Post #43,823
6/28/02 4:48:39 PM
|
Media bias
It's not really fair to say that it's conservative, although the bias is certainly evident in that direction. It would be more accurate to say the bias is corporate. And since corporations control the media, supply the advertising and favor the Republicans, the result is predictable.
The view from one [link|http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0615-03.htm|U.S Representative]
"If you run Windows and read Email, You Have the Klez!"
-Andrew Grygus
|
Post #43,881
6/29/02 12:57:21 AM
|
Wow
Thats pretty rich.
But I suppose if one side says the media favors the other...the other side must make the same claim.
Not surprising.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,887
6/29/02 2:46:02 AM
|
Wow - what an exercise in non-commentary on the
commentary:
"rich"
"if one side says"
"not surprising"
Gosh Bill, it's refreshing to hear what you really think. I guess Zope lost the content, huh?
Ashton
I love these brave existential forays in the politics forum!
About the above, I think..
I'll have a beer.
Then next, I'll tell about it.
|
Post #43,890
6/29/02 3:36:22 AM
|
I just had a beer.
It wasn't from a Micro-brewery though: mainframe I guess.
It was OK.
Thanks for your interest.
|
Post #43,900
6/29/02 12:06:00 PM
|
Silly.
But I thought you would have been as used to hearing about the "liberal" bias as anyone else.
And understanding that the major news anchor's >all< were being >homers< for the democrats in the last election.
I thought a rebuttal by the left would be an >obvious< conclusion...not in obvious need of a point by point rebuttal.
He said...she said...ya know?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,901
6/29/02 12:08:57 PM
|
Oh...btw...
...I am very much opposed to the relaxing of media ownership rules...it has destroyed major market radio among other things.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,926
6/29/02 5:12:07 PM
|
Dumb me..
I thought.. that some of the putative data just might be more interesting to dissect, correct? marvel at! (where deemed close-enough to actual) -- than attempting to figure out the possible L/R, +/- labels for the:
website? the speaker? the signs of there being a POV anywhere there.
There has to be some improved method of analysis from: label, label - who's got the Label? OK: now we know who S/He Is.. So ignore the content; it's tainted. Y'know?
(and if your Alzheimers repeatedly causes you to forget the 'liberal' within the common phrase 'liberal education' - and its other connotations: I reserve the right to correct the use of 'conservative' to more accurately reflect its current actuality: 'reactionary'.)
So *each* can do a Find/Replace in this boring polar game which signifies Nothing but politico-blab 2002: which is not Supposed to mean anything. Just keep the sheep grazing in the slogans, til the next folks get installed and funded-for-life.
Baaa Baaa Conservative Sheep - have you any wool? Yes Sir Yes Sir - we nabbed 94% from the flock, last quarter.
Baaa Baaa Liberal Sheep - have you any wool? Yes Sir Well Sir, not so Much - we spread some of it around: including some of *Yours*, Massa. Sorry..
and on and on and on goes Murican polit-babble, as predictably as the Congress' -to-a""man""- filing out to *Witness for Gawd! and show that uppity Third Branch Of Government: how well they grokked the Constitution thingie. As above, so below.
* Who, it is presumed: gives a Flying Fsck what these psychotic bipeds 'think' of Her! Yeah.. She Really NEEDS all that patently self-serving toadying: 'cause She's Sooo Insecure!
Guess I Missed It.
Dumb me.
|
Post #43,932
6/29/02 6:01:08 PM
|
Ok...I promise...
..next time somebody posts something that has an obvious counter that I think I can knock off in one or 2 sentences..
Just for you I'll post a 3 chapter novella
K?
Feel Better?
And instead of posting things that were so obviously in need of rebuttal...you've wasted 2 posts and Brandioch one more telling me I wasted 1.
Whatever.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,935
6/29/02 6:12:36 PM
|
Bzzzzzttttt! Wrong answer.
Mr. Bill "Strawman" Pathetic writes: And instead of posting things that were so obviously in need of rebuttal...you've wasted 2 posts and Brandioch one more telling me I wasted 1. No. I did not say that. I said that because you chose to be dismissive without countering any of the very clear and detailed points in the original post, you showed your bias. You did not waste a post. You showed your bias in your post. I did not waste a post. I showed that your bias did not pass unnoticed. Now you're, once again, attempting to rephrase the posts to suit you. I'm sure that if you had any facts to counter those examples, you would not hesitate to post them. But you don't have any so you don't post them. But you can't let such statements pass without attempting to blunt them.
|
Post #43,946
6/29/02 7:52:54 PM
|
You've wasted 3 more...
...since then.
Mostly on a subject completely unrelated..where you seem to think I've suffered some humiliation at your hands.
Quite the ego you have.
And you are now inventing my >bias< again. Noone would ever have heard of the common idea that the media has a >liberal< bias. Oh...wait...its a >common< statement...whcih I guess means somebody actually >may< have heard it before...except maybe for you. Or is the thinning air on Planet Brandioch making you forgetful?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,956
6/29/02 10:14:23 PM
|
Point of subtle orthogonal inference, please:
And you are now inventing my >bias< again. Noone would ever have heard of the common idea that the media has a >liberal< bias. Oh...wait...its a >common< statement...whcih I guess means somebody actually >may< have heard it before...except maybe for you. Rephrasing if I may, to extirpate the inference I take to be evident - but for which you may have YAN different one to substitute: A) "You are inventing >my< bias again." OK let's say he is, just to get on with this. B) "No one would ever have heard of the common idea that the media has a >liberal< bias..." OK full marks for consistency and predictability: is it now folie a deux.. folie a mill\ufffdn time? Because Millions Believe this absurd idea: it is no longer an absurd idea - no matter how completely at variance from any enumeration of the players one might list ?? C) Utterly predictably - this convoluted "Everybody Knows" idea is not one you'll actually *say* that you agree with. As usual, it must be inferred (surely you wouldn't argue with Everybody: and be outnumbered. You would adapt - right?) OK - so much for forthright utterance & support of a Popular POV by one of it's almost-willing-to Supporters: [Pull More Teeth] As Bernie Sanders mentioned { partial list, of course} there's: Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Bob Grant, Sean Hannity, Alan Keyes, Armstrong Williams, Howie Carr, Oliver North, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Pat Robertson, Laura Schlessinger \ufffd these are only a few of the voices that day after day pound a right-wing drumbeat into the heartland of this country. Care to list the acknowledged Liberal counterparts in this assertion [with which you have almost-let-slip - you sorta-maybe-agree] (Now.. I can find a couple.. on KPFA (tiny FM-radio)station and I guess Bill Maher qualifies - though his brush appears to be about Dumbth from any Labelled source; there's just so much More on the other meeja on which he comments: from the One Wing.) Catch 23: WHICH allegedly numerous, pervasive, frequent, Common! Liberal commentators might he savage ?? Your list of these Liberal commentators with regular programs, so perniciously outShouting all these other umm Rightish? Moderates? Please:
|
Post #43,962
6/29/02 10:36:38 PM
|
Instead of induhveejewels...
