Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (1191)	3/31/2006 12:23:23 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

Read the freakin NYTimes for one week and then i will talk to you. Until then, no more conversations. Bye.

To: KLP who wrote (1191)	3/31/2006 2:23:03 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

"Perhaps it was the propaganda course I took. " You are very good at it. Keep saying something long enough and the dopes will buy it. No you didnt learn to discover the propaganda of others. You learned to post propaganda soviet style like the leftwingers on fadg do.

To: KLP who wrote (1191)	3/31/2006 4:31:11 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14758

I generally agree with your POV on the lib MSM. However, while I agree that the MSM is even more egregious in their liberal bias these last few years, it seems they have been quite biased for a very long time. Thanks to the internet, cable news & talk radio, we now have access to numerous sources of credible evidence to expose MSM slant, propaganda, distortions & outright lies. And we can see it debunked within hours or days. For those inclined, there are so many irrefutable, well documented examples of overt liberal bias that only the willfully ignorant would dare pretend that it doesn't exist (or claim MSM bias goes both ways). And sorry Micheal, but the New York Times is one of the worst offenders. Back in the 1960's, through the early 1990's a vast majority of us were simply at the mercy of the liberal MSM as our sole source of news. Back then the MSM pretty much spoke with one voice as they do today. Just like today the MSM decided what was "news", which "facts" would get reported & how each story would be framed. However, if someone knew what the MSM reported was false, misleading or failed to report all the essential facts, there was almost no chance that Joe Six Pack would ever hear about it. Back when Walter Cronkite sat in the anchor desk, little did we know then that when he ended his broadcast with, "And that's the way it is", that he didn't mean he had just finished reporting the news objectively & completely; it meant that's the way he framed the "news". It's obvious today that good 'ole Walter is a dyed in the wool left winger with some wild moonbat POV's thanks to the alternate media. Back then, that wasn't the way it was framed, now was it?