OT: Tom DeLay is an a**hole

Post by **Jared** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:59 pm

tealboy03 wrote: Yes, I'll do that with full confidence. It's not because they are liberal-it's because they are conniving, calculating, opportunistic blowhards who'd rather shut down the government than do what's right by the people. They amount to not much more than idiotic, immature children:"If I can't win, I'm gonna take my ball and go home..."

Oh, BTW...I noticed you didn't defend Ted Kennedy in that response. Good call...

Yeah...I didn't include Kennedy. I'm not a very big Kennedy fan.

As for the others, I need examples that they are "conniving, calculating, opportunistic blowhards". Jeffords, Dean, and Pelosi (to my knowledge) haven't in any way reached the levels of dishonesty that Delay has. There might be something I don't know about them...and I'd love to hear what the other side has to say about this.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:02 pm

spooky157 wrote:
FatPitcher wrote: As far as DeLay goes...I don't really care. He may be dirty, but so is everyone with power, if I am to believe what I am told. As far as can tell, it's all about scoring political points, just like 95% of "ethical scandals" are. People get outraged, etc. because the media tells them to be, and meanwhile whackjobs like Conyers get a free pass, presumably because you can't score points for your team off someone who's not important.
Substitute Clinton for DeLay in that statement and tell me if that held true for you during the Monica Lewinsky scandal?

I didn't pay attention to politics then, so no. One difference that I can see, though, is that Clinton broke the law by committing perjury. If DeLay's broken the law, then they might be equal.

On the flip side of that, people who defended Clinton then from what they called politically motivated attacks are now attacking DeLay for things that are certainly no worse than Clinton's issues.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:04 pm

Jared wrote:And by the way....people talk about "nutjob judge(s) on the lunatic fringe" "striking down the will of the people". Any examples? I really want to know exactly what people are complaining about when they talk about this stuff.

Oh, let's see...the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals(who have been overturned more than a stack of flapjacks), the judge in Cally who struck down a popular vote on prop 187, claiming the "unconstitutional" rubber stamp, any judge who takes a total of an hour and a half to rule against a federal injunction to draw clear jurisdictional lines without so much as reading it (it would've taken more than 1 1/2 hours to pour through one of those, and much longer to actually do the review).

Judges who only trample on the first amendment rights of those they disagree with (prayers, religious Tshirts, etc. banned) but let stuff that a great many Americans find troubling (No consent for minors getting abortions, for example) slide right through using the same first amendment.

Judges should look at existing law, and rule based upon that law, whether they like the law or not. They have a vote, same as anybody else, to change the representation that makes these laws. They do not have the right to make law...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:10 pm

Jared wrote:
tealboy03 wrote: Yes, I'll do that with full confidence. It's not because they are liberal-it's because they are conniving, calculating, opportunistic blowhards who'd rather shut down the government than do what's right by the people. They amount to not much more than idiotic, immature children:"If I can't win, I'm gonna take my ball and go home..."

Oh, BTW...I noticed you didn't defend Ted Kennedy in that response. Good call...
Yeah...I didn't include Kennedy. I'm not a very big Kennedy fan.

As for the others, I need examples that they are "conniving, calculating, opportunistic blowhards". Jeffords, Dean, and Pelosi (to my knowledge) haven't in any way reached the levels of dishonesty that Delay has. There might be something I don't know about them...and I'd love to hear what the other side has to say about this.

They don't have to be accused of unethical practices to be in the same, or worse, league. They are cold hearted, mean spirited, hateful people who only, at best, tell the part of the truth that will benefit them. I know people do that on both sides of the isle, but not in as great a number nor with as much fervor as those I've mentioned. I forgot about Shumer, who makes me want to puke, and good ol' Hillary who has more positions lately than a San Francisco cat house...

spooky157 · Post by **spooky157** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:12 pm

FatPitcher wrote:I didn't pay attention to politics then, so no. One difference that I can see, though, is that Clinton broke the law by committing perjury. If DeLay's broken the law, then they might be equal.

