Worldnet Daily, isn't that the internet version of the National Equirer

Over the years I've been on-line, I've always found it amazing myself. All some care about is that something echos their sentiments, rather then researching the source itself before linking to it as 'news'.

And what's further humoring, is that when you point out to them that it's only a spoof, they then start complaining that you're complaining about the source rather then paying attention to what the source said?

Some people just don't get that whole 'unbiased and crediable resources' thought. They actually believe (and want others to believe) that linking up to a blog (opinion source) or spoof site is being responsible in 'proving thier points'.

Personally, if I'm given a link to something, the first place I go is to their 'about us' section. And if that part of their site shows any biasness, states that thier only an opinion source, or it's a parody link...I don't care what the content of it says, because it's not a crediable or unbiased source in the first place. I'll view it then in the context it's ment to be...Not to be taken seriously and only an opinion.

And you know what they say about opinions, right? LOL!!!

I would say it is a radical far right wing spin site but I don't even want to give them that much credibility. WND is the most biased and blatantly dishonest news site on the net (of those that actually claim to be real news).

Some of their articles are as outlandish as ones you find in The Onion...except not funny.

But, if the administration really did do what he claims, where's the beef with him publically fighting back?

because he didn't say it AS A REPORT!!!...

If it really was true, he'd be doing his job and saying it ON THE AIR AS FACT...

He didn't...

He said it at a party in front of politicians and former federal officials and colleagues...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Then what's the big issue? If he didn't report it and just said it at a social gathering, off the record and not within the context of him being a journalist, then what's the big deal? :

At issue (as per the original post) is that this is the same guy given the greenlight to moderate a GOP debate...

Now imagine this...

"We're here at the Gay Debate...here's your moderator....Jerry Falwell."...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

If he moderated the debate without letting his PERSONAL feelings get involved, I suppose I couldn't really complain.

And exactly what would you discuss at the Gay Debate?

But instead of being skeptical and wondering if that would happen, don't you think MSNBC could've just said "Why don't we get someone in our staff that we KNOW won't do that BECAUSE he doesn't have feelings against the party he has to moderate?"

That would be alot easier dontchya think?...

I don't know...for the sake of argument, let's just say they were nominees to be the next president of the LGBT...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

You think like a straight man.

The obvious pressing issue that is the hot topic this year for the LGBT Community:
Curtains?
or Drapes?


(And I'll admit in advance I think I just stole somebody else's joke...