Hypocrite? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Snacks

03-09-2007, 01:11 AM

This has got to be one of my favorite news stories of 2007. Newt Gingrich had an affair at the same time he stood on his soapbox bitching about Clinton. I hope if Newt Runs for president he doesnt run on "Moral Issues" as he so often loves to talk about.I know the rights argument. "Clinton was president" & "He lied to a Judge" I say who cares! He shouldnt have been put in that position in the first place. There was no reason to have his affair and personal life brought into the courts. It was a witch hunt and thats all they could get on him was an affair so they went for it. THere was more money spent on investgating Clinton then there was on the 9/11 investigations.My problem with the right and the religious sector of the right is how they always condem liberals for being open minded, non religious practicing, heathens. But they are worse then any liberal.The republicans are the do as I say not as I do party and it makes me sick.Liberals are the do what you want as long as it doesnt effect anyone from doing what they want party.<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair</a>

This message was edited by Snacks on 3-9-07 @ 5:19 AM

A.J.

03-09-2007, 01:40 AM

I thought this was going to be about Mikeyboy.

MrPink

03-09-2007, 03:44 AM

Both sides are hypocrites, just about different stuff. Liberals are the do what you want as long as <strike>it doesnt effect anyone from doing what they want party.</strike>                                               you aren't making money and don't own guns party.Fixed it for ya.The Democrats and Republicans are full of shit, and are trying to fuck you over every chance they get. Don't think for a second that they have your interest in mind. I'd like to see what this woman Newt had an affair with looks like. My guess would be that she looks like Paula Deen.

This message was edited by MrPink on 3-9-07 @ 7:47 AM

Cleophus James

03-09-2007, 04:33 AM

A.J. wrote: I thought this was going to be about Mikeyboy. Ya. Everytime I see a thread with a negative one or two word title, I expect someone going, Fuckers locked my thread.  Can't talk about this or that. Fucking commies.  Reilly's a girl? I've been posting.....

FezsAssistant

03-09-2007, 04:39 AM

Did Newt sexually abuse someone who was working for him and lie about it under oath?  No.  did he do it at work?  No.  End of story.

FezsAssistant

03-09-2007, 04:41 AM

I feel sorry for snacks.  So naive.  He must be 12 years old.  Snacks, can you confirm? 

cupcakelove

03-09-2007, 04:47 AM

Fez'sAssistant wrote: I feel sorry for snacks. So naive. He must be 12 years old. Snacks, can you confirm? How about you try to put tought into an actual counter argument instead of making a personal attack.

Yerdaddy

03-09-2007, 05:27 AM

cupcakelove wrote: Fez'sAssistant wrote: I feel sorry for snacks. So naive. He must be 12 years old. Snacks, can you confirm? How about you try to put tought into an actual counter argument instead of making a personal attack.Or, if you actually post intelligently and then you're attacked you can hammer away. If not you're just a douchebag.

underdog

03-09-2007, 06:44 AM

MrPink wrote: Both sides are hypocrites, just about different stuff.The Democrats and Republicans are full of shit, and are trying to fuck you over every chance they get. Don't think for a second that they have your interest in mind. Bingo. I like how people think there's some huge difference between Dems and Repubs. They both got where they are by bending over backwards for special interest groups. Neither of them give one fuck about the general public, and nothing will really change no matter who is in office.

ralphbxny

03-09-2007, 06:52 AM

Who cares? As a man he is supposed to hit it if a woman gives it up...or he should be considered a homo.

epo

03-09-2007, 06:54 AM

Gingrich is a big time scumbag.  He actually was so gutless about his second divorce that he asked for it over the telephone.  Personally...if I'm breaking up with a chick, I try to be a man about it and do it face-to-face.  So that's the respect this guy has for women.  <a href="http://members.aol.com/okamwoc/newtdivorce.html">Link to my favorite Newt story here.</a>  That being said, I would love for Newt to be in the race.  He would be destroyed on a public stage.

Team_Ramrod

03-09-2007, 07:35 AM

I think anyone who runs on the basis of 'moral issues' has already lost. In todays society there are no people left with intact morals.We get to where we are by going against morals, doing the things necessary to succeed. Many might not have cheated on a spouse but they sure have done other things that are morally wrong.I know my morals are all but shot, all I have left is my conscience and even that is wearing away pretty quickly.

EliSnow

03-09-2007, 07:40 AM

Fez'sAssistant wrote: Did Newt sexually abuse someone who was working for him and lie about it under oath?  No.  did he do it at work?  No.  End of story.  Clinton didn't sexually abuse someone either.  He had consensual sex with Lewinsky.  Yes, he lied about it, and it was a scumbag move, but let's not call it sexual abuse either.  The only difference between the two is the perjury issue.  Gingrich also had an affair with someone more than 20 years younger than him who was a former congressional aide.  I'm not sure if she worked directly for Gingrich, but I have to imagine that his affair was a work affair as well.

busybeeman

03-09-2007, 07:47 AM

Snacks wrote: This has got to be one of my favorite news stories of 2007. Newt Gingrich had an affair at the same time he stood on his soapbox bitching about Clinton. I hope if Newt Runs for president he doesnt run on "Moral Issues" as he so often loves to talk about.I know the rights argument. "Clinton was president" & "He lied to a Judge" I say who cares! He shouldnt have been put in that position in the first place. There was no reason to have his affair and personal life brought into the courts. It was a witch hunt and thats all they could get on him was an affair so they went for it. THere was more money spent on investgating Clinton then there was on the 9/11 investigations.My problem with the right and the religious sector of the right is how they always condem liberals for being open minded, non religious practicing, heathens. But they are worse then any liberal.The republicans are the do as I say not as I do party and it makes me sick.Liberals are the do what you want as long as it doesnt effect anyone from doing what they want party.<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair</a>This message was edited by Snacks on 3-9-07 @ 5:19 AM I wonder if there were massages, baby oil, crystal meth, and gay porn involved.  You know, the GOP MO.

AgnosticJihad

03-09-2007, 09:42 AM

Fez'sAssistant wrote: 1)Did Newt sexually abuse someone who was working for him and 2)lie about it under oath?  No.  3)did he do it at work?  No.  End of story.  1)What bodily orifice are you pulling this bit of info out of?2)If I recall correctly (Iwas like 16 at the time and didn't really care when it was going on), Clinton was under investigation over the whole Whitewater thing. His acts adultery committed when he was Pres not only had nothing to do with shaddy land deals that occurred when he was Gov of Arkansas, but adultery is not illegal and thus discussions of it have no place in a court of law (except divorce court). The personal life of a Pres has nothing to do with his ability to run the country.3)The Pres works at the White House, but also lives there. Whenever he fucks at home he is also fucking at work, so every Pres is guilty of this. Concerning the actual article, this is old news. Gingrich is a total hypocrite for preaching family values morality, unlike Clinton who didn't preach family values morality. Also, Clinton may have cheated on his wife, but at least he didn't do it while she was battling cancer. What a piece of shit Gingrich is.

Fat_Sunny

03-09-2007, 10:05 AM

Snacks wrote: Liberals are the do what you want as long as it doesnt effect anyone from doing what they want party.<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair</a>This message was edited by Snacks on 3-9-07 @ 5:19 AM That's A Load!Can You Drive A Car Without A Seatbelt In NJ?Can You Keep A Gun In Your Pocket To Defend Yourself?Can You Choose To Eat Trans-Fat In A New York Restaurant?Can You Choose To Go To A "Smokers-Only" Restaurant In New York Or NJ Where You Can Light Up A Smoke After The Meal?There's A Million Other Examples Of Where The Liberals Take Away Your Freedom To Choose!

Snacks

03-09-2007, 03:01 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Snacks wrote: Liberals are the do what you want as long as it doesnt effect anyone from doing what they want party.<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair</a>This message was edited by Snacks on 3-9-07 @ 5:19 AM That's A Load!Can You Drive A Car Without A Seatbelt In NJ?Can You Keep A Gun In Your Pocket To Defend Yourself?Can You Choose To Eat Trans-Fat In A New York Restaurant?Can You Choose To Go To A "Smokers-Only" Restaurant In New York Or NJ Where You Can Light Up A Smoke After The Meal?There's A Million Other Examples Of Where The Liberals Take Away Your Freedom To Choose! All 5 of these things you mentioned can do harm to others. Smoking only resteraunt, what about the employees. Smoke at home (im a former 20 year smoker). Guns go off, guns are shot at the wrong person etc. Trans fat public health problems, hence costing more money for the govt. Same thing with seatbelts. You get in an accident you fly out the window into oncoming traffic,  you know the rest.  AgnosticJihad wrote:Fez'sAssistant wrote: 1)Did Newt sexually abuse someone who was working for him and 2)lie about it under oath?  No.  3)did he do it at work?  No.  End of story.  1)What bodily orifice are you pulling this bit of info out of?2)If I recall correctly (Iwas like 16 at the time and didn't really care when it was going on), Clinton was under investigation over the whole Whitewater thing. His acts adultery committed when he was Pres not only had nothing to do with shaddy land deals that occurred when he was Gov of Arkansas, but adultery is not illegal and thus discussions of it have no place in a court of law (except divorce court). The personal life of a Pres has nothing to do with his ability to run the country.3)The Pres works at the White House, but also lives there. Whenever he fucks at home he is also fucking at work, so every Pres is guilty of this. Concerning the actual article, this is old news. Gingrich is a total hypocrite for preaching family values morality, unlike Clinton who didn't preach family values morality. Also, Clinton may have cheated on his wife, but at least he didn't do it while she was battling cancer. What a piece of shit Gingrich is.Thats my point about libs and right wingers. We dont always throw the morals issue out there. The reason why Republican stories based on sexuality, morals, etc are bigger stories is liberals let you know they are all for personal freedoms and dont condem everyone. So when a dem does things its a quick story, but when the soapbox Republicans do the same thing it b/c world news simply b/c they try to pass laws against the same shit they do in their private lives.  Yerdaddy wrote:cupcakelove wrote: Fez'sAssistant wrote: I feel sorry for snacks. So naive. He must be 12 years old. Snacks, can you confirm? How about you try to put tought into an actual counter argument instead of making a personal attack.Or, if you actually post intelligently a

Fat_Sunny

03-09-2007, 06:53 PM

Snacks wrote: All 5 of these things you mentioned can do harm to others. Smoking only resteraunt, what about the employees. Smoke at home (im a former 20 year smoker). Guns go off, guns are shot at the wrong person etc. Trans fat public health problems, hence costing more money for the govt. Same thing with seatbelts. You get in an accident you fly out the window into oncoming traffic,  you know the rest. Come On, You Gotta Do Alot Better Than That!  Those Are Specious Arguments.  Just Like If Fat Said To You:Gay Sex Results In AIDS And Should Be BannedCondoms Break Every So Often Causing STD's And Should Be BannedDrinking Causes Alcoholism And Drunk Driving And Should Be BannedCigarette Papers Are Used To Make Joints And Should Be BannedShould The Above Hazards To The General Public Be Banned?The Left Is Very Selective About "Choice".  They Are All For The Freedom To Choose... But Only The Things They Agree With.  In Fat's Book, They Are Every Bit As Anti-Choice As The Religious Right!

Yerdaddy

03-10-2007, 03:43 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Snacks wrote: Liberals are the do what you want as long as it doesnt effect anyone from doing what they want party.<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair</a>This message was edited by Snacks on 3-9-07 @ 5:19 AM That's A Load!Can You Drive A Car Without A Seatbelt In NJ?Can You Keep A Gun In Your Pocket To Defend Yourself?Can You Choose To Eat Trans-Fat In A New York Restaurant?Can You Choose To Go To A "Smokers-Only" Restaurant In New York Or NJ Where You Can Light Up A Smoke After The Meal?There's A Million Other Examples Of Where The Liberals Take Away Your Freedom To Choose! Seatbelts:As of January 2007, 25 states and the District of Columbia have primary seatbelt laws, 24 have secondary seatbelt laws, and one state (New Hampshire) has no laws<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation#_note-13">[16]</a>.Most western countries have compulsory seat belt laws.Red states and blue states all have seatbelt laws except one, (a swing state), as does most of the western world. That's pretty fucking bi-partisan.Guns: I'll give you that one - that generally people who want anyone to be able to carry a gun in their pockets tend to lean to the right. But considering where you set the bar on that one I'd say the leftward category is less anti-gun rirights and more anti-retarded-8-year-old-serial-killer-with-a-gun. Trans-fats: Michael Bloomberg, who pushed that through, is either a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat. You can't call that a liberal cause. In fact I'm one of the few people on thie board to oppose that, strenuously. Smoking: Obviously smoking endangers the health of others, and smoking bans are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">nation-wide</a>. Again, bi-partisan. The only hold-outs you'll see are tobacco-growing states that happen to be conservative. But the rest of conservative states have bans.So you get one out of four right. Not so good.Now let me ask you:Gays and lesbians are not allowed to choose who they marry. Who's preventing them, liberals or conservatives?Who wants women to lose the right to have an abortion, liberals or conservatives?Who was more opposed desegregation and all the Civil Rights Bills. liberals or conservatives?As a guy who lived in Yemen, Egypt and Jordan for two years I'm pretty sure my phone conversations home were moniotored and I've probably got a file burried inside the Justice Department somewhere. Who's been voting for the adminsitration that did that in violation of the Constitution, liberals or conservatives?Who's against euthenasia? Who's the majority of the "tough on crime" folks that has more than half of US inmates doing time for drug offenses? Who's outlawing medical marijuana? The people who want Creationism taught along side evolution in public schools - which side do you suppose they identify with?You'll find each side has their issues where they're pro-civil liberties and anti-somthing they don't like. I'll take the left's record on civil liberties over the right's any day.

