This board in particular seems to be infected with a lot of delusional conservatives that are wrapped up in confirmation bias because they are in the company of other like minded fools.
Sure, but I've seen liberal boards that are just as bad.
quote:Does Rush covers his party loyality? Hannity? Bill Kristol?
See how easy that is?
Goddamnit VOR, even George F*cking Stephanopoulos claims there is no bias. Stephanopoulos claims there is NO BIAS!
Conservatives are so butt hurt from losing so many elections, they've become so paranoid that they think everyone is against them. TV media, print media, pollsters, poll analyzers, betting websites, Columnists, movies, tv shows, actors, snopes, political fact checkers, scientists. Anyone and everything that disagrees with them. Even conservative media like Frum or Brooks. And when evryone is right and conservatives are proven wrong, then they claim it's a conspiracy. It's rigged. It's bought and paid for. Conservatives cannot bring themselves to even consider that they might be wrong about anything. So they only watch and read conservative media which makes a fortune feeding them crap they want to hear. Drudge, Rush, Breitbart, Colter, Murdoch...make a fortune telling them stuff they want to hear. Doesn't matter if it's the truth. Conservative media are the modern day snake oil salesman.
Pot meet kettle!
Frum and Brooks...Conservative! Mmm huh...and Obama REALLY DID order his team to give the Benghazi four all they needed to help.
Dialogue becomes pretty useless when one side becomes so delusioned that their assessments of reality are basically clinically insane. Savage nailed it..."Liberalism IS a mental disorder".
Elections! Yeahhh! Like the Red States are going to lay down their God-given Freedom to the hoards of Obama Phone Lady types!
Theater of the absurd! Monty Python material. Snopes...don't even matter. Mama Nature will sort this one out.
But I do feel better seeing that a couple of other posters agree about the predominant point of view from this board. Not even saying it's a bad thing. It is what it is.
quote:Interesting that matter never arose with Russert.
I suggest that the fact that we know his background and experience colors (even if it's subconscious) our interpretation of his comments and our evaluation of the program.
Well, that 10 seconds tells me a lot.
When Stephanopoulos said "I don't", was he lying?
quote:You saw the context. A reporter walked up to him at the GOP convention, asked the question, and Stephanopoulos answered. PERIOD. That's it. That is the context.
NC, I'm not being "cute" here, but I'd like to see more of the context.
Carville calls White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
Emanuel calls ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos.
A bit later, CNN commentator Paul Begala, who is not quite the early bird that his friends are, will complete the circle with a rapid set of calls to all three.
“I refer to it as the 17-year-long conference call,” said Emanuel, who starts calling his friends at 6 a.m. “You can tap into it anytime you want.”
In that sense, the morning calls — no single one of which usually lasts more than a few minutes — among this gang of four is the headwaters of at least one major tributary of Washington politics.
Under other circumstances, the morning calls between Emanuel, Carville, Stephanopoulos and Begala — pollster Stan Greenberg is another frequent member of the core group, a kind of “fifth Beatle” — might be a Society of Has-Beens, reliving ancient glories from the Little Rock “War Room.”
It was Emanuel’s ascension into Barack Obama’s inner circle — even as Carville and Begala remained closely linked with the defeated Clinton political machine — that saved the group from irrelevance.
The calls “are about what’s happening, what the implications are of what’s happening and what’s going on,” said Emanuel.
Begala’s own interest, as a former speechwriter, is in rhetoric — what is likely to be the sound bite that will echo through the news cycle.
Carville is the wild card, “a genius,” in Begala’s view, “who can look at the same operative facts as everyone else and come to a different conclusion.”
Stephanopoulos’ role is as the analyst and the skeptic. “George is really a big-systems thinker,” Begala said. “As a journalist, he is half of a political scientist, and because he’s not in the partisan battles anymore, he sees things differently.”
It is a sensitive point for Stephanopoulos, who shot to fame as a Bill Clinton retainer and has worked hard to fashion a reputation as an independent journalist.
He said he does not surrender that role when he gets on the calls, nor does he surrender personal feelings that go back nearly 20 years.
“We are all good friends,” he said. “We just like talking to each other, and I learn a lot from it ... and that’s why we have been doing it for so long.”
Still, the line between journalism and politics is not always bright. Begala said he often can’t remember the originator of any particular insight: “We talk so much — was this my idea that James changed, or was this George’s observation that Rahm tweaked?”