Looks like somebody has a bug up his ass. Since your head is up there too maybe you can snatch it with a quick flick of the tongue and get some nourishment for your brain matter. Look shithead, I never said he was not biased, in fact. I stated—quoting him—that he is a conservative. I do reject the implication that he is some extreme lock-step rightwinger. But rather than just offer my opinion I cited his front page at the time, with the news sources he linked to. That and my other cites demonstrate that he is not some crazed righty. If you and your bug continue to believe otherwise, enjoy the outer reaches of Leftland.
Oh, by the way, you are aware that Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader? You? I guess not. Some might think that places an additional burden on him. I couldn’t find the article you mentioned regarding the snub, but you subsequent cite regarding Bush was, shall we say, selective in the truth it conveyed.
(emphasis mine)
I’m sure it was an honest mistake on your part. [sigh]
mag, you really are an idiot. Just like Bush, Reid was going to miss some, but not all events related to Ford’s death. What I said about Bush missing the Capitol service was 100% accurate, not “selective” at all.
Your post was in response to a thread about him being biased. You sought to play that down and act as if it were silly. I had ever right to point out that your methods and arguments were, plainly, stupid.
Ah, the move to captiousness. I am aware that your post was 100% accurate. I did not say otherwise. Did it paint the whole picture? Again, enjoy the boonies of Leftland. Tell Kucinich good luck.
I suggest you reread our posts in this thread. I said he is biased. He is biased. He admits himself to have a conservative bias. My goal was to show that he was not a rightwing lockstepper. That should be evident to all but you, Dennis and a few others. If my methods (an actual look at the site :rolleyes:) shed some reality on you folks, tis not my problem. Let it wash over you, you might come to see that it’s not so bad.
Now, I don’t know what your problem is here. You’ve raised legitimate points earlier and I clarified things—AGREEING—that he has a conservative bias. Why you have continued to harp on this with increasing vitriol is beyond me. But hey, if you must, I guess you must.
It painted the only relevant point I wanted or needed to make: Bush was missing the exact same thing that Reid was missing, but drudge does not describe it as a “snub.” The end. You of course have nothing to say to that, so you change the subject. Sure Bush is going to other ceremonies. But so is Reid. That’s not the point at all. The point is that drudge frames his stories deliberately for partisan conservative effect.
I don’t know if that’s “lockstep” or whatever, but I never said he was and I don’t even know what that means or why you think you getting all obsessed with that term somehow redeems your lousy argument.
My argument? Let’s see. My argument, as indicated in my first post, was to see where on the partisan scale Drudge fell and who might hate him for it. I stand by my post. If the facts make you uncomfortable, I can’t help you.
As far as Reid’s “snub”. My only comments on that were 1) that (snub or not) Reid is the Senate Majority Leader and that his not participating is NOT the same as another rank and file senator not participating, which was part of your defense of him, and 2) You (ahem) unintentionally painted an incomplete picture about Bush’s involvement. (See my last post.) Unfortunately for you and the bee in your bonnet I have not commented on whether or not I think Reid’s lack of participation—to whatever degree—was worthy of the term “snub”. I didn’t comment because, as I mentioned, the article you cited was not there when I looked.
And Apos, why oh why do you keep making the point that Drudge has a conservative bias? Serioulsy. I’ve stated so numerous times. I’ve even cited that he admits this nefarious, evil bias. Are you really this fucking dense? I request again, reread the thread. I just did and it simply seems that you are looking for a fight. I don’t particularly mind that, but it’s hard to muster up any good vitriol when we both AGREE that he and his site have a conservative bias. Now if you want to counter my argument via my original post that he is not some scary rightwing hobgoblin, bring facts. And no, a cite to one or two articles won’t do. That’s why I was so thorough in my post. Letting the facts speak for themselves and all that. In totality, he and his site lean right. Worthy of hate as the OP asked? Only by the Leftlanders so far out in the boonies thay don’t get cable.