I appreciate your condescension, thank you. You must be taking lessons from the President.
As for your point… I think the theory is pretty reasonable. But as I said before, if you got a better theory, bring it.
(ahem… it’s you’re)
Well, until you can come up with zingers of your own, you’d be best advised to steal some…No shame in that! Unless you get caught…
You definitely don’t want to go down that road. Not on the Boards, nosir! You want to be a snotty pedant around here, you better know your shit. You got any idea how many English majors we got on the Boards? Naturally, they don’t talk about it much, but they’re out there.
A lot of your kind ride into town, thinking they’re hot, but they all end up out on Reboot Hill.
I got one ! I got one !
Fox spends an inordinate amount of time and money in hostile marketing : slamming the “MSM”. Do the other networks get their slander on vis à vis Fox ? This is an honest question, I really don’t know (don’t watch TV, much less foreign TV ;)). I know Comedy Central does, but it doesn’t really count, and besides it’s not on the poll 
Your theory, then, is that Fox themselves (intentionally?) created the dynamic we’re seeing? That it has been engaging in a shock and awe campaign to sully the competition’s credibility, thereby driving more viewers (and therefore better ratings) to themselves?
Hmmm.
Judging by the number of hardcore lefties and basket-case emotion-bots constantly whining that the government doesn’t take care of them, probably a lot.
You certainly are snippy for a guy who isn’t honest enough to admit when you’re wrong.
Maybe you should be off that horse, I think it’s a little tall for you.
Sshhh, adults talking here
'zat mockery or doubt ? I can’t tell from here.
I need to keep pointing out what a hypocrite coward you are, lest you get away with your bullshittery.
I’ll concede that all the falsified memos did was give ammunition to critics of the media, and rightfully so.
But what “significant evidence” is there that Bush didn’t go AWOL?
He really is, isn’t he?
I’ll bet he’s never read any of those blogs he’s been comparing to Pravda.
Heck, I bet he’s never even read Pravda. He’s probably got the same taste in news sources as Sarah Palin: “All of em” 
Speaking of Quality Journalism:
Fox reporter accidentally tweets hooker ad during State of the Union
No, that would be the great mass of market zealots, who judge the “real-worldness” of anything or anybody by how much money he/she/it makes.
Neither. It’s an idea that has merit, IMHO. Pitty it takes this long before someone actually chimes in. Most of your friends would prefer to rant ‘n’ rave.
Whether he did or did not is completely irrelevant. What’s important here is that CBS senior newsies, including Danny Boy, pushed this story and waved the ‘memo’ around, long after they should have realized it was fabricated (it was written in a font that didn’t even exist at the time, for goodness sake…)
That incident, along with others we’ve talked about, provided all the ammo required to the right, which was seeking to cast the aforementioned aspersions on the major media outlets (given that they weren’t very friendly to their cause). As I’ve said before, stuff like this lets Rush and Sean dine out for years.
Personally, I think that the major media are much more up the middle now. But again, and people keep missing this point, that’s not what the OP was about. It’s about public perception, and whether the sins of the fathers have anything to do with the current state of affairs. I say yes, but most of the HuffPo crowd evidently doesn’t think so. Whatever.
Being an independent moderate, I like to see all viewpoints. I’ve been registered at Kos before, believe it or not, and read the position pieces (I forget what they are called - journals? diaries?) and still get the daily HuffPo piece in my mailbox (although it doesn’t get read every day, there is work to do after all…). I don’t read or post on any conservative blogs, unless you count Las Vegas Advisor among that group.
I have no problem with anyone who reads any source of course - my problem is when people link to clearly agenda-driven sites to attempt to prove a ‘fact’ or bolster some argument.
I just wanted to post this link of Ale’s again. Fucking hilarious!
So, a winger by any reasonable standard?
You’ve already given us your take on 'standards":
This sounds to me like the quality of thought of those who tried so hard to get the nation worked up over the threat posed by Saddam Hussein:
“Anything at all may be distorted to support the point I’m trying to make.”
“Superpowers make their own truth.”
“There is no objective reality.”
Sure, they were doing because they’re dishonest fuckwads, and you may be doing it because you’re an innocently confused patsy of the radical right, but the result is the same; an endless stream of bullshit.
So called “Moderates” are still fighting the good fight:
I wonder if this story’ll make Fox News?
As for
In your eyes, is anyone to the right of Howard Dean automatically Pat Buchanan?
Or to put it another way, can you name 3 conservatives you respect? or 3 conservative ideas you can get behind? I can easily name many liberals I respect and many liberal positions I hold. Or does anyone who not worship at the altar of complete socialism and total pacifism automatically qualify for winger status?
So who’s the extremist then? And who has more standing to judge reasonableness of ideas, as applied to America?
No, someone who would describe Obama’s policies as complete socialism and total pacifism is an blindly ideological (and quite stupid) right winger.
Now in keeping with your M.O., you’re too much of a lying coward to stance yourself honestly. But then again, you refuse to admit when you’re wrong and you just run away and deflect when it’s pointed out.
Nope, but when they employ extremist techniques like the pre-polarized question you just asked me, I can be pretty confident that there’s a wingnut in the house.
You want to claim the mantle of the moderate?
Start being moderate in your invective.
So far you’ve failed miserably, so I don’t believe you.
Perhaps you could try claiming the mantle of “socially conservative libertarian” that was so popular a few years ago, when Bush started taking it in the shorts? It’s not much used anymore, so is freely available.
Of course no one ever really believed that schtick either.
Oh well. 