View Single Post
Old 03-10-2009, 09:55 AM   #36
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
WTF are you talking about? "Having Obama's babies?"
I'm talking about reporters admitting and swooning that they want to sleep with Obama.

Originally Posted by True_Avery
Good job pulling a bull example out of the air to present a bull argument, not only missing the message of the article but completely mixing up who they were talking about.
I can tell you didn't read what all I posted:

The newly named head of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, is married to New York Times reporter Jason DeParle. The marriage was mentioned in the Times article on Mrs. DeParle’s appointment, but will the editor or the Public Editor of the Times explain how they’ll avoid a conflict?

Time magazine saluted Mrs. DeParle’s resume, including running Medicare at the end of the Clinton administration, but like the Times, they were more concerned with her private-sector conflicts: "Since then she has become a highly sought-after corporate, academic and foundation consultant, earning enough money with her husband, New York Times reporter Jason DeParle, to buy a $3 million house in the Washington suburbs in 2007."

This theme emerged earlier: United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice is married to Ian Cameron, who was named last fall to be the executive producer of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It might seem obvious that ABC’s less interested in the appearance problems of any conflicts, with Stephanopoulos the Clinton operative as its top political analyst (and a Cuomo as a news anchor).

Thanks for pointing out the thing on Michelle, I had forgotten about her being swooned over too. And before you try to smear Newsbusters as usual, the article actually sources the news agencies they are accusing of conflict of interest. If you'll note I said "crush on the Obamas," or are you saying Michelle isn't married to Barack?

I'll try to find some other links as well on that.

Originally Posted by True_Avery
I suggest you don't mention this baseless red herring again.
Because it shows your sources have no credibility at all it's a red herring... You have a strange definition of what a red herring is.

Originally Posted by True_Avery
Not attacking children doesn't save them from the blatant bias and attacks the have done over the years themselves. I seem to remember them calling out Obama on not being an American Citizen and cheating his way in?
Sean Hannity pointed out Obama's ties to ACORN which is well-known for voter fraud, but the not being an American Citizen garbage was from the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the only thing Fox News brought up about it was that it wasn't the Republicans that came up with that.

Originally Posted by True_Avery
Fox is as low as MSNBC is. They just happen to be on different ladders on their way down.
Oh so now you finally, admit MSNBC isn't a credible source, okay so next I'm going to have to find enough sourcing and stuff that maybe you'll also admit Fox News is a credible source. Seriously though, Ann Coulter is more credible than some of the people at MSNBC.

Originally Posted by True_Avery
also find it interesting that whenever someone calls you on Fox News, you throw MSNBC out as a strawman, never actually taking on the Fox News part of the argument. MSNBC is biased and we can both agree on that, so I don't need you continuously pointlessly pointing it out when it doesn't need to be.
Well you know someone got sued for making a phony video and releasing it to try to make it look like John Gibson from Fox News was a racist? That kind of smear campaign is relatively common by the left, but the reason this resulted in a lawsuit is because it was a reporter from an MSNBC subsidiary.

We see this kind of stuff with wikipedia as well.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: