We've been discussing media bias on another post. Of course I can cite all sorts of examples of the left wing bias of ABCCBSNBCCNNNPRPBS and most big city dailies. I mentioned a few examples in my comments. I would like the people who claim Fox is biased to the right please give us some specific examples. Here's another example of Dan Blather's bias:
On Thursday's CBS Evening News, in a second installment of his Wednesday interview, Rather asked Kerry: "Have you ever had any anger about President Bush, who spent his time during the Vietnam War in the National Guard, running, in effect, a campaign that does its best to diminish your service in Vietnam?" Kerry replied, "Yup, I have been," and went on to confirm it "grates a little bit" and is "irritating."
There's just one thing wrong with this. The Bush campaign has not even mentioned Kerry's Viet Nam service. This is the strawman that the Dimocrats have been putting out every time the Bush campaign points out that his record in the Senate is weak on defense. He has voted against every major weapons program. He voted to cut the intelligence budget, and now ironically, he is bitching about faulty intelligence. The only people mentioning Kerry's Viet Nam service are John Kerry and the Dimocrats.
This same bullshit is going on with that loser Max Stumpy Cleland, Kerry's mascot. He pulled this "Republicans called me unpatriotic" bullshit when he lost his Senate seat in 2000. The Republicans pointed out that he cared more for union jobs than national security. And he ran as a conservative and voted as a Tom Daschle liberal. The Republicans never said he was unpatriotic.
That seems to be the new mantra every time the Republicans criticize a Dimocrat on being weak on national security.
"Mommy! Mommy! Those mean, nasty Republicans are calling me unpatriotic. Boo hoo! Boo hoo!"
So I'm watching the convention. I just listened to part of sore loser Algore's speech. They had him on Prozac. He was not any fun at all. I wanted to see his veins bulge and fire shoot out of his mouth. At least I didn't have to see him ram his tongue down Tipper's throat. Oh my God! I hope we don't have to see the Poodle do that to his wife! Eeewww!
Jimmah Carter is now speaking. Here's a real loser. I heard him talk about mistakes and failures. I didn't know he was gonna talk about his presidency. Here we have the most incompetent president of the 20th Century trying to talk about foreign policy failures of the Bush administration. BWAHAAHAHAHAHA! That's about as wacky as Bill Clinton talking about celibacy, ethics, and honesty.
Teresa Heinz Kerry told a reporter to "Shove it" right after giving a speech about their being more civility in politics. I just love that. Did it get much coverage in the lamestream media? Nowhere near as much as Cheney telling Leahy to go fuck himself. Media bias? Naw!
Hey! Didja see Sunday's Day by Day?
Gotta run. Ann Coulter is gonna be on Hannity and Colmes.
I'm back. Hillary is speaking. Didja know that if you google Hillary Rodent Clinton, I'm the first site that comes up? Amanda told me about that.
Hillary just said that Kerry is sympathetic and empathetic. As far as I'm concerned, he's just plain pathetic.
And now comes Bubba probably the most corrupt and disgusting president this country has ever had. I'm gonna turn off the TV before I throw sumpin' at it.
Time to go read a book.
Posted by denny at July 26, 2004 08:58 PMAhh, the Democrat Party. We can see mendacity, vacuous opacity, minds bereft of logic or fact, and elitist snobbery on display all at once. The Party of prevarication and nonsense. Stand proud.
Quite a feat, might I say.
Posted by: addison on July 26, 2004 10:39 PMThe Hildabeast wasn't at her best tonight. She sounded strident, plastic, and her inflexion was strange. She read her words with a strange syllable emphasis. I found it bizarre.
She is pure evil.
Posted by: onecent on July 26, 2004 11:17 PMAh yes Denny I too had to leave the TV before I did some thing I would regret. Can you believe the draft dodgger was talking about service in Nam. Maybe he didnt dodge the draft, it was a Coincidence that he was overseas in school during the draft. The only reason he was in England is the Canadians didnt want him.
Ann Coulter sounded a little pissed about getting fired from USA Today, I think it was something about not writting liberal enough for them. They must have thought she was going to be a nice puppet for them. Lets see what happens when the drunk murderer comes out tonight.
Posted by: Greg DiCroce on July 27, 2004 08:51 AMhahaha - liberals elitest? haha! do u even undersstand the political continuum? throughout history, it has been conservatives, through their misguided belief in social darwinism, that have been elitest.
and to write an attinbouogh-esque overview of this convention is laughable: progressive academia is the province of lliberal, reliance on narrow-minded antiquated views arw thw the province of the right.
