House of Corruption...

Cypress said:
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.

;)
Click to expand...


You are such a lying moron.... The whole point of the thread was the number of earmarks and the fact that they were not disclosed as promised. Do you dispute the number? No... you simply try to dismiss the issue because it was found within an article by Novak. Do you dispute the fact that they were not disclosed? No, you again try to spin your way out of the topic by claiming bias.

Then you make crap up with regards to realclearpolitics web site by trying to associate the readers "votes" on articles to somehow indicate bias by the site itself. You also tried to associate "most read" articles to indicate bias by the site. You completely ignore the fact that the NY and LA Times, San Fran Chronicle, Chicago Tribune and even the Nation have articles on the site on a continuous basis.

Such a pathetic attempt at spin.
 
Superfreak said:
The 1300 are for THIS bill. That number does not include any earmarks from February through July.
Click to expand...
ohhhh, ok, I will try to find out more then!

Care

Murtha's pork barreling has got to go though, he needs taming down with his spending on his district, I will admit to that without further research!!!!
 
Superfreak said:
You are such a lying moron.... The whole point of the thread was the number of earmarks and the fact that they were not disclosed as promised. Do you dispute the number? No... you simply try to dismiss the issue because it was found within an article by Novak. Do you dispute the fact that they were not disclosed? No, you again try to spin your way out of the topic by claiming bias.

Then you make crap up with regards to realclearpolitics web site by trying to associate the readers "votes" on articles to somehow indicate bias by the site itself. You also tried to associate "most read" articles to indicate bias by the site. You completely ignore the fact that the NY and LA Times, San Fran Chronicle, Chicago Tribune and even the Nation have articles on the site on a continuous basis.

Such a pathetic attempt at spin.
Click to expand...

But then after it was pointed out that Dems promised transparency in earmarks, not to end them, the focus turned to, well, where is the information on this bill? Then I posted it.

This argument over real clear politics is irrelevant, though, it looks like a buzzflash type thing to me, or huffpo, the fact remains Novak wrote the piece what does it matter what real clear politics is?
 
Superfreak said:
You are such a lying moron.... The whole point of the thread was the number of earmarks and the fact that they were not disclosed as promised. Do you dispute the number? No... you simply try to dismiss the issue because it was found within an article by Novak. Do you dispute the fact that they were not disclosed? No, you again try to spin your way out of the topic by claiming bias.

Then you make crap up with regards to realclearpolitics web site by trying to associate the readers "votes" on articles to somehow indicate bias by the site itself. You also tried to associate "most read" articles to indicate bias by the site. You completely ignore the fact that the NY and LA Times, San Fran Chronicle, Chicago Tribune and even the Nation have articles on the site on a continuous basis.

Such a pathetic attempt at spin.
Click to expand...
the earmarks WERE DISCLOSED, where did you get that they were not?

Darla posted an article on this, did you read it? Or maybe I just missed something because I did not read the entire thread?
 
Care4all said:
the earmarks WERE DISCLOSED, where did you get that they were not?

Darla posted an article on this, did you read it? Or maybe I just missed something because I did not read the entire thread?
Click to expand...

No Care, they were not, the ONLY earmarks that were disclosed on this bill were the ones that were brought up for argument. Nowhere that I have found is there a list of the dollars or the recipients of the earmarks.

The article Darla posted, which I did indeed read (despite being from the NY times) mentioned the lack of disclosure of the recipients of earmarks AND it was in regards to a completely different bill. It was the bill on the health insurance for kids...which passed about the same time (within a week) of the DOD bill.

Darla... AGAIN... as I asked Cypress and he continues to ignore... do you dispute the numbers in Novaks article with regards to the number of earmarks? Or to the fact that the over 1300 earmarks are not disclosed? If not, then your "I hate Novak because he is a rightwing nut" comment is pointless.
 
Darla said:
But then after it was pointed out that Dems promised transparency in earmarks, not to end them, the focus turned to, well, where is the information on this bill? Then I posted it.

This argument over real clear politics is irrelevant, though, it looks like a buzzflash type thing to me, or huffpo, the fact remains Novak wrote the piece what does it matter what real clear politics is?
Click to expand...

Darla... as for realclearpolitics... it is indeed a site that I suppose is similar to buzzflash... they go out and link up to a variety of op-ed pieces and articles pertaining to politics. The articles/pieces are from across the political spectrum as I mentioned countless times on this thread. Cypress simply does his normal cherry picking and is attempting to spin it.
 
Superfreak said:
Darla... as for realclearpolitics... it is indeed a site that I suppose is similar to buzzflash... they go out and link up to a variety of op-ed pieces and articles pertaining to politics. The articles/pieces are from across the political spectrum as I mentioned countless times on this thread. Cypress simply does his normal cherry picking and is attempting to spin it.
Click to expand...

But Buzzflash is a left wing site. I don't understand the argument I really do not.
 
Darla said:
But then after it was pointed out that Dems promised transparency in earmarks, not to end them, the focus turned to, well, where is the information on this bill? Then I posted it.

This argument over real clear politics is irrelevant, though, it looks like a buzzflash type thing to me, or huffpo, the fact remains Novak wrote the piece what does it matter what real clear politics is?
Click to expand...