Snacks

03-10-2007, 03:59 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: [quote]Snacks wrote: Liberals are the do what you want as long as it doesnt effect anyone from doing what they want party.<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair</a>This message was edited by Snacks on 3-9-07 @ 5:19 AM That's A Load!Can You Drive A Car Without A Seatbelt In NJ?Can You Keep A Gun In Your Pocket To Defend Yourself?Can You Choose To Eat Trans-Fat In A New York Restaurant?Can You Choose To Go To A "Smokers-Only" Restaurant In New York Or NJ Where You Can Light Up A Smoke After The Meal?There's A Million Other Examples Of Where The Liberals Take Away Your Freedom To Choose! Seatbelts:As of January 2007, 25 states and the District of Columbia have primary seatbelt laws, 24 have secondary seatbelt laws, and one state (New Hampshire) has no laws<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation#_note-13">[16]</a>. Most western countries have compulsory seat belt laws. Red states and blue states all have seatbelt laws except one, (a swing state), as does most of the western world. That's pretty fucking bi-partisan.Guns: I'll give you that one - that generally people who want anyone to be able to carry a gun in their pockets tend to lean to the right. But considering where you set the bar on that one I'd say the leftward category is less anti-gun rirights and more anti-retarded-8-year-old-serial-killer-with-a-gun. Trans-fats: Michael Bloomberg, who pushed that through, is either a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat. You can't call that a liberal cause. In fact I'm one of the few people on thie board to oppose that, strenuously. Smoking: Obviously smoking endangers the health of others, and smoking bans are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">nation-wide</a>. Again, bi-partisan. The only hold-outs you'll see are tobacco-growing states that happen to be conservative. But the rest of conservative states have bans.So you get one out of four right. Not so good.Now let me ask you:Gays and lesbians are not allowed to choose who they marry. Who's preventing them, liberals or conservatives?Who wants women to lose the right to have an abortion, liberals or conservatives?Who was more opposed desegregation and all the Civil Rights Bills. liberals or conservatives?As a guy who lived in Yemen, Egypt and Jordan for two years I'm pretty sure my phone conversations home were moniotored and I've probably got a file burried inside the Justice Department somewhere. Who's been voting for the adminsitration that did that in violation of the Constitution, liberals or conservatives?Who's against euthenasia? Who's the majority of the "tough on crime" folks that has more than half of US inmates doing time for drug offenses? Who's outlawing medical marijuana? The people who want Creationism taught along side evolution in public schools - which side do you suppose they identify with?You'll find each side has their issues where they're pro-civil liberties and anti-somthing they don't like. I'll take the left's record on civil lib

DonInNC

03-10-2007, 04:10 AM

I agree with the sentiment that politicians are pretty much all scumbags. It frustrates me, though, that those who make a big deal over Al Gore and John Edwards being hypocrites because of their houses (one legitamitely and the other BS) are always quick to yell "billclinton" when a Republican's bad behavior is pointed out. Is Bill Clinton an amoral, overrated slimeball or is he the standard by which we judge other politician's behavior? You can't have it both ways.A Hillary versus Newt presidental race is now my biggest fear in life.edit to change  "Republican's hypocrisy" to "Republican's bad behavior" 

This message was edited by DonInNC on 3-10-07 @ 8:23 AM

Dudeman

03-10-2007, 08:01 AM

'08 religious right fun fact - # marrigaes of leading candidates: republicanrudy-3newt-3 (and went over the divorce while his 1st wife was in the hospital with cancer) mccain-2 democratclinton-1obama-1edwards-1

oh_kee_pa

03-10-2007, 08:14 AM

Dudeman wrote: '08 religious right fun fact - # marrigaes of leading candidates: republicanrudy-3newt-3 (and went over the divorce while his 1st wife was in the hospital with cancer) mccain-2 democratclinton-1obama-1edwards-1ÿ that meansÿ nothing.... over 50% of marriages end in divorce.... all politicians are hypocrites.... unfortunatly, if you live long enough and have enough experiences hypocricy is a way of life

Doomstone

03-10-2007, 09:47 AM

Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense?

It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that?

sailor

03-10-2007, 10:15 AM

Doomstone wrote: Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense? It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that? it's become fashionable to smash all politicians. both sides have good, both sides have bad.

Doomstone

03-10-2007, 10:32 AM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">sailor wrote: Doomstone wrote: Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense? It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that?ÿit's become fashionable to smash all politicians.ÿboth sides have good, both sides have bad. <hr color="cococo" align="left">

Sure. But it is very interesting that after Dudeman points out that the top three candidates for the "sanctity of marriage" party are all divorced, two of them twice, the first response seems to be that it's all good, everyone does it.

When I was a kid, my parents didn't accept "well johnny down the block did it too" as an excuse...

This message was edited by Doomstone on 3-10-07 @ 2:37 PM

sailor

03-10-2007, 10:37 AM

Doomstone wrote: sailor wrote: Doomstone wrote: Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense? It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that? it's become fashionable to smash all politicians. both sides have good, both sides have bad.   Sure. But it is very interesting that after Dudeman points out that the top three candidates for the "sanctity of marriage" party are all divorced, two of them twice,  three semi-random people do not a trend make.

underdog

03-10-2007, 10:40 AM

Doomstone wrote: Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense? It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that? Because it's true. All politicians are the same.

Doomstone

03-10-2007, 10:41 AM

So presidential candidates are "semi-random"?

Doomstone

03-10-2007, 10:43 AM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">underdog423 wrote: Doomstone wrote: Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense? It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that?ÿBecause it's true. All politicians are the same. <hr color="cococo" align="left">

Well that settles it then...

*sigh*

sailor

03-10-2007, 10:44 AM

Doomstone wrote: So presidential candidates are "semi-random"? yes, when you're using them to say "republicans get divorced a lot" (and you were).  three people don't prove anything, so it's silly to put it out like they do.

Dudeman

03-10-2007, 10:46 AM

part of the problem is what would happen if those numbers were switched?  the religious right would say that the democrats represent the downfall of civilization. to the  religious right, it is about power, not morals (not that their "morals" are right), compassion, or jesus.

Doomstone

03-10-2007, 10:53 AM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">sailor wrote: Doomstone wrote: So presidential candidates are "semi-random"?ÿyes, when you're using them to say "republicans get divorced a lot" (and you were).ÿ three people don't prove anything, so it's silly to put it out like they do. <hr color="cococo" align="left">

What? I think you have water on the brain...

sailor

03-10-2007, 10:54 AM

Doomstone wrote: sailor wrote: Doomstone wrote: So presidential candidates are "semi-random"? yes, when you're using them to say "republicans get divorced a lot" (and you were). three people don't prove anything, so it's silly to put it out like they do.   What? I think you have water on the brain... whatever.

Fat_Sunny

03-10-2007, 11:53 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: You'll find each side has their issues where they're pro-civil liberties and anti-somthing they don't like. I'll take the left's record on civil liberties over the right's any day.Please Do Not Confuse The TRUE Right With The Religious Right.  Barry Goldwater Was TRUE Right; Jerry Falwell Is Religious Right.The TRUE Right Believes In Individual Rights And Responsibilities: You Take Care Of Yourself.  The Government Should Stay Out Of Your Life.The TRUE Right Thinks That INDIVIDUAL Rights Take Precedence Over Society At Large.Eminent Domain Is A Clear Example.  A TRUE Right Person Will Never Be For Allowing The Government To Take An Individual's Land.  Not Even If It Serves The Public At Large.  NEVER!  The Rights Of The Individual Trump Society At Large.The True Right Is The Closest To A Libertarian Philosophy.  It's Philosophy Is The Most Pro-Civil Liberties.

sailor

03-10-2007, 11:55 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: You'll find each side has their issues where they're pro-civil liberties and anti-somthing they don't like. I'll take the left's record on civil liberties over the right's any day.Please Do Not Confuse The TRUE Right With The Religious Right. Barry Goldwater Was TRUE Right; Jerry Falwell Is Religious Right.The TRUE Right Believes In Individual Rights And Responsibilities: You Take Care Of Yourself. The Government Should Stay Out Of Your Life.The TRUE Right Thinks That INDIVIDUAL Rights Take Precedence Over Society At Large.Eminent Domain Is A Clear Example. A TRUE Right Person Will Never Be For Allowing The Government To Take An Individual's Land. Not Even If It Serves The Public At Large. NEVER! The Rights Of The Individual Trump Society At Large.The True Right Is The Closest To A Libertarian Philosophy. It's Philosophy Is The Most Pro-Civil Liberties.  i was going to say that sounded very libertarian.

boeman

03-10-2007, 11:56 AM

This is why I hate political discussions... one side or the other always resorts to name calling... that's why nothing can get done to improve our country... Since when did the "My dad can beat up your dad" argument become valid in political discussion? Next thing I expect to read is a big "I'm Telling"I'd say if the people in this country would grow the fuck up, we'd have a better chance at becoming the great nation we were envisioned to be.

Fat_Sunny

03-10-2007, 12:15 PM

Hmmm...If You Will Read Fat's Post You Will See That He Went Out Of His Way To Make It About IDEAS And NOT Personalities.Other Than That Disclaimer, Fat Agrees With Your Comment!

high fly

03-10-2007, 05:15 PM

Snacks wrote: This has got to be one of my favorite news stories of 2007. Newt Gingrich had an affair at the same time he stood on his soapbox bitching about Clinton. . Giving it a bizarre twist is that Newtie agreed beforehand with James Dobson to reveal it on Dobson's show, according to Dobson, who was interviewd on the Alan Colmes radio show about it.

This message was edited by high fly on 3-10-07 @ 9:16 PM

oh_kee_pa

03-10-2007, 05:20 PM

a great line which i wish more celebrities and people in general would live by.... "i never voice my political values because you immediatly isolate half of the room"

Snacks

03-10-2007, 06:31 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: You'll find each side has their issues where they're pro-civil liberties and anti-somthing they don't like. I'll take the left's record on civil liberties over the right's any day.Please Do Not Confuse The TRUE Right With The Religious Right.  Barry Goldwater Was TRUE Right; Jerry Falwell Is Religious Right.The TRUE Right Believes In Individual Rights And Responsibilities: You Take Care Of Yourself.  The Government Should Stay Out Of Your Life.The TRUE Right Thinks That INDIVIDUAL Rights Take Precedence Over Society At Large.Eminent Domain Is A Clear Example.  A TRUE Right Person Will Never Be For Allowing The Government To Take An Individual's Land.  Not Even If It Serves The Public At Large.  NEVER!  The Rights Of The Individual Trump Society At Large.The True Right Is The Closest To A Libertarian Philosophy.  It's Philosophy Is The Most Pro-Civil Liberties. I guess this true right you speak of is no longer around. Libertarian is no where close to the true right. Libertarians are for personal free choices and for govt to stay out of our lives, but the right has not done this in years. I would say a liberal Dem is more libertarian. I guess we can agree to disagree.As for Goldwater, yes he was a republican by party but if he had his same views now as he did back then he would be considered a progresive or a liberal. His views are so open minded that the right would have a heartattack and fall to their knees and pray to god he wasnt part of their Republican party.

johnniewalker

03-10-2007, 10:04 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]Doomstone wrote: Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense? It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that? It's always been a commonly held opinion, usually by people who don't pay attention to politics but want an opinion to express anyway. You're hearing it more now because conservatives are finding it harder and harder to defend Republicans, especially Bush since they can't deny that he's lost the Iraq war that he staked so much of his presidency on. Conservatives are now blaming "politicians" rather than the guys they put into power because that would be admitting fault in themselves. I think another reason is that conservatism has become so much more about bashing and blaming liberals than about advocating its own traditional values that the values are largely forgotten by most of today's conservatives. Before Bush lost the war he was violating most of the core traditional values and yet only a small number of conservatives criticized him for it. (I think Bulldogcakes is clearly the best example of this on this board.) I think this is what happens whenever an ideology is ascendent, which conservatism clearly is. (conservatives proclaim their allegience to the ideology as a badge of honor, liberals generally dont. Liberals generally address what they don't like about conservatism or conservatives while conservatives - especially the pundits - throw out "liberal" as a pejorative that needs no further explaination. "John Kerry is the most liberal ember of the Senate." "Nancy Pelosi will turn America into San Francisco." The how and why aren't necessary - just the label.) So, when it's cool to be a conservative people join up without exploring the traditional principles and what they mean and whether they share them, but they simply sign up and start fighting the "other side". It waters down the ideals and the purpose of the ideology while at the same time it gains that ideology more political power through increased numbers and motivation. Liberalism had a similar heyday in the 60s and 70s, as the pendulum has swung back and forth through our history. But as the ideology has strayed from its principles at the same time it has seized and utilized political power it has become more and more feckless to the point we have now with a completely failed president and a Republican Congress who's corruption and blind loyalty to the president's war strategy cost it both houses of Congress, if just barely. They fell victim to the corrupting influences of power - a power given to them by the ascendency of conservatism.How do ordinary conservatives respond to this state of political failure? First they deny they share responsibility. And whwouldn't they? Who's going to hold them responsible if they never held elected office? They distance themselves from the politicians they elected while holding on to the ideology they adopted. They know instinctively that the other side is wrong and/or evil, so the only fall-back position is to blame politicians in general - "theirs" and "ours". That's what you're hearing now. That's my take on it anyway. I just wish I could believe we're heading into one of those pendulum mid-swings where both ideologies are unfashionable and people either just forsake politics altogether or being moderate is the only respectable posture to take. I don't see it though. I don't think pendulum swings are natural or predictable - I compare them to the recovery slogan of "rock bottom is when you stop digging" - people have to decide to forsake ideology and people are cabable of any kind of group insanity - from communism to fascism. I don't think we're any different and democratic systems don't necessarily preclude either extremes. As