On the flip side of that, people who defended Clinton then from what they called politically motivated attacks are now attacking DeLay for things that are certainly no worse than Clinton's issues.

I was not a defender of Clinton back then. I was just wondering if you were one of his detractors during the scandal.

But the flip side to your flip side is that the people who attacked Clinton so vigorously back then are the same people who are defending DeLay with equal vigor.

And no worse than Clinton's issues? He got a hummer from a fat chick and didn't feel like telling the world about it.

TheMightyPuck · Post by **TheMightyPuck** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:23 pm

tealboy03 wrote: Oh, let's see...the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals(who have been overturned more than a stack of flapjacks)

Which decisions by the Ninth Circuit are you talking about in particular?

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:08 pm

I see NOBODY even attempted to defend Harry Reid. Wonder why? lol

“The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,”

To let an American citizen starve to death and even deny her ice chips for her mouth...........now that is beyond pale. And yes. They will answer for it. "You reap what you sow" is what the good book says and these judges will not make a liar out of God any more than you or I will.

As for the others, I need examples that they are "conniving, calculating, opportunistic blowhards". Jeffords, Dean, and Pelosi (to my knowledge) haven't in any way reached the levels of dishonesty that Delay has.

Jeffords says Bush will start a war with Iran next year so Jeb will have a better shot at the presidency (how this gives him a "better shot" is beyond me).

They all said Bush lied about Iraq........while the war is going on.

Dean says Bush knew in advance about 9/11. Dean also runs a website that is beyond despicable. Like those "Kill Bush" t-shirts they were hawking over there? Got yours yet?

Boxer.......http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Conten ... 5hstwb.asp

Schumer........http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york050503.asp

Pelosi..........http://www.rollcall.com/pub/49_75/news/4293-1.html.

A controversial fundraising committee run by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was slapped with a $21,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission for enabling Pelosi to funnel more than $100,000 in illegal contributions to Democratic candidates in late 2002 as she was vying to become Democratic leader.

And no worse than Clinton's issues? He got a hummer from a fat chick and didn't feel like telling the world about it.

Clinton did alot more than that. The hummer didn't bother me. Illegal campaign contributions from China and then China winding up with US military technology did. So did the stealing of over 400 FBI files on current and former GOP members.

PJB on Delay nonsense...........http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43892

I see NOBODY even attempted to defend Harry Reid. Wonder why?

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:05 pm

sf_z wrote:Hey, I never said anything bad about Madison, AL whereever the he11 that is.

You can if you want...I'm not from here and I don't particularly like it anyway...are you,like, the mayor or something?

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:08 pm

TheMightyPuck wrote:
tealboy03 wrote: Oh, let's see...the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals(who have been overturned more than a stack of flapjacks)
Which decisions by the Ninth Circuit are you talking about in particular?

The "Under God" nonsense, for one. But it's widely known that the Ninth Circus is overturned very often...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:09 pm

spooky157 wrote:

But the flip side to your flip side is that the people who attacked Clinton so vigorously back then are the same people who are defending DeLay with equal vigor.

And no worse than Clinton's issues? He got a hummer from a fat chick and didn't feel like telling the world about it.

I'm not defending DeLay. I don't care about him. My thought is that he'd be better off to shut up now, instead of stoking a fire that he can't control. But, he's a politician.

But truth be known, this would not be news if he were a democrat. It's that he's a republican that makes the "news" people so enamored with what he's said...

Oh, and a correction: Clinton lied in a federal deposition under oath. It's a far cry from hiding it so Hillary wouldn't find out...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:24 pm

blueduke wrote:To let an American citizen starve to death and even deny her ice chips for her mouth...........now that is beyond pale. And yes. They will answer for it. "You reap what you sow" is what the good book says and these judges will not make a liar out of God any more than you or I will.

The judges simply upheld the existing legal statutes, did they not? So, you want judges playing God instead and basing their decisions on what is religiously correct?

As a Catholic, I thought Terri Schiavo should live. But without a living will, the law gave her husband the right to determine her destiny. The judges simply upheld that law, as much as in hindsight I don't like it.

blueduke wrote:Jeffords says Bush will start a war with Iran next year so Jeb will have a better shot at the presidency (how this gives him a "better shot" is beyond me).

Yeah, that's a ridiculous stretch. Agree with you on that one.

blueduke wrote:They all said Bush lied about Iraq........while the war is going on.

Considering the objective of the war has changed from finding the WMD's to eliminating terror to spreading freedom, "they" might have a point. And I guess you consider it "unpatriotic" to exercise your freedom of speech and provide dissent to a military action taken under dubious pretenses by an administration? Remember, this is the first pre-emptive war in American history, so don't try to put Iraq in the same category as WW II, Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf War. We invaded a sovereign nation that had not left its borders in an attempt to conquer another nation and topple its leader -- that's a first.

blueduke wrote:Dean says Bush knew in advance about 9/11. Dean also runs a website that is beyond despicable. Like those "Kill Bush" t-shirts they were hawking over there? Got yours yet?

Dean is a dick, no doubt. I wouldn't trust his frat-boy temper to run my household, let alone my nation. But he does have the right to be an idiot and shoot off his mouth in this nation. And saying such ridiculous things doesn't put him at the level of DeLay if DeLay is in fact guilty of such ethics violations. There's a difference between shooting off your mouth and violating Congressional ethics rules.

But I guess if Tom DeLay supports the current administration and hides behind the veil of patriotism, hell, let him violate all of the ethics codes he wants, right? He's a true American -- an unethical one, but a true one -- unlike that leftist freak Howard Dean and his rabble-rousing Web site and T-shirts, right?

Being patriotic doesn't put someone above the law. And our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, regardless of how ridiculous it is and how much it infuriates the "nouveau patriots" who have sprouted up all over since 9/11.

blueduke wrote:Clinton did alot more than that. The hummer didn't bother me. Illegal campaign contributions from China and then China winding up with US military technology did. So did the stealing of over 400 FBI files on current and former GOP members.

Actually, perjury before a grand jury bothered me more about Clinton than anything else. But yeah, your points about the biggest dirtbag in the White House since Nixon are spot-on. Clinton was a shame to the credibility of the White House, and it has nothing to do with getting hosed by an intern.

Take care,
PK

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:37 pm

pk500 wrote:But I guess if Tom DeLay supports the current administration and hides behind the veil of patriotism, hell, let him violate all of the ethics codes he wants, right? He's a true American -- an unethical one, but a true one -- unlike that leftist freak Howard Dean and his rabble-rousing Web site and T-shirts, right?

I haven't seen anyone in here saying that, PK. Where did you see it?

The only reason Howard Dean is just a fruitcake and not dangerous is that he has no real power. Were he in any sort of power...God help us...

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:48 pm

PK I'm not defending Delay. But the goose and the gander aren't getting the same treatment. Delay gets hosed while Harry Reid (one of the ring leaders of the this) is and has done far, far, worse. Delay's family received chump change compared to Reid's. Pelosi and Boxer's family has gotten their wallets padded to the extreme too. If they want to nail Delay, fine. But get them all. The newest member of the "Let's nail Delay even though I did the same thing" Club is..................

Ohio Democrat Stephanie Tubbs Jones

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154098,00.html

The judges simply upheld the existing legal statutes, did they not? So, you want judges playing God instead and basing their decisions on what is religiously correct?

As a Catholic, I thought Terri Schiavo should live. But without a living will, the law gave her husband the right to determine her destiny. The judges simply upheld that law, as much as in hindsight I don't like it.

I'm sure this topic was discussed here to the max while it was going on so why go into it again, right? But let me say this......they starved someone to death who wasn't in danger of dying going on the words (and nothing else) of a "husband" who abandoned his wife, shacked up with another and had 2 kids with the "lady", and who suddenly remembered 7 years after the fact his wife wanted to die. If you give a dog the same treatment Terri was given a judge would step in and "play God" real quick.

spooky157 · Post by **spooky157** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 pm

tealboy03 wrote: Oh, and a correction: Clinton lied in a federal deposition under oath. It's a far cry from hiding it so Hillary wouldn't find out...

