CNN defends Palin from false rumors

Facts

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Palin

[COMALiteJ]

Even then, there is the small matter of breaking up the train of thought. I often post my responses as I think of them, while taking brief breaks from work and such. If I have to wait until the post appears, it may take me awhile to remember what I was going to say.

I suppose I COULD type it all up in NotePad or whatever ahead of time, then post it one 500-character chunk at a time. But in my experience, people start responding to the partial post before the completion is posted.

[COMALiteJ]

In that situation, sure, some police would be truly honest and ethical, and only nail people who were driving too fast for the traffic conditions at the time. But others who were less ethical might let their personal feelings and biases interfere. "That car is foreign-made." "That driver is black." "I don't like the message / political candidate / whatever on that bumper sticker." Etc.

How could the person who gets the speeding ticket tell the difference between the just and unjust cops?

[CRoadwarrior]

comalitej...I understand what you said, but it is still not a valid argument. Most people either just but an abbreviation like "con't" or "part 1" etc. and go about their business. This is not rocket science. You seem somewhat intelligent so I'm sure you'll figure it out.

[COMALiteJ]

`I was thinking of setting a post number limit, but that is what would be truly unjust. I gauge things pretty much on an individual basis according to the situation instead of a rigid post limit system."

Okay, but do understand that that gives you an unfair advantage, since YOU get to decide how many is "too many," without us even knowing what the criteria are.

If the police could nail you for speeding with no Speed Limit signs, nor default speed limit, on their own whim: just or unjust?

[COMALiteJ]

`I've been doing text comments on YT for a while now, and I know that you do not have to "see" your own posts in order to make multiple part posts.'

Read what I posted: I didn't SAY that. I said that you have to do so IF YOU WANT THEM TO APPEAR IN THE RIGHT ORDER. If you just post then all as Replies to the other person's post that you're Replying to, then they appear in REVERSE order, or sometimes even a seemingly RANDOM order.

Try it yourself if you don't believe me.

[CRoadwarrior]

comalitej...I've been doing text comments on YT for a while now, and I know that you do not have to "see" your own posts in order to make multiple part posts. I have very valid reasons for the few rules that I do have, and I stand by them. I was thinking of setting a post number limit, but that is what would be truly unjust. I gauge things pretty much on an individual basis according to the situation instead of a rigid post limit system.

[COMALiteJ]

Videos of that are available right here on YouTube, recorded directly from a real TV screen with a continuously moving camcorder and thus virtually impossible to fake.

Now, doing that ONCE could be an understandable mistake. Twice, MAYbe. THREE TIMES!? ESPECIALLY •AFTER• being taken to task for the first time VERY publicly by John Stewart on "The Daily Show"!? Not bloody likely.

Much more serious, though, is the testimony of former Fox News employees on what they were ordered to do.

[COMALiteJ]

Fox is very biased. Compared to world media, all of American media is biased to the right, even the likes of CNN and MSNBC. But Fox is far more right-biased than they, of course, making them look "left-biased" by comparison.

Fox has been proven to have engaged in deliberate manipulations of facts designed to mislead, if not outright lie.

For instance, THRICE they put "(D-FL)" (DEMOCRAT from FLorida) after REPUBLICAN Congressman Mark Foley's name in the open text captions during his scandal.

[COMALiteJ]

After all, I can't post Part 2 (let alone 3+) of a post, in which I provide evidence to back up an assertion made in Part 1, until I SEE Part 1 and can Reply to it! Yet, if you just see Part 1, you can reasonably conclude that I posted an unsupported assertion, a violation of Rule #2!

You can view any of my posts here on any of a wide variety of subjects and see that I do indeed post in this manner.

Oh, for the record, my use of UPPERCASE is simply in lieu of italics/boldface, for emphasis.

[COMALiteJ]

Why? By posting all subsequent parts of a multi-part message as a Reply to the immediately preceeding part, it causes YouTube to indent the messages properly, and cause the LATTER parts of the message to appear AFTER (BELOW) the FORMER parts. In other words, you can read my response in the order intended, as in this very example.

This is IMPOSSIBLE on vids set to Comments Pending Approval, since I cannot see my posts until you approve them. By that time, you may well ban me for Rule #2!