Your right, of course. On all the substance. SF posted something by that hack Novak, and got his lunch eaten.

The point about RCP, is that SF and Damo have been lying their asses off, and calling me a moron for having the gall to suggest RCP is partisan.

As you yourself note, even to the casual observer, RCP is obviously mainly a forum for conservative opinion and posting. Any moron can see that. A liar will deny it of course ;)
 
Superfreak said:
No Care, they were not, the ONLY earmarks that were disclosed on this bill were the ones that were brought up for argument. Nowhere that I have found is there a list of the dollars or the recipients of the earmarks.

The article Darla posted, which I did indeed read (despite being from the NY times) mentioned the lack of disclosure of the recipients of earmarks AND it was in regards to a completely different bill. It was the bill on the health insurance for kids...which passed about the same time (within a week) of the DOD bill.

Darla... AGAIN... as I asked Cypress and he continues to ignore... do you dispute the numbers in Novaks article with regards to the number of earmarks? Or to the fact that the over 1300 earmarks are not disclosed? If not, then your "I hate Novak because he is a rightwing nut" comment is pointless.
Click to expand...

The health insurance bill, I linked to a NY Times article that gives information on those earmarks.

In order to "dispute" his numbers I'd hvae to track down every earmark and see if it had been disclosed. No thanks. What I have done is linked to disclosures on both the military bill and the health care bill, because those were the 2 specifically mentioned on this thread.
 
Superfreak said:
Darla... as for realclearpolitics... it is indeed a site that I suppose is similar to buzzflash... they go out and link up to a variety of op-ed pieces and articles pertaining to politics. The articles/pieces are from across the political spectrum as I mentioned countless times on this thread. Cypress simply does his normal cherry picking and is attempting to spin it.
Click to expand...


"Darla... as for realclearpolitics... it is indeed a site that I suppose is similar to buzzflash.."

That's what I said 30 posts ago Moron. Buzzflash is left-leaning, and generally seeks out opinion and articles of interest to a liberal audience. They filter the news.

That's exactly what RCP is doing, for the most part. I would say RCP is more like Huffpost, because both of them link to conservative and liberal voices. But Huffpost is quite obviously left leaning, and RCP is obviously right leaning.

I'll be expecting that apology from you ;)
 
Oh just forget it. I know you can't apologize SF. Or admit you were wrong.

To me, you call me a moron when I say RCP is the rightwing equivalent of left-leaning Huffpost, or Bushflash, etc).


But, when a foxy liberal chick comes on and says the same thing as me, you kiss her ass and agree with her: "Darla, I would say RCP is like Buzzflash"


What a spineless pussy whipped jelly fish ;)
 
Don't hide SF:


Pussy whipped


-Cypress, liberal male poster: "RCP is a righting leaning equivalent of the left-leaning Huffpost, buzzflash liberal sites.

-Superfreak: "You Moron! WRONG! Its a non-partisan site. Liar! Moron, moron, moron!"
Click to expand...


versus, a couple hours later:

-Darla, foxy liberal female: "RCP looks like buzzflash or a huffpost to me.

-Superfreak: "I agree. RCP is kind of like a buzzflash"
Click to expand...
 
Darla,

just give me your log in password, so when I want SF to agree with me, I'll just log in as you. Obviously, he will call me a "moron" for any assertion I make, but when you make the same assertion as me, he will say "I agree, Darla"


What a putz!
 
Cypress said:
Darla,

just give me your log in password, so when I want SF to agree with me, I'll just log in as you. Obviously, he will call me a "moron" for any assertion I make, but when you make the same assertion as me, he will say "I agree, Darla"


What a putz!
Click to expand...

LOL

This is going to be funny the next time he logs in.
 
I notice Damocles bailed from the thread, after pretty much everyone (you, me, superfreak) agreed that RCP was indeed, sort of a rightwing equivalent of liberal Buzzflash, or Huffpost - e.g., it is not "non-partisan". It filters news for rightys, just like buzzflash filters news and opinion for lefties. ;)

Which is what I said 40 posts ago.
 
Cypress said:
I notice Damocles bailed from the thread, after pretty much everyone (you, me, superfreak) agreed that RCP was indeed, sort of a rightwing equivalent of liberal Buzzflash, or Huffpost - e.g., it is not "non-partisan". It filters news for rightys, just like buzzflash filters news and opinion for lefties. ;)

Which is what I said 40 posts ago.
Click to expand...
I still don't think it is as biased as you insist. But have realized that it is all on your own opinion. If anything it is libertarian biased.
 
Cypress said:
Darla,

just give me your log in password, so when I want SF to agree with me, I'll just log in as you. Obviously, he will call me a "moron" for any assertion I make, but when you make the same assertion as me, he will say "I agree, Darla"


What a putz!
Click to expand...

You are such a fucking moron. I said it was "kind of like buzzflash" in that it linked up to a variety of articles. But as usual, you are too ignorant to grasp that. You try to spin my words into saying..."superfreak agrees it is right biased". It is not. Not even close. I think it is time for you to go to time out. You are not worth the time. Ignore list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top