This is the issue, and the reason that Media Matters is here, and is so often the reason that the WITH crowd makes their bogus claims.
When conservative misinformation spews from the media, it either makes the conservative look better than they deserve to look or it makes the liberal look worse than they look.
That supposedly baffles the righties. They can't understand it they claim. The fact is they won't accept the reality that the liberal media bias is nonsense. They won't accept that even smaller, less important stories that further the conservative agenda do more damage than that simple, minor story - there's a cumulative effect, and the righties know it - they just can't allow themselves to admit it!
It's the overall effort that sometimes creates incredibly offensive comments and other times simply portrays a Democrat in a bad light or gives a Republican more credit than what they deserve. It all adds up.
It serves another purpose, too: It helps a nominee whose heiress wife shows up at the convention in an outfit estimated to cost $300,000 pretend to be a man of the people raging against the "elites." But that's a story better told elsewhere.
I’m really glad MMFA pointed out this conservative misinformation *rolls eyes*
Look, the reason the media get attacked is really simple; because they are a totally biased organization and promote their own agenda.
Case in point: When McCain announced Gov Sarah Palin as his running mate, the (liberal) Media (wanting an Obama victory) did everything in its power to destroy her in that first week. No holds bared. It was disgusting.
They used her pregnant teenage daughter, they used her baby with autism, and they called her a bad mother.
The media has little consciences and can be extremely hardhearted.
The media deserves a smack-down when they act in this way.
I want you to read this bit from Joe Klein again... SLOWLY... and tell me why you think he is 'wrong'.
"There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme."
Tell me why the media does not have a duty to report those things about Palin. Also, tell me exactly what 'agenda' the media has in doing that.
Take your time... this may require a little actual THINKING on your part.
Obviously, you are inconvenienced by facts as all of those points about Palin noted by Klein are documented and are available easily. Do the work. You can start with this:
Oh, and you seems to think that the Bristol Palin pregnancy isn't a 'legitimate' story, right? Why is that? Is it because you do not want the stupidity of abstinence-only programs to be exposed as a fraud based on that situation?
And do not sit there and give me any bullsh*t about the Palin family being 'off limits'... not after the way you jackasses went after the Clintons. Remember McCain's comment about Chelsea having Janet Reno as a father? Yeah, real classy there, huh?
You people are puerile moronic hypocritical dweebs. Suck it up and accept the truth about yourselves and quit your whining
Oh, and you seems to think that the Bristol Palin pregnancy isn't a 'legitimate' story, right?
Correct. How about you tell me about all the members of your family (assuming you have one) and let me start picking them apart. I'm sure it will be totally relevant to your ability/right to post here on these boards.
Hold up... show me the 'attacks' on the Palin family in the MSM. And do not use the pregnancy story because that is not an 'attack' - that IS a legitimate item considering that Sarah Palin believes in abstinence-only programs for Alaskan students AND YET her daughter ends up being knocked up. The media certainly should explore that issue.
Thing is... the pregnancy throws a wrench into that sqeaky-clean 'narrative' the Right tried to set up about that family... now it's falling apart, the press is having a field day with it, and the Right is royally pissed because they now look stupid. And let's not forget that it was Sarah who outed the daughter, not the media, so take it up with her if you've got a beef.
palin's daughter's pregnancy is a legitimate story. she's got them in front of the cameras 24-7, the model family, and no one is supposed to think, uh, here's an unmarried pregnant 17 year old? if you don't want the heat, then don't present yourself as the all american family with wonderful christian values. people are going to notice the disconnect. i hope the daughter has a happy life, but it's her mother who brought her and this issue into the national spotlight. it's funny how the right wing could go on for years about totally bogus accusations about the clintons, but let someone ask a real question like is your daughter pregnant, and it's the terrible press picking on this poor family. now palin is not doing any interviews for two weeks. know why? because they are deathly afraid she'll say something stupid. we are entitled to know what she thinks and why, and she is obligated to tell us. the fact that she won't is proof she does not have the qualifications to be president.
i agree...and frankly, abstinence-only program or not, it was still a story to be reported. It's ridiculous to think that it wouldn not have been reported, all things considered. Especially, since not much else was known about her at the time, considering how she seemingly came out of nowhere. I thought Obama was decent in saying that it should remain a private family matter and still they didn't return the favor and simply skewered him in their speeches. I noticed though that they had no problem quoting him on it, time and again "even Senator Obama has said it should be, blah, blah, blah". He went so far as to use his own mother as an example, even though sex education and birth control was not as readily available back then.
It's an attempt to suppress the media, plain and simple. Don't talk about the family (but the teenage dad to be is proudly trotted out), that's an attack, don't talk about her lack of accomplishments, that's sexism...then it's used as an excuse to keep her from answering questions from the press, while she goes out and charms the public. Someone running for the second highest office and the media is not allowed to question them.
Looks to me like the McCain camp is hiding behind Palin's pregnant daughter. Because that story is off limits, they are trying to push the idea that their campaign is under assault by the liberal media, hoping to prevent media coverage of legitimate stories about Gov. Palin herself. I hope the media is strong enough not to be cowed this obvious campaign ploy.
Max Dharma is a liar. The press did no such thing.
The reason the righties try to make the press out to be villians, out to prop up the left and kick the legs out from under the righties is because that's the only way the right can win - on deceitful arguments.
Just like abortion foes can't win on the facts, righties can win based upon a fair look at reality. So they have to try to slant the playing field.
No sh*t. He can't even get his facts straight. The baby has Down Syndrome, not autism. And no-one in the press called Sarah Palin a 'bad mother'. A flat-out lie.
So McSurge had no reason whatsoever to say that Chelsea's dad was Janet Reno? None at all? Just blurted it out... like that stupid 'bomb bomb bomb Iran' tripe, right?
You are so full of it. Really. I think you know the reason, you're just too cowardly to say it.
>>Apparently you're too stupid to understand even the most grammatically simple sentences.
Yes, whenever someone loses an argument they resort to name calling and insult someone's reading ability. We see it all the time here.
Let me explain my post in case you missed my point. In the first sentence you concede that whatever is inside a woman is either a "baby/fetus/embryo," that there is no factual agreement on what it is. If what is inside a woman is just an embryo, then it is not murder.
Then in the next sentence you state that it is not a matter of "who has the better argument." But of course it is, by your own admission in your first sentence. If you can argue that it is just an "embryo" inside a woman, than one is not committing murder at all.
We're more than willing to allow you to hold the opinion that it's the taking of a human being, even if it isn't. It's not a human being, or a person, or even a baby when it's a non-viable fetus. But you can chose to hold that opinion that's contrary to the facts if you want to.
But it's not your right or your privilege to force all women to hold and abide by your moral judgments. Just because many families with 4 children would have chosen to abort a Down's syndrome fetus rather than continue the pregnancy, we're never going to force someone to have an abortion. Our choices don't have to be their choices. But you dishonestly try to taint the discussion by saying that babies are being aborted, and distract us from the point by bringing up that 'babies' are fertile. So what?
When they are not viable outside the womb, they don't have the right to control the woman's body and force her to remain pregnant. It's the woman's choice, because it's her body being forced to remain pregnant or not being forced to abide by other people's morality!
It's you who is the liar and who can't refute valid arguments that debunk everything you've ever posted here.
It's you who, instead of refuting other's arguments, does the "la-la-la, I can't hear you" defense. It's you who, when trying to distract us from the fact that you can't create a coherent argument, makes personal attacks that have no basis in reality.
There are no disputed facts with regard to abortion. You kill your baby/fetus/embryo, and some of us think that's unthinkable. Period.
If for you it comes down to "who has the better argument" than I feel sorry for you.
- Max Dharma / Friday September 5, 2008 11:47:24 PM EDT
What a moron you are.
There are facts about abortion. Like the fact that a woman has a constitutionally guaranteed right to control her own body and choose to remain pregnant or not remain pregnant. Like the fact that non-viable fetuses (ones that can NOT sustain life outside the womb, even with substantial medical intervention, love, food and shelter) should not get to control a woman's body. Facts like that it's not a baby inside the mother's womb. It's a fetus. If it leaves the womb, it's either a non-viable fetus, a premature infant (a viable fetus) or it's a full term newborn baby.
Then there are opinions, like the opinion that every fetus has a right to force the woman to remain pregnant, despite the factual evidence that says that someone with that opinion doesn't have a factual basis for making that argument.
One can argue about opinions. You can't argue with facts - they're facts! They aren't subject to change, like opinions are.
Righties here try to argue against the facts, and they lose every time, because there is no legit way to argue against facts. They could argue against opinion, and argue that it's their opinion that all life that can be preserved must be preserved. Except, when they do that, they prove the shallowness of their argument, because they don't really want all 'life' to be preserved - ever seen anyone protesting outside an in-vitro fertilization clinic which throws away unwanted fertilized eggs as biohazard medical waste every day?
Hypocrites. It's about control. And they hate that they can't control other people's morality and force everyone to have their morality imposed upon them.
There are facts about abortion. Like the fact that a woman has a constitutionally guaranteed right to control her own body and choose to remain pregnant or not remain pregnant.
God help you the day your surrender that mental defense.
Is that supposed to be an intelligible comment? Because it's not.
God and I have a very good relationship. My God doesn't demand that I allow a non-viable fetus to control my body. You don't know if I'd choose an abortion or not, and under what circumstances, if any, I'd choose an abortion for myself.
You, on the other hand, demand that it's your way or the highway. That's not God's way. In fact, that's exactly counter to God's way. He accepts everyone. He is the judge of what's right and wrong not you. And He doesn't agree with you on this issue - and neither do you. If you did believe that all life is sacred, you and people like you would be protesting down at in-vitro clinics where unused fertilized eggs are disposed of a biohazard waste every day. But you aren't. So it's clear that it's simply a wedge issue, and it exposes you as the hypocrite you are.
And guess what? The people Jesus scorned the most? Hypocrites! Yeah, that's YOU!
You are driven by your religious views which is like arguing inside of a box. We are not in your box, so your "beliefs' about how, what, when, or where life begins doesn't mean squat. This is a secular country and your religious beliefs will not be made into law. Let's try this whole freedom idea. You can always form a Christian Talaban and try to keep your silly ranting going.
Case in point: When McCain announced Gov Sarah Palin as his running mate, the (liberal) Media (wanting an Obama victory) did everything in its power to destroy her in that first week. No holds bared. It was disgusting.
This was all McCain's fault. He shouldn't have picked a novice. There are women in the republican party who are leaps and bounds ahead of Palin but apparently they weren't as far to the right as she is (which comes in handy if your goal is to shore up the republican base). Palin's right -wing extremism is the reason McCain chose her and ability to actually do the job was thrown out the window.
In fact to quote your hero, "take off your Republican hat and put on your American hat".
Wherever there is a free press, and whenever anyone in the public spotlight has some kind of fortune or misfortune, the media is going to run with it. It doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum.
And when the person places themselves onto the national stage, their past political stands are going to be scrutinized. If the incident that attracts media attention contradicts those positions in any way, the media is going to scream hypocrisy. It's no vast liberal media conspiracy. The media is only interested in selling brooms and mops. They care only for profit. They'll take their profit at the expense of anyone, no matter their political affiliation.
I'm not saying it's right, fair or proper. It just is. Unfortunately, the media will keep this non-story, about Gov. Palin's daughter alive. The great thing for your side is that the public will be sold a story of "family values" and the Republicans may garner more support in sympathy for what the Palin family is going through.
This really sucks. I hate that it's going to happen, but it will.
But in the meantime, the media will glance over Palin's right-wing extremists positions. It will ignore her statements to her church about "war being "God's will". It will ignore her position on creationism, sex education, science, free libraries, etc. Very little will be mentioned about how the people of Alaska were to understand that building that gas pipeline for tens of billions of dollars was indeed "the Lord's work".
I'm not interested in anyone's family. But I'm damned well interested in preventing America's slide into it's own dark ages.
Hey WORRIERKING , nice post. I don't agree, but you are respectful and insightful.
It's no vast liberal media conspiracy. The media is only interested in selling brooms and mops. They care only for profit. They'll take their profit at the expense of anyone, no matter their political affiliation.
But it is my belief that both the media at large (most TV broadcast media) and MMFA have a keen interest in seeing B. Obama elected president. If we can at least agree on that, then we will have reach a milestone; a place on which to build greater and more interesting debates.
MMFA has an non vested interest in seeing Obama win in November.
The main street medias owner's have a vested interest in a McCain win and the on air staff is mostly interested in keeping the race as close as possible to pump up ratings. Many are partisans for the left or right. But none wants to see a blowout.
As for the media, they are not as much interested in their country as they are their own greed.
Just like many of us. But I also know that many on the left, right and center do put the greater good before their own.
The thing that saddens me is the right's derision of hope and community as they play on our fears.
No, I actually pointed out that your other screen name, The Wussie, also thinks that his posts deserve more space and attention than they actually deserve or need to use.
Thanks for letting everyone know that this screen name is just an obnoxious version of DaWuss - both are the same poster. It's nice when scoundrels admit that they're scoundrels.
It's also nice when they admit how ignorant they are, that they don't get how it weakens their arguments (if one can call what you pose here an 'argument'!) when they admit that they're sockpuppets.
*shrugs* .. I don't care, I'll be Science101, ScienceGuy, and DaWuss.. whoever you want me to be .. whatever eases your mind.
You seem to be stuck in some sort of loop needing resolution, and if that will help you regain a handle on your senses (assuming you have some), then it's all good.
Don't bother recounting even more names of past posters you may think me to be, just assume I am them and save us all a bunch of time.
We already know that there are repeated sockpuppet identities here, and since you're one of them, you know that too. So shove it where the sun don't shine, you dishonest punk. Hope it makes you feel all warm and toasty while it's up there.
You suck as The Wussie, and you suck as Max Dharma. You sucked as whatever your previous screen names were, and you'll suck when you have worn these out and have to create a new screen name and log on under a new ISP because Media Matters has blocked your IP address.
It will be wonderful when Republicans who you support crash and burn over the next couple of elections. Then tactics like you employ may get trashed ,and we may be able to have reasonable debates with those on the other side of the aisle. Media Matters is doing a great service to our nation to debunk dishonest punks like you.
I cannot agree any more... that family will not connect with the majority of voters in this country. McSurge really screwed the pooch with this one.
And since when did the Right all of a sudden embrace teen pregnancy as a wonderful thing? What happened - did they suddenly lose their fundie morals? Or did they never really have them to begin with? Was it all a sham?
LOL....I have to qgree. As an Obama supporter, surely I would be concerned with anyone who electrified the party as she has. But with her it's different...it's like an alternative universe where this extremist, inexperienced, hypocrite, not to menton extremely nasty control freak, has people eating out of her hands and God only knows why. Not sure where I heard this nickname for her but it's "The Killa from Wasilla". LOL.
Your comment about the brother-in-law and trailer trash made me laugh out loud. And did you read about the soon to be son-in-law's MySpace page (which has since been removed). Granted he's a young man...so he can be excused for his rantings but he surely doesn't sound like a "fine young man".
Still, I am disappointed that the Democrats haven't responded more forcefully. Where are Obama's allies in this? Why hasn't Nancy Pelosi said anything? Howard Dean as the head of the Party should've responded to some of the insults. I wouldn't underestimate the Palin effect, especially with the backing of the right-wing wackos Evangelicals.
What in good God's name are you talking about? The question asked is if right-wingers think it is a good thing for a 17-year old to get married or to get pregnant. Condoms *prevent* you from getting pregnant, in case you missed your sex ed class. And since the daughter is only getting married because she is pregnant, a condom would have prevented a shotgun wedding as well.
>>Handing out condoms in school (a liberal principal) is a nod towards sex in school.
That is your opinion. But it still doesn't explain your bizzarre logic. If Bristol's partner had used a condom, guess what? Handing out condoms does not promote pregnancy. If you doubt this, just look at the teen pregnancy rates in Europe, which are so low as to be non existent. In Europe, there is no taboo against sex, but teens use birth control.
"Handing out condoms in school (a liberal principal) is a nod towards sex in school."
Who's the "liberal principal" you're talking about?
I'm guessing it's that Stephen Harper character from Boston Public. I always liked that dude--firm, but fair.
I don't know what exactly is "a nod towards sex in school." I'm figuring it's in the restrooms, but maybe it's in class when the teacher ain't looking? Or maybe it's got something to do with Mary Kay Letourneau? Did she serve under a liberal principal? Help me out here.
I'm sorry, are you saying that distributing condoms in schools causes students to engage in sex in school? (Since you seem to be a strict grammarian, surely you are aware that this sentence means that in a literal sense.) Or are you saying that distributing condoms in schools causes more teenage girls to obtain abortions? (That's even more of a head-scratcher.) Or are you saying something else completely? I find your writing utterly impossible to follow.
A question for conservatives: ya think it's a good idea for a 17 year-old girl to get married? to get pregnant?
No, not at all, but you liberals do.
o) Hand out condoms in school
o) Let under age girls get abortions without their parents knowledge.
Another nugget of poop from Max Dharma.
We don't think that 17 year olds should be getting pregnant or getting married if they do get pregnant. They should continue the pregnancy if they are anti-abortion, and then put the child up for adoption since they are too young to do a good job of being a parent and it puts that girl behind the eight ball for the rest of her life in most cases. Teen marriage, especially when forced by a pregnancy, is a disaster!
Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer that teenagers have risky sex that might lead to STD's and pregnancy versus having less risky sex with condoms and birth control. See, if you take precautions against pregnancy and STD's, then you're admitting that you're having sex, and planning on it. It's better, from a conservative viewpoint, to be cavalier about it, and not have the intent to have sex. If it just happens, then it's better than if it happens with forethought and consideration!
That's such a loser argument! What a moronic argument!
Handing out condoms in school, so that when teenagers do what they're clearly going to do with or without condoms, helps prevent STD's and pregnancy. It's a good idea with almost no bad side effects. Even in families like Sarah Palin's, sex happens. Sarah Palin got pregnant and had to marry her husband because they had sex before they were married, for goodness sake!
Allowing pregnant girls to have an abortion without parenta notification but with judicial oversight, a medical procedure that their parents might not allow and that easily could help a girl redeem her life, is a great idea too, without any downside. Unless and until we can prove that every parent will put their daughter's needs first instead of recklessly making decisions that will not help the girl, we need to have a way to protect those girls, and that includes allowing some under 18 to have abortions without their parents' knowledge.
Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer that teenagers have risky sex that might lead to STD's and pregnancy versus having less risky sex with condoms and birth control. See, if you take precautions against pregnancy and STD's, then you're admitting that you're having sex, and planning on it. It's better, from a conservative viewpoint, to be cavalier about it, and not have the intent to have sex. If it just happens, then it's better than if it happens with forethought and consideration!
That's such a loser argument! What a moronic argument!
I couldn't agree more.
Seeing how you don't understand conservatism at all, you should probably stick to pontificating the liberal beliefs.
Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer that teenagers have risky sex that might lead to STD's and pregnancy versus having less risky sex with condoms and birth control. See, if you take precautions against pregnancy and STD's, then you're admitting that you're having sex, and planning on it. It's better, from a conservative viewpoint, to be cavalier about it, and not have the intent to have sex. If it just happens, then it's better than if it happens with forethought and consideration!
That's such a loser argument! What a moronic argument!
I couldn't agree more.
Seeing how you don't understand conservatism at all, you should probably stick to pontificating the liberal beliefs.
