Is The U.S. Media Really Liberal?
N9NWO
johnnyCjohnny <johnny...@johnny.com> wrote ...
: I'm of the school of thought that the U.S. corporate newsmedia is no
longer
: the bastion of liberalism that it has historically been. All the corporate
: takeovers and the conservative political drift in the country have cause
the
: U.S. media to become much more moderate and even conservative in their
: reporting. Many left wing stories that are widely reported in left wing
: periodicals and websites never see the light of day in the U.S. mainstream
: corporate media. Those who would argue otherwise should take a look at a
: hard left newsite like http://www.workers.org/ and tell me what that has
in
: common with the current mainstream corporate media? The corporate media in
: the U.S. seems to try to reinforce people's perceptions that the
capitalist
: system is just and that U.S. foreign policy is beneficial and benign.
While
: all us lefties who read the left wing press know otherwise. If the
: mainstream media is really liberal like it used to be and like many still
: conservatives ignorantly charge, then why is there this disconnect?
The news media is far more liberal than the general population. For one
thing, most of the adults in the US are non college educated while the news
personnel are firmly in the professional class. Too often those with
education
tend to be more permissive while the non college folks have stronger ties
to tradition. And the media, like most liberals, have few of their members
with military experience. The media is more likely to believe in
government,
though it is at best a love hate relationship.
In issues like guns or abortion, the news media sides with the college
educated crowd. In that they expect others to die to protect them (they
are too valuable), the media is for gun control. And they want abortion
to cover up their mistakes. The media thus sides with the left on the
culture
wars.
What we have is a media that no longer really understands the common
man. But then neither does the Left. But on the other hand the media types
tend to be linked to the establishment since most come from professional
class families. The left assumes that the business side is running the day
to
day aspects of the news media. But rather it is this mix of
establishment-left
ideology of the media that is the real force behind the attitudes.
The new establishment is a mixture of bohemian and bourgeois. It is neither
right nor left yet both. It is power based on education and achievement
rather
than family ties like the out WASP culture. In this, the new establishment
looks
down on the workers as idiots who need to be guided but goes out to fight
for
them. It is a group that is driven by being popular and in cultural center.
Abortion
and gun control as symbols of its war with the lower classes. Abortion is
its symbol
of freedom from traditions that they did not make. And gun control is more
about
controlling the masses than banning guns (they are embarrassed that the
lower classes
have access to guns but would gladly be gun owners if the masses where more
limited
in their rights).
The problem is that the establishment class swings with the political wind.
Therefore
they seem conservative to hard core liberals yet liberal to the
traditionalists.
johnnyCjohnny
"N9NWO" <n9...@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:Lq0j6.2498$eG4.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
Back-sassed a Free Man..
that the Entire Country is just as ignorant politically as they
are, and that everyone thinks an asshole like Rush Limbaugh
is some Great American, and that because they have a continguent
of hypocritical, loud-mouth, dickheads in Congress, that the
"rest" of the country is behind them.
The Man on the Street is far more moderate and reasonable
about things, and has a modicum of common sense and decency,
in contrast to the Noble Republican bastards.
Gunner
<cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>Actually, it's a common misconception among right wingers
>that the Entire Country is just as ignorant politically as they
>are, and that everyone thinks an asshole like Rush Limbaugh
>is some Great American, and that because they have a continguent
>of hypocritical, loud-mouth, dickheads in Congress, that the
>"rest" of the country is behind them.
>
>The Man on the Street is far more moderate and reasonable
>about things, and has a modicum of common sense and decency,
>in contrast to the Noble Republican bastards.
Properly translated, with a dash of reality mixed in.
Actually, it's a common misconception among left wingers
that the Entire Country is just as ignorant politically as they
are, and that everyone thinks an asshole like Bill Clinton
is some Great American, and that because they have a contingent
of hypocritical, loud-mouth, dickheads in Congress, that the
"rest" of the country is behind them.
The Man on the Street is far more moderate and reasonable
about things, and has a modicum of common sense and decency,
in contrast to the Ignoble Democratic bastards.
Gunner
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Johann von Tebbes
services' that feed them the information that is often NOT checked out by
the broadcasters. I watch and listen to them all and check one against the
others to see or hear what and how they report news. What do they
emphacize? How do the anchors express dislike or like for what they are
reporting. What tone do they use when reporting controversial news. Which
way their commentaries lean and many other little 'subliminal' side-notes to
their reporting. There's lots of ways to recognize bias in all reporting
and even in movies and sit-coms and tv dramas. An excellent example if the
'West Wing' show. Watch it and see if you detect any innuendos. Pay
attention. Report back. Stay tuned.
Chad Gore
<<<<<<<<<<
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Maybe this will Shed some Light on the Subject !
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
N9NWO
: that the Entire Country is just as ignorant politically as they
: are, and that everyone thinks an asshole like Rush Limbaugh
: is some Great American, and that because they have a continguent
: of hypocritical, loud-mouth, dickheads in Congress, that the
: "rest" of the country is behind them.
:
: The Man on the Street is far more moderate and reasonable
: about things, and has a modicum of common sense and decency,
: in contrast to the Noble Republican bastards.
The average guy on the street is very ignorant of what is happening
in the world or even in the US. Most people do not read a newspaper.
Most of their news comes from the TV, when they do watch the news.
And most newspapers and TV stations take most of their news from
the AP newswire. Which means that three newspapers dictate what
is "news". Those papers are the Washington Post, the NY Times and
the LA Times. What it comes down to is that most papers and TV
stations do not have the resources to research a story. And most reporters
are lazy thus the pack mentality in political coverage.
Aaron Kulkis
Worse than that, most journalism students are there PRECISELY
because they understand that it's the easiest route to become
propaganda agents for their own pet cause.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
Mathew
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>
> N9NWO wrote:
> >
> > : Actually, it's a common misconception among right wingers
> > : that the Entire Country is just as ignorant politically as they
> > : are, and that everyone thinks an asshole like Rush Limbaugh
> > : is some Great American, and that because they have a continguent
> > : of hypocritical, loud-mouth, dickheads in Congress, that the
> > : "rest" of the country is behind them.
> > :
> > : The Man on the Street is far more moderate and reasonable
> > : about things, and has a modicum of common sense and decency,
> > : in contrast to the Noble Republican bastards.
> >
> > The average guy on the street is very ignorant of what is happening
> > in the world or even in the US. Most people do not read a newspaper.
> > Most of their news comes from the TV, when they do watch the news.
> >
> > And most newspapers and TV stations take most of their news from
> > the AP newswire. Which means that three newspapers dictate what
> > is "news". Those papers are the Washington Post, the NY Times and
> > the LA Times. What it comes down to is that most papers and TV
> > stations do not have the resources to research a story. And most reporters
> > are lazy thus the pack mentality in political coverage.
>
> Worse than that, most journalism students are there PRECISELY
> because they understand that it's the easiest route to become
> propaganda agents for their own pet cause.
Haha.Delusional.Most journalism students would not waste their time
working for peanuts waiting for their pet cause.You have been reqdin too
much of the Stars and Stripes. Now tell me why the U.S. military has to
cover up news,to hide it to be more correct,from the public.
N9NWO
Is not that what the Left Wing is screaming about over the
Navy having civilians on board that sub? The Left does not
want the press nor the public to have contact with the military.
The Left wants a police state.
Back-sassed a Free Man..
Nice to see you reading my posts and agreeing completely
with me except for spelling errors (included as a red herring
for your entertainment)..
Jack wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> You misspelled "contingent".
Back-sassed a Free Man..
ya dumb gunny paranoid.
Back-sassed a Free Man..
The Common Man doesn't give a ripe shit about your hero and
mentor Rush Limbaugh, and therefore MUST be "ignorant"..
Perhaps now that you have a total Noble Republican fascist control
over Congress, you could pass some laws to remove their political
rights, eh?
....
And BTW, the media is NOT liberal biased. This is just your sorry
excuse for the fact that most of the country does not agree with you
bastards politically.
Andy Katz
>Is not that what the Left Wing is screaming about over the
>Navy having civilians on board that sub? The Left does not
>want the press nor the public to have contact with the military.
>The Left wants a police state.
Excuse me, Greg?
That's quite an extrapolation, especially when you consider that
people aren't upset over civilians piloting the sub per se, they're
upset because they were piloting the sub when it engaged in a stupid,
lethal accident.
How would you feel, by comparison, if a loved one was killed in a
plane crash and you discovered that the pilot had permitted a
passenger to fly the plane when it crashed?
I don't know what it takes to get a drivers license to operate a
nuclear attack sub, but I'm pretty sure that being *in* the navy is on
prerequisite.
Andy Katz
____________________________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
cubby...@aol.com
"The Liberal Media" is a big lie that has been told so often that
people do not even think about it when they hear it again.
