I Told You So - Page 2

bhkad · 08-10-08, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC.no.spin

Don't forget how they blew up this b.s. story, too.

National Enquirer ≠ The Daily News

danarhea · 08-19-08, 01:17 AM

Rush Limbaugh as a child:

Sergeant Stinger1 · 08-19-08, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

A while back, I started a thread called, "MSM Demonstrates Double Standard," pointing out the absurdity of the media's conclusion that Rush Limbaugh's chronic back pain and resulting addiction to painkillers was far, far more newsworthy than another National Enquirer story about a presidential candidate cheating on the wife he dragged around the country for pity while she tried to survive breast cancer.

The responses from liberals were typically mind-numming, off-topic, and illiterate. Iriemon rushed in to make fun of me for using the National Enquirer for my source, which obviously was not what I was doing. Nifty Drifty insisted that the glaring discrepency was due to John Edwards being innocent, which is not true...you get the picture.

But now the numbers are in. When you type in the terms, "John Edwards" and "Rielle Hunter," you get 148 articles over 10 months-all but 42 of which eagerly mention that it is a National Enquirer story, all but 23 of which were published only after he came clean.

When you type in "Rush Limbaugh" and "painkillers," searching within the first 10 months of his "scandal" as with Edwards (began 10 months ago), you get 946 articles, with less than a quarter of those stories mentioning that the National Enquirer was the source.

The bottom line: Our liberal-run news media ran almost a thousand stories perpetuating a bogus invented scandal against a conservative pundit while omitting the tabloid origins of the story and then ran 23 whole stories about a US presidential candidate cheating on his wife while she helped him pander for the soccer mom-cancer-pity vote...the vast majority of which eagerly mention the tabloid origins of the scandal at every turn.

That's called bias.

-
Well for once I have to admit you are right!
Rush was or might even still be a DRUGGIE and unlike the other millions of DRUGGIES got off scott free.
-
Talk about a DRUGGIE SCANDAL getting pushed under the rug this one tops them all!
-
Thing I don't understand is why are millions of DRUGGIES going to jail or prison while DITTO-DRUGGIE-HEAD-Rush gets away scott free?

-
Just think about this:
The biggest Repuke backer is a CRACK HEAD PILL POPPER!
WOW! What a freekin joke!

Sir Loin · 08-19-08, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

A while back, I started a thread called, "MSM Demonstrates Double Standard," pointing out the absurdity of the media's conclusion that Rush Limbaugh's chronic back pain and resulting addiction to painkillers was far, far more newsworthy than another National Enquirer story about a presidential candidate cheating on the wife he dragged around the country for pity while she tried to survive breast cancer.

The responses from liberals were typically mind-numming, off-topic, and illiterate. Iriemon rushed in to make fun of me for using the National Enquirer for my source, which obviously was not what I was doing. Nifty Drifty insisted that the glaring discrepency was due to John Edwards being innocent, which is not true...you get the picture.

But now the numbers are in. When you type in the terms, "John Edwards" and "Rielle Hunter," you get 148 articles over 10 months-all but 42 of which eagerly mention that it is a National Enquirer story, all but 23 of which were published only after he came clean.

When you type in "Rush Limbaugh" and "painkillers," searching within the first 10 months of his "scandal" as with Edwards (began 10 months ago), you get 946 articles, with less than a quarter of those stories mentioning that the National Enquirer was the source.

The bottom line: Our liberal-run news media ran almost a thousand stories perpetuating a bogus invented scandal against a conservative pundit while omitting the tabloid origins of the story and then ran 23 whole stories about a US presidential candidate cheating on his wife while she helped him pander for the soccer mom-cancer-pity vote...the vast majority of which eagerly mention the tabloid origins of the scandal at every turn.

That's called bias.

No a while back you started a thread where you erroneously claimed that the National Enquirer accused Rush Limbaugh of illegal drug use. The entire premise of your thread relied upon your complete botching of the facts of the case!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

When the National Enquirer accused Rush of illegal drug use, the media ran with it and turned it into a circus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

I Am Addicted to Prescription Pain Medication - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

Now they've accused presidential candidate, John Edwards of having an affair...

PRESIDENTIAL CHEATING SCANDAL! ALLEGED AFFAIR COULD WRECK <B>JOHN EDWARDS</b>' CAMPAIGN BID - Celebrity News | Gossip - National Enquirer

Where's the three ring circus?

I corrected you several times about your claim that the National Enquirer accused anyone of anything. In fact the Enquirer correctly reported that Limbaugh was under investigation for an illegal act. You even claimed that the Enquirer manufactured plenty of the “evidence” themselves.

You had not one fact in your OP correct.

I was new to the forum then and using my first ID, Mr. Atoz. That ID was changed due to account troubles. I responded to your ludicrous mangling of the facts specifically in the following post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-m...tml#post657568 (MSM Demonstrates Double Standard)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-m...tml#post657739 (MSM Demonstrates Double Standard)

You disappeared and abandoned your then “fact faulty” take on the matter. Now you revisit and transmogrify your earlier take for another stab into the either.

Long story short, you could not be honest about the matter then and you are no more honest about the matter today. That is called bias.

niftydrifty · 08-28-08, 12:36 AM

aquapub, your eyes are brown!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

A while back, I started a thread called, "MSM Demonstrates Double Standard," pointing out the absurdity of the media's conclusion that

gosh, if only the media could be assumed to be a homogenous singular thing, how simple our lives would be! "the media's conclusion" ... as if "it" thinks! yes, the media's brain is housed somewhere in manhattan ... or is it Berkeley? do tell, aquapub.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

...Rush Limbaugh's chronic back pain and resulting addiction to painkillers was far, far more newsworthy than another National Enquirer story about a presidential candidate cheating on the wife he dragged around the country for pity while she tried to survive breast cancer.

but was that "its" conclusion? please reacquaint yourself with this story:

- Celebrity News | Gossip - National Enquirer

the name "Rielle" appears ... where ... in that story? now, explain to us, aquapub, when the name of the woman came out? how many months had gone by before that happened? how many hits do you get when you search for "John Edwards" & "affair"? huh? what is bias? LOL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

The responses from liberals were typically mind-numming, off-topic, and illiterate. Iriemon rushed in to make fun of me for using the National Enquirer for my source,

as well he should have. anyone would be safe, usually, to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

which obviously was not what I was doing.

uh huh. the source of the story was what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

...Nifty Drifty insisted that the glaring discrepency was due to John Edwards being innocent, which is not true...you get the picture.

I don't trust the enquirer as a source of news. but I was wrong to doubt it. I'll remind you, however, that your "point" was about the media's treatment of these two non-stories.

I'm happy that you've regained access to LN. you just need to learn how to use it. let us know how many hits you get when you search for "John Edwards" and "affair" within the time frame.