So, if that search is representing a "fact" then "success" searched on google should lead us to... the expert at pissing off all liberals? Sounds like the same results should apply to me.

 

I suppose you can, but then your definitions would be incorrect. Bias and propaganda are already defined. I don't change the definition of words to support my arguments. That would show weakness, deceit, and condescending behavior.

Bias is a personal preference or opinion that is not based on sound reasoning. Bias is prejudice.

Propaganda is the spreading of false information or rumor for the purpose of injuring or promoting something or someone. Propaganda is lying.

Prejudice and lying are not interchangeable words, so neither are bias and propaganda.

I think I could live with this definition, although I would clean it up a bunch. However, for this person to know which facts are biased (using your example) he would need to do some reasoning of those facts--or have done some reasoning. So, it wouldn't be bias if his opinion is based on sound reasoning of facts on both sides of the issue. Rejecting "facts" that don't fit doesn't necessarily show bias. Often it is sound reasoning. In other words, it may be the person offering the other "facts" that is biased.

You're incorrect on this one. One doesn't have to list a litany of all known facts to support every opinion one forms. It's certainly not propaganda to do so. It's not lying to omit a supporting fact. Propaganda is misrepresenting a known fact or creating a "fact"--or, as I said, it's lying.

Yeah, I agree, so don't do this.

 

Well. I still insist, that each definition is formed by each person.
Remember the false story about Saddam buying nuclear material the President was spreading in his speeches?
Have you heard about it ever called propaganda, or lie?



It is good to be a king.

 

Close your eyes and keep thinking that real hard and someday it may come true.

It's truly interesting how "facts" change over time. Bush based those speeches on infomation culled from intelligence sources from the US and other countries, such as France and Germany--who are two of our lost "allies." He doesn't make these claims anymore because he now knows they aren't true and that he was misled. A US president can't put on a pair of dark spy sunglasses and go collecting intelligence on foreign leaders himself or confirm on his own intelligence that he is given. Did you conveniently forget this and alter history to support your argument? Did you forget what you just said a few minutes ago? Here, I'll quote you again...

You said it, not me.

You're not a king.

 

Wasn't that agent in England, that committed suicide because of the incident?
You keep twisting the subject. I found perfect example to YOUR definition of propaganda, or lie and you backtracked your own definition.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
Or maybe you don't want to confuse it with the facts?
Dowload iespell.com. You can use it.

 

I don't know about an agent in England or an "incident."

No, I didn't and neither did you. That is not an example of propaganda or a lie. When you pay someone to gather information for you and they do it in good faith, and you accept intelligence from your allies, it's not lying or spreading propaganda if you believe it to be true and you share it. Bush stopped sharing it when he found out it wasn't true. Spreading propaganda or lying are both deliberate acts.

Why do I always have to explain everything to you two or three or four times? Even then you still have problems understanding. Are you really that dense or are you just pretending to be dumber than a brick? What did it take you, 8 or 9 years to finish a 2-year course in college?

The definitions I gave you are close to the actual definitions. Look up the words in a dictionary. That's where we keep definitions of words. I don't make up definitions like you "insist" on doing.

I don't need a spell checker anywhere near as badly as you need a grammar checker to use along with the spell checker you already use. You still misspell words using a spell checker. How clever is that? You're going to make me choke laughing if you claim to be a better speller than I am.

 

Sounds like you are confusing yourself Lugnut.
Your definition says nothing about paying and gathering information as well as the other BS you are making to cover up your screw up.
BTW. Wasn't it already proved, that President knew the information wasn't correct before using it for the first time?

 

Geez. You're a sorry excuse for a piece of meat.

It doesn't have to. You're getting stuck on irrelevant details again because you don't understand the gist of the conversation.

No, it wasn't. That's the problem with ****heads like you that keep spreading propaganda and lies.

 

Off-course now you'll say, that Правдa is not reliable source and you'll make whole circle with your logic.
Keep on chasing your tail and have fun.

 

I won't say that Правдa is an unreliable source because I'm unfamiliar with it, but I Googled the author's name, Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, of the article you quoted. I got several hits linking to biased articles written by this clown. He's a Bush Basher. Not only that, but he's a conspiracy theorist. Do you expect me to believe something about Bush written by a Bush Basher who's a conspiracy theorist? I'm not as gullible as you are. If you spent two seconds checking him out then you'd know this as well. He also writes like a high school reporter. I told you not to believe everything you read in a newspaper as is. You're so easily led and so easily misled. The only job he could get in the US is with The National Enquirer or other tabloid paper, or maybe the New York Times.

See, this is the problem I have with you. As I said before, you read one-sided (biased) articles and claim them to be the end all of facts on a subject. Then you play dumb and all you are willing to discuss are irrelevant details and nobody gets anywhere. Is this some Polack "intellectual puzzle" from the old country? You are an idiot and it shows brightly. If the **** stinks, it's ****. Smell the ****. No, not your wife this time.

The Democrats in the US Congress don't even know what some biased Polack Bush Basher conspiracy theorist reporter gets printed in a paper in some decrepit country the whole world avoids. Ain't that amazing? And Polacks believe the reporter. That doesn't surprise me at all.