The truth however is that the "media" has no agenda other than to sell
advertising, and for every newspaper with a "liberal" editorial staff
there is one of a conservative bent. For every New York Daily News and
San Francisco Chronicle there is a Wall Street Journal and Orange
County Register. (The make up of their readership determining the
editorial policy. It would be as foolish from a business sense to make
Bob Dornan the person in charge of editorial content in Berkley as it
would be to have Barney Frank write the "From Management's Desk"
column in Salt Lake City.)
And across the board, for every staff of liberal reporters, there is a
conservative owner with say in the editorial policy. If you feel
otherwise, prove it.
And, before you start repeating the mantra repeated by non-thinkers
that the Nightly News is liberal leaning, take the National broadcast
of your choice. NBC, CBS, ABC, of CNN. Pick a night. Any night. You
and I will both watch the show of YOUR choice, and the following day
you show me a bias in any story or editorial that airs.
Loki
David Annis
Johnny, I don't think anyone else on the planet finds "West Wing" to
be filled with innuendo. They stand up straight and proclaim their
fictional White House to be LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. It would only be
innuendo or bias if they were pretending to be neutral while slipping
leftist ideas in under the IQ radar.
=======================================================
With age comes wisdom, if you stay awake along the way.
Dave Annis Green Bay, WI
N9NWO
: >Navy having civilians on board that sub? The Left does not
: >want the press nor the public to have contact with the military.
: >The Left wants a police state.
:
: Excuse me, Greg?
:
: That's quite an extrapolation, especially when you consider that
: people aren't upset over civilians piloting the sub per se, they're
: upset because they were piloting the sub when it engaged in a stupid,
: lethal accident.
No, we have the media calling for an end of anyone, which includes
them, being on any military craft if they are not military.
: How would you feel, by comparison, if a loved one was killed in a
: plane crash and you discovered that the pilot had permitted a
: passenger to fly the plane when it crashed?
:
: I don't know what it takes to get a drivers license to operate a
: nuclear attack sub, but I'm pretty sure that being *in* the navy is on
: prerequisite.
These folks did not "drive" the sub. The one guy was to instructed
to start the procedure. But the process was under the control of
the Navy personnel on the other helm. The real problem was that
the captain did not see the ship when he did his scan through the
periscope. Also they do a procedure called "clearing the baffles"
where they turn the sub at a 90 degree angle to let the sonar hear
what is behind the sub. Neither procedure gave an indication that
there was a ship in the area. That is what the captain is being held
accountable for.
I wish that you fucking liberal non-military types would talk to
a real service member before exercising your first amendment
rights.
N9NWO
Yet most of what is "news" still comes from three papers - the NY Times,
the Washington Post and the LA Times. These three set the national
agenda every day.
: And across the board, for every staff of liberal reporters, there is a
: conservative owner with say in the editorial policy. If you feel
: otherwise, prove it.
And most conservative owners stand back from daily editorial
policies. Now if we get campaign finance reform then we might
see the owners dictating who the paper might support. And since
the only way for anyone to get the voice out will only through the
news media, big business will control everything.
The average journalist has no military background, has never worked
in a factory, is college educated. In other words totally out of touch
with people.
: And, before you start repeating the mantra repeated by non-thinkers
: that the Nightly News is liberal leaning, take the National broadcast
: of your choice. NBC, CBS, ABC, of CNN. Pick a night. Any night. You
: and I will both watch the show of YOUR choice, and the following day
: you show me a bias in any story or editorial that airs.
What you have is a bunch of elite left wing types who support
an left wing establishment. Hell, most business are socialist these
days. Look at the policies. The left wing of America is college
educated and no longer interested in the workers. Gay rights are
more important than gun rights (the workers want guns in order to
force their demands on management and the government). Everything
that the workers want is no longer supported by liberals. The liberals
push globalize while the workers push America first (look at the average
union member).
Mathew
Oh yeah,Olliver North truley a Left Winger.He proposed Martial Law as a
possibility ofr the U.S. George W Bush:"This would be easier if this
was a dictatorship,as long as I was the dictator" 12/12/00
>
>
>
>
>
>
Randy Sweeney
cubby...@aol.com wrote in message <3a8ebe2e...@news.midtown.net>...
>"The Liberal Media" is a big lie that has been told so often that
>people do not even think about it when they hear it again.
Yet the fact remains that virtually all of the "people" who work in the
media are liberal and share a common belief structure. They can not help to
slant the news into their world view. They know in their heart of hearts
that redistribution of wealth is good and that accumulation of wealth is
evil. They know that gun control is common sense and that gun owners are
dangerous, barely controlled killers. They know that man is in the forest to
kill Bambi and mow down defenseless trees. They know that big corporations
are evil.
>The truth however is that the "media" has no agenda other than to sell
>advertising, and for every newspaper with a "liberal" editorial staff
>there is one of a conservative bent. For every New York Daily News and
>San Francisco Chronicle there is a Wall Street Journal and Orange
>County Register. (The make up of their readership determining the
>editorial policy.
Again, you are confusing the purpose of the media with the beliefs and
agendas of those who work in the media.
And your "proof" of equal distribution of political leanings is highly
questionable.
Let us consider some first tier general distribution newspapers.
US Today, NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times,
Boston Globe, LA Times, SF Chronicle, Newsday
How about news magazines Time, Newsweek
All liberal.
Look at college journalism & newspapers. The conservative voices are
normally in an alternative paper, not the main college rag. These budding
journalists will grow up to believe that only the liberal voice is the voice
of the intelligensia.
The WSJ, while large, is not a mainstream paper with general news and the
Orange County Register (1/3 the size of the LA Times) is hardly a national
force in journalism.
The Washington Times has nowhere near the clout of the Washington Post.
It would be as foolish from a business sense to make
>And, before you start repeating the mantra repeated by non-thinkers
>that the Nightly News is liberal leaning, take the National broadcast
>of your choice. NBC, CBS, ABC, of CNN. Pick a night. Any night. You
>and I will both watch the show of YOUR choice, and the following day
>you show me a bias in any story or editorial that airs.
Easy... take the recent assasinations of Palestinian leaders by the Israeli
government.
Some news organizations used the correct term "assasination" some, notably
NPR, used the weaseling term "directed attack" to describe a political
assasination. Even choice of words is biased.
Pro-gun rights people becomes "powerful gun lobby"
Anti-gun rights organizations are "supporters of common sense gun control
laws"
Surely you are not saying that the media show a conservative bias.
Is ABC Anti-abortion?
Is NBC opposed to racial preferences (affirmative action)?
Is CBS supportive of a smaller central government?
The New York Times supportive of the rights of citizens to keep and bear
arms without infringement?
cubby...@aol.com
In that the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, neither of which could
be accused of being "liberal" have higher circulations than any of
them, I would suggest that these three hardly set any national agenda.
Further, when it comes to the overall newspapers in America in toto,
today, of the 25 most prominent political columnists (a list that
includes George Will, Ellen Goodman, etc.), only six can be described
as liberal, while 15 are classed as conservative (the rest are
considered moderates). While the conservative columnists share over
3,000 regular clients between them (newspapers, radio stations, etc.),
liberals share only 850, and moderates a little less than that. Of the
dozen or so most popular radio talk show hosts, all but two (Howard
Stern and Tom Stephan) are conservatives, the majority of them on the
extreme right. This hardly adds up to a "liberal media."
In the past 16 elections (1940-2000), the overwhelming majority of
newspaper endorsements went to Republican candidates in all but three
elections, and in most cases by an overwhelming number (on average
about two to three times more endorsements for the Republican
candidate than the Democratic candidate). In 1992, Clinton was the
first Democratic candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 to receive
more endorsements from national newspapers than a Republican
candidate.
>: And across the board, for every staff of liberal reporters, there is a
>: conservative owner with say in the editorial policy. If you feel
>: otherwise, prove it.
>
>And most conservative owners stand back from daily editorial
>policies.
Then how do you explain the majority of Presidential endorsements
going for Republicans in almost every election since World War 2?
>Now if we get campaign finance reform then we might
>see the owners dictating who the paper might support. And since
>the only way for anyone to get the voice out will only through the
>news media, big business will control everything.
News flash... They do already.
>The average journalist has no military background, has never worked
>in a factory, is college educated. In other words totally out of touch
>with people.
I am not discussing the average journalist, but rather the media in
general. That includes owners, publishers etc. etc.
And whether or not what they do on a day to day basis is what you or I
or anyone else does is irrelevant. It is their place to report what
the news is, and it is my contention that it is done without a
political bias favoring liberals.