U mention logic... ha!
Posted by: matthew g on July 27, 2004 08:54 AMMatthew - John Kerry, due to his marriage is worth over $1 billion. Ted Kennedy is a mutlt-imillionaire as is John Edwards. Jay Rockefeller is a multi-millionaire. These are all Dimocrats. I believe there are more millionaire Dimocrats in the Senate than Republicans.
One of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi is a millionaire. Most Hollywood movie stars are millionaires as is Michael Moore. These people like to talk about how concerned they are about the poor, but the only association they have with the poor is with their servants.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 27, 2004 09:38 AM"Mommy! Mommy! Those mean, nasty Republicans are calling me unpatriotic. Boo hoo! Boo hoo!"
Isn't that exactly what Clinton said last night? Something to the effect of "Those Republicans were mean to me!" Last I checked you lied to a grand jury and got impeached over it. But you lacked the dignity to resign. Talk about rewriting history.
Posted by: Matt Ashby on July 27, 2004 09:44 AMAhh, the childlike worldview of 'matthew g', the boy who has no concept of the SHIFT Key and its usage to capitalize the first word in sentences and proper nouns.
Misspellings galore ("attinbouogh" -> Attenborough), usage of historical events that have no relevance to today's reality, no understanding of what the word 'liberal' means, inability to form proper sentences and yet ridicule the concept of logic...must be on the Left.
Oh, and eight of the ten richest members of Congress are Democrats. And the word is elitIst, not 'elitest'.
Yawn.
Posted by: addison on July 27, 2004 11:38 AMAddison - Matthew suffers from cerebral palsy and has to use a special keyboard and therefore his posts are filled with typo's. He's also young and has a liberal background. I cut him slack on his typing skills. I am hoping that him hanging around and debating us will allow us to mold his mind and attitudes. Seeing a conservative point of view elegantly expressed by many people who comment on this site will hopefully let him see that conservatives and libertarians are not people who want to starve orphans and old people.
Matthew - Let me suggest two books for you to read: Starship Trooper by Robert Heinlein. There you will learn about TANSTAAFL.
The other book is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. She has a tendency to bludgeon you to death with the truth of what a society based on need will do to an economy. Of course we need look no further than the Soviet Empire to see what socialism has done to people and an economy.
I assure you, addison, that I have a better grasp of the english tounge than y;our ferrel little midden of a mind will ever grasp. I understand accutely what is meant by the term liberal means - that is, under the new liberal ethos, which began after the 1909 budget under Asquith. I have examined the work of Sir David Attenborough, and can thouroughly recomend his autobiography, Life On Air. Moreover, my citing of history is almost always to the point, whether you understand my inference or no. (note my use of the term "no" instead of "not" - this useage comes from the middle-english period, and is gramatically correct).
While my spelling is not always accurate, I prise my ability to form eloquent sentences. Thus your ridiculing of this aspect of my response shows a lack of meental dexterity on your part. Moreover, I find no flawed logic within my response, nor indeed an logic at all within yours.
Posted by: matthew g on July 27, 2004 12:26 PMScore one for matthew.
Pretty bad, addison, when one has to find fault with typos in order to argue.
Hey guys... listen up.
ALL OF THIS COUNTRY'S LEADERS ARE RICH, WHITE MEN!!!
Doesn't matter if you are a democrat or a republican. Always has been that way. There are starting to be notable examples, Hillary, Pelosi, Olympia Snowe. But they're not exactly poor either. Or Minorities.
How much is John Kerry himself worth? Without his wife, whom he's only been with for less than 10 years of his 60 year life?
Posted by: Robin Palm on July 27, 2004 12:49 PMColin Powell and Condi Rice are white? Holy shit! When did that happen? And isn't it amazing that it's the racist Republicans who have appointed the first black Secretary of State and the first black National Security Advisor? Colin Powell also became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under which president? BTW, how many of Kerry's inner sanctum are black?
Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 27, 2004 01:17 PMDon't forget Boxer and Feinstein.
And what about Hutchinson in TX? - Only to be fair and balanced, of course.
Posted by: Sandy P on July 27, 2004 01:22 PM"ALL OF THIS COUNTRY'S LEADERS ARE RICH, WHITE MEN!!!"
I'm getting really annoyed with both Robin and matthew.