Sorry, I'm not a Clinton defender and I don't want to take this post off topic. Right wingers can cry perjury all they want but the fact remains that all he did was lie about a sexual indiscretion that was completely immaterial.

Maybe I am a Clinton defender....

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:21 pm

spooky157 wrote:
tealboy03 wrote: Oh, and a correction: Clinton lied in a federal deposition under oath. It's a far cry from hiding it so Hillary wouldn't find out...
Sorry, I'm not a Clinton defender and I don't want to take this post off topic. Right wingers can cry perjury all they want but the fact remains that all he did was lie about a sexual indiscretion that was completely immaterial.

Maybe I am a Clinton defender....

If it walks like a duck...

The important part was that he lied about it, not to his wife, not to the American public(which he did, not so sure wifey didn't know about it the whole time), but he did it under oath in a federal court. You don't do that and get away with it...

Anyway, you're right about one thing...back to topic. DELAY IS THE ANTICHRIST AND HARRY REID MISSPOKE...or something to that effect...

J · Post by J » Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:36 pm

Tom DeLay isn't really on my radar right now as far as senators go. Sounds to me like PK and others are blowing a lot of hot air. Some worth complaining about include Larry Craig, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Robert "KKK" Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer.

Post by **Jared** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:06 pm

blueduke wrote: Jeffords says Bush will start a war with Iran next year so Jeb will have a better shot at the presidency (how this gives him a "better shot" is beyond me).

I disagree with this.

They all said Bush lied about Iraq........while the war is going on.

Dean says Bush knew in advance about 9/11. Dean also runs a website that is beyond despicable. Like those "Kill Bush" t-shirts they were hawking over there? Got yours yet?

Dean never said that. Here's a conservative source on that story:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003 ... 3631.shtml

And here's an article giving the whole context of Dean's statement and showing why stories that say that Dean said Bush knew in advance about 9/11 are dishonest and deceptive:

http://www.airamericaradio.com/weblogs/ ... entry_194/

It's the same old same old. Conservative news outlets and talk radio hosts put out the same lies and people just accept them as truth. It's a shame, because there are honest conservatives out there...too bad most of the leadership in current conservatism is filled with this kind of dishonest bull.

Oh, and Dean's site has had a Kill Bush t-shirt? Really? Where's your evidence? Find it.

You're welcome to believe what you want to believe. But the least you can do is believe it based on some real evidence, and not the same deceptive crap that conservative media pushes.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:14 pm

Jared wrote:You're welcome to believe what you want to believe. But the least you can do is believe it based on some real evidence, and not the same deceptive crap that conservative media pushes.

Yeah, Jared's right...it's much better to believe the deceptive crap that the liberal media pushes...

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:03 am

Nice defense of Reid, Jared We made that stuff up too I suppose.

It's the same old same old. Conservative news outlets and talk radio hosts put out the same lies and people just accept them as truth

Bush\Bush\Reagan wants to "starve school children", "take away old people's social security", "will start WWIII", blah blah blah. Yeah we get it

again....nice defense of Reid

Before I forget................http://www.vnews.com/04072005/2345097.htm

"I think it was all done to get oil," Jeffords said of invading Iraq. "And the loss of life that we had, and the cost of it, was to me just a re-election move, and they're going to try to live off it. Probably start another war, wouldn't be surprised, next year. Probably in Iran."

"Do you think that's likely?" VPR host Bob Kinzel asked.

"I probably shouldn't even talk on it, I just feel so bitter about the thinking that's gone on behind them, and the reasons they go to war and went to war," Jeffords replied. "But I feel very strongly that they are looking ahead, and that there will be an opportunity to go into Iran and try to get their son elected president. I don't know, but you do it each time they (are) going to have a new president. I'm very, very (Jeffords chuckles). Oh, well, I better be quiet"

Oh yeah. He said it.

