Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: EXman
So nothing specific except Brit Hume... gotcha no proof.
There are plenty, including the other example I gave there; they also agreed to air the Swift bot lies. But it's a big topic a book is appropriate for- I gave you one.
You won't read it, because you are not interested in the truth. If I offer to buy you a copy, you won't promise to read it.
CBS tried to topple a sitting US president with forged documents so please do not say they are mixed that does not even pass the smell test.
You are lying. You don't pass the smelll test.
Let's look back at the facts we know about that incident:
CBS *was approached* with documents related to Bush's guard duty, which they already had plenty of evidene about *that stands to this day*. They didn't go making them up.
The document - we know the source (to CBS) of the documents, we know how he positioned them, we know his situation as being in a positition to have obtained them.
The staff were under very tight time pressures, as this story was breaking various places. Let's say for the sake of argument that they did not get the ideal validation done.
The question here is motive. They had every reason to think the documents were real - they had no knowledge they were false. You claim they SET OUT to topple a president with forged documents, as if they knew they were false when they ran the story - which is a complete lie, because as we know, they did not know the documents were false - you, in fact, are the one pushing lies not only about their intent, but about the story itself, given the evidence they had besides the documents.
And in fact, on the documents themselves, how 'phony' were they obviously? Besides the screaming internet - who has also informed us how Barack Obama likes hanging out with terrorists and isn't a natural-born US citizen (and how Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster when he wasn't stealing with Whitewater) - they had the very secretary of the man these documents were claimed tobe written by *saying she remembered these documents accurately reflecting his views*. So, the content of the documents was *accurate*.
The documents themselves - a multi-million dollar investigation that got rid of the CBS people who had not fully verified the documents said the authenticity could not be determined for sure, that they were probably reproductions. So, we have probable reproductions of real documents with accurate information, as part of a story with other solid evidence, that the staff did not fully verify - their source later said he lied to them - that the staff did not know were probably not the originals. How terrible!
Obviously, a case of the network trying to overthrow the president by knowingly using false documents to lie! You are the one peddling the lies.
Donahue was a cranky nut pure and simple.
You're lying pure and simple - he looks that way to you through your bias. It's not the point - the point is as I said. They would not tolerate any anti-war views.
Hell they canned Michael Savage even though he was a top rated show. Why cause they are both too far something. As a whole MSNBC is almost an infomercial.
In your idiotic view, Savage's behavior like wishing AIDS on a gay caller is the same as Donahue's show having on one respectable anti-war guest for two pro-war guests.
Being against the Iraq war to you is 'extremist' and not suitable for any media time. And you think you can have any rational discussion about the media? Hardly.
Actually no, know idea who he is.
Chris Matthews is in man love with Obama.
BS. Matthews IMO is more right than left - he's attacked liberals a lot more than right-wingers in my opinion, but he's in some odd place attacking both at times.
I can dig up plenty of quotes of him viciously attacking 'the left' in spite of his Democratic background log ago (Reagan used to be a new dealer).
Joe Scarborough is a goober that used to be a republican in the house.
Still right-wing.
Tucker please he's small potatoes. <--wow thanks he is such a powerhouse!
Ya, you can't deal with the fact that a terrible propagandist like Carlson got a right-wig show, what that says about the network.
ABC all you have to say is Charlie Gibson. Did you see his interviews with OPbama and Palin? He asked cream puff questions to BHO then badgered Pailin like some rude lil schoolboy from the 3rd grade. "Buy Why? But Why?"
Yes, I can see why an interview might not see the rational answers of Obama any different than the insane Palin going on about her qualifications from 'seeing Russia'.
ABC's News/infomercial broadcast from the whitehouse.
Two other Evening News Anchors are out of touch left leaning self called moderates posing as everyday people.
Brian Williams? Right-wing orientation IMO.
Go search some of these names on mediamattersorg and get the facts about their behavior.
And read a book. "What liberal media?"
Facebook
Twitter