96% of journalist political donations...go to hilary.....yeah, there's no bias problem there...

[kaz]

Spot On. Very few in the corrupt MSM have mentioned that Hillary Clinton knew all along that 'allies' like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been supporting ISIS and other Terrorist orgs. It's like it never happened.

Even fewer realize Obama/Clinton gave al-Qaeda/ISIS air support in Libya. They (Nato) are directly behind them.

Yes, I've been pointing that out too. Obama supported al Qaeda in Libya. Also, Russia is fighting ISIS in Syria while Obama fights on the side of ISIS. Purportedly Russia is helping expose the lies to the American people of the Democrat party. That is how low the Democrat party has gone

It is a non-party agenda initiated under Bush in 2007.

The Redirection - The New Yorker

Information that doesn't answer the question. I asked your point, not what is is about. Your point in the discussion would mean how does it pertain how to my post you responded to?

My point is that it is a non-party agenda.

OK, here's how you let me know that. When you make your argument, say that. It would have been a much shorter discussion.

I don't live in the binary world you do where there are Republicans and Democrats, to complement one is to criticize the other and vise versa. I'm neither. There are some shades of gray nuances, but that's it. They both blow chunks. And they are mostly the same. Hence my confusion when we were discussing Obama and you started talking about W.

So on that point, yes, I opposed the war in Iraq. I supported blowing the crap out of al Qaeda who actually attacked us but opposed nation building and invading there. In fact, I would withdraw our troops entirely from the middle east. So I wasn't, again in your binary world, defending Republicans by criticizing Obama.

On W, absolutely, he was agressively involved in the middle east much to our national determent just like Slick was and O is. The only difference I see is I never saw W actively support al Qaeda, but that's a shade of gray for sure. We need to get out of that mess, we need to stop trying to police the world

 

[Bleipriester]

Even fewer realize Obama/Clinton gave al-Qaeda/ISIS air support in Libya. They (Nato) are directly behind them.

Yes, I've been pointing that out too. Obama supported al Qaeda in Libya. Also, Russia is fighting ISIS in Syria while Obama fights on the side of ISIS. Purportedly Russia is helping expose the lies to the American people of the Democrat party. That is how low the Democrat party has gone

It is a non-party agenda initiated under Bush in 2007.

The Redirection - The New Yorker

Maybe you could give me a point before linking to a 50 page article

The basic information is located in the first few lines.

"In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

The Redirection - The New Yorker

OK, I agreed with you that Obama supported Al Qaeda in Libya. I also added that he is actually fighting on ISIS side in Syria. What does this have to do with that?

And I warned you that this not a Obama-only crime.

 

[kaz]

Um ... when has that ever happened?

When Bush´s election fraud was swept under the carpet.

What election fraud?

And you're smoking something if you think the media was ever helping W

How the 2000 Election in Florida Led to a New Wave of Voter Disenfranchisement

My question was what election fraud are you referring to? I didn't ask you how you feel about the 2000 election. I don't really care how you feel about it

Sorry but I can´t masticate everything for you. Use google.

Swish, didn't process another question. The question was for you to tell me what your point was, not to explain it to me. Let me guess, you went to government schools, didn't you? I'm sorry about that, guy. Maybe you should at least fight for better for your children

 

[paulitician]

Wake up America. Your Government/Corporate Media is a shameful farce. It routinely conducts hoaxes on you. Most Americans still don't know about this one...

 

[kaz]

Yes, I've been pointing that out too. Obama supported al Qaeda in Libya. Also, Russia is fighting ISIS in Syria while Obama fights on the side of ISIS. Purportedly Russia is helping expose the lies to the American people of the Democrat party. That is how low the Democrat party has gone

It is a non-party agenda initiated under Bush in 2007.

The Redirection - The New Yorker

Maybe you could give me a point before linking to a 50 page article

The basic information is located in the first few lines.

"In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

The Redirection - The New Yorker

OK, I agreed with you that Obama supported Al Qaeda in Libya. I also added that he is actually fighting on ISIS side in Syria. What does this have to do with that?

