66 Comments:

• At 18/1/06 4:38 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Why is it that you think only conservatively biased websites and new sources are accurate? BIAS is BIAS no matter what side it supports. Also, "homemade" websites (not legitimate news sources) that give evidence by linking back to other articles they have written, are absolutely worthless.

   

• At 18/1/06 4:45 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Why is it that you think only conservatively biased websites and new sources are accurate?
  
  Because I'm a Conservative! Sure it's biased, all news organizations have a bias, but this isn't one of those .org sites with little or no truth. Those are the "homemade" sites you speak of. This is a legitimate, it has reporters in Iraq and Israel, it's biased, but it doesn't lie.
  
  But that aside, what is your problem with this anyways? The fact that the MSM ignored these things and your ignorance helps your arguments? That's what I think, and that's why I posted this.

   

• At 19/1/06 6:20 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Why is everyone so worked up over a top 10 list? Don't tell me no one here gets their news from a Liberal news station. Any station but FOX NEWS would most likely qualify.

   

• At 19/1/06 6:10 PM,  Anonymous said…

  They don't want to believe it Cody. They are arrogant and blind.

   

• At 19/1/06 6:54 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Blind? I don't believe whatever is fed to me and it's fairly obvious when someone has messed up so bad they need to exhaggerate tiny positive details to make it look better. I could go on forever, but you'll only call me names so I probably shouldn't waste my time.

   

• At 19/1/06 7:58 PM,  Anonymous said…

  when someone has messed up so bad they need to exhaggerate tiny positive details to make it look better.
  
  Oh yeah because obviously Bush works for World Net Daily. *Rolls eyes*

   

• At 19/1/06 11:36 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Yeah, that's what that meant...

   

• At 20/1/06 12:00 PM,  Diogo said…

  You could add: Failure of the 9-11 commission to investigate 9/11 events.
  
  Watch the: VIDEO

   

• At 20/1/06 4:14 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Uh allosoni you actually think bush works for WND? you are nuts.

   

• At 20/1/06 6:27 PM,  PlaidBaron said…

  Well I know I didn't hear those stories. But then again, you can't trust the media.

   

• At 20/1/06 7:03 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Darksaturos, do you have the reading comprehension of a hampster?
  
  Hilarious! He spelled 'hamster' wrong while accusing me of having a reading problem!

   

• At 20/1/06 7:04 PM,  Anonymous said…

  This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

   

• At 21/1/06 8:24 AM,  The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said…

  Republican lies, half-truths, and exaggerations.
  
  Recommended reading for the hopelessly brainwashed!

   

• At 21/1/06 11:03 AM,  Anonymous said…

  Haha, you guys still won't give up on that whole "liberal media" thing, will you?
  
  Gameguy I'll answer you because I know you at least to be reasonable, unlike recliner and dk. Listen, MSNBC recentally aired a thing on how no one liked Bush. This was not true and they knew it. They also aired a show on how Bush was going to be impeached which he will not because there are no grounds. Dan Rather aired documents about Bush he KNEW to be false. MSNBC, CBS, and CNN are liberal. FOX is conservative. I'd say we have a liberal media.

   

• At 21/1/06 11:06 AM,  Anonymous said…

  If you actually found that hilarious, then that would explain why you found Cody's comic tolerable.
  
  How was it offensive? I'm a bit confused about that.
  
  By the way, just to show you to be careful about throwing stones, here's a list of just a few typos you've made:
  
  -ridicolous
  -capitilist
  -Afghanastan
  -conspericy
  -wheras
  -hardrives
  -Thier
  
  
  Correct, but I never accused anyone of having a reading problem. I know all you read is dirty magazines but I read things you could never comphrehend. The fact remains I am smarter than you. I have the reading level of a college student. But who cares? No one. If you can't stick to the issues then you are achildish sonofabitch. I'm getting real sick of it.

   

• At 21/1/06 1:55 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  dark, Just because you disagree with something does not mean it's false. Relying on new stations you know to agree with is very close-minded, and the fact of the matter is that there IS widespread dislike for the president. You really can't deny that after only 51% of the country voted for him in the last election--it is clear that the majority is unhappy. Whether you LIKE it or not, it is the truth. Just because someone reports the truth and it disagrees with your opinion, that does not make it wrong.

   

• At 21/1/06 4:23 PM,  The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said…

  DarkSaturos said... but I read things you could never comphrehend. The fact remains I am smarter than you. I have the reading level of a college student.
  
  That is self-deluded nonsense. Your posts make it crystal clear that you have a SERIOUS reading comprehension problem. I suggest you face your problem and get the remedial help you need. You may also want to seek psychiatric advice concerning your delusions of grandeur.
  
  I don't mean this to be an insult. I'm just stating the facts. It's obvious you can't see these facts, clear as they are, and I think you NEED someone to point them out so you can face them. You need help, and the first step is admitting you have a problem.
  
  DarkSaturos said... I'd say we have a liberal media.
  
  You're wrong. This is an old tired lie. Everyone except brainwashed Republican sheep recognizes it as such.

   

• At 21/1/06 7:52 PM,  MJ said…

  You linked a book by someone who also wrote: "How George W. (Mis)leads America," "The Promise of Bruce Springsteen," among others. Why don't you check out this study? Because no matter what you say, that book is an opinion, as opposed to a study. There's a difference.

   

• At 21/1/06 8:26 PM,  Anonymous said…

  This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

   

• At 21/1/06 8:35 PM,  Anonymous said…

  dark, Just because you disagree with something does not mean it's false.
  
  You mean like you distrust FOX?
  
  You really can't deny that after only 51% of the country voted for him in the last election--it is clear that the majority is unhappy.
  
  Last I checked 51% was a majority.
  
  To dk: I'm not even going to respond to you anymore. Why don't you just leave?

   

• At 21/1/06 8:38 PM,  Anonymous said…

  (It's sad that I have to be more mature than a 33 year old...)

   

• At 21/1/06 9:27 PM,  The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said…

  Mary Ann said... You linked to a book by someone who also wrote: "How George W. (Mis)leads America", and "The Promise of Bruce Springsteen", among others. Why don't you check out this study?
  
  Concerning your "study":
  
  Former fellows at conservative think tanks issued flawed UCLA-led study on media's "liberal bias". News outlets including CNN cited a study of several major media outlets by a UCLA political scientist and a University of Missouri-Columbia economist purporting to "show a strong liberal bias". But the study employed a measure of "bias" so problematic that its findings are next to useless, and the authors -- both former fellows at conservative think tanks cited in the study to illustrate liberal bias -- seem unaware of the substantial scholarly work that exists on the topic. [Read More]
  
  DarkSaturos said... (It's sad that I have to be more mature than a 33 year old...)
  
  What's sad is that you are ignoring advice that could change your life for the better. Oh well, I tried. I guess you're a lost cause.

   

• At 22/1/06 1:47 AM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Majority, yes. But a very very pathetic one.

   

• At 22/1/06 4:08 PM,  Gayle said…

  You are simply wasting your time argueing with them Cody.
  
  By the way, I'm glad to see you posting again. I'll check out your blog more often, I promise. :)
  
  Also, whether they want to admit it or not, the list is the truth, as is everything else you post. Just keep up the good work... and if you are not upsetting a few liberals you aren't doing a good job.

   

• At 22/1/06 4:09 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  The Recliner said:
  I can't stick to the issues?
  
  By the looks of things, no. The issue happens to be the top 10 spiked stories, or at least media bias, neither of which you have talked about in the past 3 comments. Everyone but you has stayed on the topic for at least 2 posts (except for those who only posted once and it was on topic). Lets tone down the hypocrisy, okay?
  
  And one other thing, we all need to lighten up on the insults too. It's pretty bad when you can't make a typo or misinterpret something and not get your intelligence questioned.

   

• At 22/1/06 5:02 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Oh don't even argue with the nitwits Cody. If the reasonable liberals want to argue ok, but recliner and dk are really quite hopeless.

   

• At 22/1/06 5:42 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  I said everyone, yes, even including myself. The article you gave me is one I wrote about 5 months ago, just so you know. I am a LOT nicer to Liberals than I was 5 months ago.
  
  Speaking of which, nice to see you back gameguy22006, seriously. You are one of the few libs on here who can be reasonable.

   

• At 22/1/06 7:07 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Why is it that in order for someone to be reasonable, they have to agree with you? Certainly there are people who say and do unreasonable things, but that isn't specific to a certain political party. The thing I have learned about every single conservative I know, is that the minute someone says or does anything that contradicts their opinion, they jump all over tham and get offended. That bothers me, as I wish those people would somehow realize that there are not two single people in the world who feel exactly the same way about every single issue. Listening and taking in other peoples opinions is the only way to learn about the world and about yourself.

   

• At 22/1/06 7:29 PM,  MJ said…

  I linked a study by UCLA, and you linked Media Matters, a George Soros organization. Hmm.

   

• At 22/1/06 8:14 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Why is it that in order for someone to be reasonable, they have to agree with you?
  
  That's not true? There are levels of reasonablity for everyone. Gameguy happens to be more reasonable than anyone else here, even me.
  
  Lets make a word chart of reasonability here,
  
  (level 1) Comment has counterpoints to ones arguments (level 2) Includes bigoted viewpoints and bigoted links (level 3) Includes unnecessary insults and put-downs
  
  I think we can all agree here that people on both sides of the political spectrum range from all three of these levels, even I have strayed into level three on a few occasions.
  
  The thing I have learned about every single conservative I know, is that the minute someone says or does anything that contradicts their opinion, they jump all over tham and get offended.
  
  It's called debate isn't it? Don't tell me no Liberal will jump all over me and get offended when I say Bush is great president.
  
  Listening and taking in other peoples opinions is the only way to learn about the world and about yourself.
  
  Don't you think a lot more Conservatives would be open-minded if Liberals weren't so hostile all of the time? I know I would at least consider different thinking if I had something explained to me reasonably. In fact, you can start right now on me. I'm sitting on the fence when it comes to the death penalty. Lets see who can sway me by being reasonable and bring up good arguments.

   

• At 22/1/06 8:16 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  I just said:
  "That's not true? There are levels of reasonablity for everyone."
  
  Pretend that "?" is a "."

   

• At 22/1/06 9:05 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Why is it that in order for someone to be reasonable, they have to agree with you?
  
  Oh okay allosoni so reasonable to you is:
  
  Darksaturos, do you have the reading comprehension of a hampster?
  
  hopelessly brainwashed!
  
  That is self-deluded nonsense. Your posts make it crystal clear that you have a SERIOUS reading comprehension problem. I suggest you face your problem and get the remedial help you need. You may also want to seek psychiatric advice concerning your delusions of grandeur.
  
  If that's reason to you no wonder you're a liberal.
  
  they jump all over tham and get offended
  
  Actually that's a liberal trait. Everytime someone says Islamic terrorist you guys get offended.

   

• At 22/1/06 11:39 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Dark, what I posted was extremely level headed and shouldn't have been insulting to anyone. PLEASE don't throw around nasty stereotypes, as nothing I said called for that.
  
  The death penalty. I JUST learned about the death penalty in economics, and I can tell you that before learning about it, I really didn't have anything to say about it. (Keep in mind that I currently reside in a state where capital punishment is ILLEGAL, so we don't usually debate about it here.) However, I know now that from a purely economic standpoint, the death penalty costs an extreme amount more than housing a prisoner for life, as those sentenced go through the appeals process, etc., and that legalizing it in every state will not have really any impact on our current prison overcrowding issues. Those are purely factual, textbook statements.
  
  On a moral and emotional level, which I believe is a major driving factor for both sides of this issue, I believe it is extremely inhumane. Considering the fact that we can hunt down and capture terrorists from other nations, deem them evil, but then not even torture them, it is rather strange that we send Americans to prison and then kill them. In my eyes, the government definitely has the right to determine who is a danger to society and who isn't, but I don't feel that that gives them any right to determine who deserves to die and who doesn't. We watched a documentary in which a reporter followed a few different cases and then eventually witnessed an execution (the cameras were not allowed in, so the viewing audience didn't see it, just heard the details about it), and to begin with I didn't think that it would be disturbing. However, I found myself rather shaken up and bothered by what I saw and heard. Even my boyfriend, who shares many of your conservative views, felt after learning more about it that it isn't an option that our goverment should be considering, much less putting to use.
  
  Hopefully both of those points were reasonable enough for you.

   

• At 23/1/06 2:09 AM,  The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said…

  Mary Ann said... I linked a study by UCLA, and you linked Media Matters, a George Soros organization. Hmm.
  
  The Article you linked to, titled "Media Bias Is Real", was written by political scientist Timothy J. Groseclose of UCLA and economist Jeffrey D. Milyo of the University of Missouri-Columbia.
  
  Timothy J. Groseclose and Jeffrey D. Milyo are biased partisan dummies.
  
  From Media Matters: None of the outlets that reported on the study mentioned that the authors have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, according to his CV (pdf), received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, according to The Philanthropy Roundtable, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997. In 1996, Groseclose and Milyo co-authored a piece for the right-wing magazine The American Spectator, titled "Lost Shepherd", criticizing the then-recently defeated member of Congress Karen Shepherd (D-UT) and defending her successor, Enid Greene (R-UT); when the piece was published, Greene was in the midst of a campaign contribution scandal and later agreed to pay a civil penalty after the Federal Election Commission found that she violated campaign finance laws. [Link]
  
  Just because the source is (again) the liberally biased Media Matters, does NOT, in any way negate the fact that the authors of this "study" have a CONSERVATIVE bias.

   

• At 23/1/06 2:14 AM,  The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said…

  Mary Ann said... I linked a study by UCLA, and you linked to Media Matters, a George Soros organization. Hmm.
  
  Why am I not surprised that you claim, yet again, that my source is biased? Discrediting the source is the FIRST rule of attack for Republicans!
  
  George Soros' involvement, or lack of involvement, with Media Matters is of ZERO relevance. Anyway, from what I read there appears to be a tenuous link (at best) between George Soros and Media Matters. Media Matters wasn't founded by, isn't run by, and has never received funding directly from George Soros. George Soros doesn't contribute articles to Media Matters. The article I linked to was written by Paul Waldman.
  
  Media Matters for America is a non-profit organization founded by former journalist (and former conservative) David Brock. Media Matters monitors for and criticizes what it identifies as materially substantiated conservative misinformation found in media news reports, public affairs and talk radio shows. Through the group's web site, launched in May 2004, Media Matters describes itself as "a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Conservative misinformation is defined as news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda". [Link]
  
  If there is any bias in the media, it is a CONSERVATIVE bias.
  
  David Brock: Conservatives Willing to Lie to Influence Media: ...he noted examples of how the "professional" or "mainstream media" are influenced by conservative talk radio, the Internet and think tanks. That influence, Brock said, will diminish as the conservative lies are exposed.
  
  "The conservatives seem to be particularly vulnerable because the quality of their research is particularly low. There is typically self-interested money behind it and of course they are simply willing to lie", Brock told a group of interns at a luncheon at the Center for American Progress headquarters in Washington D.C.
  
  Brock urged the young media activists to challenge what he views as the conservative media bias.
  
  "I think that all of that has to be confronted in a systemic way. If you shine light on propaganda over time, it does cease to have an effect", Brock said. "Their words can be used against them. The fact that the claims that they make are often dubious can also be brought up in a very effective way", he added. [Link]
  
  A comment from an informed reader concerning the Media Matters Article in Question:
  
  One of the faults of some economists is that they do not understand the limits of their own field. There is an arrogance that is breath-taking. Often articles are published in even prestigious economics journals that are elementary, flawed and unsophisticated, primarily because they ignore a substantial literature in other social sciences such as psychology or sociology, where scholars have already advanced much further on the topic. That appears to be a big problem with the present study, per the excellent Media Matters report. [Link]
  
  Cody Said... In fact, you can start right now on me. I'm sitting on the fence when it comes to the death penalty.
  
  I'm against it except in the case of Presidents who commit Treason.
  
  One of my Top 10 underreported stories for 2005: Corruption and Cronyism in the rebuilding of Iraq.
  
  Example:
  
  Halliburton Cited in Iraq Contamination. January 22, 2006. Troops and civilians at a U.S. military base in Iraq were exposed to contaminated water last year and employees for the responsible contractor, Halliburton, couldn't get their company to inform camp residents, according to interviews and internal company documents.
  
  Halliburton disputes the allegations about water problems at Camp Junction City, in Ramadi, even though they were made by its own employees and documented in company e-mails.
  
  "We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated", said a 7/15/2005, memo written by William Granger, the official for Halliburton's KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait.
  
  "The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River", Granger wrote in one of several documents. The Associated Press obtained the documents from Senate Democrats who are holding a public inquiry into the allegations Monday.
  
  Senator Byron Dorgan D-ND, who will chair the session, held a number of similar inquiries last year on contracting abuses in Iraq. He said Democrats were acting on their own because they had not been able to persuade Republican committee chairmen to investigate. [Read More]
  
  My Number ONE unreported story for 2005 is George W. Bush's UNPRECEDENTED Power Grab (via The "Unitary Executive" Theory).
  
  Bush's claims that he has the authority to ignore the Geneva Conventions. His shocking admission that, since 2002, he has repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant, in flagrant violation of applicable federal law. And the Presidential "signing statement" he recently attached to the recent McCain sponsored Anti-torture bill -- All these declarations echo the refrain Bush has been asserting from the outset of his presidency. That refrain is simple: Presidential power must be unilateral, and unchecked. They make clear that the phrase "unitary executive" is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. [Link]
  
  From Wikipedia -- The Unitary Executive theory: In American political and legal discourse, the unitary executive theory (UET) involves two facets: a procedural view of how the executive branch should operate, and a substantive view of the scope of executive power.
  
  More crudely put, UET is concerned with what the President can do, and how he may do it. It is associated with conservative legal thought and the Federalist Society, and while it originally came to prominence in regard to the independent counsel law (see Morrison v. Olson), it has recently returned to the limelight with some of the actions of President George W. Bush and the Senate confirmation hearing of Judge Samuel Alito.
  
  In its strict definition, the unitary executive theory emphasizes the language of the Article II §1 of the Constitution of the United States:
  
  "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America".
  
  The unitary executive theory contends that this language vests all of the executive power of the United States in the person of the President... At its base, the unitary executive concept is that the Constitution vests the executive power of the United States in the President, and thus the President has the power to appoint, direct and remove executive officers, and to interpret the law as it applies to the actions of the executive branch, in the absence of judicial determination.[Link]
  
  Further Reading:
  
  From Consortium News: Alito & the Ken Lay Factor
  
  Monday January 23, 2006

   

• At 23/1/06 3:12 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Dark, what I posted was extremely level headed and shouldn't have been insulting to anyone.
  
  You didn't post those things no, but people who you said were reasonable did. And what does the death penelty have to do with anything?
  
  I believe it is extremely inhumane.
  
  Because murder isn't of course.

   

• At 23/1/06 7:01 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  If you read Cody's comments, you would know why I commented about the death penalty.

   

• At 23/1/06 7:50 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  And what does the death penelty have to do with anything?
  
  That one would be my fault for starting. I was just saying how I couldn't decide if I was for or against the death penalty. I think I'm leaning towards keeping it, but keeping it very limited.

   

• At 23/1/06 8:58 PM,  Anonymous said…

  If you read Cody's comments, you would know why I commented about the death penalty.
  
  *Patient Sigh*
  
  Yes Allosoni I know Cody started it, I do in fact read all the comments, which is how I know you are completely arrogent, which is typical in holier than thou liberals like you. In any case my question still stands. The death penelty has nothing to do with this subject.

   

• At 24/1/06 12:38 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Do me next! Do me next!

   

• At 24/1/06 1:05 PM,  Gayle said…

  Cody said: "Do me next! Do me next!" ROTFALMAO
  
  I'm too happy today to argue with anyone. It is important to the United States that Canadadian conservatives win their election, and they seem to have done it! I know this is "off subject" and I apologize. But their Prime Minister Paul Martin was demonizing the US and Canada has really been hurting, so I'm celebrating for Canada today. Just thought I'd stop by and see what was going on.
  
  Now that I have seen what is going on I will take my leave. Y'all have a good time here, hear?

   

• At 24/1/06 3:00 PM,  Anonymous said…

  but I do doubt if anyone else will come up with a quote as damaging as "I am smarter than you." That's pretty arrogant.
  
  Yes I said those after you insulted me. Its completally different. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

   

• At 24/1/06 3:01 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Again though, personal insults mean nothing. Real argument please.

   

• At 24/1/06 5:03 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Oh I see you don't have a real arguement so you dodged the question. Ok I understand.

   

• At 24/1/06 5:27 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Ok Darksaturos, what exactly is the question that I'm dodging here? I posted in response to you calling allisoni arrogant, that's all. So, what's the big topic I refuse to comment on?
  
  
  The question is why do you dispute the "spike list" even though it's from a news source.
  
  Speaking of not answering questions, I'm still waiting for a listing of some of that college level material you enjoy so much.
  
  Just because my reading level is college level doesn't mean I read college textbooks. You are showing an amazing lack of intellegence.

   

• At 24/1/06 6:00 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Sounds like someone's struggling to back up a false claim. College level material doesn't mean a textbook. Someone who actually reads at a college level would know that.
  
  Sigh. I don't really need to prove it to you. I'm better then you anyway.
  
  Also, and this is more ironic than evidentiary, you'd think when you're questioning someone's intelligence you'd spell the word correctly.
  
  Nice use of spell check recliner.

   

• At 24/1/06 6:01 PM,  Anonymous said…

  (*Whispers* Now watch him freak out at my inflammatory comments. I'm looking forward to it.)

   

• At 24/1/06 6:05 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Yess, reclinerr I typ lik thise ande eye spelle bade to. I ame as dum as a stumpe ande lik to reade Dokter Sues.
  
  (My my this is fun.)
  
  Did that make you happy recliner? Are you glad now? Do you get a kick out of insulting 15 year olds? Get a life loser.

   

• At 24/1/06 6:11 PM,  Anonymous said…

  You see we can all take a lesson from the recliner here. Several in fact. You have choices in life. You can chose to insult children online because you have no arguement or job, save writing a blog about laziness, or you can defend your position with logic and reason. You can also go to college, get a job and make money. Or you could be a recliner and laze around, get fat etc. The choice is yours. Just don't choose like recliner did. Don't be a complete loser and insult people from the safety of your laptop. Back up your arguements like the reasonable conservatives and liberals here, don't stoop to the level of a professional moron.

   

• At 24/1/06 6:13 PM,  Anonymous said…

  P.S. I find it ironic recliner should tease me about reading comphrehension. Check out this excerpt from his blog.
  
  1. Don't check your punctuation and spelling.
  
  
  Oops.

   

• At 24/1/06 6:59 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  As much as I get a kick out of this whole "reading comprehension debate" it really isn't going too far.
  
  You can chose to insult children
  
  I guess you can speak for yourself here, because I would like to think of myself as a young adult nearing the age of 16, but that's just me.
  
  I think it's time for a new post, but what to write....what to write......

   

• At 24/1/06 7:19 PM,  Anonymous said…

  I guess you can speak for yourself here, because I would like to think of myself as a young adult nearing the age of 16, but that's just me.
  
  Don't be so full of yourself you know. :) We're children until age 18. That's my opinion anyway.

   

• At 24/1/06 7:35 PM,  The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said…

  DarkSaturos said... Did that make you happy recliner? Are you glad now? Do you get a kick out of insulting 15 year olds? Get a life loser.
  
  Because your age is low you can insult people and they can't respond?
  
  DarkSaturos said... (My my this is fun.)
  
  Perhaps the reason that you find mouthing off to adults on the internet so much fun is that you can't get away with it in reality. I think you're a arrogant spoiled brat.
  
  DarkSaturos said... *Whispers* Now watch him freak out at my inflammatory comments. I'm looking forward to it.
  
  Freak out? I doubt it. Why should anyone be insulted by anything a deluded arrogant brat with reading comprehension problems says?
  
  I don't apologize for the personal attacks in this post. After stating that "personal insults mean nothing", we get 5 posts in a row of personal attacks?! I think it's clear who is "freaking out". If you don't have any actual arguments why don't you leave.
  
  To answer your question: The "spike list" is from a CONSERVATIVELY BIASED website. I dispute their claim that these stories are "the top 10 underreported and unreported stories of the year". I'd say at least half contain outright lies, and the others half-truths and exaggerations. A clear example of the conservative media bias.
  
  Cody Said... I think it's time for a new post, but what to write....what to write......
  
  How about a retraction of your claim that Jack Abramoff bribe money went to Democrats. I took another look at the website you linked to -- the one which "proved" that Republicans AND Democrats received money. The first time I looked at it I didn't notice that there is a drop down box which enabled sorting by donor.
  
  All the (bribe) money that came from "Donor: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela" went to Republicans, and Republicans ONLY. It's right there in black and white -- on the website YOU linked to.
  
  I really hope the voters aren't stupid enough to fall for these Republican lies. If not the Democrats should gain significant house and senate seats in 2006 and then be able to start impeachment proceedings!

   

• At 24/1/06 7:53 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Yes, I've seen the link. But I'm still not convinced that the money that Democrats are getting is illegal, but the fact is, is that I don't know who's breaking the law and who isn't with this case. I'll leave that for a prosecutor to decide. I just want all corrupt politicians to replaced, especially Republicans, because at this time of war, having a Democrat as president would be suicide.

   

• At 24/1/06 11:11 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  "Yes Allosoni I know Cody started it, I do in fact read all the comments, which is how I know you are completely arrogent, which is typical in holier than thou liberals like you. In any case my question still stands. The death penelty has nothing to do with this subject."
  
  Good job making a fool of yourself, there. All I did was respond, calmly, to CODY'S request. I was in no way trying to link the death penalty to the topic of the post, as I didn't even bring it up in the first place. You DIDN'T read the comment Cody left about it, or there would have been no reason whatsoever for you to have told me it was off topic. My "arrogance," or so you say, also has nothing at all to do with this argument. I can, in all reality, be as arrogant as I darn well please, and it has nothing to do with my political persuasion. However,when you have an opinion and confidently support it, maybe that comes across as arrogance. YOUR arrogance comes from insults and weak arguments. I'm PROUD mine comes from where it does and not from the same place you get yours.

   

• At 25/1/06 3:08 PM,  Anonymous said…

  I can, in all reality, be as arrogant as I darn well please
  
  And I can't of course. Because you're better. That's your reasoning and that's why you prove my point. I think this debate's gone as far as it can go. No one's sticking to the issues. It's just personal attacks. I'll see all of you in the next post and we'll see how long it takes for you all to start the personal attacks there.

   

• At 25/1/06 4:08 PM,  PlaidBaron said…

  The Recliner and DarkSaturos:
  
  This may be a bit old but when you two where attacking each others spelling, what the heck does that have to do with anything!? It really has nothing to do with the issue!

   

• At 25/1/06 5:44 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  You clearly didn't understand my comment. But you know, that's really okay.

   

• At 25/1/06 6:01 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Yay, he freaked out! Just like I predicted!

   

• At 26/1/06 6:30 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  dkfz:
  
  I think it would be safe to say there is bias on both sides in every aspect of communication. We could argue all day who is MORE biased, but it won't go anywhere. We all know that Liberals have more bias in television and newspapers, and that Conservatives have more bias in radio and books.

   

• At 26/1/06 2:20 PM,  Anonymous said…

  This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

   

• At 26/1/06 2:31 PM,  Anonymous said…

  I'm not responding anymore recliner. It doesn't go anywhere. Don't bother arguing with me on this post any longer. I will ignore all of your comments directed at me.

   

• At 26/1/06 3:05 PM,  PlaidBaron said…

  The Recliner Said: I agree, which is why I never brought up Darksaturos's errors until the point when he made it an issue. Even then I said:
  
  If you're only defense is a typo, then obviously you have no defense at all.
  
  Ah, then if you truly don't like blaming people for that then you wouldn't have argued against him with his same argument, you would have argued against him differently. See?

   

• At 31/1/06 6:33 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  darksaturos said...
  "I'm not responding anymore recliner. It doesn't go anywhere. Don't bother arguing with me on this post any longer. I will ignore all of your comments directed at me."
  
  This may end the reading comprehension debate, but trust me, you'll end up talking to him again, he comes back every time. Then again, I'll debate with just about anyone though.

   

• At 31/1/06 2:35 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Well of course I'll talk to him, I only said I won't when he starts with the "reading comphrehension" s*** because he has no arguement. I don't want to argue for 60 posts about something that doesn't matter, that's all.

   

• At 31/1/06 8:32 PM,  The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said…

  DarkSaturos said... Well of course I'll talk to him, I only said I won't when he starts with the "reading comphrehension" s*** because he has no arguement. I don't want to argue for 60 posts about something that doesn't matter, that's all.
  
  I was the one who first pointed out your reading comprehension problem -- give credit where it is due, please. And YES, I think it matters!! It gets extremely frustrating when you continually misinterpret, and add your own meaning to, other people's posts.

   

Post a Comment

<< Home