Yerdaddy

03-10-2007, 10:16 PM

Doomstone wrote: Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense? It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that? It's always been a commonly held opinion, usually by people who don't pay attention to politics but want an opinion to express anyway. You're hearing it more now because conservatives are finding it harder and harder to defend Republicans, especially Bush since they can't deny that he's lost the Iraq war that he staked so much of his presidency on. Conservatives are now blaming "politicians" rather than the guys they put into power because that would be admitting fault in themselves. I think another reason is that conservatism has become so much more about bashing and blaming liberals than about advocating its own traditional values that the values are largely forgotten by most of today's conservatives. Before Bush lost the war he was violating most of the core traditional values and yet only a small number of conservatives criticized him for it. (I think Bulldogcakes is clearly the best example of this on this board.) I think this is what happens whenever an ideology is ascendent, which conservatism clearly is. (conservatives proclaim their allegience to the ideology as a badge of honor, liberals generally dont. Liberals generally address what they don't like about conservatism or conservatives while conservatives - especially the pundits - throw out "liberal" as a pejorative that needs no further explaination. "John Kerry is the most liberal ember of the Senate." "Nancy Pelosi will turn America into San Francisco." The how and why aren't necessary - just the label.) So, when it's cool to be a conservative people join up without exploring the traditional principles and what they mean and whether they share them, but they simply sign up and start fighting the "other side". It waters down the ideals and the purpose of the ideology while at the same time it gains that ideology more political power through increased numbers and motivation. Liberalism had a similar heyday in the 60s and 70s, as the pendulum has swung back and forth through our history. But as the ideology has strayed from its principles at the same time it has seized and utilized political power it has become more and more feckless to the point we have now with a completely failed president and a Republican Congress who's corruption and blind loyalty to the president's war strategy cost it both houses of Congress, if just barely. They fell victim to the corrupting influences of power - a power given to them by the ascendency of conservatism.How do ordinary conservatives respond to this state of political failure? First they deny they share responsibility. And whwouldn't they? Who's going to hold them responsible if they never held elected office? They distance themselves from the politicians they elected while holding on to the ideology they adopted. They know instinctively that the other side is wrong and/or evil, so the only fall-back position is to blame politicians in general - "theirs" and "ours". That's what you're hearing now. That's my take on it anyway. I just wish I could believe we're heading into one of those pendulum mid-swings where both ideologies are unfashionable and people either just forsake politics altogether or being moderate is the only respectable posture to take. I don't see it though. I don't think pendulum swings are natural or predictable - I compare them to the recovery slogan of "rock bottom is when you stop digging" - people have to decide to forsake ideology and people are cabable of any kind of group insanity - from communism to fascism. I don't think we're any different and democratic systems don't necessarily preclude either extremes. As I

Yerdaddy

03-10-2007, 10:19 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: First of all many or most of the questions I posed don't stem from the Christian right but from the general right, so I'll assume the fact that you decided not to challenge them means you consede those points. Second, the "true right" is a meaningless term if what you consider to be the "true right" isn't willing to stand up to the wayward members of your ideology and instead sit quietly and enjoy the spoils of poltical power. I've never seen you do anything but attack any and all things politcal and there's no evidence to assume you actually stand for the values of a "true" anything. Especially when there's always so little actual substantive information to back up your opinions. Based on what you've stated in this post alone I could presume your idea of what a "true right" is nothing more than an anarchist or a social Darwinist. In other words: a nut.Fat'll Gladly Admit To Being A Nut.  Yerdaddy Just Needs To Similarly Admit That He Is A Verbose Idiot, Who Loves To Type Page After Page Of Sanctimonious Claptrap Just To Hear (See) Himself Speak.  Fat Is A Nut, Alright.  And You Are An Idiot.I was giving you the opportunity to define and defend the "true right". That's why I said "Based on what you've stated in this post alone I could presume..." You did what you always do - attack. So I'll have to presume that you aren't a closet "true" conservative, (whatever that means), but just the gimmicky jackass you portray on the board.And I'll take my reputation over yours anyday.

Yerdaddy

03-10-2007, 10:22 PM

johnniewalker wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]Doomstone wrote: Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense? It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that? It's always been a commonly held opinion, usually by people who don't pay attention to politics but want an opinion to express anyway. You're hearing it more now because conservatives are finding it harder and harder to defend Republicans, especially Bush since they can't deny that he's lost the Iraq war that he staked so much of his presidency on. Conservatives are now blaming "politicians" rather than the guys they put into power because that would be admitting fault in themselves. I think another reason is that conservatism has become so much more about bashing and blaming liberals than about advocating its own traditional values that the values are largely forgotten by most of today's conservatives. Before Bush lost the war he was violating most of the core traditional values and yet only a small number of conservatives criticized him for it. (I think Bulldogcakes is clearly the best example of this on this board.) I think this is what happens whenever an ideology is ascendent, which conservatism clearly is. (conservatives proclaim their allegience to the ideology as a badge of honor, liberals generally dont. Liberals generally address what they don't like about conservatism or conservatives while conservatives - especially the pundits - throw out "liberal" as a pejorative that needs no further explaination. "John Kerry is the most liberal ember of the Senate." "Nancy Pelosi will turn America into San Francisco." The how and why aren't necessary - just the label.) So, when it's cool to be a conservative people join up without exploring the traditional principles and what they mean and whether they share them, but they simply sign up and start fighting the "other side". It waters down the ideals and the purpose of the ideology while at the same time it gains that ideology more political power through increased numbers and motivation. Liberalism had a similar heyday in the 60s and 70s, as the pendulum has swung back and forth through our history. But as the ideology has strayed from its principles at the same time it has seized and utilized political power it has become more and more feckless to the point we have now with a completely failed president and a Republican Congress who's corruption and blind loyalty to the president's war strategy cost it both houses of Congress, if just barely. They fell victim to the corrupting influences of power - a power given to them by the ascendency of conservatism.How do ordinary conservatives respond to this state of political failure? First they deny they share responsibility. And whwouldn't they? Who's going to hold them responsible if they never held elected office? They distance themselves from the politicians they elected while holding on to the ideology they adopted. They know instinctively that the other side is wrong and/or evil, so the only fall-back position is to blame politicians in general - "theirs" and "ours". That's what you're hearing now. That's my take on it anyway. I just wish I could believe we're heading into one of those pendulum mid-swings where both ideologies are unfashionable and people either just forsake politics altogether or being moderate is the only respectable posture to take. I don't see it though. I don't think pendulum swings are natural or predictable - I compare them to the recovery slogan of "rock bottom is when you stop digging" - people have to decide to forsake ideology and people are cabable of any kind of group insanity - from communism to fascism. I don't think we're any different and democrati

Yerdaddy

03-10-2007, 10:26 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: You'll find each side has their issues where they're pro-civil liberties and anti-somthing they don't like. I'll take the left's record on civil liberties over the right's any day.Please Do Not Confuse The TRUE Right With The Religious Right.  Barry Goldwater Was TRUE Right; Jerry Falwell Is Religious Right.The TRUE Right Believes In Individual Rights And Responsibilities: You Take Care Of Yourself.  The Government Should Stay Out Of Your Life.The TRUE Right Thinks That INDIVIDUAL Rights Take Precedence Over Society At Large.Eminent Domain Is A Clear Example.  A TRUE Right Person Will Never Be For Allowing The Government To Take An Individual's Land.  Not Even If It Serves The Public At Large.  NEVER!  The Rights Of The Individual Trump Society At Large.The True Right Is The Closest To A Libertarian Philosophy.  It's Philosophy Is The Most Pro-Civil Liberties. First of all many or most of the questions I posed don't stem from the Christian right but from the general right, so I'll assume the fact that you decided not to challenge them means you consede those points. Second, the "true right" is a meaningless term if what you consider to be the "true right" isn't willing to stand up to the wayward members of your ideology and instead sit quietly and enjoy the spoils of poltical power. I've never seen you do anything but attack any and all things politcal and there's no evidence to assume you actually stand for the values of a "true" anything. Especially when there's always so little actual substantive information to back up your opinions. Based on what you've stated in this post alone I could presume your idea of what a "true right" is nothing more than an anarchist or a social Darwinist. In other words: a nut.

johnniewalker

03-10-2007, 10:26 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]johnniewalker wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]Doomstone wrote: Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense? It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that? It's always been a commonly held opinion, usually by people who don't pay attention to politics but want an opinion to express anyway. You're hearing it more now because conservatives are finding it harder and harder to defend Republicans, especially Bush since they can't deny that he's lost the Iraq war that he staked so much of his presidency on. Conservatives are now blaming "politicians" rather than the guys they put into power because that would be admitting fault in themselves. I think another reason is that conservatism has become so much more about bashing and blaming liberals than about advocating its own traditional values that the values are largely forgotten by most of today's conservatives. Before Bush lost the war he was violating most of the core traditional values and yet only a small number of conservatives criticized him for it. (I think Bulldogcakes is clearly the best example of this on this board.) I think this is what happens whenever an ideology is ascendent, which conservatism clearly is. (conservatives proclaim their allegience to the ideology as a badge of honor, liberals generally dont. Liberals generally address what they don't like about conservatism or conservatives while conservatives - especially the pundits - throw out "liberal" as a pejorative that needs no further explaination. "John Kerry is the most liberal ember of the Senate." "Nancy Pelosi will turn America into San Francisco." The how and why aren't necessary - just the label.) So, when it's cool to be a conservative people join up without exploring the traditional principles and what they mean and whether they share them, but they simply sign up and start fighting the "other side". It waters down the ideals and the purpose of the ideology while at the same time it gains that ideology more political power through increased numbers and motivation. Liberalism had a similar heyday in the 60s and 70s, as the pendulum has swung back and forth through our history. But as the ideology has strayed from its principles at the same time it has seized and utilized political power it has become more and more feckless to the point we have now with a completely failed president and a Republican Congress who's corruption and blind loyalty to the president's war strategy cost it both houses of Congress, if just barely. They fell victim to the corrupting influences of power - a power given to them by the ascendency of conservatism.How do ordinary conservatives respond to this state of political failure? First they deny they share responsibility. And whwouldn't they? Who's going to hold them responsible if they never held elected office? They distance themselves from the politicians they elected while holding on to the ideology they adopted. They know instinctively that the other side is wrong and/or evil, so the only fall-back position is to blame politicians in general - "theirs" and "ours". That's what you're hearing now. That's my take on it anyway. I just wish I could believe we're heading into one of those pendulum mid-swings where both ideologies are unfashionable and people either just forsake politics altogether or being moderate is the only respectable posture to take. I don't see it though. I don't think pendulum swings are natural or predictable - I compare them to the recovery slogan of "rock bottom is when you stop digging" - people have to decide to forsake ideology and people are cabable of any kind

Yerdaddy

03-10-2007, 10:45 PM

Snacks wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: You'll find each side has their issues where they're pro-civil liberties and anti-somthing they don't like. I'll take the left's record on civil liberties over the right's any day.Please Do Not Confuse The TRUE Right With The Religious Right.  Barry Goldwater Was TRUE Right; Jerry Falwell Is Religious Right.The TRUE Right Believes In Individual Rights And Responsibilities: You Take Care Of Yourself.  The Government Should Stay Out Of Your Life.The TRUE Right Thinks That INDIVIDUAL Rights Take Precedence Over Society At Large.Eminent Domain Is A Clear Example.  A TRUE Right Person Will Never Be For Allowing The Government To Take An Individual's Land.  Not Even If It Serves The Public At Large.  NEVER!  The Rights Of The Individual Trump Society At Large.The True Right Is The Closest To A Libertarian Philosophy.  It's Philosophy Is The Most Pro-Civil Liberties. I guess this true right you speak of is no longer around. Libertarian is no where close to the true right. Libertarians are for personal free choices and for govt to stay out of our lives, but the right has not done this in years. I would say a liberal Dem is more libertarian. I guess we can agree to disagree.As for Goldwater, yes he was a republican by party but if he had his same views now as he did back then he would be considered a progresive or a liberal. His views are so open minded that the right would have a heartattack and fall to their knees and pray to god he wasnt part of their Republican party.I strongly disagree with both your assertions that the left is more in line with libertarians and that Goldwater would be considered progressive or liberal. He would be called a liberal by the religious right, but not by progressives or liberals - moderate or otherwise.And libertarians would privatize everything from schools and roads to water and, eventually police and military, (the latter which is happening, somewhat, anyway). They would close most of the federal bureocracy (I never remember how to spell that fucking word) including the FCC, FDA, HUD, DoT, etc. Dems or libs wouldn't dream of this. Hell, Republicans in a position to do so wouldn't either, for that matter. They just talk like they would because parts of their constituencies hold onto these fantasies whether responsible or not. But, when the C-Span cameras are off most of them get serious. It's just that less and less of them ever get serious nowadays.

