Left Wing Lie Of The Hour (Including Ones About The Fictional Right Wing Media)

[aquapub]

That enormous partial list of inappropriate relationships between Democrats and nearly every household name journalist in the country I provided should raise some red flags with those of you who defend the media as if you are some kind of O.J. juror, unable to grasp mountains of evidence all pointing at the same thing.

Acting like this isn’t a major conflict of interest or like such enormous liberal presence doesn’t make its way into our news reports is not only a great way to make an ass of yourself; it is not only disproved by literally hundreds of examples that can’t be explained by anything other than media bias; it is also the literal equivalent of putting Enron on trial with 11 of the twelve jurors being Enron executives. It is impossible to consider the verdict anywhere near objective.

 

[Touchmaster]

The majority of the media in the US is propaganda for the rich elite, that is all there is to it, forget all this facile 'liberal'vs'conservative' rubbish which are media soundbites designed to divide and rule.

 

[aquapub]

MODERATORS

There are apparently a couple of ego-sensitive people on here that are threatened by someone claiming to have actually done something with themselves. Initially, it was just hipsterdufus challenging the authenticity of the award I earned for my research on liberal media bias, so it wasn't taken seriously.

But now there is a second person. I would like to put this to rest. So I have scanned in a copy of the award and a copy of the cover of the portfolio, but the "manage attachments" thing is telling me these images exceed the forum's KB limit. It is 97.7 and my images are 310.

I am too technologically impaired to know how to get around this. Do any of the moderators here know a way I can get these images on the site? If not, then what about if I emailed them to a moderator and then the moderator emailed them to the people expressing doubt about the award?

 

[libertarian_knight]

"Real gansta ass niggas don't flex nuts, 'cause real gansta ass niggas know they got 'em."

 

[aquapub]

"Real gansta ass niggas don't flex nuts, 'cause real gansta ass niggas know they got 'em."

As much as it pains me to respond to anything in ebonics, this isn't about bragging, it is about someone trying to cast doubt on evidence and me needing to prove them wrong.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I anxiously await the receipt of your paper.

 

[aquapub]

I anxiously await the receipt of your paper.

The moderators are struggling to sort out technical problems. Privately send me your email address and I will send you copies of both the award and the cover of the project. Then, if anyone else cares to dispute it, I will send it to them as well.

How about that?

 

[aquapub]

Here is another smear story by the networks against conservative Supreme Court members. Funny how they never do stories like this on the radical feminist affiliations and memberships of Ginsburg or anything ACTUAL conflicts of interest like that.


http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060126.asp#3

 

[hipsterdufus]

The moderators are struggling to sort out technical problems. Privately send me your email address and I will send you copies of both the award and the cover of the project. Then, if anyone else cares to dispute it, I will send it to them as well.

How about that?

No problem, I'm more interested in the data and references rather than the cover.

What would a cover show?

 

[aquapub]

No problem, I'm more interested in the data and references rather than the cover.

What would a cover show?

It's EXISTENCE and the claim that it won an academic award are what have been challenged. The cover and the award will remedy this.

And there is no way in hell I am going to sit here and scan in over 200 pages of research.

 

[aquapub]

Bill O’Reilly has been harping on this liberal judge in Vermont who gave a child rapist only 60 days in jail because he stopped “believing in punishment.” The judge has now re-sentenced him to 3-10 years.

In reporting on this tonight, O’Reilly made an interesting point:

92% of people polled said they disagreed with the original sentence. Yet all the papers and local TV news outlets in Vermont just resorted to attacking O’Reilly instead of reporting on the story. Americans were expressly outraged about the sentence from coast to coast, and the major national papers largely disregarded this whole story as well.

This demonstrates how far left the media is of middle America.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182860,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182871,00.html

 

[libertarian_knight]

Bill O’Reilly has been harping on this liberal judge in Vermont who gave a child rapist only 60 days in jail because he stopped “believing in punishment.” The judge has now re-sentenced him to 3-10 years.

In reporting on this tonight, O’Reilly made an interesting point:

92% of people polled said they disagreed with the original sentence. Yet all the papers and local TV news outlets in Vermont just resorted to attacking O’Reilly instead of reporting on the story. Americans were expressly outraged about the sentence from coast to coast, and the major national papers largely disregarded this whole story as well.

