They are the exception, the rest were correct.

They accounted for it, which is what a good study does.

Actually they did do that. Close means they were still identified as conservative. And there are many liberals, as this forum shows, who can understand the 2nd amendment.

The numbers are correct, prove differently. The left wing hack website you cited provided no evidence otherwise. Eisner doesn't write the stories, the liberal journalists who work for him do. That's assuming Eisner is Republican since you failed to prove that. Disney as a corporation gives almost equally to both parties. And Eisner himself has given to both including Ed Markey, Rahm Emanuel, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, and a PAC called
PAC to the Future (which received 100% of its funding from Democrats, guess what that makes Eisner?). Along with a host of other liberals.
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...txtName=Disney

Big government liberals. Liberals can be totalitarian too.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

I was referring to the historian who did the piece about Roosevelt. He was the one that stated Truman was a moderate. And you have the gall to say I couldn't even show one crumb that he wasn't liberal. I just did from your own source. Even Doug Brin drew comparisons between Ford and http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...er&match=exact
No I was first talking about Clinton not being a liberal because he dropped bombs on Sudan, Iraq and other places thus saying liberals don't drop bombs. Instead of you arguing my first point you went back to WW2 Presidents. Democrat does not equal liberal. Not in my book. Also the American version of liberal is very skewed when compared to the rest of the world. Look at how many people were calling John Kerry the most far left democratic candidate.
Yes you do since the whole argument that the term was hardly ever used before a certain time then you need to show citations from those times.
You did not show one in every one of them. I also didn't say the term was never used. I said I never heard it being used. My exact quote was :
You pulled up the term once. I'm sure if one dug really deep they would find the term used a couple more times but it certainly wasn't used enough to be noticed.
Your original quote was "Kronkite stated the media is liberal". Kronkite said no such thing.
No, because you use the post to back your claims to the study. You can't have both.
.But there is more than one instance.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

You didn't provide a crumb. Doug Brin? Sorry some guy no one has heard of doesn't count. Historians refer to them as liberal.

Like I said, your error riddled definition of liberal and conservative. Clinton, FDR and Truman dropping bombs obviously proves you can do that and be liberal. Since history shows them as liberal. Who says the rest of the world has the right definition of liberal and conservative? It's all subjective and since this is the US and we are discussing a liberal US media then the US definition is the applicable one, not the rest of the world's.

I showed it. The creators of Media Matters themselves said they created the organization in 1987 to fight a liberal media. The only alternative is they were lying. You have not proven that.

No I pulled it up in every one of them. You just don't like the source. You never heard it? My contention was you needed to get out more if that was the case. I proved that when asked, it's been a common term for at least two decades. Here are more sources, books all written before 1999. In 1986 this one was used by conservatives to prove a liberal bias. http://media.eriposte.com/2-2.htm Here is another written in 1971 http://media.eriposte.com/2.htm Another written in 1996 http://media.eriposte.com/2-6.htm Another from 1996 http://media.eriposte.com/2-8.htm Another from 1994 Amazon.com: How to Identify, Expose and Correct...
And a host of others.

Yeah he said it leans liberal, splitting hairs.

I've seen one instance where they wrong. The majority were correct. And they are seperate.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.