Liberal Media - Iraq Redux

BYH,

Stick to what you know: bad music, bad television and bad hair.

 

Oh, so the entire profit-chasing mentality of modern American journalism has nothing to do with capitalism, but is instead a smokescreen for figuratively fellating Ted Kennedy. That clears things up -- I stand corrected.

Honestly, man, what would you and your ilk do without Kennedy? When an argument is lost, just bring up Teddy, maybe make a couple of glug-glug noises or "cross that bridge when we come to it" references, and mention how fat and drunk the old bastard is. I don't give a rat's ass about the guy (I refused to vote for him a few years ago because he declined to debate his opponent, even once -- even if you have reason to be that entitled, at least pretend that you're not), but you appear to be obsessed with him. Whatever gets you off, dude.

 

This is mere millimeters from actual English. And the Teddy obsession really was replaced by Bill 'n Hil a while back. It was big in the 1980s, though.
Back to the top of the thread -- it's time for the Congress to step up here.

 

Yawn, I am constantly amazed how someone like you who apparently has no clue somehow manages to type the keys correctly enough to form a sentence. Your idea of a liberal-owned media is absurd, plain and simple, and instead of offering any sort of backup for your claim, you throw it out there then point at it and say, "See? See?"

I find it even more astoundingly bizarre that you're actually taking the media to task for focusing on something other than the war for two minutes, when it was people of your ilk who criticized the media for focusing so negatively on the war in the first place. Make up your mind. Either you want the war covered or you don't.

And, by the way, you don't get to determine which stories make it on the air and which ones don't. Are there positive stories coming out of Iraq? Sure. Are there enough to make us forget more than 3,100 U.S. deaths since the invasion? Nope.

And if you think the 2008 election isn't going to be critical in terms of the prosecution of the war moving forward, you're a complete fool.

 

It might be added that broadcast media, of which I was a member for seven years, responds solely to the demands of the listening/viewing audience. Belive it that when you DON'T carry news the people want to hear or see, they will let you know about it. For example, there has been a vast amount of coverage of the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Rest her soul, but the story is worn out and is just being repeated over and over. But I assure you that if that story is removed as one of the three lead stories, something will hit the fan, and the fan will be on high and oscillating 360 degrees. It is sensational and that is what the people who have the time to watch want top see. I don't like the constant obsession with the war, either. But it is happening and it doesn't matter if the media is being controlled by the Liberals, the Conservatives, or Little green Men from Mars. There are Americans bering killed and war is a pretty importyant topic. ALSO! The future leadership of this country will possibly determine our ultimate fate. Thus, the 2008 election, while far in the future, is on the mind of most Americans, and will be until election day. Besides, I wantas much time to decide and make the right choice as possible. A year and a half is a lot of time, but not that much too much.

 

By the By, sorry for the spelling errors. I was writing under a time limit and didn't take time to check. I do know how to spell.

 

He does, folks, trust me.

 

When did he do that? I missed it.

 

A clue to knowing when you've hit a nerve with liberals:

They leap off the argument to childish name-calling and insults.

 

If you consider what I wrote to be name-calling, you need to reset your clue meter. And to claim I didn't stick to the topic is bizarre. Unless, of course, you're doing just what you're accusing liberals of, which is throwing out an argument and hoping it will stick.

 

It must, because you jump on me like you would if Hannity posted in here regularly. I spoke to his producer assistants one day while waiting on the phone to talk to him and he said he saw this site (based on an email message) and felt it didn't merit comment because, in his words, when he speaks of the media, those in here are merely a piece of the puzzle of confusion, misguidance and hypocrisy. Other than that, there's no credibility to give it.