Fair and balanced? Um ... no

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's simply not true, but hey, truth, falsehood, there's no "real" line, is there?



No, what the media should do is the usual: check the facts. Ask Giuliani if he is atheist. If he says no, then look to see if there is any evidence he is atheist (that he is lying).

If there is not, then you bet, "10% incorrectly-wrongly believe" is exactly how the story should be written. Giuliani isn't an atheist. He's a Catholic. People that think otherwise are incorrect, and wrong.



Why should the media give people that express a view contrary to proven reality equal creedance with the proven reality? That's silly. Opinion and fact are not the same. Opinion contrary to or ignoring presented fact is worth even less.


So what?

The reason that I said that you don't answer questions that hurt your argument is because that has been my experience with you on several occasions. The one that sticks out off the top of my head was when we were debating about the popularity of Bin-Laden throughout the Muslim world. You claimed that he wasn't popular with Muslims. You tried to make some type of analogy with Timothy McVeigh, which is absurd because Mc Veigh has no support amongst Christians. Anyway, I put up links to polls showing that Bin-Laden was extremely popular throughout the Muslim world. You said that the polls didn't show enough Muslim countries and that Pakistan, Indonesia, and all the other countries named in the poll didn't prove that much.

I finally asked you to estimate what Bin-Laden's popularity was throughout the Muslim world. I asked you to give your best guess estimate. The polls were showing anywhere from a 20-60% approval rating in most Muslim countries. You wanted to pretend that Bin-Laden was in no way representative of Muslims just like McVeigh is in no way representative of Christians. You seemed to act like the polls were not truly representative yet you refused to say what you thought the real numbers. The reason you wouldn't say what you thought the true numbers were was because it would have discredited your original argument. Even if you would have admitted to Bin Laden just having a 10% approval rating amongst Muslims, even that would have contradicted your argument. So you refused to answer the question.

Come to think of it, this reminds me of what you were just accusing others of which is stating an opinion that is contrary to facts. All the evidence and all the polls showed that Bin-Laden was extremely popular throughout the Muslim but you want to deny it just because you want to be "politically-correct".

With regards to the Giuliani hypothetical, I was giving an example of a guy who we know is not really religious based on his behavior. I'm not saying that he's not a Catholic but I would say it's pretty obvious that he's not really religious. We know that many politicians pretend to be religious even though they are not religious. You can't take them on their word on it.

I agree with you that if everything about a guy's behavior pointed to him being the religious person that he claims to be, then it would be silly for people to question it. And in that case, I doubt people would question it. I don't think anyone questioned whether John Ashcroft was religious.

I agree with you that the media should not give equal credence to people that express a contrary view to proven reality. But the true religious beliefs of Rudy Giuliani or Barrack Obama are not even close to "proven reality". There is absolutely zero proof of what their true beliefs are.

[Riot]

The polls were showing anywhere from a 20-60% approval rating in most Muslim countries. You wanted to pretend that Bin-Laden was in no way representative of Muslims just like McVeigh is in no way representative of Christians. You seemed to act like the polls were not truly representative yet you refused to say what you thought the real numbers.

Yup. Because you were quoting polls from immediately after WTC. 10 years ago.

And no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of Muslims at all. "Pretend"? LOL - that's your prejudice and bigotry against all Muslims. No, not mine.

Good luck with that.

Let me make this crystal clear: no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of all Muslims. No way in hell.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yup. Because you were quoting polls from immediately after WTC. 10 years ago.

And no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of Muslims at all. "Pretend"? LOL - that's your prejudice and bigotry against all Muslims. No, not mine.

Good luck with that.

Let me make this crystal clear: no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of all Muslims. No way in hell.

I never said that Bin-Laden is representative of all Muslims. I don't think he is even close to being representative of all Muslims.

The polls I was quoting were not just right after 9/11. The polls went from around 2001-2006 or so.

The problem with people like you that are so politically correct is that you think that if you even ackowledge any type of negative characteristic about a group, that that would make you a bigot or racist. That is ridiculous.

Quoting a poll does not make someone a racist. Bin-Laden enjoyed a ton of popularity throughout the Muslim world for several years. This was after he murdered 3,000 people on 9/11.

Is Rush Limbaugh representative of all Republicans? Of course not. There are plenty of Republicans that are not Rush Limbaugh fans at all. Is Rush Limbaugh fairly popular amongst Republicans? I would have to say yes. He is certainly representative of some republicans. I don't know the exact number. I would guess that at least 50% of republicans like Limbaugh.

With Bin-Laden, in the years of approximately 2001-2006, I would say that somewhere around 30%-40% of Muslims around the world liked Bin-Laden during that time. Is Bin-Laden represenative of all Muslims? Of course not. But he was quite popular for a while. Even today, he still enjoys some popularity in the Muslim world. If you polled Muslims all over the world today, I would guess that his popularity rate would still be above 10% and I'll bet you that those people would tell you that he does represent them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The problem with people like you that are so politically correct is that you think that if you even ackowledge any type of negative characteristic about a group, that that would make you a bigot or racist. That is ridiculous. .

