If you don't listen to Fox News or Rush....

The point was that it was being ignored.  Talking about how Stewart was saying Republicans are overreacting to the story is proving the original point is wrong.
 
rsc2a said:
The point was that it was being ignored.  Talking about how Stewart was saying Republicans are overreacting to the story is proving the original point is wrong.
Click to expand...

You continue to miss the point...the rest of the media are now being forced to cover the story...because Fox, Rush (talk radio in general) and the internet outlets embarrassed them into the fray.
Too little and very late....
 
You posted this last Thursday. The day before NPR had devoted nearly an hour to this topic.

But don't let facts get in the way of your blind ideological following.
 
The OP claims that FOX news will make you (by inference) a high information voter. My only point is and has been that limiting yourself to one source (or several that parrot each other) is also a recipe for ignorance. If nothing else you will be ignorant of what the "other side" is doing.

The insistence on this thread is that the mainstream (undefined term BTW) media has not covered this story. When proof was given of media coverage the goal posts were moved to say they didn't cover it soon enough.

Then the jumping all around from point to point, story to story ensued.

And did I mention, the term mainstream has never been defined, technically or otherwise.
 
rsc2a said:
You posted this last Thursday. The day before NPR had devoted nearly an hour to this topic.

But don't let facts get in the way of your blind ideological following.
Click to expand...

Well they didn't report it with enough of an apoplectic tone like a good news organization would. The fact that they did it without getting their panties in a bunch proves that they don't deserve to be called journalists.

Oh and they have a tiny audience, proving even further that they are part of the mainstream media.

Or something like that.
 
If you were not such a lemming as evidenced by the fact that you look at many sources from many viewpoints, you'd know the truth.

Us non-lemmings know that because conservative talking heads told us so and it must be true because of that. ;)
 
If you can watch the video in this link, and still tell me it's okay that the network news (which garners the largest American viewership) doesn't cover this story, then there's no hope for you. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/gruber-obamacare-promises/index.html

Not even CNN covered it like this (exposing the lies) on the air.  Only on the web, and only by Jake Tapper, the one person left at CNN with integrity. 

Mind you, a liberal law professor broke this story.  And a liberal journalist criticized the networks for failing to cover it. 
 
rsc2a said:
You posted this last Thursday. The day before NPR had devoted nearly an hour to this topic.

But don't let facts get in the way of your blind ideological following.
Click to expand...

By that time, they were a WEEK late!
Thus re-enforcing the point!

But don't let facts get in the way of your blind ideological following.
 
subllibrm said:
The OP claims that FOX news will make you (by inference) a high information voter. My only point is and has been that limiting yourself to one source (or several that parrot each other) is also a recipe for ignorance. If nothing else you will be ignorant of what the "other side" is doing.

The insistence on this thread is that the mainstream (undefined term BTW) media has not covered this story. When proof was given of media coverage the goal posts were moved to say they didn't cover it soon enough.

Then the jumping all around from point to point, story to story ensued.

And did I mention, the term mainstream has never been defined, technically or otherwise.
Click to expand...

The OP claimed, rightly so, that the so called mainstream media...which I define as old, establishment (dinosaur) media did not cover or greatly under-covered (covered Obama's butt) the story.
As The Tomato has established even some liberals took them to task for it.
Again, public record...it is what it is...now was because the so called mainstream has been embarrassed into covering the story.

I'm sorry it bothers you, you or you.....but it doesn't change the truth.

And, did I mention, I love Rush...me and 25 million of my closest friends! :)
 
On Thursday, you said no one but Rush and Fox had covered the story yet Wednesday, it was on NPR (and other sources mentioned earlier).

You were wrong.  But then I don't expect honesty when dealing with ideilogically blind folks about their pet topics,  not even if they are pastors. Perhaps especially if they are pastors.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
subllibrm said:
The OP claims that FOX news will make you (by inference) a high information voter. My only point is and has been that limiting yourself to one source (or several that parrot each other) is also a recipe for ignorance. If nothing else you will be ignorant of what the "other side" is doing.

The insistence on this thread is that the mainstream (undefined term BTW) media has not covered this story. When proof was given of media coverage the goal posts were moved to say they didn't cover it soon enough.

Then the jumping all around from point to point, story to story ensued.

And did I mention, the term mainstream has never been defined, technically or otherwise.
Click to expand...