Fat_Sunny

03-10-2007, 10:49 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: First of all many or most of the questions I posed don't stem from the Christian right but from the general right, so I'll assume the fact that you decided not to challenge them means you consede those points. Second, the "true right" is a meaningless term if what you consider to be the "true right" isn't willing to stand up to the wayward members of your ideology and instead sit quietly and enjoy the spoils of poltical power. I've never seen you do anything but attack any and all things politcal and there's no evidence to assume you actually stand for the values of a "true" anything. Especially when there's always so little actual substantive information to back up your opinions. Based on what you've stated in this post alone I could presume your idea of what a "true right" is nothing more than an anarchist or a social Darwinist. In other words: a nut.Fat'll Gladly Admit To Being A Nut.  Yerdaddy Just Needs To Similarly Admit That He Is A Verbose Idiot, Who Loves To Type Page After Page Of Sanctimonious Claptrap Just To Hear (See) Himself Speak.  Fat Is A Nut, Alright.  And You Are An Idiot.

Yerdaddy

03-10-2007, 11:35 PM

Since you know how much I love to hear (see) myself talk:Regarding Rumsfeld's war plans and the failure of neoconservatism: Rummy's specific war plans don't qualify as neoconservative. Neoconservatism is more about grand plans for what America should do with all this post-Cold War power than how specifically to invade a country. And Rummy was never one of the big ideas guys of neoconservatism. He's an arrogant prick who thought he was smarter than everyone in every room, but he was more of a technocrat [<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/20/061120fa_fact" target="_blank">How Donald Rumsfeld reformed the Army and lost Iraq</a>] who happened to attatch himself to the neoconservatives because they were his friends and colleagues from the last four Republican administrations. The ideas neocons are blaming the war-planning for the failures of Iraq while maintaining that neoconservative ideas are still sound. They have a point, but only to a point. They believe that America should use its status as the sole hyperpower to maintain that status but also to go out and remake the world to its own ends. The neocons themselves differ on what those ends should be: some, like Richard Pearle, Wolfowitz and others thought we should be imposing "American values" on the rest of the world because that would be the best thing for everyone, and of course WE'RE #1! Others, like Cheney and Rummy, felt we should be using our power to serve American "interests", (and the interests of their friends and colleagues in certain businesses). Still others, I think, were myopically focused on the US-Israeli axis and could actually be regarded as serving Israel's interests at the expense of ours. I think Wermer (sp) and Feith fit that bill along with a few others. Most of the more benevolent-minded neocons were thrown out of the adminsitration after the fall of Baghdad and some have turned against it, likely out of bitterness or maintaining the ideology or both. The more Machaevellian ones remained to ham-fist their way through the post-war period, struggling to try to salvage their plans while creating the impression that they were intending to impliment the democratic plans of the guys they fired. So the ideas core of neocons are trying to keep the battered body of neoconservatism alive, while the Macheavellians continue to frag it from inside the White House. And ordinary conservatives have basically been outside the process from the beginning, most of them only hearing about neoconservatism in the lead-up to the war like everyone else. They just defended it because it was conservative. If Bush had brought mainly the old-school conservative realists of his father's administration (Powell, Baker and Scowcroft) into the White House with him they would have defended their policies too. Wouldn't that have been awesome right about now?I think a Republican realist foreign policy will be in office in 2009, but I don't think neoconservatism is dead yet. You could always just change the name like a tobacco company and keep everything else the same. The public won't even notice. Read George Packer's book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Assassins-Gate-America-Iraq/dp/0374530556/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2188754-1661633?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173605381&sr=8-1" target="_blank">The Assassin's Gate</a>" for more of this claptrap as well as a view of the war as viewed from the commanders on the ground, the Iraqis and the reconstruction insiders themselves.Better?

MrPink

03-11-2007, 12:32 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: You'll find each side has their issues where they're pro-civil liberties and anti-somthing they don't like. I'll take the left's record on civil liberties over the right's any day.Please Do Not Confuse The TRUE Right With The Religious Right.  Barry Goldwater Was TRUE Right; Jerry Falwell Is Religious Right.The TRUE Right Believes In Individual Rights And Responsibilities: You Take Care Of Yourself.  The Government Should Stay Out Of Your Life.The TRUE Right Thinks That INDIVIDUAL Rights Take Precedence Over Society At Large.Eminent Domain Is A Clear Example.  A TRUE Right Person Will Never Be For Allowing The Government To Take An Individual's Land.  Not Even If It Serves The Public At Large.  NEVER!  The Rights Of The Individual Trump Society At Large.The True Right Is The Closest To A Libertarian Philosophy.  It's Philosophy Is The Most Pro-Civil Liberties. I don't fuckin know how this shit became like thus but Fat_Sunny is my fuckin boy now. Everyone thinks that the other side is tryiing to help them out. Repubs think that they want to make sure that everyone is a Christian patriot. Democrats think that everyone should give up their money to people who ainr as fortunate. Democrats want me to not smoke in bars (which by the way you can fuckin leave if you dont like pussies) Republicans don't want me to fuckin have abortions (which help control the vermin population).

high fly

03-11-2007, 07:31 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: Doomstone wrote: Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense? It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that? It's always been a commonly held opinion, usually by people who don't pay attention to politics but want an opinion to express anyway. You're hearing it more now because conservatives are finding it harder and harder to defend Republicans, especially Bush since they can't deny that he's lost the Iraq war that he staked so much of his presidency on. Conservatives are now blaming "politicians" rather than the guys they put into power because that would be admitting fault in themselves. It's usually heard when the majority of those doing wrong are on one's own side. We heard it from the Republicans at the time of Watergate, for example. Bush & co. have not just lost the war in Iraq, they left the back door open so Osama could escape and failed to learn a key lesson of counterinsurgency warfare, which is insurgencies need sanctuaries in order to survive. Survival is the number one goal of an insurgency and Bush has never cut off the sanctuary the Taliban and al Qaeda enjoy in Pakistan.Bush has wrecked our standing in the world and his domestic policies have been wretched. He has vastly increased the size of the bureaucracy. He has vastly increased the intrusiveness of the federal government into our local schools and private lives. His policies have led to increased numbers of people below the poverty line. His policies have magnified schisms between people just when we need unity the most. On top of all that, his fiscal policies have led to new record-sized deficits and he's worn out our military.  I think this is what happens whenever an ideology is ascendent, which conservatism clearly is. (conservatives proclaim their allegience to the ideology as a badge of honor, liberals generally dont. I gotta dissagree with you on this one. You are correct that the right-wingers have done a good job making "liberal" seem to be a bad thing.Conservativism, or better, right-wing politics is not ascendant, in my view. I believe it has reached a high-water mark and has begun to ebb and will continue to recede for years to come. Americans are just sick of them, just like they were sick of Republicans after Watergate.An advantage the right-wingers have is they reduce everything to bumper sticker phrases, no matter how inane. They sound ok to those who don't look closely and so superficiality is their ally. Liberal ideas often need more time to illustrate and explain. Progressives also need to more sharply define what they are for and show how they are more of the people and have always been the side that has most benefitted the lives of citizens.Thanks to liberal programs, million of hungry children have been fed.Thanks to liberal programs such as TVA, millions of Americans have electricity and water and sewage services.Thanks to liberal programs like the community college system and Pell grants, millions of Americans have more education than they would have received.Thanks to liberal programs, our water is cleaner and the air healthier to breathe.Thanks to liberal programs, millions of low income families own their homes.And it will be thanks to liberals that ALL Americans will one day have health care. Check out Foxes In the Henhouse, by Jardine and "Mudcat" Saunders. These two chaps ran Mark Warner's campaign, I think Tim Kaine's and certainly were involved with James Webb's upset of George Allen. The book describes how liberals have done the most for rural voters and IT presentS a strategy for winning them back to the Democratic Party.&n

Yerdaddy

03-11-2007, 08:05 PM

high fly wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]Doomstone wrote: Am I the only one getting sick of hearing the "yeah, well all politicians are..." defense? It has been coming up a lot lately, why is that? It's always been a commonly held opinion, usually by people who don't pay attention to politics but want an opinion to express anyway. You're hearing it more now because conservatives are finding it harder and harder to defend Republicans, especially Bush since they can't deny that he's lost the Iraq war that he staked so much of his presidency on. Conservatives are now blaming "politicians" rather than the guys they put into power because that would be admitting fault in themselves. It's usually heard when the majority of those doing wrong are on one's own side. We heard it from the Republicans at the time of Watergate, for example. Bush & co. have not just lost the war in Iraq, they left the back door open so Osama could escape and failed to learn a key lesson of counterinsurgency warfare, which is insurgencies need sanctuaries in order to survive. Survival is the number one goal of an insurgency and Bush has never cut off the sanctuary the Taliban and al Qaeda enjoy in Pakistan.Bush has wrecked our standing in the world and his domestic policies have been wretched. He has vastly increased the size of the bureaucracy. He has vastly increased the intrusiveness of the federal government into our local schools and private lives. His policies have led to increased numbers of people below the poverty line. His policies have magnified schisms between people just when we need unity the most. On top of all that, his fiscal policies have led to new record-sized deficits and he's worn out our military.  I think this is what happens whenever an ideology is ascendent, which conservatism clearly is. (conservatives proclaim their allegience to the ideology as a badge of honor, liberals generally dont. I gotta dissagree with you on this one. You are correct that the right-wingers have done a good job making "liberal" seem to be a bad thing.Conservativism, or better, right-wing politics is not ascendant, in my view. I believe it has reached a high-water mark and has begun to ebb and will continue to recede for years to come. Americans are just sick of them, just like they were sick of Republicans after Watergate.An advantage the right-wingers have is they reduce everything to bumper sticker phrases, no matter how inane. They sound ok to those who don't look closely and so superficiality is their ally. Liberal ideas often need more time to illustrate and explain. Progressives also need to more sharply define what they are for and show how they are more of the people and have always been the side that has most benefitted the lives of citizens.Thanks to liberal programs, million of hungry children have been fed.Thanks to liberal programs such as TVA, millions of Americans have electricity and water and sewage services.Thanks to liberal programs like the community college system and Pell grants, millions of Americans have more education than they would have received.Thanks to liberal programs, our water is cleaner and the air healthier to breathe.Thanks to liberal programs, millions of low income families own their homes.And it will be thanks to liberals that ALL Americans will one day have health care.Check out Foxes In the Henhouse, by Jardine and "Mudcat" Saunders. These two chaps ran Mark Warner's campaign, I think Tim Kaine's and certainly were involved with James Webb's upset of George Allen. The book describes how liberals have done the most for rural voters and IT presentS a strategy for winning

high fly

03-12-2007, 02:20 AM

Yerdaddy wrote:. Issues obviously mean little to the public. So how does the left compete with Fox "News" with no other outlets for their message than documentaries and books? How long did the disillusionment with the right after Watergate last? Reagan was elected less than seven years after Nixon resigned. And that was without a Ministry of Propaganda. Also, I think the Democrats are good at governing. But they suck at elections. That's just one more obstacle; how does the party overcome the Fox factor in elections? I don't see why the pendulum should swing back anytime soon.I think issues do matter. I think the Democrats don't have that big a problem with outlets for their message, but rather they need to be more clear with what they stand for and don't just sit there and take it when the Swift-Boat slime machine gets cranked up.Disgust with the Republicans lasted as short a time as it did because the bastards were dealt the ignominy they deserved and also because the GOP remade their party. They were led by Reagan, previously sort of an outsider, and the Christian Right appeared on the scene.I think we saw a good pattern for winning elections last year. Democrats fought back harder than previously, they had that half dozen promises they fulfilled in the first 100 hours, and something like 34 of the 35 candidates who were veterans running for office were Democrats. The party needs to get that Rahm Emanuel chap running the national campaign.I think the pendulum is swinging backward because the American people don't see the war in Iraq going anywhere. Try as they do to shirk responsibility and to pass the buck and, I think the American people see this as not just Bush's war, but the Republican's war. Especially with 2 more years of Iraq debacle before they vote. They are pissed off bin Laden is still out there. They look a the last 6 years and see thin gruel as to what Republicans have done for them. There's definitely a backlash here, and I see Iraq fueling it right through the election.The presidency is there for the taking, but I don't think Hillary or Obama can pull it. The best the Dems have is Edwards, whom I'd like to see paired with Wes Clark. Even if they lose the big one, they will gain in Congress and a Republican president with a "stay the course" approach will bury the party.  

