In other words, you give yourself a pass when YOU break the law. If a Mexican does it, they deserve to suffer. Got it.

Amazing, that you're not a circus act with the logical leaps you make, sans evidence. Amazing. Like a train wreck...

I only read Media Matters a couple of times a month, usually following a link, and they seem to do a pretty good job posting the "offending" content in thorough context, though I can't speak to the accompanying commentary. Some examples would be helpful.

and

Media Matters is, from everything I've seen, and I've seen quite a bit - *extremely* disciplined and factually oriented. It uses no rhetoric or ad hominem whatsoever. It just keeps track of, and publicizes, false statements, contradictions, conflicts of interests, and obvious power imbalances.

My problem with Media Matters is that their very mode of operation requires constantly making mountains of moleholes and manufacturing outrage.

Take a quick look at the stories highlighted on their front page today.

Limbaugh joined by other conservatives standing up for AIG against "mob rule"

CNN's Bash falsely claims recovery bill language required AIG bonuses "to stay in place"

Time cites NRSC attack on Dodd over AIG bonuses without noting that several GOP senators reportedly opposed executive pay restrictions

It's quite true that they don't call names in any of these stories. But they're all breathlessly touting non-stories as stories.

Has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand. DO try to stick to the topic.

In other words, you give yourself a pass when YOU break the law. If a Mexican does it, they deserve to suffer. Got it.

Subtle wouldn't be the word I'd use.

Bit, your little game of duck & cover when you embarrass yourself is getting tiresome. You should man up sometime...

So you've criticized thinkprogress for broadbrushing laura ingraham.. and in the same breath you've done the exact same thing to mediamatters.

subpar.

So I guess my remark of a few minutes ago was just so subtle for you to understand:

Subtle wouldn't be the word I'd use.

That still leaves us with an interesting question Bit, have you ever broken the law?

Has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand. DO try to stick to the topic.

Do it legally

That still leaves us with an interesting question Bit, have you ever broken the law? If the answer is yes, perhaps you should dial the scorn down a notch. If not, well you should be interviewed on "The Factor" because you are pretty darned special.

Mind you, I am not defending illegal immigration, my people came over on boats, did everything legally. My grandfather worked all day, and took a trolly across town to night school to learn English. He could discuss American history and the constitution far more intelligently than most folks who were born here. In a better world, everyone would do it that way. But this is the world we have to work with.

That would be meaningful if your core principal was not "people who disagree with me are always wrong and to blame for all the world's ills".

When they told me your were a projectionist, I thought you worked in a movie house.

So I guess my remark of a few minutes ago was just so subtle for you to understand:

I have never seen Bennett say anything that made him sound like like anything other than a pretty serious and thoughtful person. Some of his remarks are straight spin, but that is hardly an exclusive of either party. I don't hold with many of his views, but I certainly have respect for him.

Really bit, are you actually a simpleton, or do you just play on online?

1. Per your report in Ingraham's show, she was celebrating the downturn in remittances to Mexico.
2. Bit spoke about breaking the law.
3. Somehow there's a leap between remittances per se versus remittances by illegal aliens.

IF Ingraham's cry-me-a-river routine made no distinction in #3, then Ingraham just demonstrated some major paleocon leanings, something which I don't align with.

By the way, I'm not a Republican. I find too many Republicans too theologically motivated for their own good and find liberals to be the type of folks I fled from the Philippines, which by the way still is home to family members of mine to whom we remit. If that statement isn't enough FTW for you, I don't know what is. I'm more a libertoid gadfly.

WRT point 3, every media personality will fluctuate in behaviour. That said, polemics != "hate radio," and the campaign to equate the two is what brought me into the discussion in the first place.

The best of conservative talk radio is Medved, in my opinion - who is not only not "hate radio", but is also intelligent and independent.

I don't listen to Air America, so I can't comment on it.

Second: Do Jay C and Bithead and Ingraham have any idea how bad this looks to normal people who haven't had their compassion surgically removed? You guys make me proud to say that I am no longer a Republican!

Third: Why can't we stick to the subject? Dr. Joyner wanted to know if his impression of Ingraham was mistaken. I'm providing what I think is a very compelling data point. Feel free to provide your own counter point. Has she spoken out against hateful attitudes? Has she used her show to perform some remarkable act of charity? If so, feel free to share.

You ask if "we should all cheer" in the face of someone else's misfortune. That is neither mine, nor Bit's to answer. It is in Ingraham's capacity to do so. It's in yours to call it hate radio if you want. It's in mine to call you out on it.

That would be meaningful if your core principal was not "people who disagree with me are always wrong and to blame for all the world's ills".

When they told me your were a projectionist, I thought you worked in a movie house.

You really are the perfect modern "conservative" bit. Small minded, utterly lacking in compassion.

They want in? Fine by me. Do it legally, and you'll be welcome. Explain to me what isn't compassionate about that.

LaurenceB, why does your entire rant not mention once the laws being broken by the poeple in question?

Have you ever broken the law? Done an illegal drug? Gone over the speed limit? Claimed a few bogus deductions on your taxes? Drove home when you had one beer too many?

My guess is that you have. Does that mean that we should all cheer if your family was to suffer some sort of misfortune?

You really are the perfect modern "conservative" bit. Small minded, utterly lacking in compassion.

I lean toward writing about principles

That would be meaningful if your core principal was not "people who disagree with me are always wrong and to blame for all the world's ills".

It's ironic that you practice the same thing you accuse liberals of, basing your world view on some sort of wish fulfillment. That is to say, if you just keep blaming Democrats for everything you perceive to be wrong in the world, your fantasy will translate into reality.

Lessens your rant, I suppose.