Lacius, I don't rely on FoxNews for anything. I don't watch it, I don't read it. I understand that their reporting is weighted "right" just as MSNBC's is obviously weighted "left." I tend to avoid them both.
Are Fox News and MSNBC politically biased? Sure. I would argue that Fox News is more politically biased than MSNBC, but sure. The difference between Fox News and MSNBC is that Fox News is a right-wing propaganda machine filled with
conspiracy theories and
lies.
The videos I posted above are from CNN and CBS, which I don't think are always "up the middle" objective, but they're probably perceived as "unbiased" by most people. KingVamp asked for unbiased sources, so I did my best to provide that.
Right, but my issue was with your statement that there was no such thing as "unbiased sources," not with the sources you provided on an unrelated topic.
On the other hand, you're quoting dailykos as proof of something??? Seriously?
I never claimed anything about the bias of anyone's sources. Despite the liberal bias the Daily Kos admittedly has, are you saying the reporting on what people have said about Obama's speech-writing in 2004 and 2008 is incorrect? If not, then I don't see your point.
The difference here is that the claim that Obama doesn't write his speeches (or that he writes fewer speeches than other candidates) is completely unsubstantiated. The fact that I used Daily Kos as a source of some quotes about Obama's speech-writing habits is irrelevant. I've posted links to the
Maddow Blog too; that doesn't make the nonpartisan numbers they post incorrect, for example. The liberal sources I use here and there don't make my points any less valid, particularly when the facts are correct. Like I already said, there's a big difference between, for example, MSNBC and Fox News. Only one of these networks has a history of reporting false and misleading information, and that network is Fox News. Am I saying MSNBC is always right? No. But the number of lies reported by Fox News is insurmountable for it to be taken seriously as a news organization.
And where's
your source for "At the time, the evidence that the attack was affiliated with al-Qaeda was circumstantial and appeared to be more likely due to that internet movie trailer"??? Because this article from thedailybeast says the administration had "strong indications" of the al-qaeda link within 24hrs.
http://www.thedailyb...affiliates.html
Please note that the information you're citing does not include any specific evidence that the administration was aware of that pointed towards an al-Qaeda attack; we're pretty much taking someone else's word about what the administration knew or didn't know. According to
this wonderful source:
One intelligence official clarified to Fox News that there was not a "definitive" lead on who might have been responsible for the Libya attacks in the immediate aftermath, though officials had an idea of the suspects.
"It's inaccurate to suggest that within the first 24 hours there was a definitive calling card and home address for the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack. Potential suspects and data points emerge early on, but it still takes time to be certain who is responsible," the official said.
As for the actual intelligence, there was confusion as to whether it was an al-Qaeda attack or the result of the protest over that film. According to
intercepted phone calls, "the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo." Am I saying there definitely weren't communication failures between people and agencies? No, I'm not saying that. But that's far from saying Obama intentionally misled people only to correct the record days later (after having more evidence). There's a reason the official statement said, "assessment may change as additional information is collected" and that the investigation is "on-going."
Obama is truly flawless, isn't he.
I'm pretty sure I never said that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though.
Edit:
Everyone has flaws, no one's perfect.
He's makin' Obama out to be Jesus Reincarnated or something.
This is Politics. They all lie. No use denying it.
Let me set the record straight; I do not think Obama is infallible. I criticize Obama all the time. For example, Obama incorrectly implied during the debate that it was the Bush tax cuts themselves that caused the economic recession (to be fair to Obama, he didn't directly say this). However, the things that I have replied to in this thread have, in my opinion, been inaccurate or misleading. There are plenty of things in this thread I let slide because they were fair criticisms of the President. Please don't make me out to be someone who is blind to the facts.
Double Edit:
I agree with you. But go back through this thread (and others) and look at Lacius' posts - he is in constant blind advocacy mode. Any criticism of his man is met with attack. He concedes nothing, to the point of being absurd. Even when there is overwhelming evidence, as I've already shown above with the news links to reputable news sources that the administration knew one thing about the embassy attack and was telling Congress and the press something else, he's lashing back with the talking points. Admit nothing! Deny everything! Demand proof! And when they prove it, Defend it!
Alright. Let's talk about people who ignore facts. I took a few minutes to look back at
your previous posts in this thread:
Let's talk about how you ignore the fact that we now know that 1.3 million people could potentially be affected by Pennsylvania's voter ID law, something you refuse to accept because, according to you, voter I.D. doesn’t disenfranchise anyone and “statistics never tell the truth.”
Let’s talk about how you don’t seem to be able to accept that the Bush tax cuts are bad policy as far as the deficit is concerned.
Let’s talk about how you don’t think Medicare is “good for the insured.” Let’s talk about how you think seniors only depend on Medicare because it has been around for so long and doesn’t fill any kind need that existed before Medicare despite evidence to the contrary.
Let’s talk about how you think letting the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year will crush small businesses despite evidence to the contrary.
Let’s talk about how you essentially claimed that the Bush tax cuts are Obama’s fault even though the Republicans held the middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits hostage for the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Let’s talk about how you called entitlement programs a “cancer” and then hypocritically called The Catboy out for using hyperbole.
Let’s talk about how you think it was a bipartisan effort during the Clinton administration that led to the budget surplus when it was the revenue increases that didn’t get a single Republican vote that primarily led to the budget surplus.
Let’s talk about your claim that durable goods has gone down under Obama when it’s actually gone up.
Let’s talk about your claim that Democrats taking control of congress in 2006 led to the Recession.
Let’s talk about your claim that Obama’s and Romney’s flip-flopping are somehow similar.
I'm curious to hear how much of this you have conceded or if this is another example of hypocrisy.