This message was edited by high fly on 3-12-07 @ 6:24 AM

Snacks

03-12-2007, 03:56 AM

high fly wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote:. Issues obviously mean little to the public. So how does the left compete with Fox "News" with no other outlets for their message than documentaries and books? How long did the disillusionment with the right after Watergate last? Reagan was elected less than seven years after Nixon resigned. And that was without a Ministry of Propaganda. Also, I think the Democrats are good at governing. But they suck at elections. That's just one more obstacle; how does the party overcome the Fox factor in elections? I don't see why the pendulum should swing back anytime soon.I think issues do matter. I think the Democrats don't have that big a problem with outlets for their message, but rather they need to be more clear with what they stand for and don't just sit there and take it when the Swift-Boat slime machine gets cranked up.Disgust with the Republicans lasted as short a time as it did because the bastards were dealt the ignominy they deserved and also because the GOP remade their party. They were led by Reagan, previously sort of an outsider, and the Christian Right appeared on the scene.I think we saw a good pattern for winning elections last year. Democrats fought back harder than previously, they had that half dozen promises they fulfilled in the first 100 hours, and something like 34 of the 35 candidates who were veterans running for office were Democrats. The party needs to get that Rahm Emanuel chap running the national campaign.I think the pendulum is swinging backward because the American people don't see the war in Iraq going anywhere. Try as they do to shirk responsibility and to pass the buck and, I think the American people see this as not just Bush's war, but the Republican's war. Especially with 2 more years of Iraq debacle before they vote. They are pissed off bin Laden is still out there. They look a the last 6 years and see thin gruel as to what Republicans have done for them. There's definitely a backlash here, and I see Iraq fueling it right through the election.The presidency is there for the taking, but I don't think Hillary or Obama can pull it. The best the Dems have is Edwards, whom I'd like to see paired with Wes Clark. Even if they lose the big one, they will gain in Congress and a Republican president with a "stay the course" approach will bury the party.  This message was edited by high fly on 3-12-07 @ 6:24 AM I think the biggest battle Dems have is the American people. I think that too many Americans dont believe the Dems are working for them, they feel that they are above the policies of what the dems are pushing. What I mean by this is a lot of Americans see what the dems want to do such as health care, taxes, equlity, etc and they think that the dems are just thinking of minorities not all people. Their wrong but thats what I think they think. Most Americans do not make over $250k a year yet most of the Reuplicans tax cuts, policies, "death tax" etc does not benifit the majority of Americans that vote Republican, but the Republicans sell their issues better and people believe that what they are selling is better for them and the country. or alot of Republican voters are one issue voters. They vote based on abortion or religious beliefs, gay marriage. I think the Republicans love the one issue voters. They are an easy sell.I look at my own family for this. I'm probably the only admited liberal person in my family. If you talk to any of them they mostly agree will personal freedoms of people and the govt staying out of our bedrooms and personal lives. But once you talk about politics and taxes etc they all are Republicans and most of the time they are so dead wrong on the issues. They throw

Yerdaddy

03-12-2007, 07:46 AM

high fly wrote: Yerdaddy wrote:. Issues obviously mean little to the public. So how does the left compete with Fox "News" with no other outlets for their message than documentaries and books? How long did the disillusionment with the right after Watergate last? Reagan was elected less than seven years after Nixon resigned. And that was without a Ministry of Propaganda. Also, I think the Democrats are good at governing. But they suck at elections. That's just one more obstacle; how does the party overcome the Fox factor in elections? I don't see why the pendulum should swing back anytime soon.I think issues do matter. I think the Democrats don't have that big a problem with outlets for their message, but rather they need to be more clear with what they stand for and don't just sit there and take it when the Swift-Boat slime machine gets cranked up.Disgust with the Republicans lasted as short a time as it did because the bastards were dealt the ignominy they deserved and also because the GOP remade their party. They were led by Reagan, previously sort of an outsider, and the Christian Right appeared on the scene....The presidency is there for the taking, but I don't think Hillary or Obama can pull it. The best the Dems have is Edwards, whom I'd like to see paired with Wes Clark. Even if they lose the big one, they will gain in Congress and a Republican president with a "stay the course" approach will bury the party.  This message was edited by high fly on 3-12-07 @ 6:24 AM "I think issues do matter."<a href="http://cbs2.com/politics/politicsnational_story_069133752.html" target="_blank">Poll: Voters Value Character Over Policy</a>A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate. Just one-third look first to candidates' stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence."Voters only look at policies as a lens into what type of person the candidate is," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. That campaign based its voter targeting and messaging strategies on the character-first theory. The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults, conducted Monday through Wednesday, found honesty was by far the most popular single trait ≈ volunteered by 41 percent of voters in open-ended questioning.We're looking first for that honest politician? We're retarded. Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York leads (on the question of trust) with 38 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois at 21 percent. Former Vice President Al Gore is at 14 percent and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards is at 10 percent. The rest of the field is in single digits.Clinton leads Obama among voters who mention honesty and strong character, compassion, intelligence and stance on issues. The former first lady is tied with Obama among the small number of respondents who value experience, a surprise given Obama's short stint in Washington.Yeah, Democratic voters have got it together. Losers!Bush won re-election in 2004 when most people were opposed to the war in Iraq. He used the against-the-grain war policy to cast himself as a strong, decisive leader. Republican voters are equally dumb but loyal. That means election victories. [quote]I think we saw a good pattern for winning elections last year. Democrats fought back harder than previously, they had that half

Yerdaddy

03-12-2007, 07:57 AM

Snacks wrote: [quote]high fly wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote:. Issues obviously mean little to the public. So how does the left compete with Fox "News" with no other outlets for their message than documentaries and books? How long did the disillusionment with the right after Watergate last? Reagan was elected less than seven years after Nixon resigned. And that was without a Ministry of Propaganda. Also, I think the Democrats are good at governing. But they suck at elections. That's just one more obstacle; how does the party overcome the Fox factor in elections? I don't see why the pendulum should swing back anytime soon.I think issues do matter. I think the Democrats don't have that big a problem with outlets for their message, but rather they need to be more clear with what they stand for and don't just sit there and take it when the Swift-Boat slime machine gets cranked up.Disgust with the Republicans lasted as short a time as it did because the bastards were dealt the ignominy they deserved and also because the GOP remade their party. They were led by Reagan, previously sort of an outsider, and the Christian Right appeared on the scene.I think we saw a good pattern for winning elections last year. Democrats fought back harder than previously, they had that half dozen promises they fulfilled in the first 100 hours, and something like 34 of the 35 candidates who were veterans running for office were Democrats. The party needs to get that Rahm Emanuel chap running the national campaign.I think the pendulum is swinging backward because the American people don't see the war in Iraq going anywhere. Try as they do to shirk responsibility and to pass the buck and, I think the American people see this as not just Bush's war, but the Republican's war. Especially with 2 more years of Iraq debacle before they vote. They are pissed off bin Laden is still out there. They look a the last 6 years and see thin gruel as to what Republicans have done for them. There's definitely a backlash here, and I see Iraq fueling it right through the election.The presidency is there for the taking, but I don't think Hillary or Obama can pull it. The best the Dems have is Edwards, whom I'd like to see paired with Wes Clark. Even if they lose the big one, they will gain in Congress and a Republican president with a "stay the course" approach will bury the party.  This message was edited by high fly on 3-12-07 @ 6:24 AM I think the biggest battle Dems have is the American people. I think that too many Americans dont believe the Dems are working for them, they feel that they are above the policies of what the dems are pushing. What I mean by this is a lot of Americans see what the dems want to do such as health care, taxes, equlity, etc and they think that the dems are just thinking of minorities not all people. Their wrong but thats what I think they think. Most Americans do not make over $250k a year yet most of the Reuplicans tax cuts, policies, "death tax" etc does not benifit the majority of Americans that vote Republican, but the Republicans sell their issues better and people believe that what they are selling is better for them and the country. or alot of Republican voters are one issue voters. They vote based on abortion or religious beliefs, gay marriage. I think the Republicans love the one issue voters. They are an easy sell.I look at my own family for this. I'm probably the only admited liberal person in my family. If you talk to any of them they mostly agree will personal freedoms of people and the govt staying out of our bedrooms and personal lives. But once you talk about politics and taxes etc they all are Republicans and most of the

high fly

03-12-2007, 04:38 PM

By the time of the '94 elections, Clinton had stepped into a few paint buckets. He started out with a disilusioned populace struggling with a 7.4% unemployment rate a the traditional Republican record-sized deficit, there was the attack by Mir Aimal Kasi at the CIA, the first WTC bombing and then the gays in the military. They were cranking up for the national health care debate and being clubbed for that one, and there was a bruising fight over the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act which took back the Reagan tax cuts for the rich and imposed a modest tax increase on the middle class. Not one Republican voted for it and it only passed by Gore stepping in to break a tie in the Senate.The Republicans had a field day declaring the tax increase would throw us into another depression. Unemployment had started to come down, but the real effects of the Deficit Reduction Act had yet to really take hold.The Republicans had a clear, easy-to-understand "Contract With America" to lie about and they had the Dems backpedaling on the issues I noted above. I wanted to throw in the Randy Weaver case and the Oklahoma City bombing, but I'm not sure if they didn't come a little later. I'm not one to dismiss all polls, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that 90% of Democratic Party voters think John Edwards is dishonest. I don't think he's really on the radar screens of most of them as Hillary and Obama get all the pub.The Democrats have much to do, but they have quite an opportunity right now. I'm not saying they'll pull it off and fill the void the GOP is leaving. Right now I see the GOP as a boxer knocked cross-eyed silly with his hands hanging down, knees wobbly and little birdies flying around his head.They need to step back and let Bush get punished on Iraq and not leap to cut off funds just yet. First they need to prepare the ground by holding hearings that show how the rationales we were given the aluminum tubes, the mobile WMD factories, the al Qaeda connection, the Niger uranium deal, the reconstituted nuke program, the massive underground WMD manufacturing and storage facilities were all based on paper-thin intelligence and the administration had plenty of contrary information. Once the public sees it all tied together in one stanky pile, they will support cutting off the funding and getting the hell out.And the saber-rattling with Iran is just a bluff. We don't have the forces to send in, for one thing. For another, the 60% unfortunately-named Shiites in Iraq who are largely quiet will wreak havoc in our rear if we try to go into Iran.

Yerdaddy

03-12-2007, 09:25 PM

high fly wrote: By the time of the '94 elections, Clinton had stepped into a few paint buckets. He started out with a disilusioned populace struggling with a 7.4% unemployment rate a the traditional Republican record-sized deficit, there was the attack by Mir Aimal Kasi at the CIA, the first WTC bombing and then the gays in the military. They were cranking up for the national health care debate and being clubbed for that one, and there was a bruising fight over the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act which took back the Reagan tax cuts for the rich and imposed a modest tax increase on the middle class. Not one Republican voted for it and it only passed by Gore stepping in to break a tie in the Senate.The Republicans had a field day declaring the tax increase would throw us into another depression. Unemployment had started to come down, but the real effects of the Deficit Reduction Act had yet to really take hold.The Republicans had a clear, easy-to-understand "Contract With America" to lie about and they had the Dems backpedaling on the issues I noted above. I wanted to throw in the Randy Weaver case and the Oklahoma City bombing, but I'm not sure if they didn't come a little later.Nothing near so major as a lost war and all things that the Dems could have managed if they had known how to communicate their position to the public - the most important skill of a political party. The Republicans killed them with communnication then and have killed them ever since. Until the Drmocrats have learned to counter their message (and without their own Fox "News") they'll lose. I don't see any evidence of that. Even Hillary, the toughest politician in the Democratic race, hasn't got in front of one of the biggest issues she'll face - her vote on the use of force. She has to explain it in terms of what that vote was for and what it wasn't for in order to beat both her Democratic rivals and the Republicans. Just like Kerry had to make clear his "flip-flop" vote on the war-spending bill. He didn't clearly spell it out even though his actions made sense and he did the right thing. Hillary's actions were the most responsible thing to do and yet she still has yet to explain the vote to cut off both the crazy anti-war Dems and the pro-war Reps. She hasn't done that and that scares me. And Edwards wouldn't do any better. I can't see him as any tougher than Gore or Kerry and they're both losers because they were pussies.I'm not one to dismiss all polls, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that 90% of Democratic Party voters think John Edwards is dishonest. I don't think he's really on the radar screens of most of them as Hillary and Obama get all the pub.The Democrats have much to do, but they have quite an opportunity right now. I'm not saying they'll pull it off and fill the void the GOP is leaving. Right now I see the GOP as a boxer knocked cross-eyed silly with his hands hanging down, knees wobbly and little birdies flying around his head.They need to step back and let Bush get punished on Iraq and not leap to cut off funds just yet. First they need to prepare the ground by holding hearings that show how the rationales we were given the aluminum tubes, the mobile WMD factories, the al Qaeda connection, the Niger uranium deal, the reconstituted nuke program, the massive underground WMD manufacturing and storage facilities were all based on paper-thin intelligence and the administration had plenty of contrary information. Once the public sees it all tied together in one stanky pile, they will support cutting off the funding and getting the hell out.That's the same situation as 2006 - they coasted - and they got a tiny majority. They can't coast. They have to prove to the middle that they can do better, and that they won't fit their stereotype and be soft on defense. Tha

Dudeman

03-20-2007, 05:22 PM

From Tom Delay's new book:  "I drank too much," he writes. "I slept with women I wasn't married to. I neglected my family. This is the truth, and I recount it with a deep sense of grief that I ever lived in such a manner."

ralphbxny

03-20-2007, 05:33 PM

Dudeman wrote: From Tom Delay's new book:  "I drank too much," he writes. "I slept with women I wasn't married to. I neglected my family. This is the truth, and I recount it with a deep sense of grief that I ever lived in such a manner."  Sounds like a good time!!

badmonkey

03-20-2007, 07:21 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: Until the Drmocrats have learned to counter their message (and without their own Fox "News") they'll lose.   What about MSNBC?  Isn't that the superultrafuckbush wing of the mainstream media or do they not count because nobody watches it? Badmonkey

Snacks

03-20-2007, 07:30 PM

badmonkey wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Until the Drmocrats have learned to counter their message (and without their own Fox "News") they'll lose.   What about MSNBC?  Isn't that the superultrafuckbush wing of the mainstream media or do they not count because nobody watches it? Badmonkey I love that saying "mainstream media" It is such a FoxNews phrase. So Msnbc is mainstream but FoxNews isnt? FoxNews loves to play this "we are the little guy" attitude.There is a difference between Foxnews who sucks the right wings cock and the rest of the media. The rest of the media might be going after Bush but its not because they are all left leaning reporters or org. They are going after Bush b/c all of the shit he has done.No matter what shit this administration has done faux news keeps saying "We need to give the President one more try at this or that " They never go after the story they allow the story to be told to them by Rove.

