I was referring to the headline itself.
It seemed to be inferring that if only they had a wee bit more time... seeing as you were all about how things were being phrased.
That is how I took it at first but then was actually somewhat miffed they didn't fulfill my bias against them in the actual article.
I read into it what I was used to seeing on there.
I could have deleted it but I let it stand as an exercise in how the mind sees what it wants or is expecting to.
As for the decision on Acosta.
I saw that early this morning.
It was of course covered by Fox as well.

WTF are you talking about?
The CNN article was totally unbiased, simply explaining why some counties missed their deadlines for recounts by 2 minutes (inexperience and ignorance of the process) and so didn't have their recounts count, and why another (properly) invalidated it's own recount because their machines kept breaking and they couldn't verify their own results.
I also don't get what you're saying about their title. Not a bit. Where's the bias there? What?! No recount counts, they're doing them all over....by hand.

Where's the excusing law bending, like the Republican who unapologetically broke state law to allow email and fax voting, but Fox reported that type of voting isn't"normally allowed" not "is specifically forbidden by state law"? Notice any patterns yet?

I just don't see what you're talking about at all.

I've been clear, Fox doesn't have a monopoly on bias, but they are the clear master of the field and are also the most willing to make up their own facts, as they've been caught doing thousands of times.
If CNN has a bias rating of 4/10, Fox is closer to 9/10. If Fox has an honesty rating of 4/10, CNN is closer to 8-9/10. That's what I've been saying all along. They aren't equivalent.

Side note-A federal judge reinstated Acosta's press pass today.

I would disagree on your description of the news media as it stands today.
I refuse to call it unbiased when I see an agenda,
an obvious agenda to discredit Trump at most anything he does.
CNN isn't the only trashy one.
I stick Fox in there as well but both have moments of clarity when they do simply report the news without adding their own bias to it or even editing out certain parts to make it look worse.
As an example I used to hate that Gutfield character on Fox News but anymore I find I agree with him on the insanity going on.
He has made several jabs at Trump as well.
How can you not call CNN fake news when the majority of their programming is all about Trump in a negative light?
The day of the mass shooting of Jews CNN said one minute they needed to try to cool things off with Trump etc and the next I knew they were right back bashing him.
I'd say about half an hour tops they held off the bashing.
If you are insanely jealous of Trumps winning ways than I can see how you may think CNN is legit.
Acosta wasn't even close to being civil.
Watch the original clip again and see how long he grandstanded for.
He does this far too often.
If you are that dense you need Jim Acosta to harass the President to show you what's up then I feel bad for you.
He could be much more effective if he was more professional and probably a much greater thorn in Trumps side.

Did she really need to ask him "See what you're missin' out on?"

Yes. He's so incomplete.

No, I take the DOJ's word, and a court ruling.

You take the word of the accused and steadfastly refuse to investigate or believe any other contradictory source.

Everything you said is actually, factually wrong, which you would see if you looked at official sources and not Limbaugh and Breitbart, both of which are proven propaganda and totally untrustworthy.
Yes, right, IF any of that were at all true, there wouldn't have ever been a special council....but there still is, because it's simply not true. The investigation predates the dossier.
Of course, I know you won't look into it. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

No point you posting links, you linked to a virus host before, I'll never click your links again.

I see what you did there. Funny.

#notallfoxes

I see what you did there....

Ah, I see what you did there. Nice.

"Once you see it you can't unsee it."

See, if you wanted to take a square right at 50ish mph you really shouldn't have nicked a Jeep.

Good fortune they hit that pole and not people.

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

oi yeah i made a trippy edit explaining what you think on acid, have a look see if you feel the same

"Just what you don't want to see behind you"?

Your wife with a strap-on.

I don't really see why you need a floating floob when you already have an adjustable grodus. I'll stick with my regular old Plumbus.

Also, I finally found the manual