AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > July > 27 > Entry
Do the media have a liberal bias?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The media isn’t biased. People are. There’s no real evidence of institutional bias. And yet, there is a growing perception to the contrary, the likely result of more airtime discussions the topic of media bias, reports a 1999 Communication Research study. And there are other factors involved. The same study found that this perception is the result of prominent, partisan Republicans shaping this cynical view by prompting their audiences to share their distrust. It seems as though conservatives were listening.
In a 1996 University of Connecticut survey, sixty-eight percent of Republicans felt news organizations were pro-Democratic. After the 2000 elections a Pew Research Center study and a Gallup poll yielded similar observations, with well over half of the Republicans noting a liberal bias in the media.
But with no substantial evidence of media bias, why do Republicans think differently?
Conservatives and Republicans are more likely to conform to social rules, cites a 2005 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media study. The more conservative you are, the more you prefer tradition and dislike change. If you’re liberal, you’re more likely to embrace innovation, say researchers.
Television shows including gay characters, like “Will & Grace,” contribute to the false notion that the media has a liberal bias. But let’s get real — television is hardly a liberal bacchanalia. A Media Matters study found Sunday-morning talk shows had a very strong conservative bias, from the years of the Clinton administration up to today.
As for the print media, the 2005 study notes that the watchdog-type journalism in newspaper articles — which covers “social realities” from poverty to environmental pollution — are perceived as inherently liberal, even though the content is not.
And radio? A 2004 Pew Research Center study confirms what we already know. Forty-one percent of talk radio listeners are Republican; forty-five percent describe themselves as conservative. Only twenty-eight percent of talk show listeners are Democrat, with an even lower number of self-described “liberal” listeners. The remaining audience fractures into lesser-known political affiliations.
If I wasn’t so liberal (i.e., open to change and diverse opinions), I’d think conservatives were getting a lot more air time than us liberals.
Rebuttal
Okay, so we get Sunday morning television talk shows, Fox News and about half of talk radio. They get everything else. What’s wrong with this picture?
The truth is, it’s impossible to disprove liberal bias in the media, because most independent studies show it exists. The media industry of course disagrees; but having the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media determine whether there is media bias is a bit like asking white people whether they ever show racism.
Here are the facts, primarily from Pew Research. Although most journalists (54%) view themselves as “moderate,” the vast majority of journalists actually vote and think liberal rather than conservative. In 2004, when 51% of the public voted for President Bush, just 19% of journalists did. Five times as many national journalists say they are liberal (34%) as conservative (7%). (By contrast, 33% of Americans say they’re conservative.)
For all practical purposes, the real ratio of liberal journalists is much higher. Even those “moderate” journalists overwhelmingly hold liberal beliefs. For example, a Public Interest study found that where roughly half of Americans believe women should have a right to abortion, 97% of national journalists do. Pew Research found that where 56% of Americans believe efforts to build democracy in Iraq will succeed, just 33% of journalists do.
I’m guessing that’s why we rarely hear the good news out of Iraq. It’s not some conspiracy: it’s just that all people – reporters included — see newsworthy events through their own beliefs. The problem is that it doesn’t matter so much how I view events: I don’t shape the news. It does matter if a reporter, editor, or producer sees three soldier killings as more newsworthy than three rebuilt schools. That does shape the news.
And unfortunately, no matter how objective media people try to be, their personal beliefs do find their way into their reporting. When UCLA researchers scored liberal or conservative media references over ten years, 18 of 20 major news outlets consistently trended liberal. In fact, when researchers compared each outlet’s score to that of well-known politicians, mainstays like the CBS Evening News and the New York Times scored about 75% liberal — exactly the same as Democratic senator Joe Lieberman.
Services »
Comments
By Mara
July 31, 2006 07:30 AM | Link to this
Yes, Shaunti, of course the American media should just ignore our soldiers deaths…after all, we built 3 schools! Why doesn’t that get more press than some mothers kid getting offed in Mosul? Dammed libruls! Can’t they see that the insurgents are in their last throes? Why does the media hate ‘merika?
FYI Shaunti - if, contrary to the accepted conservative code of conduct, you decide to do some research before you give an opinion, you can go onto the internet and find a PDF copy of a cable that was sent to the SecState in Washington, D.C. from “AMEmbassy Baghdad” on June 6. The typed name at the very bottom is Khalilzad — the name of the U.S. Ambassador, (though it is not known if this means he wrote the memo or merely approved it).
The subject of the memo is: “Snapshots from the Office — Public Affairs Staff Show Strains of Social Discord.” This cable outlines “the daily-worsening conditions for those who live outside the heavily guarded international zone: harassment, threats and the employees’ constant fears that their neighbors will discover they work for the U.S. government.”
As a footnote in one of the 23 sections, the AMERICAN EMBASSY relates, “An Arab newspaper editor told us he is preparing an extensive survey of ethnic cleansing, which he said is taking place in almost every Iraqi province, as political parties and their militiast are seemingly engaged in t*t-for-tat reprisals all over Iraq.”
The American Embassy in Iraq says that things are bad and getting worse. Sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, murder, kidnapping, rape…but HEY! if it wasn’t for that darned “librul media” we’d be winning!! Ah yes. It is so much easier to insist that the media is biased than it is to admit that Dear Leader has FUBAR’ed his so-called War-on-Terror.
By candide
July 31, 2006 07:31 AM | Link to this
So long as Fascistic Bushites are the government only a free press can protect America.
By Hich
July 31, 2006 07:34 AM | Link to this
Hi!!! File Cabinet Com,
:-)
By Craig
July 31, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this
Mara you’re absolutely correct. I always get a kick out of conservatives who whine about failure to report the “good news” from Iraq. Why don’t they go there, and then they can report all the good news back to us themselves?
One honest conservative congressman, Republican Gil Gutnecht from Minnesota, went, and discovered that things were in fact worse than he had heard. He has now become an advocate for pulling our soldiers out of the quagmire.
By Lyrazel
July 31, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
Considering that the media’s last biggest story was Angelia and Brad’s baby birth…like how much news is news anymore? News from Nambia…was far more important than News from Iraq and got more coverage.
Someone ought to mention to Shaunti and Diane that news shows, newspapers and THE MEDIA are not really there for informing the public but to sell products. Media journalists are given third place to selling cars, make up and sundries all under the umbrella of TV news and newspapers. Ask any newspaper or magazine in America what is MOST important: advertisers revenues, circulation subscription revenues is second and third is journalism content. In other words your Good News from Iraq stories are edited so the car ads fit the page…and stories people might read are laced up with tabloid intrusions that make the front page juicy so stray readers might pick up a copy en-route to work….
Your average news show is 30 minutes: commercial time=12 minutes, sports and weather=5 minutes thus leaving the remainder: 8 minutes to news: local & national plus those special local interest stories. I fail to see how 8 minutes of airtime could be liberal OR conservative.
News opinion commentators are a dime a dozen. If their shows are not controversial in any way they loose the audience seeking to watch blowhards engaged in backstabbing discourse, thus stations loose revenues, thus the host is changed, thus what you see or hear: Rush, Bortz, Huffinton and Coulter are just WHO BRINGS IN MONEY FOR THE STATION.
Duh.
By Randy
July 31, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this
Is the media “liberal”. My first reaction is, does a bear use the bathroom in the woods? Absolutely they are and they have gotten worse since 9/11. Why? A couple of reasons, first, they are by nature, doubters, they are paid to question everything. Unfortunately, they come up with the wrong answer some of the time. “The world created itself in the beginning, RIGHT”. Second, the media has decided that since 9/11 that religions are bad and will fight them and try to discredit them whenever possible.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
Craig - what’s really funny is that conservatives are so convinced that “the media” can’t put aside their own views to give an honest account of the news that they refuse to give any credence to it. Remember just before the last election when majorities of conservatives still believed that Saddam was buddies with Osama and that Iraq did have WMD’s, which we had found but the “librul media” refused to report on? Even though independant investigations found those things to be absolutely FALSE? Of course they’re gonna see bias if all they ever see in the media contradicts what they know to be true…even if it ain’t.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
the MEDIA decided that religion is bad? the MEDIA is the one that came up with the scientific theory of Evolution (one supposes merely to discredit religion…)? What does religion *or evolution have to do with anything?!
While I might be able to agree with Randy about journalists being doubters and questioners, which may indeed mean that they have to lean liberal (does that mean conservatives don’t ask questions and have no curiosity?)…where he goes after that is waaaaayyyy off the beaten path.
By Renee
July 31, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this
Well, Mara, after that, I have absolutely nothing left to say. I have to agree with Lyrazel, as well. What kind of opinion can be given in 8 minutes of news time.
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
The media hounded Bill and Hillary to the point that Hillary declared a “vast right wing conspiracy”. Enough said. The media goes after what gets the attention no matter who it is. And truth be told, it pisses people off when the media actually does it’s job and exposes what the government tries so desperately to hide from us if the bitten dog happens to be their “guy”. Thank God for the media. Without them we would not be free for very long.
“If given the choice between government and a free press, choose the press”. Thomas Jefferson
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
The “biased,liberal” media hounded Bill and Hillary to the point that Hillary declared them a “vast right wing conspiracy”. Enough said. The media doesn’t care who it is if it generates interest. People on both sides seem to only have a “bias” problem when the bit dog is their guy. Thank God for the media. Without them we would not remain free. “If given a choice between government and a free press, choose the press”. (Thomas Jefferson)
By Mara
July 31, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
Renee - the 8 minute “news” bite has indeed killed hard news coverage. Which is why I seldom watch television news anymore. CNN Headline news, Lou Dobbs, Jon Stewart and C-Span pretty much fill in anything I miss from the papers and news blogs. Every once in a while I’ll pop in on the Sunday news shows, but those tend to either follow the combative-interviewer ala O’Reilly format or the dry-as-dust Jim Lehrer script. The problem is that Fox News, with their psuedo “balanced” coverage has made parity more important than reality. “He-siaid/she-said” reporting does nothing to help inform the news consumer if they don’t tell you that what he said was contradicted by the known FACTS. Or that SHE is being paid by the government to write articles supporting their views.
It’s pretty funny that the main criticism of the press from the liberal side of the political spectrum is that they’ve been too easy on BushCo while the conservatives cry about the media being too hard on him…
By The72John
July 31, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
“The world created itself in the beginning, RIGHT”. Second, the media has decided that since 9/11 that religions are bad and will fight them and try to discredit them whenever possible
This proves conclusively that some people have a religious bias - everything is somehow about religion and their obsession with it.
However, Randy is (unbelievably)correct when he says that reporters are questioners by nature. I do think it’s ironic that he thinks they are wrong because they don’t reach conclusion that he and his non-questioning ilk want them to.
By Kyle
July 31, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
just about any news source you go to is gonna be biased one way or the other, and to believe otherwise is somewhat dangerous in my view. the truely objective sources are few and far between. i would say that the trick is to realize the sources’ slant beforehand and try to get info from several different sources, that way it should balance out. mara, you asked Shaunti “if, contrary to the accepted conservative code of conduct, you decide to do some research before you give an opinion…?” with the issue of the iraq war aside, it seemed like Shaunti gave some pretty relavent statistics but you were unwilling to acknowledge them.
By Jack
July 31, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
media = vulture scum. Below lawyers on the food chain. Both are below the dung beetle.
By Archie
July 31, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
No the media does not have a liberal bias. Most of the reporters are liberal but they are entitled to an opinion just as every American is entitled to an opinion. Being a liberal and a reporter does not necessarily equate to being biased. If 200 soldiers are killed in Iraq then that’s news and there’s no way around reporting that. There are editorial reporters and non-editorial reporters and there may be bias with editorial reporters but then you expect that.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
with the issue of the iraq war aside, it seemed like Shaunti gave some pretty relavent statistics but you were unwilling to acknowledge them.
Shaunti’s statistics are relatively meaningless in this debate. Look at this quote:
Pew Research found that where 56% of Americans believe efforts to build democracy in Iraq will succeed, just 33% of journalists do.
This supports the post-modernist myth that all opinions are valid. They aren’t. Journalists are trained to be objective observers of the facts. The average American is about as objective as Rush Limbaugh. Which “opinion” do you think is more knowledgeable?
As for the political affiliation of most reporters, ignoring the fact that a good journalist doesn’t let his opinion color his writing, did you ever stop to think that the voting habits of journalists may be informed by their experiences, rather than their voting habits informing their stories?
No, because you’d have to eschew the false “all opinions are valid” mantra mentioned earlier.
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
To the right wing nuts, anybody left of right center (left of lunacy) is a liberal. Using lunatic logic, I guess if any person or media outlet leans from right center leftward, there is a liberal bias.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
Kyle - can you point me to those “relavent” statistics quoted by Shaunti? Perhaps you believe that because most reporters vote liberal they would inevitably disregard thier journalistic training by framing everything they write with liberal bias? Or perhaps it’s the statistic that says that journalists (who tend to be better informed than the average voter) voted overwhelmingly against George Dubya, as opposed to those fact-savvy voters who still believed in the Iraq WMD’s, the Osama/Saddam connection, etc.
Kyle, your attitude illustrates exactly why conservatives tend to believe in the “liberal media”. You just can’t conceive someone suspending their ideology and personal opinions for the sole purpose of providing information. Why don’t I hear concervatives decrying the bias of journalists who voted conservative? Because conservatives believe that their guy is able to report the facts, but liberals choose not to. There’s nothing in Shaunti’s “statistics” to show liberal bias. Liberal reporters? Oh, yes indeed…but the “liberal media”? I don’t think so.
By Renee
July 31, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
One thing I absolutely find refreshing about Vermont is that the local news is absolutely NOTHING like Atlanta. There is very rarely crime to report on, so a lot of time their top story is about the leaves turning, or maple syrup or something really wholesome. While I sometimes dreaded (but still watched) the local Atlanta news, I don’t have that feeling here. More focus is put on the nation and world news because nothing is happening here.
By Brian Curtis
July 31, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
This question is a popular right-wing argument, which carefully mingles two unrelated points: The persona political VIEWS of people in the media, and the CONTENT of their work. According to a Rushbot or similar tools, it’s impossible for a liberal reporter to write an objective article. In a similar vein, it’s impossible for a “liberal” doctor to practice anything but “liberal medicine,” a liberal programmer to write anything but liberal code, etc. etc. (Yes, it really is that ridiculous in their fevered brains.)
This overlooks several important factors, of course.
Journalists have a duty to be objective (unless they’re writing editorials), and professionalism DOES exist. It’s entirely possible for a liberal reporter to write a fair and balanced story, and most do-—when they’re not trolling and pandering for more ratings and advertising dollars, of course.
Reporters, regardless of their politics, don’t decide what is covered and how. That’s the job of editors, publishers, and CEOs-—most of whom are strongly pro-corporate, if not actively pro-Republican, in their own leanings. The only fair charge that can be made against the modern media is that they’re pro-ratings and pro-corporate, NOT “pro-liberal.”
How is “liberal” defined, exactly—and by whom? There are institutes and think tanks who regularly publish studies demonstrating what they call “liberal bias” on the Lieberman-to-Coulter scale. Anyone left of Newt Gingrich is considered “liberal” in their eyes, even reliably conservative commentators such as William Buckley and George Will.
I seriously doubt that a pervasive, but previously unknown, bias has been operating throughout all media… especially given their dead-dog submissiveness to Bush’s war drums contrasted with their relentless hounding of Clinton.
It seems far more likely that the rise of the right-wing media (whose purpose, beyond pushing Republican propaganda, is to discredit the very IDEA that objective reporting can exist, leading to perspective’s like Kyle’s “everybody’s biased”—mission accomplished, Fox News!) has led to the common fanatic’s complaint: “Anyone who’s not with us 100% is against us.” (THERE’s a smart foreign policy, huh?)
This is what Christian fundamentalists complain about, for example, when the government is not at their beck and call to promote their religion and stifle all others. Anything less than complete and total support is proof of “enemy activity” in their eyes…. and so it is with the right-wing pundits.
The current definition of “liberal” is “Anyone who disagrees with, or even questions, the policies of the Bush administration.” And more and more model conservatives are winding up dumped into the “liberal” camp as they dare to disagree with the administration’s crimes and blunders. The Bush-bots’ attempt to call these people “liberal” by a single yardstick—-obedience to Bush-—is ludicrious.
As always, the truth is not as simple as they would like… or as simple as they are themselves.
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
This whole argument depends totally on what liberalism is defined as. To the lunatic right, anyone that doesn’t believe exactly as they do is a liberal. I know many many people that are true conservatives or true moderates that believe in a woman’s right to choose. But to the lunatic right anyone that holds that belief is a “liberal” or worse. So doesn’t it really depend on what one defines liberalism as? Most of Shaunti’s rebuttal comes straight from the far right manifesto. Furthermore, maybe if there was any good news coming out of Iraq, we would hear about it. Last I heard the capital city cannot even be secured. Rebuilding projects are failing because of the deteriorating security situation and other issues. Troops are being redeployed from the field to the capital and others are having their tours extended in Baghdad. I welcome Shaunti to tell us exactly what the good news is and how democracy is supposed to take root when the seat of government cannot be secured. Shaunti’s 33% statistic might just mean that the journalist see it for what it really is. When Bill O’Reilly calls Iraq a loser, oh well. Jump right in here Shaunti. Gives us the good news and show us how the media is biased.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Kyle…I don’t see where the stats that Shaunti quotes are relevant. She is using the classic conservative red herring approach that attempts to lead us to the opinion that if a reporter’s personal views are considered liberal then everything that reporter write MUST have a liberal slant. As Archie points out reporting the numbers of American soldiers killed, where, and by what method is no more a liberal slant than reporting the stats from a baseball game.
To respond to the question of why don’t we report more of the good news out of Iraq. Why don’t we hear more of the good news that happens here at home every day? Why is the majority of the local news is devoted to violent crime, burning apartment buildings, and horrific traffic? How much press has the Silver Comet Trail murder received versus success stories from Big Brothers/Big Sisters or some other volunteer group for example?
Someone else already pointed out the apparent answer. The media is in business to sell air time and generate ad revenue. Blood, guts, crime, horribleness all sell. Feel good stories do not. There are good things happening in Iraq, but most people are more concerned about what is happening to our own citizen soldiers. Would the administration really want us to focus on all the good stuff and how much it’s costing us given the pinched feeling people’s wallets are starting to feel due to rising fuel prices? Do they really want us to reflect on how our own government whacked the Mid-East hornet nest but good and is an ongoing major contributor to the unrest there that is causing oil futures to trade at inflated rates? And that in turn just might prompt us to consider the amount of money flowing from America to the Mid-East countries who vilify us and want to wipe us and the Israelis off the world map.
In turn that might make us think about the lack of post-war planning that resulted in utter chaos. We might have to reflect on how a civilian (Rummy) didn’t listen to his own military experts who warned that we needed an overwhelming force to control an invaded country. We might remember that we still haven’t caught Osama bin Laden who started this war in the first place. We might recall that ‘Mission Accomplished’ photo op.
Conservatives are much better off continuing to chant about the bias of liberal media so that citizens don’t actually think about or focus on the costly consequences of the Administration’s actions even though they are the party of ‘personal responsiblity.’ (snort)
By RF
July 31, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
Well, of course the media is biased. They look for what will get people to talk, watch, and read. And what gets people riled up better than controversy and scandal? The media will overlook good news to spin anything negative or scandalous that they can find. Watching the news every day will make you seriously depressed and angry. I don’t think the bias is always intentional. They make money off of sensationalism, and they’ll attack whoever or whatever to get it. In general, the media is always against the party in majority, so right now they’re left-wing biased. During the nineties, there was a right-wing “conspiracy” in the media. Whatever works to stir up the pot is what the media will report.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
The media industry of course disagrees; but having the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media determine whether there is media bias is a bit like asking white people whether they ever show racism.
Or the tobacco industry if it’s products are harmful. Or Big Oil about global warming.
Although most journalists (54%) view themselves as “moderate,” the vast majority of journalists actually vote and think liberal rather than conservative. In 2004, when 51% of the public voted for President Bush, just 19% of journalists did. Five times as many national journalists say they are liberal (34%) as conservative (7%). (By contrast, 33% of Americans say they’re conservative.)
Is it possible that the conservative “journalists” aren’t objective enough to acknowledge that they aren’t objective?
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Hey RF! What are you doing here? Not that you haven’t been missed, but tick-tick-tick-tick back to school approaches quickly so keep having fun! Hope you and the boys are having a great summer.
Watching the news every day will make you seriously depressed and angry No kidding. Given the amount of crime coverage one could almost conclude that it isn’t safe to venture out of one’s own home.
By Kyle
July 31, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
“Kyle, your attitude illustrates exactly why conservatives tend to believe in the “liberal media”. You just can’t conceive someone suspending their ideology and personal opinions for the sole purpose of providing information. Why don’t I hear concervatives decrying the bias of journalists who voted conservative?”
-Mara…in my post i said that almost everyone is biased “one way or another.” perhaps i could have been more clear here, but i was attempting to convey the belief that much of the media is biased - with some being biased to the left and some to the right. sure, i bet there are some reporters out their that are able to completely put their personal beleifs aside when reporting, but i think that for the most part even the best intentioned reporter will be swayed to some extent by their beliefs. Why is it that you to seem believe that CNN is so objective, yet you laugh at the claim that fox news is fair and balanced? You seem to be guilty of the same thing you accuse me of. “Because [liberals] believe that their guy is able to report the facts, but [conservatives] choose not to.” well, i choose to acknowledge the fact that we ALL have biases, and in the case of reporters/journalists, those biases will almost always (to varying degrees) have an effect on the content of the news.
“There’s nothing in Shaunti’s “statistics” to show liberal bias. Liberal reporters? Oh, yes indeed…but the “liberal media”? I don’t think so.”
-we just have a fundamental disagreement on this issue. you seem to believe that a reporter being liberal (or conservative) will have no effect on the content of thier report, whereas i believe that in the majority of cases one’s political beliefs will effect how they see certian issues. in applying this belief, shaunti’s 3rd, 4th, and last paragraph seems to provide relevant evidence.
By RF
July 31, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
Net- yeah, buddy, thanks for the reminder!! The big black X on the calendar is just days away! I’m actually looking forward to it. It’s always good to get back to the daily routine. The boys and I had a fabulous summer. We didn’t do nearly as much as I had planned. They just wanted to be home and play, so we did a lot of that. Sometimes it’s just nice to be home and curled up on the sofa watching a good movie with the little monsters. But, reality is bearing down on us like an 18 wheeler on I-285, sooooo we have return to the land of rush-hour traffic and rising before 9 a.m. I did a half-day summer camp last week, and getting up at 5:30 just about did me in!
By Mara
July 31, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Amelia - “tell us exactly what the good news is”
didn’t you hear? We built some schools. Of course the children can’t use them for fear of kidnapping and street violence, but we built ‘em. And we’ve gotten the electricity on to parts of Baghdad for hours at a time, almost every day. Children like our soldiers and old women are glad Saddam is gone. We could be seeing more sweet pictures of soldiers with puppies, or soldiers with babies, or soldiers helping the elderly if it it weren’t for the dang liberal media dwelling on soldiers dying, babies dying, the elderly dying…
Don’t they know we built some schools!?
By Renee
July 31, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Hey RF!!!!! How are you???
Conservatives are much better off continuing to chant about the bias of liberal media so that citizens don’t actually think about or focus on the costly consequences of the Administration’s actions even though they are the party of ‘personal responsiblity.’ (snort)
Net, you are trying to earn that tiara back, aren’t you??
By Mara
July 31, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
Kyle - where did I say CNN was “objective”? And I decried Fox News, not because I might perceive them as biased, but because their style of reporting stresses “balance” instead of truth or fact. Here, let me illustrate:
Fox Host: “Our headline today, it’s raining, or so says the the left-leaning American Meteorological Association. Representatives from the Precipitation and Faith Society say that it isn’t rain…it’s the tears of holy angels crying for the Massachussetts Supreme Court.
We report, you decide. Thanks for watching Fox News.”
By candide
July 31, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
The media are controlled by financial interests which, while not on the far Right, are certainly not leftist in any sense. The notion that the media is leftist or liberal is part of the vast rightwing conspiracy our country is suffering from. Just like the Nazis persuaded the ‘good germans’ that they had to fear communism, our home grown Nazis (they are called conservatives, christians, and republicans) have worked to persuade Americans that their news has a leftist bias. This is false.
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
All that dying sure is inconvenient for the administration isn’t it Mara. I bet Bush wishes he could sign one of those orders banning death reporting.
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
So the media has a liberal bias? And that is a problem, HOW? LOL
Studies have been done that also indicate the media is as conservative as ever, or at least there is certainly an equal portion of conservative media. Distinction there. But as journalists are often more traveled, exposed to more cultures, have a more progressive view of the world, can it not be expected they just might tend to be a little liberal? just a thought. LOL
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Bottom line folks. The media didn’t make the mess that they are reporting. The Bush administration did. Don’t make these big messes and they don’t have to worry about liberal bias in reporting do they? They made the bed, they should be able to lie in it.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Kyle - maybe my point wasn’t well made. I don’t disagree that everyone has bias, but good reporters whether conservative or liberal, don’t let that distract them from the story. Now, if you mean “biased” in how they tell the story…
A reporter with liberal leanings may think that telling the world that 10 more American mothers lost their children to IEDs in Iraq, and 5 Iraqi mothers and their children were killed by suicide bombers. A conservative reporter may think that reporting on the opening of a new water purification plant to be more relavent. Does it reflect bias or “values”?
And though BOTH reporters had relavent and honest stories, only one would be called “biased”…guess which one?
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
I think we ought to be able to see the flag-draped coffins at Dover, but nnnnoooooooooooooo says our administration.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
Kyle…I do agree that there is going to be some small level of bias in everything. My issue with Fox News is the amount of opinion offered by their news anchors. If you listen closely there seems to be more opinion offering and ‘I think’ coming from Fox anchors than from the ‘liberal’ media.
Wasn’t there just a news story about a study done recently about the Israeli/Arab conflicts in which a news article was pretty much neutral, but Arabs viewed it as pro-Israeli and Israelis view it as anti-Israeli? I suggest that it is more our own biases and human nature to look for confirmation of our own opinions and beliefs that is in play with the charges of liberal media bias than actual bias.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
But as journalists are often more traveled, exposed to more cultures, have a more progressive view of the world, can it not be expected they just might tend to be a little liberal? just a thought. LOL
Exactly. Just like college professors are going to tend t be liberal. Not only does exposere to all the different cultures and sources open your mind, but teaching in itself is a liberal pursuit. Especially at the university level, where, for the most part, more money is to be had in the private sector…
By candide
July 31, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
I wish the media were liberal and leftist. In that case we would have thrown Bush out of the white house and strung him and Cheney up long before this. I still recommend it.
By RF
July 31, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Hey Renee!! We’re doing great. Busy and getting ready to go back to work so I can slow down! How you been?? We’re off to a birthday party in Macon, so I’ll check back in tomorrow. Y’all have a good afternoon!
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
The only lessons that this administration learned from Vietnam is that you hide the BAD news from the populace. Fortunately in this day and age they can’t. So the only defense mechanism they have is to try to paint those that publicize the bad news with that liberal brush. But truth be told. Now that most people are starting to see this administration for what it is, it is almost a badge of honor when they and those of their ilk call someone a liberal.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Hey Net! I used that study to illustrate a comment last week. The Washington Post is doing an intermittent series on the perceptions of bias in the media. That particular story was from last Monday. Todays installment is titled “How the Brain Helps Partisans Admit No Gray”. Evidently the human animal tends to use every trick in its arsenal to rationalize their choices. Truly interesting article.
Billy - don’t you know that there’s a liberal bias on university campus’ also?! Not like that “conservative bias” in the boardroom…oh, no indeed. Nothing like that :^)
By The72John
July 31, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Billy - don’t you know that there’s a liberal bias on university campus’ also?! Not like that “conservative bias” in the boardroom…oh, no indeed.
Yeah, and you don’t hear about the conservative strangle-hold on the military, either.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
as journalists are often more traveled, exposed to more cultures, have a more progressive view of the world, can it not be expected they just might tend to be a little liberal? Is it that they are more liberal or less entho-centric or nationalistic? My impression of the conservative camp is that their supporters do tend to be people who focus on what happens within our borders somewhat to the exclusion of world events. As a nation it doesn’t need seem to be our habit to try to put ourselves in the shoes of those on the other side to understand their views of our actions. This focus on self makes it very difficult to understand or allow room for another’s opinion or that someone else may come to a completely different conclusion based on their experiences. I’m having a hard time getting across what I mean, but an example of it might be along the lines that there seems to be an assumption that by bringing democracy to the middle east the result will be democracies that are exactly like the one here in the U.S. There seems to be this kind of surprise that elections in Palestine resulted in Hamas being put in control or in Iraq we’re ending up with an Islamic Republic instead of a religion neutral government.