And I warned you that this not a Obama-only crime.

Actually you didn't say that, you just started talking about W. Again, you live in this Republican/Democrat world where to complement or criticize one is to do the reverse to the other

 

[Syriusly]

Yep...looking at political donations of the journalists.....96% are going to hilary......and as we see from the Wikileaks information...they are also directly helping hilary.....they are no longer journalists, they are democrat operatives....t

Funny article coming from Breitbart- you know- the 'journalists' whose CEO works directly for Donald Trump.

 

[Bleipriester]

Even fewer realize Obama/Clinton gave al-Qaeda/ISIS air support in Libya. They (Nato) are directly behind them.

Yes, I've been pointing that out too. Obama supported al Qaeda in Libya. Also, Russia is fighting ISIS in Syria while Obama fights on the side of ISIS. Purportedly Russia is helping expose the lies to the American people of the Democrat party. That is how low the Democrat party has gone

It is a non-party agenda initiated under Bush in 2007.

The Redirection - The New Yorker

Information that doesn't answer the question. I asked your point, not what is is about. Your point in the discussion would mean how does it pertain how to my post you responded to?

My point is that it is a non-party agenda.

OK, here's how you let me know that. When you make your argument, say that. It would have been a much shorter discussion.

I don't live in the binary world you do where there are Republicans and Democrats, to complement one is to criticize the other and vise versa. I'm neither. There are some shades of gray nuances, but that's it. They both blow chunks. And they are mostly the same. Hence my confusion when we were discussing Obama and you started talking about W.

So on that point, yes, I opposed the war in Iraq. I supported blowing the crap out of al Qaeda who actually attacked us but opposed nation building and invading there. In fact, I would withdraw our troops entirely from the middle east. So I wasn't, again in your binary world, defending Republicans by criticizing Obama.

On W, absolutely, he was agressively involved in the middle east much to our national determent just like Slick was and O is. The only difference I see is I never saw W actively support al Qaeda, but that's a shade of gray for sure. We need to get out of that mess, we need to stop trying to police the world

I said it. Look up in the thread. I didn´t say you are defending the GOP. I just intended to be informative.

 

[kaz]

Yes, I've been pointing that out too. Obama supported al Qaeda in Libya. Also, Russia is fighting ISIS in Syria while Obama fights on the side of ISIS. Purportedly Russia is helping expose the lies to the American people of the Democrat party. That is how low the Democrat party has gone

It is a non-party agenda initiated under Bush in 2007.

The Redirection - The New Yorker

Information that doesn't answer the question. I asked your point, not what is is about. Your point in the discussion would mean how does it pertain how to my post you responded to?

My point is that it is a non-party agenda.

OK, here's how you let me know that. When you make your argument, say that. It would have been a much shorter discussion.

I don't live in the binary world you do where there are Republicans and Democrats, to complement one is to criticize the other and vise versa. I'm neither. There are some shades of gray nuances, but that's it. They both blow chunks. And they are mostly the same. Hence my confusion when we were discussing Obama and you started talking about W.

So on that point, yes, I opposed the war in Iraq. I supported blowing the crap out of al Qaeda who actually attacked us but opposed nation building and invading there. In fact, I would withdraw our troops entirely from the middle east. So I wasn't, again in your binary world, defending Republicans by criticizing Obama.

On W, absolutely, he was agressively involved in the middle east much to our national determent just like Slick was and O is. The only difference I see is I never saw W actively support al Qaeda, but that's a shade of gray for sure. We need to get out of that mess, we need to stop trying to police the world

I said it. Look up in the thread. I didn´t say you are defending the GOP. I just intended to be informative.

OK, but I already realize how badly both sides keep getting us deeper into that endless quagmire. We need to get out, I'm already convinced. I don't care which side is behind the steering wheel, they're driving down the same road

 

[2aguy]

Yep...looking at political donations of the journalists.....96% are going to hilary......and as we see from the Wikileaks information...they are also directly helping hilary.....they are no longer journalists, they are democrat operatives....t

Funny article coming from Breitbart- you know- the 'journalists' whose CEO works directly for Donald Trump.

