The Media is biased- it's official now

[BigPat]

Okay - one link equals ALL links.

I was simply pointing out that while you claimed several times that I was only getting my information from Huffington Post (which I did not link to) yet the only source you used was Worldnetdaily. That seems like a classic case of projection on your part.

A direct quote from a person is NOT an opinion of the news agency. So I suppose that whatever a liberal politician says is untrue if it is cited by a news agency that you don't like? The only thing they do say that can be quoted are things that you agree with?

Like I said - MORE than one politico has made statements about revisiting the FD. I'm not your research assistant, look it up yourself. Last time I will say it to you.

WND often quotes out of context and misrepresents what is stated. They have done so several times with Obama and they still misrepresent a run of teh mill DHS intel report to make the preposterous claim that DHS has all conservatives and military veterans on a "watch list". All of this is rather irrelevant anyway, as I never stated that no politician has ever come out in favor of teh fairness doctrine. What I said is that the claim that there is currently a renewed push to reinstate it is wrong. The only person who has the power to reimplement it (the FCC commissioner) has specificly stated that he has no intention of doing so. There has also not been an attempt to reinstate it legislatively.

On the ACORN issue, I posted the link to the actual bill that Mr. King attempted to amend. There is no earmark for ACORN in there,

I never said I have 'connections' - I simply stated that my work involves knowing what is going on and that happens to mean I know enough people that I can verify information with. I deal with specific issues, but that doesn't mean other issues are not important to me, some issues do affect other issues indirectly even when they seem to be unrelated. And yes - my job involves KNOWING what's going on as it effects the people whom I work for. I do not lobby. Though I know many people who do, all lobbyists are not cut from the same cloth - there are some who actually care about what they are doing and they lobby for good cause and reform.

It seems that your earlier claim of having all of these inside information sources is just BS. You can't even give a straight answer to the question of who you work for that gives you such great information sources.

You have some real anger problems.

]

That's kind of ironic that you would be saying that. I have tried to remain relatively civil with you, yet you are the one throwing out the constant insults of my intellect, reading comprehension, and maturity. You can't even have a reasonable discussion without flying off the handle and getting upset. You seem to be the one with an anger issue. You are projecting again.

I have noticed that you try to twist things to your own rather narrow perceptions - or the perceptions that you choose to place your beliefs in. That's YOUR problem, not mine. I have also noticed that you have decided to single me out as your target. That's a bit creepy. I have had the misfortune of dealing with people like you before - you're like the liberal version of the Jehova's Witness' - I'm sorry, but I have my own religion... In your case; I'm sorry, but I have my own political ideology - I'm not interested in buying yours. And I am not trying to 'sell' mine to you. You don't have to accept my beliefs, but don't expect me to agree with yours when I know your 'facts' are misinformed and/or wrong. You can go on and believe them - just quit trying to jam them down my throat. That make work with weak minded sheeple, but not with me.

What is wrong with you? I have simply pointed out factual errors in some claims that were made, and you fly off the handle. I am not singling you out or picking on you. Have you never had a political discussion before with somebody of a different viewpoint? If you aren't able to handle a simple internet discussion with somebody who has an opposing view then maybe you shouldn't post in this part of the forum. Seriously, grow up.

This will be the final time I respond to you on ANY topic. I don't waste my time with angry WRONG people like you.

Don't worry, I am ignoring you after this response... you are utterly incpapble of having a reasonable discussion. Any attempt to do so is pointless so I won't bother.

You obviously choose to believe only what you WANT to believe and any person - EVEN a legislator who is INVOLVED and knows MORE than you is supposedly wrong in your mind. That's rich. If God Himself told you you were wrong - you'd probably argue with him...

So according to your logic any statement made by Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi must also be absolutely true, as they are legislators that are INVOLVED and know MORE than you. All you have to do is look at the bill in question and you can plainly see that there is no earmark for ACORN in it. Mr. King was doing nothing more than political grandstanding.

[alpha1906]

ABC has decided to finally publicly admit to being the cheerleaders of the Obama administration. We now have our very own Pravda.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

I guess it's not just a silly conspiracy theory dreamed up by those ridiculous neo-cons, is it?

And your not biased right?

[swingshift]

And your not biased right?

Who cares if FNA is biased? He's just a guy on the internet, not a major news organization like ABC News. Why would his bias bother you more than ABC's?

[FNA209]

Who cares if FNA is biased? He's just a guy on the internet, not a major news organization like ABC News. Why would his bias bother you more than ABC's?

Wait a minute.... I'm biased?

Who said that?

I want to know so I can reply "Am not!" so we can devolve into a "Am not"/"Are too" argument. Of course, I have the ultimate retort to end that.

"Mommmm- [insert name] is picking on me again!"

That one always works.

[JasperST]

I'm biased and am proud of it! There, I'm out of the closet. Free at last. But I was born this way, I've always known that I had opinions and some people still try to shame me into silence.

Some people confuse political commentators with so called news reporting. The op-ed stories are now on the front page.

[FNA209]

There, I'm out of the closet. Free at last.

Well all I have to say is it's about time you left. This closet was way too small for sharing with others and it was way too crowded.

Now all I have to do is sort through these clothes and toss the old stuff. I mean, who even wears these old leisure suits and old bowling shirts anymore- why keep them.... and all of these old wire hangers gotta go also... along with those old tie-dyed shirts.

Pretty soon, this will be a nice little hidey-hole!

[alpha1906]

So are you folks saying that CNN and FOX news are the same? They have totally differrent reporting styles.

[JasperST]

Good point. FOX gives you the left and right view, CNN gives you the left and left.

[livestrong6]

Foxs gives you the Right and then the Radical crazy right. However, the bad thing is the radical crazy right is not a news segment it's an opinion piece cherry picking information from both sides of the Aisle to inflame the debate on whatever topic they are discussing.

The only time any of the 24 hour stations are at middle ground is when a national event happens. Death, War, or a major incident, celebrity trail or arrest. Then they put their extreme sides away for the night.

[JasperST]

Foxs gives you the Right and then the Radical crazy right.

You haven't got any idea what you're talking about (what's new), anyone who's watched it has seen leftwingers with their perspective too.

[dadyswat]

Hey Jasper the libs don't actually watch Fox it's just that Obammy said that Fox is always on his butt. The libs can't stand to get into a real discussion. I work right next to one and when I make a comment the arguement I get is "Well we have to do something".

[livestrong6]

You haven't got any idea what you're talking about (what's new), anyone who's watched it has seen leftwingers with their perspective too.

Of course i don't know what I am talking about because I don't have the same opinion you do. You obviously take opinionated talk show host as a source of truth.

[JasperST]

Of course i don't know what I am talking about because I don't have the same opinion you do. You obviously take opinionated talk show host as a source of truth.

Huh? If you're talking politics it's all a matter of opinion, if it was science we wouldn't argue about it. Why is two different opinions 'opinionated talk show' and one opinion 'news'?

[livestrong6]

Huh? If you're talking politics it's all a matter of opinion, if it was science we wouldn't argue about it. Why is two different opinions 'opinionated talk show' and one opinion 'news'?

I would agree with this totally. However, even politics has a foundation of fact to it. Debating health care, clean energy, immagration, gun control and any other subject will stir up a debate with a basis of facts but thick with opinion.

[Ex Army MP]

Shouldn't it be The Media "are" biased and not The Media"is" biased?