Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
A mistake, that's all you're going to call it? Not a remark by a brainwashed liberal weinie who thinks that war is bad. Hundreds of thousands versus 58,000 is not just a mistake.

You probably just heard the remark wrong. She probably said "casualties." But even if it was a mistake, so what? Most people wouldn't know the difference or even care

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
You probably just heard the remark wrong. She probably said "casualties." But even if it was a mistake, so what? Most people wouldn't know the difference or even care

 

Oh so it's my mistake now. You're a fricken idiot. And the fact that most people wouldn't know the difference is exactly my point. Most of the people that heard that will think that's how many were actually killed (yes, that's what she said), and will think that's how many will die in Iraq because that's what the liberals constantly compare Iraq to.

Posted
Oh so it's my mistake now. You're a fricken idiot. And the fact that most people wouldn't know the difference is exactly my point. Most of the people that heard that will think that's how many were actually killed (yes, that's what she said), and will think that's how many will die in Iraq because that's what the liberals constantly compare Iraq to.

Why, exactly, is this a liberal media bias though? I believe there is one, too. But I don't understand why your example is one.

Posted
If you're into comparison, riddle me this. What do you think today's press would have written about the US military conduct in WWII?

This is a completely different comparison than what me and Jim were discussing. Different people raised in different eras having experienced different events are not going to see things the same way. That said, I really can't say. I suppose they would have wanted to defeat the threat of fascism as much as the next guy/gal. Walter Cronkite was consider liberl and he flew in B-17s over Germany just to get the story. I get the feeling this is sort of like the WW2=Iraq comparioson crap.

 

What do you think they would have done?

Posted
Oh so it's my mistake now. You're a fricken idiot. And the fact that most people wouldn't know the difference is exactly my point. Most of the people that heard that will think that's how many were actually killed (yes, that's what she said), and will think that's how many will die in Iraq because that's what the liberals constantly compare Iraq to.

What if it was a mistake?

Posted
You probably just heard the remark wrong. She probably said "casualties." But even if it was a mistake, so what? Most people wouldn't know the difference or even care

 

Just like you heard "seven" when Keeler actually said "four".

Posted
If you're into comparison, riddle me this. What do you think today's press would have written about the US military conduct in WWII?

 

 

Well, to be fair it's not like anything in WWII could compare with Abu Ghraib, waterboarding or throwing puppies off a cliff.

 

:)

Posted
Oh come on man. I'm talking about bias in the media. Last I checked radio was a form of media. The title of the thread was media bias. I plugged in my post because I didn't want to start a new thread on the topic. And I'm not talking about being fair, I'm talking about providing at least accurate information.

 

The thread, from my understanding, was talking about the news media's reporting of a couple of events, and when someone mentions that theres a "liberal bias" in the media, typically they're referring to the NEWS media...

Posted
People often confuse "casualties" for deaths

 

My point being that you're making a definitive statement about something you know absolutely nothing about. Do you bother to find the actual quote? No. You state baldly that the quoter must have misunderstood.

 

It's this whole "talking out of your ass" thing, again. It appears to be the only thing you're good at.

Posted
My point being that you're making a definitive statement about something you know absolutely nothing about. Do you bother to find the actual quote? No. You state baldly that the quoter must have misunderstood.

 

It's this whole "talking out of your ass" thing, again. It appears to be the only thing you're good at.

I love it when you are wrong. I said "probably." That is hardley definitive. Was just making an educated guess. Talk about talking out your azz! LOL, Tom, you really are an idiot

Posted
The thread, from my understanding, was talking about the news media's reporting of a couple of events, and when someone mentions that theres a "liberal bias" in the media, typically they're referring to the NEWS media...

 

Typically yes, but not in my case. Once again the thread title was MEDIA BIAS, the radio is a form of media, her comment was biased to her thoughts on the war in Vietnam that leans towards the liberal therefore that is the reason for my posting it in this thread about the liberal bias in the media as opposed to starting a new thread. After yesterday bandwidth appears to be precious here.

Posted
People often confuse "casualties" for deaths

 

So you put two and two together and came up with peanut butter. I know the difference between casualties my friend and I know what I heard. And I did a little research on KPFK and the show Uprising (the same show I was listening to) and I came up with something eerily similar.

 

Very interesting.

 

Today the US is once more deep inside a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people
Posted
So you put two and two together and came up with peanut butter. I know the difference between casualties my friend and I know what I heard. And I did a little research on KPFK and the show Uprising (the same show I was listening to) and I came up with something eerily similar.

 

Very interesting.

 

I think you misunderstood :)

Posted
So you put two and two together and came up with peanut butter. I know the difference between casualties my friend and I know what I heard. And I did a little research on KPFK and the show Uprising (the same show I was listening to) and I came up with something eerily similar.

 

Very interesting.

Ya, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died according to very credible sources. I believe even the Pentagon puts it at 80k killed, so you know it must be much higher than that

Posted
Ya, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died according to very credible sources. I believe even the Pentagon puts it at 80k killed, so you know it must be much higher than that

 

I knew you'd get my point. :)

Posted
No, dummy.

 

Becuase Ive said more than once that I, personally dont CARE about the bias. "We" have talk radio. "You" have print. There are cable news channels offering different views. At the end of the day, there is no shortage of places to get differing opinions and viewpoints on any news topic.

 

And even if I DID care about the bias, Id like to see the media police itself to strive towards "fairness", not legislate a "solution."

 

Is your solution to EVERYTHING the implementation of more laws? You say the right wing are those who are being shrill about it. And yeah, we complain... but WE are not the ones looking to lock people up for not being more fair. YOU are.

 

I love how you jump to the conclusion that I'm in favor of the fairness doctrine. When & where did I say that?

 

Shrill and accusatory, with nothing but a strawman to back up your argument, how Wacka Molson of you. :)

Posted
I love how you jump to the conclusion that I'm in favor of the fairness doctrine. When & where did I say that?

 

Shrill and accusatory, with nothing but a strawman to back up your argument, how Wacka Molson of you. :)

LOL, you seem to be a little obsessed with me

Posted
LOL, you seem to be a little obsessed with me

 

No, he's just using the most obvious example of idiocy on this board. You don't have much competition for the top spot.

×
×
  • Create New...