"Damn Liberal network media", says Lott
Harry Hope
From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
of leaning toward the political left.
``I still think they are prejudiced. I still think
they are biased toward the liberal side and a
number of other areas,'' Lott said when asked
Monday by a broadcaster how the industry could
improve.
Addressing his former University of Mississippi
classmate,National Association of Broadcasters
President Eddie Fritts, Lott confessed: ``Eddie, I
grit my teeth and hold my tongue because of my
friendship with you. But the networks get under my
skin sometime, I have to tell you.''
And you get under *my* skin *all* the time, Trent.
Harry
Stan Ivester
In article <5euifj$s...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry
Hope) wrote:
->From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
->
->
->
->WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
->Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
->many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
->of leaning toward the political left.
->
->``I still think they are prejudiced. I still think
->they are biased toward the liberal side and a
->number of other areas,'' Lott said when asked
->Monday by a broadcaster how the industry could
->improve.
->
->Addressing his former University of Mississippi
->classmate,National Association of Broadcasters
->President Eddie Fritts, Lott confessed: ``Eddie, I
->grit my teeth and hold my tongue because of my
->friendship with you. But the networks get under my
->skin sometime, I have to tell you.''
Ever wonder why the country is being run by right-wing southern hacks like
Lott, Clinton, and Gingrich? Because the business community loves these
guys. They all have experience herding their home state's population into
third-world conditions. And that's the bipartisan consensus they are
striving to achieve on a national level.
There are other choices, but not many within the Demopublican duopoly.
--
Stan
John W. Tibbs
Yeah, like Slick Willie, just not quite as successful. Let me show you
around
Arkansas sometime if you want to see what socialist crooks can do to a
beautiful
state with lots of natural resources and potential. The Arkansas license
plate used
to read 'Land of Opportunity' that is until Slick and Hitlery, Jim Guy,
Jim & Susie
McD, King David Pryor, Dale Bumblers, Rose Lawless firm, other democrats
ad nauseum
got through with it. You're welcome. jwt/ke5p
John W. Tibbs
Harry Hope wrote:
>
> From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
>
>
>
> Addressing his former University of Mississippi
> President Eddie Fritts, Lott confessed: ``Eddie, I
>
>
> Harry
>
>
democrat? jwt/ke5p
C. L. Williams
riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
>WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
>Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
>many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
>of leaning toward the political left.
>``I still think they are prejudiced. I still think
>they are biased toward the liberal side and a
>number of other areas,'' Lott said when asked
>Monday by a broadcaster how the industry could
>improve.
>Addressing his former University of Mississippi
>classmate,National Association of Broadcasters
>President Eddie Fritts, Lott confessed: ``Eddie, I
>grit my teeth and hold my tongue because of my
>friendship with you. But the networks get under my
>skin sometime, I have to tell you.''
>And you get under *my* skin *all* the time, Trent.
>Harry
Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
liberal. Nothing wrong with Lott being a straight-shooter.
>
C.L. Williams
Sig altered so as not to offend any liberals.
Loren Petrich
In article <5euifj$s...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
>Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
>many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
>of leaning toward the political left.
However, they are 95-99% capitalist, depending on how you count,
meaning that he ought to consider how a bunch of capitalists can depart
from his ideology -- although given what a bunch of sore losers
right-wingers tend to be, he may not.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Mitchell Holman
In article <5f04jv$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
}
}
}Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
}liberal.
Sure. That explains the trend in *liberal* radio talk show hosts,
and the *liberal* multinational corporations that own most of TV.
What's next - the usual whine about that "liberal" Supreme Court?
Mitchell Holman
"Have you ever noticed that all newspaper composite drawings of
wanted criminals look like Jesse Jackson?"
Rush Limbaugh, trying to appease his few black listeners,10/8/90
John W. Tibbs
of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
ploy and so can see the humor in Rush's program. I listen to Rush often
and have heard his black callers. BTW he puts his detractors ahead on
of others on his show so we can enjoy it more. It's a howl listening to
them trying to refute the facts. jwt/ke5p
Loren Petrich
In article <331483...@cei.net>, John W. Tibbs <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> "Have you ever noticed that all newspaper composite drawings of
>> wanted criminals look like Jesse Jackson?"
>> Rush Limbaugh, trying to appease his few black listeners,10/8/90
>But most of Rush's black listeners have realized they are not victims
>of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
>ploy and so can see the humor in Rush's program. ...
Dream on.
And thank you for denying yourself any right to pose as a victim
of crime or taxes or theLibbuhruhlMedia or the Commander in Chief or
whatever.
And as to humor, talk radio was invented so that fat, lazy, ugly,
asocial losers could have a career in show business -- nobody has to know
what one looks like in that field, and you can be all alone, stuffing
your face.
Scott D. Erb
In article <331483...@cei.net>, jti...@cei.net says...
>But most of Rush's black listeners have realized they are not victims
>of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
>ploy and so can see the humor in Rush's program. I listen to Rush often
>and have heard his black callers. BTW he puts his detractors ahead on
>of others on his show so we can enjoy it more. It's a howl listening to
>them trying to refute the facts.
Actually Rush looks pretty inept when he can't control everything, like when
appeared on the Letterman show awhile back. Still, I don't see how anyone
can see him as anything more than an entertainer. Even when he makes fun of
his detractors, it's usually in a manner that isn't consistent with a factual
argument, but side comments and jokes meant to entertain, not engage. His
arguments are often very bad or off-topic, but they are entertaining at
times.
I have no problem with Rush as an entertainer (except I think the band by the
same name provides much better entertainment). It's just that some people on
the right take him too seriously and thinks he offers real politics. And
some on the left see his tactics of ridicule and refusal to engage in real
debate as akin to Goebbel's tactics. The reality is: he's just an
entertainer, and nothing more. Neither side should take him too seriously
(and he doesn't seem to be as big a name as previously these days anyway).
cheers, scott
Milt
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Loren Petrich wrote:
:In article <331483...@cei.net>, John W. Tibbs <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
:>Mitchell Holman wrote:
:
:>> "Have you ever noticed that all newspaper composite drawings of
:>> wanted criminals look like Jesse Jackson?"
:>> Rush Limbaugh, trying to appease his few black listeners,10/8/90
:
:>But most of Rush's black listeners have realized they are not victims
:>of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
:>ploy and so can see the humor in Rush's program. ...
Most of Rush's black listeners ( I know all 10 of them... ;) )! Give me a
break!One really wonders who the real dipshits are. Black people who
listen to Rush's show, and buy into that "victimization to keep my job
horseshit", while the boss is in the other room, plotting to keep the
black guy from getting too high up in the corporation, or the Dittohead
who believes there is a significant black audience for Rush's neo-con
antics?
: Dream on.
:
: And thank you for denying yourself any right to pose as a victim
:of crime or taxes or theLibbuhruhlMedia or the Commander in Chief or
:whatever.
:
: And as to humor, talk radio was invented so that fat, lazy, ugly,
:asocial losers could have a career in show business -- nobody has to know
:what one looks like in that field, and you can be all alone, stuffing
:your face.
It also seems to have been created by people who wanted to keep the
"average" person away from the real news out there. I have NEVER seen a
collectively more ignorant bunch in my life, than Dittoheads. Certainly no
group more ignorant, yet outspoken...
--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
"If a person is under investigation by the Ethics Committee, and he is in
a position to influence the outcome of the investigation, then he should
resign immediately..."
--Newt Gingrich, 1988
Milt
Funny how that "damn liberal network media" has been reporting everything
fed to it by the GOP witch hunters over the previous 4-5 years, ain't it,
Trent?
I still say, the only reason they keep calling it the "liberal media" is
so that the media will react by leaning right, because I can assure you,
as a lifelong subscriber to "liberal media", such as "The Nation", Mother
Jones", Z, and The Progressive, there is NO WAY you can call any of the
networks liberal...
James R. Olson, jr.
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
->In article <5f04jv$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
->}
->}
->}Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
->}liberal.
-> Sure. That explains the trend in *liberal* radio talk show hosts,
-> and the *liberal* multinational corporations that own most of TV.
-> What's next - the usual whine about that "liberal" Supreme Court?
You know, it all depends on where you are standing. If Hitler looks
like a socialist to you, then of course the media are liberal, and so
is the Supreme Court.
K. Knopp
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com (Loren
Petrich) wrote:
<SNIP>
> And as to humor, talk radio was invented so that fat, lazy, ugly,
> asocial losers could have a career in show business -- nobody has to know
> what one looks like in that field, and you can be all alone, stuffing
> your face.
I quess that explains Mario Cuomo's radio career.....but what about
talented people like Rush Limbaugh?
Milt
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, K. Knopp wrote:
:In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com (Loren
:
What talent? The talent of being a blowhard, and saying exactly what good
ole boys in the "heartland" wanna hear? WOW! Howard Stern at this moment
has a larger audience than Rush. Is that due to talent? What is Howard's
talent, exactly, besides the talent to piss off an awful lot of people? I
would also argue that Cuomo had a hell of a career before radio, and will
continue to have one after radio. I think it's because he's not a fat,
lazy ugly asocial loser. What do you think?
John W. Tibbs
Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
> In article <331483...@cei.net>, jti...@cei.net says...
>
> >But most of Rush's black listeners have realized they are not victims
> >of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
> >and have heard his black callers. BTW he puts his detractors ahead on
> >of others on his show so we can enjoy it more. It's a howl listening to
> >them trying to refute the facts.
>
> Actually Rush looks pretty inept when he can't control everything, like when
> appeared on the Letterman show awhile back. Still, I don't see how anyone
> can see him as anything more than an entertainer. Even when he makes fun of
> his detractors, it's usually in a manner that isn't consistent with a factual
> argument, but side comments and jokes meant to entertain, not engage. His
> arguments are often very bad or off-topic, but they are entertaining at
> times.
>
> I have no problem with Rush as an entertainer (except I think the band by the
> same name provides much better entertainment). It's just that some people on
> the right take him too seriously and thinks he offers real politics. And
> some on the left see his tactics of ridicule and refusal to engage in real
> debate as akin to Goebbel's tactics. The reality is: he's just an
> entertainer, and nothing more. Neither side should take him too seriously
> (and he doesn't seem to be as big a name as previously these days anyway).
> cheers, scott
scott. This should be real cheers for you.
His radio audience has been growing at approximately the same rate as
before. Announced on another talk show was that he is still outpacing
all other national talk show host at a high rate. Only newcomers grow
faster but they usually don't last long. You're welcome. jwt/ke5p
Brian S. Jenkins
Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
> In article <331483...@cei.net>, jti...@cei.net says...
>
> >But most of Rush's black listeners have realized they are not victims
> >of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
> >ploy and so can see the humor in Rush's program. I listen to Rush often
> >and have heard his black callers. BTW he puts his detractors ahead on
> >of others on his show so we can enjoy it more. It's a howl listening to
> >them trying to refute the facts.
>
> Actually Rush looks pretty inept when he can't control everything, like when
> appeared on the Letterman show awhile back. Still, I don't see how anyone
> can see him as anything more than an entertainer. Even when he makes fun of
> his detractors, it's usually in a manner that isn't consistent with a factual
> argument, but side comments and jokes meant to entertain, not engage. His
> arguments are often very bad or off-topic, but they are entertaining at
> times.
The man does forward news (some of it), and allows the left to supply
rope to hang itself with. Entertainer-journalist, in that order, is
probably not a bad description.
> I have no problem with Rush as an entertainer (except I think the band by the
> same name provides much better entertainment). It's just that some people on
> the right take him too seriously and thinks he offers real politics.
Real as compared to what?
> And
> some on the left see his tactics of ridicule and refusal to engage in real
> debate as akin to Goebbel's tactics. The reality is: he's just an
> entertainer, and nothing more. Neither side should take him too seriously
> (and he doesn't seem to be as big a name as previously these days anyway).
This is mostly because the novelty of Limbaugh has worn off. However,
audience surveys still show that one of ten American adults, about 20
million people, listens to Rush at least once every week...an audience
no American radio program had ever achieved before.
> cheers, scott
Brian Jenkins
C. L. Williams
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>In article <5f04jv$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
>}
>}
>}Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
>}liberal.
> Sure. That explains the trend in *liberal* radio talk show hosts,
> and the *liberal* multinational corporations that own most of TV.
> What's next - the usual whine about that "liberal" Supreme Court?
> Mitchell Holman
Oh, give me a break. What about CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the NY Times,
Washington Post, LA Times?
And once again. It doesn't matter who owns them. It matters what's
on them or in them.
C. L. Williams
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <331483...@cei.net>, John W. Tibbs <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> "Have you ever noticed that all newspaper composite drawings of
>>> wanted criminals look like Jesse Jackson?"
>>> Rush Limbaugh, trying to appease his few black listeners,10/8/90
>
>>But most of Rush's black listeners have realized they are not victims
>>of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
>>ploy and so can see the humor in Rush's program. ...
> Dream on.
> And thank you for denying yourself any right to pose as a victim
>of crime or taxes or theLibbuhruhlMedia or the Commander in Chief or
>whatever.
> And as to humor, talk radio was invented so that fat, lazy, ugly,
>asocial losers could have a career in show business -- nobody has to know
>what one looks like in that field, and you can be all alone, stuffing
>your face.
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
>Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Calm down. You're beginning to get mad and lose it.
Mitchell Holman
} Howard Stern at this moment has a larger audience than Rush.
}Is that due to talent? What is Howard'stalent, exactly, besides
}the talent to }piss off an awful lot of people?
Anyone that thinks talent is necessary to get ahead
in show business has never followd the careers of
Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Ed McMahan, or Willard
Scott.
Mitchell Holman
"One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the homeless Olympics. Events would
include the 10-meter Shopping Cart Relay, the Dumpster Dig, and the Hop, Skip and Trip."
