Dems Refuse To Release Tape Of Hatefest

[rollwave]

Kerry still will not release the tape of all the Hollywood has-beens spouting their inane and childish remarks. He knows full well that if this tape ever sees the light of day that his goose is cooked. Liberals exposed themselves for who they really are: a bunch of mean-spirited elitist who are so devoid of ideas they have to resort to name calling. I thought liberals were the most compasionate among us? (Naturally, the Kerry camp blamed Bush for inspiring such bile amongst liberals) And then Kerry said that the performers represented the values of America. Then let America be the judge.
I still find it quite hilarious that a bunch of college dropouts like Michael Moore, George Clooney, Whoopi Goldberg, Mellencamp, etc... continue to call Bush stupid despite the fact that Bush has a degree from Yale and a MBA from Harvard. But then again, the opposition said the exact same things about Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan

[mogadishu]

may i ask you what the hell this has to do with the actual election? I hate conservatives and their bullshit 'values' agenda. you refuse to focuse on anything but that some progressives use mean words when they talk about chimpy. WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT JOBS, HEALTHCARE, THE DAMN ECONOMY. but of course its more important to launch campaigns so kerry gets caught saying bad things or with the bad crowd. About these people reflecting america - hell, i bet they didnt go half as far as i would have.

btw - do you think most americans support bush running hateful ads about kerry absolutely everywhere?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by rollwave@12 July 2004 - 02:56
Kerry still will not release the tape of all the Hollywood has-beens spouting their inane and childish remarks. He knows full well that if this tape ever sees the light of day that his goose is cooked. Liberals exposed themselves for who they really are: a bunch of mean-spirited elitist who are so devoid of ideas they have to resort to name calling. I thought liberals were the most compasionate among us? (Naturally, the Kerry camp blamed Bush for inspiring such bile amongst liberals) And then Kerry said that the performers represented the values of America. Then let America be the judge.
I still find it quite hilarious that a bunch of college dropouts like Michael Moore, George Clooney, Whoopi Goldberg, Mellencamp, etc... continue to call Bush stupid despite the fact that Bush has a degree from Yale and a MBA from Harvard. But then again, the opposition said the exact same things about Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan
Damn Hank can't you do better than that?!!!

How about the release of some important documents hmmmm?

Thread closed. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Alex H]

Rollwave -

Thanks for the bile and babble - as someone who lives somewhere out side of the United States of America, your post has told me absolutly jack shit about whatever it is you seem to be upset about. I gather it has to do with something to do with the US elections and some type of mud-slinging, but that was all I could understand.

Edit - I read it again and managed to glean some new insight. George W Bush IS stupid. It doesn't matter what type of education he purchased, he is still stupid.

I know a doctor who went bankrupt a few months ago. I read in the paper about a guy with a degree in Business who was charged with murder. I met a guy who arrived in Australia 20 years ago after droping out of high school with 50 pounds in his pocket who now has $90 mil worth of assets. Tertiary qualifications are no way to judge somebody's ability do things. If Bush had a PhD in Presidency, you could tell me to get stuffed, but he doesn't.

His "qualifications" didn't seem to help him in his business ventures, did they? Bit of a disaster really, weren't they?

Bush comes from a rich family and bought or bullshited his way into pretty much everything he has done so far.

[Illuminati]

And once again, I have to say SOURCES? Sorry, but for every unbacked subjective post I see you make rollwave your ability to make a valid argument seems less and less.

I'll give an example - How about a study a couple of years ago on the IQ of the past twelve presidents? :D


In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four-month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush.

Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others. There have been twelve presidents over the past 60 years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors, which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
175 .. James E. Carter (D)
174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
155 .. Richard M. Nixon ®
147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 .. Harry Truman (D)
126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson ( D)
122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower ®
121 .. Gerald Ford ®
105 .. Ronald Reagan ®
098 .. George Bush ®
091 .. George W. Bush ®

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President G.W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.

The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.

No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176.

Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.

"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had at least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking." The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams,a world-respected psychiatrist.

This study was commissioned on February 13, 2001 and released on July 9, 2001 to subscribing member universities and organizations within the educational community

Source (http://www.hypocrites.com/article15029.html)

Education doesn't mean anything like it used to - It can unfortunately be bought a lot easier than being earned. True interlectual ability however can be more of a benefit to presidents, but it isn't what you have but what you do with it ;)

EDIT: The study has since been found to be a hoax (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm) (dammit! :P), thanks for moga for letting me know about that. Didn't help that I got it a while back from the Guardian myself :blink:

[clocker]

Kerry still will not release the tape of all the Hollywood has-beens spouting their inane and childish remarks. He knows full well that if this tape ever sees the light of day that his goose is cooked.

When Bush/Cheney release tapes of their fund raising events then I'll join you in your crusade.

BTW, Michael Moore is a "Hollywood has-been"?
Interesting definition.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman@12 July 2004 - 02:48
Damn Hank can't you do better than that?!!!

How about the release of some important documents hmmmm?

Thread closed. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Once again Busyman you are wrong. I am not one of the childish people who make alternate accounts and start trouble. I have but one account and you know for yourself that I’m not the type of person to run away from a fight.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+12 July 2004 - 12:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 12 July 2004 - 12:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@12 July 2004 - 02:48
Damn Hank can&#39;t you do better than that?&#33;&#33;&#33;

How about the release of some important documents hmmmm?

Thread closed. :lol:&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol:
Once again Busyman you are wrong. I am not one of the childish people who make alternate accounts and start trouble. I have but one account and you know for yourself that I’m not the type of person to run away from a fight. [/b][/quote]
True dat&#33;&#33; I just thought it was funny. :(

[mogadishu]

what about the tape of the bush fundraiser with all the fat cats where he says, "some people call you the haves and the have mores - I call you my base". Great values there.

(i might have gotten the quote slightly wrong, but its pretty much that)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@12 July 2004 - 08:20

Kerry still will not release the tape of all the Hollywood has-beens spouting their inane and childish remarks. He knows full well that if this tape ever sees the light of day that his goose is cooked.

When Bush/Cheney release tapes of their fund raising events then I&#39;ll join you in your crusade.


