Fair and balanced? Um ... no

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Brotha trippin'. He can't be this bad. Wait until he gets a white girlfriend, and we will see where his game's really at. Maybe, when he gets to release that sap, he won't be trippin' so much.

Wait until he gets a white girlfriend? Every girlfriend he has ever had has been white.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Wait until he gets a white girlfriend? Every girlfriend he has ever had has been white.

Yea, wait until he gets another one that he likes enough that he can tolerate playing house with her.

He needs to go back to the multiple whores and put a few of them in condos in different parts of the country.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

He needs to go back to the multiple whores and put a few of them in condos in different parts of the country.

He liked having both the family life thing, and playing another 18 holes. It worked for him. It just didn't work for most of the other people involved. That was his version of ideal. He'd of loved for that to have kept going on.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

He liked having both the family life thing, and playing another 18 holes. It worked for him. It just didn't work for anyone of the other people involved. That was his version of ideal.

That's why he should consider joining The European Tour. His ex probably wants to move back to Sweden and he can share custody over there. Plus the women tend to be much more liberal. This is evident with all of the Arab royalty turning cities like Paris and London into harems.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Are you as tarded as they're saying? If they hadn't kept Geedubbya (in 2004,) the court wouldn't of been able to take those restrictions off corporations giving money during our elections.

Don't insult me, idiot, I agree with what you say.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Don't insult me, idiot, I agree with what you say.

rather interesting i suppose.

[Riot]

I think that sounds like an excellent way to have done the study. Do you have a problem with the way the study was done?

I just said, "I like the UCLA study, but comparing "left" and "right" to "the average member of Congress" as the benchmark definition?

I was laughing at the benchmark, but that obviously doesn't invalidate the scale from the reference.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

rather interesting i suppose.

Yeah, 'Zig, because I'm one of the mental giants on this board quick to be first about calling other posters ******, ****, whore, bitch, etc.

Sure.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

The only thing that ever kept Tiger from totally fitting the profile of a Narcissist is his loyalty to Stanford sports teams, and the Lakers. They usually aren't fans of much. If he is a Narcissist, then his reaction (on the inside) is not regret. It's deep anger at being punished for something he shouldn't be blamed for. To him, this is all unjust. We all know what he should feel, but it's like 95% probably not the case. He's probably a Narcissist, and they are almost totally unable to accept blame for anything. Quite honestly, this is probably someone who's still very angry at the world, and is doing his best to act sorry for something that he is totally unable to feel sorry for. He will probably come around when he is treated more like he thinks he is entitled to be treated.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, 'Zig, because I'm one of the mental giants on this board quick to be first about calling other posters ******, ****, whore, bitch, etc.

Sure.

so, second is ok, but first is not. got it.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, 'Zig, because I'm one of the mental giants on this board quick to be first about calling other posters ******, ****, whore, bitch, etc.

Sure.

Takes a village.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

The only thing that ever kept Tiger from totally fitting the profile of a Narcissist is his loyalty to Stanford sports teams, and the Lakers. They usually aren't fans of much. If he is a Narcissist, then his reaction (on the inside) is not regret. It's deep anger at being punished for something he shouldn't be blamed for. To him, this is all unjust. We all know what he should feel, but it's like 95% probably not the case. He's probably a Narcissist, and they are almost totally unable to accept blame for anything. Quite honestly, this is probably someone who's still very angry at the world, and is doing his best to act sorry for something that he is totally unable to feel sorry for. He will probably come around when he is treated more like he thinks he is entitled to be treated.

He wouldn't wear cardinal red if there wasn't a financial benefit in doing so. He is a fan of money, power, and white whores.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, second is ok, but first is not. got it.

Yeah, 'Zig, that's exactly right. When I'm called retarded, for agreeing with what was said - I'm obviously not the retarded one. And I have no compulsion against pointing that out

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, 'Zig, that's exactly right. When I'm called retarded, for agreeing with what was said - I'm obviously not the retarded one. And I have no compulsion against pointing that out

he asked if you were as retarded as others call you, he wasn't calling you retarded. i just find it funny that you complain about name calling, and then engage in it. i don't recall anyone else doing that; i just find it bizarre. reminds me of the saying 'how great the sin when someone else commits it'. yeah, there's name calling here, it's a shame sometimes. sometimes it's funny. your reply to scuds....well, i don't know if it was funny or just ironic.

Originally Posted by Danzig

he asked if you were as retarded as others call you, he wasn't calling you retarded. i just find it funny that you complain about name calling, and then engage in it. i don't recall anyone else doing that; i just find it bizarre. reminds me of the saying 'how great the sin when someone else commits it'. yeah, there's name calling here, it's a shame sometimes. sometimes it's funny. your reply to scuds....well, i don't know if it was funny or just ironic.

Maybe she should get checked out for sleep apnea?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

he asked if you were as retarded as others call you, he wasn't calling you retarded. i just find it funny that you complain about name calling, and then engage in it. .

Are you as big an idiot as other people call you, 'Zig?

I'm sorry you find it funny, or characterize it as "complaining", when people stand up for themselves.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

I thought it was odd that you didn't think corporate money coming into politics was a Democratic versus Republican thing. I regret using the term "tarded." Just gave you 2 one more thing to catfight about, but you'd of found something, regardless.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

I just said, "I like the UCLA study, but comparing "left" and "right" to "the average member of Congress" as the benchmark definition?

I was laughing at the benchmark, but that obviously doesn't invalidate the scale from the reference.

I don't think they said that was the actual benchmark. When they mentioned the thing about "the average member of Congress", they were just giving one example of their findings. They also compared news organizations to the most liberal and the most conservative members of congress.

Here is some more interesting information:

Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public.[2] Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry.[3] This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.[4]


These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush in 1992, nearly double the rate of journalists. In the Eighth Massachusetts district, which includes Cambridge, nineteen percent voted for Bush, approximately triple the rate of journalists.[


http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public.[2] Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry.[3] This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.[4]


These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/f...dia.Bias.8.htm

Why is it assumed someone is Liberal if they simply decided to stay out of the Bushes? I stayed out of the Bushes, but I wouldn't be very welcome around Liberals(especially, right now.)