MR

I can't stand McCain but this piece by the New York Times is an obvious smear with little or no supporting evidence. Can their bias be any more evident?

Why don't they just go ahead and report on Hillary's supposed lesbian affair? There's no real evidence there, either, but they didn't report on that, did they?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... sbian.html

No different than Fox News.

Deal with it.

Rockindeano wrote:No different than Fox News.

Deal with it.

Come on...Comparing bad behavior to other bad behavior doesn't justify it nor aid your argument. That's weak.

conversationpc wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:No different than Fox News.

Deal with it.

Come on...Comparing bad behavior to other bad behavior doesn't justify it nor aid your argument. That's weak.

Not comparing. The NY Times still can prove itself, and had better. Fixed Noise has a record of Bullshit for 8 years now. You are right, there is NO comparison.

Rockindeano wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:No different than Fox News.

Deal with it.

Come on...Comparing bad behavior to other bad behavior doesn't justify it nor aid your argument. That's weak.

Not comparing. The NY Times still can prove itself, and better. Fixed Noise has a record of Bullshit for 8 years now. You are right, there is NO comparison.

...and Hillary is a lesbo.

Rockindeano wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

Rockindeano wrote:No different than Fox News.

Deal with it.

Come on...Comparing bad behavior to other bad behavior doesn't justify it nor aid your argument. That's weak.

Not comparing. The NY Times still can prove itself, and better. Fixed Noise has a record of Bullshit for 8 years now. You are right, there is NO comparison.

You better check notes with your girl Hillary. She just recently said Fox News is better than MSNBC. Miss that did you?

RedWingFan wrote:You better check notes with your girl Hillary. She just recently said Fox News is better than MSNBC. Miss that did you?

I must've missed that one.

conversationpc wrote:

RedWingFan wrote:You better check notes with your girl Hillary. She just recently said Fox News is better than MSNBC. Miss that did you?

I must've missed that one.

She said that right about the time a MSNBC guy made the "pimped out" comment about Chelsea.

RedWingFan wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

RedWingFan wrote:You better check notes with your girl Hillary. She just recently said Fox News is better than MSNBC. Miss that did you?

I must've missed that one.

She said that right about the time a MSNBC guy made the "pimped out" comment about Chelsea.

But MSNBC has that hack Olbermann.

Is it me or does McCain's wife kinda look like a female version of him???

conversationpc wrote:

RedWingFan wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

RedWingFan wrote:You better check notes with your girl Hillary. She just recently said Fox News is better than MSNBC. Miss that did you?

I must've missed that one.

She said that right about the time a MSNBC guy made the "pimped out" comment about Chelsea.

But MSNBC has that hack Olbermann.

Say what you will, but I can always count on Olbermann to play a quote in context.
When everyone else on NBC was decrying Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment as outright racism, only Olbermann played the comments in full to show that Clinton was actually discussing Obama's Iraq voting record. Similarly, when it came to Kerry's de-contexualized "stuck in Iraq" remarks, only Keith played Kerry's entire anti-Bush comedic monologue in full.
Where else do you get the full picture?
It sure as hell ain't Hannity or Beck.

conversationpc wrote:I can't stand McCain but this piece by the New York Times is an obvious smear with little or no supporting evidence. Can their bias be any more evident?

Why don't they just go ahead and report on Hillary's supposed lesbian affair? There's no real evidence there, either, but they didn't report on that, did they?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... sbian.html

If this so-called lobbyist love affair unduly influenced McCain's voting record, than it is important.
If not, I say no big deal.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Say what you will, but I can always count on Olbermann to play a quote in context.
When everyone else on NBC was decrying Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment as outright racism, only Olbermann played the comments in full to show that Clinton was actually discussing Obama's Iraq voting record. Similarly, when it came to Kerry's de-contexualized "stuck in Iraq" remarks, only Keith played Kerry's entire anti-Bush comedic monologue in full.
Where else do you get the full picture?
It sure as hell ain't Hannity or Beck.

You're wrong about Beck. Dead wrong.

That being said...Olbermann is the hypocrite who got pissed about the comments regarding Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out" yet he made similar comments regarding Bush and Petreaus.

conversationpc wrote:You're wrong about Beck. Dead wrong.

Beck lied about Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments and Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comments. He could've simply played the full audio of either instances to clear the air. Instead he tailored each story to fit his rah-rah right wing agenda.

That being said...Olbermann is the hypocrite who got pissed about the comments regarding Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out" yet he made similar comments regarding Bush and Petreaus.

Those are grown men. And Petraeus to some extent was pimped out. His report was written by the White House for him. Disrepectful choice of words, sure. But altogether inaccurate? I'm not so sure.