>: And, before you start repeating the mantra repeated by non-thinkers
>: that the Nightly News is liberal leaning, take the National broadcast
>: of your choice. NBC, CBS, ABC, of CNN. Pick a night. Any night. You
>: and I will both watch the show of YOUR choice, and the following day
>: you show me a bias in any story or editorial that airs.
>
>What you have is a bunch of elite left wing types who support
>an left wing establishment. Hell, most business are socialist these
>days. Look at the policies. The left wing of America is college
>educated and no longer interested in the workers. Gay rights are
>more important than gun rights (the workers want guns in order to
>force their demands on management and the government). Everything
>that the workers want is no longer supported by liberals. The liberals
>push globalize while the workers push America first (look at the average
>union member).
You are not addressing the issues, but rather attacking a "liberal"
boogie man. The overwhelming number of political editorial journalists
are conservative, and the agendas promoted by the news media are more
often Republican than Democrtatic. However, if you feel otherwise, you
can take the challange that I have put to you. ie. take the National
broadcast of your choice. NBC, CBS, ABC, of CNN. Pick a night. Any
night. You and I will both watch the show of YOUR choice, and the
following day you show me a bias in any story or editorial that airs.
Up to it?
Loki
Andy Katz
>No, we have the media calling for an end of anyone, which includes
>them, being on any military craft if they are not military.
That's extreme.
>These folks did not "drive" the sub. The one guy was to instructed
>to start the procedure. But the process was under the control of
>the Navy personnel on the other helm.
No doubt. But when a mishap such as this occurs, anything that's not
SOP is going to receive quite a bit of scrunity. And that was a pretty
stupid accident, wouldn't you say?
>I wish that you fucking liberal non-military types would talk to
>a real service member before exercising your first amendment
>rights.
Well, if you know any, invite him or her to read al-e and we will
indeed talk.
Andy Katz
>The average journalist has no military background, has never worked
>in a factory, is college educated. In other words totally out of touch
>with people.
Funny how you just finished castigating me for not speaking with
someone in the service prior to commenting about the sub mishap, but
here you are, describing the average journalist without the least part
of a clue.
What's up with that, Greg?
>What you have is a bunch of elite left wing types who support
>an left wing establishment. Hell, most business are socialist these
>days. Look at the policies. The left wing of America is college
>educated and no longer interested in the workers. Gay rights are
>more important than gun rights (the workers want guns in order to
>force their demands on management and the government). Everything
>that the workers want is no longer supported by liberals. The liberals
>push globalize while the workers push America first (look at the average
>union member).
Here again, an individual who has repeatedly stated his antipathy to
liberalism, even to the point of advocating violence against liberals,
claims to know everything about liberals and their agenda.
Can you really blame some liberals if they try to return the favor
from time to time, Greg?
cubby...@aol.com
wrote:
>
>cubby...@aol.com wrote in message <3a8ebe2e...@news.midtown.net>...
>>"The Liberal Media" is a big lie that has been told so often that
>>people do not even think about it when they hear it again.
>
>
>Yet the fact remains that virtually all of the "people" who work in the
>media are liberal and share a common belief structure. They can not help to
>slant the news into their world view. They know in their heart of hearts
>that redistribution of wealth is good and that accumulation of wealth is
>evil. They know that gun control is common sense and that gun owners are
>dangerous, barely controlled killers. They know that man is in the forest to
>kill Bambi and mow down defenseless trees. They know that big corporations
>are evil.
As I said to another poster, your representation is hardly accurate of
the media as a whole.
Today, of the 25 most prominent political columnists (a list that
includes George Will, Ellen Goodman, etc.), only six can be described
as liberal, while 15 are classed as conservative (the rest are
considered moderates). While the conservative columnists share over
3,000 regular clients between them (newspapers, radio stations, etc.),
liberals share only 850, and moderates a little less than that. Of the
dozen or so most popular radio talk show hosts, all but two (Howard
Stern and Tom Stephan) are conservatives, the majority of them on the
extreme right. This hardly adds up to a "liberal media."
In the past 16 elections (1940-2000), the overwhelming majority of
newspaper endorsements went to Republican candidates in all but three
elections, and in most cases by an overwhelming number (on average
about two to three times more endorsements for the Republican
candidate than the Democratic candidate). In 1992, Clinton was the
first Democratic candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 to receive
more endorsements from national newspapers than a Republican
candidate.
>>The truth however is that the "media" has no agenda other than to sell
>>advertising, and for every newspaper with a "liberal" editorial staff
>>there is one of a conservative bent. For every New York Daily News and
>>San Francisco Chronicle there is a Wall Street Journal and Orange
>>County Register. (The make up of their readership determining the
>>editorial policy.
>
>Again, you are confusing the purpose of the media with the beliefs and
>agendas of those who work in the media.
Because the discussion is limited to a bias in the media. I could not
care less what any reporter or editorial writer may think when he is
at home. I am only interested with their thoughts that make it to my
newspaper or onto my TV screen. And these thoughts are more often
endorsements of conservativism than of liberalism.
>And your "proof" of equal distribution of political leanings is highly
>questionable.
How so?
>Let us consider some first tier general distribution newspapers.
>US Today, NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times,
>Boston Globe, LA Times, SF Chronicle, Newsday
What about the Wall Strreet Journal, NY Daily News, Houston Chronical,
Dallas Morning News, and New York Post? What about the fact that most
of these papers have supported Republican presidential candidates in
almost every election since 1940? Is that indicative of a "liberal"
conspiracy?
>How about news magazines Time, Newsweek
>All liberal.
What about them? Time Magazine is the #12 magazine in terms of
circulation in the country and Newsweek is #16. Both are beaten
regularly by Readers Digest, Family Circle, Modern Maturity etc. If
you want to make a case, push for an agenda in the top ten magazines
that people subscribe to.
>Look at college journalism & newspapers. The conservative voices are
>normally in an alternative paper, not the main college rag. These budding
>journalists will grow up to believe that only the liberal voice is the voice
>of the intelligensia.
Not at all. In college journalists may be idealistic and politically
motivated. However, in real life they quickly learn that selling
advertising, accomplished through selling copy, accomplished by
telling people what they want to read and see are more vital to
feeding their families than pushing an agenda.
>The WSJ, while large, is not a mainstream paper with general news
The Journal is a mainstream paper by definition in that it has a
higher circulation than every other paper in the country. Further,
they have an editorial staff and a highly conservative one.
>and the
>Orange County Register (1/3 the size of the LA Times) is hardly a national
>force in journalism.
It is in a smaller market then the LA Times. However, it is one that
appeals to it's readership just as the LA Times is. Just as GW won
more counties than Gore, the newspapers in the counties that Gore won
will more likely reflect the priorities of Gore voters and those in
counties which Bush won will reflect the priorities of their
readership.
>The Washington Times has nowhere near the clout of the Washington Post.
Perhaps because the readers do not care for it. In a city of largely
liberal people, as Washigton DC is it is no more surprizing that a
paper with a liberal editorial staff would out sell one with a
conservative editorial staff then it would be to notice that the trend
is reversed in Dallas and Salt Lake City.
>It would be as foolish from a business sense to make
>>And, before you start repeating the mantra repeated by non-thinkers
>>that the Nightly News is liberal leaning, take the National broadcast
>>of your choice. NBC, CBS, ABC, of CNN. Pick a night. Any night. You
>>and I will both watch the show of YOUR choice, and the following day
>>you show me a bias in any story or editorial that airs.
>Easy... take the recent assasinations of Palestinian leaders by the Israeli
>government.
>
>Some news organizations used the correct term "assasination" some, notably
>NPR, used the weaseling term "directed attack" to describe a political
>assasination. Even choice of words is biased.
>
>Pro-gun rights people becomes "powerful gun lobby"
>Anti-gun rights organizations are "supporters of common sense gun control
>laws"
Pick a night and network. We will both watch. The next day show me the
bias.
>Surely you are not saying that the media show a conservative bias.
The evidence I have provided would suggest that they do.
>Is ABC Anti-abortion?
I have no idea. I have never seen an editorial one way or the other.
>Is NBC opposed to racial preferences (affirmative action)?
See above. And then take a look at their on air personalities. I would
suggest that you will see more whites on their news and entertainment
shows then stastically make up the population.
>Is CBS supportive of a smaller central government?
No idea.
>The New York Times supportive of the rights of citizens to keep and bear
>arms without infringement?
One editorial policy of one news paper hardly could be considered
proof on a conspiracy.
Loki
Back-sassed a Free Man..
That ole Liberal Boogyman again, eh Kooky?
George Spelvin
>
> : Actually, it's a common misconception among right wingers
> : that the Entire Country is just as ignorant politically as they
> : are, and that everyone thinks an asshole like Rush Limbaugh
> : is some Great American, and that because they have a continguent
> : of hypocritical, loud-mouth, dickheads in Congress, that the
> : "rest" of the country is behind them.
