Originally posted by sasquatch672
Did I miss your post where you expressed your dissatisfaction with the liberal media's efforts - and those efforts can only be described as heroic - to cast this case in racial overtones? Did I miss the post where you criticized the liberal media's use of Trayvon Martin's baby pictures? Or the one where you expressed wonder at the liberal media's crea liberal media bias? There is none. Liberal slants are ok because you agree with them.

Blah, blah, blah.

Except for NBC's screwup, the media coverage has been quite balanced in this case. And about half of Hispanics identity themselves as "White" on the census forms; Hispanic is not a "race" no matter how many dumb right wingers keep saying it is.

BTW, I see you are trying to change the subject. Are you ever embarrassed when you start a thread with an outlandish, inflammatory charge and the facts show that the claim is complete BS?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Blah, blah, blah.

Except for NBC's screwup, the media coverage has been quite balanced in this case. And about half of Hispanics identity themselves as "White" on the census forms; Hispanic is not a "race" no matter how many dumb right wingers keep saying it is.

BTW, I see you are trying to change the subject. Are you ever embarrassed ...[text shortened]... d with an outlandish, inflammatory charge and the facts show that the claim is complete BS?

Yes. You're right. Al Sharpton has been very balanced on MSNBC. He hasn't been racially inflammatory at all, especially when he was screaming at George Zimmerman's lawyer on live television. Or when he organized Trayvon Martin rallies and then covered those rallies on his show.

So - you found an article in a liberal slanted newspaper that supported a liberal Justice Department. The digging you must have had to do...such toil.

To answer your question, I present the other side. Whatever happened that night, the liberal media has been the entity inflaming racial tensions and trying this case. You're going to accuse lil' ol' me?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Yes. You're right. Al Sharpton has been very balanced on MSNBC. He hasn't been racially inflammatory at all, especially when he was screaming at George Zimmerman's lawyer on live television. Or when he organized Trayvon Martin rallies and then covered those rallies on his show.

So - you found an article in a liberal slanted newspaper that suppo ...[text shortened]... ntity inflaming racial tensions and trying this case. You're going to accuse lil' ol' me?

If you have to make stuff up to present "the other side" of the story, I guess "the other side" isn't doing so well.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Yes. You're right. Al Sharpton has been very balanced on MSNBC. He hasn't been racially inflammatory at all, especially when he was screaming at George Zimmerman's lawyer on live television. Or when he organized Trayvon Martin rallies and then covered those rallies on his show.

So - you found an article in a liberal slanted newspaper that suppo ...[text shortened]... ntity inflaming racial tensions and trying this case. You're going to accuse lil' ol' me?

Right wingers are so full of crap. It's not even worth bothering arguing with someone as close minded as you; if the facts show you are wrong, it's just some "Liberal" conspiracy. You don't even bother to respond to those facts.

Different media figures have presented different viewpoints. That's what the press does. The idea that the media has been "racially inflammatory" as a whole in this case is BS.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you have to make stuff up to present "the other side" of the story, I guess "the other side" isn't doing so well.

Well, when one side presents the the truth, sasquatch presents the other side i.e. lies. That's what "fair and balanced" is all about.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you have to make stuff up to present "the other side" of the story, I guess "the other side" isn't doing so well.

Make stuff up? Is that what you say when people disagree with you, that they've made stuff up? That isn't even intellectually rigorous.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Well, when one side presents the the truth, sasquatch presents the other side i.e. lies. That's what "fair and balanced" is all about.

Mmm, truth. OK. Truth. Are you going to make me talk about the truth the Obama administration rolled out about Benghazi again? (I felt those couple of blood vessels in your left eye burst just now...) Or, should we talk about the truth Eric Holder told Congress about Fast & Furious and then the IRS scandal? Can we talk about the truth Lois Lerner told? How about the truth behind the unprecedented invasion of privacy and Fourth Amendment violations committed by the NSA? How about the truth behind a senior NSA official lying to Congress?

Which truth should we start with?

How about Rachel Maddow's truth the night of the terrorist attack in Benghazi? "Two Hundred Protesters Injured By Tear Gas". How about the truth behind Connie Crowley interrupting a candidate for President during a Presidential debate in order to defend the other candidate? How about the truth that was demanded by legions of liberals everywhere when a prostitute falsely accused members of the Duke University lacrosse team of rape and sexual assault, and the media descended on the story like vultures, trying and convicting innocent men in the press - just like they did with Zimmerman?

You don't know the first thing about truth.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Mmm, truth. OK. Truth. Are you going to make me talk about the truth the Obama administration rolled out about Benghazi again? (I felt those couple of blood vessels in your left eye burst just now...) Or, should we talk about the truth Eric Holder told Congress about Fast & Furious and then the IRS scandal? Can we talk about the truth Lois Lerner press - just like they did with Zimmerman?

You don't know the first thing about truth.

A few days ago in the other thread you were saying Zimmerman was guilty and hoped he got convicted. Did Krauthammer write a column saying the "liberals" were trying to convict an "innocent man" or did you get your right wing talking points from a different source?

Let's start with the OP of the thread in our search for truth. Do you deny that your thread title is false?

EDIT: Sasquatch from the Zimmerman trial thread, p. 33:

Personally, I think George Zimmerman should go to jail. There. That's settled.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Make stuff up? Is that what you say when people disagree with you, that they've made stuff up? That isn't even intellectually rigorous.

No, that's what I say when people make stuff up.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A few days ago in the other thread you were saying Zimmerman was guilty and hoped he got convicted. Did Krauthammer write a column saying the "liberals" were trying to convict an "innocent man" or did you get your right wing talking points from a different source?

Let's start with the OP of the thread in our search for truth. Do you deny th ...[text shortened]... , p. 32:

Personally, I think George Zimmerman should go to jail. There. That's settled.

I did say that. And personally, I still think Zimmerman should go to jail. I'm separating the issue of his pursuit and killing of Martin from the media press coverage, which has been completely freaking disgusting in its slant and efforts to attach every racial argument possible to the case and trial. I don't know why a man of your intelligence isn't able to acknowledge the bias of the liberal media. You're being boring and predictable - in order to argue that your side is right, you can't possibly acknowledge any wrongdoing by your side. The editing of the recording by NBC was so glaring that no one could deny its ethical violations, so I'm not particularly impressed that you too found fault.

To answer your question directly: Yes. I deny that the thread title is false. The article you posted showed that the Justice Department provided support personnel to Trayvon Martin rallies. Your own article says the Justice Department provided support. What am I missing here?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I did say that. And personally, I still think Zimmerman should go to jail. I'm separating the issue of his pursuit and killing of Martin from the media press coverage, which has been completely freaking disgusting in its slant and efforts to attach every racial argument possible to the case and trial. I don't know why a man of your intelligence isn't ...[text shortened]... . Your own article says the Justice Department provided support. What am I missing here?

They provided support for local law enforcement to handle the rallies. That makes the title of the thread false - probably deliberately so. What is a deliberate falsehood called?

The rest is the neverending, tiresome ranting about the so-called liberal media. 😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴

Originally posted by no1marauder
They provided support for local law enforcement to handle the rallies. That makes the title of the thread false - probably deliberately so. What is a deliberate falsehood called?

The rest is the neverending, tiresome ranting about the so-called liberal media. 😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴

What's a deliberate falsehood called? Hmm. Maybe you should ask Susan Rice. Or Lois Lerner. Or Jay Carney. Or Obama Himself. Or Steven Miller. They'd be good places to start.