Foser is misleading in his narrative. The question should be asked why CBS felt it was necessary to release a report critical of the President right before an election. The report had been done for months, and was delayed to shortly before the election so as to have the most impact on the election. This is not the first time CBS has done this. The entire Dan Rather saga was another clear attack based on party lines. When Rather was the news anchor, and address the democratic convention, that is a clear conflict of interest. When he releases forged and false documents about Bush and the National Guard on 60 minutes, that is a problem. Even when the documents were shown to be a forgery, or, at the very least highly suspect, he refuses to issue an apology for days. CBS and rather in particular have a long history of being strong democrats, and opposed to republicans.
The actions of Time magazine and US magazine with their choice of covers, , the action of Oprah and her refusal to book Palin until after the election, and the complete cover up of the MSM of the Edward’s affair, until the story was broke open by the National Enquirer……come on guys…it took the National Enquirer, and the choice of MSNBC to put Olberman, the biggest partisan Hack on tv covering the convention all point to a strong strong liberal media bias.
Many of you here hate Rush, and that is fine. He does not cover the convention live. Bill O and Hannity have, but they are all part of a one hour show. Olberman is entitled to be as left wing as he wants. But to have him and Maddow cover the primaries, elections, and conventions is an insult to anyone not so far to the left that they are practically out of sight. Olberman was caught on a live mike insulting Joe S. as he was making a report. Olberman can not even hide his contempt and make it look like he is doing an honest job. All of this points to a left wing media bias.
But to have him and Maddow cover the primaries, elections, and conventions is an insult to anyone not so far to the left that they are practically out of sight.
What are Maddow and Olbermann's positions that "are practically out of sight"?
Assuming that this left-wing bias really exists, so what? You guys and gals have Fox News on your side so what's the problem? Cheney only watches Fox News... perhaps you should do the same. You seem to be more comfortable with right-wing bias so have at it.
The thing is you guys want EVERYTHING to be YOUR way ONLY. Admit it.
So what......are you kidding me? Foser rights an article, using examples of left wing bias which he covers up, and then takes the real examples of left wing bias in an attempt to show intimidation on the right!! I noticed you did not comment on any of the examples of left wing bias I provided. The entire foundation of his article is false, and the best you can come up with is so what. Really Impressive.
One of your supposed examples of bias is Oprah. Oprah? She runs a completely personality based show centered around the topics she wants to discuss. Is making an incompetent therapist like Dr Phil a household name also some sort of liberal plot?
When Oprah has Obama on her show twice, and asks him to come back when he announces his run for president, when she has his wife on, and when his wife is on her radio show, but she refuses to consider Palin, then yes, she has become part of the left wing MSM.
Oprah is not obligated to be 'fair and balanced' you moron.
AND... I think this discussion is hilarious considering that you Righties are loath to see the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Seems to me now all of a sudden you guys want it. :P
Oh, so apparently you are in favor of some sort of rule requiring television programs to give equal time to opposing points of view, perhaps some sort of "balancing equation" or maybe a "fairness doctrine."
Oprah presents an entertainment show based on what she believes in and what she believes her audience wants to watch. Her decision to get behind Obama does not suddenly make her a part of the imaginary "liberal media." When she gets a show on a cable news network or starts advertising herself as "The News You Need to Know" or "Fair and Balanced Journalism" you'll have a valid complaint. Right now she's competing against syndicated game shows, soap operas, courtroom programs and other talk shows, not headline news or pundit roundtables.
"Oh, so apparently you are in favor of some sort of rule requiring television programs to give equal time to opposing points of view, perhaps some sort of "balancing equation" or maybe a "fairness doctrine."
BAM! There it is.
The Right is so damn hypocritical. They don't want lefty views on their righty shows but they demand righty views on lefty shows. Amazing... absolutely amazing.
In no way do I want the incredibly un-fair and tool of the left “fairness” doctrine in effect. It is designed for the sole purpose of stopping Rush and talk radio. Additionally, I don’t care who Oprah has on her show, but to make the claim that she is not a part of the media and does not focus on politics does not even pass the laugh test. She can be as biased as she likes, it has never stopped the rest of the left wing media from doing the same. Again, what you two fail to grasp, through all of the examples I provided, is that Foser is way off in his article, and in fact uses examples of actual left wing bias to try and prove that it does not exist.
Foser is talking about bias in the actual news media. You are talking about any and all broadcast media when you include a show like Oprah's. One may as well complain that the overly authoritarian, black & white thinking of Judge Judy is some sort of proof of right wing bias.
The truth is that after Nixon lost to Kennedy it became a major part of Republican political campaigning to rail against the "liberal media" in order to discredit news reporting.
It works like this: Once you have created the idea of a massive liberal conspiracy within the news media anything they say that is critical of the right or positive to the left it is due to their bias and false but when they report something positive about the right or negative about the left it must be true because they are so biased they wouldn't lie about something that goes against their secret agenda. ie. "Even the liberal <insert news organization here> said..." "Well what else would you expect from those left wing loons over at <pick another news organization, it doesn't matter which one>....."
It's her show and she can do whatever the hell she wants with it... if she doesn't want Palin on her show then more power to her. Jeez, the damn Righties just want everything to be THEIR way or NO way. Boo effin' hoo!
Perhaps POV didn't consider that having Palin on Oprah's show wouldn't be a smart idea ratings-wise. Oprah most likely will only want guests that will do well for her show. You know, that free market thingy and all...
Well, POV is dragging her into this discussion because he's pissed that his darlin' Moose-Eater won't be warming up a seat there. WAH WAH WAH.
No, POV is dragging her into this discussion because she is an open supporter of Obama and she is afraid to give Gov Palin equal coverage since she knows America is in love with her (Gov. Palin that is.)
>>No, POV is dragging her into this discussion because she is an open supporter of Obama and she is afraid to give Gov Palin equal coverage since she knows America is in love with her (Gov. Palin that is.)
Really? And the proof you have that (1) Oprah is afraid and (2) that America loves her is what? Is there some type of poll that rated her approval rating high that I am not aware of. Note, the right-wing base is not America.
since she knows America is in love with her (Gov. Palin that is.)
What Maxie has fallen for is the dumbass reports I heard on Fox after Mrs. Loopner's almost-competent reading of Karl Rove's speech the other night (paraphrased, but close) "Palin has united the Republican base, and America".
There are KKK wizards talking to very enthusiastic crowds somewhere in America right now, crowds that represent a fraction of 1% of Americans, just like the sparsely filled stadium Palin "energized" the other night.
That's not America. If it is, we're in serious trouble.
America is in love with her??? Uh, post the link that says so. This is hilarious...
Perhaps a certain SEGMENT of America is 'in love' with her - far rightwing extremist types and young 20-something basement-dweller boys at best. Sorry, those two segments do not comprise ALL of America.
Oh wait, I get it. Real sly there. Those Americans who are NOT 'in love' with her are somehow not American anymore, right? Playing that 'if you're not with us then you're unamerican' card, right?
It's like they can't understand the difference between having a potential Presidential candidate on the air months before anything is decided and having a nominated VP candidate less than 2 months before an election, isn't it?
It's like they can't understand that Oprah gets to invite whoever she wants on her show, and her show is not the same as a news broadcast, and not restricted by the same rules as news sources are, isn't it?
For them, simple common sense is equivalent to brain surgery in that they'll never understand it.
Yeah, that's what I said, so what. Quitcherbitchin and leave the tube on Fox 24/7 and that way you won't have to deal with any 'lib bias'. I'll stick with the progressive talkers and DK and I won't have to deal with any rightwing garbage. We'll BOTH be happy.
"When he releases forged and false documents about Bush and the National Guard on 60 minutes, that is a problem. Even when the documents were shown to be a forgery, or, at the very least highly suspect, he refuses to issue an apology for days."
There was no evidence they were forged. The worst thing about them is that they weren't verified adequately.
But even the guy's old secretary said that it sounded like him.
The irony was, that CBS story didn't even need those documents. They were merely icing on the cake-- the story already had enough witnesses to nail Bush.
Obviously the story did not have enough, , as Rather and CBS both had to apologize, and producers were fired. None of the story could be proved, and it was a blatant attempt to sway an election.
The "forged" documents were more than likely released by Rove & Co in one of the most brilliant yet underhanded political manuevers in history.
It's simple. Let's say you kill someone. The police have tons of circumstantial evidence that says you did it. So, you create false "evidence" to be discovered that proves you did it. The police bring the case against you with this "smoking gun" piece of evidence as their crown jewel, but in court you are able to show that the evidence was falsified. It basically shuts down the prosecution.
The "forged" documents contained TRUE information.
The "forged" documents were more than likely released by Rove & Co in one of the most brilliant yet underhanded political manuevers in history.
Wow. Haha!
Pov, this is why you can't argue with a liberal. You produce an irrefutable argument and they refute it anyway with some kooky conspiracy nonsense that STILL paints conservatives as the bad guys. .. lol
There was no motive for Bush's "enemies" to forge documents saying what all other evidence already said. Saying the documents were "forged" is a conspiracy theory to start with....where did they come from?
The information they contained was true....this is not disputed.
It was used as a device exactly as I described to descredit true information.
>>Foser is misleading in his narrative. The question should be asked why CBS felt it was necessary to release a report critical of the President right before an election. The report had been done for months, and was delayed to shortly before the election so as to have the most impact on the election.
I doubt you have any proof to show that CBS delayed the report to have impact on the election.
>>This is not the first time CBS has done this.
Really? When else did he do this?
>>When Rather was the news anchor, and address the democratic convention, that is a clear conflict of interest.
When did Dan Rather address the Democratic convention? I have the feeling you are making stuff up.
>>The actions of Time magazine and US magazine with their choice of covers
What do you mean by this? Which covers? Are you claiming that both magazines have not had glowing covers for right wingers? Is there some study that shows a bias?
>>the action of Oprah and her refusal to book Palin until after the election
Good grief! Oprah is not news.
