[size]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

The context I was referring to is when they ask members of the press if they are left right, or moderate really skews the survey. The press operate in a echo chamber and because every one they know basically thinks they same way they think they are moderate or centrist when the reality is that they are libs.

Yes, this is true

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by PastorofMuppets

Info, I think that outright dismissal of a source is really beneath you. Yes, the WT is shady, but how about addressing the article in question?

OK,

How about this:

John Kerry has been traveling nonstop, giving multiple speeches every day for the past year. He must have spoken millions of words publicaly. Even assuming that the points, as presented in the article are true facts, all they could find was one insance where he said he spoke with "all members" of the counsel insead of just "members" or the "entire" counsel instead of "the counsel."

They had to look awfully hard to find that tiny point, which could easily be chalked up to fatigue.

Further, they go beyond reporting facts into editorializing when they bring up the fact that he espouses his inegrity, and they hammer it in a couple of times. That is irrelevant to the story at hand except as an editorial comment, yet, it's labled reporting, not editorial.

It's grossly beneath any serious newspaper to try to make a scandal out of it.

Might I point out some things that Dubya has said:

In front of Kofi Anon he stated that we invaded Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. In fact, he said this twice. Here one of the times:

" The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030714-3.html

That's odd. The inspectors had to stop inspecting because of the invasion...

I think that Dubya is not only dishonest with us, he can't even face the truth himself.

Then there's the freudian slip about gynecologists being unable to practive their "love" because of lawsuits.
http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/lovedocs.html


Bush is a sad little man, propped up my a very scary machine.

And somehow, I don't see any reason to drop my generic dismissal of the "moonie" publication, The Washington Times.

[VanillaGorilla]

And somehow, I don't see any reason to drop my generic dismissal of the "moonie" publication, The Washington Times.

Yet you post a kool aide drinking liberal propaganda web site as a source and don't see any thing wrong with that? Bill Gertz is a legitimate reporter who works for them. He may very well be one of the few but something is either true or it isn't. The enquirer isn't exactly known for being the pinacle of journalism but they got allot right during the Lewinski scandal. Ted Turner is just as crazy as Moon just in a different way. Should we dismiss every thing on CNN as well? While both men could have a influence on how the content is framed, Ted Turner doesn't do any of the reporting and neither does the Reverend.

Might I point out some things that Dubya has said:

In front of Kofi Anon he stated that we invaded Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. In fact, he said this twice. Here one of the times:

" The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030714-3.html

That's odd. The inspectors had to stop inspecting because of the invasion...

I think that Dubya is not only dishonest with us, he can't even face the truth himself.

The problem is that the reason we are in Iraq is UN didn't enforce it's own resolutions. The other problem is they were being bribed by Sadam. Sadam was in violation of the UN's own resolutions for years and they did nothing about it. Then they decided to start enforcing them when it was too late. They were doing inept job when they were doing inspections and let Sadam play games with them. The notion that we should have gone back to letting them handle it is asinine.

John Kerry has been traveling nonstop, giving multiple speeches every day for the past year. He must have spoken millions of words publicly. Even assuming that the points, as presented in the article are true facts, all they could find was one insance where he said he spoke with "all members" of the counsel insead of just "members" or the "entire" counsel instead of "the counsel."

They had to look awfully hard to find that tiny point, which could easily be chalked up to fatigue.

If this was Bush insted of Kerry would you have the same response? I doubt it. The problem with your theory is that Kerry is seems to be fatigued allot. He tried to explain his famous "I voted for it before I voted against it" quote by stating that he was at a midnight rally when he said it and was tired. The problem with that is he said it at noon. He has a history of talking out of both sides of his mouth and or saying what ever is politically expedient at the time. His position on Iraq has changed several times. He was either mistaken or lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas eve when he was in Viet Nam. There are also legitimate questions about his Viet Nam service. So either he is too fatigued to be president or he isn't the most honest person in the world.

Further, they go beyond reporting facts into editorializing when they bring up the fact that he espouses his inegrity, and they hammer it in a couple of times. That is irrelevant to the story at hand except as an editorial comment, yet, it's labled reporting, not editorial.

So I take it you have a problem with the NY Times doing this as well? You didn't seem to have a problem posting a socialist web site that had many of their facts wrong on several issues to try to explain away Kerry's Viet Nam service.

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Yet you post a kool aide drinking liberal propaganda web site as a source and don't see any thing wrong with that? Bill Gertz is a legitimate reporter who works for them. He may very well be one of the few but something is either true or it isn't. The enquirer isn't exactly known for being the pinacle of journalism but they got allot right during the Lewinski scandal. Ted Turner is just as crazy as Moon just in a different way. Should we dismiss every thing on CNN as well? While both men could have a influence on how the content is framed, Ted Turner doesn't do any of the reporting and neither does the Reverend.

The problem is that the reason we are in Iraq is UN didn't enforce it's own resolutions. The other problem is they were being bribed by Sadam. Sadam was in violation of the UN's own resolutions for years and they did nothing about it. Then they decided to start enforcing them when it was too late. They were doing inept job when they were doing inspections and let Sadam play games with them. The notion that we should have gone back to letting them handle it is asinine.

If this was Bush insted of Kerry would you have the same response? I doubt it. The problem with your theory is that Kerry is seems to be fatigued allot. He tried to explain his famous "I voted for it before I voted against it" quote by stating that he was at a midnight rally when he said it and was tired. The problem with that is he said it at noon. He has a history of talking out of both sides of his mouth and or saying what ever is politically expedient at the time. His position on Iraq has changed several times. He was either mistaken or lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas eve when he was in Viet Nam. There are also legitimate questions about his Viet Nam service. So either he is too fatigued to be president or he isn't the most honest person in the world.

So I take it you have a problem with the NY Times doing this as well? You didn't seem to have a problem posting a socialist web site that had many of their facts wrong on several issues to try to explain away Kerry's Viet Nam service.

1) Your tone is getting increasingly shrill. Chill out, and don't twist what I write for the purposes of making straw men.

2) Ted Turner has not been involved in CNN for years. It's owned by Time Warner.

[Jeff]

Ted is the largest share holder and still carries a ton of weight in the organization (I worked there), his prestige diminished a little after the AOL buyout but now that that has gone down as one of the biggest fiascos in modern business history, he still carries as much weight as ever.

[VanillaGorilla]

1) Your tone is getting increasingly shrill. Chill out, and don't twist what I write for the purposes of making straw men.

You posted a total left wing web site as a source and then out right dismissed an article in the Washington Times because it's one of the few papers in the country that has a right wing bias and because of who owns it.
You said

Further, they go beyond reporting facts into editorializing when they bring up the fact that he espouses his inegrity, and they hammer it in a couple of times. That is irrelevant to the story at hand except as an editorial comment, yet, it's labled reporting, not editorial.

You talk about editorializing ,yet again you think it's ok to post that web site as a source and the NY Times does this all the time as does Jennings, Rather, Brokaw and most papers in the country. There is nothing shrill about what I said. I didn't twist what you said around at all. In fact I quoted what you said before my response.