I have a secret clearance. Secret not TOP SECRET like the VP. I know if I or any other soldier were to do somthing like this we would be tarred, feathered, and put UNDER the prison for like 30 years. Why, why, effin WHY does this administration keep getting away with stuff like this.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
You really are a moron - you don’t tell everyone where your harden shelter is . . . everyone already knew where he lived - what they didn’t know was that was also his secure location - now, the government will have to spend millions more creating another secure location where the current and future VP’s [u]can be hidden during SOTU addresses and similar events[/u] . . .if you can’t understand the importance of that . . . well obviously you can’t . . . but hey - if you want the entire political leadership of the US to all be vulnerable at one time . .[/quote]
I think his super secret hiding spot for the SOTU address is still safe.
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itâ??s your bias showing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itâ??s your bias showing.
[/quote]
Are these actual statistics, or are you just making stuff up?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itâ??s your bias showing.
[/quote]
Fox News goes to extremes that no other network does, and not in a good way. The shit they put on the air with O’Reilly and Beck denigrates any other efforts to be “fair and balanced” especially when guys with an obvious glaring slant try to claim that they don’t spin news.
Just because I don’t like whores, doesn’t make me gay…
In this day and age, it is absolute bullshit to say that the MSM covers for Biden (or anyone) because there are so many other sources for news. Any of us can invest a few minutes on the net searching for news we trust instead of expecting it to be spoon fed. Boohoo MSM is so biased, and I only have hours a day to waste on PWI.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itâ??s your bias showing.
[/quote]
Trying posting sober it helps.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itâ??s your bias showing.
[/quote]
I personally do not think Bidden an idiot, but I think the media would be all over Palin as an idiot. Probably because she is one, in her defense they would have been all over McCain as well
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itÃ??Ã?¢??s your bias showing.
Are these actual statistics, or are you just making stuff up?[/quote]
Why don’t yall spend some time investigating before claiming bias?
Edit: hint, you can’t look to CNN for the answers you seek.
[quote]borrek wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itÃ?¢??s your bias showing.
Fox News goes to extremes that no other network does, and not in a good way. The shit they put on the air with O’Reilly and Beck denigrates any other efforts to be “fair and balanced” especially when guys with an obvious glaring slant try to claim that they don’t spin news.
Just because I don’t like whores, doesn’t make me gay…
In this day and age, it is absolute bullshit to say that the MSM covers for Biden (or anyone) because there are so many other sources for news. Any of us can invest a few minutes on the net searching for news we trust instead of expecting it to be spoon fed. Boohoo MSM is so biased, and I only have hours a day to waste on PWI.[/quote]
True, I hate Oâ??Riely, but to think other networks donâ??t have his equivalent is denial. At least fox labels those shows as opinion shows and not the news. Not to mention they donâ??t ask guys like Oâ??Riely to do things like anchor election coverage.
Actually, you guys were the ones complaining and â??boohooâ??ing about bias I was addressing yalls claims. Why criticize me for complaining and whining when the libs are the ones that brought up bias and unfair coverage in this thread. Oh right, youâ??re a liberal, so youâ??re blind to bias on your own side. ;0) Iâ??m sorry for addressing an issue your side brought up.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itÃ?¢??s your bias showing.
Trying posting sober it helps.[/quote]
Try addressing arguments, it helps you not look stupid.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itÃ??Ã?¢??s your bias showing.
Trying posting sober it helps.
Try addressing arguments, it helps you not look stupid.[/quote]
I wouldn’t take advice on that from you.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s your bias showing.
Trying posting sober it helps.
Try addressing arguments, it helps you not look stupid.
I wouldn’t take advice on that from you.[/quote]
So you disagree that repeatedly attacking the source of an argument while entirely ignoring the argument itself doesn’t make a person look foolish? oh wait, I wouldn’t know because you attacked me again rather than addressing the argument.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s your bias showing.
Are these actual statistics, or are you just making stuff up?
Why don’t yall spend some time investigating before claiming bias?
Edit: hint, you can’t look to CNN for the answers you seek.[/quote]
What “bias” would you like me to investigate? YOU claimed bias. Remember? It’s quoted above. You said, “[quote] the stats that say it is the most balanced network [/quote].” I just assumed you made that up. Do you actually have studies?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s your bias showing.
Trying posting sober it helps.
Try addressing arguments, it helps you not look stupid.
I wouldn’t take advice on that from you.
So you disagree that repeatedly attacking the source of an argument while entirely ignoring the argument itself doesn’t make a person look foolish? oh wait, I wouldn’t know because you attacked me again rather than addressing the argument.[/quote]
There is no argument. You stated that Fauxnews is the least biased. This is ridiculous.
We may as well have an argument over whether the universe revolves around the earth.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s your bias showing.
Are these actual statistics, or are you just making stuff up?
Why don’t yall spend some time investigating before claiming bias?
Edit: hint, you can’t look to CNN for the answers you seek.
What “bias” would you like me to investigate? YOU claimed bias. Remember? It’s quoted above. You said, " the stats that say it is the most balanced network ." I just assumed you made that up. Do you actually have studies? [/quote]
Yes, there are actual statistics out there if you care to look. Most of the networks typically give about twice the time to liberal viewpoints as conservative.
example:
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2009/100Days/100DaysPDFversion.pdf
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s your bias showing.
Trying posting sober it helps.
Try addressing arguments, it helps you not look stupid.
I wouldn’t take advice on that from you.
So you disagree that repeatedly attacking the source of an argument while entirely ignoring the argument itself doesn’t make a person look foolish? oh wait, I wouldn’t know because you attacked me again rather than addressing the argument.
There is no argument. You stated that Fauxnews is the least biased. This is ridiculous.