> :
> : The Man on the Street is far more moderate and reasonable
> : about things, and has a modicum of common sense and decency,
> : in contrast to the Noble Republican bastards.
>
> The average guy on the street is very ignorant of what is happening
> in the world or even in the US. Most people do not read a newspaper.
> Most of their news comes from the TV, when they do watch the news.
This proves my original point: right-wingers blame the media for the
fact that the vast majority of people don't agree with them. Most
people are not conservative and it isn't because they are ignorant!
N9NWO
But most of the people are also not liberal either. Only about 23% of
the adult population would be considered conservative and 22% are
liberal. Ten percent see themselves as independent. The other 45%
have no political views at all and are not even registered to vote!
N9NWO
in TV or on newspapers have strong leanings towards
the democrats. They may be somewhat center left with
establishment sympathies but they are not conservatives.
And very few journalists have served in the military. It
should be mandated that journalists serve, or at least that
the news organizations recruit retired military as news reporters.
That might make papers like USA Today a little more pro
gun.
The owners might support the republicans but the average
journalist does not. And looking at all the dumb anti gun
stories in the papers makes them look even more left wing.
: >: >: Actually, it's a common misconception among right wingers
:
Back-sassed a Free Man..
Republican fat cats and now you have to reverse your spin
to insist the the Evil Liberals are doing some horrific thing.
You're pathetic.
cubby...@aol.com
>It comes down to this. Most of the journalists working
>in TV or on newspapers have strong leanings towards
>the democrats. They may be somewhat center left with
>establishment sympathies but they are not conservatives.
>
>And very few journalists have served in the military. It
>should be mandated that journalists serve, or at least that
>the news organizations recruit retired military as news reporters.
>That might make papers like USA Today a little more pro
>gun.
>
>The owners might support the republicans but the average
>journalist does not. And looking at all the dumb anti gun
>stories in the papers makes them look even more left wing.
No, it comes down to this. I refuted your arguements in the last post,
and rather than either admit it and move on, challange anything I
said, or rethink your position you repeat what has already been said
as if it will be more correct the second time then it was the first.
Saddly, that is not the case.
BTW... There is more to life then guns and rights of owners in the
world. However, as Henry Ford once said "If a man's only tool is a
hammer, he will see every situation as a nail."
Loki
N9NWO
: Republican fat cats and now you have to reverse your spin
: to insist the the Evil Liberals are doing some horrific thing.
:
: You're pathetic.
Speak of yourself.
How do you know that these oil men were republican?
Are not there now more wealthy in the democratic party?
It is very likely that many were democrats, seeing that they
were from Texas.
But it appears that you anti military types would ban
all contact by the public or the media with the military.
Why do liberals hate the military?
cubby...@aol.com
>: This proves my original point: right-wingers blame the media for the
>: fact that the vast majority of people don't agree with them. Most
>: people are not conservative and it isn't because they are ignorant!
>
>But most of the people are also not liberal either. Only about 23% of
>the adult population would be considered conservative and 22% are
>liberal. Ten percent see themselves as independent. The other 45%
>have no political views at all and are not even registered to vote!
Out of curiosity, assuming that you did not pull those stats out of
your ass, just exactly where did you get them?
Loki
George Spelvin
>
> : > : Actually, it's a common misconception among right wingers
> : > : that the Entire Country is just as ignorant politically as they
> : > : are, and that everyone thinks an asshole like Rush Limbaugh
> : > : is some Great American, and that because they have a continguent
> : > : of hypocritical, loud-mouth, dickheads in Congress, that the
> : > : "rest" of the country is behind them.
> : > :
> : > : The Man on the Street is far more moderate and reasonable
> : > : about things, and has a modicum of common sense and decency,
> : > : in contrast to the Noble Republican bastards.
> : >
> : > The average guy on the street is very ignorant of what is happening
> : > in the world or even in the US. Most people do not read a newspaper.
> : > Most of their news comes from the TV, when they do watch the news.
> :
> : This proves my original point: right-wingers blame the media for the
> : fact that the vast majority of people don't agree with them. Most
> : people are not conservative and it isn't because they are ignorant!
>
> But most of the people are also not liberal either.
And I didn't make that claim either. Most people are moderate, and most
voters are in the center as well (Gore and Nader together got over 50%
of the popular votes).
Only about 23% of
> the adult population would be considered conservative and 22% are
> liberal. Ten percent see themselves as independent. The other 45%
> have no political views at all and are not even registered to vote!
According to whom?
George Spelvin
>
> It comes down to this. Most of the journalists working
> in TV or on newspapers have strong leanings towards
> the democrats. They may be somewhat center left with
> establishment sympathies but they are not conservatives.
According to whom? And how do these alleged "leanings" affect the
journalism?
> And very few journalists have served in the military.
So?
It
> should be mandated that journalists serve, or at least that
> the news organizations recruit retired military as news reporters.
> That might make papers like USA Today a little more pro
> gun.
Why would news organizations look to hire pro gun people (or even look
to hire anti-gun people)?
And I seem to remember Al Gore serving as a journalist in a war. I also
remember Dan Rather running around in the Vietnamese jungles (he didn't
serve, but got a hell of a lot closer to war than most people in the
military today).
> The owners might support the republicans but the average
> journalist does not. And looking at all the dumb anti gun
> stories in the papers makes them look even more left wing.
Do you really think we just accept your "facts" on face value?
N9NWO
: > in TV or on newspapers have strong leanings towards
: > the democrats. They may be somewhat center left with
: > establishment sympathies but they are not conservatives.
:
: According to whom? And how do these alleged "leanings" affect the
: journalism?
We are seeing journalists "editorialize" within news stories.
Not very objective, is it? Especially on gun issues.
: > And very few journalists have served in the military.
:
: So?
:
: It
: > should be mandated that journalists serve, or at least that
: > the news organizations recruit retired military as news reporters.
: > That might make papers like USA Today a little more pro
: > gun.
:
: Why would news organizations look to hire pro gun people (or even look
: to hire anti-gun people)?
:
: And I seem to remember Al Gore serving as a journalist in a war. I also
: remember Dan Rather running around in the Vietnamese jungles (he didn't
: serve, but got a hell of a lot closer to war than most people in the
: military today).
It is not the same as being a soldier, for Rather. And Gore was
only a buck sargeant with less than 4 years experience. Not the
same as a professional soldier. The press should have the driversity
in its members. And gun owners and the military are not represented
at all.
: > The owners might support the republicans but the average
: > journalist does not. And looking at all the dumb anti gun
: > stories in the papers makes them look even more left wing.
:
: Do you really think we just accept your "facts" on face value?
I really do not care. My "facts" come from actually talking with
a number of journalists over the years. That includes a former
colonel of mine who was the only journalist with a military background
on his newspaper. He is now on the editorial board.
The Left is very dominate in the journalism community and the academic
community. We are going to take back both communities.
N9NWO
This was first presented to me in a Campaigns and Elections (Pol Sci)
class at Purdue by Prof Robert X Browning. These population break
downs have been stable for the last 15 years and often show up in news
stories. I would assume that it is common knowledge among Pol Sci
freaks like you.
Mathew
I can't find your post here so I will have to quote it by memory
Can you tell us what the Japanese would be smuggling?
cubby...@aol.com
>: Only about 23% of
>: > the adult population would be considered conservative and 22% are
>: > liberal. Ten percent see themselves as independent. The other 45%
>: > have no political views at all and are not even registered to vote!
>:
>: According to whom?
>
>This was first presented to me in a Campaigns and Elections (Pol Sci)
>class at Purdue by Prof Robert X Browning. These population break
>downs have been stable for the last 15 years and often show up in news
>stories. I would assume that it is common knowledge among Pol Sci
>freaks like you.
Hello... Perhaps I was bad in my choice of words. I am looking for a
verifiable source which would allow one to look at the data and draw
their own conclusions. Based on your previous output, for all I know
these stats apply only to people based on their interpretation of the
Second Amendment. What book or web site will verify these numbers for
all to see?
Loki
harrison numbugger
and why it would be relevant
N9NWO
I see this stat thrown around by the news media every election
year. It seems to be common knowledge. But other than said
in a classroom or by a political reporter, I have not seen any
study.
However, lets use a deductive approach. Do we both agree that
it is commonly reported that just a bit more than half of all adults
are registered to vote? And that it has been difficult to increase
registration.
And that we have seen, in a typical election, about 50% voter turn out.
Are we agreed that these statistics are commonly reported?
Then let us look at this years presidential election. It would appear
that we had record turn outs. And the vote virtually split down the
middle. Does that not look like we are evenly split 40-40 conservative
to liberal among those registered? With about 20% of the registered
voters being independent.
Now merge that up to overall populations and you get about 23% conservative,
22% liberal, 10% independent and 45% non registered.