..how about some organizations...inclusive of their populace...
NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,965
6/29/02 10:53:50 PM
|
Target acquired. Commencing SLAM!
Instead of induhveejewels...
..how about some organizations...inclusive of their populace...
NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN And now I quote from the ORIGINAL link. ABC is owned by the Disney Corp., which produces toys and products in developing countries where they provide their workers atrocious wages and working conditions. There, your ABC example has already been refered to. You can read, can't you? NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest corporations in the world \ufffd and one with a long history of anti-union activity. GE, a major contributor to the Republican Party, has substantial financial interests in weapons manufacturing, finance, nuclear power and many other industries. Former CEO Jack Welch was one of the leaders in shutting down American plants and moving them to low-wage countries like China and Mexico. Hmmm, another of your examples that was disproven WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back at the beginning of this thread. Awwww, what the fuck. It's not like you even REMEMBER what this discussion was about MUCH LESS the examples (complete with details, easily referenced and disproven) that were ALREADY provided. Yep, once again, Bill's brain in stuck in an endless loop.
|
Post #43,976
6/30/02 12:02:27 AM
|
Ah...
...so now you intend to join the conversation.
And yes..those companies were indeed mentioned in the article.
And if its corporate ownership that you are looking for...I guess you found it.
If it is liberal bias you're looking for...look at their news departments and the people who report it.
Ask them whcih way they vote...whcih party they belong to...really...you wouldn't be the first...and consistently you wiill find these folks to be liberal democrats.
Nice...although very ineffective...slam.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,978
6/30/02 12:13:21 AM
|
And you're still trying to weasel out of it.
You were asked to name the individuals.
You named the companies.
The companies and their associated activities were already covered in the original article. The evidence seems to be that the companies are NOT "liberal" in outlook.
Now, you're still refusing to name the individuals who you claim have a "liberal" bias.
But you're still claiming that there is one in the media.
You just won't name who they are.
Just that they work for decidedly non-liberal companies.
And this passes for "logic" where you come from?
|
Post #43,982
6/30/02 12:29:12 AM
|
Read elsewhere...if you must.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,967
6/29/02 11:11:53 PM
|
Oh... Riiigghhhht..
Reductio to TLA? Fey, and just not even unsubtle: crass. Insubstantial. Straw *Corporations* ?!? LIBERAL Corporations ?!?
Hoo ha ha cackle guffaw ... glorp. it is to Laugh/Die for <<
(Set Way-back machine to the first of the Clinton years sans 'honeymoon': which Never came. Tell me about the meeja and the Sex Impeachment and Senators and: forget it.) You're Trying to weasel and I see that you are and I'll humor you on Just One:
Lesseee now: remember the ""Presidential Debates"" hosted by avuncular [love what That conveys] Mr. Lehrer as 'moderator'. He BE: Mr. NPR News, recall (?)
Recall how his 'moderation' consisted of:
Not even allowing Candidate Nader to join the (small) audience! He tried to enter - 'member? Let alone: appear in a*Presidential Candidates debate* (Oh - let's blame that on ___. And Liberal-NPR did What to correct this atrocity?____ Went along with What?)
And then.. he sat there while Gush/Bore batted around vagaries about 'free Drugs fer Elders' (No, not the other 'War On Drugs: the War to Sell Drugs from Pharm Chem, so much easier than 'curing stuff' and all)
And then there was: Ed-ja-Cay-shun. Punch that 300 cu. ft. pillow one more time.
Recall any Other topics put-forth [Hah] or allowed in this Liberal NPR controlled debate?
OK I quit there: You haven't actually Shown Anything, except the shallowness, coarseness of er granularity of your decision-making process.
List?
Surely you can think of a Dozen regularly presented Liberal Commentators\ufffd OR: some reason to discount even the brief list I cadged from Mr. Sanders - maybe some of these are 'Moderates', say (always a guaranteed diversion ... re-defining stuff).
No - cancel the OR: Let's See The List.
I want to see some evidence of this chimerical Liberal-Bias: spokesperson by spokesperson. How's come I can't Find any of these ephemeral Creatures when I try to Find Them ?
NAMES, please. (air time, schedule: unless it realy is Zero.)
Ashton
|
Post #43,971
6/29/02 11:31:57 PM
|
Mr. Lehrer is Mr. PBS News not NPR News.
That may be a fine point.
I watch Lehrer and the [link|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/|News Hour] "religiously" and find him to be a fair man. He did not make the rules that excluded Nader. Other than refusing to be be a moderator on principle, he can not be held responsible for the parties to the debate.
Alex
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
|
Post #43,974
6/29/02 11:50:28 PM
|
My bad. As to Lehrer: Oh Yes He Can be held accountable
for the charade he allowed to proceed under his/PBS's (and by inference - NPR's) \ufffdgis!
It was a shameful parody of any idea of 'debate'. He became / allowed himself to become: little more than another member of the audience.
He AND PBS and ___? altogether demonstrated gutlessness and finally.. irrelevance, that night. IMO.
An honest one(s) would have refused to host under these conditions: especially! with the exclusion of anyone but: The One Party With Two Right Wings.
I had to think very carefully about the +/- of sending my several checks AND critique of above with each one.. I think PBS deservedly lost many good people's support over that cowardly performance.
Ashton
PS - I find JL to rarely ask the Prime movers, as they occasionally appear - anything more than pabulum questions. But I no longer watch News Hour regularly anyway; it is only marginally superior to the other Corp-owned talking heads. Now Frontline, Nova etc. continue to Kick Ass. And there is SO Much Ass to Kick.. hence my continued support.
