Subject: Disagree with your libmedia rant
 (To be honest, his subject title was "Man," which is non-descriptive and unclear)
 

Bartcop,
Your rant on "smirk" regarding liberal media was the best example of liberal bias.

Interesting take...
How so?
 

First, you said "what if" Dateline did a hatchet job...
Well they couldn't if there are no libs in the media.

Yes, that's the point.
When was the last time a hatchet piece was done on a Republican?
Since it's never happened, I invent a parable, a possible scenario to make my point.
I agree with you, the set up is absurd because we haven't seen a hatchet job on a Republican since...
Hell, I can't think of one.
The media changed during Clinton's two terms.

Remember All the President's Men with Redford and Dustin Hoffman?
Remember how they couldn't print anything until they found two sources to verify the story?

Under Clinton, the media said, "Fuck it. If Drudge makes a wild claim - we print it."
Under Bush, nobody dares to use the hatchet because he's considered royalty and above all criticism.

So yes, score one for Eric - you are correct.
There are no hatchet pieces on Republicans.
 

Then you didn't give a plausible subject that could've been the content of the hatchet job.
Emphasis on plausible.

Duh!
You mean like Iran-Contra?
You mean like Reagan's bungling that got 240 Marines killed in Beruit?
You mean like the Bush Christmas Eve pardons that were accepted without question?
You mean like the Reagan and Bush perjury concerning arms for hostages?
You mean like Newt and Livingstron having hookers on the side during impeachment?
You mean like Bush being AWOL for 18 months?
You mean like Bush's cocaine arrest that the media refuses to ask about?
I have 692 issues listing other examples, but no time to drag them all out.
 

Throughout, you imply that Billy's one failing as President was his hyper virility.
Libs typically ignore stuff like pardongate because it's merely a "moral" topic.

OK, explain "pardongate" to me?
Did Clinton pardon his co-conspirators like Poppy Bush did?
Did Clinton pardon Marc Rich to bury his serious and global crimes from the public forever?
Did Clinton pardon Marc Rich to hide evidence of stealing the 1980 election? (October Surprise)
Did Clinton pardon Marc Rich so people wouldn't know of his personal involvement in selling
  sophisticated weapons from the future to certified terrorists, and his complicit perjury therafter?

Sidebar:
Why do you think Bush refuses to release Reagan's presidential papers?
The Reagan family wants them released, what is Bush afraid of?
What's in Reagan's papers that would be trouble for the Bush Family?

You see?
The media dirt-digging machine refuses to touch a HUGE Republican scandal that has severe
constitutional overtones, but Clinton is 24/7 and he did nothing but a tramp at the office.
 

No, Clinton didn't pardon to hide the truth. he pardoned on the request of Israel's P.M. Barak.
The scandal-happy Republicans knew this, so they never asked Clinton, under oath, why he did it.
The scandal-happy Republicans REFUSED to call Clinton to testify a year ago because they knew
damn well he had good reasons for that pardon and they didn't want the truth to get any TV coverage,
so instead they considered every other person who couldn't possibly know what Clinton knew
to feed their never-ending appetite for fabricated scandals about Bill Clinton.
And of course, the all-too-willing get-Clinton media went along for the ride - every damn time.

Reminder: The pardons came the same week that Team Bush FABRICATED those stories
about the White House being trashed and Air Force One being stripped.
As always, the scandal whores put the fabricated allegations all over every front page on Earth.
Sadly, the Democrats agreed Clinton was guilty,

...but serious investigations by the non-partisan GAO proved those Team Bush charges were total horseshit,
but that GAO story was buried on Page 44 of Section Six - did you even know about the GAO exonerations?

...and once again, the all-too-willing get-Clinton media went along for the ride.  Instead of reporting
"Bush makes accusation that White House was trashed," the headlines all read "White House Trashed."
That's shit reporting no matter which side of the aisle you're on. Wouldn't you agree?

Nothing, ...repeat NOTHING sells books or TV ratings like a juicy, fabricated Clinton lie.
 

You call "the above" Exhibit A.
You are obviously not a lawyer.
Speculation and conjecture are hardly Exhibits.

It was a list of professional Clinton haters who control massive blocks of TV and radio time.
I listed the pundits and shows that have been clawing at Clinton for nine long years.
Are you going to claim Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Matthews, Hume, Snow, Liddy, North, Olson,
Coulter, and dozens and dozens of non-stop Clinton haters were actually "fair and balanced?"
 