The Lone Haranguer
Illegal aliens. It's a big business.
LZ
Back-sassed a Free Man..
in journalism. Of course, the immediate problem is that
so few of them actually read and write well..
And, BTW, the big corporations damned well ARE evil!
In spite of little suckass Dittohead types who try to defend
them..
Back-sassed a Free Man..
made the argument to his DittoStooges that since less than 25%
of the total populace of the country (including men, women, children,
etc.) had voted for Bill Clinton last time, that meant that over 75%
of the people were actually AGAINST Bill Clinton! By default.
That includes all those 45% you claim aren't registered to vote and
have no political opinions..
How can that be? Weren't you one of the ones claiming that Der Furor
Limbaugh was some sort of Great American?
Back-sassed a Free Man..
fat cat, we need to make sure he is NOT a Noble Republican?
Eh, Republican hypocrite?
Andy Katz
<cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>Maybe we do need more right wing dufuses working
>in journalism.
NY Post.
(Assuming you'd want to call it "journalism")
> Of course, the immediate problem is that
>so few of them actually read and write well..
That may explain why so many conservatives believe that George W is
the greatest thing since Jesus Christ.
cubby...@aol.com
>: >: Only about 23% of
>: >: > the adult population would be considered conservative and 22% are
>: >: > liberal. Ten percent see themselves as independent. The other 45%
>: >: > have no political views at all and are not even registered to vote!
>: >:
>: >: According to whom?
>: >
>: >This was first presented to me in a Campaigns and Elections (Pol Sci)
>: >class at Purdue by Prof Robert X Browning. These population break
>: >downs have been stable for the last 15 years and often show up in news
>: >stories. I would assume that it is common knowledge among Pol Sci
>: >freaks like you.
>:
>: Hello... Perhaps I was bad in my choice of words. I am looking for a
>: verifiable source which would allow one to look at the data and draw
>: their own conclusions. Based on your previous output, for all I know
>: these stats apply only to people based on their interpretation of the
>: Second Amendment. What book or web site will verify these numbers for
>: all to see?
>
>I see this stat thrown around by the news media every election
>year. It seems to be common knowledge. But other than said
>in a classroom or by a political reporter, I have not seen any
>study.
I have never seen this stat, and as well as having a minor in
Government, I have been following politics since the Nixon McGovern
campaign. So I guess that you did pull those figures out of your ass.
Did you go to the Eric Florack school of debate by any chance?
>However, lets use a deductive approach. Do we both agree that
>it is commonly reported that just a bit more than half of all adults
>are registered to vote? And that it has been difficult to increase
>registration.
So far, so good.
>And that we have seen, in a typical election, about 50% voter turn out.
>Are we agreed that these statistics are commonly reported?
Yep.
>Then let us look at this years presidential election. It would appear
>that we had record turn outs. And the vote virtually split down the
>middle. Does that not look like we are evenly split 40-40 conservative
>to liberal among those registered? With about 20% of the registered
>voters being independent.
Your are basing your assumption on the idea that only politically
apathetic people do not vote. I would suggest that the election of '92
and amount of people who registered to vote for the first time because
they embraced the candidacy of Ross Perot indicates that a great
number of those people who do not show up have very strong political
leanings but either do not feel that any of the issues apply to them,
that none of the candidates are reaching them, that there is not a
nickles worth of difference between the choices that they are offered,
or they are prevented from voting for religous reasons, or choose not
to excercize their rights for any number of reasons beyond apathy.
Further, you are assuming that everyone who can vote, but does not do
so does so by choice. As the recent news coming out of Florida
suggests, there is a percentage of voters, and I have no reason to
believe that this is an isolated occurance in either this last
election, or exclusive to Florida, who try to vote and are denied the
opportuinty.
>Now merge that up to overall populations and you get about 23% conservative,
>22% liberal, 10% independent and 45% non registered.
You are using fuzzy math. Accepting your premise that the liberals and
conservatives split the vote 40-40, yet you are giving the
conservatives higher representation in your conclusion. Even IF
everything else you posted was accurate, you would be looking not at a
23-22 split, but one of 22.5-22.5.
Loki
Randy Sweeney
Andy Katz wrote in message ...
>>Maybe we do need more right wing dufuses working
>>in journalism.
>
>NY Post.
>
>(Assuming you'd want to call it "journalism")
Does the post actually have news in it?
I thought they just chased ambulances
The Astounding Flap
"Andy Katz" <amk*@rcn.net*> wrote :
>
> That may explain why so many conservatives believe that George W is
> the greatest thing since Jesus Christ.
Nah, that's just a comparison kind of thing. I admit that conservatives
have pretty low standards lately. After 8 years of Clinton, all we want is
someone with at least average decency, a smidgen of dignity, who doesn't
embarrass our children to talk about what he's done lately and who doesn't
sell our military secrets to the Chinese for campaign funds.
-Any- conservative with those qualities, plus a record as a decent
governor or something, would have done just as well as Bush.
N9NWO
: in journalism. Of course, the immediate problem is that
: so few of them actually read and write well..
:
: And, BTW, the big corporations damned well ARE evil!
: In spite of little suckass Dittohead types who try to defend
: them..
Good. We will end all corporations. That means no
more cars or cheap consumer goods. And lots of
people out of work.
Or we could let the government own all the big businesses.
Did you like the management style of the Navy?
We have lots of prisoners who can be used as slave labor
in government run auto factories.
At least all the profits would be going into the national
treasury.
N9NWO
I will try to track down were this stat first came from. I do see
it show up being used by some reporter every election. So I do
expect that it is being taught. My first place to ask would be Prof
Browning at Purdue, as he gave it out in class (over 15 years ago).
He is now the curator of the C-Span archives at Purdue.
N9NWO
: fat cat, we need to make sure he is NOT a Noble Republican?
:
: Eh, Republican hypocrite?
You were sub mariner. Did your family go on a Tiger
cruise? Does not that make you just as bad?
N9NWO
:
:
: "Back-sassed a Free Man.." wrote:
: >
: > And yet your hero and mentor, fuckhead Rush Limbaugh
: > made the argument to his DittoStooges that since less than 25%
: > of the total populace of the country (including men, women, children,
: > etc.) had voted for Bill Clinton last time, that meant that over 75%
: > of the people were actually AGAINST Bill Clinton! By default.
: >
: > That includes all those 45% you claim aren't registered to vote and
: > have no political opinions..
: >
: > How can that be? Weren't you one of the ones claiming that Der Furor
: > Limbaugh was some sort of Great American?
Clellie is a 30 year vet of the Navy. He has great hatred due
having to deal with the academy grads (ring knockers). He
thinks he is liberals. Most true liberals would laugh him right
off any major university. He is not well educated enough to
be one of them.
BTW, he lives in the home town of AG John Ashcroft (Springfield
MO) which is the world headquarters of the the Assemblies of God
(AG) church.
Panhead
>
> Dave Thweeat
>
> I can't find your post here so I will have to quote it by memory
(sigh)
> Can you tell us what the Japanese would be smuggling?
(snipping the entire long winded joke, I'll get right to the
punch line):
"Did you see that "S" car go?"
Back-sassed a Free Man..
you little pinhead N9NWO?
Before you try to "take back" the academic community, you
might have to acquire a little education yourself.
N9NWO
: you little pinhead N9NWO?
:
: Before you try to "take back" the academic community, you
: might have to acquire a little education yourself.
More than you have, chief. What university did you
go to? Or was it correspondence school?
Why not go over to the AG college there is Springfield
and get a real degree?
Randy Sweeney
N9NWO wrote in message ...
>Or we could let the government own all the big businesses.
>Did you like the management style of the Navy?
>
>We have lots of prisoners who can be used as slave labor
>in government run auto factories.
>
>At least all the profits would be going into the national
>treasury.
I wonder if the Germans could dig up the old plans for the Trabant... we
could re-make this fabulous eco-socialist plastic car in the government run
plants.
Certainly it's oily blue exhaust would be a symbol to all... .
David Annis
>: You're just sore because the civilians involved were Noble
>: Republican fat cats and now you have to reverse your spin
>: to insist the the Evil Liberals are doing some horrific thing.
>:
>: You're pathetic.
>
>Speak of yourself.
>
>How do you know that these oil men were republican?
>Are not there now more wealthy in the democratic party?
>It is very likely that many were democrats, seeing that they
>were from Texas.
>
>But it appears that you anti military types would ban
>all contact by the public or the media with the military.
>Why do liberals hate the military?
>
>
>
>
HOLD THE PHONE!
You can't seriously expect to toss off a remark like "Are not there
now more wealthy in the democratic party?" without some kind of
substantiation. The only numbers I've ever heard had the Republican
donations over the Democratic donations by a ratio of 5 to 3. IIRC,
that ratio has held fairly steady for decades and applies to both hard
and soft money. If you know something different, share it with us.
