I enjoy opposing points of view, but only when based upon facts. Political discussions are a favorite area where I’m open to a different analysis from mine. But when it gets emotional and the topic can’t be backed up, I’m gone in most cases… ..except…

this post caught my eye… the author titles his piece “The Cowardly U.S. Media.” So far, I like it. A lot. So I read on.

In this opinion piece the author talks about the lack of courage to get on the ground with the protesting Iranians. He paints the media as having been conditioned by the fascist Bush regime so by the time the fascist Iranian regime dictate conditions for reporting — er — so when the fascist Iranians basically ejects Western media from Iran the author states they are very willing to comply. Interesting point…. to a point.

I take issue with the fact that he equates the Bush presidency to that of a fascist regime. It is important to note President Bush was elected into the office by the people of America, no different than for Obama. I don’t call Obama’s regime… er .. presidency a “regime” for the same reason. But then, a “fascist regime”?

Ok, now that’s just emotion with no basis in fact.

Then this guy posts this hooey.

Let’s see… on the one hand we have Fox News reporting on the “day-in-the-life” activities of the President and Vice President. On the other hand we have CBS acting to provide free air time so the President can sell his health care policy while CBS denies the airing of an opposing view point even though the time would be purchased from the network. That’s pure, unabashed, blatant and overt censorship.

There is no comparison. At best, it’s just a bad example.