If you could create a demand for the release of such tapes, I&#39;m sure the Republicans wouldn&#39;t balk; so far, though, I&#39;ve heard nothing.

It would seem the tape of the Dem fund-raiser would have more market appeal because of it&#39;s "star" content.

As Kerry said, "....their expressions of American values...." etc., etc.

I know what Republicans say about family values, and I&#39;m pretty sure I could guess what Whoopi Goldberg would say, but I&#39;d like to hear it from the horse&#39;s a....I mean, mouth, y&#39;know?

Seriously-if they were honestly expressing American values, what harm?

We are all very well aware how the lives of these Hollywood people resemble ours, right?

I&#39;m sure we all feel the same way..... :huh:

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@12 July 2004 - 14:13

If you could create a demand for the release of such tapes, I&#39;m sure the Republicans wouldn&#39;t balk; so far, though, I&#39;ve heard nothing.


Not so.

On two recent Republican fundraising tours to Colorado (one each by Bush and Cheney) reporters weren&#39;t allowed anywhere near the actual events themselves.
Lots of folks are curious, especially since the City of Denver got stuck with a &#036;56,000 bill for extra police security.
The city is considering suing the GOP for the money.
The GOPs response ( so far) has only been that there was "Presidential business" conducted also, although no one is willing to say exactly what that might entail .

Looks to me that not only are the Republicans equally as guilty of holding closed fundraisers, but all of the citizens get to pick up (at least part of) the tab to boot.

[SuperJude™]

I am middle of the road, neither Dem nor Republican. I can see good and bad in both.

Just wanted to state that one.

See the issue I have is with this semi-erudite, elitist leftist snob shit, like if you don&#39;t agree with us you are a goose stepping Bush Lover. I am in the heart of liberal country BTW, and I have to say: People who support Bush are more polite than the so called liberals.

I am in customer service btw. But here is what really gets me, more than the half baked theories, more than the support for bad candidates like Dean and Kerry, more than the mean spirited liberal/nazi attitude of agree of you are wrong: Hypocracy.

You can go to websites and learn how to disrupt the Republican convention in a host of mean and nasty ways. Hey, nothing wrong with some shennanigans, though some fringe groups say they want to "throw off bomb sniffing dogs" for whatever reason.

But.

What if the Republicans said they were going to do the same to the Dems? It would be holy hell to pay in the media. Folks we really are living with a double standard in our media but because we have a mostly unlikeable president nobody sees it.

Long as there is Bush to hate, nobody sees ANYTHING it seems, at least where I live.

I had a guy claim getting rid of Bush would solve all the worlds problems. I had a woman say she would rather give money to "stop Bush" than to give to the needy. I had an ulta liberal tree hugger type tell me he wished somebody would assasinate Bush. I had a guy yell at me because the store I work at carried the Washington times ( conservative), since he thought we should ONLY carry leftists mags and newspapers.

So much for liberal balance. I now think many of these people are not really liberal at all, just trying to not be what their parents were. Many are mean, uninformed, close minded and judgemental, much like the people they then talk smack about.

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don&#39;t, but sure seems like a lot of people are so hypocritical I cannot even have discussions with them anymore. You have no idea how many times my day starts with somebody buying the paper and making stupid comments to me.

It gets old, and then I look and say "are these the type of people I identify with?"

Not really.

-SJ™

[j2k4]

Hmmm.

That&#39;s rather unfortunate; I hope they get their reimbursement.

I wonder, though-we&#39;ve all seen snippits of the Dem fund-raiser, because they want you to know how "well-loved" they are by all these important people from Hollywood, but the only images accompanied by audio is of Kerry running his jib.

To me, that&#39;s tacit admission that the actual verbal content provided by these Hollywood types would be objectionable to potential voters.

"We&#39;ll let you see &#39;em, but you don&#39;t need to hear &#39;em"

That type of selectivity might pose a bigger buggaboo for the Dems than an outright media ban does for the &#39;Publicans.

Of course, I could be wrong. :)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@12 July 2004 - 16:45
I am middle of the road, neither Dem nor Republican. I can see good and bad in both.

Just wanted to state that one.

See the issue I have is with this semi-erudite, elitist leftist snob shit, like if you don&#39;t agree with us you are a goose stepping Bush Lover. I am in the heart of liberal country BTW, and I have to say: People who support Bush are more polite than the so called liberals.

I am in customer service btw. But here is what really gets me, more than the half baked theories, more than the support for bad candidates like Dean and Kerry, more than the mean spirited liberal/nazi attitude of agree of you are wrong: Hypocracy.

You can go to websites and learn how to disrupt the Republican convention in a host of mean and nasty ways. Hey, nothing wrong with some shennanigans, though some fringe groups say they want to "throw off bomb sniffing dogs" for whatever reason.

But.

What if the Republicans said they were going to do the same to the Dems? It would be holy hell to pay in the media. Folks we really are living with a double standard in our media but because we have a mostly unlikeable president nobody sees it.

Long as there is Bush to hate, nobody sees ANYTHING it seems, at least where I live.

I had a guy claim getting rid of Bush would solve all the worlds problems. I had a woman say she would rather give money to "stop Bush" than to give to the needy. I had an ulta liberal tree hugger type tell me he wished somebody would assasinate Bush. I had a guy yell at me because the store I work at carried the Washington times ( conservative), since he thought we should ONLY carry leftists mags and newspapers.

So much for liberal balance. I now think many of these people are not really liberal at all, just trying to not be what their parents were. Many are mean, uninformed, close minded and judgemental, much like the people they then talk smack about.

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don&#39;t, but sure seems like a lot of people are so hypocritical I cannot even have discussions with them anymore. You have no idea how many times my day starts with somebody buying the paper and making stupid comments to me.

It gets old, and then I look and say "are these the type of people I identify with?"

Not really.

-SJ™
Extremely well stated, that.

Sorry SJ, but I had to say that; now you must suffer the taint of my esteem. :D

[mogadishu]

no one seems to realize that liberals seem more disagreeable because of BUSH. conservatives have their president. Liberals disagree with him on all levels, not because they are hateful, but becaues they believe Bush is doing such an awful job. The reason it didnt happen from conservatives in the clinton admin is cus clinton was a better president. I am so tired of conservatives whinning about how liberals are calling people names. this isnt friggin 1st grade. grow up and focus on the real issues.