The OP claimed, rightly so, that the so called mainstream media...which I define as old, establishment (dinosaur) media did not cover or greatly under-covered (covered Obama's butt) the story.
As The Tomato has established even some liberals took them to task for it.
Again, public record...it is what it is...now was because the so called mainstream has been embarrassed into covering the story.

I'm sorry it bothers you, you or you.....but it doesn't change the truth.

And, did I mention, I love Rush...me and 25 million of my closest friends! :)
Click to expand...

Even FOX has under-reported (at least as far as I can tell via searches) the fact that Obamacare's "Cadillac Tax" is designed to eliminate employer-based health care plans.  They've covered the fact that it was designed to deceive people into thinking Obamacare taxed insurance companies, not people.  But so far no word about the fact that the tax is designed to eliminate employer-based health care plans. 

It would be interesting if anyone can dig up a video explaining WHY they want to eliminate employer coverage.  I suspect it's part of the push to single-payer government health care. 

 
rsc2a said:
On Thursday, you said no one but Rush and Fox had covered the story yet Wednesday, it was on NPR (and other sources mentioned earlier).

You were wrong.  But then I don't expect honesty when dealing with ideilogically blind folks about their pet topics,  not even if they are pastors. Perhaps especially if they are pastors.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, as a Pastor commenting on Fox News!
NPR, according to r2 reported the story the day before I mistakenly said they had yet to cover it.


Which made them about 10 days late covering the story covered by Fox, Rush and internet outlets not coving Obama's butt.

r2 is a blind follower trying to put down Fox and Rush...because it bothers him that millions of Americans agree with some of us here that they are more likely to cover some stories than so called main stream media.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/category/ratings
 
r2, a blind lemming, by his own admission, doesn't listen to Rush, but disagrees with Rush....whatever Rush might believe.

And I'm a blind ideologue.

Bwwwwwwwaaaaaah!
 
If only I didn't use Fox as one of my primary news sources...
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
r2, a blind lemming, by his own admission, doesn't listen to Rush, but disagrees with Rush....whatever Rush might believe.

And I'm a blind ideologue.

Bwwwwwwwaaaaaah!
Click to expand...

Because, this bears repeating!  ;)
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
r2, a blind lemming, by his own admission, doesn't listen to Rush...
Click to expand...

Lemming.  I remain convinced you don't know what that word means.

...but disagrees with Rush....whatever Rush might believe.
Click to expand...

Of course, you should be able to provide a link where I said this?  What?  No? You mean you are making things up to discredit people?  I'll bet Jesus is so proud of pastor.
 
rsc2a said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
r2, a blind lemming, by his own admission, doesn't listen to Rush...
Click to expand...

Lemming.  I remain convinced you don't know what that word means.

...but disagrees with Rush....whatever Rush might believe.
Click to expand...

Of course, you should be able to provide a link where I said this?  What?  No? You mean you are making things up to discredit people?  I'll bet Jesus is so proud of pastor.
Click to expand...


You don't listen to Rush, but you disagree with Rush whatever he might believe.
Whatever meaning you don't know what he believes first hand, but you disagree.

From the Lemmings thread:
Quote from: rsc2a on November 17, 2014, 01:14:55 PM
"Mexican illegal immigrants after an invasive species." - Rush

I disagree with him on Israel,  drug decriminization, free higher education, his idea that the US of A is a  "Christian nation", immigration,  his racist comments,  his vilifying of moderates, his hawkish views of warfare...

...and mostly the way he is a pompous gasbag to anyone who disagrees with him in the slightest issue.

Tarheel:
Rush sound bites out of context are typical of the lemmings who oppose Rush yet don't listen to him.
What does Rush believe about Israel?
What racist comments?

You are typical of Rush critics who don't have a clue...kind of a lemming! 
Logged

 
You just said I disagree with Rush "whatever he might believe". The quote you provided lists very specific things that I disagree with.  Are you that intellectually dishonest?
 
rsc2a said:
You just said I disagree with Rush "whatever he might believe". The quote you provided lists very specific things that I disagree with.  Are you that intellectually dishonest?
Click to expand...

You don't know what he believes, you don't listen to him.
Dodge, deflect and Parsing the meaning of whatever is akin to the meaning of is, is....

Whatever he believes....you don't know what he does or doesn't believe, but you insist you disagree with him.

How do you know?

You say he's a racist...how do you know.
What does he believe....you gonna go to media matters to find out what they say he believes.

To say you disagree with someone you admit you don't listen to is what?.
Dishonest?
Dumb?
Moronic?
All the above?

Again, Bwaaaaaaahhhhhh!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top