There is more and more (ADM !! and more) Corp crap on PBS -- a direct result of the Gingrich successful neutering, and the subsequent Congr. gutlessness to restore this pittance for: One non-commercial US network.
|
Post #44,023
6/30/02 10:34:15 PM
|
The "sponsor" - COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
If anyone is a culprit it is the Commission on Presidential Debates who decided the criteria for [link|http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel.html|candidate selection.] Picking 15% of the poll vote as a minimum, I'll grant you, was not aa arbitrary choice. I would agree that a lower (but > 1) percentage would be better. You don't want a zoo either.
For Lehrer to have declined to be the moderator would be to become a news maker and not a news reporter. He would be making a political statement and raising a furor which would destroy the need to be impartial. What do you expect from the press or an umpire?
Alex
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
|
Post #44,027
6/30/02 11:09:03 PM
|
Expect? Guts, not pandering to a set-up, ovinely.
|
Post #44,057
7/1/02 2:25:27 AM
|
Hmmm, think "umpire".
Would you umpire a ball game in which the teams both violated your personal viewpoint?
Suppose they both refused to allow non-white players or some similar factor.
I remember when Perot was on the debates.
What I expect is a fully participatory democracy. Where each individual will stand up for what s/he believes is best.
I know. It won't happen. :)
|
Post #43,980
6/30/02 12:25:32 AM
|
Silence == support. Particularly with a reputation.
This is where it gets a bit tricky.
The sponsors wanted him because of his reputation.
He used his reputation in an event that was not "fair" (Ralph was banned).
He did this knowing that Ralph was banned.
Now, someone with some guts would have worn a "Where's Ralph" tee shirt to the event.
Someone with fewer guts would have declined.
I respect his viewpoint, but not his integrity. I see him a whoring his reputation out.
The thing is, if he had made a public issue of it, Ralph might have been included.
Which would have led to a completely different and MUCH MORE INFORMATIVE debate.
Participatory Democracy.
The people who signed the Declaration of Independence knew they'd be killed (and some were) for that action. Yet they did it because they had the guts to risk their lives for their beliefs. Now look at what we have.
|
Post #43,981
6/30/02 12:28:04 AM
|
So its not good enought to just ist their networks...
...since they are owned by the big bad corps...
Like CNN (Connie has worked there...among others)...founded by good old Ted...the classic conservative ...righhhttt.
Dan Rather. Model conservative.
MSNBC (oops...forgot to list them)...none other than the next network news anchor Brian William)
Tom Brokaw...that conservative at NBC.
Oh...and look who the majors turn to for political analysis...none other than ultra conservative Gorge Steffa steffa steve-o noi place.
And I see NOONE has debated NATIONAL public radio.
But they'll bat around a couple of syndicated radio folks.
American Radio Network (feeds ABC radio) has a couple good afternoon guys...Peter and Mike that are just so far right they can't be seen.
Never mind...there must just be too much conservative bias...I've been brainwashed.
</sarcasm>
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,991
6/30/02 11:55:45 AM
|
You thought it would be?
Cool. Now you have some individuals who you claim are "liberal". So, tell me which of these "liberals" has run a story on the non-POW's in Guantanamo lately. Yet ABC was interviewing Monica just a few months ago. Okay, I see I have to explain something to you. "Liberal bias" does NOT mean that you can find Liberals in the news room. "Liberal bias" means that the STORIES are more Liberal. So, how long did Whitewater run as a story? Compare that to how long Bush's involvement with the bin Laden's has run. Want to see what they say about such things themselves? [link|http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/6/6/124642|Andy Rooney] # On reporters fearing to ask tough questions because they fear being labeled unpatriotic: "You don't dare do it. I mean, there are things that you are reluctant to write because you don't want to be disliked; you don't want to be accused of being unpatriotic; you don't want to be accused of being a bad American. ... I think a lot of interviewers have backed off being tough. And it's a shame. I mean, Ashcroft has put the fear of God into reporters." I don't recall anyone being afraid to ask Clinton anything at all.
|
Post #44,001
6/30/02 4:28:52 PM
|
Ah,
So they tortured your pet President..and now they don't ask the "hard questions" of Bush.
That changes their bias.
That changes the writers slant when they write the stories. That changes their "analysis" when they review situations.
I see.
They asked Clinton about Whitewater for x months...but they asked Bush about bin Laden for x-y months.
Yep...they've all gone conservative.
Yes Khan, yours is a superior intellect:-/
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,015
6/30/02 8:53:48 PM
|
Learn what "bias" is.
So they tortured your pet President..and now they don't ask the "hard questions" of Bush. That would seem to be a useful description of what "bias" is. Now, if there was a "liberal" bias, they press would go easy on the "liberal" president. While pursuing the "conservative" president. That changes their bias. No. That defines their bias. That changes the writers slant when they write the stories. That changes their "analysis" when they review situations. Provide examples. I have provided one to show the continuing "conservative" (or should I say "anti-liberal") bias of the press. All you have are useless rhetorical questions. They asked Clinton about Whitewater for x months...but they asked Bush about bin Laden for x-y months. I have already pointed out that Monica was interviewed by ABC just a few months ago. I can post example after example after example. I have already posted two. You have posted none. Yep...they've all gone conservative. Ah, once again, you try your strawman tricks. No, there are "liberals" in the newsrooms. But they work for a "conservative" company. That company's policy determines what stories run and what stories are pursued and what stories are dropped. A "liberal" anchorperson can still read "conservative" news. Again, there are sufficient, clearly defined examples provided showing the bias towards "conservative" viewpoints. Your "rebuttal" has lacked such. Try again.
|
Post #44,016
6/30/02 9:17:09 PM
|
So you assert...
...the Michael Eisner picks the stories run on ABC news. Jack Welch's replacement picks the stories that run on NBC. Steve Case determines the news run on anything owned by AOL/Time Warner. That company's policy determines what stories run and what stories are pursued and what stories are dropped. That would seem to be your point. How about the drug and alcohol abuse stories run during the election about Bush...and his ties to >big oil<...all the while ignoring that Gore's family wealth owes much to Occidental Petroleum and big tobacco. Just one of many. You give the corps too much credit. And I haven't even gotten to the newspapers in the major metropolitan areas yet. All you have is them picking on your pet in peacetime versus them going relatively light on the President after the largest act of terrorism in our nation's history...in addition to them realizing that 90% of the population was is support of his actions. Yeah...the situations are >identical<. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,030
6/30/02 11:27:58 PM
6/30/02 11:37:27 PM
|
Point of logical order?