Midkiff

03-20-2007, 07:45 PM

hayseed republican apologists suckNewt sucks

badmonkey

03-21-2007, 10:03 AM

Snacks wrote: badmonkey wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Until the Drmocrats have learned to counter their message (and without their own Fox "News") they'll lose.   What about MSNBC?  Isn't that the superultrafuckbush wing of the mainstream media or do they not count because nobody watches it? Badmonkey I love that saying "mainstream media" It is such a FoxNews phrase. So Msnbc is mainstream but FoxNews isnt? FoxNews loves to play this "we are the little guy" attitude.There is a difference between Foxnews who sucks the right wings cock and the rest of the media. The rest of the media might be going after Bush but its not because they are all left leaning reporters or org. They are going after Bush b/c all of the shit he has done.No matter what shit this administration has done faux news keeps saying "We need to give the President one more try at this or that " They never go after the story they allow the story to be told to them by Rove.I didn't say that Fox news wasn't the mainstream media.  Badmonkey

Yerdaddy

03-21-2007, 08:39 PM

badmonkey wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Until the Drmocrats have learned to counter their message (and without their own Fox "News") they'll lose.  What about MSNBC? Isn't that the superultrafuckbush wing of the mainstream media or do they not count because nobody watches it? Badmonkey  Congratulations for being the one millionth person to claim "liberal media" without backnig it up with evidence on this board! You win a tampon.

badmonkey

03-21-2007, 10:07 PM

Other than Keith Olbermann and the shortlived Connie and Maury show, I don't have hard evidence on MSNBC, thus the question mark.  I do watch CNN most of the day at work lately.  I have watched MSNBC most of the day at work in the past. I can see the bias when watching, without having to compare it to what FOX News says.  Since you did ask for evidence of media bias, I will give you some stories about a guy I used to work with named Peter Collins that had to deal with the media biases when he was a reporter.  I've known this guy for several years, long before he wrote this stuff.  You may find it interesting. Take from them what you like, disregard it as my hayseed apologetics for the Bush administration, or whatever if you must. No matter what you think, I heard these stories way before they were told in print or on television and I know that he quit the news business because he was sick of being told to change the facts to fit the agenda.  I'm sure all the information will be easily refuted or deflected by the bubble you live in just like the "hayseeds" are too dumb to realize that FOX news is the "mainstream propaganda industry for the right."<a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/1/160050.shtml">http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/1/160050.shtml</a><a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030416.asp#3">http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030416.asp#3</a><a href="http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000259.html">http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000259.html</a><a href="http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000057.html">http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000057.html</a> Badmonkey

A.J.

03-22-2007, 04:19 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Congratulations for being the one millionth person to claim "liberal media" without backnig it up with evidence on this board! You win a tampon. Used or unused?

badmonkey

03-22-2007, 09:21 AM

A.J. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Congratulations for being the one millionth person to claim "liberal media" without backnig it up with evidence on this board! You win a tampon. Used or unused?Good question.  And here I just assumed it would be a new one. Badmonkey

high fly

03-22-2007, 02:58 PM

Well, badmonkey, I see you lead off with a link to Newsmax, which is run by a guy who readily admits to having a right-wing agenda and to spreading conservative propaganda. An occasional guest on the Alan Colmes radio show, Colmes will ask him about it nearly every time.Same with that mediaresearch outfit.Look, the major meia are owned by corporations and the irst thing they tell you about corporations in Business 101 is that a corporation is formed to make profit for the shareholders. This is their primary responsibility. To meet that responsibility, media outlets must reach the most readers and viewers possible, and they hire people to make sure they do so.When, say, a Rupert Murdoch or a Rev. Sun Yung Moon purchase a media outlet and tailor the output for a narrow segment of the population, they don't do as well. Sure, Fox does fine against crappy cable competition, but when it is a click away from ABC, NBC and CBS, it doesn't do as well. And since about half the country is conservative, then why doesn't Fox get half the viewers? Is it because conservatives are too damned stupid to tune in? No. They watch the other networks because they are more balanced than the cliches Limbaugh and Hannity throw out there.Also, if you will study the lead-up to the Iraq war, you will find that the so-called "liberal media" gave positive, downright fawning and uncritical reporting of the administration's rationales for going to war.Judith Miller was putting their propaganda on the front page of the (gasp!) New York Times on a daily basis.The Washington Post was for the war, as was Richard Cohen and a number of other libruls.Look, this whole "liberal media" thing is a big fat whine that has been going on since Watergate. Unwilling to take responsibility, Republicans began to search for a way to weasel out of it and they seized on a paranoid the media is out to get us message that is nothing more than shoot the messenger. Nixon went down, not because of his venality, lying, use of federal agencies to get his political opponents, etc., but because of a fiendish plot by the liberal media.The fact is, reporters look for good stories. They will report on right-wing crooks just as quickly and as thoroughly as left-wing crooks.Just listen to Limpbaugh and Manatee for all the times during the day that they use reporting from the New York Times, the L.A. Times and the Washington Post for facts to support their opinions. They do it constantly and lie nearly every time they claim the liberal media is not covering a story.

badmonkey

03-22-2007, 04:06 PM

Ignore the website name and read the articles.  They are written about a man I know.  This is not 3rd hand information for me.  I have heard the stories firsthand from the horses mouth.  Surely you can't possibly say that because the article found itself on newsmax that Peter Collins is lying.  I just did a search for his name to find the articles and those were the ones that I found.  Do you honestly think that CNN, ABC, CBS, etc are going to be printing articles where one of their former journalists talks about how they completely reworded one of his stories to the point where it was totally opposite of the facts?Here is the link to a reprint of the op/ed Peter Collins sent to the Washington Times.  Yes the Washington Times is conservative.  These are the words of Peter Collins, not the Washington Times.  You will have to scroll down to where it says in bold "<a name="Corruption at CNN"></a>Corruption at CNN".<a href="http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqwar.htm">http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqwar.htm</a> Perhaps you trust imdb news:<a name="tv4"></a>"Ex-ABC Newsman Accuses Jennings of Manipulating Stories<div class="studiopara">A former ABC News correspondent has accused network anchorman <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0421233/">Peter Jennings</a> of forcing him to alter his news reports in order to present a sympathetic view of the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua during the 1980s. Peter Collins, who also worked for the BBC, CBS and CNN during his 30 years as a broadcast newsman, told the online CNSNews, a unit of the conservative Media Research Center, that in 1989, while reporting from Managua, he received a telephone call from Jennings asking him to revise a script for a report about the 10th anniversary of the Sandinistas. "Basically what Mr. Jennings wanted was for me to make a favorable pronouncement about the 10 years of the Sandinista revolution and he called me up, massaged my script in a way that I no longer recognized it," Collins said. His experiences at CNN were similar, he maintained, saying that he was forced to read "Saddam Hussein's propaganda" as part of a CNN ploy to land an interview with Saddam. Neither ABC nor CNN would comment on Collins's allegations. "</div><div class="studiopara">Or how about this even, here's the google search link.  You sort through the articles and find the ones that meet your criteria and read them.<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLJ&q=%22peter+collins%22+abc+cb s+cnn">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLJ&q=%22peter+collins%22+abc+cb s+cnn</a>I thought surely you guys would at least read the articles.  Is it ironic that you guys claim there's no media bias, but will refuse to even read an article if it lives on a "biased" website?  Quick!  Close your minds!  The conservatives are coming!Badmonkey </div>

TheMojoPin

03-22-2007, 05:06 PM

I don't think it's too much to ask to find coroborating evidence or investigation from sources outside of Newsmax or the Washington Times.  I'm not saying it's not true...I am saying it's easy to doubt something that comes from sources with such blatant agendas and you hear nothing anywhere else.  I'm reading a lot of these articles, but they're almost all coming accross as examples of a information viral spread from a single source.  And beyond the initial accusations, there's nothing.  Jennings could very well be a biased hack...there's just not much to these accusations.  And busting Jennings or someone like Dan Rather doesn't automatically mean "most of the media is liberal."  That's at least jumping from point A or B all the way to Z squared infinity.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-22-07 @ 9:13 PM

Midkiff

03-22-2007, 05:10 PM

Fox News sucks nuts. CNN sucks now too because they make painfully obvious attempts to try NOT to sound too liberal and drive away the hayseeds. They all just plain suck. Bush sucks. Delay sucks. Newt is a fag and a half.

Doomstone

03-22-2007, 05:45 PM

I LOVE NEWSMAX!!! <img src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CMjsvvL29I_QFBB9GH0yCGH_hLYzoIkw&ai=BHBTH lS8DRuD7OqiolgPHtOnKDbSrxBQAAAAgzPqQBjAAOABQ-vqxvQNYxK-5ngZgyb7lirSk2A-qAQo4NzQyNTU0NDA0sgEPd3d3Lm5ld3NtYXguY29tugEJZ2ZwX 2ltYWdlyAED2gE-aHR0cDovL3d3dy5uZXdzbWF4LmNvbS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hcnRpY2 xlcy8yMDAzLzUvMS8xNjAwNTAuc2h0bWzAAgLgAgHqAhBST1Nf TWlkM18xMjV4MTI1-ALw0R6AAwGIAwGQA5D-_________wGYA5D-_________wGoAwE" border="0" /> <img src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=COKI4s2lxOe2IhB9GH0yCMjnIYb_Ikhw&ai=BbsbH li8DRoy4BKamlgPc9djKDdy2oBwAAAAgzPqQBjAAOABQp8attA JY8Imy4wZgyb7lirSk2A-qAQo4NzQyNTU0NDA0sgEPd3d3Lm5ld3NtYXguY29tugEJZ2ZwX 2ltYWdlyAED2gE-aHR0cDovL3d3dy5uZXdzbWF4LmNvbS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hcnRpY2 xlcy8yMDAzLzUvMS8xNjAwNTAuc2h0bWzAAgLgAgHqAhBST1Nf TWlkNF8xMjV4MTI1-ALw0R6AAwGIAwGQA5D-_________wGYA5D-_________wGoAwE" border="0" /> <img src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CMnEzuWWsYz40QEQfRh9Mgiv5T-R4y3qNg&ai=B_NniejADRvPDJJSskAOuyeXKDeS_9RwAAAAgzP qQBjAAOABQv_Kb3wNY_InE5gZgyb7lirSk2A-YAZD59AGqAQo4NzQyNTU0NDA0sgEPd3d3Lm5ld3NtYXguY29tu gEJZ2ZwX2ltYWdlyAED2gE-aHR0cDovL3d3dy5uZXdzbWF4LmNvbS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hcnRpY2 xlcy8yMDAzLzUvMS8xNjAwNTAuc2h0bWzAAgLgAgHqAhBST1Nf TWlkOV8xMjV4MTI1-ALw0R6AAwGIAwGQA5D-_________wGYA5D-_________wGoAwE" border="0" />

badmonkey

03-22-2007, 06:11 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: I don't think it's too much to ask to find coroborating evidence or investigation from sources outside of Newsmax or the Washington Times.  I'm not saying it's not true...I am saying it's easy to doubt something that comes from sources with such blatant agendas and you hear nothing anywhere else.  I'm reading a lot of these articles, but they're almost all coming accross as examples of a information viral spread from a single source.  And beyond the initial accusations, there's nothing.  Jennings could very well be a biased hack...there's just not much to these accusations.  And busting Jennings or someone like Dan Rather doesn't automatically mean "most of the media is liberal."  That's at least jumping from point A or B all the way to Z squared infinity.This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-22-07 @ 9:13 PM Well it WAS an Op/Ed that he wrote and got the Washington Times to print.  It's going to be difficult for me to find a copy of it that isn't quoted from the Washington Times.  Either way, the guy worked for these companies as a journalist for 30 years and that's his story. The story was written by him as a former journalist that decided to send something to a newspaper for print.  He does not work for the Washington Times.  He isn't even working as a journalist anymore because he didn't want to work for CNN after they forced him to change his story to fit their agenda. "In January 1993, I was in Baghdad as a reporter for CNN on a probationary, three-month contract. Previously, I had been a war reporter for CBS News in Vietnam and East Asia and in Central America for ABC News. I had also made three trips to Baghdad for ABC News before the Gulf War." "A few months later, I had passed my probationary period and was contemplating my future with CNN. I thought long and hard; could I be comfortable with a news organization that played those kinds of games? I decided, no, I could not, and resigned."We're not talking about some kid fresh out of broadcasting school that didn't like being told how to do his job.  This is a man with 30 years of experience in journalism that speaks multiple languages fluently and has had exclusive interviews with world leaders on television in their home language without a translator.  I wish I could remember the names of the people he's interviewed, but I can't offhand.Badmonkey

TheMojoPin

03-22-2007, 06:48 PM

badmonkey wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: I don't think it's too much to ask to find coroborating evidence or investigation from sources outside of Newsmax or the Washington Times.  I'm not saying it's not true...I am saying it's easy to doubt something that comes from sources with such blatant agendas and you hear nothing anywhere else.  I'm reading a lot of these articles, but they're almost all coming accross as examples of a information viral spread from a single source.  And beyond the initial accusations, there's nothing.  Jennings could very well be a biased hack...there's just not much to these accusations.  And busting Jennings or someone like Dan Rather doesn't automatically mean "most of the media is liberal."  That's at least jumping from point A or B all the way to Z squared infinity.This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-22-07 @ 9:13 PM Well it WAS an Op/Ed that he wrote and got the Washington Times to print.  It's going to be difficult for me to find a copy of it that isn't quoted from the Washington Times.  Either way, the guy worked for these companies as a journalist for 30 years and that's his story. The story was written by him as a former journalist that decided to send something to a newspaper for print.  He does not work for the Washington Times.  He isn't even working as a journalist anymore because he didn't want to work for CNN after they forced him to change his story to fit their agenda. "In January 1993, I was in Baghdad as a reporter for CNN on a probationary, three-month contract. Previously, I had been a war reporter for CBS News in Vietnam and East Asia and in Central America for ABC News. I had also made three trips to Baghdad for ABC News before the Gulf War." "A few months later, I had passed my probationary period and was contemplating my future with CNN. I thought long and hard; could I be comfortable with a news organization that played those kinds of games? I decided, no, I could not, and resigned."We're not talking about some kid fresh out of broadcasting school that didn't like being told how to do his job.  This is a man with 30 years of experience in journalism that speaks multiple languages fluently and has had exclusive interviews with world leaders on television in their home language without a translator.  I wish I could remember the names of the people he's interviewed, but I can't offhand.BadmonkeyBut again, if there was more to this story outside of his own perception, we'd have heard about it.  Books, other networks, interviews...whatever.  CNN blatantly manipulating its staff and content like that is big news.  Other networks would pick it up and run with it if there was more to this...especially Fox.  But they haven't.  Why not?  People have various perceptions of their jobs and the environments around them for a variety of reasons...I don't doubt the guy decided he didn't like his time there, but maybe that negative perception is kind of twisting everything else and he's making it more than it is.  Again, why haven't we heard more about this?  CNN doesn't control everything.