Rush Limbaugh, demonstrating one more of his "family values" (L.A.Times, 1/20/91)
Loren Petrich
In article <5f2u5q$5u6$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Mitchell Holman <hol...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
> Anyone that thinks talent is necessary to get ahead
> in show business has never followd the careers of
> Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Ed McMahan, or Willard
> Scott.
I'm sure that HS and RL have a talent for something -- being
vulgar boors.
James R. Olson, jr.
"John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
->But most of Rush's black listeners have realized they are not victims
->of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
->ploy and so can see the humor in Rush's program. I listen to Rush often
->and have heard his black callers. BTW he puts his detractors ahead on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
->of others on his show so we can enjoy it more. It's a howl listening to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
->them trying to refute the facts. jwt/ke5p
And I have a bridge that I'm willing to sell, real cheap, just cause I
like your face.
Some folks will believe anything. I don't suppose Mr. Tibbs has ever
heard Limbot cut off a caller because he was getting the best of the
exchange.
Donald The Tired
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:39:51 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
wrote:
>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> In article <5f04jv$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
>> }
>> }
>> }Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
>> }liberal.
>>
>> Sure. That explains the trend in *liberal* radio talk show hosts,
>> and the *liberal* multinational corporations that own most of TV.
>> What's next - the usual whine about that "liberal" Supreme Court?
>>
>> Mitchell Holman
>>
>> "Have you ever noticed that all newspaper composite drawings of
>> wanted criminals look like Jesse Jackson?"
>> Rush Limbaugh, trying to appease his few black listeners,10/8/90
>>
>But most of Rush's black listeners have realized they are not victims
>of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
>ploy and so can see the humor in Rush's program. I listen to Rush often
>and have heard his black callers. BTW he puts his detractors ahead on
>of others on his show so we can enjoy it more. It's a howl listening to
>them trying to refute the facts. jwt/ke5p
You mean, of course, facts like leaving a top on a cup of coffee will
dilute it?
Mitchell Holman
In article <5f2r4f$k...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
}hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
}
}>In article <5f04jv$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L.
} Williams) wrote:
}>}
}>}
}>}Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
}>}liberal.
}
}> Sure. That explains the trend in *liberal* radio talk show hosts,
}> and the *liberal* multinational corporations that own most of TV.
}> What's next - the usual whine about that "liberal" Supreme Court?
}
}
}> Mitchell Holman
}
}Washington Post, LA Times?
}
}And once again. It doesn't matter who owns them. It matters what's
}on them or in them.
OK, please identify the "liberal" talk shows that you find in the
above media. Something to the left of Bob Grant, Rush Limbaugh,
and Gordon Liddy, that is.
Mitchell Holman
"the poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe."
--Rush Limbaugh--
John W. Tibbs
Brian S. Jenkins wrote:
>
> Scott D. Erb wrote:
> >
> > In article <331483...@cei.net>, jti...@cei.net says...
> >
> > >But most of Rush's black listeners have realized they are not victims
> > >of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
> > >ploy and so can see the humor in Rush's program. I listen to Rush often
> > >and have heard his black callers. BTW he puts his detractors ahead on
> > >of others on his show so we can enjoy it more. It's a howl listening to
> > >them trying to refute the facts.
> >
Yeah, cheers,scott.
John W. Tibbs
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <5f2u5q$5u6$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
> Mitchell Holman <hol...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>
> > Anyone that thinks talent is necessary to get ahead
> > in show business has never followd the careers of
> > Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Ed McMahan, or Willard
> > Scott.
>
> I'm sure that HS and RL have a talent for something -- being
> vulgar boors.
>
> --
> Loren Petrich
Rush is not vulgar, Loren, listen to him sometime and maybe you'll know.
He's not boring either or he wouldn't have 20 million+ listeners and be
multi-millionaire. jwt/ke5p
Loren Petrich
In article <3315D8...@cei.net>, John W. Tibbs <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> I'm sure that HS and RL have a talent for something -- being
>> vulgar boors.
>Rush is not vulgar, Loren, listen to him sometime and maybe you'll know.
>He's not boring either or he wouldn't have 20 million+ listeners and be
>multi-millionaire. jwt/ke5p
Rush Limbaugh is more than willing to be *very* vulgar in
criticizing those he wants to criticize -- think of him calling Chelsea
Clinton the "White House dog", his attacks on "Robert Reichhhhh" as short,
referring to "Donna Shalalalala", his once doing "caller abortions"
(ending a call by replaying a vacuum-clearner sound), etc.
See "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error" for more.
Michael Zarlenga
James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
: This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
Fooled? Who fooled Republicans into thinking that 89% of
the Wash Press Corps voted for Bill CLinton in 1992? Or
was that the TRUTH?
Who fooled them into thinking that the Wash Press Corps con-
sidered itself Democrat by a 20:1 margin over Republican
(80-something% vs. 4%)? Or was THAT the truth, too?
: Of course it can't stand up to the light of facts about the ownership
: and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
Oh, so ownership and control are key, are they? Do you then
agree that CNN, owned and controlled by flaming liberal Ted
Turner, is biased to the left?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
James R. Olson, jr.
riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
->From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
->WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
->Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
->many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
->of leaning toward the political left.
->``I still think they are prejudiced. I still think
->they are biased toward the liberal side and a
->number of other areas,'' Lott said when asked
->Monday by a broadcaster how the industry could
->improve.
->Addressing his former University of Mississippi
->classmate,National Association of Broadcasters
->President Eddie Fritts, Lott confessed: ``Eddie, I
->grit my teeth and hold my tongue because of my
->friendship with you. But the networks get under my
->skin sometime, I have to tell you.''
This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
If he persuades them that the media are biased, then any negative
information about the Republicans are discounted as liberal smear
jobs, and any negative information about the Democrats is taken as
truth that cannot be denied.
Of course it can't stand up to the light of facts about the ownership
and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
such facts presented to them will be ignored as liberal smear jobs,
despite the contradiction.
->
John W. Tibbs
they did. Too bad...sigh. jwt/ke5p
John W. Tibbs
Michael Zarlenga wrote:
>
> James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
> : This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
>
> Fooled? Who fooled Republicans into thinking that 89% of
> the Wash Press Corps voted for Bill CLinton in 1992? Or
> was that the TRUTH?
>
> Who fooled them into thinking that the Wash Press Corps con-
> sidered itself Democrat by a 20:1 margin over Republican
> (80-something% vs. 4%)? Or was THAT the truth, too?
>
> : and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
>
> agree that CNN, owned and controlled by flaming liberal Ted
> Turner, is biased to the left?
>
> --
> -- Mike Zarlenga
I'll bet he doesn't agree, Mike. He probable agrees with Ted's Jane
undermining our soldiers morale in Hanoi. He probably can't even see to
the left because there's no more room there. jwt/ke5p
John W. Tibbs
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
I must assume you don't listen to Rush, since you don't know how he runs
his (20M listeners) show. jwt/ke5p
James R. Olson, jr.
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
->: This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
->Fooled? Who fooled Republicans into thinking that 89% of
->the Wash Press Corps voted for Bill CLinton in 1992? Or
->was that the TRUTH?
->Who fooled them into thinking that the Wash Press Corps con-
->sidered itself Democrat by a 20:1 margin over Republican
->(80-something% vs. 4%)? Or was THAT the truth, too?
Are you implying that Clinton is a liberal? Where's your evidence? I
understand that a rabid partisan finds it hard to believe that those
he regards as his enemies are not as rabidly partisan as he is.
Let's look at a national magazine. US News and World Report, the
third ranking newsmagazine in the country, is edited by James Fallows,
generally seen as a mild liberal. But the lead editorial, by John
Leo, is about as mendaciously right as you get. For instance, last
week, he did a piece about college newspapers being stolen. Every
example that he mentioned was a leftwing splinter organization. He
made no mention of rightwing groups using the same tactic, nor did he
mention that most of the cases were fraternities upset by articles
they didn't like. The gist of his article was that the left is the
only group guilty of htis tactic, and that it is a monolithic left,
rather than tiny factions.
OK, I put out my hand, and the first magazine I found was USN&WR
(2/10). John Leo takes on racial bias in the workplace. It turns out
that the problem is one of negative publicity promoted by journalists
hungry for "colorful news." Then he brings up the dreaded "quota
system," bugbear of the faux-populist new Right. Of course he ends on
the uplifting note: "Diversity is not a goal; it is the natural
byproduct of a genuinely open company that hires by energy and
talent." This sounds very nice, and is hard to disagree with, but
when taken in combination with his sympathetic protrayal of the
beleagured companies "feeling cornered" by discrimination lawsuits, it
means that there should be no demographic judgement of the racial
equality of company policies, and thus, no way to judge at all.
Liberal or what?
Next we have an article on the DNC campaign financing scandal,
enlivened with a sidebar about a Republican Representative, Dan
Burton, the chairman of the House committee charged with investigating
Clinton scandals, and how he tried to kill his father at the age of
11, among other things. It covers his obsession with such iteresting
things as the Foster case and mail to Socks. It ends with the
sentence "In the spotlight, he will do what he can to ensure that the
investigation goes smoothly." Liberal, or what?
Then we have ten pages about how terrible the porn business is.
Liberal, or what?
The last page, as usual, is devoted to Mortimer Zuckerman's editorial.
this time it's a paean to the wonders of America, with its
unemployment rate of only 5.3%, and the fabulous world produced by
global markets. "Individual hardship is a fact in this transition
period. But the system is working." Liberal, or what?
Frankly, I found this issue to be much milder than many, but I sure
didn't find it very liberal, especially since both editorial voices
are about even with George Will.
There's a bit of evidence. Next we can take on one of the majors,
since USN&WR is pretty small potatoes,despite being #3.
->: Of course it can't stand up to the light of facts about the ownership
->: and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
->Oh, so ownership and control are key, are they? Do you then
->agree that CNN, owned and controlled by flaming liberal Ted
->Turner, is biased to the left?
Ted Turner is a flaming liberal? Where's your evidence?
-> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Milt
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, John W. Tibbs wrote:
:Michael Zarlenga wrote:
:>
:> James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
:> : This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
:>
:> Fooled? Who fooled Republicans into thinking that 89% of
:> the Wash Press Corps voted for Bill CLinton in 1992? Or
:> was that the TRUTH?
:>
:> Who fooled them into thinking that the Wash Press Corps con-
:> sidered itself Democrat by a 20:1 margin over Republican
:> (80-something% vs. 4%)? Or was THAT the truth, too?
:>
:> : Of course it can't stand up to the light of facts about the ownership
:> : and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
:>
:> Oh, so ownership and control are key, are they? Do you then
:> agree that CNN, owned and controlled by flaming liberal Ted
:> Turner, is biased to the left?
:>
:> --
:> -- Mike Zarlenga
:
:I'll bet he doesn't agree, Mike. He probable agrees with Ted's Jane
:undermining our soldiers morale in Hanoi. He probably can't even see to
:the left because there's no more room there. jwt/ke5p
Um, John, uh... The characterization was of ted Turner as a flaming
liberal. I'd like to see you produce some evidence of that. I know you
think you did, by making the point that he's married to jane Fonda, but
I'd like to point out two things; one, he has one of the keenest
capitalist minds in the free world, and two, Jane Fonda hasn't made a
political peep since she divorced Tom Hayden some 10 years ago, and
discovered the world of exercise videos...
And if you're trying to insinuate that he is simply left-wing by marriage,
I have just two words for you--
Mary Matalin
Milt
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, John W. Tibbs wrote:
:
Funny, Tibbs, but I DO monitor his show, and know every detail of how he
runs it, since i have had to monitor it for a few years now.
First, he takes fewer than a quarter of the total calls that he did in the
old days, and more than 98% of all calls to his show every month agree
with him. I am a part of a group of people who are moderate and liberal,
who have been trying to get on his show for a long time. I've been trying
for four years. I have gotten through sixteen times, and have yet to make
it to the air. In fact, ten out of sixteen times, i have been
"mysteriously" cut off. Of the other six times, they have run out of time
each time, including one time when I was on hold for almost two hours.
He also cuts off every single person who disagrees with him. Listen
carefully. He listens for a minute, then he interrupts them, claiming that
he has to go to commercial, and then when he gets back, he goes into a
monologue, and the opponent is never heard from again. It's a discernible
pattern. Oh, except when he claims that the person "lied" about what he
was going to talk about to get on the air. What he doesn't mention is,
when we don't lie, and we tell his call screeners th truth, we never get
on. Hang in there for an article on this in a major magazine later this
year, probably in the summer. The article is being written as we speak.
Also, watch the 20 million listeners claim. Rush has only had that many,
because he insists on counting the 20% of his listeners who listen to hi
every single day, 5 times each. And that figure was true 3 years ago, but
his show has been dropping for the last two years. His audience is roughly
about 60% what it was two years ago, and while that's still significant,
he is definitely trending downward. He's being beaten or coming close in
many large markets now, which was unheard of a while back. Rush has passed
his prime...
C. L. Williams
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>In article <5f2r4f$k...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
>}hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>}
>}>In article <5f04jv$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L.
>} Williams) wrote:
>}>}
>}>}
>}>}Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
>}>}liberal.
>}
>}> Sure. That explains the trend in *liberal* radio talk show hosts,
>}> and the *liberal* multinational corporations that own most of TV.
>}> What's next - the usual whine about that "liberal" Supreme Court?
>}
>}
>}> Mitchell Holman
>}
>}Oh, give me a break. What about CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the NY Times,
>}Washington Post, LA Times?
>}
>}And once again. It doesn't matter who owns them. It matters what's
>}on them or in them.
> OK, please identify the "liberal" talk shows that you find in the
> above media. Something to the left of Bob Grant, Rush Limbaugh,
> and Gordon Liddy, that is.
> Mitchell Holman
Okay, news shows, newspaper columns and editorials, wire services like
the AP have a leftward slant. Liberals don't do well on talk radio.
kenfran
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
>
> ->From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
>
> ->WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
> ->Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
> ->many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
> ->of leaning toward the political left.