[ruthie]

Tell you what. The Bush administration can tell us who is on the energy task force, who leaked the CIA operatives name, and a list of many other "who, what, where" questions.
This administration is as close to a fascist regime as possible.
Bush and his cronies have their dirty little secrets. How about, "oops, we lost the files on Bush&#39;s service records, etc?

[rollwave]

Originally posted by mogadishu@12 July 2004 - 07:39
may i ask you what the hell this has to do with the actual election? I hate conservatives and their bullshit &#39;values&#39; agenda. you refuse to focuse on anything but that some progressives use mean words when they talk about chimpy. WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT JOBS, HEALTHCARE, THE DAMN ECONOMY. but of course its more important to launch campaigns so kerry gets caught saying bad things or with the bad crowd. About these people reflecting america - hell, i bet they didnt go half as far as i would have.

btw - do you think most americans support bush running hateful ads about kerry absolutely everywhere?
So typical of hate-filled libs. And yes that&#39;s the point: why don&#39;t the libs talk about the economy ? Because the economy is doing great: home ownership at all time high, after tax income up 11% and the economy is predicted to grow at the highest rate in 20 years. Democrats can&#39;t lie about that anymore so they have to insult Bush.

[ruthie]

Maybe in your town/city, the economy is great. In my community, house sales are up, alright...but not for the people who have lived here a long time. You know who buys all these houses? People come up from NYC, drop a bundle, outbid each other, thus, driving the assessments sky high. We can&#39;t afford a house, and we should be able to
Great economy? Tell that to all the minimum wage earners out there, who can&#39;t support their families on the take home pay.
Economy great? Tell that to all the uninsured, who can&#39;t afford to see Dr.&#39;s, let alone specialists.
Yup, the economy sure is better...for a tiny percentage of people..the ultra rich.

[rollwave]

Originally posted by Illuminati@12 July 2004 - 10:32
And once again, I have to say SOURCES? Sorry, but for every unbacked subjective post I see you make rollwave your ability to make a valid argument seems less and less.

I&#39;ll give an example - How about a study a couple of years ago on the IQ of the past twelve presidents? :D


In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four-month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush.

Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others. There have been twelve presidents over the past 60 years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors, which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
175 .. James E. Carter (D)
174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
155 .. Richard M. Nixon ®
147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 .. Harry Truman (D)
126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson ( D)
122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower ®
121 .. Gerald Ford ®
105 .. Ronald Reagan ®
098 .. George Bush ®
091 .. George W. Bush ®

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President G.W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.

The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.

No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176.

Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.

"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had at least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking." The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams,a world-respected psychiatrist.

This study was commissioned on February 13, 2001 and released on July 9, 2001 to subscribing member universities and organizations within the educational community

Source (http://www.hypocrites.com/article15029.html)

Education doesn&#39;t mean anything like it used to - It can unfortunately be bought a lot easier than being earned. True interlectual ability however can be more of a benefit to presidents, but it isn&#39;t what you have but what you do with it ;)

EDIT: The study has since been found to be a hoax (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm) (dammit&#33; :P), thanks for moga for letting me know about that. Didn&#39;t help that I got it a while back from the Guardian myself :blink:
Total liberal bullshit. Carter , the worst president in US history, at #2, and Clinton, an average president at best, #1. Hmmm, seems pretty suspect. How can they derive at this conclusion without the person actually taking the test. Sounds like a Michael Moore theory: no facts just just wild acusations. And just how does someone woth an IQ of 90 get an MBA from Harvard?

[rollwave]

Originally posted by ruthie@13 July 2004 - 00:51
Maybe in your town/city, the economy is great. In my community, house sales are up, alright...but not for the people who have lived here a long time. You know who buys all these houses? People come up from NYC, drop a bundle, outbid each other, thus, driving the assessments sky high. We can&#39;t afford a house, and we should be able to
Great economy? Tell that to all the minimum wage earners out there, who can&#39;t support their families on the take home pay.
Economy great? Tell that to all the uninsured, who can&#39;t afford to see Dr.&#39;s, let alone specialists.
Yup, the economy sure is better...for a tiny percentage of people..the ultra rich.
Housing sales are going through the roof nationwide. In my town, houses are selling as fast as they can build them, and most are 300K and up. That&#39;s because interest rates are low--thank you Ronald Reagan-- and people have more money to spend because they are sending less to the government. As far as health insurance goes, what exactly is Kerry going to do about it? Why didn&#39;t Clinton use his huge IQ and fix the problem in his 8 years? Hmmm? Know why? Because liberals want the issue to run on every 4 years. Same thing they do with poverty. Besides, that&#39;s a bogus issue being ginned up by the Dems because they have no other issue. Some people don&#39;t have health insurance because they are uninsureable or they are in college and don&#39;t need it. I know many that fit into both camps.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by rollwave+12 July 2004 - 21:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rollwave @ 12 July 2004 - 21:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ruthie@13 July 2004 - 00:51
Maybe in your town/city, the economy is great.&nbsp; In my community, house sales are up, alright...but not for the people who have lived here a long time.&nbsp; You know who buys all these houses?&nbsp; People come up from NYC, drop a bundle, outbid each other, thus, driving the assessments sky high.&nbsp; We can&#39;t afford a house, and we should be able to
Great economy?&nbsp; Tell that to all the minimum wage earners out there, who can&#39;t support their families on the take home pay.
Economy great?&nbsp; Tell that to all the uninsured, who can&#39;t afford to see Dr.&#39;s, let alone specialists.
Yup, the economy sure is better...for a tiny percentage&nbsp; of people..the ultra rich.
Housing sales are going through the roof nationwide. In my town, houses are selling as fast as they can build them, and most are 300K and up. That&#39;s because interest rates are low--thank you Ronald Reagan-- and people have more money to spend because they are sending less to the government. As far as health insurance goes, what exactly is Kerry going to do about it? Why didn&#39;t Clinton use his huge IQ and fix the problem in his 8 years? Hmmm? Know why? Because liberals want the issue to run on every 4 years. Same thing they do with poverty. Besides, that&#39;s a bogus issue being ginned up by the Dems because they have no other issue. Some people don&#39;t have health insurance because they are uninsureable or they are in college and don&#39;t need it. I know many that fit into both camps. [/b][/quote]
rollwave you are full of crap.

