House of Corruption...

[Cypress]

How completely disingenuous.... WHO gives a crap about how READERS "vote" on articles? IT has NOTHING to do with it. It may show a bias of the READERS, but not the site. It may also have to do with the fact that it is well known many liberal voters simply are too ignorant to know HOW to vote.

TRANSLATION: "So WHAT if nearly all their opinion columns are conservative, and if ALL their reader articles are conservative???!! Its NOT a partisan site!"


LOL

 

[uscitizen]

Oby I am relieved that no republicans voted for those evil earmarks.

 

[Cypress]

TRANSLATION: "So WHAT if nearly all their opinion columns are conservative, and if ALL their reader articles are conservative???!! Its NOT a partisan site!"


LOL

SF: Huffington Post links to Drudge, Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan (conservative columnist), George Will, etc.


Is HuffingtonPost a "non-partisan" site?

 

[Damocles]

SF: Huffington Post links to Drudge, Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan (conservative columnist), George Will, etc.


Is HuffingtonPost a "non-partisan" site?

realclearpolitics links to the LA Times and other such partisan sources, along with linking to some righty sites, it simply links to relevant sourcing for articles along with posting every single major poll. It is one of the most non-partisan sites I have seen. I can read both sides of the story there. Including some of the most lefty blogspots.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

TRANSLATION: "So WHAT if nearly all their opinion columns are conservative, and if ALL their reader articles are conservative???!! Its NOT a partisan site!"


LOL

translation: Cypress is too much of a fucking tool to distinguish between what SOME readers "vote" on and what is actually on the site. Too ignorant to realize that constant articles from the LA Times, NY Times, Chicago Tribune and San Fran Chronicle are also on the site. Bottom line, Cypress is a partisan hack that clearly lacks the ability to comprehend anything not spoonfed to him from moveon.org or the dailycrap.

 

[Cypress]

realclearpolitics links to the LA Times and other such partisan sources, along with linking to some righty sites, it simply links to relevant sourcing for articles along with posting every single major poll. It is one of the most non-partisan sites I have seen. I can read both sides of the story there. Including some of the most lefty blogspots.

Lets see: They feature overwhelmingly conservative opinion columns, they're readers appear to be almost universally conservative, and in an article printed about them, they appear to be self-avowed conservatives:

Tom Bevan ’91, who along with classmate John McIntyre ’91 writes the conservative-oriented RealClear Politics (www.realclearpolitics.com), attended the Republican National Convention in New York. He spent most of his week on “Bloggers’ Corner,” the area in the media center dedicated to Internet-based correspondents, which was really a room deep beneath Madison Square Garden, not far from “Radio Row” where the talk-radio pundits, those other symbols of the new media, set up shop.

RealClear Politics included constant dispatches from the convention, some posted at 4 a.m. Despite Bevan’s pro-Bush sympathies, not all his coverage was positive. Reviewing the address by President Bush’s twin daughters, for example, he wrote: “After the first couple of jokes I winced. After a couple of more, I was begging them to stop. They didn’t.” Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani fared far better.

http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW04-05/03-1020/features2.html

Ummm, Huffingtonpost links to some conservative columinsts and newspapers too. And Ariana Huffington criticizes the democrats a lot.

But, if I was to claim Huffingtonpost was "non-partisan" I'd be laughed off this board.


You've been presented overwhelming evidence of the rightward-tilt of RCP. You can continue to deny it, in the face of facts, if you want.

 

[Damocles]

Lets see: They feature overwhelmingly conservative opinion columns, they're readers appear to be almost universally conservative, and in an article printed about them, they appear to be self-avowed conservatives:




Ummm, Huffingtonpost links to some conservative columinsts and newspapers too. And Ariana Huffington criticizes the democrats a lot.

But, if I was to claim Huffingtonpost was "non-partisan" I'd be laughed off this board.


You've been presented overwhelming evidence of the rightward-tilt of RCP. You can continue to deny it, in the face of facts, if you want.

LOL. You quote a blog to prove it is "conservative-oriented"? Did you write the blog? Seriously! That is funny.

The top of the page to your link is "blog blog blog" and I am supposed to take that as the standard? I wonder if I can find a "blog" that calls it lefty and change your opinion then!

You are hilarious. Scanning it, I see the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, the SF Chronicle, all with links on that site. Those are clearly bastions of the "right".