>
> ->``I still think they are prejudiced. I still think
> ->they are biased toward the liberal side and a
> ->number of other areas,'' Lott said when asked
> ->Monday by a broadcaster how the industry could
> ->improve.
>
> ->Addressing his former University of Mississippi
> ->classmate,National Association of Broadcasters
> ->President Eddie Fritts, Lott confessed: ``Eddie, I
> ->grit my teeth and hold my tongue because of my
> ->friendship with you. But the networks get under my
> ->skin sometime, I have to tell you.''
>
> information about the Republicans are discounted as liberal smear
> jobs, and any negative information about the Democrats is taken as
> truth that cannot be denied.
>
> and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
> despite the contradiction.
>
The New York Post, a Rupert Nurdoch paper that was founded by Alexander
Hamilton (how conservative can you get?) ran a front page cartoon
portraying Clinton as a hooker. Sure the madia is liberal.
kenfran
Michael Zarlenga wrote:
>
> James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
> : This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
>
> Fooled? Who fooled Republicans into thinking that 89% of
> the Wash Press Corps voted for Bill CLinton in 1992? Or
> was that the TRUTH?
>
> Who fooled them into thinking that the Wash Press Corps con-
> sidered itself Democrat by a 20:1 margin over Republican
> (80-something% vs. 4%)? Or was THAT the truth, too?
>
> : and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
>
> agree that CNN, owned and controlled by flaming liberal Ted
> Turner, is biased to the left?
>
> --
> -- Mike Zarlenga
him say so in front of god and everybody a couple of weeks ago on TV.
black adder
Milt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, John W. Tibbs wrote:
>
> :>
> :> James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
> :> : This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
> :>
> :> Fooled? Who fooled Republicans into thinking that 89% of
> :> the Wash Press Corps voted for Bill CLinton in 1992? Or
> :> was that the TRUTH?
> :>
> :> Who fooled them into thinking that the Wash Press Corps con-
> :> sidered itself Democrat by a 20:1 margin over Republican
> :> (80-something% vs. 4%)? Or was THAT the truth, too?
> :>
> :> : Of course it can't stand up to the light of facts about the ownership
> :> : and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
> :>
> :> Oh, so ownership and control are key, are they? Do you then
> :> agree that CNN, owned and controlled by flaming liberal Ted
> :> Turner, is biased to the left?
> :>
> :> --
> :> -- Mike Zarlenga
> :I'll bet he doesn't agree, Mike. He probable agrees with Ted's Jane
> :undermining our soldiers morale in Hanoi. He probably can't even see to
> :the left because there's no more room there. jwt/ke5p
>
> Um, John, uh... The characterization was of ted Turner as a flaming
> liberal. I'd like to see you produce some evidence of that. I know you
> think you did, by making the point that he's married to jane Fonda, but
> I'd like to point out two things; one, he has one of the keenest
> capitalist minds in the free world, and two, Jane Fonda hasn't made a
> political peep since she divorced Tom Hayden some 10 years ago, and
> discovered the world of exercise videos...
>
> And if you're trying to insinuate that he is simply left-wing by marriage,
> I have just two words for you--
>
> Mary Matalin
>
> --Milt
> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
network representive when discussing CNN getting a Havana bureau).
Turner stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom as Clinton's guest.
Turner likens Rupert Murdoch to Hitler every chance he gets.
Turner has sponsored pro-communist specials on CNN in the past, one of
which said the "Kremlin was once the house of the Czars. Now, it is the
people's house." Bizarre!
ANd of course, the parent company Time/Warner gave more money to
Democrats than Republicans in the last campaign cycle.
As did Walt Disney, ABC's parent company. Only Fox reversed the trend,
giving more to Republicans.
So let's just bury this myth that the media owners are a bunch of
conservatives always getting angered by the liberal reporters who work
for them. It's not borne out by facts.
black adder
kenfran wrote:
>
> James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
> >
> > riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
> >
> > ->From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
> >
> > ->WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
> > ->Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
> > ->many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
> > ->of leaning toward the political left.
> >
> > ->``I still think they are prejudiced. I still think
> > ->they are biased toward the liberal side and a
> > ->number of other areas,'' Lott said when asked
> > ->Monday by a broadcaster how the industry could
> > ->improve.
> >
> > ->Addressing his former University of Mississippi
> > ->classmate,National Association of Broadcasters
> > ->President Eddie Fritts, Lott confessed: ``Eddie, I
> > ->grit my teeth and hold my tongue because of my
> > ->friendship with you. But the networks get under my
> > ->skin sometime, I have to tell you.''
> >
> > information about the Republicans are discounted as liberal smear
> > jobs, and any negative information about the Democrats is taken as
> > truth that cannot be denied.
> >
> > and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
> > despite the contradiction.
> >
> > ->
> The New York Post, a Rupert Nurdoch paper that was founded by Alexander
> Hamilton (how conservative can you get?) ran a front page cartoon
> portraying Clinton as a hooker. Sure the madia is liberal.
Clintons who had a reporter fired after running a story the Clinton's
didn't like about allegations of illegal DNC donations in Taiwan.
Cap Cities, ABC's parent company, gave more to Demos that REpubs last
campaign cycle, as did Time/Warner, CNN's parent. Fox gave more to
Republicans. WHere's the united front of conservative media owners?
Where are your voting records? Yuo have none, your just making some
Marxist assumption about ownership and ideology. The only facts we do
know about voting patterns involve reporters, and studys have shown
(most recently the Freedom Forum poll in 1996) that reporters are biased
to the left.
The FF poll found that 89% of washington based reporters voted for
Clinton in 1992, 7% for Bush.
Ever notice this "conservative media" claim is based almost solely on
the existence of Rupert Murdoch?
Milt
On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, black adder wrote:
:Milt wrote:
:>
:> On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, John W. Tibbs wrote:
:>
:> :Michael Zarlenga wrote:
:> :>
:> :> James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
:> :> : This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
:> :>
:> :> Fooled? Who fooled Republicans into thinking that 89% of
:> :> the Wash Press Corps voted for Bill CLinton in 1992? Or
:> :> was that the TRUTH?
:> :>
:> :> Who fooled them into thinking that the Wash Press Corps con-
:> :> sidered itself Democrat by a 20:1 margin over Republican
:> :> (80-something% vs. 4%)? Or was THAT the truth, too?
:> :>
:> :> : Of course it can't stand up to the light of facts about the ownership
:> :> : and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
:> :>
:> :> Oh, so ownership and control are key, are they? Do you then
:> :> agree that CNN, owned and controlled by flaming liberal Ted
:> :> Turner, is biased to the left?
:> :>
:> :> --
:> :> -- Mike Zarlenga
:> :
:> :I'll bet he doesn't agree, Mike. He probable agrees with Ted's Jane
:> :undermining our soldiers morale in Hanoi. He probably can't even see to
:> :the left because there's no more room there. jwt/ke5p
:>
:> Um, John, uh... The characterization was of ted Turner as a flaming
:> liberal. I'd like to see you produce some evidence of that. I know you
:> think you did, by making the point that he's married to jane Fonda, but
:> I'd like to point out two things; one, he has one of the keenest
:> capitalist minds in the free world, and two, Jane Fonda hasn't made a
:> political peep since she divorced Tom Hayden some 10 years ago, and
:> discovered the world of exercise videos...
:>
:> And if you're trying to insinuate that he is simply left-wing by marriage,
:> I have just two words for you--
:>
:> Mary Matalin
:>
:> --Milt
:> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
:Ted Turner is good friends with Castro (as was admitted on CNN by a
:network representive when discussing CNN getting a Havana bureau).
Turner is not good friends with castro, and even if he were, how does that
make him a liberal? Know who Ted Kennedy's best friend in the Senate is?
Orrin Hatch. Now-- you're not going to call Orrin a flaming liberal, are
you?
:Turner stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom as Clinton's guest.
So what? You're going to tell us that Clinton's a liberal now? As someone
who leans left, but is not a flaming liberal, I can assure you, Clinton is
right of me. He is no liberal.
:Turner likens Rupert Murdoch to Hitler every chance he gets.
:
Welllllll?????? Ever work for him? I had a boss who I likened to Hitler
quite often; but no one at the office knew my politics...
:Turner has sponsored pro-communist specials on CNN in the past, one of
:which said the "Kremlin was once the house of the Czars. Now, it is the
:people's house." Bizarre!
:
Jesus! Give me a break! How is telling the history of Russia pro-comunist?
And for your information, like it or not, that's how Russian Commies
referred to the Kremlin during the Soviet days...
:ANd of course, the parent company Time/Warner gave more money to
:Democrats than Republicans in the last campaign cycle.
:
And they gave just about equal amounts to Bush and Clinton in 1992, and
more to Bush and Reagan the last three elections cycles before that. I
also don't see the correlation between this and Turner being a flaming
lib, since Turner wasn't bought out until last year...
:As did Walt Disney, ABC's parent company. Only Fox reversed the trend,
:giving more to Republicans.
:
Oh, yeah. Disney is one liberal-ass comapnay. uh-huh. Sure.
:So let's just bury this myth that the media owners are a bunch of
:conservatives always getting angered by the liberal reporters who work
:for them. It's not borne out by facts.
:
In the same survey quoted above, the part that people choose to ignore,
the EDITORS and Publishers of major media outlets are more than 6%
Republican. And since the claim was made that the media's liberal because
reporters are mostly Democrats, the fact that most of the people who
decide what actually goes into the paper or onto the TV should act as a
mitigating factor, woulldn't you think?
It's also telling that, when pressed to come up with examples of the
liberal nature of the media, conservatives usually can't. As someone who
reads -5 papers a day, and is pretty much a news junkie, I can tell you;
the media is a lot of things, including irresponsible and sensationalist,
but they are not liberal. That's a conservative buzzword that you guys
have fallen for hook, line & sinker. It is used to discredit anything
conservatives don't like...
Milt
On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, black adder wrote:
:kenfran wrote:
:>
:> James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
:> >
:> > riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
:> >
:> > ->From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
:> >
:> > ->WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
:> > ->Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
:> > ->many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
:> > ->of leaning toward the political left.
:> >
:> > ->``I still think they are prejudiced. I still think
:> > ->they are biased toward the liberal side and a
:> > ->number of other areas,'' Lott said when asked
:> > ->Monday by a broadcaster how the industry could
:> > ->improve.
:> >
:> > ->Addressing his former University of Mississippi
:> > ->classmate,National Association of Broadcasters
:> > ->President Eddie Fritts, Lott confessed: ``Eddie, I
:> > ->grit my teeth and hold my tongue because of my
:> > ->friendship with you. But the networks get under my
:> > ->skin sometime, I have to tell you.''
:> >
:> > This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
:> > If he persuades them that the media are biased, then any negative
:> > information about the Republicans are discounted as liberal smear
:> > jobs, and any negative information about the Democrats is taken as
:> > truth that cannot be denied.
:> >
:> > Of course it can't stand up to the light of facts about the ownership
:> > and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
:> > such facts presented to them will be ignored as liberal smear jobs,
:> > despite the contradiction.
:> >
:> > ->
:> The New York Post, a Rupert Nurdoch paper that was founded by Alexander
:> Hamilton (how conservative can you get?) ran a front page cartoon
:> portraying Clinton as a hooker. Sure the madia is liberal.
:And the New YOrk Daily News is run by Mort ZUckerman, a friend of the
:Clintons who had a reporter fired after running a story the Clinton's
:didn't like about allegations of illegal DNC donations in Taiwan.
And that was wrong of him, unless the reporter was lying. But that's
hardly evidence of a liberal bias throughout all media, anyway. Clinton is
NOT a liberal, by any standard, except right wing whackos...
:
:Cap Cities, ABC's parent company, gave more to Demos that REpubs last
:campaign cycle, as did Time/Warner, CNN's parent. Fox gave more to
:Republicans.
Now, you're making things up. Cap Cities would never give money to the
Demos, and they are no longer the parent company of ABC. Cap Cities is one
of the most conservative companies on the planet. As for Time/Warner,
there is a huge conglomerate, with many tentacles, and you cannot call it
either liberal or conservative. Time magazine and SI, for example are very
conservative, while some of the record divisions are not.
:WHere's the united front of conservative media owners?
Where's the united front of liberal media owners?
:Where are your voting records? Yuo have none, your just making some
:Marxist assumption about ownership and ideology. The only facts we do
:know about voting patterns involve reporters, and studys have shown
:(most recently the Freedom Forum poll in 1996) that reporters are biased
:to the left.
And the editors and publishers, to use your faulty logic, are mostly
conservative, and biased to the right. Who wins?
:The FF poll found that 89% of washington based reporters voted for
:Clinton in 1992, 7% for Bush.
:
:Ever notice this "conservative media" claim is based almost solely on
:the existence of Rupert Murdoch?
:
NO ONE has made a conservative media claim. Show us where we have! All
we're saying is that the media is not liberal. You know, not everything is
either liberal or conservative. In fact, by the literal meaning of those
words, Reagan and Gingrich are liberals, while Clinton and Kennedy are
conservatives. The "liberal bias" label is used to discredit any news
story they don't like. If the media is si left-leaning, then why do the
conservatives use it so much to pass their agendas? Seems to me, that
would be impossible. And yet, they have managed to get Whitewater and the
like a tremendous amount of press, even though these are non-issues in the
minds of most people who know anything...
Zepp
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 01:50:05 GMT, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams)
wrote:
>riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>
>>From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
>
>
>
>>WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
>>Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
>>many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
>>of leaning toward the political left.
>
>>``I still think they are prejudiced. I still think
>>they are biased toward the liberal side and a
>>number of other areas,'' Lott said when asked
>>Monday by a broadcaster how the industry could
>>improve.
>
>>Addressing his former University of Mississippi
>>classmate,National Association of Broadcasters
>>President Eddie Fritts, Lott confessed: ``Eddie, I
>>grit my teeth and hold my tongue because of my
>>friendship with you. But the networks get under my
>>skin sometime, I have to tell you.''
>
>
>
>>And you get under *my* skin *all* the time, Trent.
>
>>Harry
>
>
>Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
>liberal. Nothing wrong with Lott being a straight-shooter.
>
Time-Warner. Rupert Murdoch. Rober Ailes. Scaife. Disney. You
must mean THOSE libruls, right?
Tell me: have you ever had a thought independent of Rush?
Ding Dong, the Deng is Dead!
Zepp
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:17:56 GMT, d...@rv1.net (Donald The Tired)
wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:39:51 -0800, "John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <5f04jv$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
>>> }liberal.
>>>
>>> Sure. That explains the trend in *liberal* radio talk show hosts,
>>> and the *liberal* multinational corporations that own most of TV.
>>> What's next - the usual whine about that "liberal" Supreme Court?
>>>
>>> Mitchell Holman
>>>
>>> "Have you ever noticed that all newspaper composite drawings of
>>> wanted criminals look like Jesse Jackson?"
>>> Rush Limbaugh, trying to appease his few black listeners,10/8/90
>>>
>>But most of Rush's black listeners have realized they are not victims
>>of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
>>ploy and so can see the humor in Rush's program. I listen to Rush often
>>and have heard his black callers. BTW he puts his detractors ahead on
>>of others on his show so we can enjoy it more. It's a howl listening to
>>them trying to refute the facts. jwt/ke5p
>
>
> You mean, of course, facts like leaving a top on a cup of coffee will
>dilute it?
Or the one about how if the ice caps melt, the ocean levels will stay
the same because the ice is supposedly already in the water? Yeah,
those kinds of facts.
One enterprizing teacher started using Rush as an example of misuse of
science and propaganda. It got back to Rush, who immediately started
howling about it. The teacher was shut up by pressure from the
dittiots.
ding...@erinet.com
Milt wrote:
>
> Turner is not good friends with castro, and even if he were, how does that
> make him a liberal? Know who Ted Kennedy's best friend in the Senate is?
> Orrin Hatch. Now-- you're not going to call Orrin a flaming liberal, are
> you?
According to one of Turner's top execs, a man named Jordan, he is good
friends with Castro, and implied that is the reason that CNN, and only
CNN is allowed to broadcast from Cuba.
rest of shook's disno=information snipped
>
> --Milt
> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
Loren Petrich
In article <3316f39b...@news.snowcrest.net>,
Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>Or the one about how if the ice caps melt, the ocean levels will stay
>the same because the ice is supposedly already in the water? Yeah,
>those kinds of facts.
The trouble here is that the bulk of the polar ice, in places
like Antarctica and Greenland, rests on land, and not on ocean water.
>One enterprizing teacher started using Rush as an example of misuse of
>science and propaganda. It got back to Rush, who immediately started
>howling about it. The teacher was shut up by pressure from the
>dittiots.
Is Rush Limbaugh really *that* thin-skinned?
That might not be surprising when you consider how his
worshippers are unwilling to laugh at fat jokes about him.
kenfran
ding...@erinet.com wrote:
>
> Milt wrote:
> >
> > Turner is not good friends with castro, and even if he were, how does that
> > make him a liberal? Know who Ted Kennedy's best friend in the Senate is?
> > Orrin Hatch. Now-- you're not going to call Orrin a flaming liberal, are
> > you?
>
> friends with Castro, and implied that is the reason that CNN, and only
> CNN is allowed to broadcast from Cuba.
>
> rest of shook's disno=information snipped
>
than ideology, to me.
> >
> > --Milt
> > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
John W. Tibbs
kenfran wrote:> > ->From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
> >
> > ->WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
> > ->Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
> > ->many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
> > ->of leaning toward the political left.
> >
> > ->``I still think they are prejudiced. I still think
> > ->they are biased toward the liberal side and a
> > ->number of other areas,'' Lott said when asked
> > ->Monday by a broadcaster how the industry could
> > ->improve.
> >
> > ->Addressing his former University of Mississippi
> > ->classmate,National Association of Broadcasters
> > ->grit my teeth and hold my tongue because of my
> > ->friendship with you. But the networks get under my
> > ->skin sometime, I have to tell you.''
> >
> > This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
> > If he persuades them that the media are biased, then any negative
> > information about the Republicans are discounted as liberal smear
> > jobs, and any negative information about the Democrats is taken as
> > truth that cannot be denied.
> >
> > Of course it can't stand up to the light of facts about the ownership
> > and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
> > such facts presented to them will be ignored as liberal smear jobs,
> > despite the contradiction.
> >
> > ->
> The New York Post, a Rupert Nurdoch paper that was founded by Alexander
> Hamilton (how conservative can you get?) ran a front page cartoon
> portraying Clinton as a hooker. Sure the madia is liberal.
Is that why Ted (Hanoi Jane) Turner raged against Rupert Murdock and
refused to honor his obligation to carry Murdocks Fox Tv News on his
recently obtained (merged with) Time Warner network in NYC? jwt/ke5p
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
>hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>>In article <5f04jv$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
>>}
>>}
>>}Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
>>}liberal.
>> Sure. That explains the trend in *liberal* radio talk show hosts,
>> and the *liberal* multinational corporations that own most of TV.
>> What's next - the usual whine about that "liberal" Supreme Court?
>> Mitchell Holman
>Oh, give me a break. What about CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the NY Times,
>Washington Post, LA Times?
LA Times after they did the hatchet job for the CIA on the Mercury
they certainly aren't liberal. The same goes for the Washington post
with ties to the CIA and OSS dating back to the 40's.
>And once again. It doesn't matter who owns them. It matters what's
>on them or in them.
Thats the problem they present nothing but the views from the right
wing while the real news goes unpublished. If you want to find out
more how the conservative media is censoring the news by omission
check out Project Censored at Sanoma state.
Milt
On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 ding...@erinet.com wrote:
:Milt wrote:
:>
:> Turner is not good friends with castro, and even if he were, how does that
:> make him a liberal? Know who Ted Kennedy's best friend in the Senate is?
:> Orrin Hatch. Now-- you're not going to call Orrin a flaming liberal, are
:> you?
:
:According to one of Turner's top execs, a man named Jordan, he is good
:friends with Castro, and implied that is the reason that CNN, and only
:CNN is allowed to broadcast from Cuba.
:
:rest of shook's disno=information snipped
:
Disinformation? You offer as proof, hearsay from "one of Turner's top
execs, a man named Jordan", and I'm the one handing out disinformation?
You don't offer a name, a quote, or the possibility that Turner said he
was full of shit. But even if he did, that doesn't make him liberal. It
makes him an astute businessman...
Mark Friesel
C. L. Williams wrote:
>
.....
>
> Once again, it's not who owns the media, it's what the media show and
> print. It leans to the left.
>
Here I thought it leaned to the RIGHT. And I sure am glad it does!
MAF
RHA
In article <5f5cor$j...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>}hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>>}
>>}>In article <5f04jv$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L.
>>} Williams) wrote:
>>}>}
>>}>}
>>}>}Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
>>}>}liberal.
>>}
>>}> Sure. That explains the trend in *liberal* radio talk show hosts,
>>}> and the *liberal* multinational corporations that own most of TV.
>>}> What's next - the usual whine about that "liberal" Supreme Court?
>>}
>>}
>>}> Mitchell Holman
>>}
>>}Oh, give me a break. What about CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the NY Times,
>>}Washington Post, LA Times?
>>}
>>}on them or in them.
>
>> above media. Something to the left of Bob Grant, Rush Limbaugh,
>> and Gordon Liddy, that is.
>
>
>> Mitchell Holman
>
>Okay, news shows, newspaper columns and editorials, wire services like
>the AP have a leftward slant. Liberals don't do well on talk radio.
That's reasonable. After all, liberal positions need explanation
and evidence, neo-con positions are soundbite sloganeering.
Dole: Evil Hollywood give you sex and violence.
A long article might have required an explanation of Phil Gramms'
porno-investment and Bill Willis' & Arnold Schwarzenegger's
republi-con connections.
Republi-cons defend family values:
Republi-con divorces, the dead-beat dad who attended a republi-con
fundraiser dinner (and was arrested after authorities knew where he
was).
Patriotism:
Gingrich didn't go because he had a family, so his step-father went.
Gramm had more important things to do.
So one can observe that the soundbite sounds good, but won't stand up
to scrutiny; one must go with the medium that plays to one's strengths
and minimizes exposure of one's weaknesses.
--
rha
C. L. Williams
Mark Friesel <mfri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>MAF
It's a matter of perception, I suppose. If you're so far to the left
that you're off the scale, then the media will appear to be to the
right.
C. L. Williams
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 01:50:05 GMT, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams)
>wrote:
>>riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>>
>>>From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
>>
>>
>>
>>>WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
>>>Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
>>>many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
>>>of leaning toward the political left.
>>
>>>``I still think they are prejudiced. I still think
>>>they are biased toward the liberal side and a
>>>number of other areas,'' Lott said when asked
>>>Monday by a broadcaster how the industry could
>>>improve.
>>
>>>Addressing his former University of Mississippi
>>>classmate,National Association of Broadcasters
>>>President Eddie Fritts, Lott confessed: ``Eddie, I
>>>grit my teeth and hold my tongue because of my
>>>friendship with you. But the networks get under my
>>>skin sometime, I have to tell you.''
>>
>>
>>
>>>And you get under *my* skin *all* the time, Trent.
>>
>>>Harry
>>
>>
>>Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
>>liberal. Nothing wrong with Lott being a straight-shooter.
>>
>Time-Warner. Rupert Murdoch. Rober Ailes. Scaife. Disney. You
>must mean THOSE libruls, right?
>Tell me: have you ever had a thought independent of Rush?
>Ding Dong, the Deng is Dead!
Once again, it's not who owns the media, it's what the media show and
print. It leans to the left.
Mike Jones
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970226...@lucia.u.arizona.edu>, Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>
> } Howard Stern at this moment has a larger audience than Rush.
> }Is that due to talent? What is Howard'stalent, exactly, besides
> }the talent to }piss off an awful lot of people?
>
> Anyone that thinks talent is necessary to get ahead
> in show business has never followd the careers of
> Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Ed McMahan, or Willard
> Scott.
>
>
>
>
> Mitchell Holman
>
> "One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the homeless Olympics. Events would
> include the 10-meter Shopping Cart Relay, the Dumpster Dig, and the Hop, Skip and Trip."
> Rush Limbaugh, demonstrating one more of his "family values" (L.A.Times, 1/20/91)
I just want to thank Milt and Mitch and what the heck, Kenfran too for
being the liberals that they are. They show liberalism for the petty,
whiny-assed, immature ideology that it is much better than I could ever
describe it.
If someone were unsure of the ideological distinctions between
liberalism and conservatism, these gentlemen aforementioned would be
where I would refernce someone to research for themselves exactly what
liberalism stands for.
I would never suggest that anyone blindly accept my statements about how
utterly useless and wasteful liberalism is as not only an ideology, but
a political driving force that has been running this country into the
gutter for the past half century. No, I would send that person to
liberals to experience for themselves what immature little
hobgoblin-types they really are. With proof-positive such as that,
anyone with at least half a brain would summarily dismiss liberalism as
no more than an immature, feel-good, neurotic-based philosophy held by
simpletons or control freaks.
Thank you, gentlemen.
MIke.
Wilson
In article
<Pine.A32.3.93.970228...@lucia.u.arizona.edu>
, msh...@U.Arizona.EDU says...>:> Turner is not good friends with castro, and even if he
>:> make him a liberal? Know who Ted Kennedy's best friend in
the Senate is?
>:> Orrin Hatch. Now-- you're not going to call Orrin a
flaming liberal, are
>:> you?
>:
he is good
>:friends with Castro, and implied that is the reason that
CNN, and only
>:CNN is allowed to broadcast from Cuba.
>:
>:rest of shook's disno=information snipped
>:
>Disinformation? You offer as proof, hearsay from "one of
Turner's top
>execs, a man named Jordan", and I'm the one handing out
disinformation?
>You don't offer a name, a quote, or the possibility that
Turner said he
>was full of shit. But even if he did, that doesn't make him
liberal. It
>makes him an astute businessman...
>
>--Milt
>http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
>
>
Just for the record.
Item 1. Senior CNN Vice President and spokesman Jordan was
interviewed by his own CNN Network last weekend.
He stated that "Ted Turner has a friendship with Fidel Castro
that goes back many years"
Item 2. Clinton, defending the practice of filling the
Lincoln Bedroom with donors, said this week "They were not
strangers, they were my friends who helped me get elected"
Then we find out that Ted Turner slept there and so did a
"Senior ABC News producer"
Open your eyes and ears and stop posting nonsense.
--
WNO
***The Media - Co-conspirators***
George A. Booth
Milt wrote:
> Funny, Tibbs, but I DO monitor his show, and know every detail of how he
> runs it, since i have had to monitor it for a few years now.
HAD to monitor it?
>
> First, he takes fewer than a quarter of the total calls that he did in the
> old days, and more than 98% of all calls to his show every month agree
> with him. I am a part of a group of people who are moderate and liberal,
> who have been trying to get on his show for a long time. I've been trying
> for four years. I have gotten through sixteen times, and have yet to make
> it to the air. In fact, ten out of sixteen times, i have been
> "mysteriously" cut off. Of the other six times, they have run out of time
> each time, including one time when I was on hold for almost two hours.
Part of a GROUP?
>
> He also cuts off every single person who disagrees with him. Listen
> carefully. He listens for a minute, then he interrupts them, claiming that
> he has to go to commercial, and then when he gets back, he goes into a
> monologue, and the opponent is never heard from again. It's a discernible
> pattern. Oh, except when he claims that the person "lied" about what he
> was going to talk about to get on the air. What he doesn't mention is,
> when we don't lie, and we tell his call screeners th truth, we never get
> on. Hang in there for an article on this in a major magazine later this
> year, probably in the summer. The article is being written as we speak.
WE don't lie?
>
> Also, watch the 20 million listeners claim. Rush has only had that many,
> because he insists on counting the 20% of his listeners who listen to hi
> every single day, 5 times each. And that figure was true 3 years ago, but
> his show has been dropping for the last two years. His audience is roughly
> about 60% what it was two years ago, and while that's still significant,
> he is definitely trending downward. He's being beaten or coming close in
> many large markets now, which was unheard of a while back. Rush has passed
> his prime...
>
> --Milt
> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
If *nothing* else, your post has testified to Limbaugh's assertion that
there are liberal groups who monitor his show. I *had* thought Rush was
being a little too melodramatic to believe there were really *groups* of
people who would give up chunks of their lives just to *monitor* his
show!
I guess I'm glad you're there and busy with this little project. I'd
hate to see what you'd be doing otherwise.
Enjoy...
C. L. Williams
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>In article <5f5cor$j...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>C. L. Williams <cl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5f2r4f$k...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
>>>}hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>>>}
>>>}>In article <5f04jv$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L.
>>>} Williams) wrote:
>>>}>}
>>>}>}
>>>}>}Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
>>>}>}liberal.
>>>}
>>>}> Sure. That explains the trend in *liberal* radio talk show hosts,
>>>}> and the *liberal* multinational corporations that own most of TV.
>>>}> What's next - the usual whine about that "liberal" Supreme Court?
>>>}
>>>}
>>>}> Mitchell Holman
>>>}
>>>}Oh, give me a break. What about CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the NY Times,
>>>}Washington Post, LA Times?
>>>}
>>>}And once again. It doesn't matter who owns them. It matters what's
>>>}on them or in them.
>>
>>> OK, please identify the "liberal" talk shows that you find in the
>>> above media. Something to the left of Bob Grant, Rush Limbaugh,
>>> and Gordon Liddy, that is.
>>
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman
>>
>>Okay, news shows, newspaper columns and editorials, wire services like
>>the AP have a leftward slant. Liberals don't do well on talk radio.
> That's reasonable. After all, liberal positions need explanation
> and evidence, neo-con positions are soundbite sloganeering.
Soundbites? Maybe you missed the debate on PBS with Newt, Lott,
Daschle, and Gephardt. The Democrats spat out soundbite after
soundbite (Republicans want to cut Medicare, etc.) while Newt and Lott
would spend five minutes refuting them. The Democrats have soundbites
down to an art. A five minute refutation isn't going to get on the
evening news.
> Dole: Evil Hollywood give you sex and violence.
> A long article might have required an explanation of Phil Gramms'
> porno-investment and Bill Willis' & Arnold Schwarzenegger's
> republi-con connections.
Phil Gramm was a Democrat at the time.
> Republi-cons defend family values:
> Republi-con divorces, the dead-beat dad who attended a republi-con
> fundraiser dinner (and was arrested after authorities knew where he
> was).
Fundraisers? (arched eyebrow) Divorces? That, unfortunately,
happens on both sides.
>
> Patriotism:
> Gingrich didn't go because he had a family, so his step-father went.
> Gramm had more important things to do.
Not an issue. Neither ran against Clinton.
>
> So one can observe that the soundbite sounds good, but won't stand up
> to scrutiny; one must go with the medium that plays to one's strengths
> and minimizes exposure of one's weaknesses.
>--
>rha
Soundbites worked well for Democrats for two years, and the liberal
media seldom scrutinized them. Instead, they aired them.
pyotr filipivich
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
=>Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
=>liberal. Nothing wrong with Lott being a straight-shooter.
=>
=Time-Warner. Rupert Murdoch. Rober Ailes. Scaife. Disney. You
=must mean THOSE libruls, right?
=Tell me: have you ever had a thought independent of Rush?
Hah! This is so funny. The "liberal" independent thinkers are
so programmed they can not help it when they assume that every one else
gets their marching orders from the meida (or a media personality).
I've news for you Zepp - Rush is my mouth peice. That's right,
I'm part of the Secret Government that is organizing the whole
Conspiracy. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to call in and tell Rush
what his Monday monologe will be. (Actually, I've got to find out what
George has planned for the White House Press briefing - it's important
to have these things cordinated.)
bwahahahaha!
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich, sometimes owl, Nikolai Petrovich in the SCA.
[Insert snappy sig line here]
[This line left blank]
Zepp
On 27 Feb 1997 22:38:52 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
wrote:
>James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
>: This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
>
>Fooled? Who fooled Republicans into thinking that 89% of
>the Wash Press Corps voted for Bill CLinton in 1992? Or
>was that the TRUTH?
>
>Who fooled them into thinking that the Wash Press Corps con-
>sidered itself Democrat by a 20:1 margin over Republican
>(80-something% vs. 4%)? Or was THAT the truth, too?
>
>
>: Of course it can't stand up to the light of facts about the ownership
>: and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
>
>Oh, so ownership and control are key, are they? Do you then
>agree that CNN, owned and controlled by flaming liberal Ted
>Turner, is biased to the left?
CNN is owned by Time Warner. Turner's pretty much out of the picture.
And Turner would be best described as moderate right.
James R. Olson, jr.
cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
->Okay, news shows, newspaper columns and editorials, wire services like
->the AP have a leftward slant.
George F. Will, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell, Cal Thomas, that
idiot who used to write speeches for Bush, William Safire, Linda
Chavez, William Buckley and his deficient get Chris, those are just a
few of the conservatives whose blatant lies are published every day in
my local papers.
There are a few liberal columnists as well, but the balance is about 2
to 1 in favor of the conservatives. Don't try to claim that this is
because that's what the people want, since Hawaii is historically a
liberal state, and is still dominated by liberal values.
Perhaps you feel that the papers are liberal because they allow any
space at all to non-conservatives. Perhaps you feel that AP is
leftist because it doesn't vet every story with the RNC before
publication.
Perhaps you don't have the slightest idea what you mean and are merely
parroting conservative propaganda.
William R. Discipio Jr
Zepp (ze...@snowcrest.net) wrote:
: CNN is owned by Time Warner. Turner's pretty much out of the picture.
: And Turner would be best described as moderate right.
Poor Zepp. He doesn't have the courage to put his money where his racist
mouth is. Why is that?
--
"Plus Jim [Kennemur] does not call all blacks he disagrees with house
niggers Jim [Kennemur] calls house niggers that he disagrees with house
niggers. -- Shawn Smith <ssh...@ccsi.com> "What I like about niggers is
they make me look smart" -- Shawn Smith <adun...@aol.com>
Mary E. Walker
In article <331829...@imagin.net>, Mike Jones <mdj...@imagin.net> wrote:
>
>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970226...@lucia.u.arizona.edu>,
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>>
>> } Howard Stern at this moment has a larger audience than Rush.
>> }Is that due to talent? What is Howard'stalent, exactly, besides
>> }the talent to }piss off an awful lot of people?
>>
>> Anyone that thinks talent is necessary to get ahead
>> in show business has never followd the careers of
>> Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Ed McMahan, or Willard
>> Scott.
>>
>> Mitchell Holman
>>
>> "One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the homeless
>> Olympics. Events would >> include the 10-meter Shopping Cart Relay,
>> the Dumpster Dig, and the Hop, Skip and Trip."
>> Rush Limbaugh, demonstrating one more of his "family values"
>> (L.A.Times, >> 1/20/91)
That's sad. I suppose many of his rich conservative fans were huddled around
their radios just yucking it up over that one.
>I just want to thank Milt and Mitch and what the heck, Kenfran too for
>being the liberals that they are. They show liberalism for the petty,
>whiny-assed, immature ideology that it is much better than I could ever
>describe it.
>If someone were unsure of the ideological distinctions between
>liberalism and conservatism, these gentlemen aforementioned would be
>where I would refernce someone to research for themselves exactly what
>liberalism stands for.
>I would never suggest that anyone blindly accept my statements about how
>utterly useless and wasteful liberalism is as not only an ideology, but
>a political driving force that has been running this country into the
>gutter for the past half century. No, I would send that person to
>liberals to experience for themselves what immature little
>hobgoblin-types they really are. With proof-positive such as that,
>anyone with at least half a brain would summarily dismiss liberalism as
>no more than an immature, feel-good, neurotic-based philosophy held by
>simpletons or control freaks.
>Thank you, gentlemen.
>
>MIke.
What are you ever rattling on about, Mr. Jones. A lot of words there, but I
sure don't see much substance. I assume you are saying that liberals are
"immature little hobgoblin-types" because they mentioned that one of Rush's
tasteless skits included:
"One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct
the homeless Olympics. Events would include the 10-meter
Shopping Cart Relay, the Dumpster Dig, and the Hop, Skip
and Trip."
Rush Limbaugh, demonstrating one more of his "family values"
(L.A.Times, 1/20/91)"
Why I'd think that would make Mr. Limbaugh more the "immature little
hobgoblin-type", don't you?
mew2
--
C. L. Williams
Broder, Yoder, Cohen, Rowan, Van Deerlin (local), Goldsborough
(local), Goodman, Al Hunt, Shields, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Rodham
Clift...these are a few names that come to mind as I sit here working
on my first cup of coffee. With a little more caffeine, I could
probably come up with some more. On Capital Gang yesterday (Sat.),
Bob Novak was the only conservative among three liberal regulars.
(The guest was Sen. Hatch.) Three to one, with a Republican guest, is
called balance, I guess.
The names you mentioned will admit to being conservative, while those
on my list are tilting to the left, but will try to pass themselves
off as unbiased. John Leo had an excellent column a few weeks ago
about the bias. He explained it far better than I can.
It could also be that you are so far to the left, you'll think my list
of names are also conservative.
Zepp
On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:59:04 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <3316f39b...@news.snowcrest.net>,
>Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>
>>Or the one about how if the ice caps melt, the ocean levels will stay
>>the same because the ice is supposedly already in the water? Yeah,
>>those kinds of facts.
>
> The trouble here is that the bulk of the polar ice, in places
>like Antarctica and Greenland, rests on land, and not on ocean water.
>
>>One enterprizing teacher started using Rush as an example of misuse of
>>science and propaganda. It got back to Rush, who immediately started
>>howling about it. The teacher was shut up by pressure from the
>>dittiots.
>
> Is Rush Limbaugh really *that* thin-skinned?
He really is. He put in HOURS raving about that, and how it
exemplifed the "liberal teaching establishment". He was trying his
best to get the teacher fired, and encouraged his listeners to write
to the school administration at that school. All because the teacher,
as an exercise in logic, had his students study some of Rush's
arguments and find flaws and fallacies.
More recently, and with less effect, he tried upholding the right of a
sixth-grader to recite from his book some remarks about condoms to the
class. Rush, who routinely bashes people who want birth-control
information to be made available to high schoolers, was enraged that
this child couldn't read his sniggering jokes about condoms to other
children.
>
> That might not be surprising when you consider how his
>worshippers are unwilling to laugh at fat jokes about him.
>--
It used to be worse. Back in 1993, I made a remark about "Excrement
in Broadcasting" and got letter bombed--hundreds of pieces of e-mail,
all saying "Shut up, liberal". After that, I started attacking him in
earnest on line. I got bombed a few times. Just made me more
determined.
=====================================================================
"It puts the lie to that bunch of nuts out there spinning
conspiracy theories and talking about murder and cover-ups."
--Unnamed source, descriping Starr's pending report
on the Vince Foster suicide
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
Zepp
>
>If *nothing* else, your post has testified to Limbaugh's assertion that
>there are liberal groups who monitor his show. I *had* thought Rush was
>being a little too melodramatic to believe there were really *groups* of
>people who would give up chunks of their lives just to *monitor* his
>show!
>
>I guess I'm glad you're there and busy with this little project. I'd
>hate to see what you'd be doing otherwise.
>
>Enjoy...
Milt and Centurian V have both played key roles in exposing Rush's
disinformation on the Net. Other groups, including Fairness and
Accuracy in Reporting, and People for the American Away, have
montiored Rush and written books debunking various little bits of
propaganda he promotes.
Do you really think that a demogogue who is on hundreds of radio shows
three hours a day should go unwatched and unanswered? Rush himself
hates the notion that people will rebut him (you'll recall his frantic
effort to stall the return of the Equal-time rule in media), which
should be taken as a danger sign by anyone, whether they agree with
him or not. You should be glad there's people like Milt around. He
is, after all, defending your freedom as well as his.
C. L. Williams
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:59:04 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>>In article <3316f39b...@news.snowcrest.net>,
>>Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Or the one about how if the ice caps melt, the ocean levels will stay
>>>the same because the ice is supposedly already in the water? Yeah,
>>>those kinds of facts.
>>
>> The trouble here is that the bulk of the polar ice, in places
>>like Antarctica and Greenland, rests on land, and not on ocean water.
>>
>>>One enterprizing teacher started using Rush as an example of misuse of
>>>science and propaganda. It got back to Rush, who immediately started
>>>howling about it. The teacher was shut up by pressure from the
>>>dittiots.
>>
>> Is Rush Limbaugh really *that* thin-skinned?
>He really is. He put in HOURS raving about that, and how it
>exemplifed the "liberal teaching establishment". He was trying his
>best to get the teacher fired, and encouraged his listeners to write
>to the school administration at that school. All because the teacher,
>as an exercise in logic, had his students study some of Rush's
>arguments and find flaws and fallacies.
Not true. Rush did not encourage his listeners to write anybody. If
it happened, it's because his listeners chose to do so on their own.
>More recently, and with less effect, he tried upholding the right of a
>sixth-grader to recite from his book some remarks about condoms to the
>class. Rush, who routinely bashes people who want birth-control
>information to be made available to high schoolers, was enraged that
>this child couldn't read his sniggering jokes about condoms to other
>children.
>>
Again not true. The kid was reading the book, not reciting from it.
>> That might not be surprising when you consider how his
>>worshippers are unwilling to laugh at fat jokes about him.
