a bit of balance wrote:
But even if there was, the DM is a right wing paper, so I would expect and want them to bash Labour.
Right. And this is a site about how the Daily Mail demonstrably publishes a load of crap. It thus does what someone signing up would expect and want it to. So what exactly
is your issue, or are you saying that the DM can say whatever it likes but no one else can? That's hardly "balance" is it? Besides, "right wing" does not mean the same as "absurdly biased and blinkered" anyway. The Telegraph/Times manage to be broadly right wing without constantly resorting to the scumbag tactics of the DM. Nor does being in favour of one thing mean you have to inherently attack something else anyway - you can of course just ignore it, or indeed argue against it without resorting to smears and bullshit. You know - what civilised people do, not cunts like Littlejohn who pretend they live where they don't, lie to bash gay people, lie to bash women, lie to bash foreign people, lie to bash the poor, lie to bash anyone employed in the public sector, lie to bash disabled people all while taking home 800,000 a year for about 1500 words a week while contributing next to nothing to this country in tax etc. And even ignoring ALL that, the point is it doesn't matter whether the Mail is right or left wing because it's still a shit tabloid that fucks over people's lives and publishes demonstrably provable bullshit. That's why I don't like it, that's why I (and I expect others) ended up here. Take away the vicious, mean writers like Phillips and Hitchens and chums who are plain and simple bullies who want to pick on people they consider beneath them, and I wouldn't have half as much of an issue with the paper. I wouldn't necessarily agree with it, but I wouldn't think it was genuinely harmful that it even exists either.
Besides, if you really are about balance, and (as you've claimed recently) you go on the Mail forum to post counterpoints, surely you don't want them bashing anyone in the same manner as you attempt to point out the unreasonable (in your opinion) bashing of the Mail that goes on here? And as you've claimed censorship is apparently "typically lefty", how - when you post your counterpoints on the Mail website - do you reply to the commentators who inevitably respond with messages that pretty much say you shouldn't be allowed your opinion because it doesn't tally with theirs? Do you call them "lefties", to their utter bewilderment? Do you say that they're engaging in typical right-wing behaviour by trying to censor you? Do you write and complain to the Mail when they inevitably block or censor your posts about their lefty attitudes (something that doesn't happen here, by the way)?
To sum up, you're either flip-flopping more than a plastic shoe on a 4-week mediterranen holiday, a massive hypocrite, a massive liar, the most rubbish troll I've come across in the best part of a decade because you don't annoy anyone or stir any infighting up and only ever make yourself look like an idiot, an *actual* massive idiot, or some hideous combination of all of the above. What you certainly aren't is genuine, clever, witty or troubling in any way. So seriously - crack on with whatever it is you're trying to prove. Because seeing someone make such a cock out of themselves by trying to simultaneously slag people off, claim the moral high ground while defending tabloid bullshit, make out they're completely neutral and only here to play devil's advocate AND make out they're not a troll while doing all the bog standard troll things (albeit very badly) that everyone can spot a mile off is fucking hilarious. It's like watching someone who's stood in dog shit frantically try and wipe the dog shit off on an even bigger pile of dog shit while claiming it's everyone else who stinks.