Robin, the Bush Administration has made a concerted effort to include minority groups into The Cabinet. Reference Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Dr. Rod Paige. And no thanks to the liberals, Judge Miguel Estrada withdrew himself after two years of Democrat filibuster. If you want to bitch about racism in Government, look no further than your Democrat / Communist Party. They care more about partial birth abortions, gay marriage, and class warfare than they do about fair representatation in government.
Several minority groups have already complained about John Kerry for his lack of diversity on his campaign team. Also, Howard Dean was sharply criticized for absolutely hiring no diversity into Vermont's leadership team while he was Governor.
When losers like matthew and Robin bitch about the lack of diversity in government, its always the conservatives' faults. I won't stand for this fucking lie any longer.
You people should give credit where credit is due. If you won't, then shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Paul on July 27, 2004 01:29 PMMatthew:
"Moreover, my citing of history is almost always to the point, whether you understand my inference or no."
Point, perhaps. Correct, not usually.
As I've pointed out to you in the various threads, that you've mostly left unanswered (or in one at least, claimed ignorance). You cited Florida in the 2000 election, for example, in one. On point, perhaps, but not correct.
Posted by: Addison (the other one) on July 27, 2004 01:37 PMMatthew:
"liberals elitest? haha! do u even undersstand the political continuum? throughout history, it has been conservatives, through their misguided belief in social darwinism, that have been elitest."
Social darwinism is the opposite of elitest. So you're contradicting yourself there.
A meritocracy, one where you can determine your own fate, well, historically, you can argue who supports what. Today, it's pretty clear who's closer to that and who's farther away from it.
Most of what you support as Liberal programs, Matthew, is very elitest, and you even say so. Money is removed from the masses by force, and applied in a manner determined by very few people. You sneer at "charity" - when people determine how best to give their money away... But that's the essense of being "non-elitist".
"and to write an attinbouogh-esque overview of this convention is laughable: progressive academia is the province of lliberal, reliance on narrow-minded antiquated views arw thw the province of the right."
I'd tone down the claims of eloquence... I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, so I'll have to state what I think you said. That the "progressives" in academia are actually conservatives? Then.. How could they be "progressive", an adjective that describes those who are non-conservative?
From a common-sense perspective, that's really waaaay out there. Campuses are THE center of liberal, elite thought. Because of course, we smart people can make the best decisions for everybody, the masses are stupid, we'll care for them.
Posted by: Addison (the other one) on July 27, 2004 01:44 PMPaul - Fixed the comment.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on July 27, 2004 02:35 PMWell, let me make it clear to everyone: mea culpa
Considering the near uniformity of Denny's rather annoying commenters [sic] having poor syntax and grammar, I was going with that theme.
That matthew g has cerebral palsy would, of course, except him from that. So, rather than being a poor typist who is flagrantly arrogant, he is merely flagrantly arrogant--a hallmark, if you will, of a Leftist: the belief that he knows more than those with whom he disagrees and is thus of superior intellect and moral stance. Fine. It would not, however, appear that Denny's hope that he somehow learn something has evinced itself in the months that he has been here.
And, as "Addison (the other one)" points out, your first post is internally inconsistent. Thusly, it indeed lacks logic and shows a weak mind. Superfluity and verbosity of language does not, in any way, counterpose poor thinking.
Posted by: addison on July 27, 2004 03:26 PM"Social darwinism is the opposite of elitest. So you're contradicting yourself there"
Social darwinism IS meritocracy. according to social darrwinism, a free market should reiggn so that those most adapted and able should flourish, and the net wealth of society grows. Under this system, those wwho are less able fall by the wayside, more fool them.
Yet its not that simple: under this system, people who might otherwise be useful are left to rot, unable to cope with the free market. Hence social darwinism is flawed. society has an obligation, like it or not, to look after those who, for whatever reason, are unable to look after theirselves.
This would be a burden to society. I think this burden should be shared equally over society through the wealfarev state. You say this should be done through charity. Lets look at this:
Benefit systenm - regular income for those who need it. guaranteed. comes from a democratically elected government.
charity - overtones of pity. People donate as they please, often according to vogue. recipients have to virtually beg the charity, so say I needed a $5000 wheelchair a $2500 lightwriter andd a £$2000 neater-eater, I'd either have to beg a charity, which the charity probably couldn't afford given that other people neeed similar aammounts, rr get it from local government. State benefit is more suitable.
You argue that taxation is theft. If it was stopped, and the wealthfare state abandoned totally, I'd be unable to buy the above equipment, and my parents would, in all probability have institutionalise me.
thus to call ttaxatio theft is both ignorant and sselfish.