>>and the complete cover up of the MSM of the Edward’s affair, until the story was broke open by the National Enquirer
What complete coverup? Do you have proof of this?
None of your examples comes even close to showing what you claim.
1. CBS acknowledged that the report had been done for some time and was to be released before the election.
2. They did the same thing with the national guard fake document story.
3. Rather addressed the Dem Convention as a day time speaker when during the B. Clinton convention.
4. 7 covers for Obama….3 for McCain. US cover with Obama and his wife on the cover under the title “why he loves her” vs. Palin on the cover with the title “Babies, lies and scandal”
Damn man………do some research for a change. Stop buying funny pants and read once in a while.
5. Oprah made the decision to enter the political fray, and to refuse time to Palin
6. Ok….show many how many MSM media outlets….print, tv, radio, even mentioned the Edwards affair before the Enquirer ran the story. Yet the NY Times runs a page one story on an alleged McCain affair with no proof at all.
Let me ask you this. Is the Right ever guilty of this sort of thing? I'm asking because you seem to only be whining about the Left as if the Left is the only side guilty of this.
Of course they are....both sides do whatever they can to win. I have no problem admitting that.......but take a look a few posts above ours to what that idiot - Timme said......all a rove conspicarcy....lol...year right..... to many on left buy into that crap
Then what the HELL is your beef then? You just admitted that YOUR side 'plays the game' as well so what's the problem? I can counter your example with the one put forth by The Detestable One, aka His Vileness, aka Mark Levin about how Obama plans to enroll all the youth of this country into 'reeducation camps' and send them out to 'radically change' this country and 'destroy' all of its 'traditional' values, all in the name of 'community organizing'. Blah blah blah...
I mean, COME ON! What a load of hot steaming stinking paranoid SH*T! It's just laughable and any sane person knows it.
My "beef" is Foser crying like a little girl about what his side has perfected. How on earth do you complain about what was done to CBS...when CBS is one of the worst media offenders out there? Give me a break. And I have yet to see...even one left wing poster here admit that the dems and the media ever do or say anyting unfair about the right. That is my beef.
>>How on earth do you complain about what was done to CBS...when CBS is one of the worst media offenders out there?
No, it is not. You are simply making things up in your post. You claim that CBS deliberatly tried to sway an election, but offered zero proof. In contrast, Foser offered proof.
I know--I never thought I'd see the words "US weekly" and "do some research" so close to each other!
The Oprah thing was a trumped up story on Drudge the other day that turned out to be completely false. And in any case, if Oprah WERE to be held to some kind of fairness doctrine (which she's not), shouldn't she be forced to have McCain on and not Palin? Isn't he the parallel to Obama in this election?
Palin is a distraction, and a good one, because her personal life is wildly entertaining.
Are you one of those people getting paid to post pro-McCain stuff on websites? Because I can't believe you really believe the b.s. you're spouting here. If the only thing that counts as experience is sitting behind a big desk, yes, I bet Palin has sat behind a big desk for more days in her life than Obama has sat behind a big desk (McCain, too, for that matter.) But has she really made tough decisions? She's as much of a reformer as Bush is, which is to say, not at all.
Sorry, but you seemed to address the issues, but did not.
>>CBS acknowledged that the report had been done for some time and was to be released before the election.
Where is the link for this? And besides, that doesn't show it was trying to sway the election. There may have been other reasons. Like I said, you cannot back up your assertion with proof.
>>They did the same thing with the national guard fake document story.
Which report are you talking about? I had the impression that point 1 and 2 were the same.
>>Rather addressed the Dem Convention as a day time speaker when during the B. Clinton convention.
No he didn't. You are lying right through your teeth.
>>7 covers for Obama….3 for McCain. US cover with Obama and his wife on the cover under the title “why he loves her” vs. Palin on the cover with the title “Babies, lies and scandal”
Wow! You actually picked only the covers that pertain to McCain and Obama. I believe each publication is weekly, so where are the other 104 covers? And why should I believe your assertion that there were actually 7 for Obama and only 3 for Obama?
>>Oprah made the decision to enter the political fray, and to refuse time to Palin
And Oprah is not the media. As has been pointed out.
>>Ok….show many how many MSM media outlets….print, tv, radio, even mentioned the Edwards affair before the Enquirer ran the story. Yet the NY Times runs a page one story on an alleged McCain affair with no proof at all.
Um, you said that the MSM tried to cover up. Again, where is your proof? You know, I expect something like reporters saying "My boss told me not to cover the story because it would hurt Edwards." You are using speculation in place of facts.
>>You really can learn something if you try.
Right. When you can't win an argument on facts, resort to insult. You haven't provided one link in all your arguments.
I'll take you seriously when you can show me when Rather spoke at the Democratic National Convention, as you claim.
I gave you all the facts. If you can use google, you can find them all. Do your own damn research. Everything I said was true. I heard the speech Rather gave.....dont tell me it did not happen. Just because you cant find it does not mean it did not happen. There have been a tonnn of articles on the Time cover story. Google it. I am at a loss of words for how you cant find anything.
News reports are that up to 10,000 US magazine readers have cancelled because of the Palin cover. Once again....goggle it. I will give you a hint to get you started. Google US magazine Palin Cover.
>>I gave you all the facts. If you can use google, you can find them all. Do your own damn research. Everything I said was true. I heard the speech Rather gave.....dont tell me it did not happen.
Yes, I accept your defeat. You cannot produce *one* link to back up your assertions. Translation: you are lying through your teeth.
In case you don't realize you debates work, you cannot throw out some claim, and then expect the other person to find out the research.
Let me repeat: you are lying through your teeth.
>>News reports are that up to 10,000 US magazine readers have cancelled because of the Palin cover. Once again....goggle it. I will give you a hint to get you started. Google US magazine Palin Cover.
Uh huh. Now you are employing a moving target argument. You used the number of covers for McCain vs Obama as your original argument. Now you are switching your whole argument, abandoning your original claim. But your new claim is even weaker! 200 million people could cancel their subscription to any magazine, but that wouldn't prove anything, now would it? Your claim (if true), only proves that 10,000 people don't want anything negative said about Palin because they view her as their hero. There is nothing new in rallying around your leader, even when she is wrong; that has been going on since history began.
I did not abandon or back away from any of my points. Each one is true. Just for fun..take any one of them.......you pick....any one......and you prove me wrong. provide the links you so badly want...and prove me worng on any item you decide on.
Uh huh. Like I said, when you lose an argument, start resorting to name calling. It is always a sure sign that you don't have facts on your side.
>>Each one is true. Just for fun..take any one of them.......you pick....any one......and you prove me wrong. provide the links you so badly want...and prove me worng on any item you decide on.
Now *this* is funny. Since you cannot prove your assertions, you want me to prove them wrong? How am I supposed to prove a negative, for one thing? Do you think there is some link out there that says "Dan Rather did not speak at the Democratic Convention?"
Threaded Comments: on / off
Posted by BottleBlonde
This is the issue, and the reason that Media Matters is here, and is so often the reason that the WITH crowd makes their bogus claims.
When conservative misinformation spews from the media, it either makes the conservative look better than they deserve to look or it makes the liberal look worse than they look.
That supposedly baffles the righties. They can't understand it they claim. The fact is they won't accept the reality that the liberal media bias is nonsense. They won't accept that even smaller, less important stories that further the conservative agenda do more damage than that simple, minor story - there's a cumulative effect, and the righties know it - they just can't allow themselves to admit it!
It's the overall effort that sometimes creates incredibly offensive comments and other times simply portrays a Democrat in a bad light or gives a Republican more credit than what they deserve. It all adds up.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 7:54:26 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by carlileb5935 in reply to BottleBlonde
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 8:24:48 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to BottleBlonde
I’m really glad MMFA pointed out this conservative misinformation *rolls eyes*
Look, the reason the media get attacked is really simple; because they are a totally biased organization and promote their own agenda.
Case in point: When McCain announced Gov Sarah Palin as his running mate, the (liberal) Media (wanting an Obama victory) did everything in its power to destroy her in that first week. No holds bared. It was disgusting.
They used her pregnant teenage daughter, they used her baby with autism, and they called her a bad mother.
The media has little consciences and can be extremely hardhearted.
The media deserves a smack-down when they act in this way.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 8:40:41 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to Max Dharma
I want you to read this bit from Joe Klein again... SLOWLY... and tell me why you think he is 'wrong'.
"There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme."
Tell me why the media does not have a duty to report those things about Palin. Also, tell me exactly what 'agenda' the media has in doing that.
Take your time... this may require a little actual THINKING on your part.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 8:53:46 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to RABBITLUVR
The media does not have a duty to report wistful delusions, that's why.
The media DOES have a duty to report facts and reasonable inference from factual happenings.
What you are putting forth as 'a story' is liberal wishful thinking.
Also, tell me exactly what 'agenda' the media has in doing that.
Come on, lol.. you're not going to really make me say it now are you?!!
The 'agenda' the media has in doing that is that they want Barack Obama as president, and would like nothing better than to torpedo Gov Sarah Palin.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:31:39 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to Max Dharma
Obviously, you are inconvenienced by facts as all of those points about Palin noted by Klein are documented and are available easily. Do the work. You can start with this:
http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:39:39 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to RABBITLUVR
Oh, and you seems to think that the Bristol Palin pregnancy isn't a 'legitimate' story, right? Why is that? Is it because you do not want the stupidity of abstinence-only programs to be exposed as a fraud based on that situation?
And do not sit there and give me any bullsh*t about the Palin family being 'off limits'... not after the way you jackasses went after the Clintons. Remember McCain's comment about Chelsea having Janet Reno as a father? Yeah, real classy there, huh?
You people are puerile moronic hypocritical dweebs. Suck it up and accept the truth about yourselves and quit your whining
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:46:38 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to RABBITLUVR
Correct. How about you tell me about all the members of your family (assuming you have one) and let me start picking them apart. I'm sure it will be totally relevant to your ability/right to post here on these boards.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:57:19 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to Max Dharma
So what was the relevance of going after the Clintons, especially Chelsea?