I do think that being more traveled and with greater exposure to more cultures one does see the sameness in humanity (i.e. our common desires for freedom, safety, etc) yet one also sees the impacts of foreign policy up close and personal. For example, it is one thing to know there is an embargo against a country. It is another thing to be in a country that has an embargo against it and feel the affects on the populace who had no real control over or understanding why the embargo was imposed in the first place. It is, hopefully, an eye-opening experience to hear the amount of time the news devotes to world events in other countries as American media is focused on the “Runaway Bride” and such. (This last example occurred to friends and my parents as they traveled in Europe last year).
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Hey Mara…thanks for letting me know where I’d heard/read about that. My mind is like a sieve these days…some stuff sticks, but a lot just passes on through.
Not like that “conservative bias” in the boardroom…oh, no indeed. Nothing like that :^) And let’s all just think for a moment of our impressions of workplaces and the equity of compensation these days. Common impression (and studies show that) the workers are seeing little to no gain in real earning power after adjustments for inflation while executive compensation is sky rocketing while corporate income and profits are also rising. The money is coming in by the bucket, but those who actually do the work that enable companies to see these types of increases are not sharing in the success. CEO to Average Employee compensation ratios have gone from approximately 40:1 around 1980 to 400:1 in early 2000. Is someone honestly going to say that a CEO’s contribution to a company has increased 100%? What exactly are they doing differently now than 20 years ago? They’re looking out for each other and screwing the populace is what’s different. Their jobs have not significantly changed nor do many have a big impact on the day to day operations that make or break a company.
By Kyle
July 31, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
“Wasn’t there just a news story about a study done recently about the Israeli/Arab conflicts in which a news article was pretty much neutral, but Arabs viewed it as pro-Israeli and Israelis view it as anti-Israeli? I suggest that it is more our own biases and human nature to look for confirmation of our own opinions and beliefs that is in play with the charges of liberal media bias than actual bias.”
-Net…can’t argue much with this - you make a pretty good point.
“Just like the Nazis persuaded the ‘good germans’ that they had to fear communism, our home grown Nazis (they are called conservatives, christians, and republicans) have worked to persuade Americans that their news has a leftist bias. This is false.”
Candide…congrats, you just alienated a large portion of our country and now nobody who falls into your category of “nazis” will listen or give any credit to your arguments - but for some reason i don’t think this will bother you that much seeing as how it doesn’t seem likely that you cared what the other side had to say to begin with.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
NetB — That’s not 100%. That’s 1000%…
By Randy
July 31, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
I think when looking at the media being liberal, we must look at who runs and owns the media. The media is run by people more liberal than myself(strong Jewish influence). Jewish people have a right to tend to lean liberal, Nazi Germany who tried to eliminate them, tried and succeeded in controling the media against them(so they don’t want that to happen again) also, especially in Atlanta, there is a strong homosexual influence in the AJC. Their lifestyle goes against biblical teaching, etc so they are going to be strong liberal. My question is, just because your great-grandfather started a newspaper 150 years ago or you have so much money that you can buy a newspaper, or someone hired you because your “gay”, does that give you the right to tell others what your “agenda” is and call it news??
By Mara
July 31, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
I can’t believe nobody gave me a chuckle for the “tears of holy angels crying for the MSC”
I don’t care who ya are, that there was funny!
By The72John
July 31, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
I think when looking at the media being liberal, we must look at who runs and owns the media. The media is run by people more liberal than myself(strong Jewish influence)
You are an ignorant moron, Randy. The media is owned by powerful business interests who typically are more conservative. But nice way to bring racism into it, you piece of crap.
also, especially in Atlanta, there is a strong homosexual influence in the AJC. Their lifestyle goes against biblical teaching, etc so they are going to be strong liberal.
Don’t you have some poor people to take advantage of, Randy? I’m pretty sure your brand of rapacious, usurous real estate is “against biblical teaching” too. In fact, I suspect the Jesus would have been tossing you out with the moneylenders, you hypocritical piece of slime.
My question is, just because your great-grandfather started a newspaper 150 years ago or you have so much money that you can buy a newspaper, or someone hired you because your “gay”, does that give you the right to tell others what your “agenda” is and call it news??
Now you aren’t even making sense. What the hell are you rambling about? Oh, I see, because the AJC doesn’t endorse your pitiful brand of christo-facist bigotry, they have an agenda.
Rot in hell, Randy, where trash like you belongs.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
Candide…congrats, you just alienated a large portion of our country and now nobody who falls into your category of “nazis” will listen or give any credit to your arguments - but for some reason i don’t think this will bother you that much seeing as how it doesn’t seem likely that you cared what the other side had to say to begin with.
Don’t you find it just the least bit ironic, Kyle, that those people you are talking about are claiming bias from anyone and anything that doesn’t reinforce or affirm their belief system? Why do you suppose we should be interested in the opinions of someone who has expressed contempt for all opinions but their own?
Perhaps if the religio-facists of the world had been just a teensy bit less rigid and condeming, I might give a crap. Oh, but they aren’t, so I don’t care if they choke on their “opinions”.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
“American Christianity has been Westernized to the point where far too often it does not look like it once did. Every moral issue has been turned into a political one. If a person has a moral objection to abortion, then he or she is lumped with the religious right. If a person has a moral objection to the war in Iraq, well, that means he or she is liberal. ”
This quote is from today’s paper. It was a christian priest/pastor remarking on the silence of the clergy regarding the war today. I think that this and Randy’s blatherings are rather illustrative of our conversation regarding the existence of bias vs the perception of bias and the American propensity to need things black/white or very well labeled.
By Jack
July 31, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
Embedded reporters should be made to wear a bulls-eye on their uniforms.
By Zack
July 31, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
Does the media have a liberal bias? Does water taste good to a man crawling through the desert?
A liberal senator is referred to as a “senator.” A conservative senator is referred to as a “conservative senator.” Abortion gets portrayed year in and year out as a normal alternative, never mind the fact that it’s just as bad as the Holocaust. Homosexuality is portrayed as simply a normal lifestyle, and the media would have us all believe that no one chooses to remain this way and that anyone, anyone who opposes the agendas discreetly being pushed is out of his mind.
Of course there’s a bias.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
But John the “I’m-a-decent-person-who-just-wants-to-live-my-life-with-the-equality,-dignity,-and-respect-I-deserve” agenda of the Anti-american homosexual lobby is antithetical to the “love-thy-neighbor-unless-he’s-a-nonChristian,-homosexual,-or-liberal” patriotism of true American christians.
(sarcasm implicit…)
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Per a PBS broadcast you can find at http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bigmedia.html
The following are the top 6 in the media realm:
AOL Time Warner Disney General Electric News Corporation Viacom Vivendi Universal
By lozen
July 31, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
So many good points made…. i’m giving almost everyone a standing ovation. (Not Randy of course) I used to be one of “them media scum.” A lot of people don’t know how journalists are trained to be objective and how much trouble they can cause (opening their stations to law suits) if they aren’t objective. Only to Randy and his ilk could curiosity and doubt be turned into bad things! In Randy’s world I’m sure things would be better if we all just had lobotomies and our vocal chords were fixed so all we could say would be “Yes sir!” We could say it to the preacher, the prez and God and wouldn’t everything be fine and dandy.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
Net, is there a non-religious reason to object to abortion? I can’t think of any anti-choice people that I’ve ever discussed it with who do not eventually get to the “But GOD (or The Bible) says….”
By The72John
July 31, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
The only true tragedy of abortion is that your mother chose to bring a narrow-minded bigot like you into the world, Zack. Too bad she didn’t rip you out like the cancer you are.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
OIY! Sorry about the lack of formatting. That looks like one giant company that should be AOl Time Warner Disney General Electric News Corporation Viacom Vivendi Universal
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
And it strips out the carriage returns anyway. I give up…you’re smart people and can figure out the list.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Much better, Net! LOL
By The72John
July 31, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
AOL/TimeWarner
Disney
General Electric
NewsCorp
Viacom
Vivendi
Universal
Check out this link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/mediachart
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Mara…given today’s environment I can’t really think of a non-religious reason to oppose a woman’s right to choose. Were the human population in decline then I could see a reason to object that is based on survival of the species rather than religion. Since that isn’t the case and we’re basically over running the planet that just isn’t the case. My guess is that human kind will be the cause of the destruction of human kind. We’ll bring about our own downfall by our blatant disregard for non-human life which is causing nature to become unbalanced. For example, the health of our oceans is at risk due to over fishing especially at the top of the food chain. We can’t even begin to truly imagine the consequences of our actions today in relation to the health of the planet and it’s ability to sustain human life. Then again a few more nukes and a dash more radicalization of religions and we’ll be lucky to manage to not wipe each other as well as most life on the planet out in a couple of big bangs. This in spite of how that course of action seems decidedly NOT WWJD.
By Jack
July 31, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
Lozen Dear, I would never consider you scum. :)
John. Shame on you. That was bad, very bad. :(
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
The point is not that one is for or against some of the above hot button issues that arouse the right wingers. The point is that government has no business legislating morality. Government should stay out of the private lives of people. And that used to be a bedrock conservative principle. But if you espouse that, you have become a liberal. Go figure.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
Thanks John! Obviously formatting isn’t one of my strong suits.
Anyone else find it interesting that the same group who owns and brings us Fox News also brings us FX? It’s almost like a dual personality.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
Apologies for the rants. Not in a particularly good mood today, and the two religious idiots starting in on the gay bashing with absolutely no provocation put me over the edge.
My apologies do not extend to either of them, of course - only to you good folks :-)
By Mara
July 31, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Net - have you read “Collapse” by Jared Diamond? That was my first Book-on-Tape (well, Book-on-CD really…). Pretty much what you said, with footnotes :^)
By Renee
July 31, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Ummmm…..I guess I should have foreseen that the opinion column on liberal media would open the door to gay bashing and I’m sure abortion is up next…..
Amazing…with a capital A….
It’s like bad advertising, whenever you can get a plug in, you do…
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
The point is that government has no business legislating morality. Ahhhhh…but Amelia the religious right believes that the government should do exactly that so long as the leglislation adheres to their beliefs. Hence butting into the Terry Schiavo case last year which was ‘good’ and the changing of state constitutions to take away access to equal treatment for gays (also good).
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
No I haven’t, but I’ll have to give it a try. Pretty much what you said, with footnotes :^) Well I suppose my Book-on-Tape would be really, really short.
By GOB
July 31, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
I can’t believe nobody gave me a chuckle for the “tears of holy angels crying for the MSC”
I don’t care who ya are, that there was funny!
Mara - I feel your pain. Last week or the week before I used “Chuck of Tarsus” and got nothing.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
I can see a non-religious argument against abortion. Not against its existence, but against having one. I do consider a fetus a life, however there’s a large gray area there. If the mother doesn’t want the child enough to get an abortion and there are already a ton of unwanted children, then what are the hopes for the child? If you’re going to get an abortion, then the earlier the better.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
The point is that government has no business legislating morality. Ahhhhh…but Amelia the religious right believes that the government should do exactly that so long as the leglislation adheres to their beliefs. Hence butting into the Terry Schiavo case last year which was ‘good’ and the changing of state constitutions to take away access to equal treatment for gays (also good).
Right on. For all of their pious condemnation of the Taliban and Islamic Extremisim, the American Religious Right wants the same thing: for their religious beliefs to dominate and control the governments and peoples of the world.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
GOB - how did I miss that?! If I had seen it I would’ve given you an “LOL”…though I do have to say that ragging on chuck is kinda like picking the low-hanging fruit, isn’t it?
By Renee
July 31, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
No matter the topic, the conversation is turned to the same two subjects. I mean how do these fanatics have conversations in the real world, off the blog.
Boss says “I need to see you in my office to go over your numbers for the month”
Response “Sure, and I want to mention homosexuality is not normal.
Or Coworker says “would you like to get lunch”
Response “Abortion is murder”
By The72John
July 31, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Renee, I just spit water all over my monitor.
Oh, and on a totally unrelated topic, I highly recommend Metamorphosis at Georgia Shakespeare to anyone who happens to enjoy live theatre. I went Saturday night and it was excellent.
By GOB
July 31, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
GOB - how did I miss that?! If I had seen it I would’ve given you an “LOL”…though I do have to say that ragging on chuck is kinda like picking the low-hanging fruit, isn’t it?
yeah, it was easy, but still funny. It was during one of his religous cut-and-paste marathons though, so it was still relavent.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Billy, if I’ve said it once then I’ve said it a hundred times…
on demand for the first trimester.
only for the health (including mental health)and/or the safety of the mother in the second trimester.
only if it’s doctor recommended for the life of the mother in the third trimester.
I believe that most of us who are advocates for a womans right to make her own health-care decisions could probably live with that. Most would be willing to compromise their autonomy in the interests of our fellow citizens tender sensibilities. I could be wrong about that, but I think that these are pretty fair guidelines that accept the validity of both sides…
By Randy
July 31, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Wow!! 72 John doesn’t like how me and 3.7 billion(probably more)people think. What else is new. Actually, there are 6 billion people in the world, I’ll bet 5.95 billion feel the same way, they just don’t say it. No one respects you. SORRY!!
By Mara
July 31, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Renee!!! Warn a lady when you decide to post items like that! I coulda choked on my soda! ROTFLMAO @ “Sure, and I want to mention homosexuality is not normal”
By Toad
July 31, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Liberal media bias — No coverage of Code Pink’s “Troops out now fast”; repeated coverage of Howard Dean’s scream; incessant focus on attractive, slender blondes who are missing with no mention of African-American women in the same boat; referring to murder-suicides committed by men against their ex-wives as a result of “broken marriages,” Dan Rather entrapped by Karl Rove in the Bush MIA from the National Guard fiasco. Yeah, Right!
By The72John
July 31, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Wow!! 72 John doesn’t like how me and 3.7 billion(probably more)people think. What else is new. Actually, there are 6 billion people in the world, I’ll bet 5.95 billion feel the same way, they just don’t say it. No one respects you. SORRY!!
What are you rambling about, trash?
By Nancy Brown
July 31, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
Think about reporters in Iraq. Almost ALL are isolated in the GREEN ZONE which is the safest place to be and the only place their papers authorize them to be. They attend news briefings and report to their papers what was told to them. The company they work for purchase footage from Arabic news agencies that typically show the weeping wailing women, someone’s home blown up by accident and whatever else to enhance the news stories so their reports do not sound isolated in the green zone. Everything you hear is tightly controlled in content and has been approved by the Commanders before spoken in the briefing. The Bush Admin. has had a long history of using the media to its advantage including using planted report stories to further their issues. This is called: media savvy and the Bush Admin knows how to use it—even if they are caught they have the scapegoat card ready: liberal media.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Right on, Mara, right on…
By lozen
July 31, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Did anyone else see the Bill Moyers interview with Margaret Atwood this weekend on “Faith and Reason”? You can go to the website and watch the show, or read the transcript. She talks about how humans, over and over throughout history, found some group that could be made into “human sacrifices” during difficult times. The Puritans with their witchhunt in Massachusetts. Hitler with the Jews in Germany. She talks about how easily and how quickly it can happen. An example is how easy it was to pass the Patriot Act because people were so afraid after 9/11. It’s an interesting 15 (?) minutes esp. if you’ve read any of her books.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
*Wow!! 72 John doesn’t like how me and 3.7 billion(probably more)people think. What else is new. Actually, there are 6 billion people in the world, I’ll bet 5.95 billion feel the same way, they just don’t say it. *
You know the people who want to destroy America, Randy? Those are in that group of people who agree with you. I’m going to use some Republogic and say thet since you are of the same mind, you also want to destroy America.
By Toad
July 31, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
72John, you are talking to someone who says “72 John doesn’t like how me … think”
By Brian Curtis
July 31, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
John: It’s unrelated to this week’s topic, but I HAVE heard a non-religious argument against abortion. It consists of a philosophical perspective that all life, in its various forms, has value… and that therefore, the ending any such life (human, protohuman, or guinea pig) should be contemplated with great concern and a bias for saving it if at all possible.
This is a respectable, non-religious, perspective in my view. A bit impractical in many obvious ways, but respectable. So, naturally, the Religious Reich never makes such an argument.
By Renee
July 31, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Can’t you just hear Counselor Mackey from Southpark…
“Homosexuality is baaaaad” “Abortion is baaaaad”
By Ken
July 31, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
The media doesn’t have a “liberal” bias, it simply has a bias. “Liberal”, “Conservative”, some other classification??? As long as humans report the stories there will be some level of personalization. That is what makes the story real and can take us, the public, to that very place and time.
The only thing we, the public, can ask for is that the reporters attempt to provide all angles of the story. That, unfortunately, is easier said than done.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
*72John, you are talking to someone who says “72 John doesn’t like how me … think”
Technically, if he had written it correctly “people and I”, the correct verb would have been “think”, since when a compound subject is both plural and singular the verb agrees with the noun closest to it. However, since he did not correctly write “people and I”, but instead used the uneducated moron “me and people” instead, your point is well taken.
Now he’ll tell us how he “almost has” an MBA, even though he obviously lacks the basic reasoning and language skills to graduate from high school, much less those needed to complete and undergraduate degree and then be accepted into a graduate program.
By Toad
July 31, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
I wasn’t referring to the verb “to think” just the “how me think.”
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
I thought Chuck of Tarsas was hilarious and the angels at the MSC, well, while certainly sacreligiougs(in selected circles), hilarious as well.
sorry…LOL
gasp Lozen, I so meant to tape that, should have done it when you mentioned it. I was out of town all weekend. daaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnng. gasp
By Toad
July 31, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
Lozen, I just read the Margaret Atwood transcript. Very interesting — especially what she says about predestination. I’m already saved so it doesn’t really matter what I do.
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
I especially liked the archaeologist presentation at the end of The Handmaid’s Tale.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
I wasn’t referring to the verb “to think” just the “how me think.”
Yeah, I know. I just couldn’t resist the opportunity to make more fun of Randy.
By Jack
July 31, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Mara should get the tiara today.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
gasp Lozen, I so meant to tape that, should have done it when you mentioned it. I was out of town all weekend. daaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnng. gasp
I would say “TiVo”, but you’ll give me one of those “I live in the country and that’s why I’m a big ole Luddite” speeches…
snicker.
By Toad
July 31, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
I’m an urban Luddite — no cable, no TIVO. I don’t even have living in the country as an excuse. But I have lots of books — yes, those old fashioned dust collectors.
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
does TIVO record every program on all the stations? so wouldn’t I still have to have requested TiVO to record it?
i’ll spare the luddite speech. LMAO
By The72John
July 31, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
But I have lots of books — yes, those old fashioned dust collectors.
The two are not mutually exclusive :-)
By Archie
July 31, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
Homosexuality is portrayed as simply a normal lifestyle, and the media would have us all believe that no one chooses to remain this way and that anyone, anyone who opposes the agendas discreetly being pushed is out of his mind.
First of all it’s not necessary to bring homosexuality into the debate. Secondly I have seen in print numerous times where a senator is referred to as a liberal senator once again there is a difference between a report and an editorial report. It is to the monetary advantage of people like Coulter,Limbaugh,etc to allege some bias in the media because their guy is in office so there’s nothing to complain about at the Presidency level but you can always complain in general about the media.
By Ken
July 31, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
Toad… It’s easier to justifiy being a Luddite if you ive in Atlanta than if you live in the country. Most urban Atlanta dwellers can’t AFFORD cool technology thanks to corrupt government, high taxes and a crumbling infrastructure. I didn’t have cable or TiVo when I lived in the city either. thank goodness for un-incorporated DeKalb County.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Well, Chilao, you can request it in advance. For most shows you can request a season pass, which will record that show every time it’s on. Lastly, if you leave it enabled, is TiVo’s built-in recommendation feature. You rate shows (1-3 thumbs up or down) and it records shows based on those ratings. But three thumbs up for “Sex in the City” could result in softcore porn being recorded until it learns that’s not what you want.
By Kyle
July 31, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
“Wow!! 72 John doesn’t like how me and 3.7 billion(probably more)people think. What else is new. Actually, there are 6 billion people in the world, I’ll bet 5.95 billion feel the same way, they just don’t say it. No one respects you. SORRY!!”
Randy…you sir are an idoit. what the hell do you hope to accomplish through posts like this?
By Ken
July 31, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Toad… It’s easier to justifiy being a Luddite if you ive in Atlanta than if you live in the country. Most urban Atlanta dwellers can’t AFFORD cool technology thanks to corrupt government, high taxes and a crumbling infrastructure. I didn’t have cable or TiVo when I lived in the city either. thank goodness for un-incorporated DeKalb County.
By Toad
July 31, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
A few years ago I calculated how much time I spent watching TV and decided four hours a week didn’t justify the cost of cable. If I could choose a few cable channels and pay for them I’d probably re-subscribe, just so I could watch The Daily Show. I think you have to have cable to use TIVO so that’s out, too. Now I watch less than four hours a week since there’s not much on local TV.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Renee…you go sassy girl! “Stem cell research is baaaaaad!”
Television? What is the television of which you speak?
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
So I would still have had to made a request to TiVo that I always wanted to record Moyers Faith and Reason. which would be unlikely. or at least a specific one. this one with Atwood. thanks Billy.
and this is different from forgetting to put a tape in and set, on WED night when I SHOULD have, how? Yes, 72John, that one is for you. LMAO I had thought of it earlier, Tues or Wed night, but that was so far away. Had plenty of time before the weekend. LOL if I forget to program the ole ‘record tape’ I am PROBABLY just as likely to forgot the TiVo request.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Now I watch less than four hours a week since there’s not much on local TV. That is the one thing that sucks about TV. You have to have expanded cable in order to get some of the more interesting channels like BBC America or the BBC. That goodness for them, Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, Bravo, FX or there just wouldn’t be anything worth watching. Then again, I’m not the best advocate for TV since half the time that it’s on I’m on the floor with the pup playing or reading something.
Kyle…did we forget to introduce you to Randy? That was a pretty typical posting.
By Toad
July 31, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Atlanta dwellers can’t AFFORD cool technology thanks to corrupt government, high taxes and a crumbling infrastructure Yeah, we gotta pay for SEWERS!
By Toad
July 31, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
TV is like the boring uncle who always sits in your living room pontificating and rarely, but sometimes, says something interesting.
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
speaking of bias in media, this below is from a FOX news item. Two famous older actresses besides Lohan are mentioned, one has a link to more info(common on many FoxNews items), one does not. Care to guess which one does not? should we all be whining about a conservative media bias?
Lohan plays a troubled teen in “Georgia Rules,” which also stars Jane Fonda and Felicity Huffman. Robinson said in the letter that Lohan has been frequently late for filming and has been “discourteous, irresponsible and unprofessional.”
By Toad
July 31, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Chilao, give us a hint — does Hanoi __ come into play? LOL!
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
Ken…did your property taxes go down this year? I about fell over when I saw the $700 drop in the bill from Tom Scott. I was waiting for the camera crew to pop up with a “Gotcha”
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
I added the ‘older’ later, so I am not trying to imply Lindsay Lohan is old, at 19. LMAO
sentence structure…LOL
By lozen
July 31, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
Yes, it is so obvious isn’t it? Randy is so intelligent and educated he can tell the rest of us what true religion is and how we should all be livin’ and believin’! And of course, I don’t have to say, so is Zack. Chuck of Tarsus is funny and I missed it!
By Toad
July 31, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Even if Lohan is three years old, the other two actresses are older.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Hey hey! Felicity Huffman isn’t older. 60 is the new 40 you know. Or so say the 60 year olds. All I can tell you is thank goodness 40 isn’t the new 20 because I’d hate to have to go through all those paying my job dues years all over again. Of course if 60 is the new 40 lord only know what that means for the new retirement age….what’s it going to be? Dead?
By TramadoL2092
July 31, 2006 11:40 PM | Link to this
I just don’t have much to say these days, but so it goes. Today was a total loss. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
By TramadoL54448
August 1, 2006 01:32 AM | Link to this
I just don’t have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.
By Thomas Henson
August 1, 2006 07:43 AM | Link to this
Shaunti- Being the republican you are I am sure you have had no training in logic. Therefore, I am sure you have never heard of the fallacy of a “Red Herring” which is when an arguer carefully and deliberately tries to lead their audience/opponent away from the issue by changing the subject, usually with loosely associated statements. Well, I HAVE had some training in logic, and you are busted. The issue was liberal bias, not who does or does not support abortion and the Iraq tragedy. Those are human issues, the fact that percentage-wise less republicans see the tragedy of the Iraq war simply means they are less humane. You also used a couple of bad analagies there. What does white people saying they are not racist have to do with liberal media? Nothing, and besides, unless you have a problem with people speaking for themself, oh wait.. of course you do, nevermind. Three school built versus three dead soldiers? There are SO many things wrong with your statement on that. For one it is a BUILDING versus LIFE, ever heard someone who survives a housefire say “Well, the house is gone but at least everyone is okay.” I guess you’d rather your family burn and the house get saved? Also, you are distorting proportions there, it isn’t usually 3 soldiers to 3 schools. We are approaching the 3,000 mark for dead soldiers, just that we have HEARD about, and if we learned anything from vietnam(obviously we didn’t) it is that in wars like this the real death count is carefully kept secret. The number of wounded and permanently maimed/crippled is ten times that amount. Let us not forget the thousands of dead iraqi citizens either. Do yourself a favor lady, next time you want to commit a red herring, leave Iraq out of it… it can only hurt your argument.
By Amelia
August 1, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this
By The72John
July 31, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
The point is that government has no business legislating morality. Ahhhhh…but Amelia the religious right believes that the government should do exactly that so long as the leglislation adheres to their beliefs. Hence butting into the Terry Schiavo case last year which was ‘good’ and the changing of state constitutions to take away access to equal treatment for gays (also good).
And the72John, there is a secondary reason for that as well. As long as these pols can pander to the religious right on their pet issues, they can effectively avoid addressing the REAL issues that impact on the everyday lives of the moderate majority in this country. These issues are very good smokescreens and insure that the tough ones can be swept under the rug. Our congress has no desire to tackle the fiasco in Iraq. That issue will be left for the next administration to deal with. No desire to tackle the national debt. No desire to tackle the trade deficit. No desire to balance the budget. And God knows they have know desire to address the energy crisis. Do you guys realize that when these clowns took office oil was $20.00 a barrel? They ASOLUTELY don’t want to touch Global Warming. All of the real issues are hot potatoes to them and it is much easier to posture and pose with HOT BUTTON issues. Face it. Politicians are basically cowards and whores that do nothing but pander to special interest johns. I still say the most effective way to rock their world is a strong third political party. Bottom line folks. The left and right wings of the two political parties are out for themselves and their agendas. From left center to right center is where the true majority lies in this country. And it is up to that group of people to declare total war on the wingnuts. Take this country back. If we don’t do it and do it soon, they will become our “Taliban”. They want to dictate to the rest of us and force us to bow to their agenda.
By Mara
August 1, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this
Speaking of the “religious right”…some evangelicals are getting concerned that “christian” and “evangelical” are now virtually synonymous with “Republican”. Some are even speaking out about it. Here’s a small excerpt from the linked article. Check out the rest if you like…
“Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church’s — to conservative political candidates and causes.
After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.
“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”
the rest is available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?ex=1154577600&en=1caf975f71e8a6b5&ei=5087%0A
By Amelia
August 1, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
Mara that was an excellent piece. I had read that in one of the Sunday papers. It almost gives one hope that things have gone so far that some sort of rebellion is starting. This particular pastor is actually stopping to think, “what would Jesus do”. And while he lost 1000 members of his congregation, he will probably regain that number and more. What he probably did was restore religious credibility to his church.
By E. Lewis
August 1, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
Do the media have a liberal bias?
Is like asking if the corporate owners and media bosses have a conservative bias.
By E. Lewis
August 1, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
Do the media have a liberal bias?
Is like asking if the corporate owners and media bosses have a conservative bias.
By Mara
August 1, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
Amelia - as a non-christian, the whole thing is more than academic to me. When I was growing up, even though I didn’t beleive, the christian church had always stood for good things. Charity, kindness, forgiveness, humility…and then we saw the rise of the Moral Majority and the Christian Colition and christianity became judgemental, small minded, self-congradulatory, and downright mean. Their habit of unquestioning obedience to those they considered “godly” fit in quite well with the new Republican vilification of all things “librul”…including charity, humility, and kindness.
We’ll see where it goes, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for most evangelicals to recognize that they have no right to judge anyone. It just makes them feel too good about themselves to leave it up to god.
By Amelia
August 1, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Mara, and that is why it is up to the true majority in this country to see to that they can’t. And to do that it has to be done politically. Showing the pols that we have had enough and bring them back toward the middle if they want to keep their jobs. Or, better yet, vote them out. We don’t need a “taliban” in this country.
