a lot more time to a presidency to see what the long term affects are.

You don't like Bush. You don't like Nixon. Whoopie. I guess I am to believe that if you do not like someone, they must be bad. That's a really intelligent way of looking at things. I wonder why I never thought of doing that?

 

Anthony, do you owe your greatness to a vision of your own country's ruin?

What you do is wrong. It's one thing to take reasonable objections to issues and debate them with some sort of factual evidence and passion. But what you do...that's shameful. You may be nice outside of politics, but what you do when you purposefully put your country down with made up stories...that's just wrong.

There's no honor in what you do.

Fox News is the highest rated news on Cable TV. It pounces it's competitors in ratings. One reason is becuase when they talk about issues, they have a representative from the Democrat/Republican side, as well as Pro/Con points of views on others, and give people the opportunity to make their own minds up.

Do a search? Nah, you search. Here's a hint: Just becuase you go to your fav search engine and type in: hillary clinton has large testicles

...and results actually come up, it doesn't mean she really has large testicles.

 

Sorry GTech, Bush Senior ruined this country long ago and made sure he did when those old goats from his administration stole the 2000 election

 

HEY! Gtech, aren't you the one that supports using facts, and not attacking and labeling?

That's what this is, mia

Proove it. You never prove anything, you just insult and make fun of stuff implying it is rediculous, but I haven'y seen any reasoning, FFS.

I don't care what your opinion is, I know what it is, if you've got something about the credibility of the report, then show it. What does 'The holy grail of news' supposed to mean?
How are they making up the news? There are hardly any more credible news sites than the BBC, you moron. And don't give me that satire humour bit, or I will invoke the -

That is satire, my friend.

Same for you, gtech. I thought you understood what logic and facts were, and then turn around and do this.

I thought you meant it when you said this:

Especially after I pointed out that even that facts we choose to use, can still be biased.

Man, what lame replies. You want to tell me, one - why Palist is a nut, and then, why what this report shows in bogus?

Or is this just another smear to discredit someone who points out the ugly truth that you don't want to admit.
I hardy think newsline, on BBC, hires crackpots to report. They have a reputation, they have to be credible.



Give me a break already.

BTW, this is common knowledge: "Ronald Reagan was a conman. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer.." That sounds like there must have been reasons for Palists conclusion here. That is certainly the conclusion I came to about the Reagan conduct in Iran. I went over this already with the Oliver North hearings. It was 'proved'. Either that, or Reagan was more of an imecile than he appears, that was a point too. He had to know.

But I don't care about Reagan or if he knew, that isn't the point. Using Palists comments on Reagan to say palist is a nut.... LMAOx2

Unreal.

Man, I am glad you pointed that out, anthony, I never would have known.

 

And conveniently mik you skip right over:

That's rationale, that's reasoning. There is so much political bias in our news media here in the US with all three networks blatanly against Bush, if there was anything credible on this report by someone who is clearly as far-left as they get, it would be news. Instead, it's right where it belongs. A one time article that is posted on far-left sites, along with his other looney material.

News organizations don't hire crack pots? Guess you never heard of Ted Rall

 

You know what Anthony? Do not listen to attacks on you, or loaded questions about your 'alliances'!

When you have to resort to attacking the person instead of his message, that means you admit defeat.

EWvery single time they call you personally into question, anthony, it show they are afraid to rebut your point.

If anyone waqnts to character assasinate, fine, who cares, but back up your arguments with condratictory evidence.

Any fool can make fun of someone, that is the intellectual equivelant of kindergarten.

Anthony, you don't have to prove nothing about where you are coming from, the fact that you bother with this stuff shows deep concern for what is really going on in the world, and the fact that others attack your character shows that they are only concerned with is winning an argument to save face.

 

My point exactly, GTech. You still do the same thing, attack Palist, not what he says.

Use fact. Everything else is meaningless.

 

Also, the US news is suspect most the time, it is seen as 'not to be trusted for the truth.

 

GTech always says that the media is against Bush, well they should investigate he and Cheney so we can move to impeach them.