Housing sales are up because of:

1. 9/11 coupled with.....
2. A shitty economy which in turn led to.....
3. A cut in interest rates to an all time low

How do you thank Reagan?

Interest rates dropped to an all-time low...recently during Bush&#39;s tenure. :blink:

The cut in interest rates spurred the housing boom. I know because I&#39;m one of those trying to move. This is not due to a cut in my taxes. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have been outbidded three times. One was by an all cash offer. Another was by &#036;30,000. :(

So you trying to credit Bush with the housing boom is pure conservative spin.

It seems you are buying the conservative line or make excuse for it.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by rollwave@13 July 2004 - 00:57
And just how does someone woth an IQ of 90 get an MBA from Harvard?
"My dad is President - I DARE you to fail me."

:huh:

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@12 July 2004 - 21:13
We are all very well aware how the lives of these Hollywood people resemble ours, right?

I&#39;m sure we all feel the same way..... :huh:
Oh, come on j2&#33; Everyone bags the crap out of actors. Are you saying that the people who rose from waiting tables and pouring beers to living in a mansion in Hollywood are acting too l33t?

How many of these people started life with millions of dollars? (Not eluding to any comparisions with Bush at all <_< )

Some people would say that starting with little and ending with a lot is the great American Dream - do they deserve to be flamed for living it?

Perhaps these "Hollywood has-beens" are resting on their laurels and thinking "Hmm, got lots of money, got some influence. What would have made it easier for me to get whare I am now..."

[BigBank_Hank]

For anyone who lives in a cave and doesn’t know what we’re talking about read this. (http://wbir.gannettonline.com/election2004/gns/20040709-49333.html)

[SuperJude™]

All I am saying is we are in a time when any allegation can be made, even the most ridiculous, and instead of being backed up by fact it is backed up by some half baked, crackpot rant or fuzzy math statistics.

I say again: what if the Republicans did what the left are planning openly and sabotaged the Dem convention? Bloody murder would be cried. When did the left decide it was my concience?

Can I have my own opinions that differ a little bit or does that not fit with the scheme of things others perceive? And to say we live in a totalitarian (well actually it was facist) state is a joke. Other than lame attempts at airline security my life hasn&#39;t changed all that much, cept they now ask your name for bus tickets.

That is my problem: it is treated as if only the left is right, and all others are wrong, and you are an idiot if you don&#39;t know.

Heh.

What happens if these people wake up one day and are wrong?

-SJ™

[Alex H]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@13 July 2004 - 04:56
For anyone who lives in a cave and doesn’t know what we’re talking about read this. (http://wbir.gannettonline.com/election2004/gns/20040709-49333.html)
Not a cave, just outside the US. There is quite a lot of the rest of the world out there.

[mogadishu]

i dont get why zell miller considers himself a democrat - i mean hes going to speak at the RNC convention.. (from the link)

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@13 July 2004 - 00:03
All I am saying is we are in a time when any allegation can be made, even the most ridiculous, and instead of being backed up by fact it is backed up by some half baked, crackpot rant or fuzzy math statistics.

I say again: what if the Republicans did what the left are planning openly and sabotaged the Dem convention? Bloody murder would be cried. When did the left decide it was my concience?

Can I have my own opinions that differ a little bit or does that not fit with the scheme of things others perceive? And to say we live in a totalitarian (well actually it was facist) state is a joke. Other than lame attempts at airline security my life hasn&#39;t changed all that much, cept they now ask your name for bus tickets.

That is my problem: it is treated as if only the left is right, and all others are wrong, and you are an idiot if you don&#39;t know.

Heh.

What happens if these people wake up one day and are wrong?

-SJ™
SJ pull up a chair and stay a while.

But be careful with an attitude like that it won’t be long before Busyman says that you are one of Bush’s sheep.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by rollwave+13 July 2004 - 01:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rollwave &#064; 13 July 2004 - 01:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ruthie@13 July 2004 - 00:51
Maybe in your town/city, the economy is great. In my community, house sales are up, alright...but not for the people who have lived here a long time. You know who buys all these houses? People come up from NYC, drop a bundle, outbid each other, thus, driving the assessments sky high. We can&#39;t afford a house, and we should be able to
Great economy? Tell that to all the minimum wage earners out there, who can&#39;t support their families on the take home pay.
Economy great? Tell that to all the uninsured, who can&#39;t afford to see Dr.&#39;s, let alone specialists.
Yup, the economy sure is better...for a tiny percentage of people..the ultra rich.
Housing sales are going through the roof nationwide. In my town, houses are selling as fast as they can build them, and most are 300K and up. That&#39;s because interest rates are low--thank you Ronald Reagan-- and people have more money to spend because they are sending less to the government. As far as health insurance goes, what exactly is Kerry going to do about it? Why didn&#39;t Clinton use his huge IQ and fix the problem in his 8 years? Hmmm? Know why? Because liberals want the issue to run on every 4 years. Same thing they do with poverty. Besides, that&#39;s a bogus issue being ginned up by the Dems because they have no other issue. Some people don&#39;t have health insurance because they are uninsureable or they are in college and don&#39;t need it. I know many that fit into both camps. [/b][/quote]
:lol:

Ok I&#39;ll buy it

Explain exactly what connection there is between Ronald Reagan and current interest rates.

Also, I am intrigued as to why you think high house prices are a good thing. People committing themselves and a large percentage of their disposable income for 25 years or more on a single item tends to be deflationary rather than anything else. It is true that they can re-mortgage on the strength of the expected future value of the property and buy items like new cars - however, this can be traumatic if interest rates rise. Wholesale recession usually follows.

But hey, what do I know. :)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Alex H+13 July 2004 - 03:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 13 July 2004 - 03:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@12 July 2004 - 21:13
We are all very well aware how the lives of these Hollywood people resemble ours, right?