Olberman should go and cover High school sports. I remeber the news in the 60's and at least Cronkite CBS,Huntly Brinkly NBC covered the news with scorces. WLS Chicago today they would never cover a story w/o sources. This story is 8 yrs old and they could not come up with anything when he ran back then for President. Now we have a more younger population who believe anything. This is mud throwing to see what sticks. Think about this -newspeople have to get rating much the way Congress does. If there was any smoke do you really think the Dems would not have nailed him 8yrs ago. The NYTimes is a political hack and so are most newspapers in the country and network news. All these candidates are a sad lot to have to choose a President. Get your news from as many sources as you can.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Beck lied about Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments and Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comments. He could've simply played the full audio of either instances to clear the air. Instead he tailored each story to fit his rah-rah right wing agenda.

I've heard AND read the comments by both Kerry and Limbaugh in context and I agree with Beck. That doesn't make either of us "liars". BTW, I love how some libtards use the word "lie" and "liars", as if because you disagree with someone and what they consider the "facts", that makes you a liar.

Those are grown men. And Petraeus to some extent was pimped out. His report was written by the White House for him. Disrepectful choice of words, sure. But altogether inaccurate? I'm not so sure.

Sorry, but I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to a guy who is a decorated and well-respected General. To say that he was "pimped out", especially by a hypocrite like Olbermann, is beyond the pale, especially when what he said has been borne out by drastically reduced violence in Iraq, despite the seeming lack of political progress.

We all know the Washington Post was just waging a left wing smear campaign against Nixon too.

It was OK for the Republicans to spend 8 yrs feeding a mainstream media frenzy with every ort of a tidbit of a possibility of a suspicion of anything they could dig up about Clinton, but as soon as it looks like one of their boys is about to get caught they cry foul.

ohsherrie wrote:We all know the Washington Post was just waging a left wing smear campaign against Nixon too.

It was OK for the Republicans to spend 8 yrs feeding a mainstream media frenzy with every ort of a tidbit of a possibility of a suspicion of anything they could dig up about Clinton, but as soon as it looks like one of their boys is about to get caught they cry foul.

You don't have me on either of those issues. Try again, please.

Besides that, there's currently more evidence that Michael Jackson is normal than there is with these allegations against McCain.

conversationpc wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:We all know the Washington Post was just waging a left wing smear campaign against Nixon too.

It was OK for the Republicans to spend 8 yrs feeding a mainstream media frenzy with every ort of a tidbit of a possibility of a suspicion of anything they could dig up about Clinton, but as soon as it looks like one of their boys is about to get caught they cry foul.

You don't have me on either of those issues. Try again, please.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. My post wasn't directed at you. It was just a general comment on the differences in perspective depending on which side of the issue you're on.

conversationpc wrote:Besides that, there's currently more evidence that Michael Jackson is normal than there is with these allegations against McCain.

Do you, or does anybody for that matter, really know how much evidence the Times has? Did anybody really know how much evidence the Post had when the Watergate story first broke?

For that matter, how much real evidence was there of White Water when that was first plastered all over every newspaper, network and cable news channel? Not enough obviously since they couldn't ever prove anything.

ohsherrie wrote:

conversationpc wrote:Besides that, there's currently more evidence that Michael Jackson is normal than there is with these allegations against McCain.

Do you, or does anybody for that matter, really know how much evidence the Times has? Did anybody really know how much evidence the Post had when the Watergate story first broke?

For that matter, how much real evidence was there of White Water when that was first plastered all over every newspaper, network and cable news channel? Not enough obviously since they couldn't ever prove anything.

That's a weak, weak argument. We now have the luxury of looking back on those events and seeing real evidence. This one has two unnamed sources who admitted that they don't like McCain in the first place, not to mention that this story first surfaced eight years ago and went away because there's no evidence. If any substantial evidence comes out, I'll change my mind but this just looks like a hit piece at this time.

Like I said in my initial post, there's just as much "evidence" that Hillary was having a lesbian affair with former staffer Huma Abedin as there is with this McCain story yet they certainly aren't printing that one on the front page, are they?

Sherrie,

Just so happened to rent All the President's Men from Netflix Tuesday.

Riveting movie. You should see it.

conversationpc wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

conversationpc wrote:Besides that, there's currently more evidence that Michael Jackson is normal than there is with these allegations against McCain.

Do you, or does anybody for that matter, really know how much evidence the Times has? Did anybody really know how much evidence the Post had when the Watergate story first broke?

For that matter, how much real evidence was there of White Water when that was first plastered all over every newspaper, network and cable news channel? Not enough obviously since they couldn't ever prove anything.

