I am so disappointed that you apparently have a double standard.
Your flawed erroneous opinion aside, I already addressed your attempted examples.....multiple times. I already conceded that no one believed Milbanks was a reporter. So, unless you're trying to claim that I meant everyone excluding you....well, that merely demonstrates how you apparently know me, better than I. I already addressed your rather cavalier position on MSM bias. Again, no misrepresentation there, especially when you largely validated it with your ongoing "I don't care" spam deflection. Strike 2. And the 3rd was the weakest, effort, trying to use your spam defense. 3 supposed examples...all made moot
And left is the most grotesque example of them all
Sirs:
Your rationalizations and so-called solutions aside, my comments were crystal clear
- "Bias in the press would be bad enough, if it were equal in its being perpetuated"
- "I must have missed the part where I was claiming that 1 bias is better than the other"
- "Media Bias is a bad thing when it leans so far in 1 direction, regardless of if that direction were right or left."
- "For instance, I wouldn't support a predominant RW bias either."And despite that we have Bt not just stating, but even defending
"It (bias) is either good or bad. Only a biased person would believe one type of bias is better than another. (with the implication of Sirs believing a conservative bias is better)
"One could almost surmise that you are encouraging news presenters to be more conservatively biased" (as close to an accusation as one could get with the "almost" defense)
"As far as your call for increased conservative bias, there aren't many options left when you take legislative action off the table yet decry the gross imbalance in the bias." (no getting around that even clearer accusation)
Black & White (or actually, red here), for all to see. And you have the gall to keep trying to lay this on me. Your hand was caught in the cookie jar Bt. If you would have merely acknowledged you were wrong in misassuming my position regarding MSM bias, this thread would have had 3 pages at the most, and your credibility fully intact.
Apparently ego was a higher priority than credibility. But at least now you're conceding that you did misrepresent, in your so called "scoring" of my supposed 3 to your 1. Unfortunatly, I'm still pitching a shut-out, while your whopper stands out like Mighty Casey