I&#39;m sure we all feel the same way..... :huh:
Oh, come on j2&#33; Everyone bags the crap out of actors. Are you saying that the people who rose from waiting tables and pouring beers to living in a mansion in Hollywood are acting too l33t?

How many of these people started life with millions of dollars? (Not eluding to any comparisions with Bush at all <_< )

Some people would say that starting with little and ending with a lot is the great American Dream - do they deserve to be flamed for living it?

Perhaps these "Hollywood has-beens" are resting on their laurels and thinking "Hmm, got lots of money, got some influence. What would have made it easier for me to get whare I am now..." [/b][/quote]
I did read somewhere that in order to participate in the American Dream one has to sleep a lot before the right one comes along. :ph34r:


I&#39;ll get me coat

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by rollwave+12 July 2004 - 20:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rollwave @ 12 July 2004 - 20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ruthie@13 July 2004 - 00:51
Maybe in your town/city, the economy is great.&nbsp; In my community, house sales are up, alright...but not for the people who have lived here a long time.&nbsp; You know who buys all these houses?&nbsp; People come up from NYC, drop a bundle, outbid each other, thus, driving the assessments sky high.&nbsp; We can&#39;t afford a house, and we should be able to
Great economy?&nbsp; Tell that to all the minimum wage earners out there, who can&#39;t support their families on the take home pay.
Economy great?&nbsp; Tell that to all the uninsured, who can&#39;t afford to see Dr.&#39;s, let alone specialists.
Yup, the economy sure is better...for a tiny percentage&nbsp; of people..the ultra rich.
Housing sales are going through the roof nationwide. In my town, houses are selling as fast as they can build them, and most are 300K and up. That&#39;s because interest rates are low--thank you Ronald Reagan-- and people have more money to spend because they are sending less to the government. As far as health insurance goes, what exactly is Kerry going to do about it? Why didn&#39;t Clinton use his huge IQ and fix the problem in his 8 years? Hmmm? Know why? Because liberals want the issue to run on every 4 years. Same thing they do with poverty. Besides, that&#39;s a bogus issue being ginned up by the Dems because they have no other issue. Some people don&#39;t have health insurance because they are uninsureable or they are in college and don&#39;t need it. I know many that fit into both camps. [/b][/quote]
if im not mistaken, clinton created the biggest surplus ever, and then bush walks in and creates the biggest deficite ever. I rest my case.

[Biggles]

As a matter of interest, does anyone know if the convention or whatever was funny?

Over here it is not uncommon for the political parties to have a revue as a fringe event usually replete with celebrities. Although not official, the party leaders are normally present and laugh heartily at the jokes. As with most revues the jokes are rarely kind to the opposition.

Talking of values did not Mr. Chenney encounter some difficulty using words not often emited from the pulpit. :lol:

My own view is that Mr Chenney was perfectly at liberty to say what he said and likewise if the Democrats wanted to poke fun at Bush in private fund raiser then so what. Is private no longer private?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@13 July 2004 - 15:07
Talking of values did not Mr. Chenney encounter some difficulty using words not often emited from the pulpit. :lol:

My own view is that Mr Chenney was perfectly at liberty to say what he said and likewise if the Democrats wanted to poke fun at Bush in private fund raiser then so what. Is private no longer private?
Biggles-

Cheney apparently uttered an expletive directed at Senator Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor in a man-to-man sotto voce exchange between the two, while the Senate was not in session.

Leahy had recently excoriated Cheney (in a public statement) over his Halliburton history in a rather scathing and accusatory manner, and then greeted Cheney in a "Hail-thou-fellow-well-met" fashion as they passed each other; Cheney told him to "go fuck" himself, apparently.

This exchange was not intended to be any other than what it was; a statement of ire in response to offense.

It was not uttered in an attempt to solicit a campaign contribution from Mr. Leahy, nor were there cameras present to record his words for posterity.

To those who feel the use of such language sullied the "Hallowed Halls of Congress", I would direct you to remember the goings-on in the Oval Office several years ago.

QUOTE: AlexH
QUOTE (j2k4 @ 12 July 2004 - 21:13)
We are all very well aware how the lives of these Hollywood people resemble ours, right?

I&#39;m sure we all feel the same way.....


Oh, come on j2&#33; Everyone bags the crap out of actors. Are you saying that the people who rose from waiting tables and pouring beers to living in a mansion in Hollywood are acting too l33t?

Would you say, Alex, that humble beginnings are the reason for what is probably a 95%+ liberal political voting stance in Hollywood?

If humble beginnings uniformly result in such attitudes (as reflected by our honorable Hollywood brethren), perhaps you could explain to me why I am not a liberal.

If I am correctly parsing your apparent use of cyber-speak in assuming l33t means "elite", the answer to your question would be YES.

Also, if (by your statement) I can assign to you an empathy shared with Whoopi Goldberg, then you, too, are an elitist.

[Biggles]

I think it would be fair to say that Mr. Chenney&#39;s passing remark did little to make the good gentleman feel inclined to dip his hand in his pocket. :)

I recall also that the various tapes released during the Watergate scandal suggested that Nixon had a fairly robust vocabulary.

It is also true that over here the Alastair Campbell diaries exhibited equally colourful traits.

Such language is commonplace and I think we would be kidding ourselves if we thought our representatives are somehow above such things.

My personal favourite antidote to such fancies is Sir Les Paterson.

http://www.lightindustry.info/polly_borland/images/photos/6.jpg

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4+13 July 2004 - 20:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 July 2004 - 20:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Would you say, Alex, that humble beginnings are the reason for what is probably a 95%+ liberal political voting stance in Hollywood?

If humble beginnings uniformly result in such attitudes (as reflected by our honorable Hollywood brethren), perhaps you could explain to me why I am not a liberal.

If I am correctly parsing your apparent use of cyber-speak in assuming l33t means "elite", the answer to your question would be YES.

Also, if (by your statement) I can assign to you an empathy shared with Whoopi Goldberg, then you, too, are an elitist. [/b]
I did not say that humble beginnings always result in left wing beliefs. However I can understand why many people who started from such end up with liberal attitudes.

With actors especially, a liberal view point is an easy place to arrive at. You study a character or a profile, or a real person so much because it is your job to pretend to be someone else. Doing that for exteded periods makes it very easy to empathise with other people, and so when one sees so many people who are hurt or angry with their political leaders, who make policies that affect so many more people, it is understandable that you get quite upset yourself.

Can you think of any other professions that gets flamed as much as actors and musitians for expressing their plitical beliefs? Is the extent of free speech simply to criticize others for expressing themselves? Why has no-one said "Whoopi, I don&#39;t care what you think", or just ignored her comments completely?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
If humble beginnings uniformly result in such attitudes (as reflected by our honorable Hollywood brethren), perhaps you could explain to me why I am not a liberal.[/quote]

I&#39;m afraid it&#39;s a 1 in 20 chance. It&#39;s not your fault.

[j2k4]

I&#39;ve been through this specific thing so many times before, Alex.

I would be the last (although I&#39;m sure any actor would disagree) to deny anyone their right to free speech, but, when you&#39;re a celebrity(&#33;), that right seems to automatically include a microphone and a built-in audience, or, at the very least, a fawning media to act as a willing conduit for whatever escapes the lips of, say, a Whoopi Goldberg.

Typical instance:

A while back (1985), Congress convened hearings to consider the extraordinary difficulties facing farming families during times of rural recession.

To provide testimony on behalf of the farmers, committee members were treated to the wise words of actresses Jessica Lange, Sally Field, Sissy Spacek, and, of course, Jane Fonda.

The first three gained their empathetic and vicarious expertise (your favorite kind&#33;) having portrayed farmer&#39;s wives in a movie; nobody seems to be sure why Jane Fonda was invited, but she seems to be accepted as an expert in any area she chooses.

What supreme and superior empathy they must have to be chosen to appear before the committee, when surely a few farmers would have appreciated a short sojourn so that they might escape the barn and take in the sights aborning in our nation&#39;s capital-how downright magnanimous of these gracious women to stand in for the poor farmers, huh?

[Rat Faced]

Jessica Lang lobbied congress about Government Forclosures of farming land.

She was so concerned she raised the money to help Produce the film "Country", which she starred in.. ie: Her "expertise" was there before she ever starred in the movie.


Sissy Spacek grew up with the rural farmers, and her father was the Wood County Agricultural Extention agent with Texas A&M University from 1946 until 1975. I would be more surprised if she didnt know anything about the subject, and its hardly surprising shes interested...


Jane Fonda has always had an interest in "Community" work, of all sorts. Shes done nothing else for years...it doesnt surprise me in the slightest that this would be of interest, although I thought most of her work was with Children. There again, i suppose even Farmers in rural recession have kids?


I have no idea why "The Flying Nun" would be selected, but im sure shes probably involved in some type organisation and was representing them...


Its common to get patrons for charitable organisations, and for those patrons to speak on the behalf of those organisations.. I would have thought that these organisations would wish to contribute to any Congressional Hearing that concerned them... I know ours would at any Government enquiry or consulatation exercise....

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+13 July 2004 - 11:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 13 July 2004 - 11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude™@13 July 2004 - 00:03
All I am saying is we are in a time when any allegation can be made, even the most ridiculous, and instead of being backed up by fact it is backed up by some half baked, crackpot rant or fuzzy math statistics.

I say again: what if the Republicans did what the left are planning openly and sabotaged the Dem convention? Bloody murder would be cried. When did the left decide it was my concience?

Can I have my own opinions that differ a little bit or does that not fit with the scheme of things others perceive? And to say we live in a totalitarian (well actually it was facist) state is a joke. Other than lame attempts at airline security my life hasn&#39;t changed all that much, cept they now ask your name for bus tickets.

That is my problem: it is treated as if only the left is right, and all others are wrong, and you are an idiot if you don&#39;t know.

Heh.

What happens if these people wake up one day and are wrong?

-SJ™
SJ pull up a chair and stay a while.

But be careful with an attitude like that it won’t be long before Busyman says that you are one of Bush’s sheep. [/b][/quote]
The problem, Hank, is I at least try to see things from more than one angle.

I try to weed out bullshit.
Like: sarinwasfoundiniraqbushwasrightallalongbullshit

I don&#39;t blindly follow one thing.

I am not a Democrat.

For instance, some of my views on welfare reform would be considered Draconian.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@14 July 2004 - 17:32
Jessica Lang lobbied congress about Government Forclosures of farming land.

She was so concerned she raised the money to help Produce the film "Country", which she starred in.. ie: Her "expertise" was there before she ever starred in the movie.


Sissy Spacek grew up with the rural farmers, and her father was the Wood County Agricultural Extention agent with Texas A&M University from 1946 until 1975. I would be more surprised if she didnt know anything about the subject, and its hardly surprising shes interested...


Jane Fonda has always had an interest in "Community" work, of all sorts. Shes done nothing else for years...it doesnt surprise me in the slightest that this would be of interest, although I thought most of her work was with Children. There again, i suppose even Farmers in rural recession have kids?


I have no idea why "The Flying Nun" would be selected, but im sure shes probably involved in some type organisation and was representing them...


Its common to get patrons for charitable organisations, and for those patrons to speak on the behalf of those organisations.. I would have thought that these organisations would wish to contribute to any Congressional Hearing that concerned them... I know ours would at any Government enquiry or consulatation exercise....
So, then-

You buy the line?

Special patronage must be sought; the farmers aren&#39;t good enough actors to carry off a performance before Congress?

Whatever "expertise" possessed by the Hollywood Four, how could it weigh against real farmers?

Were the celebs on hand to impress the Representatives, who hold the purse strings (never mind whose money is in the purse), and not the public, who merely spectate?

See, if you&#39;re seeking proper patronage, you have people like Magic Johnson, who actually has HIV, or Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson&#39;s disease, Rat.

There are plenty of farmers who could more properly have testified in the place of four actresses.

If Congress were disposed to help the farmers only after listening to the frothings of those four, perhaps the farmers weren&#39;t sufficiently needy, or so, at least, one might gather from the circumstances.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@14 July 2004 - 13:57

I would be the last (although I&#39;m sure any actor would disagree) to deny anyone their right to free speech, but, when you&#39;re a celebrity(&#33;), that right seems to automatically include a microphone and a built-in audience, or, at the very least, a fawning media to act as a willing conduit for whatever escapes the lips of, say, a Whoopi Goldberg.


