Reply With Quote
Was that necessary?
Everyone knows that he's the Liar in Chief.
If there are any who don't, they are lib s.
LOL. It would be harder to find where he tells the truth. You are so ing stupid and a HUGE hypocrite. Show some ing humility once in awhile and stop sucking on his kawk so much, got.
Earmarks
C-Span
Bunch of lies in this one.
Was that necessary?
Everyone knows that he's the Liar in Chief.
If there are any who don't, they are lib s.
So the administration didn't support the release of the bomber.
OK.
hey dumbass I was referring to Media Matters... I forget sometimes what an idiot you are..
Hey dumbass, you said to give you a call (ring, ring mother er) when you were being a hypocrite. You say you hate liars yet you suck on his (Obongos) KAWK everyday. God you are ing dumb.
I have already acknowledged that Obama has broken campaign promises you moron..
Hypocrite. We are talking about lies, not campaign promises. You ing roach!
you just brought up campaign promises he didn't keep you dummy!
lol @ ing roach. Calm down, Beavis.
And you are a hypocrite for sucking on his kawk.
what does fox news and the right wing machine purposefully reporting misleading news have anything to do with Obama?
Seriously what?
No wonder why this country is going bankrupt. you all.
They mentioned plenty other conservative journalists, and provided rather concrete examples of provably false groupthink."other prominent conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers"
"Matt Drudge splashed a huge headline..."
"Pam Geller -- whose deranged rantings..."
"on Andrew Breitbart's "Big" websites.."
"Tucker Carlson's"
"Conservative blogger Jim Hoft"
And you can be sure that in a few months, whenever Sean Hannity or anyone else in the noise machine decides to twist a news story to claim that the Obama administration is "weak on terror," they'll point to the time the administration supposedly "preferred the release of the Lockerbie bomber" in order to buttress their point.
The left has its own provably false memes on occasion, but I don't think the left or progressive movement has anywhere near the volume or influence among progressives that these conservative bloggers do among the right.
Sorry, but I really do see the conservative segment of the country as being waaay more aggregious when it comes to logical fallacies, shrill overstatments, and just plain factually misleading rhetoric.
Not that similar doesn't take place on the left, but the scope and magnitude is far and away less than the ulative effect of the people they reference in the OP.
Quite frankly I never really read Media Matters' website until today. They have a definite viewpoint, but do a lot of fact checking of conservative arguments, seemingly a pretty valid exercise.
The volume of the material there would seem to suggest that there is no dearth of material from conservatives that is in need of fact-checking.
Seriously go brush your teeth, breath.
the left has as many crackpots as the right, the difference being that some of the most popular political commentators today are the right crackpots. you don't see too many prime time slots on radio or cable allocated to the left extremists and so, in that regard, it is odd that the likes of rush and beck get so much attention. i guess the demographics suggest right crackpot followers have more money to spend on gold and whatever products rush pushes on his listeners.
The ratio of political "discourse" in the US that deals with actual policy to that which is based on what some media personality uttered must be 1:20.
I've never understood the stranglehold that neocons have on the talk media, but they do. Which is a magnifier of scope, but not necessarily of numbers.
Which is a direct result of the scope I was referencing above. Are they more aggregious (and what the is the metric for that anyway
Ok, I see you basically answered the question above. It is a function of scope and magnitude, which is sometimes independent of the actual number of actors, which I believe is closer to the reality. I don't believe that there are more neocon voices than there are progressive, but it is unquestionably the former that are being heard loudest by virtue of their market share.
Of course. Without the neocon media cannon, we'd likely never hear of MM.
There is no dearth of material from either party that is in need of fact-checking, sadly.
very true. or i may add, what was google searched or youtubed.
Media coverage shoulders the "news" aside, the better to regard itself in the mirror.
Much easier for fan and foe to hang on the word of a Limbaugh, Beck, Maddow, Olbermann, etc...than to actually form their own opinions. Meanwhile the welfare-warfare state continues to crumble.
You think he talks like Barney frank, never able to get the out of his throat?
Why are the conservatives always the ones coming up with the graphic sexual imagery?
i think jack may have finally found someone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
