Five Myths About the GOP(that won't die)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

Some FOX articles are good; some are pretty blatantly biased. Most networks are similar. FOX is pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be right wing.

And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing.

Right, Mike, with us or against us. See, if you look at FOX, Nwesmax, etc as the standard and the rest are silly LW factions to various degrees, then your logic makes sense. Truth is:

CENTRIST: ABC, CBS, NBC

LEFT: CNN, Moveon, etc

RIGHT: FOX, Limbaugh, etc

You can't use your majic sliding scale here, just because they don't raise the RW doesn't make them LW; this is what Bill was saying as I see it.

Fortunatley there are many studies that show you dont know what you are taling about here

CBS Cenrtist????

Now that is funny

Yes, these studies are all found on Heritage, right?The big 3 are cemntrist, show me otherwise. Just because your scale is skewed far right doesn't make the middle become left.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

Some FOX articles are good; some are pretty blatantly biased. Most networks are similar. FOX is pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be right wing.

And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing.

Right, Mike, with us or against us. See, if you look at FOX, Nwesmax, etc as the standard and the rest are silly LW factions to various degrees, then your logic makes sense. Truth is:

CENTRIST: ABC, CBS, NBC

LEFT: CNN, Moveon, etc

RIGHT: FOX, Limbaugh, etc

You can't use your majic sliding scale here, just because they don't raise the RW doesn't make them LW; this is what Bill was saying as I see it.

Fortunatley there are many studies that show you dont know what you are taling about here

CBS Cenrtist????

Now that is funny

Yes, these studies are all found on Heritage, right?The big 3 are cemntrist, show me otherwise. Just because your scale is skewed far right doesn't make the middle become left.

MY SCALE IS SCEWED???
Oh boy that is a good one

Oh, and here is one very conservative school study of media bias

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

Some FOX articles are good; some are pretty blatantly biased. Most networks are similar. FOX is pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be right wing.

And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing.

Right, Mike, with us or against us. See, if you look at FOX, Nwesmax, etc as the standard and the rest are silly LW factions to various degrees, then your logic makes sense. Truth is:

CENTRIST: ABC, CBS, NBC

LEFT: CNN, Moveon, etc

RIGHT: FOX, Limbaugh, etc

You can't use your majic sliding scale here, just because they don't raise the RW doesn't make them LW; this is what Bill was saying as I see it.

Fortunatley there are many studies that show you dont know what you are taling about here

CBS Cenrtist????

Now that is funny

Yes, these studies are all found on Heritage, right?The big 3 are cemntrist, show me otherwise. Just because your scale is skewed far right doesn't make the middle become left.

MY SCALE IS SCEWED???
Oh boy that is a good one

Oh, and here is one very conservative school study of media bias

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Speaking of a biased source, you never fail to please

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5845

As it turned out, Milyo's grant money for his study came from an organization created by Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, the former Bush/Cheney '04 national general counsel, and one of the Republican Party's top operatives behind pushing for such photo ID laws around the country. Hearne was, in fact, instrumental in creating the very Indiana law which Milyo's study claims to show, has caused no voter disenfranchisement in the state.

It goes on and gets worse. Rush, sometimes you should actually check your sources before you look more and more silly . Gotta go to work, I'll look fwd to more levity.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

Some FOX articles are good; some are pretty blatantly biased. Most networks are similar. FOX is pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be right wing.

And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing.

Right, Mike, with us or against us. See, if you look at FOX, Nwesmax, etc as the standard and the rest are silly LW factions to various degrees, then your logic makes sense. Truth is:

CENTRIST: ABC, CBS, NBC

LEFT: CNN, Moveon, etc

RIGHT: FOX, Limbaugh, etc

You can't use your majic sliding scale here, just because they don't raise the RW doesn't make them LW; this is what Bill was saying as I see it.

Fortunatley there are many studies that show you dont know what you are taling about here

CBS Cenrtist????

Now that is funny

Yes, these studies are all found on Heritage, right?The big 3 are cemntrist, show me otherwise. Just because your scale is skewed far right doesn't make the middle become left.

