Gie
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 248
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Look closer...
View attachment 67150028View attachment 67150029View attachment 67150030View attachment 67150031View attachment 67150032
When you start to look at the evidence...it is compelling.
That is a COMPLETE 100% LIE and you know it...
I guess that makes the 3 people who "Liked" your lying post, justabubba, TheDemSocialist and pbrauer, supporters of lies as long as those lies prop up their political beliefs... Whadda ya say boys?
p.s. don't bother responding Pete, I already know you aren't capable of doing anything else but sticking to that lie because it would clash with your beliefs, and we all know politics always comes before the truth with you.
So true, but then are not ALL the pbrauer Media Matters threads? For a long time I never understood how he kept UP the energy to keep posting their crack until I saw this product placement...............:shock:This thread is on crack.
Oh Pete Pete Pete ... shame on you.
So true, but then are not ALL the pbrauer Media Matters threads? For a long time I never understood how he kept UP the energy to keep posting their crack until I saw this product placement...............:shock:
:roll: The "liberal media" talking point is so lame so overused its now a joke.
I like how no one has mentioned how Matthews described Newt; its dumb when either side does it and its stupid squared when they both do it.
The nothing like a suggestion that the media could be a little biased to get certain neuticles in a knot.
Of course it is, and Fox and the MRC are as guilty as anyone of being biased. What gets me is here's this Bozell guy selling victimhood, and the side that always talks about "personal reponsibility" buys that they're victims. He's as bad as Al Sharpton when it comes to peddling that, he just picks a different crowd.
Why don't they start more conservative outlets? Simple -- loss of profit. If someone else was "telling the truth," Fox, the MRC, and countless radio shockers would lose money.
It's really up to each of us to separate the wheat (pronounced "hwheat") from the chaff. I don't buy into the bleatings of either liberal or conservative sources that pop up on a daily basis saying incendiary things, and neither should others. I don't buy into everything someone like Brent Bozell says on any particular issue, even though he does have some points to make on media bias. When he drifts afield into political content, he's no more or less a partisan than any other player, and he will say some questionable stuff. So what? There's plenty of crappy stuff said by talking heads to go around for both sides to remain permanently offended.Of course it is, and Fox and the MRC are as guilty as anyone of being biased. What gets me is here's this Bozell guy selling victimhood, and the side that always talks about "personal reponsibility" buys that they're victims. He's as bad as Al Sharpton when it comes to peddling that, he just picks a different crowd.
Why don't they start more conservative outlets? Simple -- loss of profit. If someone else was "telling the truth," Fox, the MRC, and countless radio shockers would lose money.
Yet ... it's existence is undeniably true ... and obvious to most observers
So which news organization is balanced? ... i.e. you can't detect a preference.
'It's really up to each of us to separate the wheat (pronounced "hwheat") from the chaff. I don't buy into the bleatings of either liberal or conservative sources that pop up on a daily basis saying incendiary things, and neither should others. I don't buy into everything someone like Brent Bozell says on any particular issue, even though he does have some points to make on media bias. When he drifts afield into political content, he's no more or less a partisan than any other player, and he will say some questionable stuff. So what? There's plenty of crappy stuff said by talking heads to go around for both sides to remain permanently offended.
Notice how i did not say "there are not any liberals on the media". There are certainly liberal commentators but that does not mean the media as a whole is a liberal...
Heh. Well, I'm biased. I don't see anything wrong with what Brent said. It's inflammatory. That's why he said it, and it's no different than calling Palin an inbred cretin or whatever insult the left dreams up for the target of the day or week. The truth is that Obama plays his race to every advantage he can. I don't blame him, but the notion that he's immune from having such things come back on him from time to time is silly. I think the poster that put the image of Dave Chapelle here has it right. It's time to lighten up a little on the race issue. I think the image of Obama as a crack head is pretty funny - it's a lot funnier if Brent stays out of it, but funny none the less. Bush was constantly portrayed as the Mad Magazine character, and I thought that was funny as well. They may be president, but they're still human. That bias exists, and it does, is not a reason in and of itself for debate beyond the admission that it exists. We know the sources.'
My own personal opinion -- this particular forum doesn't serve much purpose because of exactly what you said. I would say if you don't like what a commentator said, that could go somewhere else in most cases. Then we can spend more time debating what they said instead of yelling about who's more biased.
I don't think there is such a thing. The First Amendment is working as intended.