By Mara
August 1, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
the last post made me think…what exactly do we mean by “liberal” and “conservative”? What comes to mind for “conservative” is -
authoritarian
every man for himself
holier than thou
obedient
anything to win
the end justifies the means
majority rules always
my country - right or wrong
disent is unpatriotic
only christians are moral
that’s the short list. Anyone want to add to it or attempt to define liberal?
By creampie
August 1, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
http://creampienew.com/mature-creampie.htm Mature creampie
http://creampienew.com/creampie-video.htm Creampie video
http://creampienew.com/creampie-stories.htm Creampie stories
http://creampienew.com/creampie-movies.htm Creampie movies
http://creampienew.com/creampie-c*m.htm Creampie c*m
http://creampienew.com/creampie-a*s.htm Creampie a*s
http://creampienew.com/ Creampie
http://creampienew.com/oral-creampie.htm /Oral creampie
http://creampienew.com/teen-anal-creampies.htm Teen creampies
By Jack
August 1, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Mara. You forgot;
less taxes
less government (current administration is NOT truely conservative)
Liberal = Whiner
By The72John
August 1, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
that’s the short list. Anyone want to add to it or attempt to define liberal?
Apparently Creampie wanted to try, but seems to have failed miserably.
By The72John
August 1, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Liberal = Whiner
I’m sure you can back that up with something other than rhetoric from people like Limbaugh, right, Jack?
I think you’ll find that “whiner” actually means “Points out that things aren’t perfect and addresses real problems”.
Let’s start with “Conservative = Arrogant Bully” or perhaps “Ignorant Warmonger”.
By Billy
August 1, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Apparently Creampie wanted to try, but seems to have failed miserably.
Thank God…
By Mara
August 1, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
John - maybe Creampie was trying to add “creampuff” ;^P
By Renee
August 1, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
LMAO - at your 10:27 John. I may be slow but it took the longest for me to figure out those Tramadol postings were an advertisement (still not sure for what). I thought it was a hopelessly depressed person LOL….
By Mara
August 1, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
Now John, maybe “Liberal = Whiner” was the start of Jacks list of what a liberal is - after all, if you can add “arrogant bully” and “ignorant warmonger” to the list, it’s only fair that he gets to add “whiner” under the “Liberal” heading…though I’m not sure what we’ve been whining about, it seems to have stuck for the dittohead crowd (shrug…)
By Mara
August 1, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
conservative: proudly anti-intellectual
liberal:
the common good
freedom of (and from) religion
equality for everyone
no one is above the law
of the people, by the people, for the *people”
regulated business’, free populace
By Chilao
August 1, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
figure out those Tramadol postings were an advertisement (still not sure for what)
might be helpful to know what a Creampie is, perhaps the poster was trying to say liberals were creampuffs as Mara points out. However I don’t think so. LOL have not been to urbandictionary to know what it says about ‘creampies’ but I’d recommend doing your own research. LOL(‘cause I sure ain’t gonna ejumacate you on that concept)
By The72John
August 1, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
though I’m not sure what we’ve been whining about, it seems to have stuck for the dittohead crowd (shrug…
The Limbots and dittoheads love that one, because it lets them be derisive about people who adhere to a particular philosophy without actually having to critically address the philosophy.
Why are liberals “whiners”? Because we tend to show compassion for the world rather than contempt? Because we don’t think that war should be used except as a final option? Because we actually care about people?
I suppose to someone who doesn’t give a damn about anyone but himself, showing concern would seem like “whining”. That says more about the person who lacks compassion than anything else.
By Amelia
August 1, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
By Jack
August 1, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Mara. You forgot;
less taxes
less government (current administration is NOT truely conservative)
Liberal = Whiner
Less taxes for who Jack? And you’re right. The present administration is not conservative. That leads me to believe that this ideological war is not not about conservative vs liberal but about democrat vs conservative. Obviously 80% of those that call themselves republicans have no idea what conservative means. Because they keep defending these neo-cons.
By Toad
August 1, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
Apparently caring about oppressed minorities (poor, GLBTQ, persons of color, disabled, elderly, etc.) and dead Iraqi civilians constitutes whining. Wanting people to have a living wage and health insurance is whining.
By The72John
August 1, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Apparently caring about oppressed minorities (poor, GLBTQ, persons of color, disabled, elderly, etc.) and dead Iraqi civilians constitutes whining. Wanting people to have a living wage and health insurance is whining.
What the heck does Q stand for…if they keep adding things to the abbreviation for the community of the sexually disenfranchised, they’re going to run out of letters.
That, and I can’t keep up.
By Toad
August 1, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
What the heck does Q stand for Queer or questioning. I’ve also seen “I” for intersexed.
By Renee
August 1, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
I think the problem I have is when one side calls the other names or stupid or idiots etc. I’m not liberal, however I have liberal ideas I lean towards as I do conservative. Both sides bring something to the table, as do the smaller parties, such as the libertarians, but there is no one side that is right all the time, no matter the situation and scenario. Some people have such closed, closeted thinking that they can’t get past their beliefs, morals etc. And usually, I find it’s my experience, that a liberal will be willing to look outside the box a lot faster than a conservative.
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
Chilao…Creampie sure isn’t talking about one of Mary Anne’s Coconut Cream Pies from Gilligan’s Island!!
I saw these words of wisdom in the AJC Vent today:
“Religion is like good underwear. It supports you; it comforts you. It’s worn on the inside, and it’s bad manners to show it off. I wish certain people would remember this.”
By The72John
August 1, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
What the heck does Q stand for Queer or questioning. I’ve also seen “I” for intersexed.
You just blew my mind.
I’m turning straight - this whole thing is becoming too complicated.
By Billy
August 1, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
Don’t forget “A” for “asexual”! Or “CS” for “Cleveland Steamers”!
By Billy
August 1, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
I know about creampies…
By Mara
August 1, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Renee @ 11:21 - well said.
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
I’ve also seen “I” for intersexed. Do I dare ask what intersexed is? (bad grammar and all) They might as well add 0(versexed) and U(ndersexed) to cover the entire human population.
I could be up for less taxes!! If I can’t have that I’d be up for more control and consequences for how tax dollars are spent. Why is it that we can’t seem to get our government to be run more like a business? With Republicans in control who champion private business and their efficiencies I don’t understand why they don’t move to put more business-like controls in place for government spending if they want to try to control government growth or size. (I’m a little non-plussed on the issue right now because I just looked at my 7/31 paycheck and the Federal Income Tax line is waaaayyy to big a number IMO)
By The72John
August 1, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
I know about creampies…
Why am I not surprised…
By Renee
August 1, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
LOL @ Questioning. I haven’t seen the Q either though.
Things that make you go hmmmmmm
By Toad
August 1, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Intersexed — someone born with both female and male gender characteristics. Also called hermaphrodite.
By Amelia
August 1, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Renee, the scariest thing is that these wingnuts are convinced that God is on THEIR side. They convince themselves that they are on a mission from God and that the deaths of however many men, women, and children, it takes is just fine if it is done in the name of the lord. Personally I think some of them will be very surprised to find that they have a place reserved in hell.
By Billy
August 1, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Why is it that we can’t seem to get our government to be run more like a business?
GWB is running the government exactly like he ran his businesses…
Why am I not surprised…
Because I’m very knowledgeable about a wide variety of subject? Or because I’m a perv?
By Renee
August 1, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Actually that would make it “intersexual” rather than “intersexed”. I have learned something today though.
Net, I really like that Vent! Thanks for sharing.
By Kyle
August 1, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
I gotta say, you guys are looking pretty hypocritical. many of you complain week after week about how the term “liberal” is associated with a negative meaning in some social circles - then you turn around and do the same thing for “conservative.” didn’t your parents ever teach ya that two wrongs don’t make a right? here, mara, let’s see if i can throw out some counterpoints for “liberal” for each of your original points on conservatives.
authoritarian - rules are always bad, even if it protects the public good
every man for himself - everybody gets a piece of the pie, even if they don’t work for it
holier than thou - smarter than thou
obedient - hmmm, can’t get anything on this one?
anything to win - anything to not confront the enemy
the end justifies the means - there is no end, just perpetuate the problem so you remain needed
majority rules always - minority is always right, always
my country, right or wrong - not my country, right or wrong
disent is unpatriotic - to agree is not really thinking
only christians are moral - all christians are evil
well, it seems as though we were both able to further negative stereotypes about the other group - but what does that really prove/do?.
By Toad
August 1, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
Or a knowledgeable perv?
By Mara
August 1, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Net - Why is it that we can’t seem to get our government to be run more like a business?
Isn’t that what our MBA president is doing? Think about it: top down structuring, “creative” accounting, line-of-credit purchasing, the workers get screwed while the bosses cash in, my way or the highway, it’s not what you know it’s who you blow, rivalries in middle management, distrust of the innovators,and so on…see what I mean?
Personally, I would rather have an inefficient government that works slowly and carefully than an agile, efficient machine that impliments and discards programs and ideas with MTV like rapidity. But then, that’s just me…
By The72John
August 1, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Or because I’m a perv?
You can’t see me, but I’m making the “On the nose” gesture as I type this.
By Toad
August 1, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Renee, why intersexual?
By Renee
August 1, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
Or when they find out Amelia, that all this time they have been worshipping something that doesn’t even exist. Some people don’t even know what they are following, they just follow and parrot what they hear.
Homosexuals bad. Abortion bad. Drugs bad. Sex bad. Ask some of them to elaborate on this, and you get quoted a bunch of bible verses. That to me is the equivalent of me giving a speech about the quality of life or (pick a subject), while constantly quoting out of the Brothers Grimm and/or Aesops Fables.
The argument I find comical is the Christians saying they are attacked and not allowed to practice their religion and beliefs. The Christians have, and will continue to practice their religion, and I support them 100% in their quest. What I don’t support is trying to force me to follow their quest to the “streets paved of gold” through trying to change society and laws to what THEY think they should be with no regard for anyone else.
By Renee
August 1, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, it seems like intersexual would fit better than intersexed.
By Billy
August 1, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
You can’t see me, but I’m making the “On the nose” gesture as I type this.
Oh, c’mon! I blame it on Clinton! He got a BJ when I was an impressionable college freshman!
By Chilao
August 1, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
now just because someone KNOWS about something does not make them KNOWLEDGEABLE(first hand) or even a “Perv”.
if Renee went to urbandictionary(good golly Miss Molly reading) that would not make her a “perv” just because she now KNOWS. LMAO
By Mara
August 1, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
Kyle - I have never said that either group, conservative or liberal, is perfect. The point of the excersize was to make a list of accepted traits for each group. Take Jack for example. To my list he added “less taxes” and “smaller government” as opposed to your “well libruls are worse ya big liar!” playground rhetoric. Now…since it seems beyond you I’ve used your own words to make a “Kyles list of what a librul iz”
selfish - rules are always bad, even if it protects the public good ( and here I thought liberals were the ones who wanted all the rules and conservatives were supposed to be the ones who wanted to be left alone…)
communist - everybody gets a piece of the pie, even if they don’t work for it
intellectual - smarter than thou
obedient -* hmmm, can’t get anything on this one?* ( how about “Anarchist”?)
coward - anything to not confront the enemy
fear of rejection - there is no end, just perpetuate the problem so you remain needed
victim - minority is always right, always
traitor - not my country, right or wrong
disent is unpatriotic -to agree is not really thinking (I didn’t get this one. Merely agreeing isn’t really thinking but what does that have to do with disent being anti-American?…sooooooo…..ya want to try again?)
devil worshipper - all christians are evil
By The72John
August 1, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
Kyle, you would be right if it weren’t for the fact that conservative demagogues and pundits are the ones responsible for starting the stereotyping and the name-calling.
Saying “Why can’t we all just get along” loses some of its punch when it’s invariably followed by “you stupid pinko commie f*g”.
The argument I find comical is the Christians saying they are attacked and not allowed to practice their religion and beliefs. The Christians have, and will continue to practice their religion, and I support them 100% in their quest. What I don’t support is trying to force me to follow their quest to the “streets paved of gold” through trying to change society and laws to what THEY think they should be with no regard for anyone else.
You have to understand the mindset of the kind of people that say this. They have no idea what it means to not be able to practice their religion. Try asking a Falun Gong practitioner what that means, or a Tibetan Buhddist. THAT’S not being able to practice your religion.
For the religo-facists, it’s not being able to MANDATE the observation of your religion in every aspect of private AND public life.
By Toad
August 1, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Intersexual — wouldn’t that be someone who has sex with herself or himself? Since homo-, bi-, hetero-, sexual refers to sex partners. Spinster rights!!
By Billy
August 1, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Intersexual — wouldn’t that be someone who has sex with herself or himself?
I’m a proponent of Onanism…
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
I’m turning straight - this whole thing is becoming too complicated John!! Let’s not lose your head (either of them) here. Just focus on the first lettter of the acronym because none of the others applies to you. You can stop there.
By The72John
August 1, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
John!! Let’s not lose your head (either of them) here. Just focus on the first lettter of the acronym because none of the others applies to you. You can stop there.
No, it’s too late. I’ve already subscribed to Playboy.
By Jack
August 1, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
Thanks Mara.
Amelia. Less taxes for all, less government for all, less government spending. Yes, the current administration is republican but not conservative. The fair tax would be nice but they have not the cajones to do it.
I cast, John bit! Hahahahah!
By Toad
August 1, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
When you’re finished with “Playboy,” pass it on(anism).
By candide
August 1, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
There will be time when it will be necessary to outlaw religion altogether. It is too dangerous to be allowed freedom to do its evil.
By Kyle
August 1, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
“Kyle - I have never said that either group, conservative or liberal, is perfect. The point of the excersize was to make a list of accepted traits for each group.”
-Mara… your kidding right. are you telling me that your list of “hollier than thou, anything to win, only christinas are moral” is a list of accepted conservative traits? since you took some values of people on the far, far, far, fringe right and basically said they represent conservative values, i merely did the same for the left.
“Now…since it seems beyond you I’ve used your own words to make a “Kyles list of what a librul iz””
-beyond me, huh? you do understand that i was mocking you, right? or was that beyond you? i figured you would have picked up on that when i called both our lists a list of “negative stereotypes”. i don’t think my list of “liberal” characteristics represents true liberals anymore than your list represents true conservatives. sooooooo…..ya want to try again?
“Religion is like good underwear. It supports you; it comforts you. It’s worn on the inside, and it’s bad manners to show it off. I wish certain people would remember this.”
-Net…great quote, i’m definitely stealing it - surprised i never heard it before
“Saying “Why can’t we all just get along” loses some of its punch when it’s invariably followed by “you stupid pinko commie f*g”.”
-John…can’t blame you for feeling that way - just remember, these people don’t speak for everyone on the right
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
No, it’s too late. I’ve already subscribed to Playboy. Oh come on…all you’ll do is end up reading the articles.
For the religo-facists, it’s not being able to MANDATE I’m not sure the religo-facists will understand your point because for them a Man Date is when 2 homos go out together.
Mara…thanks for sharing the article. Why aren’t there more christian leaders speaking out like that?
Amelia et al…I think you’ll find the following that I lifted from the posting Mara supplied enlightening and even hopeful.
America wasn’t founded as a theocracy,” he said. “America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.
“I am sorry to tell you,” he continued, “that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.”
By Renee
August 1, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
John - fight that feeling!!!!! The grass is not always greener on the other side LOL
By Billy
August 1, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Oh come on…all you’ll do is end up reading the articles.
A friend of mine used to get mad at me because I’d read the articles in addition to looking at the pictures…
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
since you took some values of people on the far, far, far, fringe right and basically said they represent conservative values, i merely did the same for the left. To some degree wasn’t that the point of the exercise? For me it really illustrates how we’ve allowed the fringes to become what defines each position in the minds of non-critical thinkers.
By Zack
August 1, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
John,
I wouldn’t expect you to apologize for your horrendous comments yesterday. I know what you are. Then you talk about how you and your gay friends RECEIVE hatred. Lies.
By The72John
August 1, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
A friend of mine used to get mad at me because I’d read the articles in addition to looking at the pictures…
When I was little, my father (he’s a college prof - relevant to the story) would take me to work with him if I got sick and couldn’t go to school. He’d set up the couch in his office with a blanket, pillow, etc. and leave me there while he went to his classes.
Well, obviously I’d get bored if I started feeling better, so I would go exploring. This one time, Dad comes popping in from class to find me flipping through the famous Jimmy Carter Playboy issue that I’d found in his filing cabinet.
He had actually bought it for the article and had it filed with various OTHER articles that he thought had significance, but he sure never thought he’d find his seven or eight year-old-son flipping through it. He was so embarrassed he donated it to the Library the next day.
Yup. True story.
By The72John
August 1, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
John - fight that feeling!!!!! The grass is not always greener on the other side LOL
Oh, you’re just scared, ‘cause I’m so dang sexy that when I switch all the other lesbians will see me, realize what they’ve been missing, causing THEM to switch back to date me, leaving you with no other lesbians.
I haven’t figured out in this equation why my sheer sexiness won’t also cause you to switch teams, but it just works better with that assumption in place.
By Renee
August 1, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
John puhleeeze don’t respond!!!
By The72John
August 1, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
I wouldn’t expect you to apologize for your horrendous comments yesterday. I know what you are. Then you talk about how you and your gay friends RECEIVE hatred. Lies.
Lies, Zack? Was it not you who started attacking gays yet again for absolutely no reason, given that the topic wasn’t even remotely related to that issue, with no provocation from anyone? Why, yes - it was.
I realize it must be hard for you, Zack, being gay and a rabid fundamentalist nazi Christian at the same time, but you really ought to come to terms with it.
By Renee
August 1, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
LOL John, that is QUITE the equation, and yes, I have to admit, unequivocally, that yes I am quite scared of that equation, and the solution!! Especially if you factor in that I may also have to switch because of YOUR switch. LOL
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
OK…is it just me or does it seem like there are more Republicans caught up in financial scandals than Democrats? Or maybe it’s that librul bias?
“Frist’s disclosure omitted trusteeship
Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) hasn’t been following all the Senate’s rules when it comes to disclosing details about his finances, The Associated Press reported. Frist and his wife are the sole trustees in charge of a family foundation bearing the senator’s name, according to Internal Revenue Service forms. However, he has not been listing that position on his Senate disclosure forms, which are made public every year. When asked about the discrepancy, Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said the senator’s office was unaware of the omission.”
An omission implies an oversight or mistake. I don’t believe it really applies to something done on purpose.
And who says darwinism isn’t alive and well????
Basement surgery leads to charges
A Framingham, Mass., couple who authorities say performed liposuction in the basement of a home have been charged with practicing medicine without a license after a female patient died.
OK…what non-idiot would willingly enter the “basement of a home” for ANY kind of surgery? It’s a shame the lady died, but if you’re going to go cheap with medical care do it with generics…NOT your cosmetic surgeon.
By Amelia
August 1, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
since you took some values of people on the far, far, far, fringe right and basically said they represent conservative values, i merely did the same for the left. To some degree wasn’t that the point of the exercise? For me it really illustrates how we’ve allowed the fringes to become what defines each position in the minds of non-critical thinkers.
Tragically, NetBanker, the far right has been able to cast themselves as the typical “conservative”. And unlike days past, now you have racists, bigots, nativists, and xenophobes that manage to also lay claim to the conservative label when they are really nothing but society’s dregs. The republican party has got to start disavowing some of these fringe lunatics before they chase even more people from the party.
By The72John
August 1, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Sorry Renee :-( I’m kind of like Michael J. Fox in Back to the Future(s) with the chicken thing. It’s like a red flag.
By Chilao
August 1, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
No, it’s too late. I’ve already subscribed to Playboy. Oh come on…all you’ll do is end up reading the articles.
Now I have had a subscription for 20 years or longer. If I was getting it for the pics alone, I think there are other similiar that would be much more visually rewarding. LOL
Yes, I READ it.
By Archie
August 1, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
For the religo-facists, it’s not being able to MANDATE the observation of your religion in every aspect of private AND public life.
That’s a true statement John and although I am a christian,church-going person I get judged and told I am going to hell just as you do. I am not homosexual but since I drink a beer, a beer on the weekends and shoot pool in a club,well yes, I have been told I am going to hell. JBM and Renee probably understand or have heard this line of thinking. Dancing to popular music is also an offense. When I tell my christian friends that I don’t follow traditional beliefs I get told that I am going to hell, so to the people that claim their preference is villified, well I can’t relate to that but I can relate to being told you’re going to hell. Weeks ago JBM discussed Bishop Long and I understood exactly why she didn’t come down real hard on him. SOME church women will sleep with the pastor but if I make a pass then I am the devil on earth. Of course, since I’m married then that might be true,but a single man should not get villified for making a pass. On the flip side people in my church want to do something good for the community and they’re not going to break into any one’s homes or burn crosses. They will try to get that strip club closed if it’s within sight of the church but some church’s leave stuff like that alone. It really takes work to not be judgemental and it’s just like trying to stay in shape as you have to consistently work at it.
By The72John
August 1, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Yes, I READ it.
Hmm…with one hand or two?
By Mara
August 1, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Amelia - The republican party has got to start disavowing some of these fringe lunatics before they chase even more people from the party.
Define “fringe”…
I don’t know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”— George Bush
I feel the best way to ensure Americans’ freedom is to tighten restrictions on that freedom in any way possible. Only through wiretaps, illegal searches and seizures, unfettered government intrusion, a controlled media and a complete crackdown on free speech can we ensure the liberties of all people.” - John Ashcroft
Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.” - Denney Hastert GOP Speaker Of The House 4-4-2003
‘The NEA (National Education Association) is a terrorist organization.” - Education Secretary Rod Paige
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
Amelia…point taken. My impression is that there are more fringe groups taking on the title of conservative and giving them a bad name. I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal (as in as little government regulation as possible on personal behaviors that are not actively harmful to another person) This was pretty much a conservative position and I was a Republican for those reasons. I had to leave that party because their actions do not in any way follow the original planks of the party platform.
I often wonder whether it’s been easy for the fringe groups to skew our politics because we really have had a 2 party system for a century or so. You really don’t ever hear about building coalitions in our Congress the way one does when reading about Parliamentary systems or other Democratic Republics that have multiple active parties.
I was fortunate to be in school in France during the lead up to the 1988 U.S. Presidential elections. The French presidential elections were held earlier the same year and it was quite interesting to experience the same political process in 2 different nations back to back. In the French system there were 5 registered parties spanning the spectrum from far right to far left. It is/was guaranteed by law that all media outlets (news paper, radio, television) must offer equal time/space to all parties. It is also not possible for any party to purchase additional time. When there were debates the candidates from all 5 parties were present. The cool thing about this system was that you could see the fringes for what they were and while some of the issues they raised were out there, the majority were ones that were the hard issues no one really wanted to chat about (like all the ones you’ve mentioned) but that these fringe groups would bring up. It forced the center parties to have a clearly articulated position since the fringe person had one…even if the clearly articulated position was not realistic or workable.
When that is compared to the U.S. 2-party system I see ours as one which lets the debating politicians ignore the elephant issues in the room. It stops the fringes from bringing up issues clearly as a fringe which can result in an entire party being dragged toward the fringe or appearing to be going that route…which I suspect is the case for the Republicans. Our system also stops the fringes from spot lighting the hard issues and forcing those in the center (who you know are going to win anyway) to address those issues which informs voters about their position on something they would have preferred to not say anything about in the first place. I think campaign finance reform is only a small portion of the battle to regain control of politics. I think that campaign reform needs to also encompass some type of equal access outlets and media acknowledgement of candidates outside of the mainstream. It doesn’t matter that they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected…the point is that the represent a registered party’s position and that party’s voice should be heard and given equal weight to all the other registered parties. This method truly puts the power in the hands of the electorate to make their own determinations.
Sincerely,
By Amelia
August 1, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
A church should be exactly that. A place of worship. Not another political action committee. Politics are the realm of the state. Keep it seperated like the founding fathers intended. And I would go so far as to tell the church to not worry about that strip club you are talking about Archie. Because then you are trying to dictate what others can do to accomodate your beliefs.
By Chilao
August 1, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
Yes, I READ it. Hmm…with one hand or two
72John - hahahahahahaha I guess it depends on whether or not I am petting a kitty at the same time. (an even better ‘hahahahaha’)
By The72John
August 1, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/CultureWar/TheAmerican_Taliban.html
By Amelia
August 1, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Me too NetBanker. I WAS a card carrying republican. But when they started getting into racially charged issues just to pander to the vdare.com types, they lost me. And I think that they are going to get a big surprise in 06 when they find out just how many true conservatives that they have alienated. If they don’t get back to their true roots they are done in the long term. The immigration issue alone over the course of 10 years or so will cost them millions of votes.
By Renee
August 1, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
Too funny John. However, I still must admit I am disappointed in you even nullifying Zack with a response.
Mara - Are you somewhere laughing or confused??
By Mara
August 1, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
John - excellent link.
Kyle - click on Johns link and tell me which of these people you consider “fringe” because these are the type of thing I hear all too often from Republicans…
(no fair naming Robertson and Phelps since both them are considered crazy by most people anyway…)
By Amelia
August 1, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
GREAT link the72John. Thank you for reinforcing for me why I am not a republican anymore.
By Amelia
August 1, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
GREAT link the 72John. Thank you for reminding me why I am not a republican anymore. THANKS!!!!!
By Jack
August 1, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
One hand of course!
By Toad
August 1, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
What’s so scary about the link provided by 72John is how many of our recent Republican presidents and appointed officials are making such remarks. The nutcase preachers and wacko-women-hating-women and radio inflamers I can ignore, but politicians who actually keep getting re-elected who believe in Armageddan (sp?) terrify me.
By Mara
August 1, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Renee - ah, it is to laugh mwahahahahahaha! :^)
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
WOW! Those are some scary comments and coming from some pretty well known people.
This is one of my favorites… “Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different…More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.”
That is just going to give fuel to Zack and Randy. But what I want to know is where are these concentration camps in which the evangelical Christians are being used as slave labor and then are being exterminated? Are they being shipped in by the train load? Or maybe it’s by motor coach since really big churches all seem to own one now? When does the pogram kick off for us to turn in our evangelical neighbors or to participate in round ups on Sunday mornings at their houses of worship?
By The72John
August 1, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
When does the pogram kick off for us to turn in our evangelical neighbors or to participate in round ups on Sunday mornings at their houses of worship?
Darnit, you’re being facetious, aren’t you. I was about to get excited.
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
If they ever cast a “Mrs. Doctor Evil” or “Doctor Evil’s Daughter” for an upcoming Austin Powers film I’m voting for Mara. She’s even got the laugh down online….in ariel font nonetheless!
By Chilao
August 1, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
The liberal media must not be covering all those concentrations camps. Talk about bias in journalism. LOL
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
I’m about as serious as you are straight! hehehehe
By Mara
August 1, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
John - I was sharpening my pitchfork and breaking out the torches too! Darn you Net. All het up and no one to abuse >:-(
LMAO!!! see ya all tomorrow (air kisses)
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
Just goes to prove that the media is controlled by Satan, Chilao!
By NetBanker
August 1, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
One hand of course! Duh! Of course it’s with one hand…you need the other one to hold your beer!!
By lozen
August 1, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
“Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different…More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.” Oh, jeez. Ignorance is a terrible thing!
By Kyle
August 1, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
nice link John - it seems to be a great hit amongst everyone - these are certianly the type of people that make religion dangerous
-mara…i read all the quotes and its full of freaks. as to whom i would consider fringe - every unelected person on the link whose name is followed by what seems to be a cult title. i don’t think bush, reagan, ashcroft, or rehnquist are fringe. i definitely don’t agree with bush sr.’s quote and was somewhat surprised by it. dornan, watt, helms, and o’connor would all be people on this list, who were elected to some office, that i would consider “fringe”. coulter and savage are always crazy and over the top (with the occasional good points here and there) - that’s what has gotten them rich.
By Jack
August 1, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
I forgot about the beer. Maybe I could hold it in my lap but it will probably fall to the floor.
By TramadoL34030
August 1, 2006 07:18 PM | Link to this
Not much on my mind lately. My life’s been completely boring these days. I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. So it goes.
By TramadoL90706
August 2, 2006 01:43 AM | Link to this
I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don’t have anything to say recently. I haven’t gotten much done recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about.
By Amelia
August 2, 2006 07:56 AM | Link to this
WASHINGTON - More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard’s 34 brigades are not combat ready due largely to vast equipment shortfalls that will take as much as $21 billion to correct, the top National Guard general said Tuesday.
The comments by Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum came in the wake of disclosures by Army officials, analysts and members of Congress that two-thirds of the active Army’s brigades are not rated ready for war.