=======================================================
With age comes wisdom, if you stay awake along the way.
Dave Annis Green Bay, WI
The Astounding Flap
"David Annis" <dan...@new.rr.com> wrote ;
>
> You can't seriously expect to toss off a remark like "Are not there
> now more wealthy in the democratic party?" without some kind of
> substantiation. The only numbers I've ever heard had the Republican
> donations over the Democratic donations by a ratio of 5 to 3. IIRC,
> that ratio has held fairly steady for decades and applies to both hard
> and soft money. If you know something different, share it with us.
Democrat fund raising from rich fat cats, sports and movie stars and
druggies is at an all time high, but still lower than the middle class
republicans can muster. The reason? Republicans are not as stingy.
Ted Clayton
Your opinion does not count as evidence. Try again.
Ted
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily
those of CMU.
Altogether, I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us.
If the book does not shake us awake like a blow to the skull, why bother
reading it in the first place? -- Franz Kafka, letter to Oskar Pollak,
January 27, 1904
Back-sassed a Free Man..
Congress. That of course, would hurt the Noble Republicans
so badly, they would be out of business.
And don't give the Noble Republicans any ideas - they'll extend
their programs of hiring out prisoners to Noble Corporations..
Back-sassed a Free Man..
Gary Lantz
N9NWO <n9...@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:QNzj6.2634$Mu5.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> : >: Actually, it's a common misconception among right wingers
> : >: that the Entire Country is just as ignorant politically as they
> : >: are, and that everyone thinks an asshole like Rush Limbaugh
> : >: is some Great American, and that because they have a continguent
> : >: of hypocritical, loud-mouth, dickheads in Congress, that the
> : >: "rest" of the country is behind them.
> : >:
> : >: The Man on the Street is far more moderate and reasonable
> : >: about things, and has a modicum of common sense and decency,
> : >: in contrast to the Noble Republican bastards.
> : >
> : >The average guy on the street is very ignorant of what is happening
> : >in the world or even in the US. Most people do not read a newspaper.
> : >Most of their news comes from the TV, when they do watch the news.
> : >
> : >the AP newswire. Which means that three newspapers dictate what
> : >is "news". Those papers are the Washington Post, the NY Times and
> : >the LA Times. What it comes down to is that most papers and TV
> : >stations do not have the resources to research a story. And most
> reporters
> : >are lazy thus the pack mentality in political coverage.
> :
> : "The Liberal Media" is a big lie that has been told so often that
> : people do not even think about it when they hear it again.
> : The truth however is that the "media" has no agenda other than to sell
> : advertising, and for every newspaper with a "liberal" editorial staff
> : there is one of a conservative bent. For every New York Daily News and
> : San Francisco Chronicle there is a Wall Street Journal and Orange
> : County Register. (The make up of their readership determining the
> : Bob Dornan the person in charge of editorial content in Berkley as it
> : would be to have Barney Frank write the "From Management's Desk"
> : column in Salt Lake City.)
>
> Yet most of what is "news" still comes from three papers - the NY Times,
> the Washington Post and the LA Times. These three set the national
> agenda every day.
>
> : And across the board, for every staff of liberal reporters, there is a
> : conservative owner with say in the editorial policy. If you feel
> : otherwise, prove it.
>
> And most conservative owners stand back from daily editorial
> policies. Now if we get campaign finance reform then we might
> see the owners dictating who the paper might support. And since
> the only way for anyone to get the voice out will only through the
> news media, big business will control everything.
>
> The average journalist has no military background, has never worked
> in a factory, is college educated. In other words totally out of touch
> with people.
Hmmm, sounds like George W. Bush or Fats Limbaugh, or Chris Matthews or
any of the other talk show hosts.
>
> : And, before you start repeating the mantra repeated by non-thinkers
> : that the Nightly News is liberal leaning, take the National broadcast
> : of your choice. NBC, CBS, ABC, of CNN. Pick a night. Any night. You
> : and I will both watch the show of YOUR choice, and the following day
> : you show me a bias in any story or editorial that airs.
>
> What you have is a bunch of elite left wing types who support
> an left wing establishment. Hell, most business are socialist these
> days. Look at the policies. The left wing of America is college
> educated and no longer interested in the workers. Gay rights are
> more important than gun rights (the workers want guns in order to
> force their demands on management and the government). Everything
> that the workers want is no longer supported by liberals. The liberals
> push globalize while the workers push America first (look at the average
> union member).
>
Most business people are right wingnuts. The CEO's that are mergeing and
downwageing are Greedy Republicans. The rich democrats have some ethics,
honesty and integrity. The group behind Bush are white collar crooks
attempting to buy everything.
Back-sassed a Free Man..
Come on up to Springfield sometime, and I'll show you my collection
of raccoon pelts.
Back-sassed a Free Man..
which is ALL the goddam Noble Republicans ever cared about.
Being a slobbering idiot was just icing on the cake for them.
Mark Roddy
>
>Is not that what the Left Wing is screaming about over the
>Navy having civilians on board that sub? The Left does not
>want the press nor the public to have contact with the military.
>The Left wants a police state.
>
Uh, this particular problem was not a left-wing/right-wing issue, it
was that killing a bunch of students while taking a military vessel
for what amounted to a joy ride, with a bunch a civilians apparently
helping to sail the ship, was an incredible blunder. In military
technical terms it was a major malfunction, a cluster f*ck. It was a
huge embarrassment, and it may amount to criminal negligence. Had this
happened under Clinton you and the RIGHT WING MEDIA would be screaming
about how the draft dodger was unfit to be commander in chief. Instead
your AWOL rich-daddy no-show dui president-select is basically getting
a free-ride.
The smash-down submarine joy ride sinking of the Japanese ship has
played well below the completely bogus
pardon-gate/office-gate/gift-gate nonsense that has been dominating
the supposedly left-wing media.
While it may be true that journalists tend to be left of center, the
editorial decisions about what to air, what to print, what the slant
is going to be, that is to say what is 'news' and what is the 'current
wisdom' about the news, is made by the corporations that own the media
outlets, not by the journalists who work there.
===================================================
cubby...@aol.com
<N...@ThankYou.com> wrote:
>
>"Andy Katz" <amk*@rcn.net*> wrote :
>>
>> That may explain why so many conservatives believe that George W is
>> the greatest thing since Jesus Christ.
>
> Nah, that's just a comparison kind of thing. I admit that conservatives
>have pretty low standards lately. After 8 years of Clinton, all we want is
>someone with at least average decency, a smidgen of dignity,
DUI and coke snorting are traits of decency?
>who doesn't
>embarrass our children to talk about what he's done lately and who doesn't
>sell our military secrets to the Chinese for campaign funds.
I agree with not wanting to be in a position of embarrassing our
children. Saddly, the Republicans decided that Bill Clinton getting a
blow job deserved to be on the national news.
> -Any- conservative with those qualities, plus a record as a decent
>governor or something, would have done just as well as Bush.
Saddly, Bush has none of these qualities, and he is one of the worst
governors in the country to boot.
Loki
The Astounding Flap
If you're so smart, how come you -ain't- rich? Oh I know... it must be
other people's fault...
All those smart rich people (and some smart middle income ones) like
Bush... but a bunch of Palm Beach Democrats and high school dropouts chose
Gore. Kinda makes you go Hmmmm...
cubby...@aol.com
>I will try to track down were this stat first came from. I do see
>it show up being used by some reporter every election. So I do
>expect that it is being taught. My first place to ask would be Prof
>Browning at Purdue, as he gave it out in class (over 15 years ago).
>He is now the curator of the C-Span archives at Purdue.
Ain't it ironic... the entire thread started because you felt that the
media has a bias which prevents them from being credible. And now you
are looking for a loose cannon among this bretheren to support your
unsupportable allegation....
Loki
cubby...@aol.com
Beg to differ with you yet again, but I am hardly poor. In fact, I
make 6 figures. And I voted for Gore because a: I prefer his civil
rights records, and b: I think that his plan to pay down the debt
(created by Reagan and Bush 1) was more responsible then tax cuts
which will do nothing to lower that debt.
Loki
N9NWO
Nay, it just means that we have a lot of problems
to clean up after having had Clinton as der Fuehrer
for 8 years.
N9NWO
: > : that the Nightly News is liberal leaning, take the National broadcast
: > : of your choice. NBC, CBS, ABC, of CNN. Pick a night. Any night. You
: > : and I will both watch the show of YOUR choice, and the following day
: > : you show me a bias in any story or editorial that airs.
