I'm not abusing the term, I'm challenging you to think outside of the box. You use the term as cable news pundits have taught you to use it, as an epithet.

Your fragility when it comes to discussing feminism and gender issues reveals an incredible amount of bias on your part, to the point that it takes from the credibility of your arguments.

Is this fair? Is this productive? Should this invalidate or reduce the value of your opinions? Do you like being on the receiving end of this kind of argument that you so passionately defend?

If you don't think language plays a major role in how you think, then I encourage you to read up on the subject.

As a general aside, I don't get the point of accusing something of being 'biased'. Everything written, spoken or otherwise communicated by one or more human beings will have a 'bias' unique to the thoughts and experiences of the individual or group communicating. To take this argument to its logical extreme invalidates any and all human opinion.

"Biased"

"Well your comment is biased"

"Well your comment about my comment is also biased"

"Well you comment about my comment about your..."

....you get the picture.

It's a lazy argument developed by cable news pundits for the purpose of countering complex arguments in 3 syllables. I think we can do better.

"That's just one side of the story." would be great alternative, IMO. Sorry to complain, but I can't stand hearing the cultural influence of FOX news in casual conversation.

If anyone disagrees, I challenge them to write a single sentence free from bias. It's impossible. I hope someone tries.

>> ^volumptuous:

Random Internet commenter calls Rhodes scholar dumb.
Ugh
>> ^VoodooV:
Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.
did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,
One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.
Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.
The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party



Yes, because it's impossible for an educated person to say something dumb and perpetuate a system that continues to divide this nation. While I may agree with Maddow most of the time, she's still a pundit just like the others.

and to @hpqp nah, when you're electing anyone, you have to pick a person because of their character and convictions. If you're just voting on ideas, then you might as well go back to voting parties. Dem and Rep alike both represent an idea. How many people couldn't stand Mitt but voted for him anyway because he was a Rep. How many were disappointed in Obama but voted for him anyway because he was a Dem.

It's a shitty system. If you can't stand Mitt, don't vote for him, if you can't stand Obama, don't vote for him...write someone in. You have more options than just red vs blue.

What I find really grating is not her vitriolic tone (like most of you, this week I enjoy watching republicans acting like douchebags in a sad attempt at hiding their despair).

What I find grating is that the vitriolic, inarticulate parasite is the one being a CNN contributor, taking the job of an actual pundit. Note the word 'inarticulate' here: if you're paid to argue on TV (and regardless of how useful it is) you're expected to do better than throw nothing but invectives for five minutes. If you can't even do that, then please stay at Fox News.

Wow. Schiff is now a political pundit? What's the matter Schiff? You short the Euro at 1.29 and didn't play the fed action? This guy is a perma-bear.

Mitt is a complete buffoon. He's a rich, entitled prick who is parroting exactly what his target audience of millionaires (both actual and imaginary) have been told for years by neocon pundits.

That @bobknight33 agrees with his sentiment is just confirmation of what Santorum has being saying. Smart people just aren't his target audience.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

This is a popular argument among lazy armchair pundits, but it isn't true. With selective editing, you can find similarities between any two people. On the issues this propagandist chose to make his point on, most of it (The bailouts, stimulus, quantitative easing and healthcare) was good policy.
There is much ignorance on what the NDAA actually is. It's a military budget bill. John McCain attached a rider that authorized indefinite detention and it was passed by congress with a veto proof majority. Obama did what he could to get it taken off, but there wasn't much else to be done, aside from defunding the military. It's a game designed to make Obama look bad, and you've fallen for it.
Big downvote for this kind of bullshit propaganda.


You mean down voting bullshit propaganda that doesn't fit in with your narrative. Your upvote record has plenty of bullshit propaganda in it...and so does mine

President George W. Bush also served the United States. Could we not cast aspersions of his work?

If Martin Bashir continues on like this, he's going to find it difficult to find pundits for his show who are willing to withhold their punditry.

This is a popular argument among lazy armchair pundits, but it isn't true. With selective editing, you can find similarities between any two people. On the issues this propagandist chose to make his point on, most of it (The bailouts, stimulus, quantitative easing and healthcare) was good policy.

There is much ignorance on what the NDAA actually is. It's a military budget bill. John McCain attached a rider that authorized indefinite detention and it was passed by congress with a veto proof majority. Obama did what he could to get it taken off, but there wasn't much else to be done, aside from defunding the military. It's a game designed to make Obama look bad, and you've fallen for it.

Big downvote for this kind of bullshit propaganda.

OH dear. Cenk, sweetie, you LITERALLY put words into his mouth and then argued with him.

I can come up with another ending to the aborted (ha!) sentence -- "Fortunately I didn't have to.... shun my relative. Live with the knowledge that an abortion happened in my family. Disinherit my relative. Get the rest of the family to shun that relative. Or... DRIVE HER TO THE ABORTION CLINIC????

Cenk, bad job. Bad job. I know you are a pundit, and the first half of this is better than average for you. Just... bad ending. Intellectually dishonest. And wrong.

I mean really. What if he was willing to drive her to the abortion clinic? Lots of pro-lifers have had abortions, you know.

interests converge; powers emerge; pundits assure; people lack courage.

- a short poem, by me.

Even this vid falls into the unfortunate focus on the "legitimate" part of his comments, in its first alternate apology.

"I said some very insensitive things."

No. YOU BELIEVE NONSENSE CRACKPOT NON-SCIENCE and should not be in charge making legislation.

There is no conspiracy -- it is lazy journalism (it took over 24 hours for the journalists to start quoting real science -- an eternity in a world of instantaneous communication. I have been pretty frustrated at the amount of words spent around the "legitimate rape" while that second part sat there like a giant stinking turd.

Laziness. Lack of critical thinking. Outrage over feelings sells, science doesn't.

Still.

*celebrate the linkage of politicians back to crap science.


>> ^vaire2ube:

Press refocused on how he WORDED the issue, rather than pointing out he believes your body can avoid a rape baby because, very , you know... its what he BELIEVES.
who gave the orders to spin that one... the overlords were watching and mitigated this whole thing with a bunch of bad coverage and pundit spewing... its the next best thing to executing people who dont agree with your opinion.. muddy the swiftboat waters

Press refocused on how he WORDED the issue, rather than pointing out he believes your body can avoid a rape baby because, because, you know... its what he BELIEVES.

who gave the orders to spin that one... the overlords were watching and mitigated this whole thing with a bunch of bad coverage and pundit spewing... its the next best thing to executing people who dont agree with your opinion.. muddy the swiftboat waters

American pundits have been bashing everything Europe does regardless of what the facts are for decades. Why would yet another fact deter them now?

Once again, facts and logic do not work on people who reject facts and logic.

I might disagree with legalizing all drugs too, but de-criminalizing the soft stuff is an obvious first step