- Sep 12, 2004
Yeah, it's all BS. The MSM outlets that support Obama don't focus on Clinton, and vice versa. The liberal divide between Clinton and Obama supporters hasn't affected D-KOS or DU at all. No doubt I'm the only person in the universe that has observed it.Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yet another of your "I just know it's biased. I JUST KNOW." arguments.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually it makes my point, if you take the time to look closely enough.Originally posted by: glutenberg
Just take a look at the current media frenzy. It's all about Clinton versus Obama and shock stories to hurt the two of them. I guess that makes them leftie liberal nonsense too right? You basically have no proof, you go off on these mindless rants about how people can't discern liberal based media and to top it off, you place yourself on a faulty pedestal of enlightened senses for the MSM. Hop off your soapbox, no one is buying it.
Which members of the MSM like to focus on Clinton and which like to focus on Obama? Unsurprisingly, the ones that support Clinton like to focus on Obama while giving Clinton a pass whenever possible, and vice versa. It's selective reporting based on political preference and bias. In this case it's primarily liberals whacking other liberals over the head with their own bias. They're so much about divisiveness it's nearly tearing their own party apart in the process.
Apparently Bush IS a uniter. He gave/gives liberals a common cause to rally against. But let there be divisiveness within their own ranks and they don't hestitate to eat their own. Just go to D-KOS or DU for firm evidence of that. It all seems to arise from the fact that liberals, for some unknown reason, are so damn self-righteous, pig-headed, and wrapped up in their own opinions that they won't even bother to see contemplate the opinion of the other guy. Go figger.
I'm plainly just making all that shit up because if there hasn't been an academic study that's been throughly peer reviewed and universally blessed then, in your pedantic eyes, it simply can't be true.
Or maybe you can understand the following response better? To quote your own very recent intellectual contribution in here: