Fuck Shrub/Cheney

Quote:

---

Originally posted by iceman
[/x-files theme music]

Actually I am concerned about the touch-screen voting, that shit is far too easily rigged.

---

Agreed. Shouldn't politicians be emphasizing that the classic circle your choice or fill in the circle (SAT style) ballot has proven to be the most accurate and cheapest time and time again??? East to use, quick, safe, easy to read and verify. That sounds like the exact opposite of Diebold's machines.

Enough to make you think that campaign contributions might actually affect the political process...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
Moderately conservative!!?? compared to what? The Nation? seriously, they had to fire their executive editor just to get David Brooks on the Ed page. The paper of record has two writers on it's op-ed page that conservative bylines? come on dex.

WSJ lunatic right wing? read Al Hunt sometime.

---

NYT liberal? Read Bill Safire sometime [/making a point about your argument].
The casting of such centrist media sources as the NYT as liberal is Republican labeling that shouldn't be accepted. Not only has the NYT editorial page gone along with Bush (in the past) and endorsed Republican candidates for office, but their reporting has been largely tolerant of the lies told by the administration about WMDs. And I can't recall ever seeing the Times endorse a far left candidate, which would be something a 'liberal' paper would do.
Regardless, I've never seen any evidence (beyond conservatives claiming it to be so) that their reporting is slanted left. It just isn't.

And the WSJ editorial page is like reading a transcript of Mussolini from the balcony.

I was unaware Il Duce was a free marketeer.

the Al Hunt comment was posted in jest. what I was saying is that the WSJ isn't the purported paper of record or have "All the news that's fit to print" on the front page every day.

you wanted examples of slant from June 17

"Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie; Describes a Wider Plot for 9/11"

An accurate headline, would have been "Panel finds no Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection in 9/11 plot" The original implies Iraq and Al-Qaeda have no connection. whereas, the 16 paragraphs surrounding this one sentence state the panel did find evidence of Iraqi/Al Qaeda connections before and after 9/11.

or headlines such as this one: "US Troops Damage Mosque in Firefight". Another way of saying it "Fedayeen/Baathist irregulars sniping Coalition Forces from Mosques." That is liberal/anti-war slant.

Dex, I could find these all day long. I haven't even started with Johnny Apple's greatest hits.

Did you read the Pew research poll of media news rooms??

from editorandpublisher dot com

At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.

The survey of 547 media professionals, completed this spring, is part of an important study released today by The Project for Excellence in Journalism and The Committee of Concerned Journalists, which mainly concerns more general issues related to newsrooms (an E&P summary will appear Monday).

While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%.

152 days till the lifts open here. Thank God I get to beat the crap out of a little white ball with a bat everyday or I would certainly post more stupid crap than I already do now. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
IAt national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

---

According to Al Franken's book, he agrees that while many people in the media do classify themselves as liberal, the management (editors, publishers, news directors etc.) tended to be conservative. And let's not forget that most of the media in this country is controlled by corporations, which tend to be conservative. So while the reporters and news crews might be liberal, they also know that the bosses won't permit them to rock the boat too much.

Just a quick note to mr gyptian, there were five seperate investigations of the Peral Harbor intell failure in 1942, including a bipartisan one of the type that is doing the 9/11 investigation

So where were all the headlines pointing out how flimsy the pretexts for war were? Can't find 'em (back when it mattered), cause they never ran. NYT went along with the run-up just like the rest of the mainstream media. Which proves the lack of liberal bias. And those headlines you presented hardly qualify as slanted, or even inaccurate.
In fact, you are misrepresenting the story that was reported, insofar as the facts are concerned. There were overtures made to Iraq by Al-Qaeda, but they were rebuffed, so for the Times to imply a connection when none really existed would only further the lie that the administration has been telling. And since 9/11 was included in the headline, and that is the issue (Americans believing, because of the prevarications of Bush and Cheney, that Iraq was involved with 9/11, I see absolutely no reason to interpret bias.
And in the U.S., and as far as the situation in Iraq is concerned, the fact that we damaged a mosque is far more newsworthy than the fact that there may have been people shooting from the mosque. Strictly speaking that may not be fair, but it's also probably not fair that several U.S. soldiers being killed gets splashed all over page 1, while thousands of Iraqi deaths are buried on page 20, if mentioned at all.
Your numbers for journalists may be accurate, but if you actually compare number of stories and negative facts about Democrats vs. Republicans reported, you'll find that even the NYT slams Dems far more often than it does Republicans, as does the media in general.

While you might bemoan that the rest of the world, especially journalists, are not as ready to absorb and reiterate conservative propaganda as you, m_e, a quick lesson in media corporate politics would enlighten you to the fact that first publishers, then editors, dictate what gets printed - not writers. And in most conservative publications, the advertisers dictate to the publishers what they see fit to print. And then, there is the PR issue....The Bush Administration's #1 tool for skewing facts and reality.

plake, you're citing Al Franken's claims. Some facts for you. The NYT owner, Arthur Sulzburger is as conservative as Al Franken. Howell Raines, the deposed editor? liberal. now the other coast. Michael Kinsley? liberal, funny as hell, but liberal. now to Chicago, MacCormack's Chicago Tribune? Founder liberal and admittedly so.

I don't know or care who the editor or owner of the seattle P-I or the SF Chronicler is.

I probably shouldn't have widened the scope of my argument. I honestly don't really care what paper's like the Seattle P-I, SF Chronicler, or the Minne STRib's bent is. They are non-entities.