That's a weak, weak argument. We now have the luxury of looking back on those events and seeing real evidence. This one has two unnamed sources who admitted that they don't like McCain in the first place, not to mention that this story first surfaced eight years ago and went away because there's no evidence. If any substantial evidence comes out, I'll change my mind but this just looks like a hit piece at this time.

Like I said in my initial post, there's just as much "evidence" that Hillary was having a lesbian affair with former staffer Huma Abedin as there is with this McCain story yet they certainly aren't printing that one on the front page, are they?

Why on earth did the NY Times endorese McCain WHILE THEY WORKING ON THIS STORY? The Times is a joke. I will not vote for McCain, but this is a poor excuse for journalism.

Rockindeano wrote:Sherrie,

Just so happened to rent All the President's Men from Netflix Tuesday.

Riveting movie. You should see it.

I have Dean. It really is an incredible movie.

conversationpc wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

conversationpc wrote:Besides that, there's currently more evidence that Michael Jackson is normal than there is with these allegations against McCain.

Do you, or does anybody for that matter, really know how much evidence the Times has? Did anybody really know how much evidence the Post had when the Watergate story first broke?

For that matter, how much real evidence was there of White Water when that was first plastered all over every newspaper, network and cable news channel? Not enough obviously since they couldn't ever prove anything.

That's a weak, weak argument. We now have the luxury of looking back on those events and seeing real evidence. This one has two unnamed sources who admitted that they don't like McCain in the first place, not to mention that this story first surfaced eight years ago and went away because there's no evidence. If any substantial evidence comes out, I'll change my mind but this just looks like a hit piece at this time.

Like I said in my initial post, there's just as much "evidence" that Hillary was having a lesbian affair with former staffer Huma Abedin as there is with this McCain story yet they certainly aren't printing that one on the front page, are they?

No actually it's the most applicable of all possible arguments because as far as we knew then, or know now, all of the examples started out in exactly the same manner as this one. We know how they came out, but we don't know how this one will.

Whether or not it's true isn't the issue with me because he'll never make it to the White House anyway. What really gets me about it is the hypocrisy of the Republican party pundits crying foul at the allegation after the way they used the media to further their witchhunts during the Clinton administration.

Barb wrote: ... I will not vote for McCain, ...

Is it just McCain, or is it the Republican party?
(no bait...an honest question)


later~

Arkansas wrote:

Barb wrote: ... I will not vote for McCain, ...

Is it just McCain, or is it the Republican party?
(no bait...an honest question)


later~

I just don't care for John McCain. I would have voted for Romney, but now that he's out, I don't have a candidate.

Rockindeano wrote:No different than Fox News.

Deal with it.

Example? The Times is a shit rag. They are deplorable.

ohsherrie wrote:No actually it's the most applicable of all possible arguments because as far as we knew then, or know now, all of the examples started out in exactly the same manner as this one. We know how they came out, but we don't know how this one will.

Good thing you're not in charge of our judicial system because it sounds like you've convicted McCain already.

Whether or not it's true isn't the issue with me because he'll never make it to the White House anyway. What really gets me about it is the hypocrisy of the Republican party pundits crying foul at the allegation after the way they used the media to further their witchhunts during the Clinton administration.

Witchhunts? Weren't there several convictions that came out of that investigation? Oh wait...I forgot. That was just the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that must've bribed the judges/juries or something like that.

conversationpc wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:No actually it's the most applicable of all possible arguments because as far as we knew then, or know now, all of the examples started out in exactly the same manner as this one. We know how they came out, but we don't know how this one will.

Good thing you're not in charge of our judicial system because it sounds like you've convicted McCain already.

Whether or not it's true isn't the issue with me because he'll never make it to the White House anyway. What really gets me about it is the hypocrisy of the Republican party pundits crying foul at the allegation after the way they used the media to further their witchhunts during the Clinton administration.

Witchhunts? Weren't there several convictions that came out of that investigation? Oh wait...I forgot. That was just the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that must've bribed the judges/juries or something like that.

The VRW also made sure Clinton got disbarred too.

Barb wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:No actually it's the most applicable of all possible arguments because as far as we knew then, or know now, all of the examples started out in exactly the same manner as this one. We know how they came out, but we don't know how this one will.

Good thing you're not in charge of our judicial system because it sounds like you've convicted McCain already.

Whether or not it's true isn't the issue with me because he'll never make it to the White House anyway. What really gets me about it is the hypocrisy of the Republican party pundits crying foul at the allegation after the way they used the media to further their witchhunts during the Clinton administration.

Witchhunts? Weren't there several convictions that came out of that investigation? Oh wait...I forgot. That was just the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that must've bribed the judges/juries or something like that.

The VRW also made sure Clinton got disbarred too.

Yeah, you know how conservative those trial lawyers are.