Please what? Are you incapable of answering the question?
Are you incapable of looking it up for yourself?
It's not deflection; it's pointing out your obvious hypocrisy and selective interpretation of events.
What is selective about stating fact? Rather promoted a false story and to this day continues to defend what has been proven to be nothing but a pack of lies. You want to make a valid point, provide some other valid interpretation of the events in question.
Dan Rather's actions are apparently enough for you to paint all liberals as dishonest and willing to lie in order to attack conservatives...
That isn't what I said. Here is what I said:
"I expect much the same here, because as the liberal/progressive crowd has proven over and over and over again, lies told, no matter how gross or pathetic or obvious, only matter when they can be used in an attempt to destroy a conservative Republican."
Bill Clinton lied under oath and the response from the left was to attack Ken Star. Hillary Clinton lied about being under sniper fire and the response from the left was to claim she misremembered followed by attacking her critics. John Kerry lied about his service in Vietnam and the response from the left was to make him Secretary of State. Obama lied repeatedly concerning his health care plan and the response from the left was to call conservatives racist. Al Sharpton has built his career on promoting lies, and the response from the left was to give him a show on MSNBC. But at least he didn't change his name to Carlos Danger.
Williams is just another in a long line of prominent liberals caught with his pants on fire yet is being defended because the agenda must be protected.
However when it comes to lies and how the left reacts to lies on the part of their politicians, candidates, and/or icons, the standard was set with Bill Clinton. You can't run from it, you can't hide from it, the face of liberalism in general was forever established when Clinton shook his finger at the American people and blatantly lied, and the response of the left was to guffaw and snicker and point fingers at everyone else.
...but you conveniently ignore (or worse, believe) all of the inane nonsense that conservatives have thrown at Obama.
Another strawman. Obama has much to be legitimately criticized for, he has done more harm to this country than any foreign nation could short of nuclear Armageddon.
You have no evidence to support your claim I ignore anything.
I'm not defending Rather, but I am objecting to your broad mischaracterizations.
Object all you want, doesn't change a thing.
I didn't post the Media Matters list...
So? You made the same claim concerning Hannity.
If you want to reply to me, reply to what I post, not what someone else has posted.
Hubris.
Yet another examples of Sistrin providing me a basket of links about a subject with which I am intimately familiar.
Really? Couldn't tell that from your comments. Here is what you said:
Hannity is more credible when he's known to lie and distort constantly? Recently he's been spreading the old myth about Global Cooling in the 70s...
The promotion of Global Cooling in the 70's is a matter of fact, not myth. That is what I illustrated by posting the examples I did. I found over 200 articles and papers promoting the doom of the impending Ice Age published during the 1970's, yet employing retconning certain people want to use one photo-shopped cover from Time magazine in an attempt to prove no one ever said anything about it and anyone who brings it up is either an idiot or a liar. But you were wrong with your comment cited above, the issue was widely promoted and discussed by scientist, science writers, and news periodicals of the day.
Then you move the goalpost:
Sorry Sarge, but the myth is that Global Cooling or an impending Ice Age were the scientific consensus of the time.
Yet that is what was promoted.
Geologist Say Winters Getting Colder
"It doesn't look good, not in our lifetime, and its going to be even worse for future generations," said Madeleine Briskin of the University of Cincinnati, who specializes in researching long range whether cycles."
"We're entering a Little Ice Age..."
Source:
Middlesboro Daily News - Google News Archive Search
Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age?
"A group of prominent scientist last month finished a two year study which concludes changes in the earth's climate are inevitable and that mankind must learn to predict these variations."
"The most drastic potential change considered in the report is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet's climate for 10,000 years."
"The panel reported that without doubt, colder climate will come..."
Source:
Reading Eagle - Google News Archive Search
You can blather all you want concerning the sources, it won't change the fact the issue was widely promoted and the stories written were written by science writers based on the data being promoted.
From the Science News Article:
If global temperatures should fall even further, the effects could be considerably more drastic. According to the academy report on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a fulll-blown 10,000-year ice age, a real possibility. Again, this transition would involve only a small change of global temperature-2 or 3 degrees but the impact on civilization would be catastrophic.
Source:
https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/8983
I understand why the issue of the promotion of Global Cooling during the 1970's is so heatedly denied by the AGW doom crowd. However the myth is still the claim that promotion was a myth, or there was no consensus on the matter.
No one denies that the media made a glacier out of an ice cube.
Did the media just make it all up? That your claim? Oh, wait...
A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.
Thanks for supporting my point.
Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed.
Yet within the same article is the admission global cooling and another ice age were being predicted.
The majority of your remaining comments are irrelevant as puerile attempts to demean. You should be able to understand that including a segment of a television show was only done to illustrate the notion was promoted on television, not to prove the climate scientist featured were either right or wrong.
Notably nobody has answered the question about what the reaction would be if Sean Hannity had told a phony story about being shot down.
That isn't true. I have discussed that. Additionally we all know how the left in general would react if Hannity told such a bold faced lie. They would demand he be removed from the airways, his sponsors would be targeted, and the story would be front and center for weeks.