MY SCALE IS SCEWED???
Oh boy that is a good one

Oh, and here is one very conservative school study of media bias

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Speaking of a biased source, you never fail to please

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5845

As it turned out, Milyo's grant money for his study came from an organization created by Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, the former Bush/Cheney '04 national general counsel, and one of the Republican Party's top operatives behind pushing for such photo ID laws around the country. Hearne was, in fact, instrumental in creating the very Indiana law which Milyo's study claims to show, has caused no voter disenfranchisement in the state.

It goes on and gets worse. Rush, sometimes you should actually check your sources before you look more and more silly . Gotta go to work, I'll look fwd to more levity.

Didnt read it did you?

Anyway
Be sure and send some extra tax money since that is what you believe in

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyway...

So where do you get your objective data, if not from "some" media outlet?

Gov sources, BEA, BLS, IRS, Etc. Wikipedia is objective and I have never found it to be errant, but that isn't a bad source either.

And the Onion. Don't forget the Onion. You used in one of your rants once and called it "real and legit" and a "right wing rag"



Lucky, how do you feel about the reporting on MSNBC?

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

You know, it could have been a good article about how in many cases both parties are to blame for the current mess we are in...

Agreed... However...

Quote

Unfortunately the article remains true to the FOX News bias...

As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias?

I don't know about MSNBC, but for shits and grins I watched Fox News the other day for an hour and it was an Obama smashing session. Everything and any little thing-- and they still don't call him President Obama. Not even Mr. Obama anymore. I heard him called 'the anointed one!!' LMFAO... you've got to be kidding me-- did CNN ever do anything like that with Bush? No, at the end of the day they report NEWS. Actually, not one second of the hour I watched Fox had any news in it. At least CNN has news stories that stretch all over the globe! I definitely would NOT equate Fox News bias to any bias CNN might have. Two completely different leagues, IMO.

Sorry to hijack thread topic but I just don't think these two compare when talking about levels of bias.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[kallend 2,150]

Only FIVE? That's about 5% of the myths and lies circulated about Obama alone, without the rest of his party, as a quick look at Snopes, Factcheck or Politifact will show.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Only FIVE? That's about 5% of the myths and lies circulated about Obama alone, without the rest of his party, as a quick look at Snopes, Factcheck or Politifact will show.

The statements and accusations are only incorrect if you believe in him. Which you do. In your fantasy world, the statements and accusations are incorrect.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

>The statements and accusations are only incorrect if you believe in him.
>Which you do. In your fantasy world, the statements and accusations are
>incorrect.

Ironically that is exactly the attitude that this article attacks. (In other words, those five statements in the quoted article are incorrect only if you "worship the GOP.")

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>The statements and accusations are only incorrect if you believe in him.
>Which you do. In your fantasy world, the statements and accusations are
>incorrect.

Ironically that is exactly the attitude that this article attacks. (In other words, those five statements in the quoted article are incorrect only if you "worship the GOP.")

That was partly my point, but thanks for reitterating it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyway...

So where do you get your objective data, if not from "some" media outlet?

Gov sources, BEA, BLS, IRS, Etc. Wikipedia is objective and I have never found it to be errant, but that isn't a bad source either.

And the Onion. Don't forget the Onion. You used in one of your rants once and called it "real and legit" and a "right wing rag"



Lucky, how do you feel about the reporting on MSNBC?

I asked, in passing if it was legit, but go ahead and keep misquoting and don't comment on my issues, it would actually take concentration. Oh and tellus about Reagan, the only 7-year president in history.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyway...

So where do you get your objective data, if not from "some" media outlet?

Gov sources, BEA, BLS, IRS, Etc. Wikipedia is objective and I have never found it to be errant, but that isn't a bad source either.

And the Onion. Don't forget the Onion. You used in one of your rants once and called it "real and legit" and a "right wing rag"



Lucky, how do you feel about the reporting on MSNBC?