Yerdaddy

03-22-2007, 10:35 PM

Badmonkey, I normally would read the articles but I'm in Bali now and this place has the slowest internet I've ever seen. Slower than Rwanda even. If I find faster internet I'll open them.I do apreciate the attempt to back up your opinion about the "liberal media". Just attempting is a rare thing. But the sources do matter. The fact that Newsmax, the Washington Times and the Media Research Center are the only outlets willing to publish the guy's story is significant. It says: Only extremely conservative organizations with really bad track records for getting their own facts right find this guy's story to fit their agenda. What it says is: he's probably a very conservative journalist who's work wasn't accepted as he submitted it because he was biased. It's his word against all of his employers' and his word is only valuable to conservative organization. If you check The Nation, Z Magazine, or read Chomski you'll find stories by liberals who make the exact same claims: that their work was doctored to serve the corporate and conservative agendas of the exact same organizations. It tells me these guys were liberal hacks who's biased stories were rejected. The liberal establishment - The Nation, Z Mag ect. believes them. Mainstream doesn't. Just like your buddy. But if you look at the Judith Miller case or the Dan Rather forged documents cases you see valid cases of bias and poor judgement on the case of mainstream news professionals being found out by biased sources, but the information proves to be true and the story becomes a news story in itself and the news agencies punish those responsible. Dan Rather's producers were fired and he was forced into early retirement. That's evidence of the media eliminating bias in its instutions. So it does happen that people like your friend make credible claims against the media and they're taken seriously and changes occur. But your guy apparently didn't pass the sniff test.  He's probably just so conservative that by his standards his bosses were too libera. But that doesn't make it so.Honestly, thanks for trying. I'll look at these stories when I can. I'm sorry about the tampon comment. I'll have to save it for the next guy who's not willing to make an effort.

foodcourtdruide

03-23-2007, 05:41 AM

badmonkey wrote: Other than Keith Olbermann and the shortlived Connie and Maury show, I don't have hard evidence on MSNBC, thus the question mark.  I do watch CNN most of the day at work lately.  I have watched MSNBC most of the day at work in the past. I can see the bias when watching, without having to compare it to what FOX News says.  Since you did ask for evidence of media bias, I will give you some stories about a guy I used to work with named Peter Collins that had to deal with the media biases when he was a reporter.  I've known this guy for several years, long before he wrote this stuff.  You may find it interesting. Take from them what you like, disregard it as my hayseed apologetics for the Bush administration, or whatever if you must. No matter what you think, I heard these stories way before they were told in print or on television and I know that he quit the news business because he was sick of being told to change the facts to fit the agenda.  I'm sure all the information will be easily refuted or deflected by the bubble you live in just like the "hayseeds" are too dumb to realize that FOX news is the "mainstream propaganda industry for the right."<a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/1/160050.shtml">http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/1/160050.shtml</a><a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030416.asp#3">http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030416.asp#3</a><a href="http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000259.html">http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000259.html</a><a href="http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000057.html">http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000057.html</a> Badmonkey YES! An attempt at evidence of the  "liberal media"! I'm so excited to read these, thanks for posting them. You have no idea how many people have come to this bored and said "liberal media" without backing it up at all. I'm going to read your articles, but I'm at work and may not respond until later on tonight.

foodcourtdruide

03-25-2007, 07:05 PM

Alright.. I'm sorry, but I don't see how these 4 articles prove anything about a liberal bias in the media. The Collins stuff with Jennings is interesting, and so is how CNN babied Saddam in the early 90's, but assuming all that is true what exactly does it prove? It shows CNN as being unethical and Jennings as being unamerican.. but what else? What does this have to do with accusations of a liberal media?

CNN hides atrocities done by Saddam Hussein, so they are called liberal?!?!?! Where in liberal doctrine does it say to defend atrocities inacted by Saddam Hussein!?

badmonkey

03-26-2007, 02:25 PM

You will notice that I never once used the term "liberal" in my posts. I did ask if MSNBC was "superultrafuckbush wing of the mainstream media" in response to Yerdaddy saying that the Democrats did not have their own version of Fox News. The articles about Peter Collins are proof of media bias. Not necessarily "lberal media", just bias. It's funny that Fox News is biased and evil, but CNN would never do anything biased or evil. Evil is for terrorists and conservatives. I'm finding it harder and harder to watch CNN through the blinding glow of all the halos.

I did see this on CNN today during Wolfe Blitzer's show. They were showing a Pentagon press conference about the Pat Tillman death. A general is telling the story and suddenly Blitzer cuts away from the press conference. He says they will return to the story when they have information about who will be punished about it and then moves on to talk about the firing of the lawyers and other Bush administration/republican "scandals". I don't know if anybody else showed the whole press conference but I was annoyed because I was interested in the story. Reminded me of Fox News cutting from the White House Press Secretary noon press conference to show me helicoptor footage of police running in and out of the Peterson house. It did seem like Blitzer wasn't interested in the story unless/until it could be tied to a Bush administration coverup that might lead to more scandal or impeachment.

Bleh...

Badmonkey

foodcourtdruide

03-26-2007, 05:53 PM

You will notice that I never once used the term "liberal" in my posts. I did ask if MSNBC was "superultrafuckbush wing of the mainstream media" in response to Yerdaddy saying that the Democrats did not have their own version of Fox News. The articles about Peter Collins are proof of media bias. Not necessarily "lberal media", just bias. It's funny that Fox News is biased and evil, but CNN would never do anything biased or evil. Evil is for terrorists and conservatives. I'm finding it harder and harder to watch CNN through the blinding glow of all the halos.

I did see this on CNN today during Wolfe Blitzer's show. They were showing a Pentagon press conference about the Pat Tillman death. A general is telling the story and suddenly Blitzer cuts away from the press conference. He says they will return to the story when they have information about who will be punished about it and then moves on to talk about the firing of the lawyers and other Bush administration/republican "scandals". I don't know if anybody else showed the whole press conference but I was annoyed because I was interested in the story. Reminded me of Fox News cutting from the White House Press Secretary noon press conference to show me helicoptor footage of police running in and out of the Peterson house. It did seem like Blitzer wasn't interested in the story unless/until it could be tied to a Bush administration coverup that might lead to more scandal or impeachment.

Bleh...

Badmonkey

Sorry, I guess I was presumptious in reading your post. I was a media/communications major in college so I don't doubt for a second that every form of mainstream media in this country has bias or a hidden agenda.

We just always hear the term "liberal media" thrown around here and for once I thought someone had some proof.

Yerdaddy

03-27-2007, 07:19 AM

You will notice that I never once used the term "liberal" in my posts. I did ask if MSNBC was "superultrafuckbush wing of the mainstream media" in response to Yerdaddy saying that the Democrats did not have their own version of Fox News. The articles about Peter Collins are proof of media bias. Not necessarily "lberal media", just bias. It's funny that Fox News is biased and evil, but CNN would never do anything biased or evil. Evil is for terrorists and conservatives. I'm finding it harder and harder to watch CNN through the blinding glow of all the halos.

I did see this on CNN today during Wolfe Blitzer's show. They were showing a Pentagon press conference about the Pat Tillman death. A general is telling the story and suddenly Blitzer cuts away from the press conference. He says they will return to the story when they have information about who will be punished about it and then moves on to talk about the firing of the lawyers and other Bush administration/republican "scandals". I don't know if anybody else showed the whole press conference but I was annoyed because I was interested in the story. Reminded me of Fox News cutting from the White House Press Secretary noon press conference to show me helicoptor footage of police running in and out of the Peterson house. It did seem like Blitzer wasn't interested in the story unless/until it could be tied to a Bush administration coverup that might lead to more scandal or impeachment.

Bleh...

Badmonkey

There's no such think as "just biased". Bias is conditional. If you're not accusing the media of liberal bias what kind of bias are you claiming if not liberal? Sounds like a cop-out to me.

I don't have access to American cable news anymore, but MSNBC is the only network I've seen a show with four conservative guests all bashing Kerry. It was Scarborrough Country and he had Ann Coulter, Dr Whatshertwat the Christian right wing woman, and, I think, Hannity all in boxes like the Brady Bunch insulting Kerry before the election and laughing and having a good time and introducing no relevant information about the man whatsoever. My experience with MSNBC before I left was that it was the network that was most modeling itself after Fox for the conservative ratings.

So comparing your perception with my perception, I'm unconvinced. If you want to actually claim it's super-anti-Bush then you should probably post some substance.

And Blitzer seems biased to you? I'm becoming more and more convinced that you simply can't see past your own biases with the kind of statements you're making.

badmonkey

03-29-2007, 01:24 AM

Bah. I asked if MSNBC was the liberal station. It wasn't based completely on my own viewing habits because I don't watch it regularly. What I saw on the few occasions that I did watch (Connie Chung mostly) at work, it seemed pretty liberal to me. I'd rather watch CNN than MSNBC anytime. So Scarborough had a bunch of conservatives on his 30 minute show. Guess that makes them a hardcore conservative station owned and run by Bill Gates.

I did watch the Election coverage on CNN this time around and not only could you not knock the smile off Paula Zahn's face with a wrecking ball... I could have sworn I heard Wolfe Blitzer calling states and slipped and said something like "The republicans won this, this and this... We won...The Democrats won this, this and this." (loose quote). I may have misheard him, but I'm pretty sure it was pretty close to that.

I think it works like this with perception of media. If you're left of the majority of CNN's programming, you think they're more conservative or possibly even "centrist". If you're to the right, you think they're liberal or maybe even "centrist". Flip it for Fox News, although I know they do have a conservative slant. They do have a shitload of Dems on their shows regularly and give them plenty of time to talk. I disagree with both sides regularly enough either way.

This is me agreeing to disagree I guess....

Badmonkey

Snacks

03-29-2007, 09:31 AM

Bah. I asked if MSNBC was the liberal station. It wasn't based completely on my own viewing habits because I don't watch it regularly. What I saw on the few occasions that I did watch (Connie Chung mostly) at work, it seemed pretty liberal to me. I'd rather watch CNN than MSNBC anytime. So Scarborough had a bunch of conservatives on his 30 minute show. Guess that makes them a hardcore conservative station owned and run by Bill Gates.

I did watch the Election coverage on CNN this time around and not only could you not knock the smile off Paula Zahn's face with a wrecking ball... I could have sworn I heard Wolfe Blitzer calling states and slipped and said something like "The republicans won this, this and this... We won...The Democrats won this, this and this." (loose quote). I may have misheard him, but I'm pretty sure it was pretty close to that.

I think it works like this with perception of media. If you're left of the majority of CNN's programming, you think they're more conservative or possibly even "centrist". If you're to the right, you think they're liberal or maybe even "centrist". Flip it for Fox News, although I know they do have a conservative slant. They do have a shitload of Dems on their shows regularly and give them plenty of time to talk. I disagree with both sides regularly enough either way.
This is me agreeing to disagree I guess....

Badmonkey

I will disagree with that statement. Yes they do have a lot of so called dems, but they are so leaning to the center on most cases. They back down to the host of the show. Now when they let a real liberal that completely wont back down or agree with the host. Then they never get to speak their minds or opinions. If a liberal is on Hannity or Oreilly they dont get a word in. Everytime they speak they are cut off.

TheMojoPin

03-29-2007, 12:59 PM

I will disagree with that statement. Yes they do have a lot of so called dems, but they are so leaning to the center on most cases. They back down to the host of the show. Now when they let a real liberal that completely wont back down or agree with the host. Then they never get to speak their minds or opinions. If a liberal is on Hannity or Oreilly they dont get a word in. Everytime they speak they are cut off.

