I'll take the words, "media bias" as a qualifying liberal bashing statement. Counting the hyphenated word, "fan-club" as a single word, that would put the word count at 38. Not bad, not bad, if I do say so myself. Thanks, Rick!
Ah, how I've missed things like this:
Oh, and thank you Brian, Mr. "journalist" extraordinaire, for being a living, breathing example, with your middle-of-the road common sense, cheery disposition and obviously complete and objective view of the facts, that liberal bias in the press couldn't possibly exist.
So Rick, what mindset should I have as a former "journalist" (I prefer sports guy - I never considered myself a journalist. If I went that route, I'd be dead from stress by now) in regard to what you perceive to be bias? I have a feeling that anything short of unscrewing the top of my skull, removing my brain and setting it in jar on my desk before typing wouldn't suffice to your satisfaction. (Plus, there's that added worry that doing so would leave me in a permanent vegetative state - and knowing that that's the one of the very few circumstances in which your average conservative will take a stand for someone who can't speak for his/herself through poorly-crafted arguments or in exchange for a dumptruck load of swag) - I'll pass.
Is doing what I can to see more than one side of an issue an example of liberal bias? Or is that "thinking"? (MUST...KEEP..THINGS... SIMPLE! Thinking bad! I guess I'm screwed either way). Journalists are supposed to play the role of the devil's advocate, Rick. People in general are supposed to question. I don't consider it inappropriate to call B.S. on any given situation that's wrong, especially when the situation is so obviously wrong that it hurts my brain and my heart to think about. I don't consider it a bad thing to have certain expectations of people, whether it's a friend, a family member, person with whom I debate, or an elected official. Going through life without blinders and having what you'd call the audacity to question things when those expectations aren't met isn't having a bias. It's called being rational and responsible. Or, to simplify things, it's called having a brain and possessing the sense, decency and respect (should be differing enough terms) to use it. Considering yourself "liberal" or "conservative" should have nothing to do with your ability and willingness to think for yourself. Unfortunately, that's most often the case.
Squander your intellect if you like, but I refuse to lobotomize myself and renounce the reality-based world. I don't take what W attempts to say for himself - or through Scott McClellan (there's a job - the puppet of a puppet. At least Fleischer could think on the fly) - as the unmitigated (set in stone) truth. Doing so would be tragically irresponsible (foolhardy).
The world is big, Rick. There are more than two possibilities in most situations, and the majority of them aren't mutally-exclusive. Recognizing that fact about the world we live in is just the next step in the continuum of realizing that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus aren't real, that "Your check is in the mail" is just a figure of speech and that your parents aren't perfect. Take the next step, Rick. If you're scared to leave the physical boundaries of Custer County, at least do us a favor and try to do so mentally. You can do it.
Which brings us to...
More ends-justifies-the-means journalism. And to think people used to think it was an industry with ethics.
And then Mr. Murdoch got into the business.
Rick, you've reached a nadir (not a big word, but not a common one either - it means low point. I'm having a such a hard time keeping things simple. Dare I tune the television to Fox News so they can report and I can decide? Hmmm...). But in the long history of conservatives not thinking (things through), I guess your statement makes sense. But in only that regard. I'm not even referring to your ethics comment, being as the GOP has long been such a bastion of ethics. Ha! But you want to go Machiavellian with your first point listed above? Do you really? Think it through. Or at least try.
The same could be said for this:
Change the subject.
Not that it's a coherent change. Surprise, surprise.
There you have it, from the conservatives' poster boy, The IWMK. Changing the subject (bait and switch) is a bad thing, especially when it's an incoherent change. So, Rick - is the GOP returning any contributions you've made over the years (not bloody likely - it goes against the party charter) and asking that you return your membeship card? You've finally said something that runs counter to the party line. In a way, I am very proud of you! Had you not stumbled across it accidentally, I'd be even more pleased. But I'll take what I can get, I suppose.