And now the problem seems to be that the powers that be don&#39;t want the event splashed all over the media.
It was after all, a private affair.
First you excoriate celebrities for publically expressing an opinion, then they are called to task for not doing so.
All the while ( yes, I am aware this is at least the second time we&#39;ve been through this...) you say they have the right to any opinion they wish, just not the right to broadcast it.
Well, this time they aren&#39;t broadcasting it...you should be happy.

[Alex H]

Yes, j2 I&#39;m sure there would have been other people qualified to give evidence on rural hardships - perhaps an acedemic specialising in the socio-economic environment in rural areas of the United States. However such a person would not have the profile to actually achieve any interest in the subject, which is why celebrities are brought in to state a particular case.

How many instances (not mentioning Iraq here at all ;) can you think of where an administration (not the Bush Administration at all ignores the considered opinions of the people concerned, or the experts who study the situation, and made a decision that turnes out to be painful for everyone involved?

Celebrities bring a public profile to the issue so that there is actually a chance of getting a point across - and as celebrities tend to listen to their audience more than politicians seem to listen to their electorates, who can blame an actor for giving their opinion on an issue which they feel is important?

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by Alex H@15 July 2004 - 04:37
Yes, j2 I&#39;m sure there would have been other people qualified to give evidence on rural hardships - perhaps an acedemic specialising in the socio-economic environment in rural areas of the United States. However such a person would not have the profile to actually achieve any interest in the subject, which is why celebrities are brought in to state a particular case.

How many instances (not mentioning Iraq here at all ;) can you think of where an administration (not the Bush Administration at all ignores the considered opinions of the people concerned, or the experts who study the situation, and made a decision that turnes out to be painful for everyone involved?

Celebrities bring a public profile to the issue so that there is actually a chance of getting a point across - and as celebrities tend to listen to their audience more than politicians seem to listen to their electorates, who can blame an actor for giving their opinion on an issue which they feel is important?
I would have to retort simply that in November 2000 that type of thinking may be why Gore lost, too much reliance on the entertainment industry or something. You know, it sure seems that a whole bunch of people in America up and voted for Bush in 2000 seemingly out of the blue when in fact they were there the whole time, a factor to not be ignored.
Though of course Bush&#39;s and the Republican message at that time what in no way the same as it is 4 years later.

-SJ™

[Rat Faced]

See, if you&#39;re seeking proper patronage, you have people like Magic Johnson, who actually has HIV, or Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson&#39;s disease, Rat.


Or Sissy Spacek who grew up on a farm?

If the hearings were about Parkinsons Disease, I have no doubt that Michael J Fox might have spoken.

Just because your regular "Employment" is not conserned with a subject, does not mean you know nothing about it or have no interest in it.

An Actors Job is to stand in front of people and speak, when its boiled down.. A Farmers isnt, he may know more about the subject, and still have made less of an impact.

This is one of the reasons Patrons are sought for Charities... they speak out better on behalf of the organisations than the people actually doing the work behind the scenes. They have a lot more confidence and raise a lot more interest than would an average farmer.

This does not mean there is anything wrong with the Farmer, just that his skills probably lie in other areas; such as Farming.

[lynx]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@15 July 2004 - 16:06
This does not mean there is anything wrong with the Farmer, just that his skills probably lie in other areas; such as Farming.
This also applies to GW. His skills probably lie in other areas, such as... give me a minute here.


Ok, come on guys, give me a clue.


All right, I&#39;ll get back to you on that one. Maybe.




Edit: typo.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by lynx+15 July 2004 - 12:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 15 July 2004 - 12:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@15 July 2004 - 16:06
This does not mean there is anything wrong with the Farmer, just that his skills probably lie in other areas; such as Farming.
This also applies to GW. His skills probably lie in other areas, such as... give me a minute here.


Ok, come on guys, give me a clue.


All right, I&#39;ll get back to you on that one. Maybe.




Edit: typo. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t appreciate the sarcasm lynx.

GW does many things well.

I bet he could drink you under the table and can make a dime bag last a whole 5 minutes.

[j2k4]

Well, you all can worship your actors if you like.

Alex-

Michael J. Fox has testified in support of Parkinson&#39;s research.

Also, I could get behind your idea of raising the public profile of such problems if the hearings in question were held at the instigation of the actors; such was not the case. ;)

I think SJ has a good point-a while back, some of us here kicked around the definition of the "Silent Majority"; many of you didn&#39;t seem to think it any other than a concoction of the Religious Right.

Well, it does exist, and not for nothing is it called a "Majority".

I wonder if Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, et.al., will "...leave the country..." again, when Bush wins? :huh:

Clocker-

I didn&#39;t call for the release of any tape; it just seems to me that, as there is ample evidence that someone whipped real production value on the event, it was intended (by somebody) that the fund-raiser be shown to other audiences subsequent to it actually occurring.

Pity that it would probably only be distributed after being "bowdlerized" so as to exclude that which ought not be seen. :D

BTW-

Any opinions on the Whoopster&#39;s firing as the Slim-Fast spokesperson?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4@15 July 2004 - 16:54
Well, you all can worship your actors if you like.

Alex-

Michael J. Fox has testified in support of Parkinson&#39;s research.

Also, I could get behind your idea of raising the public profile of such problems if the hearings in question were held at the instigation of the actors; such was not the case. ;)

I think SJ has a good point-a while back, some of us here kicked around the definition of the "Silent Majority"; many of you didn&#39;t seem to think it any other than a concoction of the Religious Right.

Well, it does exist, and not for nothing is it called a "Majority".

I wonder if Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, et.al., will "...leave the country..." again, when Bush wins? :huh:

Clocker-

I didn&#39;t call for the release of any tape; it just seems to me that, as there is ample evidence that someone whipped real production value on the event, it was intended (by somebody) that the fund-raiser be shown to other audiences subsequent to it actually occurring.

Pity that it would probably only be distributed after being "bowdlerized" so as to exclude that which ought not be seen. :D

BTW-

Any opinions on the Whoopster&#39;s firing as the Slim-Fast spokesperson?
I think it was an obvious move by Unilever.