All you have is them picking on your pet in peacetime versus them going relatively light on the President after the largest act of terrorism in our nation's history...in addition to them realizing that 90% of the population was is support of his actions. Folie a deux? Again so soon? So then: you think it "normal journalistic behavior" to poll the vox populii and: report what these wish most to hear? And Not report say, what some might Not wish to hear? Not even question.. because ~ it might be unPatriotic to question the actions of a Government planning a War on *Something (greatly in need of guidance surely: isn't *every* Government, when making such 'plans' ??) * or do you really think that a War on Evil is some clear mandate of that Something - sans discussion Biblical or Otherwise? Y'know, if I were a one susceptible of it - I'd be disappointed in your Rx for proper 'unbiased' journalism (or was that Rx: 'sycophancy via Popularity poll', that you wanted a Patriot-journalist to practice?) Ashton Correct 'deux' .. we have Enough dieux running around loose
|
Post #44,055
7/1/02 2:11:26 AM
|
Maybe you don't notice a bias based on the current issue...
...bear with me..
...but when a percentage gets really big (like 90...Pres approval rating) and you have a population that may be...say..60/40 liberal/conservative...
Would it not be safe to assume that there are a boatload of >liberals< who agreed with the President's handling of the situation.
I know that my statistics are not scientifically accurate to 10-200...but I think the point can be made with really rough estimates like that...and the President's approval rating has been amazingly high.
Now...of course...what is liberal to many might very well be conservative for you...so I guess it all depends on your point of reference.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,059
7/1/02 2:34:03 AM
|
Stats as of a month ago.
[link|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/21/opinion/polls/main509623.shtml|CBS]
You might want to check out the questions asked, too.
|
Post #44,076
7/1/02 9:04:20 AM
|
So your point is???
Since you link to stats that show the majority Republicans, Democrats and Independents feel the President is handling post 9/11 well.
Whcih is what >my< point was.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,084
7/1/02 10:17:36 AM
|
Read the questionaire.
That was my point.
|
Post #44,056
7/1/02 2:15:09 AM
|
"Strawman", eh?
So you assert...
...the Michael Eisner picks the stories run on ABC news. Note personally and not for every story. He sets direction. How about the drug and alcohol abuse stories run during the election about Bush...and his ties to >big oil<...all the while ignoring that Gore's family wealth owes much to Occidental Petroleum and big tobacco. How about them? Where are they now? Yet we're still seeing Monica's name in the paper. All you have is them picking on your pet in peacetime versus them going relatively light on the President after the largest act of terrorism in our nation's history...in addition to them realizing that 90% of the population was is support of his actions. No. What we have is 8 years of Whitewater stories (and nothing resulted from it) and a treatise on oral sex. -compared to- Nothing. I don't care if "90% of the population was is support of his actions." That's the POINT. If there WAS a "liberal" bias, then we'd be seeing the stories ANY WAY. That's what "liberal bias" MEANS. You've JUST ADMITTED that the media is NOT publishing stories with a "liberal bias".... But that contradicts your earlier statement that the media has a "liberal bias". Yet, despite the facts that the "liberal" stories just don't seem to appear and that the companies are, pretty much, very conservative and republican... Somehow you think there's a "liberal bias". This is a religious thing with you, isn't it?
|
Post #44,078
7/1/02 9:11:21 AM
|
Nope...nice try though.
If liberals >agree< with the course of action...then there's no reason to >bias< reports.
Liberal stories appear all the time...
As I said to Ash, though...I guess it depends on your starting point. I'm not surprised that to many here the press looks conservative...really...I'm not.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,083
7/1/02 10:16:51 AM
|
And that's all the "proof" needed.
So, the press picks on Clinton (by your own admission).
-and-
The press agrees with Bush's actions.
-therefore-
There is a "liberal bias" in the media.
Yep, I guess it does matter where you start from.
|
Post #44,107
7/1/02 2:45:20 PM
|
Hopeless.
I guess liberal bias in your book only means that they have to pick on the current conservative leader...even when the liberals agree to the course of action.
They >have< to disagree...just to >be< liberal.
Ok.
Whatever.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,109
7/1/02 2:47:56 PM
|
well you could always change your sig
I have tried to consider it from your point of view but quit frankly I cant quite get my head that far up my ass
feel free :)
thanx,
bill
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #44,120
7/1/02 3:51:35 PM
|
chuckle
well put.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,123
7/1/02 4:08:34 PM
|
The medical term for that is CRIS...
Cranial
Rectal
Insertion
Syndrome
Brian Bronson
|
Post #44,143
7/1/02 6:34:18 PM
|
"liberal bias" "picking on Clinton".
Remember?
You claimed there was a "liberal bias".
You claimed they were "picking on Clinton".
That seems like a "conservative bias".
You claim that the "liberals" support Bush's actions.
Only 50% of them (accourding to that poll) do.
Where are the stories from the other 50%?
Now, if they agree with everything the CONSERVATIVE administration is doing, how can they be LIBERAL?
|
Post #44,139
7/1/02 6:24:50 PM
|
Bill, this may be a good starting point for you.
From your posts in this thread, I doubt you are old enough to remember Ronald Reagan, but you might want to check out this book: [link|http://www.pir.org/sources/aN.html|On Bended Knee]
|
Post #44,144
7/1/02 6:41:09 PM
|
bzt
Voting by then.
Theres [link|http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2002/fax20020625.asp|other studies] and [link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0895261901/reviews/ref=pm_dp_ln_b_6/102-0635001-5016124|books] too.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,151
7/1/02 8:07:47 PM
|
I suggest you read their site.
[link|http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2002/fax20020604.asp|Global Warming] ABC, CBS and NBC Promote Liberal Critics, Pretend Dissent Over Global Warming No Longer Exists Instead, ABC, CBS and NBC last night gave airtime to critics who expressed disappointment that the administration had not slid further into the extremist camp. Hager revealed that the EPA report included the view that warming could have positive repercussions, including lower heating bills and longer growing seasons, but CBS and ABC skipped over those inconvenient paragraphs. Yup. I'll put a lot of faith in the "analysis" of a book by the same people who claim that global warming could be "a good thing" (tm).
|
Post #44,172
7/1/02 10:34:06 PM
|
Pointing to an alternate site
and an alternate book...with opposing views.
I can see you disagree with their views.
Unsurprising.
I can see you trying to change direction as well.
Also unsurprising.
You should have followed the book link, though...since its unrelated to the MRC page in the link.
