• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's some liberal bias for you from CNN

ptif219 said:
So total negative on one and total optimism on the other is not Bias?
Click to expand...

First, that hasn't been the case. But yes, in a hypothetical where one person is doing a lot of very positive things and the other is messing up constantly, it would be very one sided and not be biased.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, then you failed to make that point. Badly.
Click to expand...

well, some people are just really hard to get thru to

1. what went down between aig and the sec?

2. why don't you know?

point made

finally

LOL!
 
Boo Radley said:
in a hypothetical where one person is doing a lot of very positive things and the other is messing up constantly, it would be very one sided and not be biased.
Click to expand...

in a hypothetical...

LOL!

what an idiot

do you get it yet?

what-went-down-between-aig-and-the-sec?

why-don't-you-know?

all hypotheticals aside

LOL!
 
The Prof said:
in a hypothetical...

LOL!

what an idiot

do you get it yet?

what-went-down-between-aig-and-the-sec?

why-don't-you-know?

all hypotheticals aside

LOL!
Click to expand...

I do know, but you have shown nothing that makes any sense concerning it. Again, the issue is well reported on. Do a google search and you will see it.
 
of course i haven't said anything

all i do is keep asking

questions you don't know the answer to

but i'm so gratified that at least you finally understand the questions (you can't answer)

LOL!

1. what went down btwn aig and the sec?

2. why don't you know?

and, no, it's NOT in google search

which is WHY YOU DON'T KNOW

LOL!

what an idiot
 
Boo Radley said:
First, that hasn't been the case. But yes, in a hypothetical where one person is doing a lot of very positive things and the other is messing up constantly, it would be very one sided and not be biased.
Click to expand...

Obama Positive? That is an oxymoron
 
The Prof said:
of course i haven't said anything

all i do is keep asking

questions you don't know the answer to

but i'm so gratified that at least you finally understand the questions (you can't answer)

LOL!

1. what went down btwn aig and the sec?

2. why don't you know?

and, no, it's NOT in google search

which is WHY YOU DON'T KNOW

LOL!

what an idiot
Click to expand...

Prove it. Provide something I can't find. BTW, if you can't find it, how do any of us know it actually happened? I think you're blowing smoke.
 
i couldn't care less what you think

you have no idea what's going on

you talk too much and say nothing

how can a person SAY anything if he or she doesn't KNOW what's going on

go thru drudge archives

or, easier, go thru the prof's

like i said, it's all over all the BIASED sources

LOL!

it's the biggest reason the cbc is so pissed

at GEITHNER, at the NY FED, at AIG, at the SEC...

where YOU been?
 
The Prof said:
i couldn't care less what you think

you have no idea what's going on

you talk too much and say nothing

how can a person SAY anything if he or she doesn't KNOW what's going on

go thru drudge archives

or, easier, go thru the prof's

like i said, it's all over all the BIASED sources

LOL!

it's the biggest reason the cbc is so pissed

at GEITHNER, at the NY FED, at AIG, at the SEC...

where YOU been?
Click to expand...

Drudge gets a lot wrong, so you'll have to be more specific. Again, you're really just blowing smoke.
 
i aint blowin nothing

the cbc is

i'm just asking

why is it again that YOU DON'T KNOW what went down between the aig and the sec?

ask peter defazio

do you KNOW who he is?

LOL!
 
The Prof said:
i aint blowin nothing

the cbc is

i'm just asking

why is it again that YOU DON'T KNOW what went down between the aig and the sec?

ask peter defazio

do you KNOW who he is?

LOL!
Click to expand...


Yes, I know the congressman. So, quit playing and be specific. I bet you have nothing accurate that I don't already know or can't fine.
 
it's already been demonstrated (qed) that you DON'T KNOW and CAN'T FINE

LOL!
 
you see, that's your problem, right there

it's not about ME

it's about geithner, the cbc, the ny fed, aig and the sec

your petty little pursuit of personality is why you don't know what's going on

that, and your bias which blinds

thanks for the little cartoon, tho

LOL!
 
The Prof said:
you see, that's your problem, right there

it's not about ME

it's about geithner, the cbc, the ny fed, aig and the sec

your petty little pursuit of personality is why you don't know what's going on

that, and your bias which blinds

thanks for the little cartoon, tho

LOL!
Click to expand...

It becomes about you when you can't give anything specific. Again, I don't see you giving us anything unknown or not reported on. When asked for specifics, you speak too general as to have anything we can check on. Again, I believe you don't have anything. If you did, you'd present it.
 
Grim17 said:
Just watch Rush's face during the clips from 2006... Priceless

YouTube- Rush exposes CNN bias
Click to expand...

The video has been removed, but I did hear Rush's diatribe. Lost in his usual intellectual dishonest was one very important point: Bush's numbers were in the 29-35% approval range, meaning a SUPER majority disapproved. That IS news. Obama's numbers are about 50%. Given that 48% never voted for the man in the first place, falling to just below 50% in approval is NOT news.

If Obama's numbers should ever be as pathetic as those of is predecessor, it would be noteworthy, and CNN could then be blasted for not giving them due news status...
 
Boo Radley said:
Much. Just a simple search:

Drudge gets it wrong - Blogcritics Culture

BREAKING: Drudge links to Politico 45 times during its two-month existence | Media Matters for America

Reuters Pulls 'Backdoor Taxes' Story | TPM LiveWire
Click to expand...


Ummmm....So let's see here....Media Matters or TPM, both of which are notoriously left leaning in their analysis of issues, say that Politico, and Reuters both got stories wrong, but that somehow its Drudge's fault because he posted the links?

That is some real stretching you are doing.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Ummmm....So let's see here....Media Matters or TPM, both of which are notoriously left leaning in their analysis of issues, say that Politico, and Reuters both got stories wrong, but that somehow its Drudge's fault because he posted the links?

That is some real stretching you are doing.


j-mac
Click to expand...

They leap without looking into it, yes. But as I said, this was just the first few of a search. ;)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lamo



/facepalm
Click to expand...
As you can see Boo is not about to acknowledge that Drudge in fact does no reporting, as long as he can point to allegations that headlines at the Drudge website get "much" wrong. Well, actually not so much as he thought he would be able to find, ah but it appears he will be back to disabuse us on the matter. What else to expect from a poster who in another thread (http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/68172-liberal-media.html) assures us that he has personally debunked every single thing we were presenting therein. Three decades of study, polling and documentation on the subject of mainstream media bias.

He seriously stated that. That my friends is the internet cha cha ala Boo.
 
upsideguy said:
The video has been removed, but I did hear Rush's diatribe. Lost in his usual intellectual dishonest was one very important point: Bush's numbers were in the 29-35% approval range, meaning a SUPER majority disapproved. That IS news. Obama's numbers are about 50%. Given that 48% never voted for the man in the first place, falling to just below 50% in approval is NOT news.

If Obama's numbers should ever be as pathetic as those of is predecessor, it would be noteworthy, and CNN could then be blasted for not giving them due news status...
Click to expand...

This is disingenuous if you do not use Bush numbers for the same time in his presidency. You can not compare 1 year figures to 8 year figures and be credible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom