Watch out now, you may just get this moved to

the Flame Forum... Sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with... we'll go point by point
this once...

You write:

No. "The press" is biased.

Because "the press" is made up of individuals. Who work for companies.

To which I have already said, 90 percent of those individuals are registered
Democrats...

What I'm saying is that you were incorrect in stating that the "talking
heads" (can Rush be counted among them?)

wouldn't care about any strings attached to "liberal" programs.

First, no Rush can no longer be a talking head, because they are only found
on television (hence the term "talking head"), Second what you are
saying is that it is your bleeding opinion that I am incorrect in stating the
talking heads wouldn't care about any strings attached, because neither you nor
I have at this point of our debate, adequately determined who they are or if they
would or wouldn't care. Now have we? I think they (UPI and AP)tend to not ask as
many hard questions about motives or strings attached to other Democrats, seeing as how
they are mostly Democrats (fact) and there is a strong probability that their personal
biases would get in the way of them being "fair" to non Democrats...

And Republicans can be extremely compassionate. Historically, they have been
extremely compassionate to big business and less so to individuals.

Unless, of course, those individuals are SLAVES.... Unless you want to revise
that history too? Dumb cheap shot... You
know it too...

Of course, we always end up back at Clinton's sex life.

Yep, just to piss you off.... How in the fsck did you get that: I said:

I remember the press asking hard questions about Clinton's sex life during
the height of the scandal. What does history

record now? An invasion of his personal life or the epitome of double standard
and hypocracy?

I am using that as an example to prove that the press did jump all over Clinton
when the scandal first hit (bolstering your argument ;-> ), but then they
slacked off. In fact, depending on whether you are a democrat or a republican,
you would see this as an invasion of his personal life or the epitome of a double
standard... I couldn't care less about his dick... You're the one who seems obsessed
with it...

Of course, no Republican has ever cheated.

Of course, no one has ever lied about sex.

Which is why the public didn't seem to CARE that much.

Yes, he lied under oath.

Of course, Republicans NEVER lie.

So, Clinton didn't do anything that hasn't been done over and over and over
in DC and it's "The Liberal Press"

that is going easy on

questioning him.

And I believe Larry Flint proved that with his bounties on information regarding
past sexual escapades by

Republicans.

Not only strawmen
but an insult to any thinking person...

Of course, what the fuck does this have to do with the ORIGINAL statement?
The one about "talking heads" never

questioning the strings attached to "liberal" programs of which my
universal health care was a counter example?

Let me see..........

Nothing?

To which I humbly admit that my syntax may have been a tad better had I said
rarely question as opposed to never... My bad... I stand corrected...

You make a statement.

I provide a counter that disproves your statement.

You provide an example that "proves" your statement.

So, I say "all apples are red".

You show me a green apple.

I show you a red apple.

Do you see why my showing you a red apple is meaningless?

Feel free to obsess about Clinton's dick some more.

Talk about meaningless strawmen, you provided dick squat....other than your
usual tiresome didactic rhetoric. Your counter was weak, at best, and I'm talking
about the frigging apple, not it's color... You can't prove to me or anyone
with 100% certainty that the press is NOT biased any more than I can prove
with 100% certainty that it is... No matter how many times you and a room
full of likeminded sheep chant "four legs good, two legs bad" it just
don't make it so... So if I am full of shit, you must be too... So where's the
argument?

"To which I have already said, 90 percent of those individuals are registered Democrats..."

And they work for editors, who work for the owners. And those owners (fewer and fewer each year) are conservative.

"First, no Rush can no longer be a talking head, because they are only found on television (hence the term "talking head"),"

I'll disagree.

"Second what you are saying is that it is your bleeding opinion that I am incorrect in stating the talking heads wouldn't care about any strings attached,"

Well, I count Rush as a "talking head" and he was against Clinton's plan.

"because neither you nor I have at this point of our debate, adequately determined who they are or if they would or wouldn't care."

True. The same as "the press".

"I think they (UPI and AP)tend to not ask as many hard questions about motives or strings attached to other Democrats, seeing as how they are mostly Democrats (fact) and there is a strong probability that their personal biases would get in the way of them being "fair" to non Democrats..."

And you are free to believe that. I, on the other hand, don't see that.

"Unless, of course, those individuals are SLAVES.... Unless you want to revise that history too? Dumb cheap shot... You know it too..."

What are you talking about?

"Yep, just to piss you off.... How in the fsck did you get that: I said:
.......Clinton's sex life....."

Ummmm, from your post where you specifically mentioned "Clinton's sex life".

"I am using that as an example to prove that the press did jump all over Clinton when the scandal first hit (bolstering your argument ;-> ), but then they slacked off."

So, "the press" jumped all over a sensationalistic story about a Democrat. As you said, this bolsters my point.

Eventually, the story was not "new" anymore and it was left to Starr to rabidly pursue it.

I'm not seeing your point, except that your facts seem to support my position.

"In fact, depending on whether you are a democrat or a republican, you would see this as an invasion of his personal life or the epitome of a double standard... I couldn't care less about his dick... You're the one who seems obsessed with it..."

Strange, you brought it into this conversation, but I'm the one obsessing?

Again, your point is eluding me.

"Not only strawmen but an insult to any thinking person..."

Nope. These are the reasons the story wasn't much of a story after the first few months.

IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE.

The press didn't let up because they were sympathetic to a fellow Democrat. The press let up because they got the story. Politician has extra-marital sex and lies about it. The novelty just isn't there.

"To which I humbly admit that my syntax may have been a tad better had I said rarely question as opposed to never... My bad... I stand corrected..."

And when we move to that statement, well........it depends upon what each person defines as "rarely". How many examples would I have to provide to counter the rarely? Would it then become "uncommon"? Why would that be worth the effort I put forth?

"Talk about meaningless strawmen, you provided dick squat...."

That's your opinion. You made a statement, I provided a counter. You then defined "talking head".

Hey, this isn't Bryce, is it?

"...other than your usual tiresome didactic rhetoric."

Yep, but at least mine is supportable without re-defining terms.

"Your counter was weak, at best, and I'm talking about the frigging apple, not it's color..."

Nope. In the example, it was the color.

"You can't prove to me or anyone with 100% certainty that the press is NOT biased any more than I can prove with 100% certainty that it is..."

Again "the press". "They" are biased. No, neither of us can prove anything about "the press".

But that's not going to stop you from making statements about them, is it?

"No matter how many times you and a room full of likeminded sheep chant "four legs good, two legs bad" it just don't make it so... So if I am full of shit, you must be too... So where's the argument?"

Gotta love that logic.

"So if I am full of shit, you must be too..."

You're the one obsessed by Clinton's dick and your fantasies about "the press" and what "they" believe. So I must be also.

Whatever.

Welcome to IWETHEY!