G'bye!

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You see, Rockhound, there is no sane way a person can say it's wrong for corporations to buy influence, but to also support the right for public labor unions to buy influence. That hypocrisy is so obvious, a child can see it. Yet that's precisely waht most liberals do.

MOST Liberals.
I want money out from both sides.
End the pull from both sides. End the Super PAC's etc... back to a set amount of funding and thats it

You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

MOST Liberals.
I want money out from both sides.
End the pull from both sides. End the Super PAC's etc... back to a set amount of funding and thats it

You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see...

"You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see"

Thanks for pointing that out, because your comment was 100% wrong. You shjould have been glad I ignored it. Here is what you said...

"If O'Reilly says it, it's good journalism, if MSNBC does it, it's a conspiracy"

You're comparing what O'Reilly did, with what MSNBC did. But what they did was the OPPOSITE of one another.

O'Reilly refused to comment on the Edwards story when it was just unfounded accusations. MSNBC was quite happy to run stories about Cain before anything was confirmed.

Those 2 approaches are QUITE different, and very few people would say O'Reilly was on the wrong side, but I guess you would?

Good day.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"If O'Reilly says it, it's good journalism, if MSNBC does it, it's a conspiracy"

You're comparing what O'Reilly did, with what MSNBC did. But what they did was the OPPOSITE of one another.

O'Reilly refused to comment on the Edwards story when it was just unfounded accusations. MSNBC was quite happy to run stories about Cain before anything was confirmed.

I was referring to this comment:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If Cain was a white liberal, this isn't as big a story. The major networks sat on the John Edwards story for so long, they waited for the National Inquirer to break the news.

So regarding the EDWARDS case O'Reilly was being a good journalist; the 'Major Networks' sat on the story?

As far as CAIN goes, I said it above. There were DOCUMENTED settlements regarding sexual harassment. This makes it fair game. If Cain really thought those settlements would not come out during a campaign for the white house then he is a moron, as are his political aides/advisers.

So Fox news and or O'Reilly specifically mentioned nothing about the Cain story at all, because no one came out in person and it wasn't 'confirmed'?

If not, then who is sitting on stories then to further a political agenda?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I was referring to this comment:



So regarding the EDWARDS case O'Reilly was being a good journalist; the 'Major Networks' sat on the story b/c the liberals want to keep a woman/minority republican down?

As far as CAIN goes, I said it above. There were DOCUMENTED settlements regarding sexual harassment. This makes it fair game. If Cain really thought those settlements would not come out during a campaign for the white house then he is a moron, as are his political aides/advisers.

So Fox news and or O'Reilly specifically mentioned nothing about the Cain story at all, because no one came out in person and it wasn't 'confirmed'?

If not, then who is sitting on stories then to further a political agenda?

"the 'Major Networks' sat on the story b/c the liberals want to keep a woman/minority republican down? "

I don't know what you're saying. In the Edwards case, the major networks kept it quiet as long as they could, until they were all embarassed by the National Enquirer, of all things. In the Cain situation, as soon as the first accusation was made, the networks couldn't get it out fast enough.

"There were DOCUMENTED settlements regarding sexual harassment."

Not until long after the major networks were gleefully reporting the story. For the first several days, the networks ran with a story from POLITICO, which only cited an anonymous source making a vague accusation. But since the acused was a black conservative, that was good enough for them.

I agree with you, talking about the settlement is absolutely fair, and I'll do you one better, the networks have a responsibility to report that.