Just to be clear, you aren't saying we shouldn't be burning liberals with fire right?

If, however, you are forbiding the use of fire on liberals, then can we (your loyal minions) continue to dip liberals in liquid nitrogen or are cold burns forbidden also?

It's not fair. We have all the guns. I say we even it out by snapping rubber bands on their arms. They'll whine more that way anyways. It's win-win.

How about Habanero Salsa? Can we throw Habanero Salsa in their eyes? It's hot, but cool at the same time. It will both hurt and confuse them.

Habanero...hmmmmm. A chimi sounds good right now.

Seems as if there's one thing journalists like almost as much the DNC, it's Islamic Rage Boy. The man seems to be everywhere. Next thing you know I'll be seeing him in the audience on game shows. I'm surprised the MSM hasn't given him his own show. 'The Rage is Right' maybe? More entertaining than Rosie replacing Bob Barker. (sarc)

Not only is your report not biased, you unbiasedly left out that those "9 to 1 liberals" are based on 114 known donators out of over 100,000. It took me .12 seconds to find the real story and check its validity: Journalists dole out cash to politicians

"The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms — at least among the donors, who are a tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation."

Here's a spin: The left leaning journalists are the only ones that have the integrity to report their donations. I mean, .144 percent of journalists reported donations?
And please, just leave it at that, don't mention all the news organizations that do not allow their journalists to make donations anywhere that may put them in conflict of interest, or that "Many of the donating journalists cover topics far from politics: food, fashion, sports."

mikmik, that is about the best distillation of what this post is all about I've seen in the last 8 minutes.

I salute you. Especially as your comment appears to be irony free. That's impressive.

Why not try lime. It burns quite nicely, and water makes it worse.

After spending the last several decades close to mainstream journalism I hate to pop your bubble mikmik, but the fact of the matter is: MOST JOURNALIST ARE LIBERAL, THEY ARE BIASED AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN NOT ONLY WHAT THEY WRITE BUT IN WHAT THE CHOSE TO COVER!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I just couldn't take it any more. Here is a story which points up a disastrous problem within the MSM, this is why they are hemorrhaging money and closing papers and people are still playing shell games with the truth.

The truth is that in many newsrooms on election nights editors, reporters and the like go around screaming about the stupidity of the public for electing those "f^&%*ing Republicans." (that's a quote, sorry)

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and smells like Harry Reid, it's a liberal Demoncrat.

mikmik, but the fact of the matter is: MOST JOURNALIST ARE LIBERAL, THEY ARE BIASED AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN NOT ONLY WHAT THEY WRITE BUT IN WHAT THE CHOSE TO COVER!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, I know that's what you think. Shouting it louder doesn't make it so, however.
And, I would like to point out that it is POINT-ZERO-ONE FOUR percent, or .144 out of every thousand journalists mentioned in this story as having donated to political causes, most of them not involved in covering politics, not .144% as I incorrectly stated above. .0144%

My administration will abolish the sun, as it is a foreign entity and is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Scientifically, the sun can't be hot since it's been determined unanimously by the scientific community that global warming is caused by mankind.

mikmik -- out of sheer idle curiousity, sample bias aside (though it might be important), how close to 100% do we have to get before the data is reliable? Do we really have to give every journalist in the country a $5 and buckets with political parties before you'll consider the data trustworthy? On the other hand, why do you suppose that the crowd on this website would be very very skeptical if the report had shown that 9 out of 10 journalists like the Republican party enough to give large sums of cash to them?

Let me give you some free advice -- pander to our stupidity. No, really. When you think you're smarter than us, figure out how to explain this stuff in simple terms we can accept and understand. And when we don't accept it, using your vastly superior deductive powers, please figure out why.

Many thanks,

Damn. This is the level of stupidity I've been dealing with because of a comic I made about jihadists teaching a new generation of terrorists.

Short version:

Idiot: "You're are a racist!"

Me: "No, I'm not; it's the truth."

Idiot #2: "Yes, you aaaaarrrre. Shame on you!"

Me: "Seriously, terrorists are bad; what's so controversial about making fun of them?"

Idiots: "Raciiiiist!"

So let me get this straight. I have known journalists for decades. Have seen them at work, listened to their tripe, read their agenda driven reports. I've lived in the north east, south, west and mid west in this country but I don't know what I'm talking about.

Liberals: NEVER let the facts get in the way of the story you want to tell. (they teach that in journalism classes from Syracuse to Columbia and anywhere in between). I know that personally too.

Oh and your right yelling never changes anyones mind-but at least I no longer have the urge to do target practice on liberals with a paint ball gun. (yellow paint to match the stripe down their backs)