itsjoannotjoann wrote:
> It certainly is nice to see that SOME of you can read this post for
> what it is. The biased reporting of our fine, wonderful, and most of
> all truthful news networks. As far they were concerned Mississippi and
> Alabama are somewhere around North Dakota and not very news worthy.
> But some of you gave the always familiar kneejerk. To those, I say
> thanks, I knew I could depend on you to come in with your well thought
> out comments about me being a ****ing asshole, sputtering and screaming
> the whole time about how dare I post this.

Any time you make blatant remarks like "the only way it could be worse
is if they were white" or whatever the **** it was, yeah, I'm going to
call you a ****ing asshole. Don't say shit like that, even in jest,
unless you want to be marked for one.

>You got your news from the
> same networks we all did but you couldn't see how slanted it was.

Pssst...here's a clue: Some of us don't watch the mainstream news.
Because some of us know what schlop it really is.

>
> No Bob, recognition is not their forte. What is reported on tv is
> always the truth and how dare I challenge it.

What was your point, really? That black people are getting more
coverage than whites? Seems to me every news link I clicked during the
first 48 hours of Katrina showed white folk in distress. In fact, I
don't remember seeing hardly a black face. Until, of course, the
"shooting and looting" started. Then covering black people in NO was
ok.

If you think the media is biased against white people, you are
completely ****ed in the head. Nothing I can say will ever change your
mind, blinded by the "white" as you are.


-L.