More EXAMPLES of Liberal LIES in the media

[GeoFisher]

You'd think by the headline that they wanted to SKIN Rick Santorum. After watching the ENTIRE video, there is nothing of the such. Very few.....booed.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...r-gay-marriage

The HEADLINE makes you think Santorum was booed off the stage. THAT was not the case.

Watch it, respond.

Later,

Geo

[vetbass]

You'd think by the headline that they wanted to SKIN Rick Santorum. After watching the ENTIRE video, there is nothing of the such. Very few.....booed.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...r-gay-marriage

The HEADLINE makes you think Santorum was booed off the stage. THAT was not the case.

Watch it, respond.

Later,

Geo

the only inaccurate headline i see here is "More examples of liberal lies in the media"--yes of course both liberal and conservative media are gonna spin things in their favor that sort of thing happens a thousand times everyday--however this particular headline is accurate

"Rick Santorum booed in contentious gay marriage exchange"

-Rick Santorum is in fact the speaker on the stage
-Rick Santorum was in fact booed at the end of this video--the headline says nothing about how he was booed or how many booed it only says he was booed which is correct
-The exchange was contentious--by definition contentious means likely to cause an argument or controversial which gay marriage is certainly a subject that has very passionate views on both sides and can be very controversial
-and the exchange between Santorum and the students was about gay marriage

the headline states what happened nothing more nothing less

If Santorum had been booed off the stage i suspect the headline would have read "Rick Santorum booed off stage over contentious gay marriage exchange"

[GeoFisher]

Rick Santorum left the stage of a town-hall meeting to a chorus of boos Thursday after getting into a contentious debate over gay marriage with an audience comprised of mostly young people.

Hardly a Chorus.........

[jcb]

Wasn't a lie, but it was definitely spin. I heard two people booing, so he was booed.

But the real story of that exchange was how he totally owned the young lady who was trying to defend gay marriage. She looked like a deer in the headlights and had no defense for Santorum's logical argument.

[Chubminnow]

Call me a dumb ass...but I never heard of Rick Santorum until here just recently (the past few weeks). Other than his stance of being against gay marriage, what other positives does he have going for him?

Here's how the field shook out in the Iowa caucas;

Mitt Romney 30,015 24.6%
Rick Santorum 30,007 24.5%
Ron Paul 26,219 21.4%
Newt Gingrich 16,251 13.3%
Rick Perry 12,604 10.3%

Our buddy Newt didn't fair to well. What I've heard is Romney spent 2M on his campaign while Santorum only spent 30K.

P.S. - I heard the boo's in the crowd...I also heard one young man hollering out something while Rick was signing the banner behind him but I couldn't make out what the young man was saying.

[jcb]

Don't read too much into who finished where in Iowa. Remember, Mike Huckabee won it last time the Republicans were out there.

Santorum's finish in Iowa was due to one thing and one thing only--he got the official endorsement from evangelical groups and leaders. He will be a non-factor from here on out.

Barring an implosion or some sort of personal revelation, Romney is the GOP nominee. Done deal. Not my first choice, but probably the safest pick to unseat Obama. One thing for sure, the liberal media will have a hard time pinning the label "right wing wacko" to his chest.

[DJD]

What I heard was a good lesson in marriage between a man and woman. I personally don't believe in gay marriage because it does open the door to many other possible unions like he mentioned. He Harped on this more than one partner thing didn't he?? Sounds like a jab at Romney. He knows Romney is his target and to get closer he will have to try and put doubt and thought into voters minds....maybe make them question Mitts personal beliefs about polygamy??
The boos are acceptable and expected on this topic but I maintain that if you allow gay marriages/unions for the sake of benefits then you have to allow boyfriend/girlfriend unions without the marriage to be just as acceptable. Also like Rick said you have to allow multiple partner marriages to receive the same benefits.
Once you open the door on anything is acceptable where do you stop? Are we going to be hearing about unions between cousins and family members next? I mean this stupid free love, if it makes you feel good, it's my life attitude can be taken to so many levels.
Was it UK or UL that addressed this last year or the year before? I don't remember for sure...

[RoadToad]

Of course MSNBC put a liberal spin on the story. What else would you expect? And of course Geo got his panties all in a wad when they did. What else would you expect? And of course that bastion of "fair & balanced" coverage, Fox News, tried to spin it the opposite way. The excerpt they show doesn't even include the boos:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/06...-gay-marriage/

What else would you expect?

Personally, I think the argument that allowing gays to marry would open the door to polygamy is ludicrous. His little "gotcha" about if you say that anybody can marry anybody else, you're saying that anybody can marry several people, just doesn't follow. After all, it's already true that any man can marry any woman, so by his logic, polygamy already IS okay, just among heterosexuals.

[GeoFisher]

Of course MSNBC put a liberal spin on the story. What else would you expect? And of course Geo got his panties all in a wad when they did. What else would you expect? And of course that bastion of "fair & balanced" coverage, Fox News, tried to spin it the opposite way. The excerpt they show doesn't even include the boos:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/06...-gay-marriage/

What else would you expect?

Personally, I think the argument that allowing gays to marry would open the door to polygamy is ludicrous. His little "gotcha" about if you say that anybody can marry anybody else, you're saying that anybody can marry several people, just doesn't follow. After all, it's already true that any man can marry any woman, so by his logic, polygamy already IS okay, just among heterosexuals.

Hey, what can I say......

I'm hoping all this works out, because there are some very strange relationships in KY that will finally be Legal

[jcb]

Personally, I think the argument that allowing gays to marry would open the door to polygamy is ludicrous. His little "gotcha" about if you say that anybody can marry anybody else, you're saying that anybody can marry several people, just doesn't follow. After all, it's already true that any man can marry any woman, so by his logic, polygamy already IS okay, just among heterosexuals.

You've misunderstood the point.

Santorum wasn't saying gay marriage would lead to polygamy. His point was that, regarding the institution of marriage, if we say we cannot "discriminate" based on gender, how can we justify "discrimination" based on number?

It's not a gotcha at all, it simply forces gay marriage advocates to admit what they don't want to admit: at some point, society has to draw a line and say, this is government-sanctioned marriage and this isn't.

[GeoFisher]

You've misunderstood the point.

Santorum wasn't saying gay marriage would lead to polygamy. His point was that, regarding the institution of marriage, if we say we cannot "discriminate" based on gender, how can we justify "discrimination" based on number?

It's not a gotcha at all, it simply forces gay marriage advocates to admit what they don't want to admit: at some point, society has to draw a line and say, this is government-sanctioned marriage and this isn't.

Ding Ding Ding..........we HAVE a winner..........

Later,

Geo

[RoadToad]

You've misunderstood the point.

Santorum wasn't saying gay marriage would lead to polygamy. His point was that, regarding the institution of marriage, if we say we cannot "discriminate" based on gender, how can we justify "discrimination" based on number

You could make the same argument about interracial marriage, which used to be illegal. If you cannot discriminate based on race, how can you discriminate based on number? I'm sorry, the logic just isn't there. Those who are seeking the right to marry are obviously interested in monogamy, so how does it follow that if you allow them to marry, you then have to allow polygamy? Spell that out for me, if you can.

It's not a gotcha at all, it simply forces gay marriage advocates to admit what they don't want to admit: at some point, society has to draw a line and say, this is government-sanctioned marriage and this isn't.

Nobody is disputing that there has to be a line. All we are saying is that the line is currently drawn in the wrong place, and should be re-drawn. Those things happen as we as a society evolve. And I still maintain that trying to link gay marriage and polygamy amounts to create a false issue where none exists.