Stop...*giggle*...what?

NBC = Nobody Beats Clinton.

ABC = Always Backing Clinton.

CBS = Clinton Broadcasting Syndicate

CNN = Clinton News Network

FOX = Fuck Our eX-President
 
jimpeel said:
are you also scared to death of the website?
Click to expand...

Sacred. :rofl3:

Just can't admit to your hypocrisy yet huh? :laugh:


Yet you also have no probvlem that he posts links and articles to heavily biased liberal websites.
Click to expand...

Where have I used a heavily biased liberal site as proof of anything Jim?

his mind is made up and no amount of facts, regardless form what source, will deter him from the path he has chosen unless those facts agree 100% with his position.
Click to expand...

Pot->Kettle. :)

Where is the hypocrisy now?
Click to expand...

Still you Jim.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
NBC = Nobody Beats Clinton.

ABC = Always Backing Clinton.

CBS = Clinton Broadcasting Syndicate

CNN = Clinton News Network

FOX = Fuck Our eX-President
Click to expand...

Fail.

fail.jpg
 
Gonz said:
The original NY Times story mentioned it in paragraph 3. The rewrite moved it to paragraph 15. Wanna bet, if it was a (R) doing this crap it's be the leading word...in every paragraph.
Click to expand...

But of course.

Note how the Libs here have fled from taking up the gauntlet of debating the information on the site I posted. Not one of them can debate the issue. It is easier to ignore it and "debate" by declaration rather than by actual refutation of the facts in the story.

"It is untrue because I say it is untrue even though I have not taken a modicum of effort to actually read the article."
 
spike said:
Where have I used a heavily biased liberal site as proof of anything Jim?
Click to expand...

How about where you posted this link http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com

From the link:

SourceWatch is a key project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), a non-profit organization dedicated to exposing spin and propaganda in politics and the media, and to promoting media literacy and citizen journalism.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Democracy

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a nonprofit American-based media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber. It publishes PR Watch, a quarterly newsletter edited by Laura A. Miller. Stauber and CMD research director Sheldon Rampton have written five books describing what they call the murky world of public relations. Another CMD project is the SourceWatch website (formerly called Disinfopedia), a Wiki, which CMD describes as "a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests."

CMD has stated that it is not affiliated with a political party, but that it does not pretend to lack opinions or a point of view. It states its opposition to "the barriers and distortions of the modern information environment that stem from government- or corporate-dominated, hierarchical media." In contrast, it favors "grassroots citizen activism that promotes public health, economic justice, ecological sustainability and human rights."

CMD financial supporters reported on their website include: Bauman Family Foundation, Careth Foundation, Carolyn Foundation, Changing Horizons Charitable Trust, CS Fund, Deer Creek Foundation, Educational Foundation of America, Ettinger Foundation, Foundation for Deep Ecology, Funding Exchange, Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund, Grodzins Fund, HKH Foundation, Litowitz Foundation, Marisla Foundation, Mostyn Foundation, Park Foundation, Proteus Fund, Rockefeller Associates, Rockefeller Family Foundation, Rockwood Fund, Stern Family Fund, Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, Sunlight Foundation, Threshold Foundation, Tides Foundation, Town Creek Foundation, Turner Foundation, Wallace Global Fund and Winslow Foundation.[2]
Click to expand...

Now there's a bunch of Conservative sites if I ever saw one.

And just who is John Stauber?

John Stauber (1953 - ) is an American writer and political activist who has co-authored five books about propaganda by governments, private interests and the PR industry. They include one book about how industry manipulates science (Trust Us, We're Experts), one about the history and current scope of the public relations industry (Toxic Sludge is Good for You), and one about mad cow disease (Mad Cow USA), which predicted the surfacing of the disease within the United States.

In July 2003 Stauber and Sheldon Rampton wrote Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq, which argued that the Bush administration deceived the American public into supporting the war. In 2004, the two co-authored Banana Republicans, which argued that the Republican Party is turning the U.S. into a one-party state. The book argues that the far-right and its functionaries in the media, lobbying establishment and electoral system are undermining dissent and squelching pluralistic politics in the United States. In 2006 the two wrote The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Mess in Iraq, which builds upon the arguments they posited in Weapons of Mass Deception.

Stauber is the founder and executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which sponsors PR Watch and SourceWatch. Since the 1960s, he has worked with public interest, consumer, family farm, environmental and community organizations at the local, state and national level. He edits and writes for the Center's quarterly newsmagazine, PR Watch. He is also a member of the Liberty Tree Board of Advisers.

Stauber grew up in a conservative Republican household in Marshfield, Wisconsin, but the war in Vietnam turned him into an anti-war and environmental activist while still in high school.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that, ironically, when Stauber was promoting his book on PR, it was delivered to the media with a slick press kit, and a prewritten list of questions for reporters to ask when interviewing the authors
Click to expand...

THAT'S WHERE!
 
Spike,

You see, unlike yourself, I actually take the time to click on your links and disassemble the information. I am not too much of a coward to go and read what you post. That is how I stay informed.

Instead of shunning and ignoring the opposition, I actually research their sites and datamine the exaggerations, the inaccuracies, the incorrect references, and misquotations which you allow to stand as fact because it advances your agenda.
 
jimpeel said:
Note how the Libs here have fled from taking up the gauntlet of debating the information on the site I posted. Not one of them can debate the issue. It is easier to ignore it and "debate" by declaration rather than by actual refutation of the facts in the story.
Click to expand...