They do have one network that is just like the RNC, pure Republican propaganda and hype, Jerry Falwell loves Fox News.

http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat...ck+Republican+Propaganda+&rys=0&_sb_lang=pref



Fox news is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is not even an American but wants to brainwash Americans into supporting the "OIL WARS"

 

Yea, making up your own version of the truth shows deep concern. That's the ticket, make him a martyr!

 

In my opinion, that's the problem with most news from anywhere. Selling newspapers, keeping viewers, bottom line, etc, all seem to outweigh solid facts. Reporters easily jump to conclusions and editors print what is sellable, not what is news. It's tough to know what is bias and what is not. I'm not saying that all news is false, but that things need to be kept in perspective when reading it. Lord knows where the truth ever really lies.

 

We've gotta give CBS an A for effort.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009245.php

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Broadcast Bias.htm

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/pg20041022.shtml

 

Sure thing man.

Fact: Rupert Murdock is an Australian, not an American, so what on earth would he have to gain from spreading "Republican propaganda" as you call it?

Fact: Rupert Murdock is a Democrat, so what would he have to gain from spreading "Republican propaganda" as you call it?

Fact: Rupert Murdock endorsed John Kerry in the 04 election, so what would he have to gain from spreading "Republican propaganda" as you call it?

I'm not sure I follow you. Wait, I guess we can add Rupert Murdock to another in a long list of people that Anthony does not like. Because after all, if Anthony does not like them, they must be bad.

As to Fox news, I am not certain how it always comes up in your posts along with things like Nixon. Since you mentioned it though, one thing I have noticed about other networks like MSNBC is that they have altered their formats and reporting to be more like Fox, ie., report news, not make it up, or add editorial comment. It's a nice change. I find myself watching a lot of MSNBC lately.

 

Figures you would fall for the Fox News BS that is promoted by someone that is not even an American GTech, yea you love your country

Yeah OK Mia, look at the next search then come back and tell us that Rupert Murdoch backed John Kerry, did you make that up to continue living in your fairy tale

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=Rupert+Murdoch+George+Bush

 

So you are saying that when a reporter reports the news (does not inject editorial comment, or snickers), it's BS?

Fox is so middle of the road even with their shows like Hanity and Comles its really hard to call it "BS".

I like watching a program that does not have agenda to shove down my throat. I've always found Fox to be extremely balanced on their talk shows. As far as news reporting, it's pretty much just the facts. Like they say "Fair and Balanced" and "We report you decide." It's refreshing to say the least.

If I wanted a one sided talk show I would watch Bill Maher. I'm still trying to get a discount on my HBO because of that flop of a show Thank God there's "Deadwood", or I would have canned HBO long ago.

 

I agree, wendydettmer. That is one of the premier reasons I look to BBC, they are not privately owned, and are not profit driven like private companies.

Here, from wikipedia:

Many of their reports are featured on PBS.

I looked Palast on google. He is a NYTimes bestselling author for "The best democracy Money Can Buy". I see all kinds of places using his reports, and many, many good reviews on his book and works.

I am tired of this method of 'debating'. Mudslinging. Reduse everyone you don't like to a label. And then paint pictures and judgements on that label as a means of discrediting every one that label applies to. Eg., 'Liberals', 'left leaning' the 'media has a left bias'. Everything the neo-cons don't like is left biased. I don't think you can even get any more right than the Neo-cons and 'new Republicans', or they would ocasionally accuse people or media as being 'right-leaning'.
Everything is to the left of the boys in the white house. That doesn't add up very well. Sounds slanted to me. Slanted right.


gtech, this is your best?

But back to wendydettmar, I know what you mean, it is getting to be work to check everything out because you can hardly trust anything you are told these days!

 

"Stole the 2000 election", here we go again. Stole from who? To steal something, implies it was someone else's before it was stolen.

This is getting old.

 

BTW, I keep meaning to say this. I am English speaking, but it is my second language, even to me sometimes. The first? some kind of maniacal rambling? LOL