This demonstrates how far left the media is of middle America.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182860,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182871,00.html

anyone happen to mention the reason the judge gave 60 days? so the outrage would force a department of teh government essentially put him in a psychiatric facility for life.

the judge, actually wanted to put the guy away from life, but was denied so by the state.

That's why vermont papers defended the judge, because they knew OR'ielly Convieniently ommitted many important points in the case.

 

[Engimo]

It's EXISTENCE and the claim that it won an academic award are what have been challenged. The cover and the award will remedy this.

And there is no way in hell I am going to sit here and scan in over 200 pages of research.

You know, if it's been published anywhere we can look it up on Google Scholar and I (and most people attending a university) can have access to it. How about you just tell us the title of whatever it is?

 

[aquapub]

Here is one that addresses all the deceptive rhetoric going around about how much support Bush has on this eavesdropping thing:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060127.asp#2



Here is one with Comrade Olbermann interviewing a woman who ALWAYS defends the left, in every nauseatingly phony column she writes. In this spew session, she claims that Clinton was a more honest liar, so it was ok when he did it...? (And she still can't prove that Bush lied about anything):

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060127.asp#3


Here is a look into what the far left of center media thinks "conservative" means:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060127.asp#4

 

[aquapub]

You know, if it's been published anywhere we can look it up on Google Scholar and I (and most people attending a university) can have access to it. How about you just tell us the title of whatever it is?

It is a 200+ page portfolio assembled and written by me. It wasn't reprinted anywhere. If you want me to email you what I emailed hipsterdufus (the award and the cover) let me know.

 

[aquapub]

anyone happen to mention the reason the judge gave 60 days? so the outrage would force a department of teh government essentially put him in a psychiatric facility for life.

the judge, actually wanted to put the guy away from life, but was denied so by the state.

That's why vermont papers defended the judge, because they knew OR'ielly Convieniently ommitted many important points in the case.

You must not have watched the show (which I find common of people who think they know what a liar he is-based on nothing more than the word of his political enemies in the liberal media. I am not assuming that you are like this, but I have met a lot of people who are like David Letterman and say 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap, but then admit to never having watched the show).

He had on several people defending the judge's decision and they DID make these points. O'Reilly then started giving them examples of people who have been declared "healed" by the system and released to do harm again. He also brought up the concept of justice. The man needs to be put away for good, whether it fixes him (which O'Reilly and most Americans feel is impossible) or not.

 

[Engimo]

It is a 200+ page portfolio assembled and written by me. It wasn't reprinted anywhere. If you want me to email you what I emailed hipsterdufus (the award and the cover) let me know.

I would very much like that. A scan of a couple pages would be nice, too.

 

[libertarian_knight]

You must not have watched the show (which I find common of people who think they know what a liar he is-based on nothing more than the word of his political enemies in the liberal media. I am not assuming that you are like this, but I have met a lot of people who are like David Letterman and say 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap, but then admit to never having watched the show).

He had on several people defending the judge's decision and they DID make these points. O'Reilly then started giving them examples of people who have been declared "healed" by the system and released to do harm again. He also brought up the concept of justice. The man needs to be put away for good, whether it fixes him (which O'Reilly and most Americans feel is impossible) or not.

It was my understanding that this is exactly what the judge wanted, but felt that because of his mental problems, time in prison would not be just. Therefor the judge wanted him put in a status that could conceivably keep him excluded from society for life. for years and year before he could be "cured" as if that were going to happen in this case.

Judge wanted him in for life, state ****ed up, media ****ed up, and now he can be out in 3 years. Good job.

 

[hipsterdufus]

It's EXISTENCE and the claim that it won an academic award are what have been challenged. The cover and the award will remedy this.

And there is no way in hell I am going to sit here and scan in over 200 pages of research.

Thanks for the files. As I queried in the DP forum, what good is the cover page without any data? There is nothing to dispute or debate here with a picture of Dan Rather. I said before that the data you showed using the UCLA: Media Bias study is seriously flawed.

Uploading a word doc is quite simple, and usually quite small. I would be happy to show you how.

 

[aquapub]

Thanks for the files. As I queried in the DP forum, what good is the cover page without any data? There is nothing to dispute or debate here with a picture of Dan Rather. I said before that the data you showed using the UCLA: Media Bias study is seriously flawed.

Uploading a word doc is quite simple, and usually quite small. I would be happy to show you how.

I knew you would respond to being proven wrong by changing the subject.

1) The media writing and media research experts in charge of my department (all Democrats) disagree with you.

