Latest study that further proves the Big 3 have a liberal bias

[Boo Radley]

I rest my case... A person that's so dishonest that he won't answer questions.

Why in the world anyone believe a person who's argument is so weak that it can't stand up to scrutiny, is beyond me.

You are a fraud Boo.

No, I'll answer questions, but with an actual answer. Not playing dishonest games with you.

 

[BWWzfc]

I can't help what you don't understand. :coffeepap

lol--Right, because it's too much to ask you for clarification or specifics.

“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

If the shell fits ...

 

[Boo Radley]

lol--Right, because it's too much to ask you for clarification or specifics.

“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

If the shell fits ...

That is what you did often, but again, I can't help what you don't understand. :coffeepap

 

[BWWzfc]

I can't help what you don't understand.

And that one shouldn't come from a person who dodges questions and refers vaguely to things he supposedly wrote some time in the past.

 

[Boo Radley]

And that one shouldn't come from a person who dodges questions and refers vaguely to things he supposedly wrote some time in the past.

Look, I know you like playing games, but no question has been dodged. All answered. But I can't help what you don't understand.

 

[pbrauer]

I rest my case... A person that's so dishonest that he won't answer questions.

Why in the world anyone believe a person who's argument is so weak that it can't stand up to scrutiny, is beyond me.

You are a fraud Boo.

How can you "rest your case" when you have no case to begin with. The networks have been cutting down on pre-election stories for years. You simply can't say that the absence of stories is liberal bias, if there is anyone who is a fraud it is you. You cannot also say the lack of stories benefit liberals, because those stories would have alerted many liberals to get off their collective duff and vote.
Face it Grim, you take your talking points from Brent Bozell and the MRC.

 

[Grim17]

Look, I know you like playing games, but no question has been dodged. All answered. But I can't help what you don't understand.

OK Boo... Answer this question:

Which of the following statements, if said on the NBC Nightly News, would make the conservatives viewpoint expressed seem less credible than the other?

1. ...but some on the right disagree with the president. A group of conservatives gathered at the Capitol today to express their opposition to Obama's decision...

2. ...but some on the far right disagree with the president. A group of conservatives gathered at the Capitol today to express their opposition to Obama's decision...

 

[Meister]

How can you "rest your case" when you have no case to begin with. The networks have been cutting down on pre-election stories for years. You simply can't say that the absence of stories is liberal bias, if there is anyone who is a fraud it is you. You cannot also say the lack of stories benefit liberals, because those stories would have alerted many liberals to get off their collective duff and vote.
Face it Grim, you take your talking points from Brent Bozell and the MRC.

Thanks for your opinion....duly noted.
Grim does have a case and the facts actually do bare them out.
It's a typical left wing tactic to avoid the facts and try and smear the messenger.....also duly noted.

Carry on

 

[pbrauer]

Thanks for your opinion....duly noted.
Grim does have a case and the facts actually do bare them out.
It's a typical left wing tactic to avoid the facts and try and smear the messenger.....also duly noted.

Carry on

Your opinion is duly noted, as well. It's the conclusion based upon the facts that we are talking about. How many stories were cover in the 2010 midterms? I'll bet they were down from 2006.

What were the stores covered in 2006? 2014?

 

[Grim17]

The networks have been cutting down on pre-election stories for years.

In ABC's case, it went from 36 to 0... LMMFAO

...and btw Pete, they are called "statistics", not talking points.

 

[pbrauer]

In ABC's case, it went from 36 to 0... LMMFAO

...and btw Pete, they are called "statistics", not talking points.

Yeah they went 36 to 0 in eight ****ing years? LMMFAO.

So ****ing what? It sure wasn't about politics.

 

[mpg]

Not impossible, but also not the point. There is simply no likelihood in a random world that unequal circumstances and events would turn out equal results in a situation like this. trying to force an equal count would in and of itself be evidence of a bias.



Thinking you see it doesn't actually prove it. Like I said, this is the trouble with perception. It's often wrong.




No, it's relevant for all definitions. Anytime you ignore a variable, you will get a false result.

I didn't read past the part that I underlined because it was mind boggling.

When you have a political issue, not a scientific issue, and deciding which side to agree with is purely a matter of opinion, the media shouldn't be letting one side defend their position without letting the other side defend their position. If you disagree with that, please say so. I see the MSM do this routinely.

 

[Grim17]

Yeah they went 36 to 0 in eight ****ing years? LMMFAO.

So ****ing what? It sure wasn't about politics.

OMG... From 36 to 0 and it isn't about politics... ROFLMMFAO

 

[Boo Radley]

OK Boo... Answer this question:

Which of the following statements, if said on the NBC Nightly News, would make the conservatives viewpoint expressed seem less credible than the other?

1. ...but some on the right disagree with the president. A group of conservatives gathered at the Capitol today to express their opposition to Obama's decision...

2. ...but some on the far right disagree with the president. A group of conservatives gathered at the Capitol today to express their opposition to Obama's decision...

Ahh, but you're doing what I asked. Language. Now, was it far right or more representative of the right? But that's the proper way to tackle it, with the language and not mere negative or positive.

 

[Boo Radley]

I didn't read past the part that I underlined because it was mind boggling.

When you have a political issue, not a scientific issue, and deciding which side to agree with is purely a matter of opinion, the media shouldn't be letting one side defend their position without letting the other side defend their position. If you disagree with that, please say so. I see the MSM do this routinely.