>>--
>It used to be worse. Back in 1993, I made a remark about "Excrement
>in Broadcasting" and got letter bombed--hundreds of pieces of e-mail,
>all saying "Shut up, liberal". After that, I started attacking him in
>earnest on line. I got bombed a few times. Just made me more
>determined.
>=====================================================================
>"It puts the lie to that bunch of nuts out there spinning
>conspiracy theories and talking about murder and cover-ups."
>
> --Unnamed source, descriping Starr's pending report
> on the Vince Foster suicide
> Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
>=====================================================================
kenfran
C. L. Williams wrote: On Capital Gang yesterday (Sat.),
> Bob Novak was the only conservative among three liberal regulars.
> (The guest was Sen. Hatch.) Three to one, with a Republican guest, is
> called balance, I guess.
>
> C.L. Williams
>
When is the last time you saw a socialist journalist interview any of
the socialist candidates for office?
When has an arab journalist interviewed Arafat on American TV?
The left would be GLAD to get one in three.
C. L. Williams
kenfran <ken...@concentric.net> wrote:
I'd settle for the mainstream media reporting the stories without
using different style guides for each party. For example, the word
"obstructionism" was copiously used before the Republicans won the
majority in '94. Afterwards, the word disappeared from journalistic
lexicon. Strange how a Democrat filibuster is not "obstructionism,"
but a Republican one was.
kenfran
C. L. Williams wrote:
>
> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:59:04 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
> >wrote:
>
> >>In article <3316f39b...@news.snowcrest.net>,
> >>Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Or the one about how if the ice caps melt, the ocean levels will stay
> >>>the same because the ice is supposedly already in the water? Yeah,
> >>>those kinds of facts.
> >>
> >> The trouble here is that the bulk of the polar ice, in places
> >>like Antarctica and Greenland, rests on land, and not on ocean water.
> >>
> >>>One enterprizing teacher started using Rush as an example of misuse of
> >>>science and propaganda. It got back to Rush, who immediately started
> >>>howling about it. The teacher was shut up by pressure from the
> >>>dittiots.
> >>
> >> Is Rush Limbaugh really *that* thin-skinned?
>
> >He really is. He put in HOURS raving about that, and how it
> >exemplifed the "liberal teaching establishment". He was trying his
> >best to get the teacher fired, and encouraged his listeners to write
> >to the school administration at that school. All because the teacher,
> >as an exercise in logic, had his students study some of Rush's
> >arguments and find flaws and fallacies.
>
> Not true. Rush did not encourage his listeners to write anybody. If
> it happened, it's because his listeners chose to do so on their own.
Sure. And Rush said something to the effect of "I don't want you to
write, but the address is....." How did the Dittoheads get the address
otherwise?
Aha. You slipped up.
>
> >More recently, and with less effect, he tried upholding the right of a
> >sixth-grader to recite from his book some remarks about condoms to the
> >class. Rush, who routinely bashes people who want birth-control
> >information to be made available to high schoolers, was enraged that
> >this child couldn't read his sniggering jokes about condoms to other
> >children. ^^^^^^
> >>
>
> Again not true. The kid was reading the book, not reciting from it.
Look above. You screwed up again. But what is to be expected from a
dittohead?
>
> >> That might not be surprising when you consider how his
> >>worshippers are unwilling to laugh at fat jokes about him.
> >>--
> >It used to be worse. Back in 1993, I made a remark about "Excrement
> >in Broadcasting" and got letter bombed--hundreds of pieces of e-mail,
> >all saying "Shut up, liberal". After that, I started attacking him in
> >earnest on line. I got bombed a few times. Just made me more
> >determined.
> >=====================================================================
> >"It puts the lie to that bunch of nuts out there spinning
> >conspiracy theories and talking about murder and cover-ups."
> >
> > --Unnamed source, descriping Starr's pending report
> > on the Vince Foster suicide
>
> > Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
> >=====================================================================
>
b
In article <5fcd7l$k...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) writes:
>Broder, Yoder, Cohen, Rowan, Van Deerlin (local), Goldsborough
>(local), Goodman, Al Hunt, Shields, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Rodham
>Clift...these are a few names that come to mind as I sit here working
>on my first cup of coffee. With a little more caffeine, I could
>Bob Novak was the only conservative among three liberal regulars.
>(The guest was Sen. Hatch.) Three to one, with a Republican guest, is
>called balance, I guess.
>
>on my list are tilting to the left, but will try to pass themselves
>off as unbiased. John Leo had an excellent column a few weeks ago
>about the bias. He explained it far better than I can.
want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
you seem to have styled themselves arbiters of who is - and is not of
a particular political stripe. How would you like it if I said that
you were no conservative, but instead a hate mongering reactionary,
despite whatever you may have to say for yourself? You wouldn't like
it, I would wager. How about if I said the Charley Reese sounds
pretty damn liberal sometimes, or for that matter, William Buckley?
What you seem to saying in fact is distressingly close to the blind
patriotism of those who say if you are not for them then you most
assuredly against them, and I for one think we've had just a little
too much of that kind thinking recently.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager
to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
ends."
John W. Tibbs
C. L. Williams wrote:
>
> jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
>
> >cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
>
> >->Okay, news shows, newspaper columns and editorials, wire services like
> >->the AP have a leftward slant.
>
> >George F. Will, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell, Cal Thomas, that
> >idiot who used to write speeches for Bush, William Safire, Linda
> >Chavez, William Buckley and his deficient get Chris, those are just a
> >few of the conservatives whose blatant lies are published every day in
> >my local papers.
>
> >There are a few liberal columnists as well, but the balance is about 2
> >to 1 in favor of the conservatives. Don't try to claim that this is
> >because that's what the people want, since Hawaii is historically a
> >liberal state, and is still dominated by liberal values.
>
> >Perhaps you feel that the papers are liberal because they allow any
> >space at all to non-conservatives. Perhaps you feel that AP is
> >leftist because it doesn't vet every story with the RNC before
> >publication.
>
> >Perhaps you don't have the slightest idea what you mean and are merely
> >parroting conservative propaganda.
>
> (local), Goodman, Al Hunt, Shields, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Rodham
> Clift...these are a few names that come to mind as I sit here working
> on my first cup of coffee. With a little more caffeine, I could
> probably come up with some more. On Capital Gang yesterday (Sat.),
> Bob Novak was the only conservative among three liberal regulars.
> (The guest was Sen. Hatch.) Three to one, with a Republican guest, is
> called balance, I guess.
>
> The names you mentioned will admit to being conservative, while those
> on my list are tilting to the left, but will try to pass themselves
> off as unbiased. John Leo had an excellent column a few weeks ago
> about the bias. He explained it far better than I can.
>
> of names are also conservative.
>
>
> Sig altered so as not to offend any liberals.
If you are as far as possible to the left as you can be, then everything
you see is on your right. jwt/ke5p
John W. Tibbs
b wrote:
>
> In article <5fcd7l$k...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
> cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) writes:
>
> >(local), Goodman, Al Hunt, Shields, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Rodham
> >Clift...these are a few names that come to mind as I sit here working
> >on my first cup of coffee. With a little more caffeine, I could
> >probably come up with some more. On Capital Gang yesterday (Sat.),
> >Bob Novak was the only conservative among three liberal regulars.
> >(The guest was Sen. Hatch.) Three to one, with a Republican guest, is
> >called balance, I guess.
> >
> >The names you mentioned will admit to being conservative, while those
> >on my list are tilting to the left, but will try to pass themselves
> >off as unbiased. John Leo had an excellent column a few weeks ago
> >about the bias. He explained it far better than I can.
>
> want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
> them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
> I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
> very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
> the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
> you seem to have styled themselves arbiters of who is - and is not of
> a particular political stripe. How would you like it if I said that
> you were no conservative, but instead a hate mongering reactionary,
> despite whatever you may have to say for yourself? You wouldn't like
> it, I would wager. How about if I said the Charley Reese sounds
> pretty damn liberal sometimes, or for that matter, William Buckley?
> What you seem to saying in fact is distressingly close to the blind
> patriotism of those who say if you are not for them then you most
> assuredly against them, and I for one think we've had just a little
> too much of that kind thinking recently.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> "He deserves death."
> "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
> that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager
> to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
> ends."
'b' sounds like one of the leftist pretending to be conservative to try
to make a real conservative seem more to the right than he is. These
frauds are getting easier to spot all the time. jwt/ke5p
John W. Tibbs
> >>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> >>> "Have you ever noticed that all newspaper composite drawings of
> >>> wanted criminals look like Jesse Jackson?"
> >>> Rush Limbaugh, trying to appease his few black listeners,10/8/90
> >
> >>But most of Rush's black listeners have realized they are not victims
> >>of white racists but are victims of JJ's 'victimization to keep my job'
> >>ploy and so can see the humor in Rush's program. ...
>
> > Dream on.
>
> > And thank you for denying yourself any right to pose as a victim
> >of crime or taxes or theLibbuhruhlMedia or the Commander in Chief or
> >whatever.
>
> > And as to humor, talk radio was invented so that fat, lazy, ugly,
> >asocial losers could have a career in show business -- nobody has to know
> >what one looks like in that field, and you can be all alone, stuffing
> >your face.
> >--
> >Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> >pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
> >My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
> >Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
>
> Calm down. You're beginning to get mad and lose it.
>
> C.L. Williams
>
> Sig altered so as not to offend any liberals.
C. L. Williams
C36...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (b) wrote:
I'd just shrug it off. Actually, whenever I read or hear somebody use
"reasonable" to describe themselves or something they want to do, a
little alarm goes off in my head. Also, this is the first time I've
ever had a "conservative" lecture me for accusing members of the media
of being liberally biased. Peculiar, to say the least.
> How about if I said the Charley Reese sounds
>pretty damn liberal sometimes, or for that matter, William Buckley?
>What you seem to saying in fact is distressingly close to the blind
>patriotism of those who say if you are not for them then you most
>assuredly against them, and I for one think we've had just a little
>too much of that kind thinking recently.
C.L. Williams
C. L. Williams
"John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
>> it, I would wager. How about if I said the Charley Reese sounds
>> pretty damn liberal sometimes, or for that matter, William Buckley?
>> What you seem to saying in fact is distressingly close to the blind
>> patriotism of those who say if you are not for them then you most
>> assuredly against them, and I for one think we've had just a little
>> too much of that kind thinking recently.
>>
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> "He deserves death."
>> "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
>> that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager
>> to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
>> ends."
>'b' sounds like one of the leftist pretending to be conservative to try
>to make a real conservative seem more to the right than he is. These
>frauds are getting easier to spot all the time. jwt/ke5p
I share your suspicions.
Zepp
On Sat, 01 Mar 1997 17:28:27 GMT, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams)
wrote:
>Soundbites? Maybe you missed the debate on PBS with Newt, Lott,
>Daschle, and Gephardt. The Democrats spat out soundbite after
>soundbite (Republicans want to cut Medicare, etc.) while Newt and Lott
>would spend five minutes refuting them. The Democrats have soundbites
>down to an art. A five minute refutation isn't going to get on the
>evening news.
So you are claiming, with your bare face hanging out, that the
Democrats would spend five minutes making soundbites, and the Pubs
would spend an equal amount of time making detailed and reasoned
responses. Or are you saying that the Dems only got ten seconds to
"soundbite" and the Pubs got five minutes to respond? Now I'm
curious, since I saw that show, and don't remember it that way at all.
BTW, Haley Barbour has levelled SLAPPs against people who tried to
take him up on his offer of a million bux to anyone who could furnish
proof that the GOP was planning to cut medicare. Some 80 people
submitted evidence, where summarily rejected by the GOP (BEEG
surprise, eh?) and sued.
>> Dole: Evil Hollywood give you sex and violence.
>> A long article might have required an explanation of Phil Gramms'
>> porno-investment and Bill Willis' & Arnold Schwarzenegger's
>> republi-con connections.
>
>Phil Gramm was a Democrat at the time.
>
Still a reptilean conservative, though.
>> Republi-cons defend family values:
>> Republi-con divorces, the dead-beat dad who attended a republi-con
>> fundraiser dinner (and was arrested after authorities knew where he
>> was).
>
>Fundraisers? (arched eyebrow) Divorces? That, unfortunately,
>happens on both sides.
>
Yeah. but the 'Pubs want to control the other side but not their own.
>>
>> Patriotism:
>> Gingrich didn't go because he had a family, so his step-father went.
>> Gramm had more important things to do.
>
>Not an issue. Neither ran against Clinton.
>
Gramm ran for President in 1996. That he failed to clear the first
hurdle wasn't his plan. And Noot THOUGHT about running for a while
there. Both made sanctimonious and hypocritical noises about Clinton
not serving.
>Soundbites worked well for Democrats for two years, and the liberal
>media seldom scrutinized them. Instead, they aired them.
>
Bet I can cite three Conservative sound bites for every liberal one...
Steve Casburn
In article <5fdhlb$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L.
Williams) wrote:
>
> John W. Tibbs:
>
> >"b" wrote:
> >
> >> This hardly seems fair - people get to call themselves what they
> >> want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
> >> them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
> >> I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
> >> very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
> >> the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
> >> you seem to have styled themselves arbiters of who is - and is not of
> >> a particular political stripe. How would you like it if I said that
> >> you were no conservative, but instead a hate mongering reactionary,
> >> despite whatever you may have to say for yourself? You wouldn't like
> >> it, I would wager. How about if I said the Charley Reese sounds
> >> pretty damn liberal sometimes, or for that matter, William Buckley?
> >> What you seem to saying in fact is distressingly close to the blind
> >> patriotism of those who say if you are not for them then you most
> >> assuredly against them, and I for one think we've had just a little
> >> too much of that kind thinking recently.
>
> >to make a real conservative seem more to the right than he is. These
> >frauds are getting easier to spot all the time. jwt/ke5p
>
> I share your suspicions.