Anything that even remotely posts any editorial from a righty automatically, regardless of links to lefty sites as well, becomes "right-leaning" to you.

 

[Cypress]

LOL. You quote a blog to prove it is "conservative-oriented"? Did you write the blog? Seriously! That is funny.

The top of the page to your link is "blog blog blog" and I am supposed to take that as the standard? I wonder if I can find a "blog" that calls it lefty and change your opinion then!

You are hilarious. Scanning it, I see the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, the SF Chronicle, all with links on that site. Those are clearly bastions of the "right".

Anything that even remotely posts any editorial from a righty automatically, regardless of links to lefty sites as well, becomes "right-leaning" to you.

This is probably the most dishonest I've ever seen you.

A website founded by two pro-bush guys, which features overwhelmingly conservative opinion, and is read and posted on almost exclusively by rightwingers, is a conservative website, intended to provide a forum for rightwingers.

The fact that they link up to non-partisan Gallup or Harris polls, is a wholly insufficient reason for you to hide behind and yell: "They're non-partisan! They're non-partisan"

Left-leaning blogs link to non-partisan polls, and they also link to some rightwing opinion columns and newspapers. Like Huffingtonpost. But, I would be foolish enough to call them "non-partisan". They are left leaning blogs.

And you'd laugh your ass off, if I called huffington post "non-partisan

 

[Cypress]

LOL. You quote a blog to prove it is "conservative-oriented"? Did you write the blog? Seriously! That is funny.


Oh, and while you where LOL'ing, you forgot to actually click on the link I provided.

Its not a "blog". Its the Princeton University Alumni Newspaper.

 

[Damocles]

LOL. You quote a blog to prove it is "conservative-oriented"? Did you write the blog? Seriously! That is funny.


Oh, and while you where LOL'ing, you forgot to actually click on the link I provided.

Its not a "blog". Its the Princeton University Alumni Newspaper.

I clicked the link, at the top it says "blog blog blog".

It is in fact a blog created by one alumn of Princeton who graduated in '83.

 

[Damocles]

This is probably the most dishonest I've ever seen you.

A website founded by two pro-bush guys, which features overwhelmingly conservative opinion, and is read and posted on almost exclusively by rightwingers, is a conservative website, intended to provide a forum for rightwingers.

The fact that they link up to non-partisan Gallup or Harris polls, is a wholly insufficient reason for you to hide behind and yell: "They're non-partisan! They're non-partisan"

Left-leaning blogs link to non-partisan polls, and they also link to some rightwing opinion columns and newspapers. Like Huffingtonpost. But, I would be foolish enough to call them "non-partisan". They are left leaning blogs.

And you'd laugh your ass off, if I called huffington post "non-partisan

This is perhaps the most dishonest I have seen you. You are often disingenuous, but posting a blog from a graduate from '83 of Princeton is not evidence that realclearpolitics leans right. Even if he is a senior writer of PAW, it is still his blog.

 

[Cypress]

This is perhaps the most dishonest I have seen you. You are often disingenuous, but posting a blog from a graduate from '83 of Princeton is not evidence that realclearpolitics leans right. Even if he is a senior writer of PAW, it is still his blog.

Lying isn't becoming of you.

This isn't a "blog".

It's from the princeton.edu website. The alumini newspaper.

The "blog, blog blog" thing you read, is part of the title of the article.

The article is about bloggers. It's not some guy's "blog". Its an article in the Princeton newspaper about blogs.


Let's Review:

1) Damo claims RCP is "non-partisan". He expects us to simply take his word for it.

versus

2) I provided links to the RCP opinion columns, link to the RCP reader and reader article forum, and a link to a Princeton alumni newspaper. All of which collectively show that RCP is a conservative-leaning website, read and posted on my almost exclusively rightwingers, and containing mostly conservative opinion pieces.


Who's lying, and who's right?

We report. You decide.

 

[Damocles]

Lying isn't becoming of you.

This isn't a "blog".

It's from the princeton.edu website. The alumini newspaper.

The "blog, blog blog" thing you read, is part of the title of the article.

The article is about bloggers. It's not some guy's "blog". Its an article in the Princeton newspaper about blogs.


Let's Review:

1) Damo claims RCP is "non-partisan". He expects us to simply take his word for it.

versus

2) I provided links to the RCP opinion columns, link to the RCP reader and reader article forum, and a link to a Princeton alumni newspaper. All of which collectively show that RCP is a conservative-leaning website, read and posted on my almost exclusively rightwingers, and containing mostly conservative opinion pieces.