I asked, in passing if it was legit, but go ahead and keep misquoting

I quoted what you said. You called it "real and legit" and referred to it as an RW rag.

I will look up the old thread if you would like?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyway...

So where do you get your objective data, if not from "some" media outlet?

Gov sources, BEA, BLS, IRS, Etc. Wikipedia is objective and I have never found it to be errant, but that isn't a bad source either.

And the Onion. Don't forget the Onion. You used in one of your rants once and called it "real and legit" and a "right wing rag"



Lucky, how do you feel about the reporting on MSNBC?

I asked, in passing if it was legit, but go ahead and keep misquoting

I quoted what you said. You called it "real and legit" and referred to it as an RW rag.

I will look up the old thread if you would like?

Don't confuse him with evidence and fact . . it makes his head spinn and go all fuzzy and stuff.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyway...

So where do you get your objective data, if not from "some" media outlet?

Gov sources, BEA, BLS, IRS, Etc. Wikipedia is objective and I have never found it to be errant, but that isn't a bad source either.

And the Onion. Don't forget the Onion. You used in one of your rants once and called it "real and legit" and a "right wing rag"



Lucky, how do you feel about the reporting on MSNBC?

I asked, in passing if it was legit, but go ahead and keep misquoting

I quoted what you said. You called it "real and legit" and referred to it as an RW rag.

I will look up the old thread if you would like?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3728265;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT?

Lie much? Now go and tell us about hwt thinking MSNBCBS is real. Oh that's right, the RW crony handbook says that the truth is just an obstacle, never go against a brother.

YOU'RE WRONG, I ASKED NOT STATED. Typical misquotes tho.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyway...

So where do you get your objective data, if not from "some" media outlet?

Gov sources, BEA, BLS, IRS, Etc. Wikipedia is objective and I have never found it to be errant, but that isn't a bad source either.

And the Onion. Don't forget the Onion. You used in one of your rants once and called it "real and legit" and a "right wing rag"



Lucky, how do you feel about the reporting on MSNBC?

I asked, in passing if it was legit, but go ahead and keep misquoting

I quoted what you said. You called it "real and legit" and referred to it as an RW rag.

I will look up the old thread if you would like?

Don't confuse him with evidence and fact . . it makes his head spinn and go all fuzzy and stuff.

The closest I wrote was:

I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire.

So it was satire from a what I thought was a real RW site.

Now, my lack of familiarity with the Onion then has no bearing on the myths, just as your crony hwt thinking MSNBCBS was a real media outlet, but rather than addressing my comments, you reach for something immaterial. Perhaps next you can point out typing errors once you run this course. Or perhaps you could address the topic matter that I replied to. But no, you are unable to so you drag up a non-issue from > 6 montsh ago. You're like my GF bringing up that girl I fucked 15 years ago; neither of you have an answer the current issue, just thinking that misdirection will work.

Oh, be sure and point out that hwt thinks MSNBCBS is a real media outlet.

[Lucky... 0]

Or, from the same thread, Belgian saying Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1945:

Rather Belgian said Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1945, Belgian didn't say Japan wasn't attacked in 45.


BELGIAN: Is that the best you can do? Dig up a typo?


SO we can revisit all the old issues and it seems teh RW is good at that when cornered, or they could actually stick with the thread topic: Five Myths About the GOP(that won't die)

Shall we go back or is my response to much to reply to?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Only FIVE? That's about 5% of the myths and lies circulated about Obama alone, without the rest of his party, as a quick look at Snopes, Factcheck or Politifact will show.

The statements and accusations are only incorrect if you believe in him. Which you do. In your fantasy world, the statements and accusations are incorrect.

Well, if you can demonstrate that Politifact, Factcheck and Snopes have a bias, you would be correct. I very much doubt you can do that, however.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3728265;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT?

Why on earth do you want to keep bring up what is likely your most embarrassing thread on SC? Did it really require 4 more defensive posts that only make you look even funnier? It just says that we can continue to egg you on with it, too.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Only FIVE? That's about 5% of the myths and lies circulated about Obama alone, without the rest of his party, as a quick look at Snopes, Factcheck or Politifact will show.