You're welcome to believe what you want to believe. But the least you can do is believe it based on some real evidence, and not the same deceptive crap that conservative media pushes.

You mean like forged National Guard documents?

The above quote coming from a guy who uses Al Franken links

Oh, and Dean's site has had a Kill Bush t-shirt? Really? Where's your evidence? Find it

It's been taken down. Just like it has at a few other sites. Another moveon.org disgrace (you'll find it halfway through the article).............

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -2345r.htm

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:31 am

So we've established that politicians on both teams are dirty and hypocritical.

You learn something new every day.

TheMightyPuck · Post by **TheMightyPuck** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:57 am

tealboy03 wrote:
TheMightyPuck wrote:
tealboy03 wrote: Oh, let's see...the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals(who have been overturned more than a stack of flapjacks)
Which decisions by the Ninth Circuit are you talking about in particular?

The "Under God" nonsense, for one. But it's widely known that the Ninth Circus is overturned very often...

Living in the shadow of one of the Ninth Circuit locales I suppose I have more respect for them than many. The Ninth Circuit does have a fair number of "liberals" appointed by Carter who some might say skew the court. Some of these "liberals" are unapologetic about their positions, brilliant, and convinced they are upholding the constitution with their opinions. Steven Reinhardt is a great example. I don't share his philosophy but I totally respect him as a judge--based on what I know. He is your classic "Judicial Activist" in the mold of Brennan or Marshall or Blackmun. (PS: I recommend anyone who rails against "judicial activism" to read some of Brennan's opinions--I think it will be eye opening). Reinhart publicly criticised Clinton for not nominating more liberal judges to the bench. He believes in what he does. More conservative voices on the court like Alex Kozinski (who I think would make a great Supreme Court Justice but is unlikely to get a nomination precisely because he has the qualifications--brilliant, full of self belief, keeps his own counsel and is hence unpredictable) are also great assets to the court.

Speaking of Supreme Court appointments, another "conservative" unlikely to ever sit on the SCOTUS is Posner because of his own pragmatic views about "judicial activism". I personally think he's a bit off the charts but he calls it as he sees it. His excoriating criticism of Scalia's opinion in Bush v Gore (he agreed with the result, he thought Scalia should have shut the f*** up rather than pile on the bullshit to try to justify it) seemed dead on.

I personally think Delay is a boil on the ass of politics--which in no mean feat--but I think he or anyone else has every right to criticise Judges and Justices and Politicians and the guy who mows his lawn. That is politics. What annoys me are what I consider (and I'm not calling you out Teal, you just struck a nerve) people who have no idea of the history of the American Judicial system and its part in the separation of powers and the difficult decisions it has to make every day. The Supreme Court today is far more conservative than it has been since WW2. The Supreme Court has had liberal viewpoints for years--years post WW2 during which the USA become the worlds superpower. Now there are litmus tests that were started by Republicans (and called on by Democrats--see Bork). Carter was probably the last President where the senate confirmed Judges without much muss and fuss--Hatch made it clear no liberals would get confirmed on his watch. It is ironic that Kennedy is the focus of the ire of party bosses like Delay since he is nowhere near as liberal as many of the Justices who came before him. Two of whom I consider great Justices could never get confirmed today: Brennan and Marshall. Yet the same is not true for conservatives like Clarence Thomas (who I disagree with frequently but greatly respect). Today, it seems clear that the executive wants to pack the court with young predictable idealogues rather than that brilliant yet unpredictable free thinkers. I disagree with this approach. I think complex issues (and the SCOTUS important decisions almost always deal with complex issuse that could go either way) are best decided by a court that is made up of people who think for themselves, have varied ideological positions, and are conservative when it comes to following precedent (societies function better when they know the rules and the rules don't change arbitrarily).

Finally, with respect to the "Under God" case, the SCOTUS ducked that one as well. They granted cert but then ignored the substantive issues and ruled instead on issues of standing. We still don't know if "Under God" is constitutional or not. I recommend you read some biographies of some of the great post WW2 Justices who you disagree with. I think you will realize that what certain shrill commentators (who know rational discusson and an actual attempt to find the truth is the kiss of death in their line of work) characterize as a Court gone mad is actually nothing of the sort. These are for the most part learned people who take their jobs seriously and typically decide very complicated cases with powerful arguement on both (or more) sides of the issues. You should walk a mile in their shoes.