I know how you like to stay informed.
Hugs!
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,179
7/1/02 11:27:44 PM
|
A different site?
www.mediaresearch.org, right?
So, the link you posted was to www.mediaresearch.org
The link I posted was to www.mediaresearch.org
But you claim it is a different site?
And I am not trying to change direction. I'm pointing out that the same people you are going to for "analysis" about "liberal bias" are the ones endorsing Bush's "global warming ain't so bad, we get longer summers!" plan.
|
Post #44,208
7/2/02 8:32:20 AM
|
The >book<...my ever so sensitive friend...
...is NOT at MRC. 2 separate links requiring 2 separate mouseclicks. You would have known that had you followed the link. You can "question" the global warming thing all you like. There are scientists who disagree with you...some of them are referenced in the article you linked. It >still< has nothing to do with the bias research conducted. Anyway, you said Yup. I'll put a lot of faith in the "analysis" of a book by the same people who claim that global warming could be "a good thing" (tm). Follow the book link before you speak more nonsense like this, k? Enough with you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,226
7/2/02 10:47:43 AM
|
A book on genetics, endorsed by the KKK web site.
Context is everything.
I followed them. I showed that the people endorsing the book definately had an agenda.
Unbiased reporting that is not.
|
Post #44,235
7/2/02 11:32:00 AM
|
Brain death?
The book link was to a review on AMAZON.
Not on MRC.
And while I'm certain that the MRC would like the book...their >other< views have no bearing on what Goldberg wrote in the book...and the MRC had no hand in >writing< the book.
They are 2 separate links. One to a website that has conducted studies showing liberal bias. One to a book, recently published, from an industry insider who also says that there is liberal bias.
And global warming has exactly >what< to do with this?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,259
7/2/02 2:06:38 PM
|
I will reconstruct the crime.
#1. There is a discussion about "bias" in the media.
#2. mmoffitt posts a link to a book "on bended knee" indicating that there is media "bias" and the media went easy on Regan.
#3. you post TWO links.
one to mediaresearch.org which offers analysis of a BOOK titled " Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News". This book and analysis seem to support your position that there is a "liberal" bias in the media.
and you post another link to Amazon about another book (Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News)
Oh, wait. IT'S THE SAME FUCKING BOOK!!!
All mediaresearch.org did was to to do some followup "research" to reach the same conclusions as that book.
Note, that book was SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED in the article you linked to.
#4. I point to ANOTHER article on mediaresearch.org to show that they are NOT unbiased researchers. My reference showed them supporting global warming because it could lead to longer growing seasons.
They are a bunch of fucking idiots with blatant agendas.
#5.........
.
..
...
Current post.
You've claimed that it was the OTHER link that you were talking about. The one that goes to the book review. You know, the book review of the book that is mentioned in the article on the site I posted the other link to.
So, you claim that I should look at the reviews on Amazon?
Strangely enough, those reviews have even LESS substance than the mediaresearch.org site.
Once again, (I'm sure, not for the last time), I do not CARE HOW MANY IDIOTS YOU CAN FIND TO AGREE WITH YOU.
1,000 idiots are still a bunch of idiots.
They don't get less idiotic in groups.
You are NOT impressing me by your CONTINUED attempts at veracity via groupthink.
|
Post #44,268
7/2/02 3:26:31 PM
|
You do whatever you like dear.
You are dismissing something based on something completely unrelated.
Your call I guess.
T'ain't worth it.
You're right.
The entire press is full of Rush Limbaugh wannabes.
Simple.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,275
7/2/02 5:02:15 PM
|
"Bias" is completely unrelated?
No. I've established that mediaresearch.org has a bias. I've established that their bias is so overwhelming they can say that global warming is a "good thing" (tm). Again, once it's been established that said "genetic researcher" is a klansman, how much further do you have to go to show his research is biased and untrustworthy? The entire press is full of Rush Limbaugh wannabes. So, given your past behaviour, your retreat to irrelevent strawmen is your admission of failure. Nope, they're not. But their boss's boss' bosses know which side their bread is buttered on. Republican means big media conglomorates. Which mean big salaries for the big bosses. The little news anchors know not to rock the boat too much. Keep the bosses happy and you'll keep your job.
|
Post #44,286
7/2/02 6:28:27 PM
|
Like I said...
...you do whatever you like.
I admit nothing.
I simply quit wasting finger motions on you.
Neither you nor this point are worth it.
Global warming isn't a strawman...but Limbaugh wannabe's are.
Thats a classic.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,290
7/2/02 6:38:13 PM
|
Again, their position on global warming shows their bias.
I never said that the media was full of Rush wannabes.
You implied that such was my position.
Therefore, that is a strawman.
I said that THAT PARTICULAR SITE is heavily biased. More than "heavily" biased. They are so biased they are delusional. This is evidenced by their claims that global warming is a "good thing" (tm). Therefore, referencing their position on global warming is substantiating my claims that they are "biased".
Therefore, you using that site to substantiate your position that there is a "liberal bias" in the media is faulty.
Hence, my klansman/"genetic research" reference.
Again, for those unwilling to see. I did not disprove your position. Just your substantiation. Or, rather, I illustrated how the group you used for substantiation are delusional. Hence, not a useful reference.
|
Post #44,291
7/2/02 6:39:40 PM
|
Whatever.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,341
7/3/02 10:47:40 AM
|
So, your point is that a book store will sell it?
You don't like that I've pointed out that the site doing an "analysis" of the book was delusionally biased.
Instead you keep refering me to the OTHER link.
The link to amazon.com
A book store.
You "support" for this book is that a book store will sell this book.
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0395951054/qid=1025707762/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/102-2128288-9836121|Another book sold by amazon.com]
And look how many stars the reviewers give THAT one!
So it MUST be right.
|
Post #44,283
7/2/02 5:39:55 PM
|
Refs. be damned than.. So:
It IS a Religious Thing with you, Beep - right?
Selective data taking is ever a wondrous thing .. esp. when trying to prove a negative.
SO no matter the source: if'n it don't prove Librul Bias IS: it must be 'selective', ergo.. not as Clean as your selections: ergo false.
Yup, guess Circle-Jerk is the mode; doggerel is the aim. You Win the locus of points around the Circle. For creative definitions of 'win'. Wagg-Edd - you *gotta* bid for this one!
Ashton
who prefers rectilinear not polar coordinates, for geometrical obfuscation amongst the debate-impaired.
|
Post #44,254
7/2/02 1:22:38 PM
|
Was any research actually conducted?
