"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.­com> wrote in message> news:YTCZd.19566$YD­4.5048@newssvr12.new­s.prodigy.com...>

greatest>

become>

Anyone who utters, let alone puts forth, the idea that there is no liberal> media bias is simply a liar.>

or a fool

"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast.ne­t> wrote in message> news:yICdnVStMLlNZq­vfRVn-3A@comcast.com­...>

No one can be that stupid and read.>

see also "Fishbre"

Scott wrote:>

see also "Fishbre"

-->

The constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM> religion. Think about it, It ain't that hard to figure out. If your> religion is none, then deal with it.>

I strongly urge everyone reading this to check out WWW.anysoldier.com,­> and support our troops with a letter, a package or a donation.

Oh, what the heck. I haven't taken the bait for a while.>

Did you ever consider to possibility that Bush actually generated

In article <YTCZd.19566$YD4.50­48@newssvr12.news.pr­odigy.com>, Chris> Guynn <chris.guynn@gmail.­com> wrote:>

ВЂ "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gm­ail.com> wrote in message> ВЂ news:MqCZd.11$_x.12­2@news.uswest.net...­> ВЂ > http://abcnews.go.c­om/Politics/wireStor­y?id=578904> ВЂ >> ВЂ > The best part is that they lost and continue to lose.> ВЂ >> ВЂ >> ВЂ> ВЂ The second best part is that the study was done by a journalism school> ВЂ within a fairly (very?) liberal college (Columbia).> ВЂ> ВЂ Let's see...> ВЂ> ВЂ Kerry negative articles... 12%> ВЂ Bush negative articles... 36%> ВЂ> ВЂ That's 3 times as likely to be anti-bush... yep, no bias there.> ВЂ>

Oh, what the heck. I haven't taken the bait for a while.>

Did you ever consider to possibility that Bush actually generated much> more negative news than Kerry? It's not bias when you're just reporting> the truth.

As I've been saying,

the Republican party is> starting to feed on itself, and will probably go through a major> meltdown over the next four years.

? "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gm­ail.com> wrote in message> ? news:MqCZd.11$_x.12­2@news.uswest.net...­> ? > http://abcnews.go.c­om/Politics/wireStor­y?id=578904> ? >> ? > The best part is that they lost and continue to lose.> ? >> ? >> ?> ? The second best part is that the study was done by a journalism school> ? within a fairly (very?) liberal college (Columbia).> ?> ? Let's see...> ?> ? Kerry negative articles... 12%> ? Bush negative articles... 36%> ?> ? That's 3 times as likely to be anti-bush... yep, no bias there.> ?>

Oh, what the heck. I haven't taken the bait for a while.>

Did you ever consider to possibility that Bush actually generated much> more negative news than Kerry? It's not bias when you're just reporting> the truth.

As a matter of fact, I did. However, the negative treatment of the

In article <42372420.52A2@cox.­net>, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net­>> wrote:>

ВЂ Alan Street wrote:> ВЂ >> ВЂ > In article <YTCZd.19566$YD4.50­48@newssvr12.news.pr­odigy.com>, Chris> ВЂ > Guynn <chris.guynn@gmail.­com> wrote:> ВЂ >> ВЂ > ВЂ "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gm­ail.com> wrote in message> ВЂ > ВЂ news:MqCZd.11$_x.12­2@news.uswest.net...­> ВЂ > ВЂ > http://abcnews.go.c­om/Politics/wireStor­y?id=578904> ВЂ > ВЂ >> ВЂ > ВЂ > The best part is that they lost and continue to lose.> ВЂ > ВЂ >> ВЂ > ВЂ >> ВЂ > ВЂ> ВЂ > ВЂ The second best part is that the study was done by a journalism school> ВЂ > ВЂ within a fairly (very?) liberal college (Columbia).> ВЂ > ВЂ> ВЂ > ВЂ Let's see...> ВЂ > ВЂ> ВЂ > ВЂ Kerry negative articles... 12%> ВЂ > ВЂ Bush negative articles... 36%> ВЂ > ВЂ> ВЂ > ВЂ That's 3 times as likely to be anti-bush... yep, no bias there.> ВЂ > ВЂ> ВЂ >> ВЂ > Oh, what the heck. I haven't taken the bait for a while.> ВЂ >> ВЂ > Did you ever consider to possibility that Bush actually generated much> ВЂ > more negative news than Kerry? It's not bias when you're just reporting> ВЂ > the truth.> ВЂ> ВЂ when it is biased, it is no longer the truth.>

Circular logic.

ВЂ Keep in mind, Bush was the only one actually -doing- any

Ah, yes. The old "better to do something, even if it's wrong, than to> be seen as indecisive.">

ВЂ Or for the last three decades, come to think of it.> ВЂ>

Gee, that would exclude that icon of Republican leadership, Ronnie.

ВЂ Oh well, just makes the win more and more spectacular as it

The "win"?>

You have a funny sense of good and bad.

In article <42377CD0.723B@cox.­net>, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net­>> wrote:>

Alan Street wrote:> >

only to a logically lost liberal.>

If it is biased, it is not the truth.> truth is not biased.> logically obvious. > but that has never slowed a liberal.>

Wrong, Bob.>

I said, "it's not bias when you're just reporting the truth." You then> went on to say biased reporting isn't the truth. One conclusion feeds> the other, which is circular logic. I assume you're playing this game> (Popeye would call it "a Jedi mind trick") because you can't refute my> initial statement, and because you have no way to disprove my> supposition that Bush gathered more negative reporting because there's> much more negative to report about him.>

Care to try again ­

(because there *is* bias in the news media. It's just not as> skewed to the left as some would like us to believe)

Alan Street wrote:>

And here I thought we were reffering to Kerry.>

Q: Where's W?> A: The Whitehouse>

Q: Where's Kerry?> A: Who?

Alan Street wrote:>

And it never will be, whatever the evidence,,, ­>

That's why I love you, man.>

Dependable. <weg>>

I love you too, mi amigo.>

I know I can always count on you.>

­

If it is biased, it is not the truth.> truth is not biased.> logically obvious.

? Alan Street wrote:> ?> ?> ? >(because there *is* bias in the news media. It's just not as> ? > skewed to the left as some would like us to believe)> ?> ? And it never will be, whatever the evidence,,, ­> ?> ? That's why I love you, man.> ?> ? Dependable. <weg>> ?>

I love you too, mi amigo.>

I know I can always count on you.>

­

Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net­> yapped:>

Only to an idiot like you who is too stupid to see reality.>

Nisarel wrote:>>

thought is beyond me.

Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net­> yapped:>

thought is beyond me.

Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net­> yapped:>

< ... >>

thought is beyond you.>

keep yapping, keep following me around.>

heel, carlito, heel.

The second best part is that the study was done by a journalism

Let's see...>

Kerry negative articles... 12%> Bush negative articles... 36%>

Chris Guynn wrote:> > "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gm­ail.com> wrote in message> > news:MqCZd.11$_x.12­2@news.uswest.net...­> > > http://abcnews.go.c­om/Politics/wireStor­y?id=578904>

Anyone have comparable stats for Clinton's second election? I'd think> that there is always some kind of bias against the incumbent.>

Crownfield wrote:> > Nisarel wrote:> > >

Carl is quite the obedient little leg-humper, isn't he?

thought is beyond me.

Popeye sputtered:>>

that he is.

Oh, what the heck. I haven't taken the bait for a while.>

Did you ever consider to possibility that Bush actually generated much> more negative news than Kerry? It's not bias when you're just reporting> the truth.

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_sa­n.rr.com> wrote in message> news:15032005094753­0829%agstreet@nonono­_san.rr.com...>

a.. New York Times editorial, January 1, 1995:> In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an> endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This> relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator

Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy> retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . .