Yeah? Well, almost everything else is biased for the

• Obama lied, economists cried... - sam
  • Bush lied and thousands died! - sm
    • What about the thousands that died in WWII to - Backwards typist
      • Bush's lies and people died for NO cause, NO reason! - maggie
        • how dare you say that anyone died for no... - Kendra
      • If they hadn't lied - we wouldn't be in this war with a faceless enemy....nm - sm
        • Sure we would. It would just be - Backwards typist
          • WTH are you talkin' bout, Willis? - sm
  • warped sources = warped ideas - Warp Speed
    • I realize it is hard to accept, when it is revealed that your idol.... - sam
      • Googled Americanthinker.com - Totally biased Reporting
        • Yeah? Well, almost everything else is biased for the - Messiah. Sam is right...and O is a fraud.nm
          • Drink some more Bush juice...you know you like it! nm - sm
          • Why so bitter? Because your side - Lost?
            • PULEEZE!!!!! sm - WMX MT
              • That's your opinion, not everyone's opinion. - Running on MT

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

not worth reading. Kind of like getting "news" from Faux.  If you enjoy having all your misconceptions and radical opinions reinforced, you are using the right sources.  Me, I like fact-checked info that does not insist it has the One and Only Truth.

Fox News was voted by the press to be the most fair in their reporting. They compared all the major stations and came up with an average of 40% of all reporting devoted to each side when reporting election news.

Other posters will state Fox is biased, but I have started watching that station and CNBC. I was MSNBC and the others when I need a laugh.

Tired of attack politics?  Don't need reporters telling you what you just saw or what to think about it?  Want a one-on-one convention experience?  Want to digest the content without the interference of disconcerting and distracting commentary?  Want to be in charge of deciding what is and what is not pertinent during the course of the conventions?  Do anchors and networks promoting their own hidden agendas get under your skin as they invent issues of no consequence, discount messages of great importance and try to stir up conflict?   Do you find most coverage obnoxious, rude and insulting to your intelligence?  Does their reporting look and sound like make believe?  Do you think our candidates, conventions, parties, issues, policies and political process deserve more dignity than a big-top circus/carnival presentation? 

That's exactly what I said.  Scarborough has always supported Bush.  There is a difference between supporting and blindly following.  For example, you see nothing wrong with how this case was handled.  You see nothing wrong with Bush lying every time he opens his mouth.  That's blind faith.

Scarborough is an objective Republican who believes in honesty.  I realize this is a difficult concept for some CONS to understand.  Once upon a time, honesty was considered a good thing in the United States.  People who were honest were considered to have moral character and integrity.  Scarborough is one of those rare of Republicans, totally foreign to you, I'm sure.

To blindly follow (which I'm sure you're quite familiar with) means worshiping a man as if he's some kind of god, believing every single word he says, even when you see evidence to the contrary right before your eyes.   He lies every day; those who follow blindly believe him every day.  And when it becomes common knowledge that he's lied and when they can't twist and manipulate the lie out of recognition any more, then his blind followers make excuses for him, usually blaming democrats or anyone else who is handy but never blaming the liar himself.  And they justify all the lying because they have that special *connection* with God.  They can lie all they want and God just winks at them and says it's okay because their place in heaven has already been guaranteed, unlike the rest of us poor slobs out there without that special connection.

The only thing that scares me more than Bush having the same credibility as Al Qaeda is the fact that there are so many morons who blindly follow him, who just aren't smart enough to figure out that Bush was never on their side - he's only on the side of big money.  He even joked about his *base* - the *haves* and the *have nots.*

By the way, you are on the liberal board.  If you don't care for the liberal point of view, the CON board is ---->

I was responding to this:  *And know a lot PK. I know A LOT about your posting habits more than you could ever imagine.*  I was accused of doing something I simply didn't do, so that just shows me how much you people really DO know, and, yes, I can *imagine* a LOT when faced with this kind of ominous post. 

Those of your ilk have dark histories of murdering people of different beliefs (for example, personnel at abortion clinics), and the latest tactic of the Neocons is intimidation and retribution.  Just ask Valerie Plame, who used to have a career before her husband spoke the truth.

If someone said that to you on your board, you'd be accusing them of threatening to assassinate you and contacting the FBI.  Who are you KIDDING?  Typical neocon double standard and hypocrisy at work again. 

but the point is, the far left hates Cheney as much or more than Bush, so impeach Bush, get Cheney, then what?  Impeach Cheney?  Then you get Hastert. I know the far left doesn't like him. Impeach him and get Ted Stevens.  He's a Republican, too.  (President pro tempore of the Senate).  Impeach him and get...Condi Rice...if she isn't buying shoes.  What have you gained. Absolutely nothing. Well...maybe some payback for Clinton, which is what this is all about anyway.  Why not just wait until 2008 and vote the bums out.