I like to think he isn't just giving an opinion and supporting it with numbers pulled out of his ass. It could be hard to verify the contention that 'conservative' is used to describe more often than 'liberal' on network news. Where are the transcripts? What is the source of the study he used to get these numbers?
For a different take, and with methodology explained, try [link|http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/8/nunberg-g.html|this] survey of print articles.
"We are patriotic citizens too. Patriotism means 'love of country',
caring about its people, its ecosystem, and others around us. Not giving
blind loyalty and a blank check to George W. Bush. We are patriotic enough
to care about the long term effects instead of just the short term gain.
Therefore it is our patriotic duty to guard our country and our constitution
against people and forces hiding behind the flag."
-Jello Biafra
|
Post #44,265
7/2/02 2:37:06 PM
|
Goldberg appears...
...to be giving anectodal evidence...what he >felt< on the inside.
The website looked as if they hac conducted a study or 2.
You would be very hard pressed to tell me that there isn't liberal bias in print...at least the Philadelphia Inquirer. They don't even pretend.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,273
7/2/02 4:23:38 PM
|
That's not what I'm saying
Of course individual news orgs have their own bias. Left or right. Just as individual reporters have their own bias. The rightwing campaign to label "the media" as having a liberal bias is where my objection lies. After 10 years of enduring "the media's" fascination with Clinton's zipper I find it hard to see the liberal bias so often touted.
I think even you will admit to the rightwing bias found on radio (in general, on syndicated talk shows).
As for television, can you say "Monica"? My anecdotal evidence is that I >feel< the TV news and opinion shows are saturated with conservative viewpoints. I will give you one thing, though. The entertainment shows are skewed liberal by a large margin.
"We are patriotic citizens too. Patriotism means 'love of country',
caring about its people, its ecosystem, and others around us. Not giving
blind loyalty and a blank check to George W. Bush. We are patriotic enough
to care about the long term effects instead of just the short term gain.
Therefore it is our patriotic duty to guard our country and our constitution
against people and forces hiding behind the flag."
-Jello Biafra
|
Post #44,349
7/3/02 11:31:08 AM
|
America is bi-polar.
I will give you one thing, though. The entertainment shows are skewed liberal by a large margin. This is the thing that fascinates me the most. Given a choice to watch something that is "the way we want things to be" Muricans always prefer the liberal to the conservative. We want the real west wing to be like the tv show, we want a President and White House staff like the fictional one (smart, concerned with the little guy, and liberal). The producers of all tv shows know that conservative views are unpopular (with cause, I might add). Yet, there is an alarming number of Muricans who vote for conservatives who are no where near wealthy enough to benefit from any of their policies. It makes no sense: they want liberal and vote conservative.
|
Post #44,403
7/3/02 4:49:56 PM
|
To the extent that is true..
I don't think you can ignore the "self-flagellation" component of Puritanism ie "if I vote for what I Really Want... I might experience pleasure..
Sample re (IIRC) a Sinclair Lewis novel, in which is decribed an autocrat with his family at dinner. The kid doesn't want to eat _x_ and the father wants him to. Finally wife says, "oh let him eat what he wants..!" Father explodes, "IN MY ENTIRE LIFE I'VE NEVER DONE A SINGLE THING I WANTED TO DO.."
Yes exaggerated, yet - have heard such a rationale (once stripped of self-serving euphemism) in those 'explaining'.. how it was that, serially they chose:
abusive spouses. As below so above (to paraphrase).
Funny species.
Ashton
|
Post #44,405
7/3/02 4:59:39 PM
|
Good Point and one I hadn't considered.
I guess that's why so much of Christian doctrine makes no sense to me.
|
Post #44,274
7/2/02 4:52:04 PM
|
Interesting you should post that link...
when I did a Google search I found this link...
[link|http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2002/fax20020625.asp|eerie, huh?]
Like Mark Twain says... There are lies, damn lies and statistics
Or even better... (They) use statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost. More for support than illumination.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
|
Post #44,285
7/2/02 6:27:09 PM
|
The only one that comes close to as many hits
as Media Research is Fair Play (www.fair.org) using other search engines. Most of these sites link to eachother. Either this is a grass roots web effort, or there is something fishy about this...
I read a bunch of articles on Fair Play and have to admit, it's hard to defend Brokaw, Rather and the Today Show. It's pretty obvious that these anchors have an agenda.
The thing that pisses me off the most in all of this, is that these folks are completely mislabled. There is no liberal media bias, there is a Democratic Party media bias. As a liberal, it pisses me off to be associated with the Democratic party with such a broad brush. There hasn't been a liberal bias in this country since the 30's. /Rant
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
You need rhino skin
If you're gonna begin
To walk
Through this world
You need elephant balls
If you don't want to crawl
On your hands
Through this world
Oh my love if I reveal
Every secret I've concealed
How many thoughts would you steal
How much of my pain would you feel
You need eagles wings
To get over things
That make no sense
In this world
You need rhino skin
If you're gonna pretend
You're not hurt by this world
If you listen long enough
You can hear my skin grow tough
Love is painful to the touch
Must be made of stronger stuff
You need rhino skin
To get to the end
Of the maze through this world
You need rhino skin
Or you're gonna give in
To the needles and pins
The arrows of sin
The evils of men
You need rhino skin
T. Petty - Rhino Skin
|
Post #44,296
7/2/02 9:03:52 PM
|
Close enough..
I think it's all covered in the Confucius quote re the consequences of (not) correcting language. (I posted full quote eons ago in IWE) ie. once language itself has been corrupted - beyond some highly arguable point? - communication fails.
We don't need Confucius, to list the "things which remain undone" when finally,
..justice goes astray. The people stand about in helpless confusion. Hence it matters above all else that language be correct.
We've become a Nation of illiterates, exposed to blaring noise most waking hours - and most of us are: utterly and unprecedentedly! unfamiliar with the founding documents' Names! let alone the content and (The Federalist Papers) and the debates.. yada yada.
What could you call our next Prospects except: A Crap Shoot?
Ashton
|
Post #44,344
7/3/02 10:59:41 AM
|
Oh, puh-LEEEEZE, Bill...
So you assert the Michael Eisner picks the stories run on ABC news.
Jack Welch's replacement picks the stories that run on NBC.