The statements and accusations are only incorrect if you believe in him. Which you do. In your fantasy world, the statements and accusations are incorrect.

Well, if you can demonstrate that Politifact, Factcheck and Snopes have a bias, you would be correct. I very much doubt you can do that, however.

Easy . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[hwt 0]

Quote

You know, it could have been a good article about how in many cases both parties are to blame for the current mess we are in (which is true.) Unfortunately the article remains true to the FOX News bias and says things like:

"Republicans caused the mortgage crisis.. . . In reality it was the Democrats who caused the mortgage crisis."

"Republicans are the 'party of Wall Street, big business and special interest groups'. . . .it is the Democratic Party which has deep-rooted unholy alliances with special-interest groups."

In other words, the article is condemning the partisan hacks who blindly attack one party over the other - just like this article does. Indeed, one could make an argument that the public is sick to death of attitudes like this one, which may be why the GOP is still doing so poorly in the polls.

___________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE
Partisan hacks eh?
watch bubbling Barney for proof on the housing bubble.It was Bush's fault

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3728265;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT?

Why on earth do you want to keep bring up what is likely your most embarrassing thread on SC? Did it really require 4 more defensive posts that only make you look even funnier? It just says that we can continue to egg you on with it, too.

I didn't, genius; can't you read? See, when you neo-cons get stuck on a given thread, they dig shit out of >6 months ago that was no big deal anyway.

I'd prefer to just talk this thread, but seeing as no one has responded to my response, it is you good neo-cons who wear egg.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3728265;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT?

Why on earth do you want to keep bring up what is likely your most embarrassing thread on SC? Did it really require 4 more defensive posts that only make you look even funnier? It just says that we can continue to egg you on with it, too.

I didn't, genius; can't you read? See, when you neo-cons get stuck on a given thread, they dig shit out of >6 months ago that was no big deal anyway.

I'd prefer to just talk this thread, but seeing as no one has responded to my response, it is you good neo-cons who wear egg.

What?

Heh . . . What you'd prefer. Priceless!

No, you don't really seem to have gotten the picture here have you?

You just won't be taken seriously here . . . ever.

Not you, not your graph, not your charts, and definately not your responses.

You can't tell us you haven't figured this out yet.

Give it up . . . and S.I.U.C.C. quit with the whining.

Seriously.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3728265;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT?

Why on earth do you want to keep bring up what is likely your most embarrassing thread on SC? Did it really require 4 more defensive posts that only make you look even funnier? It just says that we can continue to egg you on with it, too.

I didn't, genius; can't you read? See, when you neo-cons get stuck on a given thread, they dig shit out of >6 months ago that was no big deal anyway.

I'd prefer to just talk this thread, but seeing as no one has responded to my response, it is you good neo-cons who wear egg.

What?

Heh . . . What you'd prefer. Priceless!

No, you don't really seem to have gotten the picture here have you?

You just won't be taken seriously here . . . ever.

Not you, not your graph, not your charts, and definately not your responses.

You can't tell us you haven't figured this out yet.

Give it up . . . and S.I.U.C.C. quit with the whining.

Seriously.

I address the issues, you run from then and *TRY* to rally the troops to support you, not your redress of the issues and you wave the victory flag.

I have posted a lot of info here, care to address it keep runnin?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I didn't, genius; can't you read? See, when you neo-cons get stuck on a given thread, they dig shit out of >6 months ago that was no big deal anyway.

Like you bring up GDP/Real GDP, when you were the one that changed your post while it was being replied to?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I didn't, genius; can't you read? See, when you neo-cons get stuck on a given thread, they dig shit out of >6 months ago that was no big deal anyway.

Like you bring up GDP/Real GDP, when you were the one that changed your post while it was being replied to?

Nice try, I was talking real GDP, you tried to slide in nominal to mitigate your heroes mess. To Dems, GDP makes us look good, you guys not so much; why would I need to deceive?