>>>My response to Kevin's was only in regard to his comment about the treatment of James Rosen, and the response in the media to that. (Message #1648364)
>I don't know what you're implying. Please post links or citations.
>
>Oh, please.
>
>In this thread:
>
>SS>>I see a link to media coverage of the sordid history of desecration, in the same article that you referenced.... I would call this "real NOT news".
>
>JR>Yes, but where did the fawning MSM connect the desecration to Obama's taking office?
>
>SS>>Is that a bait question, or are you and I implying the same thing here?
>SS>>If I have to speculate, I'd say that Obama has not used that kind of rhetoric so it would be more difficult to invoke outrage based on what he has not done.
>
>Clearly you're responding to Kevin's issue re linking Trump to desecration but not Obama. Your explanation refers to "that kind of rhetoric" which is nonsense unless Trump did use "that kind of rhetoric" to explain the different treatment.
>
>This is your own point. Now you deny it and even try to say you were only responding about James Rosen.

I see, it is about my reply to the issue you raised, not to Kevin's post as you stated before.
I was not linking Trump to desecration; you were when you shifted the focus to it (hence my reply to you about the bait question). I did not make a link to Trump until you came up with it, nor do I think that such a link is justified in this case. My contribution to this thread has been about perceived media hypocrisy not in uproar when allegedly similar acts happened during Obama's term. Do you imply that I consider such an uproar justified today? I already made it clear that outrage is not what I consider news, and my point is that when you're seeking outrage you'll miss the real news.
*
> As I said, no interest in a Mad Hatter's tea party.

OK, next time perhaps we should talk about facts rather than opinion, and I'll try to come up with comments more exciting than the answers to "Where was the media outrage when Obama was in office?"
*