The "paper of record" should not have a bias as it does. As it irrefutably does. It might not be liberal enough in Dex's eyes. but it is Left of Center by any measure.

And who is the Divine Arbiter that decides where the center is?

edit: arrrrgh, nevermind. I'm guilty of what I'm accusing others of doing.

edit: iceman's edit has made the following mostly irrelevant. Oh well.

I rarely debate a point for the benefit of the person with whom I'm debating, as it's almost never possible to sway the opinion of a Mr. G or Brett, and I don't really care what their opinion is anyway.
But I don't want people who may be reading, but not saying anything, to simply accept such 'facts' as 'the NYT is liberal', or 'the Iraq war was fought to liberate Iraqis'. As long as anyone who might be taken seriously here says such things, I'll probably speak up occasionally, troll or not.
Speaking personally, I know that I've occasionally had my opinion changed (or been inspired to check further into something) by what people here have opined.

We need to upgrade your implant chip to
make it seem you can think for yourself.

Oh, I knew you weren't talking to me, ice.
But I just can't help making fun of such a narrow-minded ass.

Or narrow-ass mind.

We need a poll... all in favor of locking Dex and Mr_G in a room for a week just to see what happens?

Well said ice. But I kind of value Mr._G's point of view, for the same reason that I occasionally suffer through some Fox News. Because there are a lot of people out there who think like him and it's good to be reminded of that so you don't get complacent. You don't learn quite as much if you're surrounded by people who agree with you.
His inability to argue a good point made by the other side is annoying though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
plake, you're citing Al Franken's claims.

---

Just so you know, every claim he makes in that book includes footnotes that cite where the information came from.

You state that three newspaper editors/publishers are liberals. Out of the hundreds in the country. You do realize that the NY Times isn't even the biggest selling paper in NY? That would be the much more conservative NY Post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by squeeky knees
Just a quick note to mr gyptian, there were five seperate investigations of the Peral Harbor intell failure in 1942, including a bipartisan one of the type that is doing the 9/11 investigation

---

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html

curiously, Roosevelt doesn't have to testify. the majority of the hearings were in 1944. Additionally, the intensity of the investigation or lack there of, the key intercepts leading up to Pearl Harbor were not decrypted until late August/early September 1945.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Plakespear
Just so you know, every claim he makes in that book includes footnotes that cite where the information came from.

You state that three newspaper editors/publishers are liberals. Out of the hundreds in the country. You do realize that the NY Times isn't even the biggest selling paper in NY? That would be the much more conservative NY Post.

---

sorry, I just used the paper's in three of our largest cities. i.e. when you think of Chicago, you think of the Chicago Tribune.

pray tell, where does Al get his info.? just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by splat
And who is the Divine Arbiter that decides where the center is?

---

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...rudge%3F&hl=en

these guys have a good start.

Do you even READ your links, or just google certain terms?

Quote:

---

...It is an unwritten law of current political journalism that conservative Republican Presidential candidates usually receive gentler treatment from the press than do liberal Democrats. Since most reporters are moderate or liberal Democrats themselves, they try to offset their natural biases by going out of their way to be fair to conservatives. No candidate ever had a more considerate press corps than Barry Goldwater in 1964, and four years later the campaign press gave every possible break to Richard Nixon. Reporters sense a social barrier between themselves and most conservative candidates; their relations are formal and meticulously polite. But reporters tend to loosen up around liberal candidates and campaign staffs; since they share the same ideology, they can joke with the staffers, even needle them, without being branded the “enemy.” If a reporter has been trained in the traditional, “objective” school of journalism, this ideological and social closeness to the candidate and the staff makes him feel guilty; he begins to compensate; the more he likes and agrees with the candidate personally, the harder he judges him professionally. Like a coach sizing up his own son in spring tryouts, the reporter becomes doubly severe. (1973, 355-6)

---

Yep, sounds like there's a slant in journalism after all - unequal treatment towards certain ideologies and temperaments. Now we know why. :eek:

the second sentence does a pretty good job of supporting my assertion. Read Dana Milbank, Mike Allen, Helen Thomas, Adam Nagourney they're really in bed with the Bushies.

the purpose of my link was to answer what the center is or close to it.

And no I do not read every single sentence of a link that probably prints out to 10 pages in Word.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by natty dread
But I kind of value Mr._G's point of view, for the same reason that I occasionally suffer through some Fox News. Because there are a lot of people out there who think like him and it's good to be reminded of that so you don't get complacent. You don't learn quite as much if you're surrounded by people who agree with you.
His inability to argue a good point made by the other side is annoying though.

---

That is fucking great. I was thinking the exact same thing. I also suffer thru FOX News on a regular basis.

About the inability to argue a good point. How do you expect ANY conservitive to actually debate issues when the conservitive leaders are so crooked. They can't/won't debate--these are our highest leaders who refuse to explain thier actions, or in a lot of cases, even tell you thier actions.

They bend the truth, lie, and slander anyone who speaks out aginst them or gets in thier way.

I am kinda obsessed with the psychological issues behind conservitives. For the most part it seems they are either rich, religious, or very close minded, ignorant people with a lot of hate inside. A lot of the time a combination of all three. Overall selfish.

edit-I sound really hatefull of conservitives, my closest loved ones are very conservitive, I respect any individuals beliefs no matter what they are...I just dont understand, and the face that they cant explain logically why they support what is going on--it mind fucks me sometimes.

I agree with Iceman - it's time to stop feeding this copy and paste troll who posts shit he neither reads nor can defend.
This is my last post on any thread he's posted in.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.