They are open about who and what they are...they aren't hiding behind false claims of "objectivity".........the journalists caught in the Wikileaks release are the ones who are lying....

 

[g5000]

Yep...looking at political donations of the journalists.....96% are going to hilary......and as we see from the Wikileaks information...they are also directly helping hilary.....they are no longer journalists, they are democrat operatives....

Study: 96 Percent of Media's Campaign Donations Go to Hillary Clinton - Breitbart

I'm afraid healthmyths got the mass parrot email before you did. By a full day!

So you totally biased idiots who say there is NO MSM BIAS??? 96% donations from MSM -Clinton!

Donald Trump in January:

The networks all give me more free air time than those losers running against me put together, and I have been a real boon to their ratings!


Donald Trump in October:

The networks are all giving me more free air time than Crooked Hillary! It's rigged! Waaaaaaaaaah!

 

[Care4all]

Did someone already mention, NONE of the NBC reporters assigned to work the elections and report on the candidates have donated a dime to the Democrats or Republicans? Zip. ZERO, NOTHING, NO MONEY....

 

[2aguy]

Yep...looking at political donations of the journalists.....96% are going to hilary......and as we see from the Wikileaks information...they are also directly helping hilary.....they are no longer journalists, they are democrat operatives....

Study: 96 Percent of Media's Campaign Donations Go to Hillary Clinton - Breitbart

I'm afraid healthmyths got the mass parrot email before you did. By a full day!

So you totally biased idiots who say there is NO MSM BIAS??? 96% donations from MSM -Clinton!

Donald Trump in January:

The networks all give me more free air time than those losers running against me put together, and I have been a real boon to their ratings!


Donald Trump in October:

The networks are all giving me more free air time than Crooked Hillary! It's rigged! Waaaaaaaaaah!

They always pick one Republican to push....they did the same thing with John McCain twit......he loved the press and they loved him.......he even went so far as to say they were his primary constituency.......and then, the election came up....and the press who he said loved him.....went and destroyed him to make sure the democrat got into office........

 

[OldLady]

Yep...looking at political donations of the journalists.....96% are going to hilary......and as we see from the Wikileaks information...they are also directly helping hilary.....they are no longer journalists, they are democrat operatives....

Study: 96 Percent of Media's Campaign Donations Go to Hillary Clinton - Breitbart

Today they are "democrat operatives", tomorrow they might be "republican operatives". Depending solely on whom the deep state wants. Many "journalists" are nothing but hired mouthpieces and they even hail al-Qaeda terrorists if they are told to do.

Spot On. Very few in the corrupt MSM have mentioned that Hillary Clinton knew all along that 'allies' like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been supporting ISIS and other Terrorist orgs. It's like it never happened.

Did you notice that she found that out two years after she accepted their money in the CF?

 

[OldLady]

How would you change this? We are a free country where we are allowed to have our own opinions. How do you stop journalists from being Democrats if they wish?
I suppose we could take over the media and make sure half the owner/operators of the huge media conglomerates are conservatives. Then half our newspapers and half our television stations would be conservative. Is that what you want?
Personally, with Trump running, the 96% doesn't surprise me. Check again next time and see if it's that high a percentage.

No one said anything about taking over the media. Except for you.

Pretty telling.

I was demonstrating the impossibility of 'fixing' this pressing problem Republicans have. Sarc?

 

[OldLady]

One thing.........anyone moderating a debate should be required to state, at the start of the debate, who they have given money to.......and who they are married to if those people have ties to the democrat party.....

That's wacko. And a huge invasion of privacy. Who are you talking about, anyway?

Martha Raditz, Anderson Cooper.....and the people on wikileaks who cooridinated with hilary....

So if you're married to someone who "has ties" to the Democratic party, you can't moderate a debate? You must do some sort of financial disclosure statement? Again, you're wacko, Guy, on this one. Seriously. You get your boy tomorrow night. He won't let slippery Hill through his fingers, be assured. NOW SETTLE DOWN!