Dude you posted shit. Why do expect everyone to go smell it because you cry about it? Now when you dismiss sources as "having an axe to grind" that's ok, but when you post blatant bullshit from a corporate funded propaganda site you want everyone to discuss it.

Hypocrit. :)
 
Re: Spike,

jimpeel said:
You see, unlike yourself, I actually take the time to click on your links and disassemble the information. I am not too much of a coward to go and read what you post. That is how I stay informed.
Click to expand...

Interesting, yet you didn't do that in the 3 links of mine you posted. Maybe you are a coward.

Instead of shunning and ignoring the opposition
Click to expand...

I like opposition Jim. I don't have the time or patience to click on every piece you through up though. I'm not going to bother with coporate funded propaganda although I will read articles from a lot of conservative sources. Hell I even listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly for a laugh sometimes.

I actually research their sites and datamine the exaggerations, the inaccuracies, the incorrect references, and misquotations which you allow to stand as fact because it advances your agenda.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember you dismissing even mainstream media sources as being biased or having an "axe to grind", does that mean you were being cowardly then?
 
spike said:
Dude you posted shit. Why do expect everyone to go smell it because you cry about it? Now when you dismiss sources as "having an axe to grind" that's ok, but when you post blatant bullshit from a corporate funded propaganda site you want everyone to discuss it.

Hypocrit. :)
Click to expand...

How do you know it is shit if you didn't read it? There can only be two possibilities:

You actually didn't read it and have made up your mind on the absence of any facts. That means you remain an intellectual coward.

or ...

You actually did read it and the truth frightened you so badly you cannot admit you read it; and you know there cannot be any debate because it is right and you are wrong. To protect your own self interests, you have to continue the facade and scream epithets and slander to cover up your own inequities. That would mean that you are an intellectual liar.

So which is it? Intellectual coward or intellectual liar?

Did you read it or didn't you?
 
Re: Spike,

spike said:
Interesting, yet you didn't do that in the 3 links of mine you posted. Maybe you are a coward.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. So I didn't post anything definitive from your little Liberal sites so you just know -- just like you just "know" the article I posted was "shit" even in the face of your failure to read it -- that I didn't actually go out there and read what the sites have to say.

The fact remains that I answered your question -- "Where have I used a heavily biased liberal site as proof of anything Jim?" -- and, just like a good little Liberal, you segue into the next diversion because you know you were caught.

Well, you just keep living in that little world of yours, gazing out at the world through that little rose colored window in your bellybutton.

spike said:
I like opposition Jim. I don't have the time or patience to click on every piece you through up though. I'm not going to bother with coporate funded propaganda although I will read articles from a lot of conservative sources. Hell I even listen to Limbaugh and O'Reilly for a laugh sometimes.
Click to expand...

You have posted links to stories from major newspapers like the Washington Post, et al., but they are corporate funded. Is corporate funding of a news site only evil when it suits your devices? Is it only evil for Conservative sites; but wonderful for Liberal sites?

spike said:
I seem to remember you dismissing even mainstream media sources as being biased or having an "axe to grind", does that mean you were being cowardly then?
Click to expand...

I proved their biases but you continue to gaze through that little rose colored window, hands over ears, screaming "La,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la".
 
Re: Spike,

jimpeel said:
Well, you just keep living in that little world of yours, gazing out at the world through that little rose colored window in your bellybutton.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, you wouldn't be looking through any rose colored window getting your research from coporate propanda sites or anything. :laugh:

You have posted links to stories from major newspapers like the Washington Post, et al., but they are corporate funded. Is corporate funding of a news site only evil when it suits your devices? Is it only evil for Conservative sites; but wonderful for Liberal sites?
Click to expand...

If you can't recognize the difference between a newspaper and a propaganda site then you're hopeless.



I proved their biases but you continue to gaze through that little rose colored window, hands over ears, screaming "La,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la".
Click to expand...

Where did you prove their bias?
 
Holy crap!

Some unsubstantiated claims made by an obviously conservative outlet over a particular incident proves that all mainstream media is always biased. :rofl3:

You really do need that logic class.
 
spike said:
Holy crap!

Some unsubstantiated claims made by an obviously conservative outlet over a particular incident proves that all mainstream media is always biased. :rofl3:

You really do need that logic class.
Click to expand...

If the claim is unsubstantiated, then it should be up to you to point out the flaws. Parhaps you need to go to the transcripts of the referenced shows and show where the source I used was wrong and that Spitzer's political affiliation WAS mentioned. Then you could say that the source was lying and, upon that proof, it would be incumbent upon me to agree with you. Without that proof, however, the charge stands.

As I have stated elsewhere, you concentrate on the source and ignore what is contended. Their source of what I posted is Lexis-Nexis and there is no way that Lexis-Nexis is slanted in any way. All they do is record the stories and shows and exist as a searchable database.

Since Lexis-Nexis is the source that my source used as their source, is Lexis-Nexis slanting the news? Are they posting an edited database which has been tampered with?
 
First of all why should I spend my time fact checking your blatantly biased sources when I could just say they have "an ax to grind" like you do?

What you fail to realize is that is in no way proof of general bias even if it wasn't based on unsubstantiated claims from a conservative source. It wouldn't even be proof that the media's treatment of Spitzer was more favorable than that of a republican in a similar situation. For example David Vitter's involvement with prostitutes got so little attention he didn't even resign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top