Damn, you people sound like 1930s Communists. What's next: An
ideological purity test? We can't have people disagreeing with the party
line, now can we?
It's a shame to watch so many conservatives retreat into an
intellectual ghetto where they only read the Canon of Conservative
Literature (Sowell, Murray, D'Souza, _National Review_, _American
Spectator_, etc.) and look with jaundiced suspicion on anyone who finds
valid ideas anywhere else. I have heard that even William Bennett, Barry
Goldwater, and Newt Gingrich -- Newt Gingrich!!! -- are now under suspicion
by the true believers.
It would be sad if the conservative movement ended up like the
inter-war Communist movement, with all of the people who could think for
themselves driven out because they took their principles seriously and
refused to conform to the political dictates of the party hacks. After
watching the last five years, though -- and after seeing too much of the
kind of paranoia displayed above -- I'm starting to think that that's where
things are going with "conservatives."
Steve
--
Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu)
"Shut up he explained"
-- Ring Lardner, Jr.
b
In article <331A42...@cei.net>
"John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net> writes:
>b wrote:
>> This hardly seems fair - people get to call themselves what they
>> want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
>> them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
>> I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
>> very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
>> the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
>> you seem to have styled themselves arbiters of who is - and is not of
>> a particular political stripe. How would you like it if I said that
>
>to make a real conservative seem more to the right than he is. These
>frauds are getting easier to spot all the time. jwt/ke5p
not your place to adminitster your own private litmus test or the somewhat
less than pro-death penalty sentiments of my sig file? Sarcasm off.
b
In article <5fdhki$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
>>
>>This hardly seems fair - people get to call themselves what they
>>want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
>>them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
>>I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
>>very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
>>the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
>>you seem to have styled themselves arbiters of who is - and is not of
>>a particular political stripe. How would you like it if I said that
>>despite whatever you may have to say for yourself? You wouldn't like
>>it, I would wager.
>
>"reasonable" to describe themselves or something they want to do, a
>little alarm goes off in my head. Also, this is the first time I've
>ever had a "conservative" lecture me for accusing members of the media
>of being liberally biased. Peculiar, to say the least.
that it really matters, but I wasn't disputing the fact that the media
is liberally biased - I object to the notion that you have apparently
anointed yourself the arbiter of who is and who is not a conservative.
Or a liberal, for that matter. I know people who call themselves
liberal who also oppose any form of gun control. Are they, according
to you, really of a liberal mind. I also know conservatives, a great
many of them, who are pro-abortion. Are they, according to you, really
conservatives? See your problem?
b
In article <5fdhlb$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) writes:
>>> This hardly seems fair - people get to call themselves what they
>>> want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
>>> them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
>>> I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
>>> very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
>>> the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
>
>>to make a real conservative seem more to the right than he is. These
>>frauds are getting easier to spot all the time. jwt/ke5p
>
Oho! So you have your 'suspicions' now, have you? 'Tell me, Mr. Black,
have you ever knowingly associated with a Communist? Are you in
possession of any Communist literature?' Etc. You're pathetic. And
hopefully, a troll.
James R. Olson, jr.
cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
->Broder, Yoder, Cohen, Rowan, Van Deerlin (local), Goldsborough
->(local), Goodman, Al Hunt, Shields, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Rodham
->Clift...these are a few names that come to mind as I sit here working
->on my first cup of coffee.
Broder and Goodman are the only two I see in my paper. I don't find
Broder to be particularily liberal, although he's not a foamer like
the ones I named. I still see about a 2 to 1 dominance of
conservative pundits to liberal ones.
-> With a little more caffeine, I could
->probably come up with some more. On Capital Gang yesterday (Sat.),
->Bob Novak was the only conservative among three liberal regulars.
->(The guest was Sen. Hatch.) Three to one, with a Republican guest, is
->called balance, I guess.
I notice you don't name these putative liberals.
->The names you mentioned will admit to being conservative, while those
->on my list are tilting to the left, but will try to pass themselves
->off as unbiased. John Leo had an excellent column a few weeks ago
->about the bias. He explained it far better than I can.
John Leo! Don't make me laugh. Did you see the one where he blamed
overcrowded prisons on multiculturalism?
->It could also be that you are so far to the left, you'll think my list
->of names are also conservative.
It could be that you are so far to the right that you think they
aren't.
David Salvador Flores
In article <33175E...@cei.net>, John W. Tibbs <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
>kenfran wrote:
[deletia]
>Is that why Ted (Hanoi Jane) Turner raged against Rupert Murdock and
>refused to honor his obligation to carry Murdocks Fox Tv News on his
>recently obtained (merged with) Time Warner network in NYC? jwt/ke5p
No, he did that because he's a good capitalist. If you think
Ted Turner objected to competition for his news channel because
of the competition's political slant then you're more feeble minded
than the average conservative even.
>
>
-Dave
C. L. Williams
Casb...@osu.edu (Steve Casburn) wrote:
>In article <5fdhlb$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L.
>Williams) wrote:
>>
>> John W. Tibbs:
>>
>> >"b" wrote:
>> >
>> >> This hardly seems fair - people get to call themselves what they
>> >> want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
>> >> them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
>> >> I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
>> >> very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
>> >> the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
>> >> you seem to have styled themselves arbiters of who is - and is not of
>> >> a particular political stripe. How would you like it if I said that
>> >> you were no conservative, but instead a hate mongering reactionary,
>> >> despite whatever you may have to say for yourself? You wouldn't like
>> >> it, I would wager. How about if I said the Charley Reese sounds
>> >> pretty damn liberal sometimes, or for that matter, William Buckley?
>> >> What you seem to saying in fact is distressingly close to the blind
>> >> patriotism of those who say if you are not for them then you most
>> >> assuredly against them, and I for one think we've had just a little
>> >> too much of that kind thinking recently.
>>
>> >'b' sounds like one of the leftist pretending to be conservative to try
>> >to make a real conservative seem more to the right than he is. These
>> >frauds are getting easier to spot all the time. jwt/ke5p
>>
>> I share your suspicions.
> Damn, you people sound like 1930s Communists. What's next: An
>ideological purity test? We can't have people disagreeing with the party
>line, now can we?
> It's a shame to watch so many conservatives retreat into an
>intellectual ghetto where they only read the Canon of Conservative
>Literature (Sowell, Murray, D'Souza, _National Review_, _American
>Spectator_, etc.) and look with jaundiced suspicion on anyone who finds
>valid ideas anywhere else. I have heard that even William Bennett, Barry
>Goldwater, and Newt Gingrich -- Newt Gingrich!!! -- are now under suspicion
>by the true believers.
> It would be sad if the conservative movement ended up like the
>inter-war Communist movement, with all of the people who could think for
>themselves driven out because they took their principles seriously and
>refused to conform to the political dictates of the party hacks. After
>watching the last five years, though -- and after seeing too much of the
>kind of paranoia displayed above -- I'm starting to think that that's where
>things are going with "conservatives."
> Steve
You make a good point, Steve. This guy b came out of the blue and
jumped on my case for calling certain members of the media liberal. I
shouldn't have answered him.
C. L. Williams
C36...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (b) wrote:
>In article <5fdhki$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
>cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) writes:
>
>>C36...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (b) wrote:
>>>
>>>This hardly seems fair - people get to call themselves what they
>>>want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
>>>them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
>>>I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
>>>very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
>>>the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
>>>you seem to have styled themselves arbiters of who is - and is not of
>>>a particular political stripe. How would you like it if I said that
>>>you were no conservative, but instead a hate mongering reactionary,
>>>despite whatever you may have to say for yourself? You wouldn't like
>>>it, I would wager.
>>
>>I'd just shrug it off. Actually, whenever I read or hear somebody use
>>"reasonable" to describe themselves or something they want to do, a
>>little alarm goes off in my head. Also, this is the first time I've
>>ever had a "conservative" lecture me for accusing members of the media
>>of being liberally biased. Peculiar, to say the least.
>
>You must not know many conservatives - particularly older ones. Not
>that it really matters, but I wasn't disputing the fact that the media
>is liberally biased - I object to the notion that you have apparently
>anointed yourself the arbiter of who is and who is not a conservative.
>Or a liberal, for that matter. I know people who call themselves
>liberal who also oppose any form of gun control. Are they, according
>to you, really of a liberal mind. I also know conservatives, a great
>many of them, who are pro-abortion. Are they, according to you, really
>conservatives? See your problem?
>
Yes, you can be a pro-abortion conservative, or a pro-gun liberal. I
still think the media is overwhelmingly liberal. Something has you
pissed off here, and I think it goes beyond what you have served up as
examples.
C. L. Williams
C36...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (b) wrote:
>In article <5fdhlb$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
>cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) writes:
>
>>>> This hardly seems fair - people get to call themselves what they
>>>> want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
>>>> them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
>>>> I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
>>>> very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
>>>> the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
>>
>>>'b' sounds like one of the leftist pretending to be conservative to try
>>>to make a real conservative seem more to the right than he is. These
>>>frauds are getting easier to spot all the time. jwt/ke5p
>>
>>I share your suspicions.
>
>Oho! So you have your 'suspicions' now, have you? 'Tell me, Mr. Black,
>have you ever knowingly associated with a Communist? Are you in
>possession of any Communist literature?' Etc. You're pathetic. And
>hopefully, a troll.
Now you've completely lost it. There's no sense to be found in this
post.
John W. Tibbs
kenfran wrote:
>
> ding...@erinet.com wrote:
> >
> > Milt wrote:
> > >
> > > Turner is not good friends with castro, and even if he were, how does that
> > > make him a liberal? Know who Ted Kennedy's best friend in the Senate is?
> > > Orrin Hatch. Now-- you're not going to call Orrin a flaming liberal, are
> > > you?
> >
> > According to one of Turner's top execs, a man named Jordan, he is good
> > friends with Castro, and implied that is the reason that CNN, and only
> > CNN is allowed to broadcast from Cuba.
> >
> > rest of shook's disno=information snipped
> >
> Sounds like Turner is a bsinessman who is interested in profits more
> than ideology, to me.
> > >
> > > --Milt
> > > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
What's your source on Hatch being ChappyTeddy's best friend? jwt/ke5p
John W. Tibbs
black adder wrote:
>
> kenfran wrote:
> >
> > James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
> > >
> > > ->From the Associated Press, 2/25/97:
> > >
> > > ->WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Trent
> > > ->Lott has helped the broadcasting industry through
> > > ->many crucial battles, but he accuses TV networks
> > > ->of leaning toward the political left.
> > >
> > > ->``I still think they are prejudiced. I still think
> > > ->they are biased toward the liberal side and a
> > > ->number of other areas,'' Lott said when asked
> > > ->Monday by a broadcaster how the industry could
> > > ->improve.
> > >
> > > ->Addressing his former University of Mississippi
> > > ->classmate,National Association of Broadcasters
> > > ->President Eddie Fritts, Lott confessed: ``Eddie, I
> > > ->grit my teeth and hold my tongue because of my
> > > ->friendship with you. But the networks get under my
> > > ->skin sometime, I have to tell you.''
> > >
> > > This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
> > > If he persuades them that the media are biased, then any negative
> > > information about the Republicans are discounted as liberal smear
> > > jobs, and any negative information about the Democrats is taken as
> > > truth that cannot be denied.
> > >
> > > Of course it can't stand up to the light of facts about the ownership
> > > and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
> > > such facts presented to them will be ignored as liberal smear jobs,
> > > despite the contradiction.
> > >
> > > ->
> > The New York Post, a Rupert Nurdoch paper that was founded by Alexander
> > Hamilton (how conservative can you get?) ran a front page cartoon
> > portraying Clinton as a hooker. Sure the madia is liberal.
> And the New YOrk Daily News is run by Mort ZUckerman, a friend of the
> Clintons who had a reporter fired after running a story the Clinton's
> didn't like about allegations of illegal DNC donations in Taiwan.
>
> Cap Cities, ABC's parent company, gave more to Demos that REpubs last
> campaign cycle, as did Time/Warner, CNN's parent. Fox gave more to
> Republicans. WHere's the united front of conservative media owners?
> Where are your voting records? Yuo have none, your just making some
> Marxist assumption about ownership and ideology. The only facts we do
> know about voting patterns involve reporters, and studys have shown
> (most recently the Freedom Forum poll in 1996) that reporters are biased
> to the left.
> The FF poll found that 89% of washington based reporters voted for
> Clinton in 1992, 7% for Bush.
>
> Ever notice this "conservative media" claim is based almost solely on
> the existence of Rupert Murdoch?
Rupert and Rev. Moon of the Washington Times is all the've got with the
exceptions of a few small Christian networks. Mix these in with the
mainstream national media and you have a ratio of about 100-1 (I'm being
conservative) in favor of the lefties. Unless of course you count Rush
L., Mike R., and a few blustery conservatives on radio, you could
probable totally discount the 'not on the left' media. jwt/ke5p
John W. Tibbs
Milt wrote:
> hardly evidence of a liberal bias throughout all media, anyway. Clinton is
> NOT a liberal, by any standard, except right wing whackos...
> :
> :Cap Cities, ABC's parent company, gave more to Demos that REpubs last
> :campaign cycle, as did Time/Warner, CNN's parent. Fox gave more to
> :Republicans.
>
> Demos, and they are no longer the parent company of ABC. Cap Cities is one
> of the most conservative companies on the planet. As for Time/Warner,
> there is a huge conglomerate, with many tentacles, and you cannot call it
> either liberal or conservative. Time magazine and SI, for example are very
> conservative, while some of the record divisions are not.
>
> :WHere's the united front of conservative media owners?
>
> Where's the united front of liberal media owners?
>
> :Where are your voting records? Yuo have none, your just making some
> :Marxist assumption about ownership and ideology. The only facts we do
> :know about voting patterns involve reporters, and studys have shown
> :(most recently the Freedom Forum poll in 1996) that reporters are biased
> :to the left.
>
> conservative, and biased to the right. Who wins?