There is no evidence they are not doing that. however, a news program is probably not the place, as they are concerned not with sides defending or promoting anything but the facts. That's why I brought up GW. To treat the minority view like the majority view would be showing a bias. Its not for them to present any side, but to instead report what the consensus view is. They would only report a difference if there was any real and recognized debate. And no, you don't see MSM doing anything of the kind IMHO. I would have to say what bothers people most is when they don't see their bias getting front and center treatment. Like those who claim the media is biased because they don't treat the fringe like the mainstream in reporting GW.

 

[Grim17]

Ahh, but you're doing what I asked. Language. Now, was it far right or more representative of the right? But that's the proper way to tackle it, with the language and not mere negative or positive.

I knew you wouldn't answer the question... You are a total fraud Boo.

 

[pbrauer]

OMG... From 36 to 0 and it isn't about politics... ROFLMMFAO

Of course it's not about politics, it's about ratings and making a profit. Network producers jobs are on the line based upon the ratings they generate. Network news is serious business and adds to the prestige of the Network.

Again, you are just parrroting what Brent Bozel and his MRC tell you.

If the networks were honest they would report to the public how much dark money (Citizens United) and gerrymandering allowed the Republicans win last Tuesday.

 

[Boo Radley]

I knew you wouldn't answer the question... You are a total fraud Boo.

Grim, how can you honestly say I didn't answer? Yes, the language can show bias. But I need to know more, like who was actually protesting. Did they label themselfs as far right, or how was that term arrived at. Do you want an honest answer or not?

 

[Grim17]

Grim, how can you honestly say I didn't answer? Yes, the language can show bias. But I need to know more, like who was actually protesting. Did they label themselfs as far right, or how was that term arrived at. Do you want an honest answer or not?

Boo, just give it up... It was a straight forward question that as predicted, you did not answer.

You could have chosen #1, or you could have chosen #2, but just as I knew would happen, you chose neither... That's because you are a fraud that's only interested in peddling you phony politically motivated nonsense on those who are too weak minded to see through your bull.

 

[mpg]

There is no evidence they are not doing that. however, a news program is probably not the place, as they are concerned not with sides defending or promoting anything but the facts. That's why I brought up GW. To treat the minority view like the majority view would be showing a bias. Its not for them to present any side, but to instead report what the consensus view is. They would only report a difference if there was any real and recognized debate. And no, you don't see MSM doing anything of the kind IMHO. I would have to say what bothers people most is when they don't see their bias getting front and center treatment. Like those who claim the media is biased because they don't treat the fringe like the mainstream in reporting GW.

AGW is a science issue. This is about issues like Obamacare.

 

[Boo Radley]

Boo, just give it up... It was a straight forward question that as predicted, you did not answer.

You could have chosen #1, or you could have chosen #2, but just as I knew would happen, you chose neither... That's because you are a fraud that's only interested in peddling you phony politically motivated nonsense on those who are too weak minded to see through your bull.

So, you don't want an honest discussion? Do you know what I said?

 

[Boo Radley]

AGW is a science issue. This is about issues like Obamacare.

Yes it is a science issue, but one of the areas some say show bias. Even saying Obamacare shows a conservative bias. It is really ACA.

 

[mpg]

Yes it is a science issue, but one of the areas some say show bias.

Disproving one accusation doesn't disprove all accusations, so your comments about AGW have no relevance to other issues, such as whether or not we should have stricter gun control, or whether a politician's party affiliation when they get arrested is more relevant if they're a Republican, or elections, which is the topic of this thread, unless you're saying that the 2014 election was just a hoax, and never really happened. You still haven't attacked the OP with anything substantive. You'd have better luck proving that global warming is a hoax.

Even saying Obamacare shows a conservative bias. It is really ACA.

Even ACA is just a nickname. The official name is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Why do you say it's conservative to call it Obamacare, when Obama himself said that he likes that nickname?

 

[Grim17]

So, you don't want an honest discussion?

I gave up on having an honest discussion with you a very long time ago, when it became crystal clear that you're only honest when it's convienient to your cause.

Do you know what I said?

I know what you didn't say... You didn't say "the answer is #1", or "the answer is #2" and until that happens, there's no place to go here.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Disproving one accusation doesn't disprove all accusations, so your comments about AGW have no relevance to other issues, such as whether or not we should have stricter gun control, or whether a politician's party affiliation when they get arrested is more relevant if they're a Republican, or elections, which is the topic of this thread, unless you're saying that the 2014 election was just a hoax, and never really happened. You still haven't attacked the OP with anything substantive. You'd have better luck proving that global warming is a hoax.

Even ACA is just a nickname. The official name is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Why do you say it's conservative to call it Obamacare, when Obama himself said that he likes that nickname?

True. I have watched people from left leaning news organizations ask Obama if he minds the term "Obamacare" and he is always quick to say that he does not mind it. It just saves time and trouble to use that term and just about every news organization does use it in one way or another.

Especially when they are reporting two separate incidents now where the Obama Administration was heard saying that they act got through Congress only because the American public was so stupid they bought the hype.

Just today:

Video footage surfaced this week of MIT economist and chief architect of the Affordable Care Act Jonathan Gruber saying that the health law only passed because of the 'stupidity of the American voter.' How far will the repercussions reverberate?. . .
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...d-voters-let-bill-pass.-White-House-face-palm
​

Now given all the support the leftwing media has given the ACA over recent years, I wonder how many will actually report this? Speaking of media bias.