TheMightyPuck · Post by **TheMightyPuck** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:15 am

J wrote:Tom DeLay isn't really on my radar right now as far as senators go. Sounds to me like PK and others are blowing a lot of hot air. Some worth complaining about include Larry Craig, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Robert "KKK" Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer.

I am always amazed how people treat politics like football. My guys' s*** don't stink, your guys' are evil bastards. Politics is a rough game. Anyone watch a basketball or soccer game lately. Every single play is a foul according to and exact reading of the rulebook. Nevertheless, we all know what is really a foul and that knowledge is based on how we know the game works in the real world. I'm no expert but my take is that Delay was out of position, moving his feet, felt some mild contact from the guy flying past him for a layup, tackeled him from behind and then had him killed a week later for claiming a foul. In the meantime, Pelosi farted in an elevator. It ain't the same.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:23 am

The second-ranking House Democrat, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, called Hastings' offer "an absolute nonstarter with Democrats" and an "attempt to divert attention from the fact that the Republican majority has neutered the ethics committee in the House by imposing partisan rules." Democratic leaders have said the automatic dismissal rule was designed to protect DeLay.

Alright, let's see if I can do this:

"The insensitivity shown by Mr. Hoyer toward minorities is unconscionable and does nothing to educate our children or reach out to those in need. The American people have come to expect petty, baseless accustions from Nancy Pelosi's attack dogs, but disparaging eunuchs goes beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse. My. Hoyer should apologize for his shameful behavior."

All I need to do now is find a district where some 24-term incumbent is retiring and call it my home.

On the other hand, my opponent would sink me with quotes from my message board postings and probably ruin my political career.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:16 am

tealboy03 wrote:
Jared wrote:You're welcome to believe what you want to believe. But the least you can do is believe it based on some real evidence, and not the same deceptive crap that conservative media pushes.

Yeah, Jared's right...it's much better to believe the deceptive crap that the liberal media pushes...

Right: The same liberal media that attacked and reported on every single slurp of the peccadillos of the liberal poster boy, Bill Clinton. The same "liberal media" that helped to bring down Howard Dean's presidential campaign, in my opinion mercifully so, because of one yelp he emitted on stage. The same "liberal media" that reported so much last summer on the Swift Boat "controversy" with Kerry that it prevented real issues from being discussed by both sides.

This complaint of "liberal media" really gets old after a while. It's a convenient crutch for conservatives who are upset that they don't have total control yet over every aspect of American life. "We have the White House. We have the Congress. We'll get the Supreme Court. We have the churches. Damn it, we just need the media, and we'll hit the quinella!"

I'll rip the American media for a lot of things -- superficiality, shoddy reporting, etc. But this complaint of "liberal" and "conservative" media is really shallow, especially if you compare the political leanings of American media to those in other countries, which are overtly more political and partisan.

It's funny: FOX News is the most partisan of the "major" cable networks, by far, yet legions of conservatives buy its "fair and balanced" label solely because FOX is a big-time right-wing propaganda vehicle. It's sort of hypocritical to rip the "liberal media" for bias when the electronic home for conservatives is much more biased toward its chosen side than CNN or MSNBC.

Even more funny: The same people who rip the "liberal" media are those running to newspaper and online news sources to either criticize their liberal foes or praise and defend their conservative heroes. Hell, the "liberal" L.A. Times was used three times as a source for criticism by a conservative in this very thread!

Ironic, no? Using the dreaded "liberal media" as a source?

If the "liberal media" is so liberal and unpalatable, then why do you even bother reading or digesting it? Why not just let FOX News, National Review, Weekly Standard and American Spectator provide you with the news with the slant you seek and forget about the three networks, CNN, MSNBC, USA Today and a daily local paper?

Take care,
PK