 

[OldLady]

One thing.........anyone moderating a debate should be required to state, at the start of the debate, who they have given money to.......and who they are married to if those people have ties to the democrat party.....

That's wacko. And a huge invasion of privacy. Who are you talking about, anyway?

It's like every other job. You have to provide lots of personal information. Don't like it? Don't take the job. How is that any kind of "invasion of privacy."

If the moderators weren't all coming from the leftist media, you'd suddenly get that. If Fox moderated a debate, you'd totally want to know who the moderator had given $$$ to

No, I wouldn't.

 

[Correll]

How would you change this? We are a free country where we are allowed to have our own opinions. How do you stop journalists from being Democrats if they wish?
I suppose we could take over the media and make sure half the owner/operators of the huge media conglomerates are conservatives. Then half our newspapers and half our television stations would be conservative. Is that what you want?
Personally, with Trump running, the 96% doesn't surprise me. Check again next time and see if it's that high a percentage.

No one said anything about taking over the media. Except for you.

Pretty telling.

I was demonstrating the impossibility of 'fixing' this pressing problem Republicans have. Sarc?

Oh? I take it that you think it is impossible to be honest about the fact that the media is completely biased and to react accordingly, such as when it comes to picking a debate moderator?

If we as a society, stopped pretending that the Press were not almost universally vile scum, that would be half the battle right there.

 

[kaz]

One thing.........anyone moderating a debate should be required to state, at the start of the debate, who they have given money to.......and who they are married to if those people have ties to the democrat party.....

That's wacko. And a huge invasion of privacy. Who are you talking about, anyway?

It's like every other job. You have to provide lots of personal information. Don't like it? Don't take the job. How is that any kind of "invasion of privacy."

If the moderators weren't all coming from the leftist media, you'd suddenly get that. If Fox moderated a debate, you'd totally want to know who the moderator had given $$$ to

No, I wouldn't.

So you refuse to give your employers personal information about you?

 

[OldLady]

How would you change this? We are a free country where we are allowed to have our own opinions. How do you stop journalists from being Democrats if they wish?
I suppose we could take over the media and make sure half the owner/operators of the huge media conglomerates are conservatives. Then half our newspapers and half our television stations would be conservative. Is that what you want?
Personally, with Trump running, the 96% doesn't surprise me. Check again next time and see if it's that high a percentage.

No one said anything about taking over the media. Except for you.

Pretty telling.

I was demonstrating the impossibility of 'fixing' this pressing problem Republicans have. Sarc?

Oh? I take it that you think it is impossible to be honest about the fact that the media is completely biased and to react accordingly, such as when it comes to picking a debate moderator?

If we as a society, stopped pretending that the Press were not almost universally vile scum, that would be half the battle right there.

I don't think they ARE vile scum. I don't think Fox commentators are vile scum, either. (Glenn Beck, now he's a different kettle of fish.) I don't think my neighbors at the local diner talking about their deep conservative views are vile scum, either.
Why do they have to be "vile scum" because they hold a different opinion? Obviously, if you could see the bias, there is no real harm done. You are having no problems receiving your message. At all, apparently. So what is the purpose of slamming the media that is supporting the other party? There are two parties, you know. There will be people supporting the other side.....

 

[OldLady]

One thing.........anyone moderating a debate should be required to state, at the start of the debate, who they have given money to.......and who they are married to if those people have ties to the democrat party.....

That's wacko. And a huge invasion of privacy. Who are you talking about, anyway?

It's like every other job. You have to provide lots of personal information. Don't like it? Don't take the job. How is that any kind of "invasion of privacy."

If the moderators weren't all coming from the leftist media, you'd suddenly get that. If Fox moderated a debate, you'd totally want to know who the moderator had given $$$ to

No, I wouldn't.

So you refuse to give your employers personal information about you?

80+million viewers are not my employers, or anyone else's.