Posted by: matthew g on July 27, 2004 04:01 PMAnd isn't it amazing that it's the racist Republicans who have appointed the first black Secretary of State and the first black National Security Advisor? Colin Powell also became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under which president? BTW, how many of Kerry's inner sanctum are black?
Well taken!
Sharpton brought Dean to task for lack of blacks in his administration? Nobody thought to ask Al about the lack of diversity on his crew.
Hypocrisy as usual.
Didn't the usual suspects on the left say Powell and Rice were not black enough/or too white?
Posted by: WestCoaster on July 27, 2004 04:22 PMMatthew:
First off, I didn't call taxation "Theft". You did. I said it was removed by force. That is the case. Most taxes are. (Lotteries, taxes on people who can't do math, are one exception).
"Social darwinism IS meritocracy."
Which isn't an elitocracy. You do understand the distinctions, right? Basically, what you just said is the most able people *shouldn't* be _allowed_ to be in the best place?
"Yet its not that simple: under this system, people who might otherwise be useful are left to rot, unable to cope with the free market"
"Might otherwise be useful?" I think I know what you mean, but you're not saying it (much less eloquently) where it makes sense.
Basically, what you are trying to say (I think) is that you're capable of making a contribution, and won't be allowed to in a totally free market. But that's not true - you'd be able to do as much as you could, and you wanted.
"This would be a burden to society."
No, if you're fallen by the wayside, you're not burdening society. You're not contributing to it but you're not burdening it either. (I'm not advocating that, but I am pointing out that you're not being consistant with your denunciations).
"I think this burden should be shared equally over society through the wealfarev state."
Fair enough for your belief.
"You say this should be done through charity."
Actually, not quite what I said. I have pointed out that Government assistance programs run private charities out of existance, or attempt to, and are orders of magnitude less efficient. That's not quite the same as saying they shouldn't exist - but you keep refusing to acknowledge the waste and excess that accompany government programs and bureacracies.
"Benefit systenm - regular income for those who need it. guaranteed. comes from a democratically elected government."
No. On many levels. Because you're skipping over the people gaming the system and cheating it, for one, you're skipping the fact that democraticially elected government's have nothing to do with it, and you're skipping that it's not really guaranteed.
You keep saying it, but you never back up and explain. At best, you're saying that people have _decided_ to split the burden up. That also would imply they have the ability and right to decide _not to_. (Which you never address).
"charity - overtones of pity."
And government handouts are different? No, not really. they're the same thing.
"so say I needed a $5000 wheelchair a $2500 lightwriter andd a £$2000 neater-eater, I'd either have to beg a charity, which the charity probably couldn't afford given that other people neeed similar aammounts, rr get it from local government."
Amounts like that are routinely raised in fairly small communities for people in need.
http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php?id=P3249
$4200 in a short order of time, for one example.
But why would the local charity be berefit? You're _presuming_ that people would be stingy and refuse to give money. But that's a presumption, not a given. Additionally, with more money not going to the government, people might have lots more to contribute to charity. Many many people contribute for reasons that I don't think you'd understand.
"If it was stopped, and the wealthfare state abandoned totally, I'd be unable to buy the above equipment, and my parents would, in all probability have institutionalise me."
Where would they do that? In a government system that you just said we de-funded? (Or we'd have to fund another way).
Matthew, you're getting emotional, and you're not tracking and actually rebutting. You don't want to ask for a church to help, or other charity. That's not wrong, or bad. But it doesn't change the massive difference in wastage between private charity (which is not always religious/church based) and governmental bureacracy. Additionally, the impersonal nature of Bureacracy might make _you_ feel better, but it also means that nobody _cares_ about you. Your check lost this week? Ah well, not my problem, what they gonna do, fire me? You might find help, or you might not - but neither is a absolute certainty. You're much more likely to get personalized help from a private charity.
"society has an obligation, like it or not, to look after those who, for whatever reason, are unable to look after theirselves."
If we take this as a given, which I don't, but for this we will - why do I have to look after you - in the manner that _you_ want, rather than that what I want?