Steve Case determines the news run on anything owned by AOL/Time Warner. If you're gonna debate the man, debate him. This pablum is just too transparently a rhetorical trick (which is, correctly, called a "straw man") to fool anyone, not even yourself. Debate him, don't play directly into his hands. (I expected better of you...unless, of course, you really don't have an argument...)jb4
"I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
|
Post #44,359
7/3/02 1:11:30 PM
|
Actually.
That company's policy determines what stories run and what stories are pursued and what stories are dropped. I've worked at several corporations...each one had procedures for setting policy...each one required that policies be approved at CEO level before going into effect. So, my follow-up to the above statement...which you claim to be a strawman...is how "policy" is set at 3 Fortune 200 companies and one Big 5 oil firm. However, this point hardly seems worth all the effort. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #44,101
7/1/02 1:02:24 PM
|
In defense of Public Broadcasting
Bill,
Just chiming in on this... You wanted someone to defend PBS or NPR... As a non-voter (albeit a liberal), I find Charlie Rose to be as fair as any commentator on TV. I don't really mind Tim Russert either (if he has a political affiliation, I haven't been able to determine it). As far as All Things Considered and programs such as these, I find them to be a bit idealistic in their views and quick to follow popular "liberalish" trends, but their media coverage attempts to be neutral... You know their funding depends on both Republicans and Democrats.
I do understand what you are saying about the established bias of most television commentators at local offiliates as well as the majors - last poll conducted showed 90 + percent as registered Democrats. But as the others have pointed out, most of the owners are most probably more beholden on the Republican party.
I would like to see the ethic return where broadcasters at least "tried" to remain neutral, including the Katie Couric frowns and sighs whenever she interviews a Republican. It would have to be very difficult to remain "neutral" when you are interviewing people you totally disagree with, it is anti - human :-)
If you haven't seen Charlie Rose, please do. He usually has great shows. PBS in general has a good lineup. NPR is pretty interesting as well. I listen to Rush Limbaugh a couple of times a month just to keep it interesting for myself. Equal time so to speak. Dr. Laura is on the way home from work so... I'm back to NPR. I have to say, that I do find Rush's show less offensive than the rhetoric surrounding it. This is not to say that I don't find his rhetoric tiresome (even at only a few times a month), but I don't think even he buys half of the junk he says.
Something that has always puzzled me, however; is that all (save for PBS/NPR) of these shows are supposedly "giving the viewers what they want"... It would follow that the majority of the population would be liberal. Given that of the 50 percent of the population that actually votes, roughly 40 percent are Democrat and 40 percent are Republicans (about 40 percent of the overall population), does that mean that the 60 percent (50 percent who don't vote and 10 percent that vote independent) are liberal leaning? I know that I am, but I don't see evidence to suggest that I am in a majority... Just something I've noticed...
Dan
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
If you listen long enough
You can hear my skin grow tough
T. Petty - Rhino Skin
|
Post #43,925
6/29/02 5:10:51 PM
|
Actually, it would need a rebuttal.
Rather than stating that it was "obvious" that the "other side" would post a counter-claim.
Rather, you non-comments (while being dismissive of the article) show your bias.
He makes A LOT of points. He states them quite clearly.
It shouldn't be any problem to refute them. Or to counter them.
But you aren't able to do that. Rather, you'll just post your innuendoes and allegations.
Typical.
|
Post #43,928
6/29/02 5:30:39 PM
|
Cool
Brandioch follows me to another formum...just to toss around an insult or 2.
You are starting to get >really< sad, you know?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,930
6/29/02 5:54:39 PM
|
Awwww, poor baby.
Here's an idea. Why don't you GROW UP?
Gee, is this the FIRST time I've posted in this forum?
But you claim that I'm following you.
Here's a quick thought experiment for you (find someone to help you with it as you're demonstratable under-qualified to perform it).
If Bill "Strawman" Pathetic NEVER AGAIN posted in this forum, would that mean that I would never again post in this forum?
Awwww, still hurting because I slammed you on your complete ignorance of separation of Church and State?
Rather than face me with any facts and defined positions, you're happy to just throw innuendoes and allegations.
That is so typical of your type.
At least I can clearly state my position. I don't think there is ANYONE here who doesn't know where I stand on an issue.
Poor baby. Why don't you give "growing up" a chance? It's worked for others.
|
Post #43,934
6/29/02 6:06:15 PM
|
Me?
Is to laugh.
The first time you posted in this forum was to do what exactly???
And then in the second post you claim to have "slammed" me in a thread from another forum?
To all appearances...it would appear you are doing exactly what I stated...which is pretty juvenile...yet you say "poor baby" to me?
I think it may quite possibly be you who needs to grow up...but I'm not the kind of asshole that would post something like that to a forum? What about you?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,939
6/29/02 6:27:23 PM
|
Yes. You. Stop acting like a child and grow up.
The first time you posted in this forum was to do what exactly??? Well, let's see what my earliest post on record in this forum was. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=2134|La fem Barbara. And she packs an agenda.] And then in the second post you claim to have "slammed" me in a thread from another forum? Yes. Because you claimed I was "following" you. Do you know what "follow" means? So I will assume that you're still hurting from the public humiliation I lavished upon you and that such was clouding your already limited mental capability. In other words, my reply to your post contained NOTHING to link it to previous postings. YOU are the one that did that with your "following" comment. Now you're going to cry like a baby and blame me because you're too ignorant to read the documents that this country is founded upon. booo hoooo hoooo. To all appearances...it would appear you are doing exactly what I stated...which is pretty juvenile...yet you say "poor baby" to me? Awwww, poor baby. Of course, you CAN prove that it was ME that started it. Just find the post from me with an earlier date/time stamp than your post accusing me of "following" you. There, poor baby. That isn't too much work. Is it? hahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahhhahaha I think it may quite possibly be you who needs to grow up...but I'm not the kind of asshole that would post something like that to a forum? What about you? Awwww, you know, if this board had search capabilites, I could show where you had said that to me.
|
Post #43,945
6/29/02 7:48:24 PM
|
Excuse me?
Oh...sorry...I said forum instead of thread....sorry to throw you off...I know how hard that can be on a hyperintelligent person such as yourself. So...my humble apologies... Your first post in this >thread< was to do what exactly? Lets examine... Rather, you non-comments (while being dismissive of the article) show your bias.
snip
But you aren't able to do that. Rather, you'll just post your innuendoes and allegations.
