CNN & MSNBC

What a couple of jokes these networks are:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/cable-anchors-guests-use-tea-parties-platform-frat-house-humor/

Anderson Cooper is a faggot, by the way. And Rachel Maddow is a cunt-licking bull-dyke.

Ridicule is the only appropriate response to fox and their tea party. And you. Congratulations on your increasing irrelevancy.

It's unfortunate that this happened, seeing as the term "teabagging" was assigned to the protest by the media as opposed to the protesters themselves. Otherwise, it would be wholly deserved. Although, this is the equivalent of broadcasters laughing every time someone says "sixty-nine".

It's like in junior high how we all used to giggle at the number 69.

PMSNBC and the Communist News Network (CNN if you are a moron) should all go the way of other great an heroes and leave us for good.

The Fox United Nation (no other way to have F.U.N. is there?)

>>2
So you admit you have no argument that can withstand debate?

>>6
LOL WUT?

I work with several people who participated in these "tea parties" (which bear NO resemblance to what actually happened). None of them can justify themselves without resorting to outright lies and blatant fallacies.

So tell me, can you explain why you feel these teabaggers AREN'T retarded? Why are they protesting? What is their goal?

>>7
$9.3 trillion dollars in deficit spending

This is why all of you should throw out your television sets.

>>1
I was about to take you seriously until I saw your new source.  Enjoy your life in ignorance

>>10
Your Ad hominem doesn't change the reality of how those anchors and commentators behaved.

Still I don't condone the watching of any mainstream media.

The Daily Paul, Campaign for Liberty, and the Ludwig von Mises institute are plenty enough for me.

>>11
Please don't use fallacies when you have no idea what the fuck they mean.  I never attacked you directly I attacked your source and I am going to tell you all the other sources you just spouted are 10X more bias.  So once again, enjoy your life of ignorance.

>>12

So we're only allowed to use fallacies when we can back them up? Hm... Sounds like this thread needs a trip back to the vocabulary book.

Anyway, besides trying to establish superiority, you completely ignored the actual subject of this thread. Doesn't it bother you that all of the major news networks are more concerned about entertaining the viewer than informing them?

>>12
Fox News is about one millimeter to the right of the Jew York Times, if that.  Quit your bitching.  When even the kooky far-left fringe element that is American jewtube nooz sees it, it's time to take the blinders off.

>>13
>>So we're only allowed to use fallacies when we can back them up?
Yes
>>Hm... Sounds like this thread needs a trip back to the vocabulary book.
Yes you do.
>>Doesn't it bother you that all of the major news networks are more concerned about entertaining the viewer than informing them?
No because just watching the news will not give you a percent of what is going on.  Not to mention most news sources period try to entertain.  So read a lot, find the pattern and you might find the story.

>>12
>Please don't use fallacies when you have no idea what the fuck they mean.
>I attacked your source
An ad-hominem IS by definition the attacking of a source's bias to debase an argument you fucking idiot. Next time you comment please look up the definition of what fallacy you're trying to pull, and remember to read the whole damn thing lest you look like a jackass.
>all the other sources you just spouted are 10X more bias
>LOL HAI I'M GONNA SPOUT 'NOTHER ONE DEM AD-HOMINEM CIRCUMSTANTIALS KTHXBAI

Also, your ridicule of bias is laughable. You act as if there exist a source that DOES NOT have a bias which you use to hold above any other source mentioned here. Every book, every article, every television show, every movie, and every person has a bias, it's just that in some instances it's more apparent or hidden.

>>15
Wow, how mature of you. Saying you need to back up a fallacy is literally saying you need to strive to back up an argument that is logically unsound, which is borderline retarded. Based on your bluntness in the answers, it's very apparent that you're trying to elevate yourself by establishing rules that, are frankly, stupid in a pathetic attempt to regain footing in an argument you're losing.