Agreed. Fox will get some decent liberal pundits (not that there's such a thing as a good pundit) every now and then, but most of them are seemingly picked because they're far more centrist or just generally very timid compared to the main talking heads on the network. It would be one thing if the Fox hosts also drifted more to the middle, but they're entrenched firmly on the right and they view anyone who doesn't concede even a little as an enemy that needs to be attacked or embarassed. Most liberals on those shows that genuinely stand up for themselves and their opinions are typically shouted down or cut off and are accused of being "obnoxious" or "bullying" or some other inane excuse.

Snacks

03-29-2007, 02:44 PM

Agreed. Fox will get some decent liberal pundits (not that there's such a thing as a good pundit) every now and then, but most of them are seemingly picked because they're far more centrist or just generally very timid compared to the main talking heads on the network. It would be one thing if the Fox hosts also drifted more to the middle, but they're entrenched firmly on the right and they view anyone who doesn't concede even a little as an enemy that needs to be attacked or embarassed. Most liberals on those shows that genuinely stand up for themselves and their opinions are typically shouted down or cut off and are accused of being "obnoxious" or "bullying" or some other inane excuse.

Mojo I have also noticed Oreilly/hannity and the likes there of, love to talk shit about Hillary, Obama and lots of other dems and always comment on how they never come to fox news for interviews. They say there hiding or whatever. They are not hiding they just know they will be talked down to, not given a chance to speak etc. If CBS, NBC, MSNBC were like fox no republican would go on those networks. But those networks are actual reporters that may have personal prefrences of being left or right but during interviews they try to be fair.

The reason why fox news loves to say that "main stream media" and the other networks are all liberal or lefties is they all have reported on Bush in a negative way. Well the reason isnt they are liberal, its b/c there has been so much shit to report that in negative about this president and his boys. These other networks have positive and negative stories about both parties, but right now its about Bush and all he has done illegal and all the mistakes being made. But fox is his biggest cheerleader and wont or cant see any wrong doing. Could you imagine if this was Clinton doing all this? Fox News would ask for blood.

Yerdaddy

03-31-2007, 02:15 AM

badmonkey wrote:
Bah. I asked if MSNBC was the liberal station.

Quote:
Yerdaddy wrote:

Until the Democrats have learned to counter their message (and without their own Fox "News") they'll lose.

What about MSNBC? Isn't that the superultrafuckbush wing of the mainstream media or do they not count because nobody watches it?

No, you proposed that MSNBC is the Fox “News” for the Democrats. As evidence you gave references to Olberman and the Connie and Maurie show, (which apparently doesn’t exist anymore). You also said you don’t have much evidence to go on. Neither do I. All I had was that they had four conservatives bashing Kerry.

So, from what we’ve got so far, in answer to your original question: Is MSNBC the Democrats’ Fox? No. If you compare an Olberman to O’Riely – one liberal and one conservative pundit with their own shows – and cancel them both out, that leaves the entire line-up of Fox shows dominated by conservative pundits with a smattering of weak liberals to serve as fodder for the conservatives. Where’s the MSNBC equivalent of liberal pundits? Has Fox ever aired a show with four liberals bashing a Republican presidential candidate? And, if you want to have a fact-check contest of Olberman vs. any Fox pundit I’m game. I’ve only seen a few Olberman segments on YouTube but I’ve never seen the kind of demagoguery and misinformation I’ve seen from all the Fox shows and most of the Olberman pieces were posted by people who hated him.

My verdict: MSNBC is not even close to Fox “News” for the Dems.

I think it works like this with perception of media.

My original point that triggered this debate had nothing to do with perception of media. Most people’s perceptions of media are wrong. I certainly believe your perception is wrong and you have posted little evidence that your perception is right. (You know a guy who claims that Brokaw coddled the Sandinistas thirty years ago and CNN coddled Saddam. Yet the only media organization willing to print his version of events is owned by a religious cult leader who thinks he is the son of God and that he will usher in the Second Coming once Christian conservatism takes over the world. You say “The articles about Peter Collins are proof of media bias.” I say it’s proof that you’re not seriously looking to find bias – only to convince others of your own bias. Or… You don’t believe that Moon really is Jesus incarnate, do you?) I stated that the Republican Party has its own mainstream cable “news” network – its own propaganda arm – and the Democrats don’t. That claim stands unchallenged.

And my original point was based on all the claims that you and others who put forth the “liberal media” talking point have been ignoring for months: Fox “News” cannot be compared to cable news networks or the mainstream print media because it is fundamentally a different form of communication. The dominant form of communication on Fox is persuasive; the majority of its content is opinion. The dominant form of communication of what Fox refers to as the “MSM” is expository, explanatory, comparative and other forms of objective communication. The MSM is news. Fox is opinion. And when the MSM contains opinion, it carries opinion from both sides. It is largely balanced. Fox is not. And finally Fox broadcasts some of the most extreme forms of political propaganda that exists in America. You cannot find a liberal equivalent of the kinds of vitriol put out on Fox by Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Riely or other regulars on Fox. I’ve put that out in challenges along with challenges to fact-check contests and they’ve never been taken up. You who defend Fox do so by using Fox’s tactics – ones that avoid the truth. Fox “News” is not news. It is a political ideology advocacy organization. And there is no liberal equivalent.

There. That paragraph is full of strong assertions, none of which have ever been seriously challenged on this board. Help yourself.

Yerdaddy

03-31-2007, 02:27 AM

Now let me address your friend's story: (You’re going to be sorry I read it after all.)

First of all he only wrote one of those accounts - for the Washington Times; it doesn't just happen to be carried by them - based on his experiences in Iraq. There's nothing about the Sandinista/Brokaw story from IMBD News that is verifiable information. (I have all the notes from my work as a journalist in Yemen and if I chose to give an account of an editor altering my story I would have the information to show what I wanted to publish and compare it to the version that went to print. Why isn't he able to do that? There's no substance in that article at all.)

From the Washington Times piece:

CNN had made its reputation during the war with its exclusive reports from Baghdad. Shortly after my arrival, I was surprised to see CNN President Tom Johnson and Eason Jordan, then chief of international news gathering, stride into the al-Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad. They were there to help CNN bid for an exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein, timed to coincide with the coming inauguration of President Clinton.

Why would an interview with Saddam be “timed” to coincide with an inauguration? Wouldn’t an interview with a rogue world leader in the global spotlight be news at any point in time? What benefit would that “timing” provide for CNN, Bill Clinton or Saddam Hussein? Or was the “timing” invented by Collins to suggest some mysterious, sinister political collusion between CNN, Clinton and Saddam Hussein? He was a journalist for 30 years and he's making serious claims against his former employers, he should have had shown why this isn't just his assertion.

In each of these meetings, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan made their pitch: Saddam Hussein would have an hour's time on CNN's worldwide network; there would be no interruptions, no commercials. I was astonished. From both the tone and the content of these conversations, it seemed to me that CNN was virtually groveling for the interview.

I could never use the word "groveling" in a news article. It's a loaded word that conveys an opinion and not a fact. Now this is an opinion piece written by Collins. However, as a journalist for 30 years Collins knows that loaded words carry far much less authority than discription of facts. If he was at these meetings he had notes. If he had, in those notes, statements from the executives that illustrate their groveling he would have used them. In this piece he said "from the tone and the content of these conversations..." Yet he quotes none of that content to make his point. Instead, it's just his opinion that they were groveling. That's not just a weak point it's suspect. It's the same principle as Eugene McCarthy claiming he had lists of Communitsts but refusing to produce the lists. The claim that isn't backed up is evidence that the claim is false.

The day after one such meeting, I was on the roof of the Ministry of Information, preparing for my first "live shot" on CNN. A producer came up and handed me a sheet of paper with handwritten notes. "Tom Johnson wants you to read this on camera," he said. I glanced at the paper. It was an item-by-item summary of points made by Information Minister Latif Jassim in an interview that morning with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan.

The list was so long that there was no time during the live shot to provide context. I read the information minister's points verbatim.

Was he asked to attribute the statements to the Minister or other regime official? If so, which it sounds implausible that it wouldn't be, then it's not reporting regime propaganda as news, (which Collins' account implies, but doesn't directly state), but reporting it as propaganda. Two different things. The fact that Collins makes no mention of attribution - one of the most basic of journalistic principles - leads me to think that he was told to attribute it to the official, and thus the reporting was: "According to the Minister of Information..." which viewers of CNN would understand as propaganda.

Now I can see CNN making a deal to read regime propaganda, attributed to the regime, in exchange for an interview with Saddam Hussein. An interview with Saddam Hussein in 2003 is news. It would help viewers around the world to understand what kind of man Saddam is. I can see the regime believing that getting their propaganda out on CNN would be useful to them. Those kinds of regimes, (just as in Yemen), believes their propaganda is valuable - because propaganda is all they have. And news organizations working in authoritarian environments like Iraq have to make promises such as this in order to get information. It is a moral decision with costs and benefits on both sides. In this case, if CNN made this deal, I'd say it was the right decision. The vast majority of people know that an Iraqi Minister of Information's statements are bullshit. Hearing them only proves the depravity of the regime even further. So CNN would not be giving up much. If Collins was told not to attribute the statements to the official then that's a different story.

But the fact that Collins, (again, a journalist for 30 years), makes no mention of attribution makes me think he was asked to attribute it and he's leaving this point out in order to give the impression that CNN was propagandizing for Saddam.

The next day, I was CNN's reporter on a trip organized by the Ministry of Information to the northern city of Mosul. "Minders" from the ministry accompanied two busloads of news people to an open, plowed field outside Mosul. The purpose was to show us that American warplanes were bombing "innocent Iraqi farmers." Bits of American ordinance were scattered on the field. One large piece was marked "CBU." I recognized it as the canister for a Cluster Bomb Unit, a weapon effective against troops in the open, or against "thin-skinned" armor. I was puzzled. Why would U.S. aircraft launch CBUs against what appeared to be an open field? Was it really to kill "innocent Iraqi farmers?" The minders showed us no victims, no witnesses. I looked around. About 2000 yards distant on a ridgeline, two radar dishes were just visible against the sky. The ground was freshly plowed. Now, I understood. The radars were probably linked to Soviet-made SA-6 surface-to-air missiles mounted on tracks, armored vehicles, parked in the field at some distance from the dishes to keep them safe. After the bombing, the Iraqis had removed the missile launchers and had plowed the field to cover the tracks.

So why would the U.S. use cluster bombs, “effective against troops in the open, or against ‘thin-skinned’ armor” against missile launchers? Of course I can believe that the regime sanitized the story and minders took the journalists to the site to propagandize. But even his account that the U.S. bombed missile launchers in that field here is flawed. Obviously they didn't bomb farmers, but they didn't use anti-personnel weapons against heavy weapons either. He leaves that big hole in his own story. He's a shitty journalist. Sorry.

On the way back to Baghdad, I explained to other reporters what I thought had happened, and wrote a report that was broadcast on CNN that night.

The next day, Brent Sadler, CNN's chief reporter at the time in Baghdad (he is now in northern Iraq), came up to me in a hallway of the al Rasheed Hotel. He had been pushing for the interview with Saddam and had urged Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan to come to Baghdad to help seal the deal. "Petah," he said to me in his English accent, "you know we're trying to get an interview with Saddam. That piece last night was not helpful."

What the fuck does his English accent have to do with this story? No real editor for any real news agency would leave that in there. No serious journalist would have written it into a serious piece like this making serious charges against a former employer. They would tell you that it adds no relevant information and, in fact, serves to discredit the reporter. Which it does. The only plausible reason that this guy's English accent would be in there is to play to the stereotypes of the Washington Times' readership that a foreign journalist is more likely to be liberal. Even when Collins is reporting his own story he sucks as a journalist.

In my brief acquaintance with Mr. Jordan at CNN, I formed the impression of a decent man, someone with a conscience. On the day Mr. Jordan published his piece in the New York Times, a panel on Fox News was discussing his astonishing admissions. Brit Hume wondered, "Why would he ever write such a thing?" Another panelist suggested, "Perhaps his conscience is bothering him." Mr. Eason, it should be.

“Mr. Eason”??? What is he a plantation slave all of a sudden, calling him by Mr. first name? "Massa Eason! Please don' beat me no mo!" Eason Jordan becomes "Mr. Jordan" and "Mr. Eason" in the same paragraph. Hack!

So now I understand why the Washington Times, NewsMax and the Media Research Center are the only organizations that took this guy seriously: they're conservative hacks who don't know the first thing about journalism or objectivity and so is he.

And, again, if his story had any credibility he could have gone to one of his other former employers, (VOA, BBC, CBS or ABC), with it and they would have checked it out and run with it if it was legit. They would gladly run stories about a credible news station like CNN, (and a business competitor), shilling for Saddam Hussein. They do it all the time. Now I understand that if they read what I just read they'd laugh in his face.

Maybe he actually is a good journalist but this is just a bad piece of journalism from him. That's possible. But if that's the case, and he couldn't do a better job telling his own story, then his story is false. And if that's so then I believe he is a guy with an agenda - a bias against CNN and Tom Brokaw and probably the "MSM" in general. He's a conservative who is participating in the campaign to demonize the "MSM" as liberal in order to pander to the conventional wisdom of the followers of an ideology, to discredit competitors for an audience and the money their viewership brings, and to gain political power for themselves through partisan politics. If this guy is secretly a good journalist then he's either sold out or bought in to this conservative campaign. If he were a politician I'd say he's just doing his job. But as a journalist, by lying to the American people, fuck him. He's scum.