Doesn't NY already have very strict gun control laws?

[BT]

Been there done that....adnauseum.  The current article even helps reinforce that, in the inferrence that the Obama's Jobs bill needs to be passed.  I have no need to keep repeating example after example after example of the bias.  And as I've said, I'm sure any reporter would be happy to gain any access they can

No what you have done, with the help of MRC shown bias exists, even though MRC could just as easilly be accused of bias.

Yea....and....the bias exists.  Your glossing over it, doesn't remove that from our current reality or lessen my point as it relates to this thread.  It's at the crux of the point I've made, while conceding that reporters do indeed hope for better access to all parties. both Dems and Republicans

No what you said was this:

The arrangements frequently lean postively left and negatively right, when said article comes out. And the reporter remains giddy with their access[/quote]

Which implies that the access would still exist after the trust was abused.

I say it wouldn't. You say it would. I'm asking you to provide examples of that.

[sirs]

No, now you're misrpresenting me.  While a reporter can be giddy to have said access, if a reporter abused their access, then their access is likely to be severely curtailed, if not abolished.  Said reporter then would have to find access somewhere or with someone else

Remember, I never claimed bias was 100% one way, and 0% the other.  The few supportive stories that reporters provide for the GOP is likely to give them continued access.  The vast majority that abuse that, likely have far less access.

Understand yet?

[BT]

No, now you're misrpresenting me.  While a reporter can be giddy to have said access, if a reporter abused their access, then their access is likely to be severely curtailed, if not abolished.  Said reporter then would have to find access somewhere or with someone else

Right so keeping the relationship trustworthy is important because developing sources and acquiring access can be time consuming. You threw me with your sentence structure where the reporter was still giddy after burning the source.

[sirs]

Not sure where I claimed he was giddy AFTER burning his source/access.  Perhaps you can hilight that for me (and the rest of us), before you start misrepresenting my position, even further

[BT]

Not sure where I claimed he was giddy AFTER burning his source/access.  Perhaps you can hilight that for me (and the rest of us), before you start misrepresenting my position, even further

Right here.

The arrangements frequently lean postively left and negatively right, when said article comes out. And the reporter remains giddy with their access

Notices the reporter remains giddy . After burning their source.

[sirs]

Nice rearrangement of what I said and meant, but that hasn't stopped you before.  Cudos     

[BT]

It is a direct quote. Those are your words. You can walk them back if you misspoke, but please stop with the misrepresentation nonsense, when the words in question are your own.

[sirs]

Yea, its a quote....YOU decided to make it mean that some reporter would be giddy AFTER burning his access.  Kinda dumb to claim that, doncha think??  His giddiness was in HAVING the access.  If he chooses to burn it, why the hell would I imply he'd still be giddy??

So, I'll ask now, civily, stop it please

[BT]

Define remains

[Xavier_Onassis]

A typical sirs debate. Meaningless nonsense over the giddyness of a reporter.

[sirs]

And obviously, you haven't been paying attention.  A typical Xo response...ignore specific debate questions, and instead provide perseverative meritless snarks and demagoguery

Cudos