Israel Coughs Up Cash for @Israel Twitter Account

I would like to take you and your writers to task on the wording of the paragraph above here that I am commenting to, you really should know better and need to be corrected. you said [....believed that @Israel was the official Twitter account of the contentious state. For this reason ....]

HOW DARE YOU! because a news-reporting online service like yourselves ought to know better than to display such vulgar anti-semitic and quite frankly insulting wording.

The State of Israel has EVERY RIGHT TO EXIST and anyone who claims otherwise is, at the very least, an ignoramus. In the case of the media, put out corrections such as this error

I'm don't need to say much more than this, and am not going to. But I do expect this will get around and you will need to assess some of your writing staff and issue an apology at some time.

Steve

Could not agree more steve.But as with most liberally biased media you can't be suprised .I'm sure there even big supporters of the mosque at ground zero.

@Another Steve:

"Contentious"

from Dictionary.com:
1. tending to argument or strife; quarrelsome: a contentious crew.
2. causing, involving, or characterized by argument or controversy: contentious issues.
3. Law . pertaining to causes between contending parties.

from Wiktionary:
1. Marked by heated arguments or controversy.
2. Given to struggling with others out of jealousy or discord.

from Merriam-Webster:
1: likely to cause contention
2: exhibiting an often perverse and wearisome tendency to quarrels and disputes

Now, for starters, please explain how "contentious" is improperly used. Then, you will please explain how "contentious" has suddenly become an "anti-Semitic" word. Then, your final task is to please explain how "anti-Semitic" has become a synonym for "anti-Israel." There is far too large an Israel-suck-up lobby in the US for anyone to ever dare question Israeli policies (even when those policies are questioned in the State of Israel by Israeli citizens) without being labeled an "anti-Semite." Well, I've got news for you bud. ARABS are also "Semites" so anytime you Israeliphiles (and Israel apologists) want to bash the Arab world, you people are being every bit as "anti-Semitic" in your comments and arguments. So give the "anti-Semite" label a rest already. If you object to someone having problems with Israeli policies (let's just ignore the country's CONTINUED violations of UN resolutions that don't so much as merit a "tsk-tsk" from the US--a country which invaded Iraq TWICE for violating a mere handful of UN resolutions on each occasion), then call them "anti-Israeli." THAT is fair. But when you label someone "anti-Semitic" buddy, you'd better be looking in the mirror first.

@kriskringle: You're just as bad. There is no such thing as a "liberal" media in the USA. ALL the MAJOR media is either right-wing (such as FoxNews) or center-right (such as CNN and MSNBC); the only reason that a media outlet MIGHT be labeled as "center-right" is because of the handful of left-of-center hosts that the networks hire to provide some minor semblance of balance.

Newt Gingrich has publicly declared that there is no such thing as a "liberal media"--that it was a complete and total fabrication from the far right Republican Conservative noise machine, designed specifically to make people question the news reports. Of course, once Limbaugh and O'Reilly and the rest of the professional blowhard liars took over the airwaves, thanks in no small part by Reagan's gutting of the Fairness Doctrine (and just ask yourself really why is it that "conservatives" are so genuinely afraid of being held to the tenets of the Fairness Doctrine when FoxNews actually claims that it's "fair and balanced"; perhaps the Fairness Doctrine would show conservatives just how UNfair and UNbalanced the network really is--but I digress), they were able to put their far-right spin on every topic while ensuring that opposing views got NO air time or, if those views did get air time, they were presented with such utter weakness that the liarhosts could claim how inherently superior their own position really was. (Then, add in all the sheeple who were willing to fall hook, line and sinker for all these blowhards who weren't the least bit interested in traditional journalism and revel in the utter stupidity and banality of these blowhards' utterances, well, it takes very little effort for these blowhards to put lie to Lincoln's famous remarks about fooling the people.)

As for the mosque "at ground zero," see, right there you've proved how easily you can be led into believing the BS emanating from the blowhards at FoxNews. Unless "ground zero" SOMEHOW got moved since 9/11/2001, that community center is TWO BLOCKS AWAY from that "hallowed ground." Did you know that? Were you aware of that FACT? Or did you just buy into whatever crap spewed forth from the mouth of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin because it was easier for you to do than to do a little critical analysis of your own? Incidentally, did FoxNews happen to report on how GOP representatives and senators voted against providing funds for the first responders to Ground Zero (way back in 2001), people who were injured in the line of duty? Or did FoxNews just tell you that a bunch of loony Muslims were building a mosque on top of the site of the Twin Towers? I'm guessing it was the latter.