>
> :The FF poll found that 89% of washington based reporters voted for
> :Clinton in 1992, 7% for Bush.
> :
> :Ever notice this "conservative media" claim is based almost solely on
> :the existence of Rupert Murdoch?
> NO ONE has made a conservative media claim. Show us where we have! All
> we're saying is that the media is not liberal. You know, not everything is
> either liberal or conservative. In fact, by the literal meaning of those
> words, Reagan and Gingrich are liberals, while Clinton and Kennedy are
> conservatives. The "liberal bias" label is used to discredit any news
> story they don't like. If the media is si left-leaning, then why do the
> conservatives use it so much to pass their agendas? Seems to me, that
> would be impossible. And yet, they have managed to get Whitewater and the
> like a tremendous amount of press, even though these are non-issues in the
> minds of most people who know anything...
>
> --Milt
> http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
Milt, you insult us by insinuating we don't know that if Slick was a
conservative the press would have just passively glossed over O.J. and
Tonya and Nancy and not used them to keep the heat off Whitewater as
much as they did. They would have went after a conservative with bared
teeth, raised eyebrows, tricky questions, opinions as news in the 'news'
articles and everything else they could to amplify even the most
non-news items to emotionalize the American public and never let up. I
think you know this as do most Klinton Rodhamites on the net. jwt/ke5p
John W. Tibbs
> >>>
> >>>This hardly seems fair - people get to call themselves what they
> >>>want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
> >>>them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
> >>>I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
> >>>very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
> >>>the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
> >>>a particular political stripe. How would you like it if I said that
> >>>you were no conservative, but instead a hate mongering reactionary,
> >>>despite whatever you may have to say for yourself? You wouldn't like
> >>>it, I would wager.
> >>
> >>I'd just shrug it off. Actually, whenever I read or hear somebody use
> >>"reasonable" to describe themselves or something they want to do, a
> >>little alarm goes off in my head. Also, this is the first time I've
> >>ever had a "conservative" lecture me for accusing members of the media
> >>of being liberally biased. Peculiar, to say the least.
> >
> >You must not know many conservatives - particularly older ones. Not
> >that it really matters, but I wasn't disputing the fact that the media
> >is liberally biased - I object to the notion that you have apparently
> >anointed yourself the arbiter of who is and who is not a conservative.
> >Or a liberal, for that matter. I know people who call themselves
> >liberal who also oppose any form of gun control. Are they, according
> >to you, really of a liberal mind. I also know conservatives, a great
> >many of them, who are pro-abortion. Are they, according to you, really
> >conservatives? See your problem?
> >
>
> Yes, you can be a pro-abortion conservative, or a pro-gun liberal. I
> still think the media is overwhelmingly liberal. Something has you
> pissed off here, and I think it goes beyond what you have served up as
> examples.
>
>
> Sig altered so as not to offend any liberals.
C.L., your logic is what has him teed off. It's too sound. jwt/ke5p
John W. Tibbs
Hey, Dave, didn't Turner calling Murdoch 'Hitler' indicate political
instead of business language. Oh, I know it's ok to call a non-leftist
fascist names if one is already on the left. I know, it's just good
capitalism to suppress your competition when it's well known that honest
capitalist competition is good for businesses. Turner likes money the
same as everyone but he doesn't want any balanced media infringing on
his 'news'. jwt/ke5p
Zepp
On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 02:24:33 GMT, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams)
wrote:
>Casb...@osu.edu (Steve Casburn) wrote:
>
>>In article <5fdhlb$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L.
>>Williams) wrote:
>>>
>>> John W. Tibbs:
>>>
>>> >"b" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> This hardly seems fair - people get to call themselves what they
>>> >> want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
>>> >> them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
>>> >> I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
>>> >> very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
>>> >> the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
>>> >> you seem to have styled themselves arbiters of who is - and is not of
>>> >> a particular political stripe. How would you like it if I said that
>>> >> you were no conservative, but instead a hate mongering reactionary,
>>> >> despite whatever you may have to say for yourself? You wouldn't like
>>> >> it, I would wager. How about if I said the Charley Reese sounds
>>> >> pretty damn liberal sometimes, or for that matter, William Buckley?
>>> >> What you seem to saying in fact is distressingly close to the blind
>>> >> patriotism of those who say if you are not for them then you most
>>> >> assuredly against them, and I for one think we've had just a little
>>> >> too much of that kind thinking recently.
>>>
>>> >'b' sounds like one of the leftist pretending to be conservative to try
>>> >to make a real conservative seem more to the right than he is. These
>>> >frauds are getting easier to spot all the time. jwt/ke5p
>>>
>>> I share your suspicions.
>
>
>> Damn, you people sound like 1930s Communists. What's next: An
>>ideological purity test? We can't have people disagreeing with the party
>>line, now can we?
>
>> It's a shame to watch so many conservatives retreat into an
>>intellectual ghetto where they only read the Canon of Conservative
>>Literature (Sowell, Murray, D'Souza, _National Review_, _American
>>Spectator_, etc.) and look with jaundiced suspicion on anyone who finds
>>valid ideas anywhere else. I have heard that even William Bennett, Barry
>>Goldwater, and Newt Gingrich -- Newt Gingrich!!! -- are now under suspicion
>>by the true believers.
I thing the seminal event has been the rejection of Pat Boone. As you
probably heard, as a joke, Pat Boone got dressed up in leather and
studs, and slapped on some fake tatoos, and "went metal" for the
Grammys. Pat Boone, the most vanilla performer alive.
Now, most people understood it was a joke. Some of the metalheads
weren't amused, because they suspected they were being mocked (and I
suspect that they were, in a mild fashion), but it was obvious to
everyone that Boone was playing it for laughs, and not signalling a
sea change in his beliefs and opinions.
At least, almost everyone. The religious conservatives, who make up
the backbone of the GOP, lost their fucking minds. Not only did they
accuse Boone of selling his soul to be devil, but demanded that TBS
drop his show, and some cut off funding to TBS because they had
carried Boone BEFORE he "went metal"!
These are the people that the GOP has allied with. Are you really
surprised when they start making outcasts of everyone who isn't
ideologically pure?
>
>> It would be sad if the conservative movement ended up like the
>>inter-war Communist movement, with all of the people who could think for
>>themselves driven out because they took their principles seriously and
>>refused to conform to the political dictates of the party hacks. After
>>watching the last five years, though -- and after seeing too much of the
>>kind of paranoia displayed above -- I'm starting to think that that's where
>>things are going with "conservatives."
>
>
>> Steve
>
>You make a good point, Steve. This guy b came out of the blue and
>jumped on my case for calling certain members of the media liberal. I
>shouldn't have answered him.
>
Actually, you made the usual whine about "liberal media". B blew that
silly nonsense out of the water, and at least now you are reduced to
saying that "some members" are liberal. I'm not ideologically pure,
CL. You better not answer me.
>C.L. Williams
>
>Sig altered so as not to offend any liberals.
>
=====================================================================
"No political theory is adequate unless it is applicable to
children as well as to men and women"
--Bertrand Russell
John W. Tibbs
>
> >>In article <5f04jv$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, cl...@ix.netcom.com (C. L. Williams) wrote:
> >>}
> >>}
> >>}Senator Lott has a legitimate beef. The media are overwhelmingly
> >>}liberal.
>
> >> Sure. That explains the trend in *liberal* radio talk show hosts,
> >> and the *liberal* multinational corporations that own most of TV.
> >> What's next - the usual whine about that "liberal" Supreme Court?
>
> >> Mitchell Holman
>
> >Oh, give me a break. What about CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the NY Times,
> >Washington Post, LA Times?
>
> LA Times after they did the hatchet job for the CIA on the Mercury
> they certainly aren't liberal. The same goes for the Washington post
> with ties to the CIA and OSS dating back to the 40's.
>
> >And once again. It doesn't matter who owns them. It matters what's
> >on them or in them.
>
> Thats the problem they present nothing but the views from the right
> wing while the real news goes unpublished. If you want to find out
> more how the conservative media is censoring the news by omission
> check out Project Censored at Sanoma state.
>
> >C.L. Williams
>
> >Sig altered so as not to offend any liberals.
He knows better, C.L. Don't let him get to you. He may even think some
people believe him when he tries to convince us 'it ain't so' that the
vastly overwhelming left leaning media exists. jwt/ke5p
R.S. Hanchett
"John W. Tibbs" <jti...@cei.net> wrote:
> Don't let him get to you. He may even think some
>people believe him when he tries to convince us 'it ain't so' that the
>vastly overwhelming left leaning media exists.
I agree - don't let the facts get to you. Just keep spreading the lie
of the left leaning media.
Robert
John W. Tibbs
Mike Jones wrote:
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >
> > In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970226...@lucia.u.arizona.edu>, Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > } Howard Stern at this moment has a larger audience than Rush.
> > }Is that due to talent? What is Howard'stalent, exactly, besides
> > }the talent to }piss off an awful lot of people?
> >
> > Anyone that thinks talent is necessary to get ahead
> > in show business has never followd the careers of
> > Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Ed McMahan, or Willard
> > Scott.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mitchell Holman
> >
> > "One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the homeless Olympics. Events would
> > include the 10-meter Shopping Cart Relay, the Dumpster Dig, and the Hop, Skip and Trip."
> > Rush Limbaugh, demonstrating one more of his "family values" (L.A.Times, 1/20/91)
>
> I just want to thank Milt and Mitch and what the heck, Kenfran too for
> being the liberals that they are. They show liberalism for the petty,
> whiny-assed, immature ideology that it is much better than I could ever
> describe it.
> If someone were unsure of the ideological distinctions between
> liberalism and conservatism, these gentlemen aforementioned would be
> where I would refernce someone to research for themselves exactly what
> liberalism stands for.
> I would never suggest that anyone blindly accept my statements about how
> utterly useless and wasteful liberalism is as not only an ideology, but
> a political driving force that has been running this country into the
> gutter for the past half century. No, I would send that person to
> liberals to experience for themselves what immature little
> hobgoblin-types they really are. With proof-positive such as that,
> anyone with at least half a brain would summarily dismiss liberalism as
> no more than an immature, feel-good, neurotic-based philosophy held by
> simpletons or control freaks.
> Thank you, gentlemen.
>
> MIke.
Does 'SOPHOMORIC' sound right for them, Mike?
RHA
In article <5f52ds$9...@paperboy.ids.net>,
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
>: This is a very convenient stance for keeping naive Republicans fooled.
>
>Fooled? Who fooled Republicans into thinking that 89% of
>the Wash Press Corps voted for Bill CLinton in 1992? Or
>was that the TRUTH?
>
>Who fooled them into thinking that the Wash Press Corps con-
>sidered itself Democrat by a 20:1 margin over Republican
>(80-something% vs. 4%)? Or was THAT the truth, too?
>
>
>: Of course it can't stand up to the light of facts about the ownership
>: and control of the media, but he's dealing with the naive here. Any
>
Duh? Would it be fair to say, oh, 75% of GM's blue collar workers
voted for Clinton...Would it be fair to say GM wanted Clinton
elected?
> Do you then
>agree that CNN, owned and controlled by flaming liberal Ted
>Turner, is biased to the left?
Ooooo, CNN's black helicopters are coming fer you. Ted doesn't
like anyone saying things like that.
--
rha
John W. Tibbs
> >>>> want, within reason, and it is hardly appropriate for you to call
> >>>> them liars should you disagree with their own designated affiliations.
> >>>> I find this trend among those who would call themselves 'Conservative'
> >>>> very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
> >>>> the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
> >>
> >>>to make a real conservative seem more to the right than he is. These
> >>>frauds are getting easier to spot all the time. jwt/ke5p
> >>
> >>I share your suspicions.
> >
> >have you ever knowingly associated with a Communist? Are you in
> >possession of any Communist literature?' Etc. You're pathetic. And
> >hopefully, a troll.
>
> Now you've completely lost it. There's no sense to be found in this
> post.
>
>
> Sig altered so as not to offend any liberals.
It's good material for highliting their 'non-substance' arguing in
response to logic and substance. jwt/ke5p
Milt
On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, R.S. Hanchett wrote:
:
I'm still waiting for them to SHOW me, a person who reads about 5 papers a
day, and 4-5 newsweeklies, as well as countless monthlies and quarterlies,
where the "liberal media' is. 'Cause I sure don't see it.
Of course, if they'd bother to pick up a paper occasionally...
--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
b
In article <5fg086$o...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
>>>>very disturbing - I'm a conservative by any reasonable definition of
>>>>the word, and I am distressed that people who hold the positions that
>>>>a particular political stripe. How would you like it if I said that
>>that it really matters, but I wasn't disputing the fact that the media
>>is liberally biased - I object to the notion that you have apparently
>>anointed yourself the arbiter of who is and who is not a conservative.
>>Or a liberal, for that matter. I know people who call themselves
>
>still think the media is overwhelmingly liberal. Something has you
>pissed off here, and I think it goes beyond what you have served up as
>examples.
get to decide who is or is not a liberal or conservative. Get it yet?
b
In article <5fg0ba$o...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
>>>>to make a real conservative seem more to the right than he is. These
>>>>frauds are getting easier to spot all the time. jwt/ke5p
>>>
>>>I share your suspicions.
>>
>>Oho! So you have your 'suspicions' now, have you? 'Tell me, Mr. Black,
>>have you ever knowingly associated with a Communist? Are you in
>>possession of any Communist literature?' Etc. You're pathetic. And
>>hopefully, a troll.
>
>Now you've completely lost it. There's no sense to be found in this
>post.
who say they aren't liberal, but really are.
b: who are you to decide absent any compelling reason who is or
is not a liberal or conservative despite their declarations
to the contrary? (examples given)
cl: that's mighty suspicious talk; you sound like a liberal trying
to fool us and make conservatives look bad; I don't care if
you say you are a conservative.
You make conservatives look bad by association with your contemptible
ways. Take your Red-baiting persona elsewhere.