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

[Indy]

You're right, I probably should have been more specific. The 52/14 stats that I gave before were from only this thread. I have no Idea what the ratio's look like in other threads, and they very well could be the exact opposite. Also, I counted each infraction seperately even if they were in the same reply. I figured that was the best way to keep track. You make a good point when you asked how many DIFFERENT offenders there were for each group, that is information that I do not have I am affraid. That would be a very interesting statistic, maybe I will do that some other night just for laughs.

From what I remember, the bulk of the 52/14 number was from 3 or 4 different members (not supprising since there are only 3 or 4 major contributors to this thread).

If you discount Aquapub I am sure that the numbers would look WAY more even. With possibly the Liberals even leading, who knows? But to be fair, it was Aquapub I believe that was the one who kept bringing up the point that Liberals resorted to insults when they didn't have valid points so I thought that I would track that statistic just to see if what s/he said was true or not. From what I can tell from the info, it was not a factual statement.

Once again though, I would like to see what the numbers look like if you only count one infraction per reply (even if multiple insults were given) and how many different offenders there were per side. Could somebody else do this one (After all there are 15 pages to go through and it took me a while last night). :2razz:

 

[aquapub]

Finally! Someone else who sees a conflict of interest in having the overwhelming majority of those in control of our news being former Democrat operatives!

This one confronts the greatest liberal lie of them all, that having Democrat activists saturating the news business at every level doesn't indicate bias.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060306.asp#1

 

[aquapub]

One of my favorite examples of how “mainstream” and “objective” the New York Times is (not to mention the rest of the media which largely takes its cues from them) would have to be the treatment of the honesty-challenged character assassin, Kitty Kelley. This is the woman who writes books smearing conservatives with a litany of trashy, sensational accusations about their personal lives, based almost exclusively on “unnamed sources”…the ones she HAS named have repeatedly denied saying the things she writes.

Her books have attacked Nancy Reagan, claiming she cheated on her husband in the White House with Frank Sinatra, and they have attacked George Bush Sr., Jr., and Ronald Reagan as well. She claimed that George W. Bush snorted coke during his father’s presidency, and that Laura Bush dealt marijuana in college-both of the “sources” for those “revelations” denied that it ever happened.

This woman makes Michael Moore look credible.

Any legitimate news source that would take her seriously would be lowering itself to the level of tabloid sleaze…but the New York Times hasn’t quite IMPROVED to that level yet, so they naturally put her smearfests on the front page of their paper, spoke of it adoringly, disregarded the numerous holes in her stories, and treated them as hard news.

The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd breathlessly announced on the front page that Kitty Kelley’s malicious rumor mill “could forever shatter” the Reagan myth and “add allegations of scandalous sexual behavior to the folklore of the Reagan era.”

Needless to say, the Times’ coverage of ACTUAL sexual misconduct under Clinton was considerably more skeptical of the facts, far less enthusiastic, and tended to change the subject to the motives of the accusers rather than to contend with the charges.

Oh yes, and also needless to say, Kitty Kelley (being a liberal author-liberal books almost always fail miserably) was given $4 million advances and extended Today show sit-downs with glowing promotional coverage to sling all this mud.

 

[hipsterdufus]

One of my favorite examples of how “mainstream” and “objective” the New York Times is (not to mention the rest of the media which largely takes its cues from them) would have to be the treatment of the honesty-challenged character assassin, Kitty Kelley. This is the woman who writes books smearing conservatives with a litany of trashy, sensational accusations about their personal lives, based almost exclusively on “unnamed sources”…the ones she HAS named have repeatedly denied saying the things she writes.

Her books have attacked Nancy Reagan, claiming she cheated on her husband in the White House with Frank Sinatra, and they have attacked George Bush Sr., Jr., and Ronald Reagan as well. She claimed that George W. Bush snorted coke during his father’s presidency, and that Laura Bush dealt marijuana in college-both of the “sources” for those “revelations” denied that it ever happened.

Kitty Kelly is a hack. Right up there with Joe Klein and Barabara Olsen.

Do I think Bush snorted coke? Sure, but it has nothing to do with Kitty Kelly.