Take your time, please... let's have an intelligent response, all right?
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:00:13 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to RABBITLUVR
None. You liberals are really dense aren't you.
I do not support attacking Sarah Palin's family and I do not support attacking Clinton's family.
What's wrong with you?
You know, it's comments like yours that give liberalism a bad name.
You can't address the issue head on, so you say something stupid.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:22:24 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to Max Dharma
Hold up... show me the 'attacks' on the Palin family in the MSM. And do not use the pregnancy story because that is not an 'attack' - that IS a legitimate item considering that Sarah Palin believes in abstinence-only programs for Alaskan students AND YET her daughter ends up being knocked up. The media certainly should explore that issue.
Thing is... the pregnancy throws a wrench into that sqeaky-clean 'narrative' the Right tried to set up about that family... now it's falling apart, the press is having a field day with it, and the Right is royally pissed because they now look stupid. And let's not forget that it was Sarah who outed the daughter, not the media, so take it up with her if you've got a beef.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:30:01 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by mefirst in reply to Max Dharma
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 10:02:07 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by lotuscw195811 in reply to RABBITLUVR
i agree...and frankly, abstinence-only program or not, it was still a story to be reported. It's ridiculous to think that it wouldn not have been reported, all things considered. Especially, since not much else was known about her at the time, considering how she seemingly came out of nowhere. I thought Obama was decent in saying that it should remain a private family matter and still they didn't return the favor and simply skewered him in their speeches. I noticed though that they had no problem quoting him on it, time and again "even Senator Obama has said it should be, blah, blah, blah". He went so far as to use his own mother as an example, even though sex education and birth control was not as readily available back then.
It's an attempt to suppress the media, plain and simple. Don't talk about the family (but the teenage dad to be is proudly trotted out), that's an attack, don't talk about her lack of accomplishments, that's sexism...then it's used as an excuse to keep her from answering questions from the press, while she goes out and charms the public. Someone running for the second highest office and the media is not allowed to question them.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 8:39:36 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by funnyguy45 in reply to Max Dharma
Posted Monday September 8, 2008 10:43:36 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by BottleBlonde in reply to Max Dharma
Max Dharma is a liar. The press did no such thing.
The reason the righties try to make the press out to be villians, out to prop up the left and kick the legs out from under the righties is because that's the only way the right can win - on deceitful arguments.
Just like abortion foes can't win on the facts, righties can win based upon a fair look at reality. So they have to try to slant the playing field.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 9:11:08 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to BottleBlonde
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 9:15:49 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to BottleBlonde
There are no disputed facts with regard to abortion. You kill your baby/fetus/embryo, and some of us think that's unthinkable. Period.
If for you it comes down to "who has the better argument" than I feel sorry for you.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:47:24 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by funnymanpants in reply to Max Dharma
Max wrote:
>>There are no disputed facts with regard to abortion. You kill your baby/fetus/embryo, and some of us think that's unthinkable. Period.
But then wrote:
>>If for you it comes down to "who has the better argument" than I feel sorry for you.
You realize you completely contradicted yourself, don't you?
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:05:34 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to funnymanpants
Try rereading may original statement several times and maybe you'll get it (or ask someone and maybe they will explain it to you)
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:14:59 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to Max Dharma
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:20:57 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to RABBITLUVR
PS. I replied the the Chelsea question. *points*
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:29:39 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to Max Dharma
So McSurge had no reason whatsoever to say that Chelsea's dad was Janet Reno? None at all? Just blurted it out... like that stupid 'bomb bomb bomb Iran' tripe, right?
You are so full of it. Really. I think you know the reason, you're just too cowardly to say it.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:34:13 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by funnymanpants in reply to Max Dharma
Max wrote:
>>Apparently you're too stupid to understand even the most grammatically simple sentences.
Yes, whenever someone loses an argument they resort to name calling and insult someone's reading ability. We see it all the time here.
Let me explain my post in case you missed my point. In the first sentence you concede that whatever is inside a woman is either a "baby/fetus/embryo," that there is no factual agreement on what it is. If what is inside a woman is just an embryo, then it is not murder.
Then in the next sentence you state that it is not a matter of "who has the better argument." But of course it is, by your own admission in your first sentence. If you can argue that it is just an "embryo" inside a woman, than one is not committing murder at all.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 10:33:28 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to funnymanpants
The point is this: kill a baby/fetus/embryo and it's atrocious regardless of how well you articulate your argument.
(I'm certainly not implying you are articulate.)
PS. In case you didn't know, an embryo is fertile, i.e., from the time of first cell division
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 2:46:42 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Col. Harlan Sanders in reply to Max Dharma
PS. In case you didn't know, an embryo is fertile, i.e., from the time of first cell division- Max Dharma
Puberty happens in the womb? Now it's getting interesting!
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 4:38:22 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by worrierking in reply to Col. Harlan Sanders
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 10:32:20 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by BottleBlonde in reply to Max Dharma
Joe Biden explained this very well today on MTP.
We're more than willing to allow you to hold the opinion that it's the taking of a human being, even if it isn't. It's not a human being, or a person, or even a baby when it's a non-viable fetus. But you can chose to hold that opinion that's contrary to the facts if you want to.
But it's not your right or your privilege to force all women to hold and abide by your moral judgments. Just because many families with 4 children would have chosen to abort a Down's syndrome fetus rather than continue the pregnancy, we're never going to force someone to have an abortion. Our choices don't have to be their choices. But you dishonestly try to taint the discussion by saying that babies are being aborted, and distract us from the point by bringing up that 'babies' are fertile. So what?
When they are not viable outside the womb, they don't have the right to control the woman's body and force her to remain pregnant. It's the woman's choice, because it's her body being forced to remain pregnant or not being forced to abide by other people's morality!
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 1:27:25 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to Max Dharma
I have a unsettling vision of Pippi Longstocking with her hands over her ears pleading that the bad noises go away!
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:WM7-kxFKlkIJ::www.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/lists/images/pippi01.jpg
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:08:14 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by BottleBlonde in reply to Max Dharma
You need to stop looking in the mirror then.
It's you who is the liar and who can't refute valid arguments that debunk everything you've ever posted here.
It's you who, instead of refuting other's arguments, does the "la-la-la, I can't hear you" defense. It's you who, when trying to distract us from the fact that you can't create a coherent argument, makes personal attacks that have no basis in reality.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 1:09:30 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by BottleBlonde in reply to Max Dharma
If for you it comes down to "who has the better argument" than I feel sorry for you.
What a moron you are.
There are facts about abortion. Like the fact that a woman has a constitutionally guaranteed right to control her own body and choose to remain pregnant or not remain pregnant. Like the fact that non-viable fetuses (ones that can NOT sustain life outside the womb, even with substantial medical intervention, love, food and shelter) should not get to control a woman's body. Facts like that it's not a baby inside the mother's womb. It's a fetus. If it leaves the womb, it's either a non-viable fetus, a premature infant (a viable fetus) or it's a full term newborn baby.
Then there are opinions, like the opinion that every fetus has a right to force the woman to remain pregnant, despite the factual evidence that says that someone with that opinion doesn't have a factual basis for making that argument.
One can argue about opinions. You can't argue with facts - they're facts! They aren't subject to change, like opinions are.
Righties here try to argue against the facts, and they lose every time, because there is no legit way to argue against facts. They could argue against opinion, and argue that it's their opinion that all life that can be preserved must be preserved. Except, when they do that, they prove the shallowness of their argument, because they don't really want all 'life' to be preserved - ever seen anyone protesting outside an in-vitro fertilization clinic which throws away unwanted fertilized eggs as biohazard medical waste every day?
Hypocrites. It's about control. And they hate that they can't control other people's morality and force everyone to have their morality imposed upon them.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 1:06:43 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to BottleBlonde
God help you the day your surrender that mental defense.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 2:53:01 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by BottleBlonde in reply to Max Dharma
Is that supposed to be an intelligible comment? Because it's not.
God and I have a very good relationship. My God doesn't demand that I allow a non-viable fetus to control my body. You don't know if I'd choose an abortion or not, and under what circumstances, if any, I'd choose an abortion for myself.
You, on the other hand, demand that it's your way or the highway. That's not God's way. In fact, that's exactly counter to God's way. He accepts everyone. He is the judge of what's right and wrong not you. And He doesn't agree with you on this issue - and neither do you. If you did believe that all life is sacred, you and people like you would be protesting down at in-vitro clinics where unused fertilized eggs are disposed of a biohazard waste every day. But you aren't. So it's clear that it's simply a wedge issue, and it exposes you as the hypocrite you are.
And guess what? The people Jesus scorned the most? Hypocrites! Yeah, that's YOU!
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 1:34:04 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to BottleBlonde
Not unless they repent.
He is the judge of what's right and wrong not you. And He doesn't agree with you on this issue - and neither do you
Yes I do agree with me!
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 1:58:35 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Timmee in reply to Max Dharma
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 5:38:55 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by loonz in reply to Max Dharma
Case in point: When McCain announced Gov Sarah Palin as his running mate, the (liberal) Media (wanting an Obama victory) did everything in its power to destroy her in that first week. No holds bared. It was disgusting.
This was all McCain's fault. He shouldn't have picked a novice. There are women in the republican party who are leaps and bounds ahead of Palin but apparently they weren't as far to the right as she is (which comes in handy if your goal is to shore up the republican base). Palin's right -wing extremism is the reason McCain chose her and ability to actually do the job was thrown out the window.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 9:20:21 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by skeptical in reply to Max Dharma
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 9:35:01 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to skeptical
Maybe you should hook up with bottlebrush .. she had some (paranoid) theories wrt my use of spacing or something.