The problem, they say, is driven by budget constraints that won’t allow the military to complete the personnel training and equipment repairs and replacement that must be done when units return home after deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Rumsfeld way? And those guys are the “real” patriots? Go figure.
By Chilao
August 2, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html
By Jackie
August 2, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
This blog is nothing but a bunch of liberals coming together to bash: the President, our country, Christianity, the right to LIFE and everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint on these issues.
All you seem to do is either bash the crap out of everyone who believes in God and the right to LIFE or you’re too busy patting each other on the back and kissing each other’s rear end for their previous bashing of someone.
You guys have taken over this blog and ruined it by your obnoxious bashing and berating of anyone who DARES to differ from your narrow point of view.
It’s nothing more than an atheistic liberal love fest. You should sell tickets to your show.
By The72John
August 2, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
You guys have taken over this blog and ruined it by your obnoxious bashing and berating of anyone who DARES to differ from your narrow point of view.
It’s nothing more than an atheistic liberal love fest. You should sell tickets to your show.
Obviously, you have so much to contribute! I wish you had dropped by earlier so you could share your wisdom with us.
Darlin, when you have an original thought in that narrow-minded, pea-brained right-wing head of yours, then feel free to join in the conversation. As long as you continue to sound like the stupid, Limbaugh-parroting, Hannity-regurgitating robot that you obviously are, your opinion of us and how we conduct ourselves on this blog is meaningless.
If you want to join the “ooo, ooo, ooo, I’m so superior because I’m a right-wing Christian fanatic” group, there are plenty of blogs where you can continue to spout off like the ill-informed moron you so obviously are.
By Mara
August 2, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
hush, Andy. Go back to the luckovich blog where you belong.
By The72John
August 2, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
You guys have taken over this blog and ruined it by your obnoxious bashing and berating of anyone who DARES to differ from your narrow point of view.
I love when the ultra-narrow minded accuse others of being narrow-minded. It’s just so…ironic.
By Jack
August 2, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
Here is one to differ from:
If Ledford’s DNA is found under Mrs. Ewing’s fingernails, he should be brought out into the prison yard in front of all of the other inmates, and shot. Not lethal injection 10 years from now.
By The72John
August 2, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
If Ledford’s DNA is found under Mrs. Ewing’s fingernails, he should be brought out into the prison yard in front of all of the other inmates, and shot. Not lethal injection 10 years from now.
Your feelings about capital punishment are well-known, Jack. We had this discussion last week - surely you don’t think anyone’s opinion has changed?
By Mara
August 2, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
See, Kyle. It’s people like this Jackie/Andy that seem typical of your average conservative. One can’t have a differing opinion without being accused of “bashing”. I have to wonder which of the posts “bashed” everyone who believes in GOD(we do “bash” chuck and Zack, but that’s because they’re idiots, not because they’re christian…) But I bet Reverend Boyd from the article wouldn’t feel abused, but then, he probably doesn’t believe in Jackie/Andy’s version of GOD, so he probably doesn’t count.
Nor do I see where we “bashed” all the anti-choice advocates. (Billy, do you feel bashed?) Nor do I see any America bashing going on. But this kind of rhetoric is exactly what spews out of the mouths of many a conservative, and believe me, here in the south we got a ton of ‘em. So you see, the “stereotypes” that get placed on Republicans/Conservatives do have a basis that isn’t so “fringe” after all. This is stuff that many of us hear almost every day.
By lozen
August 2, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
This morning walking to work I passed a big old truck with a flag on the antennae and a cross hanging from the rearview mirror. Do not question the bible, do not question the prez-i-dent, do not question anything! Religion, unquestioning chauvinism, and an 8th grade education (?) seem to me to go hand in hand. America, love it or leave it!
By E. Lewis
August 2, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Most of what’s labeled as conservative these days is anything but. Barry Goldwater is probably rolling over in his grave. The ilk that call themselves conservative are really neocons.
In general terms:
A conservative believes in cutting government spending. A neocon believes in cutting social programs and shifting the spending to big business contractors all the while creating deficits that our grandchildren will still be paying for.
A conservative believes in keeping the government out of our personal lives. A neocon believes the government believes the government has the right to regulate the sex life of consenting adults.
A conservative believe that the United States is not the world’s police. A neocon believes that we should force on views on other countries while doing business with despotic dictators and countries that make them money.
A conservative believes the laws should apply to everyone. A necon believes the same thing until they get caught in which case this doesn’t apply to them.
A conservative believes in the almost infallibility of the US Constitution. A neocon believes in changing, ignoring or interpreting the Constitution to suit their purposes.
A conservative believes in states rights. A neocon believes their agenda trumps states rights and encourages the federal government to interfere to fit that agenda.
A conservative believes in the rule of law and has distaste for activist judges. A neocon believes that activist judges are those who disagree with their particular agenda.
I could go on if you wish…………
By Amelia
August 2, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
By Jackie
August 2, 2006 09:46 AM | You guys have taken over this blog and ruined it by your obnoxious bashing and berating of anyone who DARES to differ from your narrow point of view.
Jackie, you will fit right in at the Luckovich blog. The right wing lovefest is over there.
By lozen
August 2, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Jack don’t you think it might be helpful to us all to study Ledford to see what made him do it? I really question whether we humans have free will. I also question how we can take the individual, separate him/her from all the factors that made them the person they are, and think we’re solving the problem by getting rid of that one person. Yes, he should be removed from society. My question is why he wasn’t removed a long time ago.
By B. Russell
August 2, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
“I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world”
By Jackie
August 2, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
It’s been very plain to see that “Mara” is the biggest Christian hater of them all…even more so than the 72 John fellow. You can’t play the “I haven’t bashed anyone” card with me lady.
You guys are the most narrow-minded bunch of all because you don’t want to even allow anyone with an opposing viewpoint to post here. And when someone DOES dare post in opposition you become extremely nasty and distasteful. This is America…and for the time being we still have the right to free speech.
By Mara
August 2, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
E. Lewis - until you take the “conservative” out of “neo-conservative” all the folks on the right will be tarred with the same brush.
By Mara
August 2, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
I’m sure that I probably shouldn’t be, but I feel so proud to be singled out (w/John) as the worst of the worst “christian haters” by someone as patently reasonable as Jackie/Andy
sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me phtttpppppt (big ole rasberry to you, J/A)
By The72John
August 2, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Ah, it’s been a while since we had an idiot of Jackie’s caliber drop by. How truly refreshing.
It’s been very plain to see that “Mara” is the biggest Christian hater of them all…even more so than the 72 John fellow. You can’t play the “I haven’t bashed anyone” card with me lady.
No one hates Christians, foolish woman, we hate fundamentalist bigots who see the need to force the rest of the world to follow their personal religious beliefs. It just so happens that in this part of the world, those people are nominally Christian.
You guys are the most narrow-minded bunch of all because you don’t want to even allow anyone with an opposing viewpoint to post here. And when someone DOES dare post in opposition you become extremely nasty and distasteful.
You silly git, if you’d bother to read the posts rather than working yourself up into a reactionary “ARGH LIBERALS” tirade, you would have noticed that there are plenty of times we disagree about things. And yep - we sometimes throw down with each other, because this is, in fact, a DISCUSSION blog and sometimes DISCUSSIONS get heated.
The only time we are really nasty is when someone like you appears - someone with absolutely no substance to any of her posts, whose only contribution to the discussion is the typical unthinking nonsense of “OMG you libruls hate America and you don’t love our President! OMG you hate Jesus! OMG! You are so evil!”
This is America…and for the time being we still have the right to free speech.
Yes. And the day that people like you manage to grasp the power that you so desperately covet is the day that free speech ends.
By Jack
August 2, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
I know John but everytime I read about it I get steamed. Sorry. Lozen. Yes, we should disect him, look at the various parts and feed them to ants.
Mara is not a Christian hater. She likes a good arguement.
By E. Lewis
August 2, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
Mara
The way things are going, it looks like the conservatives are trying to do it themselves. I do have my doubts that it can be done, but since more Americans are seeing the fallibility of the neocon movement, who knows?
Let’s hope that people can see through the extremists of any political movement.
By Billy
August 2, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Nor do I see where we “bashed” all the anti-choice advocates. (Billy, do you feel bashed?)
Umm, no, I don’t, but then again, I’m pro-choice. I might not have been clear before. I definitely see abortion as a “bad” thing, but in the grand scheme of things I wonder what the point is of devoting a ton of energy into ensuring all these babies are born when you don’t do anything to ensure that the world into which they are born cares about them. The infant mortality rates in Beijing and Havana are lower than in the US. And those babies that are likely to be aborted are the same ones that are likely to receive substandard pre- and post-natal care.
While I don’t like abortion, I believe there are bigger fish to fry. I’m in agreement with the “safe, legal, and rare” argument. Plus, I just have problems with the government dictating the use of people’s bodies.
By Amelia
August 2, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Mara that is why it is so important for the true conservatives to identify and defeat the neo-con types in 06 and 08. Right now the miserable 2 party system that we have allows the neo-cons to turn everything into a republican vs democrat thing. The right wingers are very effective at controlling the nominating process and primaries, insuring that moderate candidates don’t become the candidate. Their worst fear is a 3rd party. Is it not time to change this broken system. If we don’t, it is possible that we will have to suffer these types in the future. Democrats and republican moderates have got to realize that we cannot seperate ourselves by party any longer. We have to get the point across that the battle is between the moderate majority and the wingnuts from both parties.
By Jackie
August 2, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
So Mara, you’d be proud to be a Christ-hater just like the devil himself??? WOW. That says it all right there. Thanks for the warning!!!
By Chilao
August 2, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Did Jackie miss out on art-school? (you know, that concept that the failed artist becomes an art critic?, in this case, failed blogger becomes a blog critique critic)
most of us contribute educational material, things of interest to many. Feel free to start anytime, Jackie. You do have it in you, don’t you?
but the 72John fellow, too funny. I think we can remember that. (“heh, the 72John fellow”)
By Tom
August 2, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Jackie,
I totally agree with you that there are some on this blog that shouldn’t really be here. Their agenda is only to cause chaos. Mara, I don’t really know about, but Mr. 72John..he’s trouble. Nothing to be afraid of mind you, he is just one of those individuals who apparently has no life outside of this blog since he posts here just about everyday throughout the day. Watch..I will get some insult-laden response from him for this post. He’s so predictable. But put those type of individuals out of your mind because when it boils down to it, they are the ones who have the most issues in life. I think 72John has some serious anger issues in life that he hasn’t dealt with. Nor does he beleive that God can forgive him for that (which He can). I’ve been nothing but nice in my replies to him the last few weeks when I get a chance to post on here. Unlike him, I DO have other things to do that doesn’t involve a computer and internet connection. But, as Christ says, I must love him as God’s creation. So keep posting Jackie, and don’t even respond to meaningless drivel like that whose only purpose is to cause trouble and chaos.
By The72John
August 2, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
I know John but everytime I read about it I get steamed
We all get steamed. I guess the real question is: Why was a man convicted of a violent rape given such a minor sentence?
And then another question we should be asking is: Why are our prisons nothing more than training grounds for repeat offenders? Our focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation means that when you take someone who is already violent and incarcerate him for 10 years, he is going to emerge, in all probability, MORE violent than he was when he went in, only now he’s going to be stronger and tougher to boot.
If we were really interested in prison reform, we would stop incarcerating non-violent offenders (especially drug addicts) and spend at least a portion of the money saved rehabilitating those who can be rehabilitated. We’d also stop letting expedience get in the way of keeping truly dangerous criminals off the streets.
DAs are so overworked and underpaid that many violent criminals wind up plea-bargaining down to lesser charges and getting out of the streets that much faster.
By Amelia
August 2, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
I would like to second the72John’s point that we manage to have discourse on this blog. I think that at times in the past Mara, John and I have been in disagreement on a few issues. But we seem to keep it reasonably civil here and find common ground on many issues. This blog is head and shoulders above Luckovitch and Wooten. Hope I haven’t just jinxed us folks. If the wingnuts think we have it good here they will try to take it away. Just like they do in the real world.
By Tom
August 2, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
Jackie,
I totally agree with you that there are some on this blog that shouldn’t really be here. Their agenda is only to cause chaos. Mara, I don’t really know about, but Mr. 72John..he’s trouble. Nothing to be afraid of mind you, he is just one of those individuals who apparently has no life outside of this blog since he posts here just about everyday throughout the day. Watch..I will get some insult-laden response from him for this post. He’s so predictable. But put those type of individuals out of your mind because when it boils down to it, they are the ones who have the most issues in life. I think 72John has some serious anger issues in life that he hasn’t dealt with. Nor does he beleive that God can forgive him for that (which He can). I’ve been nothing but nice in my replies to him the last few weeks when I get a chance to post on here. Unlike him, I DO have other things to do that doesn’t involve a computer and internet connection. But, as Christ says, I must love him as God’s creation. So keep posting Jackie, and don’t even respond to meaningless drivel like that whose only purpose is to cause trouble and chaos.
By Toad
August 2, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Lozen, I believe in free will. BUT, everyone has free will within various factors that inform their lives. Race, gender, place of birth, parents, education, class, are all factors that are different for each of us and affect how we choose to act.
By Tom
August 2, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
You silly git, if you’d bother to read the posts rather than working yourself up into a reactionary “ARGH LIBERALS” tirade, you would have noticed that there are plenty of times we disagree about things. And yep - we sometimes throw down with each other, because this is, in fact, a DISCUSSION blog and sometimes DISCUSSIONS get heated.
Mr. 72john
I just gotta respond to this staement of yours knowing what kind of diappointing trash drivel that you will throw my way, but fortunately, I have enough slef-confidence to not take anything you say seriously.
People can and will disagree about any number of things, however it’s how you handle it that defines who you are as a person. It can be handled your way, by releasing a barrage of unnecssary attacks whic, qquite honestly is extremley immature, or it can be handled with dignity and respsect for the one opposig your own opinions. I rarely, if ever see any respect given on your part. But I’ll give you one thing you have a good grasp of knowledge and words. That is your strength. I just wish you would use them to build people up, rather than tear them down because that’s not what this post or a DISCUSSION is for.
By Toad
August 2, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Christ-hater just like the devil himself Oh, so now Christians are the same as Christ? How did you go from Christian-hater to Christ-hater? There is a BIG difference since many who call themselves Christians do not follow the teachings of Christ. Didn’t he preach loving one’s enemies?
By The72John
August 2, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
So Mara, you’d be proud to be a Christ-hater just like the devil himself??? WOW. That says it all right there. Thanks for the warning!!!
Oh dear, I see you’ve committed one of the classic blunders! The first is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but the second, only slightly less well-known, is never deliberately misquote someone for your own purposes when you’re debating with people obviously far more intelligent that you!
Now, let’s look at what Mara actually said, shall we, pumpkin?
I’m sure that I probably shouldn’t be, but I feel so proud to be singled out (w/John) as the worst of the worst “christian haters” by someone as patently reasonable as Jackie/Andy
Notice that she said “christian haters”, in lower case and in quotes. Not “Christ hater” capitalized. Obviously she didn’t say “Christ hater”, though I realize that to a fanatic like you the two are probably inseperable. What Mara and I both hate are religious fundamentalists of ANY stripe, particularly those who believe, as you apparently do, that there is no room in the world for anyone but people who believe exactly as you do.
Now, don’t you feel stupid?
By The72John
August 2, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Nothing to be afraid of mind you, he is just one of those individuals who apparently has no life outside of this blog since he posts here just about everyday throughout the day
You do realize that all the regulars on this blog post here everyday, right? Did you ever stop to think that it’s possibly because we work at a computer and have occasional free time to participate in the blog? Why you seem to think that because we participate during work hours means we have no life outside the blog, I’ll never know. Perhaps its just a convenient way for you to dismiss things you don’t understand.
Given the extreme scarcity of your posts, you are hardly equipped to judge anyone’s participation or contribution.
By Jackie
August 2, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
I just have problems with the government dictating the use of people’s bodies.
To that I have to ask you to define the word “use” in that sentence. By “use” of people’s bodies do you mean destruction and dismemberment? It’s okay to “use” babies bodies by flushing them down the disposal or putting them in an incenerator? What particular use is NOT ok in your mind?
And by the way, the government DOES dictate what people can do with their bodies. Prostitution is illegal-thus prostitutes and johns can’t do what they want with their bodies. People can not inject/ingest illegal drugs into their bodies. People can not drink alcohol in excess and get behind the wheel of a car. There are many things we can’t do with our bodies thanks to the government. That argument doesn’t hold water.
By Amelia
August 2, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
By Toad
August 2, 2006 11:30 AM There is a BIG difference since many who call themselves Christians do not follow the teachings of Christ. Didn’t he preach loving one’s enemies?
Tragically Toad, they prefer to kill their enemies in the name of the Lord. I guess the 10 Commandments don’t apply as long as it is done for God or in his name.
By Tom
August 2, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
good point Mr.72 john. Thank you for being respectful. thanks for playing.
By Mara
August 2, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Ah, so now I’m just like “da debbil” ooooooohhhh! (snicker) what a dweeb! Go on Jackie, tell us more about how only haters have opinions contrary to yours…
Tom, the only people “on this blog that shouldn’t really be here” are people like Jackie that have nothing to contribute to the discussion. People who, instead of offering any kind of proof for their argument (or accusation, in this case) just pop back with more hateful insults and baseless animosity. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak out and remove all doubt.”
thanks to all y’all, especially Jack, John, and Amelia. It’s nice to have sane people around you when the wackos start getting hysterical. Sorry, Billy. No offense on the pro-choice thing.
John, how sure are you that this “jackie” is female?
By The72John
August 2, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Prostitution is illegal-thus prostitutes and johns can’t do what they want with their bodies
Prostitution is, in fact, legal in at least one state, and there are many who believe that laws against prostitution should be abolished as they represent an innappropriate government legislation of morality.
People can not inject/ingest illegal drugs into their bodies
The chemical is illegal, period. It is not the use of the drug in one’s body that is illegal, it is the possesion of a banned substance.
People can not drink alcohol in excess and get behind the wheel of a car.
Yet again, it’s not the consumption of alcohol that is illegal. You are able to consume as much alcohol as you want and that your body can handle. It is the action of getting behind the wheel of a car and endangering others that is illegal.
Oh look…which argument doesn’t hold water, again?
By Tom
August 2, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
thanks Mara, I respect your opionion but also respectfully disagree. But as always, thanks for playing.
By Toad
August 2, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
Prostitution is illegal-thus prostitutes and johns can’t do what they want with their bodies. People can not inject/ingest illegal drugs into their bodies.
I think of those two examples as victimless crimes. Prostitution and drugs should be legalized and regulated. To engage in either, one should be of legal age. It should be illegal to procure teenagers for prostitution. Prostitution laws and drug prohibition laws are not working.
Drinking and driving is not a victimless crime because it endangers other people and should be illegal.
By Billy
August 2, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
And by the way, the government DOES dictate what people can do with their bodies. Prostitution is illegal-thus prostitutes and johns can’t do what they want with their bodies.
I think this should be legal, but regulated.
People can not inject/ingest illegal drugs into their bodies.
I think many of these should be legalized and regulated, too, not banned outright.
People can not drink alcohol in excess and get behind the wheel of a car.
That’s because at that point you are not using your own body, but putting mine in danger.
There are many things we can’t do with our bodies thanks to the government. That argument doesn’t hold water.
It does hold water, because the government shouldn’t be in the business of dictating these things. Were you a true conservative, you would be more upset with this administration and its supporters in Congress about government invasion of private lives than you would have been about Clinton or anyone else. But I can almost guarantee that’s not the case…
To that I have to ask you to define the word “use” in that sentence. By “use” of people’s bodies do you mean destruction and dismemberment? It’s okay to “use” babies bodies by flushing them down the disposal or putting them in an incenerator? What particular use is NOT ok in your mind?
What particular use? The government taking the position that sex is not OK unless it’s for procreation. It’s not the government’s business when/how/with whom I have sex, provided I am not forcing myself on anyone or taking advantage of someone who is too young to know better. And the government forcing a woman to have a child against her will is the epitome of the state overstepping its bounds. It’s reducing women to baby making machines.
By Tom
August 2, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
wwow 72John, this is the first time that I completely agree with you (about doing whatever one wants with their bodies). very good points.
By Tom
August 2, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Mara,
I respect your right to an opinion but also respectfully disagree, but as always, thanks for playing.
By Jack
August 2, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Tom. Everyone here belongs here because they like to be here. John does have somewhat of a chip on his shoulder and he suffered a lot of pain through his life to get it. He earned it. Accept it, deal with it.
You and Jackie should try some of “Jack & Mara’s” special stew. If you don’t know what that is, you are not a regular on the blog. :)
I do like you Amelia!
By Mara
August 2, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
And Toad, sorry. Started typing my reparte before you posted. so…thanks, Toad. A kiss for you XX :-)
By lozen
August 2, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Tom is Randy. He uses the same wording and has the same huge ego without any intelligence to back it up. I totally agree with you that there are some on this blog that shouldn’t really be here. Who in the world do you think you are to decide who shouldn’t be here on this blog? Your ego is amazing; aren’t christians supposed to be humble?
By Amelia
August 2, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Why thank you Jack!
By lozen
August 2, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Ohhhhhhh Jackie, your ego is pretty big too! If I get pregnant ;-), I will make my decision about whether to go to term with it. I couldn’t care less what you think about that, what the catholic church thinks about it, what our politicians think about it, or what anybody thinks about it. I would be the one who had to raise the child, support the child, with no help from you, the catholic church or our politicians. Babies aren’t torn apart in abortions; an abortion removes a fetus. It’s just a blob of tissue until several weeks into development. All life is valuable. All life is precious and that includes my life. I am the only one who needs to make decisions about what I do with my life. You think abortion is wrong; don’t have one. Oh, and BTW, there is no devil except in terribly simple minds like yours.
By Tom
August 2, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
dear Lozen,
To the best of my knowledge, I am not Randy. I will grant you that my wording about “who shouldn’t be here” is a bit misleading. What I meant is that all these nasty comments and insult laden blogs have no place here (or anywhere really). And I wasn’t attempting to “decide” who should be here on this blog. I was merely stating my OPINION and opposition to unnecesary verbal attacks. I guess my real question here is…can’t we just disagree without becoming nasty and insulting others? in other words “Can’t we all just get along?” :) And, my friend, yes christians are supposed to be humble. I hope that I have achieved that, at least to some degree in my Christian life. I think i have, but admittingly I still have a long way to go on that. I’m not perfect, obviously. But, that’s not why you called. Not to worry, Lozen, my ego is fine. Thanks for caring. :)
By Billy
August 2, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Tom, when you end each of your posts with “…but thanks for playing,” humility is really not evident.
By Mara
August 2, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Tom, what part of my post did you disagree with?
By Jack
August 2, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
Shouldn’t mess with Lozen. She could chew you up and spit you out. BTW. She has stated in previous posts that she has had religious experiences. (snicker,snicker)
By The72John
August 2, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
John, how sure are you that this “jackie” is female?
At the risk of angering my female blog buddies, I have to say that it’s because “Jackie” seems to react emotionally to the images of dismembered fetuses and films about abortion. My experience has been that most men who are angry about abortion tend to react from the “God has commanded” authoritarian point of view, while many women react to the emotional aspect of abortion.
I realize that this is a gross generalization and plays into the (in my opinion incorrect) stereotype that women are more emotional than men, but it has still been my experience when dealing with that particular group.
By Mara
August 2, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
Jack - they better get it while it’s hot! mmm-mmmm goood!
By Renee
August 2, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Jackie - there is no way possible you can be serious, or the sad thing is, is that you are.
Okay, let me get this straight, you start of the morning with this is a “liberal love-fest” etc,etc…, then YOU complain that no one on this blog recognizes free speech. Very contradictory. Then Mara hates Christians (please post something that Mara said that backs that up) and then Tom comes and attacks John for what was it again….having no life but blogging.
The fact that people come on with these comments and nothing to offer constructive to the conversation, should be ignored, because the intellect to debate and/or communicate effectively is not there.
Last time I checked anyone can blog, about anything they like, how often they like, even with meaningless posts that the two of you have seemed to consistently posted this morning (definitely evident of people with busy lives)
In the words of Mara
MWAHAHAHAHAHA (did I get it down Mara???)
I have an announcement this morning, totally off subject. In 2 or 3 weeks JBM will be back!!
By Tom
August 2, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
“Tom, the only people “on this blog that shouldn’t really be here” are people like Jackie that have nothing to contribute to the discussion. People who, instead of offering any kind of proof for their argument (or accusation, in this case) just pop back with more hateful insults and baseless animosity. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Mara,
I agree with you that some people have nothing to contribute, not because the don’t have it in them, but because they choose not to contribute anything of intellectual value and choose to attempt to destroy rather than build up. I believe everyone has something of value in them. I don’t think Jackie was trying to be disrespectful in any way.
By Chilao
August 2, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
She has stated in previous posts that she has had religious experiences. (snicker,snicker)
getting older, memory fuzzy, but were those the Oh, God, gasp, Oh God kind? LOL
By The72John
August 2, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
I have an announcement this morning, totally off subject. In 2 or 3 weeks JBM will be back!!
YAY!
By Mara
August 2, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Renee - I might have a fight on my hands for that “The Bride of Dr. Evil” role cuz that sounded perfect to my eyes :^)
and yeayyyyy JBM!! We missed her…
By Kyle
August 2, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
well, looks like there are some newcomers to the blog today. looks like the week’s topic/debate has been lost to, you guessed it, abortion/religion - who knew? to the newbies i will concede one thing: the majority of people on this blog lean, if they lean at all, to the left. but they won’t attack you automatically just because you sway to the right a little (most of the time, at least). try a thoughtful post with facts, logic, and/or reason and see where that gets ya.
-since abortion was brought up, did anyone read the two ajc opinion pieces on the morning after pill possibly being made available otc? if so, could someone please tell me what the difference is between the morning after pill and RU-456 (i think that’s what its called) - i always thought they were the same?
By Jack
August 2, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
Chilao. You are correct. LOL
By The72John
August 2, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
Tom…
I don’t think Jackie was trying to be disrespectful in any way.
Let’s look again, shall we?
This blog is nothing but a bunch of liberals coming together to bash: the President, our country, Christianity, the right to LIFE and everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint on these issues.
All you seem to do is either bash the crap out of everyone who believes in God and the right to LIFE or you’re too busy patting each other on the back and kissing each other’s rear end for their previous bashing of someone.
You guys have taken over this blog and ruined it by your obnoxious bashing and berating of anyone who DARES to differ from your narrow point of view.
It’s nothing more than an atheistic liberal love fest. You should sell tickets to your show.
Are you serious?
By The72John
August 2, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
if so, could someone please tell me what the difference is between the morning after pill and RU-456 (i think that’s what its called) - i always thought they were the same?
The morning after pill is a highly concentrated dosage of the same chemical used in birth control. It acts by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining, thereby preventing a pregnancy before it starts.
RU-486 is a prescription-only multi-dose treatment administered after attachment has occured. The first dose is administered by a doctor, with a second dose taken at home at some point after the first.
By Mara
August 2, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
Tom - “…I don’t think Jackie was trying to be disrespectful in any way.”
1)nothing but a bunch of liberals coming together to bash: the President, our country, Christianity, the right to LIFE and everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint on these issues
2)It’s nothing more than an atheistic liberal love fest
3)It’s been very plain to see that “Mara” is the biggest Christian hater of them all
4)You guys are the most narrow-minded bunch of all
5)So Mara, you’d be proud to be a Christ-hater just like the devil himself
If this is what Jackie is like when s/he’s not trying to be disrespectful, may the gods help us if s/he ever puts some efofort into it.
By Mara
August 2, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
Mornin’ Kyle. I’ll believe that Plan B goes OTC when I see it, all things considered. Even then, we women (no matter what our age) will still be subject to the “moral” judgements of individual pharmacists.
Bet men don’t have that problem for any legal medication…
By NetBanker
August 2, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
In 2 or 3 weeks JBM will be back!! That’s good news. I was wondering what happened to her and wasn’t sure if it was polite to inquire. I hope all is well with her and her daughter. Please pass along that she’s missed and wish her god’s speed on her journey back to a ‘normal’ life.
Soooooo…what an intellectual nose dive from yesterday!! I suppose that is to be expected when people hop in here simply to bash and whine.
Jackie…I suggest you need to reconsider your classification of bashing and use of name calling if you’re goal is to have an exchange of ideas. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt even though it appears that distraction through attacking the character of the messenger rather than addressing the message is what you’re really after.
Renee…good attempt, but Mara still holds the standard on the evil laugh.
By Jack
August 2, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Oh Mara. I get fired up about that one too. If my wife/girlfiend went to the pharmacy top get her birth control pills filled and the pharmacist refused to fill it and refused to return the prescription, I would meet him in the parking lot when he left work and show him what should happen to pharmacists who do that. He would probably have to go back in and get some ambesol and lots of bandages, maybe call 911.
By Renee
August 2, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Jack - I’m getting a little worried about your anger control LOL.
Net - thanks, I tried though. I concede to Mara…maybe I’ll try more mwahmwahmwahahahahah…..emphasis on mwah….practice makes perfect
By The72John
August 2, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Oh Mara. I get fired up about that one too. If my wife/girlfiend went to the pharmacy top get her birth control pills filled and the pharmacist refused to fill it and refused to return the prescription, I would meet him in the parking lot when he left work and show him what should happen to pharmacists who do that. He would probably have to go back in and get some ambesol and lots of bandages, maybe call 911.
Jack, I have to assume that you are actually far more gentle than you let on. If you actually beat the crap out of all the people you talk about wanting to beat the crap out of, you’d be posting from prison :-)
By Jackie
August 2, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
People can not drink alcohol in excess and get behind the wheel of a car.
That’s because at that point you are not using your own body, but putting mine in danger.
Exactly!!! Once a woman becomes pregnant it’s not just her body anymore. There is another one growing inside of her. Abortion puts the woman’s life in danger and ends the life of the child. Good point there my friend.
Anyone who thinks abortion (the slicing and dicing of children) should be legal is sick in the head. Period.
By Amelia
August 2, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
jbm and jbmlaw are not the same person are they?
By Renee
August 2, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
No, Amelia.
Yes, Jackie…the “slicing and dicing” of fetuses should be legal. Why would you want to continue blogging with “sick” people. That would make you…ummm…sick too?????
Just so you know, the fetuses aren’t sliced and diced…oh well, never mind….I keep forgetting, you are too close minded (among other things), thus making you impossible to communicate maturely and intelligent with.
But for humor, let’s hear your “thoughts” on homosexuality. (Call your pastor real quick, to find out what your actual “thoughts” are!)
By Amelia
August 2, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
So Jackie. To prohibit th possibility that someone feels compelled to have an abortion, I assume that you are 100% in favor of the “morning after pill”. I would think that any measure that would prevent an abortion from taking place would be just fine with you. Am I correct?
By The72John
August 2, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Anyone who thinks abortion (the slicing and dicing of children) should be legal is sick in the head. Period.
It’s good to know your “thinking” isn’t black and white. Especially since abortion almost never involves slicing or dicing, and an undifferentiated clump of cells isn’t a child.
But we promise that no one will ever, ever, ever make you have an abortion against your will. It’s absolutely your choice. Enjoy the freedom that is granted you by living in a nation like ours.
By Billy
August 2, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
Exactly!!! Once a woman becomes pregnant it’s not just her body anymore. There is another one growing inside of her. Abortion puts the woman’s life in danger and ends the life of the child. Good point there my friend.
Don’t call me your friend, Captain D*******. That “child” is, scientifically speaking, a parasite, leeching its life force from the woman, often causing her further medical problems. For the majority of that first trimester it is nothing but a clump of cells, a child only in its potential, much like every single sperm and egg in every person’s body.
The irony of this is that the idiots like yourself who so insist that women carry the baby to term are the same jackasses that call them whores for having sex in the first place. Ironically, the only way for them to avoid being called whorse is to go get an abortion before starting to show.
By Jack
August 2, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Thanks John. I try to be non-violent but I’m not afraid of violence.
Renee’. I’m nice as a kitten around females unless they are threatened. Then the lion comes out. (I am a Leo)
By The72John
August 2, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
The irony of this is that the idiots like yourself who so insist that women carry the baby to term are the same jackasses that call them whores for having sex in the first place. Ironically, the only way for them to avoid being called whorse is to go get an abortion before starting to show.
I think the real irony is that the same people who moan and carry on about the tragedy of abortion cease to care about the health or well-being of the child the instant it emerges from the womb. Apparently, they’re more interested in quantity of life than in quality.
By Jackie
August 2, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
Renee, why don’t YOU call a pastor because you just might need to in light of your comments/belief structure.
As far as homosexuality is concerned: It’s no one’s business what they do in their own home or who it’s with as long as they are consenting adults. (Was that the “right” answer?)
By Jack
August 2, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Jackie. Some people like them cooked but I like mine raw. They’re very good on crackers with hot sauce.
By lozen
August 2, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Jack, I’m sure if all men were like you, we women would not need to vote! (Everyone who read the list of idiots and their sayings that 72John gave us a link to yesterday will understand what I mean)!
By Amelia
August 2, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Touche’ the72John! You just nailed it.
By The72John
August 2, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Renee, why don’t YOU call a pastor because you just might need to in light of your comments/belief structure.
You guys have taken over this blog and ruined it by your obnoxious bashing and berating of anyone who DARES to differ from your narrow point of view.
The irony practically oozes off the screen, doesn’t it?
By Amelia
August 2, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Jackie, is there not a passage in the bible that says something to the affect, “judge not,lest ye be judged”? Seeing as how “sinners” will get their comeuppance from the man upstairs, why do you spend so much time attempting to control the lives of others. Take care of your own affairs. Live your life as you see fit and leave the rest of mankind the hell alone.
By Jackie
August 2, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Billy: Don’t call me your friend, Captain D?????
Captain D???? Whatever buddy.
That “child” is, scientifically speaking, a parasite
My, how far we’ve come as a society that unborn children are called “parasites” like an infestation of worms. What a warped mind someone must have had to come up with this terminology.
The irony of this is that the idiots like yourself who so insist that women carry the baby to term are the same jackasses that call them whores for having sex in the first place.
Nice try amigo-but no dice. I’d never call anyone a whore nor do I think sex is bad. But if you have sex you must be able to deal with the possible consequences-just like everything else in life there are consequences to your actions.
By Kyle
August 2, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
“So Jackie. To prohibit the possibility that someone feels compelled to have an abortion, I assume that you are 100% in favor of the “morning after pill”. I would think that any measure that would prevent an abortion from taking place would be just fine with you. Am I correct?”
-Jackie…i second Amelia’s question and would be interested in your response. given the info that John gave earlier about what “the morning after pill” actually does, it seems as though the pill takes action before the woman becomes pregnant - so its really just advanced birth control and destroys no life. whatcha think?
By Jack
August 2, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Lozen. Wrong on that one Dear. The way our house runs, everything is 50/50. If she wants more, she gets it. If Mama ain’t happy, nobody is happy.
BTW, was I on that list?
By The72John
August 2, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
My, how far we’ve come as a society that unborn children are called “parasites” like an infestation of worms. What a warped mind someone must have had to come up with this terminology.
Sick. Warped. Twisted.
You are certainly good at the name-calling and “bashing” that you were so critical of in your tantrum earlier.
Bravo! You fit right in with your religious-loon friends.
By NetBanker
August 2, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
if you have sex you must be able to deal with the possible consequences-just like everything else in life there are consequences to your actions. So why shouldn’t abortion be one of the choices from which the woman will need to deal with the consequence?
By Renee
August 2, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Nope don’t need a pastor, but you brought Christianity up, initially, remember Jackie? A pastor might help you, because you seem to be parroting what some pastor has already told you. See, I don’t blindly follow someone words, or a book, without looking at the facts myself, and obtaining ~GASP~ my own opinion. And then, to top it all off, I don’t try to push my opinion on others. Do you see how this works. Should I believe in God, because YOU believe in God.
So many Christians are so far gone, it’s comical. And they then want you to join them, to look equally crazy!
You are amazing, and should be studied. A person comes on here ranting, raving, and making wide generalizing comments, THEN complains about closed mindedness, free speech etc. It borders on complete lunacy, Jackie.
MWAHMWAHHHMWAHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH (any better Net???)
By Jackie
August 2, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
No, the MAP destroys life. it doesn not prevent conception but prevents implantation. Big difference. Not in favor of it.
By Mara
August 2, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
didn’t we settle the zygote/parasite debate a long time ago?
Jackie - the definition of “parasite” is “An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.” so how on earth can you say a zygote/fetus isn’t one? It certainly meets all the criteria…
By Amelia
August 2, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
So how does the religious right reconcile an issue where everything imaginable is done to thwart the very things that can prevent the negative consequences from sex, but expect people to live with the consequences after being denied the means to prevent the negative consequence? I think using their fuzzy logic, by virtue of denying the means of prevention they can prevent sex from occurring, therefore accomplishing their agenda. And I just confused myself with this one but maybe you guys will get the jist of what I am saying here. LOL
By lozen
August 2, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Let me ask you a question Jackie. If I am not supposed to decide for myself if and when I want to have a child, who do you think should make the decision for me (and you if you are a woman)? Is it the gov’t that should make my decision for me?
By Mr.Caldwell
August 2, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
I have to agree with your comments regarding the abortion issue Jackie. People today want the quick fix for everything and the easy way out. Men especially think that sex is no big deal because they have the easy out of saying,”Go get an abortion, I’m not marrying you”.
So, by that way of thinking people can sleep around with no regard for the outcome. This is why there are over a million abortion every year in our own country.
Death to another individual should never be the answer to your problems.
By The72John
August 2, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
No, the MAP destroys life. it doesn not prevent conception but prevents implantation. Big difference. Not in favor of it.
Then don’t take it.
By Jackie
August 2, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
lozen: If I am not supposed to decide for myself if and when I want to have a child, who do you think should make the decision for me? Is it the gov’t that should make my decision for me?
lozen, if you have sex and get pregnant then YES you will have to deal with the consequnces of YOUR actions which would result in having a child. The govt should protect life and not legalize the destruction of it.
By Billy
August 2, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
My, how far we’ve come as a society that unborn children are called “parasites” like an infestation of worms.
Jackie, in any other case where an organism gestated inside you, swelling you up like a balloon, causing a host of other medical issues, possibly killing you, we’d rush to the doctor ASAP to get the thing out of us. I’m making the point that for all the similarities a gestating fetus has to a parasite, we actually treat it with a damned lot of respect. I have a hard time finding fault with someone who, possibly though no fault of her own (rape) or just through an accident or mistake, ends up with one of these things in her body, feeding off of her. I can completely understand her not wanting the thing leeching off her for 9 months. Plus 18 years, give or take.
If all the pro-lifers were out there adopting kids left and right, I’d be more open to restricting abortion. But the fact of the matter is that the typical aborted fetus would, if carried to term, end up being an unwanted child that is fully aware that he is unwanted. That’s bad for the child and bad for society.
By Mara
August 2, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
So, Mr. Caldwell, if you believe that “Death to another individual should never be the answer to your problems” should I assume you are anti-war and anti-death penalty also?
By Toad
August 2, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Death to another individual should never be the answer to your problems.
True and a fetus is not an individual.
By lozen
August 2, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
Oh, get over it you f-ing dinosaurs! Abortion has been legal now for over 30 years. We have birth control and we can have as much sex as we want and you don’t have to like it. If anybody wants to sleep around it’s none of your business. Men have never thought sex was any big deal. Men have been planting the seeds for thousands of years and then, when the woman and HER child become a problem, they just send them off into the desert to die. Abraham did it! Yeah, people want a quick fix for everything all right. If you get cancer I bet you’ll go for the quick fix and kill off all those blood cells with chemo and radiation! Those blood cells are living things you know.
By Renee
August 2, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
I’m sorry, I don’t feel like scrolling back up.
Could anyone, anyone, please tell me what happened.
Topic was “Do the Media have a Liberal Bias?”. Various answers ensued, and even some intelligent debate. Then, ABORTION IS WRONG!!! I’m just trying to follow the chain of events because something MUST be missing between intelligent debate and the neverending abortion argument.
Death to another individual should never be the answer to your problems.
This statement is definitely up for debate. I can think of several scenarios that death of another individual would be the answer to your problems.
Men especially think that sex is no big deal because they have the easy out of saying,”Go get an abortion, I’m not marrying you”.
What??? ~clink, clink~ Surely you jest!!
By lozen
August 2, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
lozen, if you have sex and get pregnant then YES you will have to deal with the consequnces of YOUR actions which would result in having a child. But Jackie the four children I had before all died and went to heaven (god told me to do it). I haven’t been out of the mental hospital too long and this medication isn’t working very well. I just feel this rage welling up inside me when I see kids at the mall. But okay, if you insist I’ll have this baby!
By Jack
August 2, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
“Men especially think that sex is no big deal because they have the easy out of saying,”Go get an abortion, I’m not marrying you”.”
A real man would never, ever say that.
By The72John
August 2, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Topic was “Do the Media have a Liberal Bias?”. Various answers ensued, and even some intelligent debate. Then, ABORTION IS WRONG!!! I’m just trying to follow the chain of events because something MUST be missing between intelligent debate and the neverending abortion argument.
This one-trick-pony fanatic showed up and started ranting for no apparent reason, and we weren’t smart enough to just ignore the troll and go on with our day.
By lozen
August 2, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
72John would you please post that link again so Jackie can meet her dear friends?
By Renee
August 2, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
LMAO lozen!!!!!
By Toad
August 2, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
I thought most men do think sex is a big deal! Otherwise why is pornography such a big business?
By lozen
August 2, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Women who have abortions are murderers! Men who follow gov’t orders, go to another country and kill people are heroes. Murderers deserve the death penality. War is good. Abortion is baaaaaad. The death penality is goooooood. The morning after pill is baaaaaad. Why? If you have sex you must suffer the consequences. I don’t care if there’s a chance that kid might be raised in hell because you didn’t want it. You have to have it! You have to. I insist you must have it.
You want gov’t help to raise your kid? I don’t want you getting my tax dollars! Go to work! You had the kid so don’t expect me to pay for it. Health care? For your little bastard! Not with my money!
By susie
August 2, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Well Jackie okay you’ve convinced me to ahve my baby too. It’s my father’s baby (or it might be my brothers) you know and it might be retarded or something but i will have it because abortion is murder. Of course I’m just 13 and I won’t be able to finish school so I’ll never be able to support a child. But that’ll make dad (and my brother) really happy to have me around the house all day! I just hope it’s not a girl because if it is the same thing will happen to her when she’s nine that happened to me. Would you pleasse send me your phone number Jackie. When my baby’s born I want you to take her/him so there might be a chance for it to escape.
By Kyle
August 2, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
“No, the MAP destroys life. it doesn not prevent conception but prevents implantation. Big difference. Not in favor of it.”
-Jackie…even with your position on the MAP, surely you aren’t against birth control (condoms, bc pills, ect…) entirely, right? please donn’t say the only acceptable birth control is abstinence.
By hazel
August 2, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
Well Jackie I had sex once with my doctor because I was so lonely and sick. He was good to me and he wanted to, so I did it. But I got pregnant just that one time. When i told him he said he was sorry. Oh, I lost my husband two years ago and I’ve been raising my two children by myself. I don’t know what we’ll do when I can’t work and buy food and pay the rent. I guess we’ll just have to go to a homeless shelter. That is if my husband’s family doesn’t take my kids away from me for being a bad mother when they see I’m pregnant. They would love to take my kids and they’ve threatened to do it already. Jackie I know you’ll take my little girl and little boy in and feed them and give them a place to live until this baby is born and I’m able to work again.
By NetBanker
August 2, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
Renee…much better! I think the effect is much better after a rant or taking someone to task.
“Death to another individual should never be the answer to your problems.” The error with this argument is that the fetus/zygote/unborn child is NOT an individual so long as it is a part of the mother.
Jackie…so what is your position on the thousands of fertilized eggs that are destroyed as medical waste? What are your thoughts on the use of artificial insemination? If one should have to live with the consequences of sex which could be not ever getting pregnant why is it OK to mess with God’s plan for that, but not ok to mess with ‘the plan’ when one does get pregnant?
Again to Jackie…The govt should protect life and not legalize the destruction of it. So you are also against the dealth penalty and war since they are legalized destruction of life?
By Cody
August 2, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
Jackie, I’m 14 and you’ve convinced me to have my baby too. He told me if I really loved him I’d show him. Nobody ever paid any attention to me before and I was afraid of losing him. I got pregnant! Now, I don’t know what to do. My parents will kill me when they find out. So far I’ve been able to hide it but I can’t hide it much longer. Jackie please let me know where you live. If I can come and live with you until the baby’s born and if you’ll take my baby, my parents don’t ever have to know. I know you will help me to keep me from having to have an abortion.
By lozen
August 2, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
So Jackie are you ready to put your money where your big mouth is?
By Cynthia
August 2, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
You guys can not be serious. Calling a tiny human being a parasite is ridiculous. How hard hearted and callous are you guys? You talk as if you just looooooooooooove abortion! Get a grip on reality…or better yet-SANITY!
By The72John
August 2, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
Pleas for compassion often fall on deaf ears when directed at these people. Their compassion exists only for a fetus and only while the fetus remains so. Once the developed child enters the world, they no longer have any concern for it.
I think it’s because it’s far easier for them to care about a concept than it is for real flesh and blood people. People are complex, issues are complex. Wars, where many people die, are complex. So, instead of getting involved in causes that involve the living, it’s simpler for these simple-minded people to pour all of their concern into abortion.
They absolve themselves of any responsibility for the lives of those they would force to their narrow constraints.
By Chilao
August 2, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
Cody, you harlot. LOL Hazel too.
By NetBanker
August 2, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Hmmmm…where’d Jackie go? Too many questions maybe?
I thought most men do think sex is a big deal! Otherwise why is pornography such a big business? Of course most men think sex is a big deal because they don’t get it enough…which is my porn is such big business. Sheesh Toad….you’re smarter than that!
By The72John
August 2, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
How hard hearted and callous are you guys?
How hard-hearted and callous are you, who obviously believe that it’s better to allow a child to be born into a loveless family and life of crushing, destroying poverty than it is to allow a tiny lump of cellular matter with no brain, no heart, no discernible features whatsoever to be eliminated?
You talk as if you just looooooooooooove abortion! Get a grip on reality…or better yet-SANITY!*
Yup. We’re having a big old abortion party this weekend. We’re going to get together and slice-and-dice all night long. If we manage to hit 100 abortions, we win a prize.
By The72John
August 2, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
which is my porn is such big business.
Freudian slip, hmmm, Net?
By Joe L.
August 2, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
And yet by any medical, scientific, and even most moral standards Jackie is completely incorrect. In the huge majority of cases the MAP will merely prevent an egg from being released or fertilized. It’s an extremely small amount of cases where implantation may not occur. AND it’s probably a much smaller percentage chance than women experience in in vitro techniques. So if the MAP is abortion and murder so is in vitro and most fertility techniques.
According to the medical community a women is not pregnant until an egg implants as fertilized eggs do not implant a large portion of the time. So there is absolutely no way a MAP is abortion.
By Toad
August 2, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
Sheesh Toad….you’re smarter than that! But all these people were saying “Of course men don’t think sex is a big deal.”
By Chilao
August 2, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
NetB reveals his private business… intawestin’ LOL
By Jackie
August 2, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
You are arguing using extreme hard case scenarios. You want abortion legal because of 100 hard cases? Which allows the other 1,499,900 abortions to occur as well! This reasoning makes no sense at all. Keep it legal because of these 100 extreme cases you say. Ok, well what about the 1,499,900 cases where people did not use birth control or a condom broke. What about the 1,499,900 cases where the woman is 27 years old and had consentual sex?
The extreme cases do not justify abortion.
By lozen
August 2, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
Jackieeeeeee, we need your address and phone number! Come on back now. Abortion is necessary, not loved at all. A tiny fetus is not a baby; get out your biology book from high school. Abortion is necessary or women (you know those already living, breathing humans) cannot be free to live their lives as they choose. As long as parents, churches, schools, society, pretend teenagers won’t have sex if you tell them not to, abortion will be necessary. As long as there is no 100 percent effective birth control method abortion is necessary. As long as people view unwanted births as good punishment for women who dare to have sex, abortion will be necessary.
By Billy
August 2, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this
Joe, I’m disappointed in you. Don’t you know that the medical community’s opinions on medical matters like pregnancy are just as irrelevant as scientists’ views on scientific matters like global warming, evolution, and gay people being gay because they were born that way and not snicker because they has sex with animals?
By Mettahy
August 2, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this
“Pew Research found that where 56% of Americans believe efforts to build democracy in Iraq will succeed, just 33% of journalists do.”
“This supports the post-modernist myth that all opinions are valid. They aren’t. Journalists are trained to be objective observers of the facts. The average American is about as objective as Rush Limbaugh.”
I don’t know about anyone else but it comes as no surprise to me that a journalist who has reported on a war from up close would have a more jaded take on it than someone whose only reading news stories about it. Shaunti makes no points with that false argument. I would expect a war journalist to have a more somber view, how can anyone see the evils of war up close and then be expected to rave about what a great thing it is.
A journalist who is assigned to cover a particular event is going to have a very different experience than someone who is entirely removed from it. If there is as you say only one valid opinion how do you decide whose is the valid one? Draw straws? Arm wrestle? And why was there an Ebert and not just a Siskle if only one opinion is ever valid? Why is there more than one political party, more than one religion? You get the idea.
If the average American is only as objective as Rush Limbaugh then I’m not average by any means. Seems to me his mind is like a rubbish trap filled with rotting fetid mumbo jumbo.
By TramadoL1625
August 3, 2006 02:45 AM | Link to this
Not much on my mind lately. My life’s been completely boring these days. I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. So it goes.
By TramadoL90101
August 3, 2006 05:18 AM | Link to this
Not much on my mind lately. My life’s been completely boring these days. I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. So it goes.
By The72John
August 3, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this
If there is as you say only one valid opinion how do you decide whose is the valid one? Draw straws? Arm wrestle? And why was there an Ebert and not just a Siskle if only one opinion is ever valid? Why is there more than one political party, more than one religion? You get the idea.
You confuse areas in which there are valid differing opinions with those in which there are not. Obviously, some things are subjective. However, many others are not - this is the myth of which I speak.
Post-modernism suggests that ALL opinions on ALL subjects are valid, so we’re left with religious fanatics who believe that their opinion on Creationism is as valid as the objective scientifc evidence against it, or business interests who suggest that Global Warming doesn’t exist, even though the weight of objective science shows that it does.
Most of the topics that are cited to suggest that this false bias exists fall into this category.
By Billy
August 3, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
Very well put, John.
By Renee
August 3, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
Good Morning everyone.
I wanted to formally invite Mara & 72John to my abortion party titled “We slice them, you dice them”!!! I guarantee loads of fun, including endless pregnancy terminations, using both the suction AND the slice & dice techniques, trivia games (What you DON’T know about “slicing and dicing”) and games where YOU can try to figure out the reason for any of the pregnancy terminations. For every correct reason, you can personally participate in the slice & dice!!!!!!
Oh, and there’s more!!! As seen on TV, the slice & dice 2006, made of pure titanium, endorsed by a NASA scientist, will be used, in person for the first time!!!! We have a special celebrity that will be used for the slice & dice. I can’t let you know who it is, but rumor is the last name is Hilton!!!
Oh and although this was personally extended to John & Mara, any one else is free to come, but there will be a small entrance fee of 12.95, which will be contributed to the U.S. Slice & Dice Fund, to aid in terminating pregnancies in high population areas!!!
By Bruce
August 3, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
I read somewhere that there have been over 43 million aboritions preformed since 1973. That sure is alot of rape and incest pregnancies. And that is just the ones reported.
By Bruce
August 3, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
I read somewhere that there have been over 43 million aboritions preformed since 1973. That sure is alot of rape and incest pregnancies. And that is just the ones reported.
By The72John
August 3, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
I read somewhere that there have been over 43 million aboritions preformed since 1973. That sure is alot of rape and incest pregnancies. And that is just the ones reported.
I think the point that the self-righteous moralists are missing is that it’s really none of your business or anyone else’s business why an individual chooses to have an abortion.
Your obsession with criminalizing sexual activity is your problem. If you want to wallow in your own prudishness, go right ahead, but your desire to punish others because they’re behaving in ways you think inappropriate is childish and intrusive. Which, frankly, is typical of religious fanatics.
By Bruce
August 3, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
How did I know that would be your response? Maybe because it is typical of non-religious fanatics! 43 million thats about 1/3 of the worlds population…….
By daisy
August 3, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
Um, 43 million is 1/3 of the world population (6.5 billion)like the earth is 6000 years old.
By Amelia
August 3, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
Why does it not surprise me that a blog about media bias has been hijacked once again by the abortion debate. Does this not perfectly illustrate why this country can’t focus on other issues?
By Billy
August 3, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
43 million thats about 1/3 of the worlds population……
Funniest. Post. Ever.
By The72John
August 3, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
How did I know that would be your response? Maybe because it is typical of non-religious fanatics! 43 million thats about 1/3 of the worlds population…….
Yes, you’re right. A rational approach to medical privacy is usually the typical response of non-religious fanatics.
And 43 million is a third of the world’s population? Are you insane? 43 million isn’t even a third of the US population.
By daisy
August 3, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Um, 43 million is 1/3 of the world population (6.5 billion)like the earth is 6000 years old.
By Bruce
August 3, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
It is still 43 million even if I was wrong about the precentage of the world’s population. Can some of you rational people give the stats on how many of those 43 million were because of rape or incest pregnancies?
By Jack
August 3, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
Renee’, I’ll bring the crackers & beer.
By Chilao
August 3, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
43 million thats about 1/3 of the worlds population…… Funniest. Post. Ever.
Further proof of American’s inability to do VERY simple math? LMAO
By Renee
August 3, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
43 million….half of the worlds population
MWAHMWAHMWAHHAHAHAHAHA
There is like 43 million in NYC alone (just kidding, not quite that many) but still……
By Mara
August 3, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
it is typical of non-religious fanatics
yeah, those weird fanatics who don’t understand that everyone should be forced, by law, to adhere to the religious beliefs of Bruce and his ilk…
Renee - here’s my RSVP. I’ll be at the party (with bells on!) I could bring some tortilla’s and we could make “baby wraps” with the slice-n-dice…mwahahahahah! (gasp) mwahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
By The72John
August 3, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
Can some of you rational people give the stats on how many of those 43 million were because of rape or incest pregnancies?
It’s irrelevant. It’s a red herring. You’re trying to force the argument to conform to your standard of what is and isn’t an acceptable abortion.
But then, I don’t expect logical consistency from someone so utterly stupid as to make the “error” you made.
By Amelia
August 3, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
Bruce, in the immortal words of Rhett Butler, “frankly dear, I don’t give a damn”. A woman has the right to choose and that right is guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. I personally disapprove of abortion because of the availability of effective birth control. But bottom line….the right to choose. Furthermore, the abortion issue is just a vehicle that the religious right uses to accomplish their agenda of sending us back to the days of puritanism. They are no different than the taliban in their desire to dictate how every single person in this country should live their lives. If we continue to allow them to be a political force in this country we might as have Castro’s block watchers in our homes 24/7.
By Mara
August 3, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
…Can some of you rational people give the stats…
was that Bruce cedeing rationality to the rest of us? Does that mean he’s finally accepting that he isn’t? Well, they say that admitting you’re irrational is the first step in recovery…(heh,heh,heh….)
By NetBanker
August 3, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
What about the 1,499,900 cases where the woman is 27 years old and had consentual sex? And your point is…..what? That 27 year old could be in an abusive relationship, may be split from the sperm donor, may already have children and know that having another will make it impossible to work and feed them, may not be emotionally stable, may not be emotionally mature enough to raise a child, may be in ill health, may be a drug addict….there are a myriad reasons why a woman may decide that carrying to term and birthing a baby (Let alone actually raising it) will cause suffering to her, her family, her existing children, or the baby.
Just because one has or is old enough to have sex doesn’t mean one is ready or able to have a child. It also doesn’t always mean that one was irresponsible because, as Lozen points out, there is no none method of birth control that is 100% effective 100% of the time.
Jackie…what is your economic class and economic background? Your education level? I’m going to venture a guess that says you’ve never lived in poverty, are decently education, and have at least a middle class life. If you haven’t walked a mile in a poor woman’s shoes what makes you knowledgeable enough to know what’s best for her when it comes to pregnancy? Have you ever volunteered in a shelter for abused and/or homeless women? Do you truly understand the burden that could be placed on another because your belief without 1st hand knowledge? I’m certain you can’t empathize, but can you at least try to sympathize with these women to understand why the decision to abort should be theirs to make and no one else’s?
Renee…don’t forget to serve the Bloody Mary’s for that extra touch!!
Your obsession with criminalizing sexual activity is your problem. If you want to wallow in your own prudishness, go right ahead, but your desire to punish others because they’re behaving in ways you think inappropriate is childish and intrusive. As my mind was wandering during my commute home (always a good thing to do while driving on 285, huh?) I started to wonder if the level of prudishness in the country wasn’t a factor of the rising affluence of our nation coupled with religion. For example prostitution was a known and accepted fact of life for a quite a long time in this country especially through the late 1800’s and into the early 1900’s as the country conquered the West. Up to the 1950’s generations of families shared homes and much tighter living quarters which results in greater exposure to bodies and bodily functions than are experience in our modern world with private bedrooms and private bathrooms. Exposure to sex would have been pretty much unavoidable.
How has the rise in affluence, which has allowed us to focus on the individual and to build structures that separate us from one another, affected our society’s views on sex? What is the connection to studies that show that while we are significantly more affluent and have more stuff people are no happier than they were 40 years ago? Is it that our ‘obsession with sex’ is a symptom of a lack of intimacy and connectedness to our families and communities which is leaving us emotionally unfulfilled (because we’ve tried to fill it with stuff instead of substance)? Has sex become a substitute to fill that emotional void?
By Bruce
August 3, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Well maybe this will help. Notice I gave the link instead of cut and paste.
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html
By Toad
August 3, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Who cares if the woman having an abortion is 27 and had consensual sex? It’s her decision. I made a similar decision at about the same age when my birth control method failed. No slicing and dicing was involved. And no regrets.
By Toad
August 3, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Who cares if the woman having an abortion is 27 and had consensual sex? It’s her decision. I made a similar decision at about the same age when my birth control method failed. No slicing and dicing was involved. And no regrets.
By Mara
August 3, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
What, Toad?! You mean to say that having an abortion didn’t drive you mad with grief and guilt at your failure to fulfill the ultimate female function - being a mother? You didn’t try to kill yourself? Or develop sexual dysfunctions? That you *didn’t develop breast cancer? Or uterine deseases? I bet you’re infertile now though, right?
Yeah, me neither.
By Bruce
August 3, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Or how about these testimonies from some others.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0002.html
By Toad
August 3, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Sorry about the double post, but it didn’t seem to take.
By The72John
August 3, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Well maybe this will help. Notice I gave the link instead of cut and paste.
Yes - the words of a raving religious fanatic are certainly germane to an argument where we’ve already told you religion has no place.
You really do have a limited capacity for rational thought, don’t you.
By Toad
August 3, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
As far as I know, no cancer. Definitely not suicidal. Just a happy Lesbian who no longer has to worry about pregnancy. No — the abortion didn’t drive me to lesbianism. The sperm donor was gay and I was Q (Questioning)!!
By The72John
August 3, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
http://www.johansens.us/sane/politics/propagan.htm
Here’s a nice link for you. It actually mentions the frequently debunked and notorious hoaxster that the religious nut keeps linking to, and points out that he fabricates his numbers.
It’s also good for exposing a number of other propaganda techniques used to sway the weak-minded (like Bruce) into beliving things that aren’t actually true.
By Bruce
August 3, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
72John, Do you really have the LIE so ingrained in you that you will not even consider that you too maybe wrong about this issue. If one of the main player in legalizing aborition can admit he was not only wrong but lied to the world about it surely you can see you could be wrong too. So much for free, raltional thinking that you are so fond of….
I used the first link to try and tie this subject in with this weeks topic to show how easily the media can be fooled into reporting false infromation without checking the facts and providing an OBJECTIVE report.
By kimberly
August 3, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
HEEEEYYYYYYYYY!
Popped in to see what y’all are arguing about today. Same ol’ same ol’…. Somebody thinks something that’s none of his business is somehow his business, and has an arsenal of non-facts to back up his assertion. Y’all are handling him well, thank you! Back to the grindstone… {;-> (30 days ‘till football. Squeeeee!)
By Bruce
August 3, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Hey Kimberly,
How about you showing some facts to back up your assertion. I asked for some facts on how many aboritions were preformed on rape and incest victims but no one can give any. Can you?
By The72John
August 3, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Bruce, you are a moron. This man’s statements have been debunked over and over and over. He even ADMITTED once to using falsified data. The person being duped is YOU.
By Toad
August 3, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
how many abortions were preformed on rape and incest victims At the abortion clinic no one asks how one got pregnant. Because, guess what? It doesn’t matter. Rape and incest are brought up to protect people who get pregnant in this way when restrictive laws are proposed that would negatively impact victims of these two crimes. For example, getting a parent’s permission when the pregnancy is a result of incest complicates matters.
By kimberly
August 3, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Which one of my assertions? The one that you think something that’s none of your business is somehow your business, or the assertion that the nice people on the blog are handling you well?
Both of those were, and still are, my opinions. So is this: You sound like Charlie Brown’s teacher. “Waaa WAAAAA, wa WAA WAAA waaaaaaaaa.” Can’t hear you, Dude. Come back after you’ve personally adopted half a dozen special-needs, mixed race babies and tell us about it. Perhaps I’ll be able to hear you then.
By lozen
August 3, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Bruce, Jackie, etc: I do not care what any crazy doctor did, does, or says. Abortion is necessary! It’s unfortunate that women have to have abortions. It’s not fun and nobody wants to do it. It’s painful and upsetting for most women. But it is necessary. I have seen what life is like for children who aren’t wanted and treasured by their parents. I don’t believe anyone would choose that life. Women cannot be free unless we can make our own decision whether we want to have children. I don’t care if millions of women have abortions because a condom burst or they didn’t use birth control. If she isn’t ready/does not want to become a mother it is her decision and hers alone! It is not your business Bruce. It is not the church’s business. It is not the government’s business. It isn’t your business. Noone else can make a better decision about women’s lives than women themselves.
By Archie
August 3, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
It’s nothing more than an atheistic liberal love fest. You should sell tickets to your show.
Some of us liberals are not atheistic. When it comes to certain male/female subjects I disagree with the guys and at other times I disagree with the ladies and I have a semi-conservative view on premarital sex. Sexual behavior should not be criminalized,of course, I am speaking of one’s preference and other issues.
By lozen
August 3, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
Isn’t it interesting how quickly Jackie disappeared when the girls and women she would deny abortion began to ask her to help them? Bruce we need your phone number and address too. Why didn’t you give it out years ago? If all those women who had to have abortions because they couldn’t or didn’t want to take care of kids, had known you would take in their babies maybe they would not have chosen abortion. You would have taken those babies to stop them from being aborted wouldn’t you Bruce?
By Amelia
August 3, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
WASHINGTON - The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East told Congress on Thursday that “Iraq could move toward civil war” if the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad is not stopped.
“I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it,” Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said the top priority in the Iraq war is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting.
These same “christians” that continuously obsess over a woman’s right to choose probably don’t give a second thought to all of the people that have died for their hero GWB in his war of lies. Oh, excuse me. I forgot that God told GW to invade Iraq. Sorry.
By Mara
August 3, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
Archie - don’t you know that you can’t be a liberal without being an atheist? I think it’s somewhere in the by-laws, section II subsection 66.6 or thereabouts…right around the section on our secret plan to close all the churches and burn all the bibles.
(sarcasm implicit)
By The72John
August 3, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
How about you showing some facts to back up your assertion. I asked for some facts on how many aboritions were preformed on rape and incest victims but no one can give any. Can you?
Because, Bruce, those numbers are irellevant to the question as to whether or not the practice is legal. Do you understand the meaning of the word “irellevant”?
And just so you understand, your quoting of Nathanson does not constitute “facts”. It is, in fact, the logical fallacy known as “Appeal to Authority”. That, for your edification, Bruce, is when someone says “Because I am a doctor, what I tell you is true”. Statements are not factual, Bruce. Data is. And Nathanson doesn’t offer data, he makes claims for which the only basis of acceptance is his position as a doctor who used to perform abortions.
Get back to us when you have actual facts, rather than propaganda generated by a rabid anti-choice advocate.
By The72John
August 3, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
dangit, I spelled “Irrelevant” wrong twice.
By Mara
August 3, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
John - don’t you know that only sluts don’t use birthcontrol, and sluts must pay for their filthy lust somehow?
In a report that analyses federal data on unmarried teens ages 15 through 19, collected in 2002 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Child Trends, a non-profit research center in Washington, D.C. releases the following data - “Condom use declines a little with age, and more serious relationships are less likely to use condoms,” report co-author Jennifer Manlove says. Almost half (47%) of teen boys who had intercourse in the year before being surveyed said they always use a condom, but only 28% of girls said a condom was used. “My guess is you have teenage guys having more one-night stands, and guys are very likely to use a condom during a one-night stand, where with their girlfriends it’s not as likely,” she says. “If young women are having sex more with their boyfriends, that’s probably why they use condoms less, whereas young men are having sex with women they may not know as well.”
On the bright side, at least most of the little sluts are monogamous…
By Kyle
August 3, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
sooooooooooooo, still on abortion are we? i see that there has been much progress in the debate. anybody care to go back into the week’s topic - or have we already beaten it into the ground.
-i believe as we left the topic the consensus of the majority of the bloggers (of which i didn’t agree) was something along the lines of: there is no liberal bias in the media. in fact, there is no bias in the media at all (except fox news and much of a.m. radio of course b/c thy’re a bunch of lying neocons) b/c journalists are trained to be objective and would never let their own beliefs interfere with thier reporting - except if they work for a right leaning organization, then they are incapable of objectivity. futhermore, journalists and professors know more and have expierenced more than we the public have - so if they have different views than the majority its b/c they are better informed and the majority is just wrong.
-if anybody has any ideas for something new to talk about, feel free to disregard my obvious attempt to pick a verbal fight. i’m just really tired of hearing this abortion argument set on repeat.
By NetBanker
August 3, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
LOVED those testimonials and how they make it sound like the majority of abortions are D&E in the 3rd trimester…which we all know is patently false.
Anti-abortions supporters…please read what Lozen wrote as it conveys what most of us here believe. We are not FOR abortion. What we are for is leaving the decision up to the woman who is pregnant and her doctor because only she knows her situation in life. We KNOW from history that when abortion is illegal women will continue to have the procedure done. We are better off trying to make abortion rare while keeping it legal and therefore regulated. We are better off focusing on making people aware of and consistently using birth control because the reality is that people ARE going to have sex regardless of marital status no matter how much those of faith call it a sin. Feel free to use your faith and church as soapboxes from which to spread the message of abstinence or adoption as alternatives, but keep your faith and church out of the law.
By NetBanker
August 3, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
subsection 66.6 very nice touch, Mara with the Anti-Christ reference snuck in there
Kyle…did we actually say “except fox news and much of a.m. radio of course b/c thy’re a bunch of lying neocons?” Or did you just make that up to get us riled? One comment on AM Radio as in Rush, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter…they are NOT journalists! They are talk show hosts and book authors. They don’t HAVE to be objective because they aren’t actually generating news reports and their objective is not to report news. They are offering up their opinions to people of like mind and making TONS of money basically pontificating and telling a segment of the population what they want to hear.
By Bruce
August 3, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
He falsified data and you believe the lies he told, but I’m the moron?
What do you have to say about all those in the second link I posted? I’m am sure you will say the same for them too but I just wanted you to have to type it out.
By Michelle
August 3, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
If anything the media is biased to Conservatives, thanks to the FOX network.
By Anthony
August 3, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
I love when holy rollers use the word liberal,news flash Christ would of been a liberal.
What liberals have given us
Accomplishments of Liberalism So what have you done for me? If you are an American citizen, liberalism has done a lot for you. This list is nowhere near complete, but it touches on the highlights of liberalism’s proudest accomplishments. Also, notice how many of these have the word “present” for the time frame.
Interstate Highway System
era: 1950’s-present Proposed by Roosevelt and erected by Eisenhower (a Republican), the Interstate system was a big government project. As much as anything else in the post WWII era, the Interstate is responsible for tremendous economic growth, prosperity, and has spawned an entire culture.
GI Bill
era: 1950’s This act of Congress enabled millions upon millions of Americans to get college educations, something that most Americans had never had the opportunity to do previously. An entire generation of leaders, scientists, and business people owe their education to the GI Bill.
Labor Laws
era: 1930’s-present An end to child labor, 40 hour work weeks, the right of employees to collectively bargain, overtime pay, workplace safety, all of the things we take for granted today are thanks to liberal laws passed in the first half of this century. It was the conservatives who fought tooth and nail against the end of sweatshops and exploitation.
Marshall Plan
era: late 1940’s-1950’s Foreign aid is a popular scapegoat these days. Those who would cut it should look back at the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe, and is the major reason that Communism never made it past East Berlin.
Environmental Laws
era: 1970’s-present The environment has gotten much better in the last 30 years thanks to liberals. Bald Eagles fly once again thanks to endangered species laws, most rivers and lakes are clean again due to anti-pollution laws, and frequent smog days are a thing of the past in most big American cities.
Food safety laws
era: 1910’s-present Ever read Sinclair’s “The Jungle?” That’s what things were really like before food purity laws were on the books. Today cases of food poisoning are rare, and consumers know that whatever they buy is safe to eat.
Workplace safety laws
era: 1930’s-present Long hours in unsafe conditions are much rarer today than in the past. Tragedies such as the Triangle Shirtwaist fire and child labor have been eliminated by liberal and progressive legislation.
Social Security
era: 1930’s-1970’s This program has provided three generations of Americans retirement benefits, and nearly eliminated poverty among the elderly. The program is weakening now, but for 50 years it did its job to a T.
Economic Growth
era: 1950’s-1960’s Liberalism and economic prosperity go hand-in-hand. Unlike the pseudo-boom of the 1980’s, the 1950’s and 1960’s were a period of sustained and real growth for all sectors of the economy and all social classes. Taxes were fair, government worked, and America prospered under both Democratic and Republican administrations
Space Program
era: 1950’s-present It was Kennedy who challenged us to make it to the moon, and it is under his and Johnson’s administrations that the space program took off, with numerous benefits to American industry and peoples’ standard of living, not to mention national pride. If you are reading this on a computer, thank the space program and the liberals who got it going.
Peace corps
era: 1960’s-present Kennedy inspired thousands of Americans to ask what they could do for their country, and the Peace Corps is his most visible and effective legacy
Civil rights movement
era: 1950’s-present Liberal ideals drove the biggest change in American society since the Civil War, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. All Americans who believe in freedom and opportunity cannot help but be inspired by the valiant struggles of MLK and others. Also recall if you will that the major opponents of civil rights were conservatives.
The fight against Totalitarianism
era: always World War II was fought by all Americans; liberals and conservatives fought together the evil of Nazism. The ideal we fought for was freedom and the dignity of the individual against totalitarianism. Under the leadership of Roosevelt and Truman, we won. But the battle is never over, so we must remain vigilant.
The Tennessee Valley project
era: 1930’s The Depression-era government program bought electricity to thousands of impoverished families in Appalachia, prevented floods, and created thousands of new jobs.
Women’s right to vote
era: 1920’s-present Before 1920, half of America’s population could not exercise the essential duty of citizenship.
Universal Public Education
era: 1890’s-present The reason America is so strong economically is because we have a well-educated citizenry. Public schooling is the true melting pot of America, where every student, regardless of economic background can be taught the basics of citizenship. It is no coincidence that in the last 20 years, as conservatives have greatly weakened the public school system, that American students have scored lower on tests and our civic society has started to unravel.
National Weather Service
era: 1930’s-present This is one of those things you never think about, but you are glad its there. Far from just forecasting the weather, the NWS also provides vital data to pilots and sailors, and the NWS satellites and observation posts provide the raw data that all other weather forecasting services (private ones too!) depend on.
Scientific Research
era: 1940’s-present Much of the great discoveries in science have come about through grants from the government. This is not to say that scientific genius depends on Washington, but the fact remains that pure science is expensive, and private industry will often not fund experiments which don’t have a direct commercial potential. From Salk’s polio vaccine to todays Human Genome Project and Hubble Space Telescope, the government is an important partner in scientific discovery.
Product Labeling/Truth in Advertising Laws
era: 1910’s-present “We take it for granted that if a claim is made publicly for a product, it’s reasonable to assume it’s true. Plus, every time we check the ingredients on a can or package of food, we should mentally call down blessings on the liberals who passed the necessary legislation over the anguished howls of the conservatives, who were convinced such info would be prohibitively expensive, and too big a burden on business.”
Public Health
era: 1910’s-present Government funded water and sewage systems are an important part of modernity. In addition, organizations such as the National Institute of Health and the Center for Disease Control play an important part in maintaining the national health and preventing epidemics through research, vaccination programs, etc.
Morrill Land Grant Act
era: late 1800’s This act is the reason why nearly every state in the Union has a large public university. These centers of learning have educated untold millions of Americans. If you went to a school with a state name in it, then you were helped by liberalism.
Rural Electrification
era: 1930’s-1960’s This allowed remote, rural areas of the country the basic convinience of electricity. I am sure that those of us using computers on the internet, sitting in our air conditioned homes, under our electric lights consider electricity a basic necessity - one that the pure market would never have found profitable to provide to isolated farming communities.
Public Universities
era: 1890’s-present day Put a college education within the reach of nearly every American. In addition to education, many of these institutions have played key roles in all kinds of scientific research and been a strong influence on our entire society.
Bank Deposit Insurance
era: 1930’s-present day About 1934, as part of extensive New Deal banking legislation, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to provide federal insurance for bank deposits.Ê This was instrumental in restoring confidence in our nation’s banks, and remains so to this day.
Earned Income Tax Credit
era: 1970’s-present day Reduces the tax burden for working families who make under $28,500.00 You have to earn income to get it. It is not a handout. It’s a great incentive for families to stay off welfare. But the atmosphere has changed in Washington, and Republicans had to find a way to pay for their capital-gains tax cut, and EITC was their ticket to success. So, the Republicans voted to cut this program by $29 billion over a certain time frame. Well guess what? They just raised the taxes on lower income working families.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
era: 1940’s-present day The world’s foremost authority and defense against infectious disease and epidemic is a department of the United States government.
Family and Medical Leave Act
era: 1993-present day This is a program which mandates that you have the right to job leave to take care of sick family members, or to have a child. Many conservatives were opposed to this valuable piece of legislation. Perhaps they were opposed to family values?
Consumer Product Safety Commission
era: 1972-present day These guys regulate consumer products for safety. Everything from sharp (and edible) baby toys to flammable pjamas have been taken off the market due to the work of this commission.
Public Broadcasting
era: 1930’s-present day Millions of our children have learned from shows like Sesame Street, 3-2-1 Contact, and Mister Rogers (and so many more). Millions of adults continue to learn from shows like Nova. Also, the best broadcast journalism is by far National Public Radio. PBS and NPR have served to enrich our national culture.
Americans With Disabilities Act
era: 1990-present day Civil rights for disabled citizens. It is fair, just, and it is the law of the land. Credit where credit is due, former Senator Bob Dole helped push this through, a rare nod in favor of liberalism from Mr. Dole.
By Billy
August 3, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Kyle, I don’t think we’re saying that there’s no liberal bias in the media. There is. But liberal bias and conservative bias are not mutually exclusive, and both are generally overshadowed by the media’s lust for ratings. Which is neither liberal nor conservative.
My personal observation is that liberal bias is far less obvious, often consisting of the fact that a story on, say, global warming was run. Even though the opposing sides are both presented, conservatives call it liberal bias because the media outlet saw fit to report on it all.
Also, conservative figures in the media tend to be far more outspoken, volume-wise. They’ll shout people down. With a few exceptions, the supposed liberal journalists are far more…sedate? Fox News loves putting Ann Coulter on TV to air her “death to liberals” crap, and the host of whatever show just sits and nods. The alleged liberals in the rest of the media, should, say, Michael Moore come on their shows, actually question him.
Faux News and talk radio are biased like 90% right of center. The rest of the media may have an overall liberal bias, but it’s more along the lines of 5% left of center. Yes, I just made those numbers up, but if it’s OK for Fox…
By Mara
August 3, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
Net - Rush, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter…they are NOT journalists! They are talk show hosts and book authors. They don’t HAVE to be objective because they aren’t actually generating news reports and their objective is not to report news
exactly. It’s easy to say that “the media” has a liberal bias without actually saying which media. Are we speaking of news, commentary, info-tainment, entertainment, or something else? Is it even acknowleged that in 99% (okay, fake statistic pulled out of my a*s, so let’s just say “most of”) of newspapers have a very solid wall between what may be a liberal op/ed page and the hard news sections? Heck no. If your op/ed page is liberal, then your whole publication must be knee-jerk partisan. Or at least that’s what passes for “conventional wisdom” seems to dictate.
oh, and thanks for noticing by sly dig at the anti-christ ;-)
By Bruce
August 3, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
“And Nathanson doesn’t offer data, he makes claims for which the only basis of acceptance is his position as a doctor who used to perform abortions.”
Wouldn’t that qualify him to be more of an expert on the subject then you? Wouldn’t that qualify him as more of an expert than most folks? What about all the others John? I posted two links. Did you read those too or are they just a bunch of liars now that they see things differently? Come on man, when they say what you want to hear it is the gospel but when they see things differently they are a bunch of religious fanatics.
By The72John
August 3, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
He falsified data and you believe the lies he told, but I’m the moron?
Does anyone have the slightest idea what Brucie means here? Because this sentence makes even less sense than his usual ramblings.
What do you have to say about all those in the second link I posted? I’m am sure you will say the same for them too but I just wanted you to have to type it out.
Bruce, you sad, sad man, the second link you posted was just more about the same person…
Now, which is more reasonable and rational, Brucie…that there is a vast conspiracy to conceal the tragic deaths that constantly result from abortion, OR…
The the medical industry is perhaps the most watched and regulated field in the country, where the slightest mistake results in litigation by the injured party and has resulted in Doctors being so afraid of being sued that they document when they use the bathroom during the work day?
By Kyle
August 3, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
“Kyle…did we actually say “except fox news and much of a.m. radio of course b/c thy’re a bunch of lying neocons?” Or did you just make that up to get us riled?”
-Net…yeah, i probably made that up a little bit in a desperate attempt to get off this abortion issue. but, it does seem to be a theme on this blog that anything from fox news is immediately discredited simply b/c it came from fox news. why are most here so quick to decide that fox is biased to the right but few , if any, will acknowledge a presence (however large or small) of a liberal bias in the media?
“If anything the media is biased to Conservatives, thanks to the FOX network.”
-hmmmmmm, case in point. thanks, Michelle.
“One comment on AM Radio as in Rush, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter…they are NOT journalists!”
-Net…very true. but wasn’t O’Rielly at one point a journalist? what about his previous schooling to always be objective? also, hasen’t he traveled around the world and been exposed to much more data than the general public? why then is his opinion automatically discarded as partisan? seems to me we should give his objective professionalism the benefit of the doubt, no?
By Bruce
August 3, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
OK John I’ll give but you are still wrong….. If you want to continue to believe a lie then so be it. I’ve only tried to shed some light on your darkness but you refuse to open your eyes. No more aborition from me this week.
By Billy
August 3, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
what about his previous schooling to always be objective? also, hasen’t he traveled around the world and been exposed to much more data than the general public? why then is his opinion automatically discarded as partisan? seems to me we should give his objective professionalism the benefit of the doubt, no?
How is it that this line of thought applies to O’Reilly but not to Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper or Helen Thomas? We’re supposed to admit that they are biased when they report the news, but give O’Reilly the benefit of the doubt as far as bias is concerned when he opines on the state of the world?
By The72John
August 3, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Wouldn’t that qualify him to be more of an expert on the subject then you? Wouldn’t that qualify him as more of an expert than most folks?
You don’t understand the concept of a logical fallacy at all, do you Bruce? I’ll repeat, just for your tiny brain. Appeal to authority - A logical fallacy that claims that something is valid because of the position of the person who claims it.
It’s…a…fallacy…Bruce. It doesn’t matter what your position, if you don’t have factual data to back up your statements, they are meaningless.
And guess what, Bruce. I can read statistics. I can go to the CDC and read the actual statistics, not the made up, overly emotional, utterly falacious ramblings of a Christ-crazed anti-Choice activist.
And Bruce, for the second time BOTH LINKS YOU POSTED ARE BY THE SAME MAN YOU FREAKING IDIOT.
Did you become stupid AFTER you found Jesus, or were you just born that way?
By Toad
August 3, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Another form of anti-liberal bias: Often when a tv show has a liberal guest they have a conservative to counter-balance the liberal’s opinion. But they don’t always do that when they have a conservative on. (Sorry, can’t give any concrete examples, but I’ve noted this ever since the ‘60’s.)
By Jack
August 3, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
HELLO KIMBERLY! Sweet thing. Wondered if you had fallen off of the Earth or something. :)
By lozen
August 3, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Wouldn’t that qualify him to be more of an expert on the subject then you? Wouldn’t that qualify him as more of an expert than most folks? What about all the others… Bruce, read my lips. This man has never had to face being pregnant with no money, no job, no education, no safe place to raise a child. He isn’t an expert. There is no expert on pregnancy and whether to end or continue a pregnancy except the woman who is pregnant!
By The72John
August 3, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
*OK John I’ll give but you are still wrong….. If you want to continue to believe a lie then so be it. I’ve only tried to shed some light on your darkness but you refuse to open your eyes. No more aborition from me this week. *
Ah yes, the final recourse of the fanatic.
By Mara
August 3, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
Kyle - were O’Reilly still in the news business I probably would give him the benefit of a doubt, but he’s not. He’s paid to spout opinion and incendiary rhetoric, (which he excels at btw). As for why it’s so much easier to believe conservative bias from Fox than liberal bias from CBS…I’ve never heard a CBS commentator spit out the word “conservative” as if it were an expletive, or some shameful and horrifying affliction. I’ve never heard “liberal” said in any other way on Fox. But then I don’t really watch Fox much anymore, not since I lost faith in O’Reilly.
By lozen
August 3, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
This is multiple choice:
What did George W. Bush say was “the best moment” during his years in the White House?
a. The first day I sat at my desk in the Oval Office and thought about all the history that happened there and relized it was my turn. b. When I caught a seven-and-a-half pound largemouth bass on my lake. c. When they told me we caught Saddam in his hidey-hole.
By Phil
August 3, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Billy made a great point above, one I’ve thought about before:
“My personal observation is that liberal bias is far less obvious, often consisting of the fact that a story on, say, global warming was run. Even though the opposing sides are both presented, conservatives call it liberal bias because the media outlet saw fit to report on it all.”
This is even more true with respect to the Iraq fiasco.
By lozen
August 3, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
You are still wrong. I’ve tried to shed some light on your darkness but…. No, no, no Bruce. You’re still wrong. I tried to shed some light on your darkness but you refuse to admit that neither you nor the government nor the church have the right to force women to have children they DO NOT WANT. You refuse to admit that your totalitarian religious beliefs are why you feel that you have the right to control the most private parts of everyone’s life.
By Renee
August 3, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
I must admit, I am such an Anderson Cooper fan
By Brian Curtis
August 3, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
I’m not interested in commenting on abortion again this week (other than to say “I love it! Sign me up for the party, maybe I’ll get two this weekend!”, but if Bruce is so determined to get an answer to his question…
Q: “How many of the 43 million abortions were due to rape and incest?”
A: All of them. Now prove me wrong… if you can.
By the way, the number of abortions declined almost 50% in the 90s, thanks to increased awareness and availability of birth-control-—NOT the proven failure of “abstinence-only education” and “chastity pledges.”
By the way, 43 million living, breathing Americans have no health insurance and no healthcare… where’s your concern for them?
—
Kyle: As to the topic of media bias…
The media does not have a liberal bias. Reality does. (Thank you, Stephen Colbert!)
Seriously. If the facts don’t line up with the Bush administration’s agenda, the Bushies have only themselves to blame, not the media.
That’s why liberals have had such fun calling themselves “reality-based” in recent years—-because Bush and his crew are so obviously romping through a fantasy world where attitude and “values” matter more than knowledge and facts.
By lozen
August 3, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Next question:
How did Dick Cheney say the Sept 11 attacks might have been prevented?
a. If G. W. Bush’s father had taken out Saddam in 1991. b. If the Bush admin had been able to eavesdrop on the higjackers’ phone conversations without court orders. c. If the National Security Agency hadn’t waited until Sept 12 to translate two messages warning of the attacks which had been intercepted on Sept 10. d. If even one of the F.B.I. agent Harry Samit’s more than seventy warnings that Zacarias Moussaoui was a terrorist had been heeded.
By Billy
August 3, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
Good point, BC — Abortions are inexorably linked to the economy. If a woman feels she will be able to provide for a child (good pay, healthcare, job security) then she will have the child. Abortions go up when wages and job security are low, health care is prohibitively expensive, and people feel the world just isn’t safe. Make the world a better place, and abortions will drop. And outlawing abortions or gay marriage will not improve the world in any discernable way.
By lozen
August 3, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Please match the correct man with the events.
John Green, James B. Corney, James E. Hansen, Harry Taylor.
a. The “Good Morning America” producer who was suspended after emails he sent, including one in which he wrote “Bush makes me sick,” were leaked. (Another example of that librul bias in the media!) b. The NASA official who said, “it seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the U.S.,” after the Administration began censoring climate scientists who tried to speak about global warming. c. The Justice Department official who refused to authorize the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program. d. The questioner at a Charlotte event who told George w. Bush, “I would hope, from time to time, that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself.”
By Amelia
August 3, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Bush makes me sick too. His administration is why I am not a republican anymore. Bush makes alot of people sick. And that is starting to be a very common sickness.
By Jack
August 3, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Are you saying Bush is responsible for global warming?
By Lyrazel
August 3, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Its late. The discussion is over. I have 2¢ to add to that abortion debate and it concerns the figures themselves. I read how people quote statistics of this and that to prove their point about the amount of abortions performed…then I stutter because most of those people have not bothered to read the small print from their own quoted statistics. Mainly what the small print says is that stillbirths or natural termination of pregnancy (unassisted)+ all false pregnancies + children born as preemies are all reported as abortions + all women who have premature (but live) births are recorded under abortion because the child was not carried full term. Skewing statistics is very advantageous for both sides of the argument.
Has anyone kept up with the current trend of debunking the teaching of Intelligent Design? Seems that all states that wanted to have ID taught are now turning against it in droves at the polls. Fundamental reasons is there are no guidelines nor a curriculum to teach ID except as a religious theory…
By Jackie
August 3, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
You people are seriously sick in the head. Making comments about eating “baby wraps” and the slice and dice of children. Just for making those comments (even as a “joke”)makes you demented and in need of help.
If more people thought like you what a psychotic world it would be…wait a minute, it is a psychotic world now isn’t it? (Thanks to people like you sick folks.)
Do you ever just listen to yourselves spew this garbage that belittles life and human beings? You take something beautiful like motherhood and turn it into something ugly and gross. You should be ashamed of yourselves but you’re too busy patting yourselves on the back for being so disgusting.
Go ahead and eat your “stew” and your “wraps” you sick twisted demented psychotic people. You should be forced to wear bells around your necks so people could hear you coming and run the other way!
What a bunch of sick m.f.’s! Keep your sick blog you bunch of bozos. Especially the 72 fellow and the mara atheist. Lozen, I hope you NEVER have any children seeing how heartless you are. Billy, somewhere your boyfriend is waiting for you. Renee, maybe you should marry Mara since you’re both lacking in a respect for human life.
I bid you farewell…let the devilish insults fly…I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.
Time to troll off to another blog…hee hee hee.
You guys were tooooo easy!!! (grin)
By Billy
August 3, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Are you saying Bush is responsible for global warming?
Whaaaaa? Where did you get that? I think the point was that Bush’s administration suppresses scientific evidence of global warming, a topic about which there is not really any scientific disagreement. All “science” that claims to refute global warming is misquoted, taken out of context, or funded by corporations that have a vested interest in denying global warming’s existence.
By Mara
August 3, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
as sweaty and irate Americans try to decide whether this sweltering heat wave is just normal summer weather or an Al Gore-like sign post toward global warming, let us note that it snowed in Johannesburg South Africa yesterday.
By Jack
August 3, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Bush has disappointed me too Amelia. He’s blowing it big time.
By Billy
August 3, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
as sweaty and irate Americans try to decide whether this sweltering heat wave is just normal summer weather or an Al Gore-like sign post toward global warming, let us note that it snowed in Johannesburg South Africa yesterday.
South Africa does not normally get a lot of snow, I take it?
By mi2g8
August 3, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Shaunti, It appears that your remarks struck more than a few nerves based on the immediacy and content of the posts after the story was published. It seems that many “moderate” i.e. “not right” readers are exceedingly, yet selectively sensitive. Unfortunately for the relativist community, an indelible attribute of truth is its objectivity.
By lozen
August 3, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Whatever this Jackie is, I know we’re all very sad to see it go. You get your wish;I won’t ever have any children! But you are the one who’s heartless in my opinion. You don’t give a sh-t about females who find themselves pregnant with no way to take care of a child. And I noticed how you ignored those poor girls who asked for your help. Typical.
By Renee
August 3, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
~throwing a sliced and diced fetus at Jackie~~
SPLAT!!!
MWAHMWAHHHHHMWAHHHHHHHHMWAHHHHHHHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHA
By The72John
August 3, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Time to troll off to another blog…hee hee hee.
You guys were tooooo easy!!! (grin)
Damn. We got served.
By concerned citizen
August 3, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
I think that most people confuse the topics that media cover with “liberal bias.” People like Shaunti think that because the media shows counts of how many American soldiers have died since the Iraq war began that they are somehow showing a liberal bias. The truth is that the media show these types of things for the same reason everybody slows down to see a wreck on the highway, people like to see conflict/controversy etc. The problem is that George W. Bush made the decision to go to war in Iraq, and the bad things that are happening there are real, not imagined. Sure the media could show more images of a few good things that happen in Iraq, but if the idea was to create a democracy and protect Americans, then any time a bomb goes off and a soldier dies it needs to be reported, and it is certainly not balanced out by a couple of Iraqis getting their power back on or whatever “good” Shaunti thinks is happening that isn’t being reported. The leader of Iraq publically stated that he supports Hezbollah. I don’t think there is anything good that the media could show in Iraq that is more relevant than telling that story about Malaki. Sometimes there really is NO GOOD NEWS TO TELL and that is the case in Iraq. And as a further representation of the lack of liberal bias, the Clinton-Lewinski scandal. I don’t recall there being any lack of coverage of that subject (despite the fact that no one’s son or daughter was dying because Clinton was getting a “job” from a fat chick). Conservatives need to quit whining about liberal media bias and get your GOP controlled government to do something right for a change.
By concerned citizen
August 3, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
I think that most people confuse the topics that media cover with “liberal bias.” People like Shaunti think that because the media shows counts of how many American soldiers have died since the Iraq war began that they are somehow showing a liberal bias. The truth is that the media show these types of things for the same reason everybody slows down to see a wreck on the highway, people like to see conflict/controversy etc. The problem is that George W. Bush made the decision to go to war in Iraq, and the bad things that are happening there are real, not imagined. Sure the media could show more images of a few good things that happen in Iraq, but if the idea was to create a democracy and protect Americans, then any time a bomb goes off and a soldier dies it needs to be reported, and it is certainly not balanced out by a couple of Iraqis getting their power back on or whatever “good” Shaunti thinks is happening that isn’t being reported. The leader of Iraq publically stated that he supports Hezbollah. I don’t think there is anything good that the media could show in Iraq that is more relevant than telling that story about Malaki. Sometimes there really is NO GOOD NEWS TO TELL and that is the case in Iraq. And as a further representation of the lack of liberal bias, the Clinton-Lewinski scandal. I don’t recall there being any lack of coverage of that subject (despite the fact that no one’s son or daughter was dying because Clinton was getting a “job” from a fat chick). Conservatives need to quit whining about liberal media bias and get your GOP controlled government to do something right for a change.
By Mara
August 3, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Billy - they did get a light dusting in ‘81…but it’s definitly not a usual weather incident.
Renee - (cue Butthead voice…) Hey, baby…ya wanna, uh, do it? (huh, huh, huhuhuhuhuh)
Hey Jackie - by the way, I’m not an atheist, I’m an agnostic.
how do you fit 100 dead babies in a gallon jar? La Machine! and how do you get ‘em out? Doritos. What’s grosser than that? Finding the one that didn’t get processed….
(okay, I’ve officially grossed myself out…)
By Renee
August 3, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
LMAO John @ “getting served”. I just spit my coke all over the monitor, papers, folders, desk (well you all get the picture).
By concerned citizen
August 3, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Clinton-Lewinsky was the dominant story for two years, even prompting people to claim a “wag the dog” scenario about his bombing Afghanistan (and Clinton ironically now draws criticism that he didn’t do enough to combat bin Laden during his term). The truth is that the media primarily covers stories about bad things. If a conservative makes some mistakes, it gets reported. Same goes for liberals. I think that in some ways the media frenzy over Clinton’s “job” from a fat chick is to blame for the bible thumping right wing government we’re having to deal with right now. The constant stories about dress stains and cigars was an easy rallying cry for morality freaks in the next election. And voila, we get Bush, who opposes stem cell research because it kills life, but supports war in Iraq that leads to the death of 2600 American soldiers. Yeah the media is biased in ripping Bush on a constant basis, my a*s.
By concerned citizen
August 3, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
Clinton-Lewinsky was the dominant story for two years, even prompting people to claim a “wag the dog” scenario about his bombing Afghanistan (and Clinton ironically now draws criticism that he didn’t do enough to combat bin Laden during his term). The truth is that the media primarily covers stories about bad things. If a conservative makes some mistakes, it gets reported. Same goes for liberals. I think that in some ways the media frenzy over Clinton’s “job” from a fat chick is to blame for the bible thumping right wing government we’re having to deal with right now. The constant stories about dress stains and cigars was an easy rallying cry for morality freaks in the next election. And voila, we get Bush, who opposes stem cell research because it kills life, but supports war in Iraq that leads to the death of 2600 American soldiers. Yeah the media is biased in ripping Bush on a constant basis, my a*s.
By Billy
August 3, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
*Billy, somewhere your boyfriend is waiting for you. *
Whaaaa???
By concerned citizen
August 3, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
Clinton-Lewinsky was the dominant story for two years, even prompting people to claim a “wag the dog” scenario about his bombing Afghanistan (and Clinton ironically now draws criticism that he didn’t do enough to combat bin Laden during his term). The truth is that the media primarily covers stories about bad things. If a conservative makes some mistakes, it gets reported. Same goes for liberals. I think that in some ways the media frenzy over Clinton’s “job” from a fat chick is to blame for the bible thumping right wing government we’re having to deal with right now. The constant stories about dress stains and cigars was an easy rallying cry for morality freaks in the next election. And voila, we get Bush, who opposes stem cell research because it kills life, but supports war in Iraq that leads to the death of 2600 American soldiers. Yeah the media is biased in ripping Bush on a constant basis, my a*s.
By Jackie
August 3, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
Ok, one last post…
~~~~~SPLAT~~~~~throwing it right back at ya honey. Make your own stew. Sheesh
Hasta la vista…it’s been a gas-gas-gas. See ya on the flip side. And remember to have your bloggers spayed or neutered.
By The72John
August 3, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
Shaunti, It appears that your remarks struck more than a few nerves based on the immediacy and content of the posts after the story was published. It seems that many “moderate” i.e. “not right” readers are exceedingly, yet selectively sensitive. Unfortunately for the relativist community, an indelible attribute of truth is its objectivity.
Isn’t it amazing how many syllables one can pour into a single post without actually saying a thing?
By Kyle
August 3, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
“How is it that this line of thought applies to O’Reilly but not to Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper or Helen Thomas? We’re supposed to admit that they are biased when they report the news, but give O’Reilly the benefit of the doubt as far as bias is concerned when he opines on the state of the world?”
-Billy…actually we seem to be in argeement on this point. i wasn’t advocating this position for o’reilly to the exclusion of other members of the media. either this line of thought applies to ALL journalists/reporters, or none at all.
“As for why it’s so much easier to believe conservative bias from Fox than liberal bias from CBS…I’ve never heard a CBS commentator spit out the word “conservative” as if it were an expletive, or some shameful and horrifying affliction. I’ve never heard “liberal” said in any other way on Fox.”
-Mara…i guess we just watch tv at different times. true, people like hannity are very partisan and cannot say the word “liberal” without a negative conotation, but there are several other mainstays on fox that don’t make this mistake. do you also not trust shepard smith or brit hume? i have absolutely no problem with anderson cooper, and wolf blitzer is fine (for the most part). on msnbc its common to see “conservative/repub” portrayed in a negative light. my only point here is that the media is full of bias - on both sides.
By Renee
August 3, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
~~throwing up my middle finger, throwing one sliced & diced fetus, AND a fresh, warm, brown turd as well~~
hahahahahah
As tempting as that sounds Mara….do you have time for me to wash my hands???
(I’m so glad JBM’s not here, I would be in so much trouble for being so vile, LMAO) But it’s soooo fun and rewarding!! hahahahaha
By lozen
August 3, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
Should journalists restrain their breast feeding in the interest of being unbiased? Just playing with past column t*t-les.
By Jackie
August 3, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
Mara-I wish I knew where you worked so I could come vomit all over your head. But maybe then you could make a new stew out of it and serve it up with some chips and crackers.
You have to be the most DISGUSTING female on the planet. (I assume you are female anyway.)
How about we take your pets and use La Machine and make a stew? You’d like that too I guess. Or maybe we could take your best friend’s child and make a stew. Or maybe one of your parents. We’ll all bring Doritos mmmkay.
You freak.
By lozen
August 3, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
I am sooooooo disappointed! Noone wants to play with me on the multiple choice test. Barbara Bush donated over $5,000 dollars (such a big heart) to a hurrican relief fund but…… with the stipulation that the money be spent on software bought from a company run by her son Neil. Wasn’t it Neil who used to be in Savings and Loan?
By Linda
August 3, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
Hey Renee! Delta still flies to Vermont! Take off!
P.S. The media is on the side of the terrorists, just like most of your democrats! They refuse to face the fact that our country is in danger from these fanatics!
Hopefully, there won’t be another terrorist attack until after Bush has left office, then maybe they will realize we are in danger and he won’t be in office to blame anymore! Its going to happen again.
By Renee
August 3, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
~sigh~ And I was hoping to be the most disgusting female!!
Oh well….
Mara, you beat me on the disgustingness(???) and the laugh….NOT FAIR!!!
By Toad
August 3, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Jackie, I thought you were leaving. Time for Truth is waiting for you on the dark side. (Thinking Wrong)
By Jackie
August 3, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
It’s ok Renee I’ll throw up for you too if you like…ya know, share the wealth, um, I mean “stew” and all.
Don’t want ya to feel left out. (smile)
By The72John
August 3, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
P.S. The media is on the side of the terrorists, just like most of your democrats! They refuse to face the fact that our country is in danger from these fanatics!
Really? Perhaps you could tell us how the media is “on the side of the terrorists”. Or…don’t you know? Could it be you’re just regurgitating what people like Limbaugh and Hannity tell you to say when confronted with an opinion that conflicts with your own? My goodness, could it be that you haven’t the wit to forumlate your own opinion or thoughts on the subject, little dittohead?
Hopefully, there won’t be another terrorist attack until after Bush has left office, then maybe they will realize we are in danger and he won’t be in office to blame anymore! Its going to happen again.
So…you’re saying you’re hoping for another terrorist attack? My, you truly are Christian woman, aren’t you.
By Renee
August 3, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Hey Renee! Delta still flies to Vermont! Take off!
What’s that supposed to mean??? Something tells me it was meant to be a put down, BUT, somehow, I don’t feel put down. I already live in Vermont, with my wifey!!!! I’m as gay as they come, and as proud as I can be!!!!
By It'sObvious
August 3, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Luckily, I attended a presentation in college from a former supreme court judge who literally showed how much you can believe from the media. Less than 20%. One example was a senator driving his niece to a gala and had a flat tire. A journalist caught a shot of them on the side of the road and the next day the headlines wrote, “Senator caught with prostitute.”
It’s not that the media is pro-dem or pro-con it’s just that they truly don’t care what they report, even if it has to be made up.
For those of you trying to say it’s worse in Iraq now, take a trip over and then we’ll talk. Me, and several of my friends have been over and you truly need to educate yourselves before sounding so ignorant. Iraq is much better off now than they were. There’s going to be fighting and there are going to be rough spots but the price of freedom is high. Just because you’re not willing to pay it doesn’t mean others aren’t. While I don’t agree with the entire direction of the war the purpose I do support. So many of you have forgotten 9/11 and that’s a shame. Maybe we should just let ourselves continue to be hit?
Everyone, do yourselves a favor and talk to some soldiers when you see them. A GREAT majority is in favor of what we are doing over there. They can see the good things happening, why can’t you?
By Jackie
August 3, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Why don’t you go back to your lily pad and eat some flies.
Ribbett….
By lozen
August 3, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
Isn’t it amazing how many syllables one can pour into a single post without actually saying a thing? Here’s another good example:
Without a definition for the word “God”, it is impossible to discuss the concept in any concrete way. Moyers aught to interview someone with a good definition of “God”. My definition of “God” is evolved from Buckminster Fuller in his essay “Guinnea Pig B”. Before I read that essay, I was a “born again Atheist”. Since then, I’ve been “saved”:
God is the loving, superhuman, nonanthropomorphic, intellectual integrity operative in Universe. Loving refers to the interattractive and interaccommodative nature of God’s integrity. Superhuman means beyond any one human’s capabilities. Nonanthropomorphic means not having human form or qualities. Intellectual refers to the faculty of perceiving experiences and the relationships among them (such as the facts of life). Integrity refers to the unity of the mutually interaccommodative components in a system. Operative means participating in the operation of a system. Is this definition of God scientifically verifiable? I think it is —- I’m overwhelmed by the phenomenon described by this definition of God. Is it inspiring? I think it is. Is it mysterious (a la mystical)? I think it is (since there is so much we cannot know about the Great Integrity). Integration between the Sciences and the Humanities is possible. And definitions like this go a long way to showing how the gap can be bridged.
By The72John
August 3, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
There’s going to be fighting and there are going to be rough spots but the price of freedom is high. Just because you’re not willing to pay it doesn’t mean others aren’t. While I don’t agree with the entire direction of the war the purpose I do support. So many of you have forgotten 9/11 and that’s a shame
What’s really a shame is that there are still people out there who continue to cling to the fiction that Iraq and 9/11 had anything whatsoever to do with each other.
By Toad
August 3, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
Don’t confuse frogs with toads. I’m not the one who said I was leaving and then stayed around to throw disgusting things.
By lozen
August 3, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
ItsObvious, this is bull! A paper publishing something like that would be sued by the senator and his niece! It’s not that the media is pro-dem or pro-con it’s just that they truly don’t care what they report, even if it has to be made up. Yes, they do care because they do not want to be sued. You people will just make up anything to try to prove your dittohead points won’t you? Oh, you’re probably talking about the National Enquirer. Excuse me.
By lozen
August 3, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
This was one guy’s answer to the “God is” man: You presume an agent that satisifes your criteria. Then decide to believe in it. Paint it red, put headlights on it and call it a Camero for all I care. You are doing nothing different from all the other supernaturalists on the planet.
By Kyle
August 3, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
Its Obvious…just curious, but when and where in Iraq did you visit, and what kinds of things did you see?
By Sandi
August 3, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
The average I.Q. in the U.S. is 100! Think about that… Here in the south I’d guess it’s around 60.
By lozen
August 3, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
72John, the prez and Cheney and Wolfowitz say Iraq had to have been behind 9/11. So there! It must be true.
By Billy
August 3, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this
What’s really a shame is that there are still people out there who continue to cling to the fiction that Iraq and 9/11 had anything whatsoever to do with each other.
No, what’s really a shame is that such a huge portion of our military fall into that camp. I know this could draw some ire, but why does a soldier’s pro-war opinion mean anything? Is that not like Alge Crumpler being pro-football? Of course many in the military are for the war. They are inevitably more conservative, or at least hawkish, than the general population. How do I know this? Because each of them, at some point and at some level, said to himself, “Shoot another human being in the face? Yeah, I think I could probably do that.”
And that’s fine. We need that in our military. We can’t afford to have soldiers who are squeamish about guns. But we also have to realize that your average soldier and your average civilian are quite different. In this volunteers-only military in which the president is the commanding officer, we shouhld expect that soldiers will support him and whatever ill-conceived engagemnt in which he has mired us. It’s not the hawks in the military that are noteworthy. It’s the doves. Yet the doves are the ones who are portrayed as unreliable and whatnot.
By NetBanker
August 3, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this
Hey Lozen! It’s late so not sure if my post will work, but I’m guess B to both multiple choice questions.
I’m as gay as they come, and as proud as I can be!!!! Wait! Aren’t you Lesbian? Are you switching your letter (GLBTQ)?
the price of freedom is high Who is paying the price for whose freedom? Should American have to pay the price for Iraqi freedom?
By TramadoL32490
August 4, 2006 02:10 AM | Link to this
I just don’t have much to say these days, but so it goes. Today was a total loss. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
By TramadoL72533
August 4, 2006 04:33 AM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to much today. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I just don’t have anything to say right now. More or less nothing happening.
By free ringtones
August 4, 2006 05:02 AM | Link to this
http://www.ringtones-dir.com/download/ download ringtones. nokia ringtones: Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones. [url]http://www.ringtones-dir.com/free/[/url] [link=http://www.ringtones-dir.com]ring tones[/link] From site .
By Brett
August 4, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this
Is there a liberal bias? Gee, let’s see. No liberals complain about ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the New York Slimes, the Washington comPost, etc. However, there very mention of FoxNews (“fauxnews” to liberals) or Drudge sends liberals into a savage head-spinning drooling tizzy like a rabid tasmanian devil. Further, look at all the pro-democrat pitbulls in the White Press corps like that old fat dried up walrus Helen Thomas (GOD is she ugly).
Is there a media bias towards the left? Look no further than right under your nose; when liberals don’t complain about ten source yet complain about one or two others being right-leaning, you KNOW there is a liberal bias. The only reason they hate FoxNews is because FoxNews will actually report hypocrisy and negatives about the left that the mainstream will not.
By Mara
August 4, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this
Renee - Mara, you beat me on the disgustingness(???) and the laugh….NOT FAIR!!! Sorry. Natural talent, I suppose. ;^)
And it’s obvious that this “jackie” creature is not a disguised regular because they are unaware of exactly where Jack gets that famous stew.
Now….to the JOKES!!
Are there any unguided missiles?
How can a stupid person be a smart-a*s?
Do hummingbirds hum because they don’t know the words?
Does a man-eating shark eat women, too?
If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does he become disoriented?
If you don’t pay your exorcist do you get repossessed?
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?
Is it true that cannibals don’t eat clowns because they taste funny?
What happens to an 18 hour bra after 18 hours?
What if you’re in hell, and you’re mad at someone, where do you tell them to go?
By morgan-lynn
August 4, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this
My fellow liberal is so right! Conservatives just do not like it there is news about poverty , homelessness, lack of health insurance for many and such nuisances! We liberals just like to know the truth and act appropriately.As Fr. Griggs I rest in my Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism: I change my mind because of sound reasoning and facts , not faith ,not conservatism.I realize my ignorance,but fight for what I think to be true.
By Mike in Woodstock
August 4, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
Liberal media?? Say it ain’t so. More like treasonous and anti-semitic.
If we had today’s media in WWII, we’d all be speaking German or Japanese. Can you imagine if CNN had been at Omaha Beach on D-Day. “Allied forces suffer major defeat at Normandy” would have been the headlines.
By Amelia
August 4, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
I just saw where Pat Robertson now believes in global warming. Seeing as how God told GW to invade Iraq, maybe Pat can talk to God and get him to tell GW to attack global warming. I bet that GW would be stone deaf to God’s commands in that case.
By Billy
August 4, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Brett — Yes, Helen Thomas is not an attractive woman. Seeing as how attractive women are the ones who get preferential treatment, this leads me to believe that Thomas has been really, really good at her job, even if she’s done it since the Grant administration.
Again, we admit that there may be a liberal bias among many outlets in the “mainstream” media. We just disagree that the bias is as pronounced as conservatives believe it is. As I said before, though, the media’s liberal bias may be 5% left of center while Fox’s and talk radio’s bias may be 75% right of center. It more than balances out, because people on Fox and talk radio are the ones that maintain viewership throughout the day. The big networks all have actual TV shows, often limiting their nightly newscasts to 30 minutes. That means that Fox News’ only all-day “news” competition is CNN and MSNBC, and neither of them is even remotely as left-wing as Fox is right-wing.
Furthermore, if you accept that all people are biased but also believe that journalists cannot separate their biases from their job, then you also must accept that you cannot separate your bias from your perceptions of the media, which means that you are unable to objectively gague the existence, direction, and degree of the media’s bias. If you are biased 75% right of center and are watching a show that is biased 10% right of center, then it it going to seem liberally biased to you.
By Bruce
August 4, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Billy that makes since to me but won’t that go both ways?
By lozen
August 4, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
….sends liberals into a savage head-spinning drooling tizzy like a rabid tasmanian devil. Name one. You can’t name one. The only people I associate with this kind of idiocy fall under the neo-conservative umbrella. Like Hannity, O’Reilly, Lumbaugh, that local guy whose name I can’t remember, that woman whose name I don’t remember, and a lot of others whose names I can’t remember. Further, look at all the pro-democrat pitbulls in the White Press corps like that old fat dried up walrus Helen Thomas (GOD is she ugly). What exactly does Ms. Thomas’ looks have to do with her reporting skill? She’s been doing her job, which I daresay you would not be able to do, for years! And I bet you ain’t beautiful yourself.
By lozen
August 4, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Rome’s Catholic, Muslim and Jewish leaders have united to condemn pop star Madonna’s decision to stage a mock crucifixion when she performs in the Italian capital on Sunday, a stone’s throw away from Vatican City.
The lapsed-Catholic diva’s latest irreverent performance sees her wearing a fake crown of thorns and descending on a suspended, glittery cross as part of her worldwide “Confessions Tour”.
By Observer
August 4, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Diane Glass looks at everything through her liberal prism just like the rest of her liberal pals. Her comments on diversity and open to change make me want to laugh. Why is it that liberals claim to be so tolerant of others that have differing opinions, yet shout down conservative opinions every chance they get?!
Anyone who pays any attention at all, has an understanding of how news should be presented reasonably objectively, reads the major newspapers and watches the the main newschannels knows there is an overwhelming liberal bias. You people that think there isn’t one, separate this question from Bush…understand that a liberal bias doesn’t mean that b/c there are institutions critical of Bush, then voila, liberal bias.
Rather, look at how issues are presented by the mainstream media, forget about Iraq for the moment and look at things like Health care, Welfare, Minimum wage, 2nd Amendment, Illegal immigration, etc. For example, when the immigration debate was getting a lot of pub recently, how many news organizations even bothered to name the real problem, ILLEGAL immigration? The way the debate was framed, you’d think that people were opposed to simple immigration, rarely was it specified that the problem is people coming into this country ILLEGALLY. That is one way the media subtely shows their liberal bias. Want another example? How about whenever there’s a story about homeless people…we get a sad tale of woe about a person or family that’s homeless, then usually some comments about the economy, or the particular sector that some person worked in that’s in an economic downturn. But what we never hear about are the choices that person made, or did not make, that would’ve prevented him from being homeless. Instead, the story is framed as though the person had no control but to be turned out onto the streets.
It’s all in how the media frames the story that determines the bias. The reason liberals hate Fox News with a passion isn’t b/c they’re right wing, it’s b/c since they’re not in lockstep with the rest of them, they illustrate how far the other news outlets are to the Left. Liberals have had a monopoly on the media for so long they don’t know how to deal with Fox News, talk radio, and the internet. Rather than deal with bias claims rationally and intellectually, they simply dismiss them out of hand.
By lozen
August 4, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
Police in the German city of Aachen received an unusual call for help when a woman telephoned to complain her husband was not fulfilling his sexual obligations. After the couple had been sleeping in separate beds for several months without intimate contact, the 44-year-old woman woke the husband, 45, in the middle of the night and demanded he satisfy her needs, police spokesman Paul Kemen said on Thursday. When her advances were refused, a row broke out and she called the police and asked them to intervene, he added. “The police officials did not feel able to resolve the dispute, let alone issue any kind of official order,” Kemen said. “And because no crime or infringement could be identified, all they could do was file a report in case intervention might be required at a later date,” he added.
By Billy
August 4, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
Billy that makes since to me but won’t that go both ways?
It would, Bruce, but it would make the answer to this question “We don’t know, because no one is qualified to judge bias”.
However, I don’t buy into the idea that it’s impossible to separate personal beliefs from reporting facts, and that’s exactly what journalists are supposed to do. If those facts support liberal beliefs, then it’s not that it’s a liberal bias. It’s that the liberals are right about that particular point. Global warming, stem-cells, smoking, evolution, Iraq — The science, the history, the facts support the liberal view in all these cases.
By lozen
August 4, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
By Observer Diane Glass looks at everything through her liberal prism just like the rest of her liberal pals. Her comments on diversity and open to change make me want to laugh. Soooooo, Shaunti I guess, in your opinion, doesn’t view everything through her conservative prism just like the rest of her conservative pals? *Why is it that liberals claim to be so tolerant of others that have differing opinions, yet shout down conservative opinions every chance they get?! Liberals are very tolerant of “intelligent” differing opinions. They just have a hard time dealing with the ignorant conservatives that far outnumber the intelligent ones. Being tolerant of others doesn’t mean you have to agree with every thing they say. And the shouting goes both ways.