The problem with people like you is that not everyone else will buy into the prejudiced, bigoted bullcrap.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

The problem with people like you is that not everyone else will buy into the prejudiced, bigoted bullcrap.

Like what? Name me one thing that I've ever said that is prejudiced or bigotted. With regard to Islam, I recognize all facets of the religion, the good with the bad.

There are good parts to the religion and there are plenty of good Muslims. But there are also some very negative parts to the religion. For example, the way they treat women in many Muslim countries is really bad.

You have to take the bad with the good.

[Riot]

Like what? Name me one thing that I've ever said that is prejudiced or bigotted.

The problem with people like you that are so politically correct is that you think that if you even ackowledge any type of negative characteristic about a group, that that would make you a bigot or racist. That is ridiculous.

And back at you.

Why does any politicians religion matter?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

And back at you.

Why does any politicians religion matter?

You are changing the subject. I don't know that a politician's religion is necessarily significant. I would say that it's significant to some voters in that they want a person representing them that shares their values. They may feel that a person that shares their religion is more likely to share their values.

We know that isn't necessarily true because knowing a person's religion doesn't necessarily tell you anything about that person.

It is the same with a person's race. I am caucasian but I would much rather have Clarence Thomas on the Suprme Court than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Thomas' race is totally irrelevant to me. Why would I care about his race? The only thing I care about are his beliefs and his beliefs are much more in line with mine than Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yup. Because you were quoting polls from immediately after WTC. 10 years ago.

And no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of Muslims at all. "Pretend"? LOL - that's your prejudice and bigotry against all Muslims. No, not mine.

Good luck with that.

Let me make this crystal clear: no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of all Muslims. No way in hell.

Why are you so prejudice against Muslims? Why do you think they are all liars? You say that you "don't think Bin-Laden is represenative of Muslims at all". There are Muslims around the world that named their new-born babies "Osama". They love Bin-Laden. They think he is a great role model and a great Muslim. They think he represents them. Yet you say that he doesn't represent Muslims at all. That measn that you are calling those people liars since they would say that he does represent them.

Why do you streotype Muslims like this? They're not all liars. They are a diverse group. Some Muslims hate Bin-Laden and some love him. You can't paint them all with one brush.

I love giving you a taste of your own medicine.

[Riot]

I love giving you a taste of your own medicine.

But you didn't. You made up a moronically stupid straw man, simply ignoring the two times I clarified my meaning to be the opposite of what you say.

Epic fail.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

But you didn't. You made up a moronically stupid straw man, simply ignoring the two times I clarified my meaning to be the opposite of what you say.

Epic fail.

What do you mean? That is exactly what you did. You claimed that I think Bin-Laden represents "all" Muslims when I have said just the opposite.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What do you mean? That is exactly what you did. You claimed that I think Bin-Laden represents "all" Muslims when I have said just the opposite.

Nope. Fail again. Nice try at changing the subject, though.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Epic fail.

^^^

going to be the title of your autobiography

[ArlJim78]

the Murdoch contribution was very public, but lets not forget that up and down the line, ALL of the other media companies donate full tilt to the Democrats. generally its in the form of personal contributions but nonetheless if you add it all up its a large number.

In addition, if you were to estimate the value of the on-air in-kind support that the MSM offers for the progressive agenda, you'd find a staggering number. If you had to pay for the ridiculous ass kissing that goes on every day it would be a pretty penny.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the Murdoch contribution was very public, but lets not forget that up and down the line, ALL of the other media companies donate full tilt to the Democrats. generally its in the form of personal contributions but nonetheless if you add it all up its a large number.

In addition, if you were to estimate the value of the on-air in-kind support that the MSM offers for the progressive agenda, you'd find a staggering number. If you had to pay for the ridiculous ass kissing that goes on every day it would be a pretty penny.

Yes, that is exactly right. Approximately 90% of the mainstream media idenitifies themselves as liberal democrats. But I guess that doesn't make any difference. I guess the the 90% of journalists that are liberal stay totally objective and don't allow their bias to affect their reporting. But the 10% of journalists that are republicans are not objective at all. They are totally biased and they let their bias affect their reporting.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the Murdoch contribution was very public, but lets not forget that up and down the line, ALL of the other media companies donate full tilt to the Democrats. generally its in the form of personal contributions but nonetheless if you add it all up its a large number.

Can you show us that large number? As all corporate contributions are public and readily available on the internet, where other news organizations have donated only to the Democrats?

We are not talking about "personal" donations, we are talking about news corporations donating. Not private people. Private donations do not count. Private citizens may donate to whomever they wish within election law. Who cares?

And for extra impact, are any other of those news orgs major owners Saudi Muslims, as News Corp is?