Ooooh! .. *spooky*
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:53:59 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by worrierking in reply to Max Dharma
In fact to quote your hero, "take off your Republican hat and put on your American hat".
Wherever there is a free press, and whenever anyone in the public spotlight has some kind of fortune or misfortune, the media is going to run with it. It doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum.
And when the person places themselves onto the national stage, their past political stands are going to be scrutinized. If the incident that attracts media attention contradicts those positions in any way, the media is going to scream hypocrisy. It's no vast liberal media conspiracy. The media is only interested in selling brooms and mops. They care only for profit. They'll take their profit at the expense of anyone, no matter their political affiliation.
I'm not saying it's right, fair or proper. It just is. Unfortunately, the media will keep this non-story, about Gov. Palin's daughter alive. The great thing for your side is that the public will be sold a story of "family values" and the Republicans may garner more support in sympathy for what the Palin family is going through.
This really sucks. I hate that it's going to happen, but it will.
But in the meantime, the media will glance over Palin's right-wing extremists positions. It will ignore her statements to her church about "war being "God's will". It will ignore her position on creationism, sex education, science, free libraries, etc. Very little will be mentioned about how the people of Alaska were to understand that building that gas pipeline for tens of billions of dollars was indeed "the Lord's work".
I'm not interested in anyone's family. But I'm damned well interested in preventing America's slide into it's own dark ages.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 9:17:53 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to worrierking
It's no vast liberal media conspiracy. The media is only interested in selling brooms and mops. They care only for profit. They'll take their profit at the expense of anyone, no matter their political affiliation.
But it is my belief that both the media at large (most TV broadcast media) and MMFA have a keen interest in seeing B. Obama elected president. If we can at least agree on that, then we will have reach a milestone; a place on which to build greater and more interesting debates.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 3:03:13 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by worrierking in reply to Max Dharma
MMFA has an non vested interest in seeing Obama win in November.
The main street medias owner's have a vested interest in a McCain win and the on air staff is mostly interested in keeping the race as close as possible to pump up ratings. Many are partisans for the left or right. But none wants to see a blowout.
As for the media, they are not as much interested in their country as they are their own greed.
Just like many of us. But I also know that many on the left, right and center do put the greater good before their own.
The thing that saddens me is the right's derision of hope and community as they play on our fears.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 9:31:10 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by skeptical in reply to Max Dharma
Max,
Maybe you want to be called by your more formal name of Science101. You know who you are. Try bringing facts and not stupidity to the discussion.
Goldfish! I love your new names for people. How long did it take to think of that one. I did notice that you have been absent for awhile.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:24:10 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by BottleBlonde in reply to Max Dharma
No, I actually pointed out that your other screen name, The Wussie, also thinks that his posts deserve more space and attention than they actually deserve or need to use.
Thanks for letting everyone know that this screen name is just an obnoxious version of DaWuss - both are the same poster. It's nice when scoundrels admit that they're scoundrels.
It's also nice when they admit how ignorant they are, that they don't get how it weakens their arguments (if one can call what you pose here an 'argument'!) when they admit that they're sockpuppets.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 1:13:15 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to BottleBlonde
You seem to be stuck in some sort of loop needing resolution, and if that will help you regain a handle on your senses (assuming you have some), then it's all good.
Don't bother recounting even more names of past posters you may think me to be, just assume I am them and save us all a bunch of time.
PS. I take it you suck at grammatical analysis.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 3:10:52 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by BottleBlonde in reply to Max Dharma
We already know that there are repeated sockpuppet identities here, and since you're one of them, you know that too. So shove it where the sun don't shine, you dishonest punk. Hope it makes you feel all warm and toasty while it's up there.
You suck as The Wussie, and you suck as Max Dharma. You sucked as whatever your previous screen names were, and you'll suck when you have worn these out and have to create a new screen name and log on under a new ISP because Media Matters has blocked your IP address.
It will be wonderful when Republicans who you support crash and burn over the next couple of elections. Then tactics like you employ may get trashed ,and we may be able to have reasonable debates with those on the other side of the aisle. Media Matters is doing a great service to our nation to debunk dishonest punks like you.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 1:39:35 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by carlileb5935 in reply to Max Dharma
They used her pregnant teenage daughter, they used her baby with autism, and they called her a bad mother.
Here's a reality check: Palin herself outted her daughter and made her a public issue. Nobody else. And who's criticized the baby?
A question for conservatives: ya think it's a good idea for a 17 year-old girl to get married? to get pregnant?
What does it say about the family, or about the super-mom?
What if Chelsea had gotten pregnant? I suspect you guys would still be talking about it.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:16:54 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by IRONY 101 in reply to carlileb5935
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:31:46 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to IRONY 101
I cannot agree any more... that family will not connect with the majority of voters in this country. McSurge really screwed the pooch with this one.
And since when did the Right all of a sudden embrace teen pregnancy as a wonderful thing? What happened - did they suddenly lose their fundie morals? Or did they never really have them to begin with? Was it all a sham?
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:43:21 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by bip84124092 in reply to IRONY 101
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 8:01:33 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by lotuscw195811 in reply to IRONY 101
LOL....I have to qgree. As an Obama supporter, surely I would be concerned with anyone who electrified the party as she has. But with her it's different...it's like an alternative universe where this extremist, inexperienced, hypocrite, not to menton extremely nasty control freak, has people eating out of her hands and God only knows why. Not sure where I heard this nickname for her but it's "The Killa from Wasilla". LOL.
Your comment about the brother-in-law and trailer trash made me laugh out loud. And did you read about the soon to be son-in-law's MySpace page (which has since been removed). Granted he's a young man...so he can be excused for his rantings but he surely doesn't sound like a "fine young man".
Still, I am disappointed that the Democrats haven't responded more forcefully. Where are Obama's allies in this? Why hasn't Nancy Pelosi said anything? Howard Dean as the head of the Party should've responded to some of the insults. I wouldn't underestimate the Palin effect, especially with the backing of the right-wing wackos Evangelicals.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 8:27:37 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Lorelei in reply to IRONY 101
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 10:11:57 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to carlileb5935
No, not at all, but you liberals do.
o) Hand out condoms in school
o) Let under age girls get abortions without their parents knowledge.
It's all fine and dandy until it happens to a conservative; hypocrite.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:35:24 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by funnymanpants in reply to Max Dharma
Max wrote:
>> o) Hand out condoms in school
What in good God's name are you talking about? The question asked is if right-wingers think it is a good thing for a 17-year old to get married or to get pregnant. Condoms *prevent* you from getting pregnant, in case you missed your sex ed class. And since the daughter is only getting married because she is pregnant, a condom would have prevented a shotgun wedding as well.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:54:06 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to funnymanpants
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 1:03:04 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by funnymanpants in reply to Max Dharma
Max wrote:
>>Handing out condoms in school (a liberal principal) is a nod towards sex in school.
That is your opinion. But it still doesn't explain your bizzarre logic. If Bristol's partner had used a condom, guess what? Handing out condoms does not promote pregnancy. If you doubt this, just look at the teen pregnancy rates in Europe, which are so low as to be non existent. In Europe, there is no taboo against sex, but teens use birth control.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 1:08:27 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by HughG in reply to Max Dharma
Max wrote:
"Handing out condoms in school (a liberal principal) is a nod towards sex in school."
Who's the "liberal principal" you're talking about?
I'm guessing it's that Stephen Harper character from Boston Public. I always liked that dude--firm, but fair.
I don't know what exactly is "a nod towards sex in school." I'm figuring it's in the restrooms, but maybe it's in class when the teacher ain't looking? Or maybe it's got something to do with Mary Kay Letourneau? Did she serve under a liberal principal? Help me out here.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 7:47:51 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to Max Dharma
You think the Effin Redneck and Bristol Palin needed condoms to have sex???
For your sake, please don't go there... you will lose miserably if you go down that path.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 8:41:38 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by xxxxx in reply to Max Dharma
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 9:17:00 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to Max Dharma
"No, not at all, but you liberals do."
Then why are Righties incensed over the media focussing on it? Why isn't YOUR side going after them if it isn't all right?
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 8:39:45 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by BottleBlonde in reply to Max Dharma
A question for conservatives: ya think it's a good idea for a 17 year-old girl to get married? to get pregnant?
No, not at all, but you liberals do.
o) Hand out condoms in school
o) Let under age girls get abortions without their parents knowledge.
Another nugget of poop from Max Dharma.
We don't think that 17 year olds should be getting pregnant or getting married if they do get pregnant. They should continue the pregnancy if they are anti-abortion, and then put the child up for adoption since they are too young to do a good job of being a parent and it puts that girl behind the eight ball for the rest of her life in most cases. Teen marriage, especially when forced by a pregnancy, is a disaster!
Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer that teenagers have risky sex that might lead to STD's and pregnancy versus having less risky sex with condoms and birth control. See, if you take precautions against pregnancy and STD's, then you're admitting that you're having sex, and planning on it. It's better, from a conservative viewpoint, to be cavalier about it, and not have the intent to have sex. If it just happens, then it's better than if it happens with forethought and consideration!
That's such a loser argument! What a moronic argument!
Handing out condoms in school, so that when teenagers do what they're clearly going to do with or without condoms, helps prevent STD's and pregnancy. It's a good idea with almost no bad side effects. Even in families like Sarah Palin's, sex happens. Sarah Palin got pregnant and had to marry her husband because they had sex before they were married, for goodness sake!
Allowing pregnant girls to have an abortion without parenta notification but with judicial oversight, a medical procedure that their parents might not allow and that easily could help a girl redeem her life, is a great idea too, without any downside. Unless and until we can prove that every parent will put their daughter's needs first instead of recklessly making decisions that will not help the girl, we need to have a way to protect those girls, and that includes allowing some under 18 to have abortions without their parents' knowledge.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 1:25:14 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to BottleBlonde
That's such a loser argument! What a moronic argument!
I couldn't agree more.
Seeing how you don't understand conservatism at all, you should probably stick to pontificating the liberal beliefs.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 11:43:28 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to Max Dharma
Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer that teenagers have risky sex that might lead to STD's and pregnancy versus having less risky sex with condoms and birth control. See, if you take precautions against pregnancy and STD's, then you're admitting that you're having sex, and planning on it. It's better, from a conservative viewpoint, to be cavalier about it, and not have the intent to have sex. If it just happens, then it's better than if it happens with forethought and consideration!
That's such a loser argument! What a moronic argument!
I couldn't agree more.
Seeing how you don't understand conservatism at all, you should probably stick to pontificating the liberal beliefs.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 11:46:44 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to BottleBlonde
Foser is misleading in his narrative. The question should be asked why CBS felt it was necessary to release a report critical of the President right before an election. The report had been done for months, and was delayed to shortly before the election so as to have the most impact on the election. This is not the first time CBS has done this. The entire Dan Rather saga was another clear attack based on party lines. When Rather was the news anchor, and address the democratic convention, that is a clear conflict of interest. When he releases forged and false documents about Bush and the National Guard on 60 minutes, that is a problem. Even when the documents were shown to be a forgery, or, at the very least highly suspect, he refuses to issue an apology for days. CBS and rather in particular have a long history of being strong democrats, and opposed to republicans.
The actions of Time magazine and US magazine with their choice of covers, , the action of Oprah and her refusal to book Palin until after the election, and the complete cover up of the MSM of the Edward’s affair, until the story was broke open by the National Enquirer……come on guys…it took the National Enquirer, and the choice of MSNBC to put Olberman, the biggest partisan Hack on tv covering the convention all point to a strong strong liberal media bias.
Many of you here hate Rush, and that is fine. He does not cover the convention live. Bill O and Hannity have, but they are all part of a one hour show. Olberman is entitled to be as left wing as he wants. But to have him and Maddow cover the primaries, elections, and conventions is an insult to anyone not so far to the left that they are practically out of sight. Olberman was caught on a live mike insulting Joe S. as he was making a report. Olberman can not even hide his contempt and make it look like he is doing an honest job. All of this points to a left wing media bias.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 9:36:59 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by loonz in reply to pointofview
But to have him and Maddow cover the primaries, elections, and conventions is an insult to anyone not so far to the left that they are practically out of sight.
What are Maddow and Olbermann's positions that "are practically out of sight"?
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 9:53:05 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to pointofview
Assuming that this left-wing bias really exists, so what? You guys and gals have Fox News on your side so what's the problem? Cheney only watches Fox News... perhaps you should do the same. You seem to be more comfortable with right-wing bias so have at it.
The thing is you guys want EVERYTHING to be YOUR way ONLY. Admit it.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:11:33 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to RABBITLUVR
Rabbit
So what......are you kidding me? Foser rights an article, using examples of left wing bias which he covers up, and then takes the real examples of left wing bias in an attempt to show intimidation on the right!! I noticed you did not comment on any of the examples of left wing bias I provided. The entire foundation of his article is false, and the best you can come up with is so what. Really Impressive.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:20:50 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by MoonbatYouBet in reply to pointofview
One of your supposed examples of bias is Oprah. Oprah? She runs a completely personality based show centered around the topics she wants to discuss. Is making an incompetent therapist like Dr Phil a household name also some sort of liberal plot?
Way to establish your credibility.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:36:04 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to MoonbatYouBet
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:39:04 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to pointofview
Oprah is not obligated to be 'fair and balanced' you moron.
AND... I think this discussion is hilarious considering that you Righties are loath to see the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Seems to me now all of a sudden you guys want it. :P
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:46:33 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by MoonbatYouBet in reply to pointofview
Oh, so apparently you are in favor of some sort of rule requiring television programs to give equal time to opposing points of view, perhaps some sort of "balancing equation" or maybe a "fairness doctrine."
Oprah presents an entertainment show based on what she believes in and what she believes her audience wants to watch. Her decision to get behind Obama does not suddenly make her a part of the imaginary "liberal media." When she gets a show on a cable news network or starts advertising herself as "The News You Need to Know" or "Fair and Balanced Journalism" you'll have a valid complaint. Right now she's competing against syndicated game shows, soap operas, courtroom programs and other talk shows, not headline news or pundit roundtables.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:50:16 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to MoonbatYouBet
"Oh, so apparently you are in favor of some sort of rule requiring television programs to give equal time to opposing points of view, perhaps some sort of "balancing equation" or maybe a "fairness doctrine."
BAM! There it is.
The Right is so damn hypocritical. They don't want lefty views on their righty shows but they demand righty views on lefty shows. Amazing... absolutely amazing.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:54:50 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to RABBITLUVR
You and Moon are both incorrect....big suprise.
In no way do I want the incredibly un-fair and tool of the left “fairness” doctrine in effect. It is designed for the sole purpose of stopping Rush and talk radio. Additionally, I don’t care who Oprah has on her show, but to make the claim that she is not a part of the media and does not focus on politics does not even pass the laugh test. She can be as biased as she likes, it has never stopped the rest of the left wing media from doing the same. Again, what you two fail to grasp, through all of the examples I provided, is that Foser is way off in his article, and in fact uses examples of actual left wing bias to try and prove that it does not exist.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:00:54 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to pointofview
"It is designed for the sole purpose of stopping Rush and talk radio."
A well-worn talking point from your side but I have yet to see ANY evidence of its validity. Care to cough up the evidence?
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:03:28 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by MoonbatYouBet in reply to pointofview
Foser is talking about bias in the actual news media. You are talking about any and all broadcast media when you include a show like Oprah's. One may as well complain that the overly authoritarian, black & white thinking of Judge Judy is some sort of proof of right wing bias.
The truth is that after Nixon lost to Kennedy it became a major part of Republican political campaigning to rail against the "liberal media" in order to discredit news reporting.
It works like this: Once you have created the idea of a massive liberal conspiracy within the news media anything they say that is critical of the right or positive to the left it is due to their bias and false but when they report something positive about the right or negative about the left it must be true because they are so biased they wouldn't lie about something that goes against their secret agenda. ie. "Even the liberal <insert news organization here> said..." "Well what else would you expect from those left wing loons over at <pick another news organization, it doesn't matter which one>....."
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:24:57 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to MoonbatYouBet
What a laughable example - Oprah.
It's her show and she can do whatever the hell she wants with it... if she doesn't want Palin on her show then more power to her. Jeez, the damn Righties just want everything to be THEIR way or NO way. Boo effin' hoo!
Perhaps POV didn't consider that having Palin on Oprah's show wouldn't be a smart idea ratings-wise. Oprah most likely will only want guests that will do well for her show. You know, that free market thingy and all...
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:40:33 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Lorelei in reply to RABBITLUVR
Oprah, folks, in case no one noticed, is NOT the media. Nor is she a journalist. She has a television show, that she produces etc etc....
How does that compare with what Fosser has said.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:52:19 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to Lorelei
Well, POV is dragging her into this discussion because he's pissed that his darlin' Moose-Eater won't be warming up a seat there. WAH WAH WAH.
And yes, Oprah IS a bad example but since he brought her into it we'll grab that ball and run with it. :)
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:00:40 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to RABBITLUVR
No, POV is dragging her into this discussion because she is an open supporter of Obama and she is afraid to give Gov Palin equal coverage since she knows America is in love with her (Gov. Palin that is.)
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:43:44 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by funnymanpants in reply to Max Dharma
Max wrote:
>>No, POV is dragging her into this discussion because she is an open supporter of Obama and she is afraid to give Gov Palin equal coverage since she knows America is in love with her (Gov. Palin that is.)
Really? And the proof you have that (1) Oprah is afraid and (2) that America loves her is what? Is there some type of poll that rated her approval rating high that I am not aware of. Note, the right-wing base is not America.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:50:31 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Col. Harlan Sanders in reply to funnymanpants
since she knows America is in love with her (Gov. Palin that is.)
What Maxie has fallen for is the dumbass reports I heard on Fox after Mrs. Loopner's almost-competent reading of Karl Rove's speech the other night (paraphrased, but close) "Palin has united the Republican base, and America".
There are KKK wizards talking to very enthusiastic crowds somewhere in America right now, crowds that represent a fraction of 1% of Americans, just like the sparsely filled stadium Palin "energized" the other night.
That's not America. If it is, we're in serious trouble.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 4:49:02 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to Col. Harlan Sanders
Well COL. SANDERS, I guess you would be an expert on that now wouldn't you ;)
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 11:55:40 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to funnymanpants
Apparently.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 11:52:22 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to Max Dharma
America is in love with her??? Uh, post the link that says so. This is hilarious...
Perhaps a certain SEGMENT of America is 'in love' with her - far rightwing extremist types and young 20-something basement-dweller boys at best. Sorry, those two segments do not comprise ALL of America.
Oh wait, I get it. Real sly there. Those Americans who are NOT 'in love' with her are somehow not American anymore, right? Playing that 'if you're not with us then you're unamerican' card, right?
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 8:46:57 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by BottleBlonde in reply to RABBITLUVR
It's like they can't understand the difference between having a potential Presidential candidate on the air months before anything is decided and having a nominated VP candidate less than 2 months before an election, isn't it?
It's like they can't understand that Oprah gets to invite whoever she wants on her show, and her show is not the same as a news broadcast, and not restricted by the same rules as news sources are, isn't it?
For them, simple common sense is equivalent to brain surgery in that they'll never understand it.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 1:44:25 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to pointofview
Yeah, that's what I said, so what. Quitcherbitchin and leave the tube on Fox 24/7 and that way you won't have to deal with any 'lib bias'. I'll stick with the progressive talkers and DK and I won't have to deal with any rightwing garbage. We'll BOTH be happy.
Fair enough?
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:57:42 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by carlileb5935 in reply to pointofview
"When he releases forged and false documents about Bush and the National Guard on 60 minutes, that is a problem. Even when the documents were shown to be a forgery, or, at the very least highly suspect, he refuses to issue an apology for days."
There was no evidence they were forged. The worst thing about them is that they weren't verified adequately.
But even the guy's old secretary said that it sounded like him.
The irony was, that CBS story didn't even need those documents. They were merely icing on the cake-- the story already had enough witnesses to nail Bush.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:20:13 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to carlileb5935
carlileb5935
Obviously the story did not have enough, , as Rather and CBS both had to apologize, and producers were fired. None of the story could be proved, and it was a blatant attempt to sway an election.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:23:47 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Timmee in reply to pointofview
It's simple. Let's say you kill someone. The police have tons of circumstantial evidence that says you did it. So, you create false "evidence" to be discovered that proves you did it. The police bring the case against you with this "smoking gun" piece of evidence as their crown jewel, but in court you are able to show that the evidence was falsified. It basically shuts down the prosecution.
The "forged" documents contained TRUE information.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:21:37 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to Timmee
Wow. Haha!
Pov, this is why you can't argue with a liberal. You produce an irrefutable argument and they refute it anyway with some kooky conspiracy nonsense that STILL paints conservatives as the bad guys. .. lol
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 12:02:07 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Timmee in reply to Max Dharma
The information they contained was true....this is not disputed.
It was used as a device exactly as I described to descredit true information.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 5:57:27 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by funnymanpants in reply to pointofview
POV wrote:
>>Foser is misleading in his narrative. The question should be asked why CBS felt it was necessary to release a report critical of the President right before an election. The report had been done for months, and was delayed to shortly before the election so as to have the most impact on the election.
I doubt you have any proof to show that CBS delayed the report to have impact on the election.
>>This is not the first time CBS has done this.
Really? When else did he do this?
>>When Rather was the news anchor, and address the democratic convention, that is a clear conflict of interest.
When did Dan Rather address the Democratic convention? I have the feeling you are making stuff up.
>>The actions of Time magazine and US magazine with their choice of covers
What do you mean by this? Which covers? Are you claiming that both magazines have not had glowing covers for right wingers? Is there some study that shows a bias?
>>the action of Oprah and her refusal to book Palin until after the election
Good grief! Oprah is not news.
>>and the complete cover up of the MSM of the Edward’s affair, until the story was broke open by the National Enquirer
What complete coverup? Do you have proof of this?
None of your examples comes even close to showing what you claim.Posted Friday September 5, 2008 10:57:15 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to funnymanpants
Funny Man.....you live up to your name.
1. CBS acknowledged that the report had been done for some time and was to be released before the election.
2. They did the same thing with the national guard fake document story.
3. Rather addressed the Dem Convention as a day time speaker when during the B. Clinton convention.
4. 7 covers for Obama….3 for McCain. US cover with Obama and his wife on the cover under the title “why he loves her” vs. Palin on the cover with the title “Babies, lies and scandal”
Damn man………do some research for a change. Stop buying funny pants and read once in a while.
5. Oprah made the decision to enter the political fray, and to refuse time to Palin
6. Ok….show many how many MSM media outlets….print, tv, radio, even mentioned the Edwards affair before the Enquirer ran the story. Yet the NY Times runs a page one story on an alleged McCain affair with no proof at all.
You really can learn something if you try.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:11:39 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to pointofview
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:20:23 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to RABBITLUVR
Rabbit
Of course they are....both sides do whatever they can to win. I have no problem admitting that.......but take a look a few posts above ours to what that idiot - Timme said......all a rove conspicarcy....lol...year right..... to many on left buy into that crap
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:26:35 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to pointofview
Then what the HELL is your beef then? You just admitted that YOUR side 'plays the game' as well so what's the problem? I can counter your example with the one put forth by The Detestable One, aka His Vileness, aka Mark Levin about how Obama plans to enroll all the youth of this country into 'reeducation camps' and send them out to 'radically change' this country and 'destroy' all of its 'traditional' values, all in the name of 'community organizing'. Blah blah blah...
I mean, COME ON! What a load of hot steaming stinking paranoid SH*T! It's just laughable and any sane person knows it.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:54:17 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to RABBITLUVR
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:02:26 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by RABBITLUVR in reply to pointofview
Your side does the same damn thing. So... AGAIN... WHY are you whining about what the Left does when the Right does the same damn thing?
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:09:59 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by funnymanpants in reply to pointofview
POV wrote:
>>How on earth do you complain about what was done to CBS...when CBS is one of the worst media offenders out there?
No, it is not. You are simply making things up in your post. You claim that CBS deliberatly tried to sway an election, but offered zero proof. In contrast, Foser offered proof.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:20:33 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by MoonbatYouBet in reply to pointofview
Wait, you're comparing Time and US Weekly covers?
If you get a chance this weekend stop by your local grocer and ask him for tips on differentiating apples from oranges.
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:43:01 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to MoonbatYouBet
I was not comparing them......read it again..I was giving examples of diff media types
Posted Friday September 5, 2008 11:46:04 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by xxxxx in reply to MoonbatYouBet
The Oprah thing was a trumped up story on Drudge the other day that turned out to be completely false. And in any case, if Oprah WERE to be held to some kind of fairness doctrine (which she's not), shouldn't she be forced to have McCain on and not Palin? Isn't he the parallel to Obama in this election?
Palin is a distraction, and a good one, because her personal life is wildly entertaining.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 9:25:29 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Max Dharma in reply to xxxxx
Let us not forget she has 3x the experience as Obama.
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 12:34:00 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by eweston8542983 in reply to Max Dharma
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 12:52:24 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by xxxxx in reply to Max Dharma
Posted Sunday September 7, 2008 1:22:13 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by funnymanpants in reply to pointofview
POV
Sorry, but you seemed to address the issues, but did not.
>>CBS acknowledged that the report had been done for some time and was to be released before the election.
Where is the link for this? And besides, that doesn't show it was trying to sway the election. There may have been other reasons. Like I said, you cannot back up your assertion with proof.
>>They did the same thing with the national guard fake document story.
Which report are you talking about? I had the impression that point 1 and 2 were the same.
>>Rather addressed the Dem Convention as a day time speaker when during the B. Clinton convention.
No he didn't. You are lying right through your teeth.
>>7 covers for Obama….3 for McCain. US cover with Obama and his wife on the cover under the title “why he loves her” vs. Palin on the cover with the title “Babies, lies and scandal”
Wow! You actually picked only the covers that pertain to McCain and Obama. I believe each publication is weekly, so where are the other 104 covers? And why should I believe your assertion that there were actually 7 for Obama and only 3 for Obama?
>>Oprah made the decision to enter the political fray, and to refuse time to Palin
And Oprah is not the media. As has been pointed out.
>>Ok….show many how many MSM media outlets….print, tv, radio, even mentioned the Edwards affair before the Enquirer ran the story. Yet the NY Times runs a page one story on an alleged McCain affair with no proof at all.
Um, you said that the MSM tried to cover up. Again, where is your proof? You know, I expect something like reporters saying "My boss told me not to cover the story because it would hurt Edwards." You are using speculation in place of facts.
>>You really can learn something if you try.
Right. When you can't win an argument on facts, resort to insult. You haven't provided one link in all your arguments.
I'll take you seriously when you can show me when Rather spoke at the Democratic National Convention, as you claim.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:14:18 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to funnymanpants
Funny
I gave you all the facts. If you can use google, you can find them all. Do your own damn research. Everything I said was true. I heard the speech Rather gave.....dont tell me it did not happen. Just because you cant find it does not mean it did not happen. There have been a tonnn of articles on the Time cover story. Google it. I am at a loss of words for how you cant find anything.
News reports are that up to 10,000 US magazine readers have cancelled because of the Palin cover. Once again....goggle it. I will give you a hint to get you started. Google US magazine Palin Cover.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:24:09 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by funnymanpants in reply to pointofview
POV
>>I gave you all the facts. If you can use google, you can find them all. Do your own damn research. Everything I said was true. I heard the speech Rather gave.....dont tell me it did not happen.
Yes, I accept your defeat. You cannot produce *one* link to back up your assertions. Translation: you are lying through your teeth.
In case you don't realize you debates work, you cannot throw out some claim, and then expect the other person to find out the research.
Let me repeat: you are lying through your teeth.
>>News reports are that up to 10,000 US magazine readers have cancelled because of the Palin cover. Once again....goggle it. I will give you a hint to get you started. Google US magazine Palin Cover.
Uh huh. Now you are employing a moving target argument. You used the number of covers for McCain vs Obama as your original argument. Now you are switching your whole argument, abandoning your original claim. But your new claim is even weaker! 200 million people could cancel their subscription to any magazine, but that wouldn't prove anything, now would it? Your claim (if true), only proves that 10,000 people don't want anything negative said about Palin because they view her as their hero. There is nothing new in rallying around your leader, even when she is wrong; that has been going on since history began.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:31:48 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to funnymanpants
Damn you are dumb Funny Man
I did not abandon or back away from any of my points. Each one is true. Just for fun..take any one of them.......you pick....any one......and you prove me wrong. provide the links you so badly want...and prove me worng on any item you decide on.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:45:05 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by funnymanpants in reply to pointofview
POV wrote:
>>Damn you are dumb Funny Man
Uh huh. Like I said, when you lose an argument, start resorting to name calling. It is always a sure sign that you don't have facts on your side.
>>Each one is true. Just for fun..take any one of them.......you pick....any one......and you prove me wrong. provide the links you so badly want...and prove me worng on any item you decide on.
Now *this* is funny. Since you cannot prove your assertions, you want me to prove them wrong? How am I supposed to prove a negative, for one thing? Do you think there is some link out there that says "Dan Rather did not speak at the Democratic Convention?"
Let me repeat: you are lying through your teeth.
Posted Saturday September 6, 2008 12:48:37 AM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by pointofview in reply to funnymanpants
<