By lozen
August 4, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Computer viruses:
Ellen Degeneres virus-Your IBM suddenly claims it’s a MAC. Monica Lewinsky virus-Sucks all the memory out of your computer. Titanic virus-Makes your whole computer go down. Disney virus-Everything in the computer goes Goofy. Mike Tyson virus-Quits after one byte. Prozac virus-Screws up your RAM but your processor doesn’t care. Sharon Stone virus-Makes a huge initial impact, then you forget it’s there. Lorena Bobbit virus-Turns your hard disk into a 3.5 inch floppy. Tim Allen virus-Appears helpful, only to destroy your hard drive upon contact. Woody Allen virus-Bypasses the motherboard and turns on a daughter card. Tonya Harding virus-Turns your .BAT files into lethal weapons. X-files virus-All your Icons start shapeshifting. Spice Girl virus-Has no real function, but makes a pretty desktop. Ronald Reagan virus-Saves your data, but forgets where it is stored. Dr. Jack Kevorkian virus-Searches your hard drive for old files and deletes them. Martha Stewart virus-Takes all your files, sorts them by category and folds them into cute little doilies to be displayed on your desktop. Oprah Winfrey virus-Your 200MB hard drive suddenly shrinks to 80MB, and then slowly expands to 300MB. AT&T virus-Every 3 minutes it tells you what great service you are getting. MCI virus-Every 3 minutes it reminds you that you’re paying too much for the AT&T virus. Arnold Schwarzenegger virus-Terminates and stays resident. It’ll be back. Viagra virus-Expands your hard drive, while putting too much pressure on your zip drive. Politically correct virus-Never calls itself a “virus”, but instead refers to itself as an “electronic microorganism.” Pro-life virus-Won’t allow you to delete a file, regardless of how old it is. If you attempt to erase a file, it requires you to first see a counsellor about possible alternatives. Texas virus-Makes sure that it’s bigger than any other file. Adam and Eve virus-Takes a couple of bytes out of your Apple. Airline virus-You’re in Dallas, but your data is in Singapore. Nike virus-Just does it. Health care virus-Tests your system for a day, finds nothing wrong, and sends you a bill for $4,500. Star treck virus-Invades your system in places where no virus has gone before.
By Billy
August 4, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
Observer, you are way off base.
…understand that a liberal bias doesn’t mean that b/c there are institutions critical of Bush, then voila, liberal bias.
We understand this. It’s the neocon Bush fellaters that don’t.
Regarding immigration — Perhaps Fox led you to believe that the other media was focusing only on immigration, but I had no problem discerning the two. Besides, plenty of people on the right are against immigration, legal and illegal.
And is it so hard to believe that a homeless person might be that way through no fault of his own? A huge proportion of the homeless suffer from mental disorders. Nevermind the fact that once you hit that point, there’s very little you can do to get back on your feet. And journalists, whose job it is to observe the world, might be, after said observation, more inclined to feel compassion for their fellow man rather than the contempt for the less fortunate that seems so rampant on the right these days.
By Archie
August 4, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
(http://www.startribune.com/462/story/594482.html)
I posted that get comments on how some church’s do things. The story is about a strip club in Minnesota. Anyway read and comment.
By Periwinkle
August 4, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
The Main Stream Media (MSM) is absolutely liberally bias. Has been for years and it’s getting worse IMO. Which is why I seek out the alternate view on just about every subject I read/watch/listen to in the MSM.
~Peri
By Periwinkle
August 4, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
The Main Stream Media (MSM) is absolutely liberally bias. Has been for years and it’s getting worse IMO. Which is why I seek out the alternate view on just about every subject I read/watch/listen to in the MSM.
~Peri
By lozen
August 4, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
“Mouse Balls”
Mouse balls are now available as FRU (Field Replacement Unit). Therefore, if a mouse fails to operate or should it perform erratically, it may need a ball replacement. Because of the delicate nature of this procedure, replacement of mouse balls should only be attempted by properly trained personnel.
Before proceeding, determine the type of mouse balls by examining the underside of the mouse. Domestic balls will be larger and harder than foreign balls. Ball removal procedures differ depending upon the manufacturer of the mouse. Foreign balls can be replaced using the pop-off method. Domestic balls are replaced by using the twist-off method.
Mouse balls are not usually static sensitive. However, excessive handling can result in sudden discharge.
Upon completion of ball replacement, the mouse may be used immediately. It is recommended that each replacer have a pair of spare balls for maintaining optimum customer satisfaction. Any customer missing his balls should suspect local personnel of removing these necessary items.”
This memo is from an unnamed computer company. It went to all field engineers about a computer peripheral problem. The author of this memo was quite serious. The engineers rolled on the floor.
By Billy
August 4, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Peri, would you consider yourself a conservative?
By lozen
August 4, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
A doctor, a civil engineer, and a computer scientist were arguing about what was the oldest profession in the world. The doctor remarked “Well, in the Bible it says that God created Eve from a rib taken from Adam. This clearly required surgery so I can rightly claim that mine is the oldest profession in the world.”
The civil engineer interrupted and said “But even earlier in the book of Genesis, it states that God created the order of the heavens and the earth from out of the chaos. This was the first and certainly the most spectacular application of civil engineering. Therefore, fair doctor, you are wrong; mine is the oldest profession in the world.”
The computer scientist leaned back in his chair, smiled, and said confidently, “Ah, but who do you think created the chaos?
By lozen
August 4, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Jesus and Satan got into an argument over which of them was the better computer programmer. Finally God got tired of the bickering and told them that he would judge a contest between them. They each had four hours to write the best program they could, and then God would decide the winner.
Well, they both got right down to business, and wrote lines and lines and lines of code. But just before the four hours were up there was a flash of lightning and a tremendous clap of thunder. The lights flickered, the power faltered, and both computer screens went dead. When power was restored, God declared that time was up and asked to see the results of their work. Jesus flipped on his computer and displayed the most elegant program you could imagine, with beautiful architecture and wonderful syllogisms, triumphs of multimedia sound and pictures — all kinds of bells and whistles. God asked Satan what he had created, but Satan said, “I’ve got nothing, absolutely nothing. My program was twice as good as that, but I lost it all when the power went out. Jesus must have cheated. How could he still have such a great program?” God replied, “Everybody knows — Jesus Saves.”
By Kyle
August 4, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
“I know this could draw some ire, but why does a soldier’s pro-war opinion mean anything? Is that not like Alge Crumpler being pro-football? Of course many in the military are for the war.”
-Billy…i think alge would have more knowledge about how a football game is going than some random fan.
“They are inevitably more conservative, or at least hawkish, than the general population. How do I know this? Because each of them, at some point and at some level, said to himself, “Shoot another human being in the face? Yeah, I think I could probably do that.”
-Billy, judging from many polls, the majority of journalists identify themselves as liberals and have left leaning views on many of today’s issues - why would you put little merit in a solider’s opinion yet place a great deal more trust in the press’ ability to be objective?
“”the price of freedom is high.” Who is paying the price for whose freedom? Should American have to pay the price for Iraqi freedom?”
-Net…in my opinion, a democratic iraqi government is beneficial to American saftey - so we’re not only fighting for iraqi freedom, but our saftey as well
“Besides, plenty of people on the right are against immigration, legal and illegal.”
-Billy…where do you get this from?
By Toad
August 4, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
HERE’S A LONG JOKE:
Why did the Chicken Cross the Road?????
DR. PHIL:
The problem we have here is that this chicken won’t realize that he must first deal with the problem on “THIS” side of the road before it goes after the problem on the “OTHER SIDE” of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he’s acting by not taking on his “CURRENT” problems before adding “NEW” problems.
OPRAH:
Well I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I’m going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of he chickens.
GEORGE W BUSH:
We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
COLIN POWELL:
Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.
ANDERSON COOPER / CNN:
We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
NANCY GRACE:
That chicken crossed the road because he’s GUILTY! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN:
To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART:
No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer’s Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
DR SEUSS:
Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I’ve not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY:
To die in the rain. Alone.
JERRY FALWELL:
Because the chicken was gay! Can’t you people see the plain truth in front of your face? The chicken was going to the “other side.” That’s why they call it the “other side. Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until! we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with the seemingly harmless phrases like “the other side.” That chicken should not be free to cross the road. It’s as plain and simple as that!
GRANDPA:
In my day we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS:
Isn’t that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its life long dream of crossing the road.
JOHN LENNON:
Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together- in peace.
ARISTOTLE:
It is the nature of chickens to cross the road
BILL GATES:
I have just released eChicken2005, which will not only Cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet explorer is an integral part of the chicken. The Platform is much more stable and will never cra…#@&&(C/ ….reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN:
Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken’s intentions. I am for it now, and will remain against it.
BILL CLINTON:
I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What is your definition of chicken?
AL GORE:
I invented the chicken!
COLONEL SANDERS:
Oh @#%*! Did I miss one?
By lozen
August 4, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Billy, looks like you’d rather argue than laugh today, but I know you’ll like this one.
Why is E-mail like a p***s ? Some folks have it, some don’t. Those who have it would be devastated if it were ever cut off. They think that those who don’t have it are somehow inferior. They think it gives them power. They are wrong.
Those who don’t have it may agree that it’s an nifty toy, but think it’s not worth the fuss that those who do have it make about it. Still, many of those who don’t have it would like to try it.
It can be up or down. It’s more fun when it’s up, but it makes it hard to get any real work done.
In the long-distant past, its only purpose was to transmit information considered vital to the survival of the species. Some people still think that’s the only thing it should be used for, but most folks today use it for fun most of the time.
Once you’ve started playing with it, it’s hard to stop. Some people would just play with it all day if they didn’t have work to do.
It provides a way to interact with other people. Some people take this interaction seriously, others treat it as a lark. Sometimes it’s hard to tell what kind of person you’re dealing with until it’s too late.
If you don’t apply the appropriate protective measures, it can spread viruses.
It has no brain of its own. Instead, it uses yours. If you use it too much, you’ll find it becomes more and more difficult to think coherently.
We attach an importance to it that is far greater than its actual size and influence warrant.
If you’re not careful what you do with it, it can get you in big trouble.
It has its own agenda. Somehow, no matter how good your intentions, it will warp you behavior. Later you may ask yourself “why on earth did I do that?”
It has no conscience and no memory. Left to its own devices, it will just do the same things it did before.
By Observer
August 4, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Liberals are very tolerant of “intelligent” differing opinions. They just have a hard time dealing with the ignorant conservatives that far outnumber the intelligent ones. Gee, I guess we’re not too biased here, are we? Yep, all us conservatives are just confederate flag waving barefoot rednecks, huh? btw, just b/c a person is conservative doesn’t mean they believe everything Bush/Limbaugh/Hannity/O’Reilly, etc, says is gospel. Far from it, actually.
Besides, plenty of people on the right are against immigration, legal and illegal. Show me people on the right that are against legal immigration, instead of sweeping generalizations. Credibility comes with specificity. Besides, the issue isn’t legal immigration, it’s ILLEGAL immigration. You may have not had a problem discerning the two, but for the majority of those who don’t pay attention to the news on a regular basis, who do you think the media is broadcasting to?!? Use your brain, instead of throwing the tired old liberal jabs at Fox News.
When the vote totals for Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry are virtually 50/50 and the media votes approx. 90/10 for the democrat opposing Bush in both elections, there are still those of you out there who think there’s no media bias? Well, there’s no point in further debate, b/c there’s no point in having a rational discussion with irrational people.
By Billy
August 4, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
-Billy…where do you get this from?
I. Live. In. Georgia.
By Chilao
August 4, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
BUTCH THE ROOSTER
John the farmer was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens, called pullets) and eight or ten roosters, whose job was to fertilize the eggs.
The farmer kept records and any rooster that didn’t perform went into the soup pot and was replaced. That took an awful lot of his time so he bought a set of tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone so John could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report simply by listening to the bells.
The farmer’s favorite rooster was old Butch, a very fine specimen he was too. But on this particular morning John noticed old Butch’s bell hadn’t rung at all! John went to investigate. The other roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The pullets, hearing the roosters comin g, would run for cover. But to Farmer John’s amazement, Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn’t ring. He’d sneak up on a pullet, do his job and sneak on to the next one. John was so proud of Butch, he entered him in the county fair and Butch became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result…The judges not only awarded Butch the “No Bell Piece Prize” but they also awarded him the “Pulletsurprise” as well. Clearly Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren’t paying attention?
By Toad
August 4, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
*The media votes approx. 90/10 for the democrat opposing Bush in both elections Observer, where do you get this? Media endorsements? Journalists’ personal ballots? I thought ballots were secret.
By Amelia
August 4, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Are those W stickers that you see on cars really code for, I’m dumb?
By Amelia
August 4, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
The real reason that the chicken crossed the road was to show the possum that it can be done.
By Billy
August 4, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Billy…i think alge would have more knowledge about how a football game is going than some random fan.
Not necessarily. And my point was that he is going to be in favor of playing in almost every situation. How many times have middle or high school games been called off due to lightning storms? I guarantee you that a huge portion of the players would want to play those games. It’s up to the the unbiased people to make the call that it’s not worth the risk.
Billy, judging from many polls, the majority of journalists identify themselves as liberals and have left leaning views on many of today’s issues - why would you put little merit in a solider’s opinion yet place a great deal more trust in the press’ ability to be objective?
Because that’s the journalist’s job. He is supposed to report the facts. And most of them do. It’s a right-wing fallacy that this mythical liberal institution called “The Media” exists. The fact is that while the reporters and writers might leans lightly to the left, the producers and publishers that actually have a say in what gets reported are far more likley to lean to the right.
And the whole liberal bias argument gets thrown out the window when facts are taken into account. “Hi, I’m Nancy Johnson. Tonight’s main story is on the Global Warming debate. First we have Dr. Thomas Smith from the International Institute for the Study of Weather and Climate. Dr. Smith?”
“Thank you Nancy. 928 separate studies and peer-reviewed, scholarly articles conducted and written by an unprecedentedly diverse group of scientists agree than Global Warming is, in fact, actually occurring, and that man is a leading cause of it.”
“Thank you, Dr. Smith. Next we have the Rev. Stan Thompson from American Christians Concerned About Science, a subgroup od Concerned American Christians for a Christian America. Rev. Thompson?”
“Nancy, global warming is a myth! Just this week a scientist said a study showed that snow accumulation on claciers in the interior if Greenland is increasing? How are we expected to believe in global warming given this overwhelming evidence that it is a lie?”
“Dr. Smith?”
“Nancy, the scientist quoted by Rev. Thompson in actually on the payroll of Exxon. Furthermore, the study cited by the scientist was actually done by another scientist who agrees with the rest of the scientific community and has actually come out against the scientist quoted, who took the research out of context. Increased snow in Greenland’s interior is most definitely the case, but this is actually indicitive of rising temperatures. As arctic climates become more mild, precipitation increases.”
“Rev. Thompson, what Dr. Smith says makes a lot of sense. What is your response?”
“Umm…err…uhh…Nancy, you’re just part of the biased liberal media! Believe in Jesus! Repent, abortionists!”
By lozen
August 4, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Chileo, Butch the Rooster was great!
By Kyle
August 4, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
“Billy…where do you get this from?”
“I. Live. In. Georgia.”
-ohhhhh, ok. that proves it then. since you live in georiga you know that many conservatives are aginst LEGAL immigration? thanks for clearing it up for me - seriously, do you have anything to back this up?
“Are those W stickers that you see on cars really code for, I’m dumb?”
-wow, amelia, you broke the code, well done. obviously your not dumb and are of the upmost intelligence since your were able to post such and insightful message. let me give it a try: are those faded Kerry stickers you still see on cars really code for, sore losers?
By Billy
August 4, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Haha — great one, Lozen. I’ve enjoyed all of your today…
Observer — the furor over illegal immigration actually did use sweeping generalizations — first and foremost that illiegal immigration is inherently detrimental to the US.
By Billy
August 4, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
ohhhhh, ok. that proves it then. since you live in georiga you know that many conservatives are aginst LEGAL immigration? thanks for clearing it up for me - seriously, do you have anything to back this up?
No, because they don’t do polls and studies on who is against legal immigration. And if they did, very few people would admit to it. But not a day goes by that I don’t hear some sort of comment about Mexicans stealing jobs or the fact that signs are increasingly in Spanish, or someone expressing desire to move because there are so many Hispanics around. I somehow doubt that all those comments are only geared toward illegals.
By Observer
August 4, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
The media votes approx. 90/10 for the democrat opposing Bush in both elections Observer, where do you get this? Media endorsements? Journalists’ personal ballots? I thought ballots were secret.
This was from a survey of members in the media a short time back. They freely admitted that most of them voted for Kerry in 2004, and Gore in 2000.
By lozen
August 4, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
See Observer, this is one of the reasons it’s so hard to have a conversation with you guys. I say, we have a hard time dealing with ignorant conservatives who outnumber intelligent conservatives. Then you say, “Yep, all us conservatives are just confederate flag waving barefoot rednecks, huh?” I didn’t say “ALL” and if I’d meant all I would have said “ALL.” I don’t believe ALL conservatives are ignorant. I know a couple of college professors who are conservatives!
By Toad
August 4, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
When I lived in South Florida I heard so many people complain about Cubans and why don’t they learn the language, they are taking our jobs, etc. All the Cubans become legal just because they left Cuba, so the hatred wasn’t based on them being illegal.
By Billy
August 4, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
This was from a survey of members in the media a short time back. They freely admitted that most of them voted for Kerry in 2004, and Gore in 2000.
Admitting otherwise is to admit that you voted for a marginally intelligent former coke fiend who believes God talks to him. After the way he’s run the country into the ground, I’m surprised anyone will freely admit voting for that shrub.
By NetBanker
August 4, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
in my opinion, a democratic iraqi government is beneficial to American saftey - so we’re not only fighting for iraqi freedom, but our saftey as well
Can you tell me why and/or how a democratic Iraqi government is beneficial to our safety?
From what I understand Saddam likely had some old WMDs and the reason now stated by our government for going to war is that there was concern he’d give them to terrorists. I have a hard time accepting this possibility given that all of the terrorists are driven by Islam (i.e. religious reasons) instead of any particular nationalistic or racist (i.e Pro-Arab)or regionalistic (Pro-Arab Mid-East) reasons. Saddam clearly led a secular government which is rather an anomoly in the Arab world in the first place. Why would the leader of a secular country give weapons to religious-based groups whose goal is to ensure all Arab countries become Islamic Republics run by Islamic clerics? It doesn’t make sense that Saddam would ever have given WMDs to terrorists because of the outrageously high probability that they would be used against him to bring an Islamic controlled government a la Iran or Wahabi (sp?)Islamists to power in Iraq.
IMO, we’re at a far greater threat from terrorism today because we’ve created a live-theatre training group in Iraq for terrorist organizations. Bush’s own use of religious imagery was a gift to terrorist or Islamic groups for recruiting by being able to clearly say that the U.S. WAS/IS conducting a war against Islam.
How does a democratic Iraqi government make the U.S. safer given the liklihood that the Iraqi people will choose to elect an Islamist government that holds anti-American views? If we attempt to interfere in the election of an anti-American government then we simply prove the Islamist claim that we are attempting to control Iraq. Are we better off or safer after pushing/supporting free elections for Palestinians that brought Hamas to power?
And back to liberal bias…why is it that the conservatives claim liberal bias on Iraq reporting when our own military reports (which resulted in my belief that we’re creating the perfect terrorist training ground) indicate that the security and stability situation is WORSE than we realize based on news reporting? Why did a Republican U.S. Senator come back saying that the scenario was worse than has been reported to Congress or in the media after his trip to Iraq? (Someone help me out with the name of the senator?) If the media is so biased in the liberal direction then why do their news reports paint a more rosy/less dire picture of Iraq than military reports and why do the warnings about sliding toward civil war keep coming from military leaders? The equation presented by conservatives of a liberal media does NOT compute for me given this situation.
By lozen
August 4, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
Hey Netbanker, ROTM, and LLTA.
By Amelia
August 4, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
The immigration issue I think is one where, in a way, real conservatives are being painted in a bad light by groups of racists, bigots, and nativist who use the label “conservative”, or call themselves republicans to give cover to their true agendas. They try to legitimize themselves by attaching themselves to a recognized and accepted philosophy. If they come right out and say, “you can find me over at vdare.com”, immediately they lose credibility with conservatives who have non-racial motives for their immigration beliefs. These are the guys that will inevitably advocate a “cultural” reason for wanting immigration reform. They want to preserve the “American” culture. That is the tip off. To these guys, only white anglo saxons can lay claim to whatever it is they call the “American” culture. So in a way I think those people are only “conservative” if it suits their agenda.
By Toad
August 4, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, it was Sen. Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island who went to Iraq and said it was worse than he had been led to believe.
By Billy
August 4, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Amelia, I think the converse (or inverse, I honestly don’t know) of what you say is true. The racists are welcomed into the conservative fold when they agree with the rest of them on other issues. As far as immigration is concerned, most liberals agree that something needs to be done. We just don’t see “Send em home and build a wall” as a highly feasible option.
By Amelia
August 4, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Exactly Billy.
By Mara
August 4, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Billy - how about “secure the border first, and then we’ll talk about the other stuff…?”
By lozen
August 4, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Americans (like those on this blog) are inundated today by religious propaganda. Unfortunately, the public has all too rarely been exposed to dissenting opinions. Yet there is a distinguished free-thought cultural tradition, which defends the secular outlook, and many of the leading authors in the world hold a nontheistic, secular humanist, skeptical, agnostic, or atheistic outlook. Indeed, a recent poll of Americans indicates that 29.5 million identify themselves as “nonreligious.” Yippee!
By Amelia
August 4, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
But Mara. The Minutemen are on the job. All those beer bellies and bullsh$# should be enough to call it secure.
By Kyle
August 4, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
“How many times have middle or high school games been called off due to lightning storms? I guarantee you that a huge portion of the players would want to play those games.”
-Billy…when i was in high school, i sure as hell didn’t wanna be the guy at home plate holding a lighting rod during a thunder storm - but i digress….
“It’s up to the the unbiased people to make the call that it’s not worth the risk.”
-on this we certianly agree. the trick is finding the unbiased
“The fact is that while the reporters and writers might leans lightly to the left, the producers and publishers that actually have a say in what gets reported are far more likley to lean to the right.”
-first of all, why is it that when a person leans to the left you assume that they merely lean “slightly”? also, i’m not so sure that i agree with the assertion that producers and publishers are much more likely to lean to the right
“No, because they don’t do polls and studies on who is against legal immigration. And if they did, very few people would admit to it. But not a day goes by that I don’t hear some sort of comment about Mexicans stealing jobs or the fact that signs are increasingly in Spanish, or someone expressing desire to move because there are so many Hispanics around. I somehow doubt that all those comments are only geared toward illegals.”
-so you don’t have anything to back it up but you have no problem in assuming? you no what they say happens when you a*s-u-me…. well, there are 10 to 15 million illegal immigrants in the country, and at least most of them are working (i.e. filling jobs), so i don’t find it hard to believe that the people making these comments are referring mainly to illegal immigrants. i personally dislike the fact that more and more signs are in spanish. i don’t like the fact that i have to choose between spanish and english when i go to the atm. i don’t feel this way because i hate mexicans. i feel this way b/c i think immigrants from any country should make an effort to adapt to the country they enter. if i moved to france, i would make an effort to speak french. it is not this country’s responsibility to adapt to the illegal immigrants. let me give you an example of my frustration: i was in arby’s the other day for lunch, and two men of mexican decent came into the restaurant. when it became clear that the men didn’t speak english and the cashier didn’t speak spanish, the two men began screaming. they were furious that arby’s wasn’t adapting to thier needs. this altercation went on until my friends little brother (who is in spanish III in high school) helped them to communicate. i welcome immigrants that come here and make efforts to adapt. people that say they want to move b/c there are too many hispanics around don’t always say this b/c they hate hispanics (although there are some people out there that are just plain racist). a large part of the hispanic population has a very low income, which in turn brings crime. also in areas where there is a strong hispanic concentration, many business’ spring up that have spanish only signs, menus, workers, etc… i wouldn’t blame the people for wanting to move. btw, how do you think mexico would treat a bunch of illegal english immigrants if they came to thier country. deported or jailed immediately. no health care, no education, and certianly no signs in english.
-i know that it is somewhat impossible to deport all these illegals that are now in our country and it would cost entirely to much money to try. but what i do propose is to shut down the border now to the best of our ability and punish those employers that hire illegals. if there is no work, the illegals will eventually leave on thier own. the people that are truely getting hosed in this deal is the immigrants who went through the process legally and those that are going through the process right now. the illegals basically just cut in line and demand it be accepted - how is that fair?
By Trooper
August 4, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Ok, so there’s no media bias. Huummm. Maybe they just don’t understand. Just the other day Anderson Cooper was surprised that Hezbollah was so anti-Semitic. This guy truly has his finger on the pulse of the world. Some reporter on ABC was falling all over herself to complement Cuba on their health care. CNN referred to Natalie Plame as a “James Blond” while Fox, just reported her name. Oh that evil right wing Fox news. Rush Limbaugh and the like.
Just like the liberals to blame everybody else. Their never responsible for their actions or what they said. They’re stuck on the “I’m a poor little victim”. Want some cheese with your whine?
On Iraq, Mara… Bet you dance every time something goes bad. Just imagine where we could be today if terrorist weren’t represented by the democrats. They have the same agenda. Destroy America so they can get back in power.
Trooper.
By Billy
August 4, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
You no what they say happens when you as-u-me*
Yes, I know what they say when I assume. It’s usually something along the lines of, “Gee, Billy, you’re right!”
No. All I have is anectodal evidence. Personal observations. But what that tells me is that sometimes people don’t care if they are illegal or not. You say yourself that you don’t like having to choose between Enlish and Spanish at ATMs. You talk about adaptation. I guess that didn’t apply to our ancestors, who came over, said, “Wow. Corn. That’s cool. How do you grow it?” and then proceeded to hand out the smallpox-infested blankets and say, “It’s called Manifest Destiny, beeyotches!”
they were furious that arby’s wasn’t adapting to thier needs.
How can you be sure that’s what they were screaming about?
ome reporter on ABC was falling all over herself to complement Cuba on their health care
The infant mortality rate in Havana is lower than it is in the US.
By Billy
August 4, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
BTW, Kyle, your Arby’s anecdote is no more indicative of Hispanic immigrants as a whole than my statement about people I’ve been around is of the anti-immigration sentiment…
By Billy
August 4, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
On Iraq, Mara… Bet you dance every time something goes bad. Just imagine where we could be today if terrorist weren’t represented by the democrats. They have the same agenda. Destroy America so they can get back in power.
Typical right-wing attack. Can’t use facts since they aren’t on your side. Better say that the left wants to destroy America and supports terrorists!
By The72John
August 4, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Some reporter on ABC was falling all over herself to complement Cuba on their health care
This is a perfect example of uneducated conservatives claiming liberal bias. Because a reporter did not adhere to the conservative party line, that Cuba is the root of all evil, and reported an objective fact, she is biased.
Bias, to the ignorant conservative masses, means you don’t report things with their bias in mind. If you don’t say exactly what the cons want you to say, you’re biased. Forget objectivity - they don’t want it! They just want their narrow preconceptions and biases affirmed by the news so they can continue to wallow in their comfortable ignorance.
Just like the liberals to blame everybody else. Their never responsible for their actions or what they said. They’re stuck on the “I’m a poor little victim”. Want some cheese with your whine?
Sorry, I didn’t see anywhere where someone on the left was whining about anything or blaming anyone. Perhaps, oh shucks, OBVIOUSLY, you’re just regurgitating the robotic auto-responses that you’ve been brainwashed to vomit forth whenever you hear the trigger phrase “Liberal”?
Bet you dance every time something goes bad. Just imagine where we could be today if terrorist weren’t represented by the democrats. They have the same agenda. Destroy America so they can get back in power.
Yes, because we all know that liberals are just pure evil who want all mankind to suffer untold harm. Yup, we want to DESTROY America, because logically it makes sense for us to want to DESTROY our own country where our friends and families live.
And people wonder why so many liberals are condescending about the intellectual capacity of the average conservative. If “Trooper” is representative of the average conservative, it’s not surprising.
Go back and listen to your talk radio, nimrod. The grownups are trying to have a discussion.
By Bruce
August 4, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
Have a good weekend everyone….
By morgan-lynn
August 4, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
72 John and other liberals and non -right- wing loons,kee-pup the good work!These loons want to destroy Americanism and replace it with Spencer- Randism[ falsely called Social Darwinism]. So they see anything that helps other as socialism . We are suppose to cringe at the term,but they really mean Americanism-fairness and justice!
By Billy
August 4, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this
One last thing…
B(o)(o)BIES!!!