Quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
I fail to see the problem. The issue blurbs seem to be taken directly from from quotes from the candidates, so if the slant appears "negative" or "positive" it's the candidates fault for framing the issue that way, not the website.
|
So you don't believe that the human who SELECTED what blurbs to use had any bias or agenda at all? lol Uh-huh. Man, "Intellectual Honesty R Us" this ain't.
[/QUOTE]What proof do you have of an agenda? What proof of bias? Show me the money ( your subjective opinion doesnt count as hard proof either) and spare us all the lame old 'intellectual honesty attack', it's
almost as weak a cop out as whining about a phantom "liberal conspiracy." and providing nothing to back up such claims.
I see a fully referenced site with links to full quotes to support the blurbs provided and equal time given to each and every candidate.
We all know politicians repeat themselves and "stay on message" so I restate:
Any negative connations on that site are in the candidates own words, and probably have been repeated over and over again by the candidate.
Besides, Bush doesnt need any lefties help to damn him with his own words. He does that quite well on his own. [img]tongue.gif[/img]