Posted by: Addison (the other one) on July 27, 2004 04:42 PMI've come to the conclusion that liberalism permeates the intelligent and the youth far more frequently than other demographics for one reason. They are young and idealistic and they believe that the ideas of Marxism can be applied into a transfixed society and establish equality for all. They develop arguments citing that Marxism hasn't worked becaused it hasn't been properly applied, or what not. However, they fail to perceive the catalyst of human nature into the theory of a socialized society. Socialism, like a flat tax, appears flawless on paper; however, it fails to recognize the element of human nature into its practice. Bottom line, socialism cannot be achieved as long as human beings occupy this Earth with a progressive consciousness and a defiance towards public intervention.
Posted by: agdegro on July 27, 2004 05:03 PMagdegro:
Actually, I slightly disagree. Socalism/communism can mostly work - if there's no alternative.
My prime example (and about the only one) is the Bushmen of the Kalahari exemplified by "The Gods Must Be Crazy". Unless everybody works together, and pulls their own weight, everybody suffers or dies. Communism works! (until a Coke bottle shows up). :)
Posted by: Addison (the other one) on July 27, 2004 05:14 PMJimmy Carter kept calling the administration's foreign policy extremist, I swear. Maybe leaving Iraq rotting away under sanctions would've been the moderate thing to do.
Posted by: Eric on July 27, 2004 06:28 PMExcuse me?
I missed the last RWMRA(Rich White Men Running America) meeting and would like to review the minutes. They haven't sent me my membership card either and I'm growing concerned. Robin? Have you seen it?
Jeez,
And rich black,latino,asian,arab,martian,manimal men could do any better? I'm sure if the appropriate candidates who didn't mirror whitey ran for office on a platform worth voting for, they'd be voted into office accordingly. Jesse Jackson ran for President. Jesse Jackson is rich. Jesse Jackson is full of shit and thusly didn't win. Just because the President is a white man does not mean government is lacking minority representatives, or even state and local governments are lacking in diversity representation. Get a grip. I'll be happy to provide examples if you'd like them. Let's not forget the demographics making up the population of this country are mostly white(european americans, crackers, whatever). Would you like to break down the population percentages and compare that to the percentages of representation in Federal government? I'd be interested to see the numbers.
Posted by: crash on July 27, 2004 08:14 PMMatthew - A word of advice. Don't get into a debate with Addison. He is the most intelligent commenter on this site. Also, Addison (the other one) has bitch slapped you on a regular basis. He did counsel you in another post to debate on the basis of facts which indicates he does think there is hope for you. I, myself, do like you and I do hope that you learn sumpin' by hanging out here.
Gummint assistance is enforced charity. The reason I am for Bush's faith based charity, even though I am an atheist, is that faith based charities do a better job than the gummint. Plus, the gummint bureaucracies have to take a big cut of the loot before they send it back to the states.
I'm a cripple, yet I have become very wealthy. I have done it without any gummint assistance whatsoever. I give to charities and I would probably give even more if my tax burden were reduced.
Eric:
I think concluding a deal, giving them money, assistance, equipment, and refusing any method of compliance or contractual satisfaction (other that the requirements on our side) would have suited Jimmah just fine.
After all, he's a big believer in Peace! And surely, if you'll trust them, they'll be trustworthy. Just ask the North Koreans. Oh, wait. Damn.
Posted by: Addison (the other one) on July 28, 2004 10:32 AMDenny, and both Addisons, once again I thank you for your patience and your thoughtful responses. I apologise on Matthew's behalf for anyone he has insulted. As I hope you have seen, your comments have made Matthew think harder than ever about his position, and you can probably guess that he is visiting other sites to pick up material with which to debate. I do not tolerate his use of abuse, and we have had a discussion about this. He has been admonished before by Denny and others. Just so you know, there is no chance of Matthew being 'institutionalised', and the government (nor anyone else other than his mother and I) does not pay for his special equipment. Though we are both overtaxed Brits, we have invested heavily in long term support for Matthew.
He seems to be getting into a 'flagrantly arrogant' position in these comments, which is nothing like him. This may be because, though he doesn't want to agree with your position, he is having to agree with a lot of your points.
As to Denny's point about it being possible to do OK even if you have a disability, I hope that Matthew can make a living someday, possibly writing.
Thanks again
Matthew Gs Dad
Posted by: Dayvon Goodsell on July 28, 2004 03:41 PMway too tired to argue with u guys much tonight. What you guys are saying seems to make some sense, but then I had a beer with my tea, so I'm inclined to agree with things more. My prime concern is that the needy in society are helped, and if this is done through charity in a fair manner, then I suppose all's well.
Posted by: matthew g on July 28, 2004 03:51 PMAtlas Shrugged
Posted by: chris on July 30, 2004 12:11 AM