Then you make claims that each of the 38 people above have done at
least a dozen hatchet jobs on Billy.  You have to prove claims like that.
Otherwise it's just more Lib exaggeration.

ha ha
Do you own a TV?
Have you read a newspaper the last nine years?
Do you deny that MCNBC, CNBC and FOX News were created for the singular purpose of generating
revenue by trashing the Clintons and furthering (or outright fabricating) wild speculation about them?

Are you going to stick with the claim that those non-stop networks DON'T spend at least
20 out of 24 hours trashing Clinton or anyone with left-of-center political views?

Forgive my French, but if you had a political web page, I could make you eat that again and again.
I'm so certain that I'm right, I won't ask you to look back.  Let's look forward.
If you had a political web page, we could pick a night in the future, say February 1, 2002.
I can GUARANTEE that on that date, we would see at least a dozen, maybe as much as 20 hatchet jobs
done on Democrats by the cable TV networks and right-wing talk radio - just on that single day.
Likewise, I'll bet there's not a single hatchet job done on Bush between now and then.
But, if you're merely a man with an e-mail account, you've got nothing to lose, there's no gamble.

BTW, do you know of any GOP sites that accept and answer mail from the opposition like I do?
If you do, I'd damn sure like to get the URL because I've been looking for someone - ANYONE
who'd be willing to get in the hot seat and answer a few question that I'd put together.
 

Then you challenge conservatives to rebut your unsubstantiated claims;
hardly powerful logical argument.

I realize you haven't had a chance to respond since I started my reply, but how can I
offer an example of a hatchet piece on a Republican if there's never been one?
 

What is an example of a "fabricated lie" that none of the 38 defended Billy against?
You need to look up Accuracy in Media for objective stats and then retract this bogus claim.

You ask the wrong question.
I think we'd both admit that dozens and dozens of charges have been leveled against the Clintons, right?
Drug smuggling, murder, rape, grand theft, assault, conspiracy, perjury and on and on and on.
And neither of them has even been convicted of a damn parking ticket.
Would that not, by definition, be a list of "fabricated lies?"

If either Clinton was guilty of ANYTHING, ...if ANY of these wild-ass, money-generating charges were provable,
why didn't Kenneth Starr find something?

Why didn't Henry Hyde find something?

Why didn't Dan Burton find something?

Why didn't Al D'Amato find something?

Why didn't Christopher Cox find something?

Why didn't Fred Thopson find something?

Why didn't the House Managers find something?

Why didn't the IRS find something?
 

...and you want me to list all the lies that were fabricated against them?
I think the burden of proof is on you.
 

The last Lib logic you employ is the most predictable:
Libs always resort to pejorative labels and name calling.
Another example of Liberal Intellect?

This page was started as a rebuttal to Rush Limbaugh, the truth molester.
If you know who he is, you know there's nobody in America more skilled at name-calling.
Early on, the first 155 issues or so, we were Rush Limba - Lying, Nazi Whore magazine.
...and yes, I tended to use his tactics against him, and that can be ugly at times, I admit that.

Tell me, is it your position that name-calling is from the left only?
Again, if you had a web page, if you were an internet entity, I'd make a list to show you,
but I have no interest (or time) in making a long-as-hell list of GOP name-callers, which would
include Bush, Cheney, Lott, Barr, Armey and who can forget Dan "Scumbag" Burton,
if you can just refuse to answer e-mail and claim victory. If you had a substantial web site,
I'd put the time in and make that long-as-hell list, and badger you to admit I was right.
But to suggest name-calling is one-sided tells me you're either new to the game or less-than-honest.
 

By the way, who is the vulgar pigboy?

I can understand your confusion, since there are so many vulgar Pigboys in the GOP,
but I'm referring to Rush with that colorful and folksy colloquialism.
 

Take it easy,
Eric J
 

"Easy" is my middle name...

Thanks for the tangle.
I'd like to do it again, and SURELY you'll have a rebuttal for me, right?
I enjoy a spirited debate with a semi-sane Republican such as yourself.

As I've written many times, most of my opponents begin their e-mails with, "Dear nigger-loving faggot,"
so hearing from you, believe it or not, is like a breath of fresh air.

Maybe we could do a chat-room debate one night, just you & me?

bartcop