About 30 seconds is all I can take of the "journalists" of the unfair and unbalanced network. This morning was a case in pont. These lpeople (on the unffair and unbalanced network) are fully as bad as the "journalists" on CNN and MSNBC. Indeed, once you get past the "headliners" like O'Reilly and Hannity, they are the SAME peple (the same dishonest hypocrites who are the worst hypocrites to ever wlk the Earth, on two legs or four).
Waht am I talking about this morning. Well, an attorney was interviewed who was part of the legal team taht essentially WON in the lower courts (including the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals). The interviewer promptly asked (paraphrasing slightly): "Why did the lower courts disagree with you?" The attorney had to CORRECtT the interviewer, in essence telling the interviewer that he had just LIED. "We actually won in the district court and the 111th Circuit Court of Appeals." Do you think the interviewer APOLOGIZED for a LIE? Think again. This is the unfair and unbalanced network, which you shuld BOYCOTT (as I do, except for a minute or twwo a day just for these blog articles). These people "mocern "jurnalists" have NO ASHAME. They are too DISHOENST and INCOMPETENT to feel shame. The interviewer, by the way, went on to ask EVERY mainstream media "storyline" question (including the assertion that ObamaCare is the SAME as a RomneyCare in Massachusetts, which is DISHONEST in that the unfair and unbalanced network will PUSH the Romney view in its role as SHILL for Romeny). The attorney ponted out that there is a huge difference: The Federal Government is supposed to be a government of LIMITED POWERS--limited to those granted by the Constitution. The STATE governments are supposed to be govenments of UNLIMITED POWERS, only LIMITED by the SPECIFIC provisons fo the Constritiution. Romney is actually right on this point, although everythinking person believes that, for Romney, this is more aCONVENIENT argument than a matter of CONVICTION on LIMITED GOVERNMENT. The fact that a state HAS a POWER does NOT mean that a state shuld USE IT.
The issue was being addressed because ObamaCare is now being argued before the United States Supreme Court. As stated, the approach of the 'journlasists" of the unffiar and unbalanced network to this is the SAME as that of CNN. That is why I call the network "CNN light". Whey look at the mushy, snealily dishonest stuff, when you can MAINLINE the hard stuff at CNN and MSNBC? That is why I now SURF CNN (for material) MORE than I surf the unfair and unbalanced network. Want more/
Last night, Yaho "News" (BOYCOTT YAHOO, as I do, except for my AT&T "Welcome" page, which is my way of "surfing" mainstream media "news" on the internet) "featured a headline that "Rick Santorum curses reporter". For the dishonest hypocrites of the media, this is what passes for "featured" "news". So much for the DISHONEST contention that reporters do not want to "make' the "news', but just report it. You "jou;rnalists" out there: YOU LIE. You WANT to "MAKE the "news', an dyou are pushing an AGENDA. Thus, it becomes a big "story" that Rick Santorum responded "harshly" to a NEW YORK TIMES reporter thow was HARRASSING Santorum on the "ropeline". Far beit from the unfair and unbalanced network to make the conduct of the REPORTER the "issue". They did not. They picked up the SAME "questions" of the mainstream media, including the New York Times. It is not wrong to say that the unfair and unbalanced network approached the "story" (which shuld have been NO sotry, for real "journalists") the SAME way as the New York Times.
No, I have nothing but CONTEMPT for "journalists" in general, and for the unfair and unbalanced network in particular.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).