: >
: > What you have is a bunch of elite left wing types who support
: > an left wing establishment. Hell, most business are socialist these
: > days. Look at the policies. The left wing of America is college
: > educated and no longer interested in the workers. Gay rights are
: > more important than gun rights (the workers want guns in order to
: > force their demands on management and the government). Everything
: > that the workers want is no longer supported by liberals. The liberals
: > push globalize while the workers push America first (look at the average
: > union member).
: >
:
: Most business people are right wingnuts. The CEO's that are mergeing and
: downwageing are Greedy Republicans. The rich democrats have some ethics,
: honesty and integrity. The group behind Bush are white collar crooks
: attempting to buy everything.
Like selling missile technology to the Chinese?
Some ethics that democrats have. And they
seem to really like putting down the poor. Like
that democrat doctor who called in to NYC
talk radio and said that she would never date
a garbage collector (did you know that garbage
collectors in NYC can make over $100,000
per year with overtime?) nor would she date
carpenters, electricians or plumbers. That is
what I see from the university liberals as well.
They look down on the working class.
N9NWO
: >it show up being used by some reporter every election. So I do
: >expect that it is being taught. My first place to ask would be Prof
: >Browning at Purdue, as he gave it out in class (over 15 years ago).
: >He is now the curator of the C-Span archives at Purdue.
:
: Ain't it ironic... the entire thread started because you felt that the
: media has a bias which prevents them from being credible. And now you
: are looking for a loose cannon among this bretheren to support your
: unsupportable allegation....
What gets me is that you have never seen this stat. It was
used over and over last year during the campaign by analysts.
It would seem to be common knowledge. Of course maybe
you do not read newspapers.
What I am complaining about is that newspaper staffing is
not diversity. Affirmative Action demands that each sector
of the population be represented in very job. If one group
has too many people in a certain job then they are over quota.
I just want my sector to have equal numbers.
Randy Sweeney
cubby...@aol.com wrote in message <3a901c1e...@news.midtown.net>...
>> Nah, that's just a comparison kind of thing. I admit that
conservatives
>>have pretty low standards lately. After 8 years of Clinton, all we want is
>>someone with at least average decency, a smidgen of dignity,
>
>DUI and coke snorting are traits of decency?
I find it so interesting that lib-dems can absolutely love and trust
unrepentant sinners like Clinton and Kennedy, but hate and fear repentant
ones like Bush.
Why is that?
Are you afraid of people who have faced their own weaknesses and triumphed
over them?
Does it disturb you that perhaps God was somehow involved?
Is there no salvation in your philosophy?
The Astounding Flap
"Randy Sweeney" <rswe...@Home.com> wrote :
>
> I find it so interesting that lib-dems can absolutely love and trust
> unrepentant sinners like Clinton and Kennedy, but hate and fear repentant
> ones like Bush.
>
> Why is that?
> Are you afraid of people who have faced their own weaknesses and triumphed
> over them?
> Does it disturb you that perhaps God was somehow involved?
Yes and yes. I know a drunk who found out that I had stopped drinking.
She could not talk to me without talking about how AA was for losers and
that Jesus made wine for that wedding and how I was trying to make her look
bad. I -never- said -anything- about it. Never mentioned it once. All I did
was not drink.
She hated me because God did something for me that she could not do
herself.
I don't know how she voted but she sure gloated when Clinton won the
first time.
N9NWO
: Congress. That of course, would hurt the Noble Republicans
: so badly, they would be out of business.
:
: And don't give the Noble Republicans any ideas - they'll extend
: their programs of hiring out prisoners to Noble Corporations..
But you would allow all those rich Hollywood leftist buy
congress instead? The Noble Left is so god-like that they
never make a mistake.
: > : Maybe we do need more right wing dufuses working
:
Ted Clayton
Except that Gore won among the most educated Americans (those with more
than a college degree).
Randy Sweeney
Ted Clayton wrote in message <3A907EF7...@mail.cmich.edu>...
>> All those smart rich people (and some smart middle income ones) like
>> Bush... but a bunch of Palm Beach Democrats and high school dropouts
chose
>> Gore. Kinda makes you go Hmmmm...
>
>Except that Gore won among the most educated Americans (those with more
>than a college degree).
I would suspect that an analysis against age AND education level would be
most enlightening here.
Andy Katz
<ma...@wattanuck.mv.com> wrote:
>Had this
>happened under Clinton you and the RIGHT WING MEDIA would be screaming
>about how the draft dodger was unfit to be commander in chief. Instead
>your AWOL rich-daddy no-show dui president-select is basically getting
>a free-ride.
This one's a classic ... I'm saving it and may even steal it
someday;-)
Andy Katz
____________________________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
Andy Katz
<N...@ThankYou.com> wrote:
> Nah, that's just a comparison kind of thing. I admit that conservatives
>have pretty low standards lately. After 8 years of Clinton, all we want is
>someone with at least average decency, a smidgen of dignity, who doesn't
>embarrass our children to talk about what he's done lately and who doesn't
>sell our military secrets to the Chinese for campaign funds.
Actually, I don't blame you, but why'd you send McCain packing and put
W in office?
Mathew
Gore can speak English;Bush is still learning.
>
>
>
>
>
Mathew
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, N9NWO wrote:
> : > : And, before you start repeating the mantra repeated by non-thinkers
> : > : that the Nightly News is liberal leaning, take the National broadcast
> : > : of your choice. NBC, CBS, ABC, of CNN. Pick a night. Any night. You
> : > : and I will both watch the show of YOUR choice, and the following day
> : > : you show me a bias in any story or editorial that airs.
> : >
> : > What you have is a bunch of elite left wing types who support
> : > an left wing establishment. Hell, most business are socialist these
> : > days. Look at the policies. The left wing of America is college
> : > educated and no longer interested in the workers. Gay rights are
> : > more important than gun rights (the workers want guns in order to
> : > force their demands on management and the government). Everything
> : > that the workers want is no longer supported by liberals. The liberals
> : > push globalize while the workers push America first (look at the average
> : > union member).
> : >
> :
> : Most business people are right wingnuts. The CEO's that are mergeing and
> : downwageing are Greedy Republicans. The rich democrats have some ethics,
> : honesty and integrity. The group behind Bush are white collar crooks
> : attempting to buy everything.
>
> Like selling missile technology to the Chinese?
Well,for the millionth time,you still have not shown any proof of
this,have you.
Mathew
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Panhead wrote:
> Mathew wrote:
> >
> > Dave Thweeat
> >
> > I can't find your post here so I will have to quote it by memory
>
> (sigh)
>
> > Can you tell us what the Japanese would be smuggling?
>
> (snipping the entire long winded joke, I'll get right to the
> punch line):
> "Did you see that "S" car go?"
I think they left with the grey poupon!
>
>
Mathew
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, harrison numbugger wrote:
>
>
> Mathew wrote:
> >
> > Dave Thweeat
> >
> > I can't find your post here so I will have to quote it by memory
> >
> > Can you tell us what the Japanese would be smuggling?
>
> and why it would be relevant
According to Dave it would be
>
>
Mathew
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, The Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>
> Mathew wrote:
> >
> > Dave Thweeat
> >
> > I can't find your post here so I will have to quote it by memory
> >
> > Can you tell us what the Japanese would be smuggling?
Hehehehhehehhahahehhhahahaaahhehhahahaaahaahahaoaoheaa
ahheea
Heehahaaa
Sure.
Time for your medication.
>
> Illegal aliens. It's a big business.
> LZ
>
>
The Astounding Flap
"Mathew" <m...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote :
>
>
> Gore can speak English;Bush is still learning.
Gore supporters are still learning too... Learning how to read and
follow directions, learning how to swallow crow, learning how to deal with 4
to 8 years of honesty in Government and of course, for most of them...
learning English while hiding out from the INS.
cubby...@aol.com
<john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote:
>You are a fool. What civil rights record? His father voting
>against them? Please cite all of Gore's civil right's votes (not
>money for nothing) including those supporting the most important
>civil right, the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment is hardly the most important civil right.
Especially when compared to the rights of minorities, women, the poor,
the homeless, and gays. And how Gore's father voted on civil rights
issues was no more relevant to Gore's stances then was Prescott Bush's
voting record when compared to that of his grandson.
>Also my money and yours is not the property of the state.
Once taxes have been paid, they are no longer yours or mine, but the
property of the treasury and people of the United States. To think
otherwise is to assume that once you fill up your tank at the local
Shell station the money you paid for the gas is still yours.
>Let the
>government live with the taxes provided by it in the Constitution and
>First Ten Amendments (rather than the 16th).
The first 10 Amendments do not cover taxes and therefore are
irrelevant to this conversation.
