>Chris,
>
>There is really only one way to respond here.
>
>Are they telling the truth?

No, in the article I pointed out, the author writes:

"The big winner for the Democrats was Hillary. Say what you will about her dishonesty, her unethical behavior, and her illegal activities – have I covered the bases?"

I won't go into her dishonesty and unethical behavior, but her illegal activities? Is this not a nation of laws? And exactly which ones was Hillary convicted of?

So, Doug, the first article I look at has a lie. Not exactly inspiring confidence.

>The fact of the matter Chris is that if they are not then everyone should know about it but when you dismiss them out-of-hand simply on the basis that they are conservative all you really are doing is demonstrating that you put ideology ahead of reason. Not a very compelling argument particularly since you are castigating the 'other guy' for doing the same. <g>

I dismiss them because I looked all through the site and found plenty of Democratic bashing, but no Republican bashing. From looking at this site, you may think the Republicans never do anything wrong. And this just once again proves my theory.

>The funny part about all of this is that mostly what they do is quote liberals and use their own words.

Really? Where are they making fun of Gingrich, or Pat Robertson?

>The fact of the matter is that most of the media IS liberal - and therefore biased. Matt Drudge is more conservative than liberal but he's no Rush. <g>

I still can't search Rush's site. Why don't you conservatives help him out with a web connection app? How freakin' hard can it be? What, he doesn't make enough money? < g >

>Everyone has a bias. There's nothing intrinsically 'wrong' with that at all. Just the hypocrisy of pretending you do not have a bias when you obviously do.

I have heard Dan Rather and the "liberal" media bash Clinton from Jennifer Flowers to dodging the draft to the Lewinsky scandal. I look at the Media Research site and see nothing bashing Gingrich for his unethical behavior. Funny how the "liberal" media still manages to jump all over a liberal, huh?

>I am conservatively biased. Big deal. AM I stating fact? If I am then accept them or, as many do, hide your head in the sand. *shrug* You're the only one (figuratively speaking) who suffers when you turn away from fact and truth.

Yes, facts as stated earlier in this thread that were "heard on the radio". I could have hid my head in the sand, but I didn't. I looked around the Internet, found absolutely nothing, ask the person who posted it, and got the "heard it on the radio". You want to call them facts?

>The real problem here is that there's an obvious double standard being applied. Can't judge too fairly in cases like that can you?

Yes, starting with Media Research.

>And as far as Hillary goes.. She has lied. She has been dishonest and she has IMO done illegal activities. Like not 'fluffing' her billing records in the Castle Grande affair. Like *cough* 'earning' 100,000 from a 1,000 investment in the cattle futures - arguably the most bloody of investing forums. And so forth.

Lovely. Sounds like you held a completely fair and impartial trial, then hung her.

>Well, if you're not going to read what's in front of you I'm sure not going to go to the trouble of compiling something you're not going to read..

I read the article you cited Doug. Anyone else reading this thread can also see it. There are no "numbers". There is an article about Nightline failing to apologize for a story it did back in 1991. If you want to point out an article, that's fine. If you want to point out a study Media Research did, then find it. But please don't refer to one article on one story as supplying "numbers".