Typical. My my...it seems to be an personal attack that addresses none of the original subject matter. But no...it couldn't be...the attack couldn't obviously relate to anything else...like... So I will assume that you're still hurting from the public humiliation I lavished upon you and that such was clouding your already limited mental capability My we are full of ourselves...you >lavished< me with humiliation? Funny...I should have felt humiliated if you did...instead...oh...you must have >failed<...just like you >failed< to win the persuant debate on the name of God (oh wait...you think you >won< that debate...sorry...I'll leave you to gloat in your >victory<) Oh..and the date...time stamp thing...are you to stupid to understand how the threadingt works...why indeed in this >thread< you did post a response to >me<...followed by remarks relating to a dicussion in another forum and then >continued< to post items from an unrelated forum and thread...>that< would seem to back up the >following< statement. Oh...and this board >does< have search capabilities. And..where you are concerned...I may very well >have< told you to grow up. It seems to be necessary quite often. So I may actually be that kind of asshole. I can live with that. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,948
6/29/02 8:11:01 PM
|
I'm sure there is an excuse for you.
My my...it seems to be an personal attack that addresses none of the original subject matter. Well, I'm sure it seems that way to you. But it did address the original subject matter. The original subject matter being your response to the original post. More specifically, it addressed the fact that your post contained dismissive comments rather than actual refutations or rebuttals. And then you go on to start mixing quotes from different posts by me without regard for time/date stamps. Whatever. You have nothing to refute the original post with so you're going to cry about people being mean to you. Grow up. My we are full of ourselves...you >lavished< me with humiliation? Funny...I should have felt humiliated if you did...instead...oh...you must have >failed<...just like you >failed< to win the persuant debate on the name of God (oh wait...you think you >won< that debate...sorry...I'll leave you to gloat in your >victory<) Awwww, I guess you are still hurting from that. So let me remind you again. You were under the mistaken belief that religion was not supposed to play a part in politics. When it was actually that government will not endorse one religion over another. In other words, your knowledge of the basis of this government was publicly shown to be, not only lacking, but backward. Yet here you are, again, in the Politics forum, spewing your ravings. To put it kindly, you have no idea what you're talking about. But that's not going to stop you, is it? Awwwww, poor baby. People are just being mean to you. Those naughty, mean, bad people. It has absolutely nothing to do with your continuing demonstration of ignorance on basic facts. It's all the fault of those meanies who keep picking on you. Grow up. Educate yourself.
|
Post #43,949
6/29/02 8:18:44 PM
|
And yet another...
...post that has nothing to do with with this thread.
You >are< good at charades...aren't you?
I find your fascination with me rather amusing actually...I think you love me..deep down.
Really I do.
Come to Philly.
Read the drafts.
Educate >yourself<.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,963
6/29/02 10:43:09 PM
|
Nah.. I think it's about the fun of ___Surprise!
You know: after circumnavigating someone Else's quotation with a plethora of yabuts and the occasional other inducements to prod further, to see if you might actually own up to having some 'solution' to some 'thing' you're circumlocuting:
Well.. after both molars and maybe an incisor are pulled - occasionally you do manage a couple complete sentences which are Not quotes!
As in..
Surprise!
Hey.. it's just kinda Fun, y'know? Nothin 'bout lustin after yer MBA certificate or yer bod, I'd opine. But then.. it might be that corner office he's after, and a chance to wear a suit :-\ufffd
Ashton
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere. (Silverlock sig appropriated)
|
Post #43,983
6/30/02 12:30:21 AM
|
But it is no surprise...
.and that actually makes it very very sad, doesn't it?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #43,889
6/29/02 3:29:32 AM
|
This can't be of much importance.
After all, he's just a "Congressman" and.. he's saying that everything is not quite Wonderful. Then he mentions Corporations - who give us our wonderful jobs (and sometimes even corner offices) and allow us to buy medico insurance from their partners, too - except for a piddling 40 million or so. After all - the poor must be always with us. 40 million isn't so much, though I'll have to look up how that compares with.. oh never mind. It's silly, the whole idea. These are simply lazy people who want to be taken care of by some Socialist scheme.
But the dead giveaway is: he mentions *other countries* and how they deal with things. Is he trying to suggest that we need *their* advice? Why would the Greatest Country innaworld need to copy some other country's approach to anything?
I guess I can only take the prudent view of courageous moderates everywhere, and state forthrightly:
That's pretty rich, alright.
But of course he *may* have a political point of view (!) so safest would be to say: prolly he just made up the suppurating pile of coincidences he *says* is true - and I guess the other side says just the opposite: everything's really fine, as always.
{sigh} I get so confused - especially by these naysayers. They are so rude. Why Do They Hate America So Much?
Thanks for mentioning it though. My considered judgment is: it's not surprising that a US Congressman might say such a thing, is it? What do you suppose he meant by that? It's so complicated and all.
Ashton
Striving every day towards Excellence.
Waiting to be Raptured Out, with the Best People..
(Sick and tired of all the bad things some people say.)
|
Post #43,936
6/29/02 6:13:50 PM
|
"Own the press and you own the People" - V.I. Lenin
I find it amusing that in this techno-age in the US, all we really have for conventional news is a bunch of "Iskras" [English = Sparks] to choose from. You'd think that w/access to more information we could do better than that.
|
Post #43,959
6/29/02 10:27:56 PM
|
thats why the repos dont want to support NPR :)
Circle Jerk with your buds, and call it unbiased reporting, just like Fox News, We report what you want to hear and you decide.
thanx,
bill
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #43,969
6/29/02 11:26:10 PM
|
Re: Yup: only rich country to SELL most all the airwaves
To same Corporations as finance the reelection of their representatives in 'Congress' .. er strong association there with sexual congress.
I can still see Newt up there on the Tee Vee, a slashin n'burnin (and throwin in obscene errant artists + the NEA): all slated for to-the-bone Cutting Out. And slash they did.
Those appropriations Have Not been restored - even afer Newt + Crew went to their deserved and ignominous end: after pissing off just Too Many ordinary Muricans. No Congressional Guts.. yet.
Now you have to go to BBC to get what you can. Our 'Communications' are owned lock-stock-barrel: and amalgamating more every week. Soon there will be One _BC: the Patriot Network\ufffd
Ashton
|
Post #44,097
7/1/02 12:22:59 PM
|
Sell? You mean Give dont you?
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #44,126
7/1/02 4:31:23 PM
|
Yes.___WTF was I *thinking!*
|