2) Besides, I introduced that as a "lighter side" study expressly because it has a creative and debatable criteria. Still though, if you use left-wing think tanks to constantly justify your points, you are left wing. That was the basis of the criteria.

3) After some of the crap I've seen you try to pull in here, I will never take your criticisms on any credibility issue seriously again, no offense...that's just a fact.

4) Many of the studies I included in my portfolio were downloaded from Lexis Nexis. I don't have many of them on disc, just my commentary on them, scattered on different files on my computer.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I knew you would respond to being proven wrong by changing the subject.

A picture of Dan Rather proves nothing. Sorry.

You knew that's how I would respond, because deep done, you know that I'm right.

 

[aquapub]

Here are some examples that aren't quite lies, but they are further demonstrations of liberal operatives who use to work for Democrats in office slanting the news for Democrats:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060201.asp#1

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060201.asp#3

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060201.asp#5

 

[hipsterdufus]

Here are some examples that aren't quite lies, but they are further demonstrations of liberal operatives who use to work for Democrats in office slanting the news for Democrats:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060201.asp#1

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060201.asp#3

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060201.asp#5

This is some terrible writing. What is it, a blog?

Anyway what does any of this prove - that a few journalists tell the truth every now and then? Bush's approval is a 39% - do you want every newscast to sound like Fox? Bush was awful at the SOTU - animal/human clone hybrids? WTF?


This MRC quote would get an "D" from a 7th grade english teacher:

President Bush didn't play for with Democrats in 2002, MSNBC's Chris Matthews complained to Senator John McCain just before 11pm EST Tuesday night. Raising how in his State of the Union address Bush had made an "appeal for comity, for civility," Matthews charged when Bush wanted authorization for military action against Iraq, "he jammed that vote right up against the election of 2002.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060201.asp#3

 

[aquapub]

This is some terrible writing. What is it, a blog?

Anyway what does any of this prove - that a few journalists tell the truth every now and then? Bush's approval is a 39% - do you want every newscast to sound like Fox? Bush was awful at the SOTU - animal/human clone hybrids? WTF?


This MRC quote would get an "D" from a 7th grade english teacher:


http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060201.asp#3

Yes, that sentence structure is flawed. Why go on living? :roll:

And yes, by YOUR definition of truth (i.e., Move On propaganda and conspiracy theories), these Democrat operatives slanting the news were just "telling the truth," but to those of us ADULTS who prefer facts and evidence, these things are more examples of why liberal activists shouldn't be trusted to report objective news.

As to your childish taunting over a technology problem we have already been over, do you have Lexis Nexis? If you do, I can give you the file names and you can just download many of the studies I did my research on from there. But what does it matter? When you are proved wrong you just shift directions and keep on spewing. You don't care about truth, you couldn't possibly make that more clear.

And as far as your BS taunting about the Rather thing goes, If you would like to keep running your mouth, I will gladly go retrieve the quote from you challenging the study's EXISTENCE and whether or not it won an award. I proved you wrong and you changed the subject. So, as usual, stop portraying things as they aren't. And you haven't been right about hardly anything since I started coming here (not a shock, being that you base your points on Move On emails and try to defend them with tabloid conspiracy theory sites). What a joke! :lol:

 

[hipsterdufus]

Yes, that sentence structure is flawed. Why go on living? :roll:

And yes, by YOUR definition of truth (i.e., Move On propaganda and conspiracy theories), these Democrat operatives slanting the news were just "telling the truth," but to those of us ADULTS who prefer facts and evidence, these things are more examples of why liberal activists shouldn't be trusted to report objective news.

As to your childish taunting over a technology problem we have already been over, do you have Lexis Nexis? If you do, I can give you the file names and you can just download many of the studies I did my research on from there. But what does it matter? When you are proved wrong you just shift directions and keep on spewing. You don't care about truth, you couldn't possibly make that more clear.

And as far as your BS taunting about the Rather thing goes, If you would like to keep running your mouth, I will gladly go retrieve the quote from you challenging the study's EXISTENCE and whether or not it won an award. I proved you wrong and you changed the subject. So, as usual, stop portraying things as they aren't. And you haven't been right about hardly anything since I started coming here (not a shock, being that you base your points on Move On emails and try to defend them with tabloid conspiracy theory sites). What a joke! :lol:

Like I've said many times, any time you want to provide facts and data, I would welcome it. Conversly, if you ever want to debate the facts or data I have provided, that would be equally enticing.