Creepy Love Child Story

[Coito ergo sum]

It's less of a story when a Democrat is involved in a sex scandal, as it isn't the Democrats, by and large, that are trying to foist their sexual "morality" on everyone else through force of law.

That's true, and reasonable. But, it wasn't the point of the OP, and also not the point of a failure to identify a person as a Democrat. Whether it is a "bigger deal" doesn't mean that it makes sense to all of a sudden just say "Rep. John Smith was engaged in a sex scandal" rather than "Rep. John Smith (D. NY) was engaged in a sex scandal."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What you did was repeat an urban legend.

[Coito ergo sum]

What you did was repeat an urban legend.

I wasn't aware it was a legend, urban or otherwise. It is my experience. Keep an eye out for it. I'm not suggesting there is settled evidence for it. I'm saying that I noticed in this article they did not identify the Democrat. I had to go hunt for it. I've had to do that many times over the years. I don't notice any need to do that with mainstream news articles when it is a Republican.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What you did was repeat an urban legend.

I wasn't aware it was a legend, urban or otherwise. It is my experience. Keep an eye out for it. I'm not suggesting there is settled evidence for it. I'm saying that I noticed in this article they did not identify the Democrat. I had to go hunt for it. I've had to do that many times over the years. I don't notice any need to do that with mainstream news articles when it is a Republican.

Your experience is conditioned by your viewpoints, of course, so you see things from that angle, and you see things that aren't there quite often based on your posting here.

[Coito ergo sum]

What you did was repeat an urban legend.

I wasn't aware it was a legend, urban or otherwise. It is my experience. Keep an eye out for it. I'm not suggesting there is settled evidence for it. I'm saying that I noticed in this article they did not identify the Democrat. I had to go hunt for it. I've had to do that many times over the years. I don't notice any need to do that with mainstream news articles when it is a Republican.

Your experience is conditioned by your viewpoints, of course, so you see things from that angle, and you see things that aren't there quite often based on your posting here.

Everyone, to some degree, faces that. If my viewpoints are invalidated by that, then so are yours and everyone else's and there is no point in discussing anything.

The last thing about seeing things that aren't there is bollocks. But, whatever, you spout bollocks a lot, based on your postings here.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I forget that it's a waste of time talking at you. I'm going to go shoot slugs.

[Robert_S]

Two examples are not really enough to establish a trend. Surely on a site that wants to "expose liberal media" they'd have an aggregated list.

It's something I've noticed over time -- like the last 10 to 15 years. I haven't kept a file on it. And, it wasn't really the topic of the thread.

I've noticed that very often there is a failure to identify a Congressman as a Democrat when the article is unflattering. It's not something I'm just noticing now, it's something I've seen for a long time.

I could be wrong, of course, as I don't have the overarching stats on it.

Also, you asked about "some" evidence. I provided "some" evidence. I did not provide a damning statistical study of many years of newspaper reports setting forth the number as a whole.

Meh, you sound like a Skepchick talking about convention harassment here.

So, I'll keep an open mind to the possibility that there could be some truth to what you're saying, but I think you're looking for it so hard you seeing more of it than what's there.

[Tero]

[LouFCD]

It's less of a story when a Democrat is involved in a sex scandal, as it isn't the Democrats, by and large, that are trying to foist their sexual "morality" on everyone else through force of law.

That's true, and reasonable. But, it wasn't the point of the OP, and also not the point of a failure to identify a person as a Democrat. Whether it is a "bigger deal" doesn't mean that it makes sense to all of a sudden just say "Rep. John Smith was engaged in a sex scandal" rather than "Rep. John Smith (D. NY) was engaged in a sex scandal."

I think you've missed my point. When a Democrat is involved in a sex scandal, the party affiliation becomes irrelevant to the story (as it should be). Party affiliation is only relevant to a sex scandal story when the party in question is the anti-sex party. (Frankly, I don't give a fuck who a politician is or is not fucking. ...unless that politician is telling me who I am or am not allowed to fuck.)

[Tyrannical]

President Grover Cleveland.........

A longtime close friend of Oscar Folsom, Grover Cleveland, at age 27, met his future wife shortly after she was born. He took an avuncular interest in the child, buying her a baby carriage and otherwise doting on her as she grew up. When her father, Oscar Folsom, died in a carriage accident on July 23, 1875, without having written a will, the court appointed Cleveland administrator of his estate.[2] This brought Cleveland into still more contact with Frances, then age 11. Sometime while she was in college, Cleveland's feelings for her took a romantic turn. He proposed by letter in August 1885, soon after her graduation.

They did live happily ever after though.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think you've missed my point. When a Democrat is involved in a sex scandal, the party affiliation becomes irrelevant to the story (as it should be). Party affiliation is only relevant to a sex scandal story when the party in question is the anti-sex party. (Frankly, I don't give a fuck who a politician is or is not fucking. ...unless that politician is telling me who I am or am not allowed to fuck.)

Who the fuck are you to say who you can and cannot fuck?