We may as well have an argument over whether the universe revolves around the earth. [/quote]
If it were so ridiculous, you could easily address my post. Or we can sit around and wait on more nbc/cnn staff to join the obama team (officially).
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
You really are a moron - you don’t tell everyone where your harden shelter is . . . everyone already knew where he lived - what they didn’t know was that was also his secure location - now, the government will have to spend millions more creating another secure location where the current and future VP’s can be hidden during SOTU addresses and similar events . . .if you can’t understand the importance of that . . . well obviously you can’t . . . but hey - if you want the entire political leadership of the US to all be vulnerable at one time . .[/quote]
I figuered it out!The construction for the new shelter is part of the stimulas package. That way “da gubbamint” can give some contruction jobs to illegal aliens.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost worote:
What “bias” would you like me to investigate? YOU claimed bias. Remember? It’s quoted above. You said, " the stats that say it is the most balanced network ." I just assumed you made that up. Do you actually have studies?
Yes, there are actual statistics out there if you care to look. Most of the networks typically give about twice the time to liberal viewpoints as conservative.
example:
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2009/100Days/100DaysPDFversion.pdf[/quote]
LOL!
Well, I guess as long as the completely unbiased Media Research Center says so, it must be!
Let’s take a quick look at their first “key finding” in the executive summary, shall we?
[quote] # Obamaâ??s first 100 days were defined by massive spending, aggressive intervention in the
private sector and proposals for a huge expansion of the federal government. Yet none of
the networks aired a single story on whether Obamaâ??s policies were pushing the U.S.
toward socialism, and no reporter used the term â??socialistâ?? to describe Obama.[/quote]
OMG! The horribly biased media didn’t call him a “socialist”! …I’m sure Bush was often called a “fascist” though, those biased bastards!
Seriously though, there’s just something about decrying bias by using exceptionally biased terminology that makes my heart all warm and fuzzy inside. It cries “hypocrite” in a way that helps me to laugh all the harder.
The conclusion: [quote] The once-fierce media watchdogs have become Barack Obamaâ??s drooling, tail-wagging lapdogs. [/quote]
I’m not exactly sure what a “drooling, tail-wagging lapdog” is, but I’m positive 1) it’s not biased terminology at all and 2) that this was UNQUESTIONABLY proven in the article. After all, showing a bias means lapdog, right?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Thoughts on what the MSM would have done if this were Palin we were talking about. I wonder if CNN would still consider it a non-story. Who wants to bet money that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and BBC would all be giving it plenty of air time.
Biden is an idiot. The MSM covered for him during the campaign when he said idiotic things. And appear to be even when his idiotic statements include classified information regarding national security.
You libs can make fun of fox all you want, it doesn’t change the stats that say it is the most balanced network. Look at things like the ratio of positive to negative stories about subjects or people, party labeling with scandals, air time given to sides in an argument. Fox actually is the most balanced. If you have that much aversion to it, maybe itÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s your bias showing.
Are these actual statistics, or are you just making stuff up?
Why don’t yall spend some time investigating before claiming bias?
Edit: hint, you can’t look to CNN for the answers you seek.
What “bias” would you like me to investigate? YOU claimed bias. Remember? It’s quoted above. You said, " the stats that say it is the most balanced network ." I just assumed you made that up. Do you actually have studies?
Yes, there are actual statistics out there if you care to look. Most of the networks typically give about twice the time to liberal viewpoints as conservative.
example:
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2009/100Days/100DaysPDFversion.pdf[/quote]
And by the way. You’re “stats” don’t support your argument whatsoever. Actually, they don’t even deal with it. They didn’t even look at CNN/Fox/ect. They exclusively look at ABC/CBS/NBC…
Your argument was: [quote]the stats that say [FOX] is the most balanced network.[/quote]
Did you just make this up? I’m guessing you did.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost worote:
What “bias” would you like me to investigate? YOU claimed bias. Remember? It’s quoted above. You said, " the stats that say it is the most balanced network ." I just assumed you made that up. Do you actually have studies?
Yes, there are actual statistics out there if you care to look. Most of the networks typically give about twice the time to liberal viewpoints as conservative.
example:
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2009/100Days/100DaysPDFversion.pdf
LOL!
Well, I guess as long as the completely unbiased Media Research Center says so, it must be!
Let’s take a quick look at their first “key finding” in the executive summary, shall we?
Obama�¢??s first 100 days were defined by massive spending, aggressive intervention in the
private sector and proposals for a huge expansion of the federal government. Yet none of
the networks aired a single story on whether Obama�¢??s policies were pushing the U.S.
toward socialism, and no reporter used the term �¢??socialist�¢?? to describe Obama.
OMG! The horribly biased media didn’t call him a “socialist”! …I’m sure Bush was often called a “fascist” though, those biased bastards!
Seriously though, there’s just something about decrying bias by using exceptionally biased terminology that makes my heart all warm and fuzzy inside. It cries “hypocrite” in a way that helps me to laugh all the harder.
The conclusion: The once-fierce media watchdogs have become Barack Obama�¢??s drooling, tail-wagging lapdogs.
I’m not exactly sure what a “drooling, tail-wagging lapdog” is, but I’m positive 1) it’s not biased terminology at all and 2) that this was UNQUESTIONABLY proven in the article. After all, showing a bias means lapdog, right?
[/quote]
Would you like to debate the factual statistics in that? Are you saying the statistics are false?
edit: also, the socialist point is completely valid. Many Americans feel that his policies are moving America towards the socialist front, yet the media has never addressed it at all (whether in support of the socialist policies or not). You would think it would be at least discussed when GM is essentially nationalized and there is talk of nationalized banks, and he is attempting to institute socialized medicine.