Who's lying, and who's right?

We report. You decide.

I provide actual evidence, listing off a list of several of the news sites that clearly lean left that are linked to the site, he provides an editorial about blogs that suggests in one of its paragraphs that it is "right-leaning" because he is so desperate he cannot find any other source that suggests it.

This is not evidence of bias in the site, it is evidence of bias in the editorial. I have re-read the editorial article and it is about blogs rather than being a blog itself, but that doesn't change that just putting an assertion in an editorial doesn't make it truth. There is no data to back it up other than the one guy's opinion.

So far, I can prove that there are articles from all different sources on rcp, you can prove that some guy at Princeton thinks it leans right.

Who is being disingenuous, the guy that can prove that there are links all over that site to lefty sources or the guy with one editorial from Princeton? Evidence at the site itself shows that it links indiscriminately to pretty much every political source other than Drudge and Rush Limbaugh.com...

 

[Cancel7]

I cannot believe you guys are arguing over this! What did I say three pages ago? To forestall a pointless argument, it doesn't matter of realclear is biased or not, Bob NOvak wrote the piece, and Bob Novak is what?

Say it with me...a whore.

Then, I post an article, which you all ignored, showing that the dems have followed their own legislation and released the earmarks before the bill was voted on.

Complete silence, followed by more arguing over something, that I have already proved, doesn't matter.

 

[Damocles]

I cannot believe you guys are arguing over this! What did I say three pages ago? To forestall a pointless argument, it doesn't matter of realclear is biased or not, Bob NOvak wrote the piece, and Bob Novak is what?

Say it with me...a whore.

Then, I post an article, which you all ignored, showing that the dems have followed their own legislation and released the earmarks before the bill was voted on.

Complete silence, followed by more arguing over something, that I have already proved, doesn't matter.

Bob Novack is certainly biased.

 

[Care4all]

Wow. That's almost as much as we'll spend on Iraq...this week.

Gosh, the outrage. Well, it's refreshing. Been a long time coming.

Fiscal year 2007 for our gvt is over, october first....i highly doubt they will add 12000 MORE earmarks by then!

Dems have done a good job of holding them down since they have been in power, now let's just pray they keep it up!

 

[Damocles]

Fiscal year 2007 for our gvt is over, october first....i highly doubt they will add 12000 MORE earmarks by then!

Dems have done a good job of holding them down since they have been in power, now let's just pray they keep it up!

Except this only marks the ones for this one bill, Care. You are judging this without all the information.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I cannot believe you guys are arguing over this! What did I say three pages ago? To forestall a pointless argument, it doesn't matter of realclear is biased or not, Bob NOvak wrote the piece, and Bob Novak is what?

Say it with me...a whore.

Then, I post an article, which you all ignored, showing that the dems have followed their own legislation and released the earmarks before the bill was voted on.

Complete silence, followed by more arguing over something, that I have already proved, doesn't matter.

He is certainly biased... but the FACTS within his article were what we were discussing.... and Cypress was referring to realclearpolitics as biased, which is idiotic to anyone who has read the abundance of articles from that site.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fiscal year 2007 for our gvt is over, october first....i highly doubt they will add 12000 MORE earmarks by then!

Dems have done a good job of holding them down since they have been in power, now let's just pray they keep it up!

The 1300 are for THIS bill. That number does not include any earmarks from February through July.

 

[Cypress]

I cannot believe you guys are arguing over this! What did I say three pages ago? To forestall a pointless argument, it doesn't matter of realclear is biased or not, Bob NOvak wrote the piece, and Bob Novak is what?

Say it with me...a whore.

Then, I post an article, which you all ignored, showing that the dems have followed their own legislation and released the earmarks before the bill was voted on.

Complete silence, followed by more arguing over something, that I have already proved, doesn't matter.

Of course your article got ignored. Because this thread wasn't about facts anyway. SF posted an article by a well known rightwing tool, and proclaimed that - based on Novak - that Dems were breaking campaign promises.

When his rightwing tool source got challenged, and the overwhelming conservative editorial slant of RCP was pointed out, it became a childish argument, filled with lies and denial.

It was never really about facts and democrats. It was about posting something a rightwing tool said, and standing by it 100% even when it was debunked.