Loki
cubby...@aol.com
<john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:03:36 -0500, Ted Clayton
><clay...@mail.cmich.edu> wrote:
>
>>The Astounding Flap wrote:
>>>
>>> "Back-sassed a Free Man.." <cool...@luke.com> wrote :
>>> >
>>> > Bush's REAL qualification was the ability to attract MONEY,
>>>
>>> If you're so smart, how come you -ain't- rich? Oh I know... it must be
>>> other people's fault...
>>>
>>> All those smart rich people (and some smart middle income ones) like
>>> Bush... but a bunch of Palm Beach Democrats and high school dropouts chose
>>> Gore. Kinda makes you go Hmmmm...
>>
>>Except that Gore won among the most educated Americans (those with more
>>than a college degree).
>
>Oh, then why didn't I with multiple degrees vote for him?
Because you are stupid.
Loki
cubby...@aol.com
wrote:
>
>cubby...@aol.com wrote in message <3a901c1e...@news.midtown.net>...
>
>>> Nah, that's just a comparison kind of thing. I admit that
>conservatives
>>>have pretty low standards lately. After 8 years of Clinton, all we want is
>>>someone with at least average decency, a smidgen of dignity,
>>
>>DUI and coke snorting are traits of decency?
>
>
>I find it so interesting that lib-dems can absolutely love and trust
>unrepentant sinners like Clinton and Kennedy, but hate and fear repentant
>ones like Bush.
Had he truly repented he would have been honest about his DUI and coke
usage. In that he is still in denial, I do not consider him to be
repentant.
Clinton on the other hand came forth and apologized, the signs of
repentance.
Your standards, and Clinton still fares better than Snatch.
Loki
cubby...@aol.com
>: >I will try to track down were this stat first came from. I do see
>: >it show up being used by some reporter every election. So I do
>: >expect that it is being taught. My first place to ask would be Prof
>: >Browning at Purdue, as he gave it out in class (over 15 years ago).
>: >He is now the curator of the C-Span archives at Purdue.
>:
>: Ain't it ironic... the entire thread started because you felt that the
>: media has a bias which prevents them from being credible. And now you
>: are looking for a loose cannon among this bretheren to support your
>: unsupportable allegation....
>
>What gets me is that you have never seen this stat. It was
>used over and over last year during the campaign by analysts.
>It would seem to be common knowledge. Of course maybe
>you do not read newspapers.
I do, as well as watch the news on TV and have news radio running in
the background while I work. Find one source which posted this stat
that I contend you pulled out of your ass.
>What I am complaining about is that newspaper staffing is
>not diversity. Affirmative Action demands that each sector
>of the population be represented in very job. If one group
>has too many people in a certain job then they are over quota.
>I just want my sector to have equal numbers.
You have yet to demonstrate that there is a bias in the media favoring
the left, and on the other hand, I have provided evidence that if
anything the opposite exists. Of course, when you saw it you changed
the subject.
Loki
cubby...@aol.com
<john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:31:45 GMT, cubby...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:26:45 GMT, "The Astounding Flap"
>><N...@ThankYou.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Andy Katz" <amk*@rcn.net*> wrote :
>>>>
>>>> That may explain why so many conservatives believe that George W is
>>>> the greatest thing since Jesus Christ.
>>>
>>> Nah, that's just a comparison kind of thing. I admit that conservatives
>>>have pretty low standards lately. After 8 years of Clinton, all we want is
>>>someone with at least average decency, a smidgen of dignity,
>>
>>DUI and coke snorting are traits of decency?
>
>In a Free Society they would be. Who are you to tell people what
>chemicals they can put into their bodies or anything else.
>
>Be gone Statist puppy.
By that standard, why is it anyone else's business where Bill Clinton
put his penis? Yet, that is the alpha and omega of what elected
Snatch.
Loki
Back-sassed a Free Man..
definitely aren't.
Most of those rich Noble Republicans got it by screwing their
fellow man.
Michael Zarlenga
:>Had this
:>happened under Clinton you and the RIGHT WING MEDIA would be screaming
:>about how the draft dodger was unfit to be commander in chief. Instead
:>your AWOL rich-daddy no-show dui president-select is basically getting
:>a free-ride.
: This one's a classic ... I'm saving it and may even steal it
: someday;-)
No one's claiming the media is exclusively left-wing only
that it's biased heavily in that direction. Reporter and
journalist voting patterns bear that out, with somewhere
between 80-90% self-identifying with "liberal" and about
the same %age voting Democrat.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Michael Skakel's 6-iron has killed more people than all
my guns combined.
Michael Zarlenga
: Gore can speak English;Bush is still learning.
Bush knows how not to be a self-aggrandizing exaggerator
who thinks he knows everything and who must speak down to
the average voter as a ifhe were a retarded child.
Gore will never learn that.
The Lone Haranguer
Mathew wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, The Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Mathew wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave Thweeat
> > >
> > > I can't find your post here so I will have to quote it by memory
> > >
> > > Can you tell us what the Japanese would be smuggling?
>
> Hehehehhehehhahahehhhahahaaahhehhahahaaahaahahaoaoheaa
> ahheea
>
> Heehahaaa
>
> Sure.
> Time for your medication.
Hope you watched the History Channel tonight Mathew. The
name of the show was "Nighmare in Manchuria". Lots of
information you won't find in the history books, especially
those published in Japan.
Good photos of them doing medical experiments on American
POWs and turning loose Bubonic Plague and other diseases
loose on the Chinese.
Wonder if they have issued any apologies yet?
LZ
The Astounding Flap
"Ted Clayton" <clay...@mail.cmich.edu> wrote :
>
> Except that Gore won among the most educated Americans (those with more
> than a college degree).
Degrees in what and from where and what year would be my question.
Liberal colleges turning out liberals with no marketable skills and a habit
of believing whatever they are told and a grudge against those who actually
provide their jobs? Spending your time and Daddy's money in school is not a
sign of smarts in the same way that creating a business, providing a
service, hiring thousands of people and making money is...
The Astounding Flap
> fellow man.
Yep... it's always -somebody- else's fault. Probably the guy who's
business fed your family and who's property tax educated you and who's tax
support is keeping you in subsidized dwellings and free medical care.
The Astounding Flap
"Andy Katz" <amk*@rcn.net*> wrote in message
news:t1219to3ghsob58u8...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:26:45 GMT, "The Astounding Flap"
> <N...@ThankYou.com> wrote:
>
> > Nah, that's just a comparison kind of thing. I admit that
conservatives
> >have pretty low standards lately. After 8 years of Clinton, all we want
is
> >someone with at least average decency, a smidgen of dignity, who doesn't
> >embarrass our children to talk about what he's done lately and who
doesn't
> >sell our military secrets to the Chinese for campaign funds.
>
> Actually, I don't blame you, but why'd you send McCain packing and put
> W in office?
Ah, well... we did sort of want a conservative...
Mathew
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, The Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>
> Mathew wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, The Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mathew wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dave Thweeat
> > > >
> > > > I can't find your post here so I will have to quote it by memory
> > > >
> > > > Can you tell us what the Japanese would be smuggling?
> >
> > Hehehehhehehhahahehhhahahaaahhehhahahaaahaahahaoaoheaa
> > ahheea
> >
> > Heehahaaa
> >
> > Sure.
> > Time for your medication.
>
> Hope you watched the History Channel tonight Mathew. The
> name of the show was "Nighmare in Manchuria". Lots of
> information you won't find in the history books, especially
> those published in Japan.
>
> Good photos of them doing medical experiments on American
> POWs and turning loose Bubonic Plague and other diseases
> loose on the Chinese.
You are right Lone.This is not WW11 though,and we are can not use this
accident as an excuse to say it is ok that 9 Japanese were killed.
This were teachers and school students.
The younger generation of Japanese are light-years different than the
Kamikaze Japanese of WW11.
Back-sassed a Free Man..
Is it simply because he's a Noble Republican? I know you guys
want to use this "he's repented" mechanism to excuse anything
a Noble Republican has ever done..
Randy Sweeney wrote:
> cubby...@aol.com wrote in message <3a901c1e...@news.midtown.net>...
>
> >> Nah, that's just a comparison kind of thing. I admit that
> conservatives
> >>have pretty low standards lately. After 8 years of Clinton, all we want is
> >>someone with at least average decency, a smidgen of dignity,
> >
> >DUI and coke snorting are traits of decency?
>
> I find it so interesting that lib-dems can absolutely love and trust
> unrepentant sinners like Clinton and Kennedy, but hate and fear repentant
> ones like Bush.
>
> Why is that?
> Are you afraid of people who have faced their own weaknesses and triumphed
> over them?
> Does it disturb you that perhaps God was somehow involved?
>
> Is there no salvation in your philosophy?
Back-sassed a Free Man..
I would pass legislation to make it OK for MY party to get
all kinds of corporate money, while preventing the opposing
party from doing so!!
Isn't that kind of what you wanted me to say?