Slim-Fast isn&#39;t just a liberal drink. :blink:

They also should have known that Whoopi is Whoopi......

.....a comedienne.

[lynx]

This also applies to GW. His skills probably lie in other areas, such as... give me a minute here.


Ok, come on guys, give me a clue.


All right, I&#39;ll get back to you on that one. Maybe.

That wasn&#39;t intended to be sarcasm, it was mimicry. :)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@15 July 2004 - 13:54
BTW-

Any opinions on the Whoopster&#39;s firing as the Slim-Fast spokesperson?
Back again.

I haven&#39;t heard what whoopi said just a short item on the news. Apparently she was dropped after "pressure from conservative groups suggesting they would boycott the products unless she was dropped".
Now the way i see it from the part i know.

1. Ms. Goldberg is a comediene and has made jokes about ALL our presidents that were sitting in office during her career.

2. I feel that the particular reason for the pressure from the coservative groups is anti free speech and discriminatory.

3. For goodness sake grow up.. it was a Democrat fundraiser, what did one expect? all the participants to stand up and say what a good job they think Bush is doing ?

Had Ms. goldberg done a similar thing at a republican fund raiser and a "liberal" group had tried to get her dropped i would be giving the same reaction.

I buy products because i like the product, not because of who is used in an advert.

Now i don&#39;t think there was a need for the way some of the "celebrities" talked, (from the reports i have heard) for me a more articulate and calmer approach would have been better, but then i have never been impressed by character assaination.

On a side note as we are dealing with "hatefests"..... is it my imagination or do all the Bush campaign adverts show more of kerry than the Kerry adverts do?
Could someone please explain how a character assaination advert lets one know what Bush will do for us should we vote for him?

By the way, i have no need for slimfast as i am not overweight and if i was i would moderate the amount i eat and take more excercise to lose the weight, not spend thousands on "diet products"

[clocker]

Originally posted by vidcc@15 July 2004 - 16:28


On a side note as we are dealing with "hatefests"..... is it my imagination or do all the Bush campaign adverts show more of kerry than the Kerry adverts do?
Could someone please explain how a character assaination advert lets one know what Bush will do for us should we vote for him?


It is not your imagination.
The Republicans appear to be running an exclusively negative campaign this go-round.
So much for the moral high ground.

[ruthie]

I gathered, after hearing a statement released from Whoopi&#39;s publicist...she didn&#39;t really care about it. She said she will never stop expressing her opinions, etc.

on another note, after tapes of the fundraiser were requested by the repub&#39;s in a letter to Mary Beth Cahill, and denied, she responded to their (republican) letter with this letter


Washington, DC – Kerry-Edwards campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill today sent the following letter to Bush Cheney ’04 Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman in response to a letter Mehlman sent yesterday:


July 13, 2004
Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager
BUSH-CHENEY &#39;04, Inc.




Dear Ken:


Over the past several months, allies of the President have questioned John Kerry’s patriotism while your staff has criticized his service in Vietnam. Republicans and their allies have gone so far as to launch attacks against his wife and your campaign has run &#036;80 million in negative ads that have been called baseless, misleading and unfair by several independent observers.

Considering that the President has failed to even come close to keeping his promise to change the tone in Washington, we find your outrage over and paparazzi-like obsession with a fund-raising event to be misplaced. The fact is that the nation has a greater interest in seeing several documents made public relating to the President’s performance in office and personal veracity that the White House has steadfastly refused to release. As such, we will not consider your request until the Bush campaign and White House make public the documents/materials listed below:


● Military records: Any copies of the President’s military records that would actually prove he fulfilled the terms of his military service. For that matter, it would be comforting to the American people if the campaign or the White House could produce more than just a single person to verify that the President was in Alabama when said he was there. Many Americans find it odd that only one person out of an entire squadron can recall seeing Mr. Bush.


● Halliburton: All correspondence between the Defense Department and the White House regarding the no-bid contracts that have gone to the Vice-President’s former company. Some material has already been made public. Why not take a campaign issue off the table by making all of these materials public so the voters can see how Halliburton has benefited from Mr. Cheney serving as Vice-President?


● The Cheney Energy Task Force: For an Administration that claims to hate lawsuits, it’s ironic that the Bush White House is taking up the Courts’ time to keep the fact that Ken Lay and Enron wrote its energy policy in secret behind closed doors. Please release the documents so that the country can learn what lobbyists and special interests wrote the White House energy policy.


● Medicare Bill: Please release all White House correspondence between the pharmaceutical industry and the Administration regarding the Medicare Bill, which gave billions to some of the President’s biggest donors. In addition, please provide all written materials that directed the Medicare actuary to withhold information from Congress about the actual cost of the bill.


● Prison Abuse Documents: A few weeks ago, the White House released a selected number of documents regarding the White House’s involvement in laying the legal foundation for the interrogation methods that were used in Iraq. Please release the remaining documents.


We also wanted to wish you a happy anniversary. As we are sure you and the attorneys representing the President, Vice-President and other White House officials are aware, today marks one year since Administration sources leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent to Bob Novak in an effort to retaliate against a critic of the Administration.


In light of the fact that the Administration began gutting the laws protecting the nation’s forests yesterday, we hope you will accept the paper on which this letter is written as an anniversary gift. (The one year anniversary is known as the “paper anniversary.”)


Sincerely,




Mary Beth Cahill

Campaign Manager




I thought that was a pretty good response. Don&#39;t hold your breath.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@15 July 2004 - 18:28

2. I feel that the particular reason for the pressure from the coservative groups is anti free speech and discriminatory.


While I&#39;m sure Conservative groups made their displeasure known, I think she was dropped before the true depths of any reaction were known.

In fact, I wonder if the folks at Slim-Fast made their decision blind, or if they were allowed to "go to the videotape"?

In any case, vid (welcome back, BTW)-

Given that Conservatives (individually or in groups) have the same rights as Ms. Goldberg, how do you arrive at the conclusion their expression of outrage is in any way "anti-free-speech" or "discriminatory"?

Is it discriminatory because she is black?

Is it "anti-free-speech" because there was a consequence to the exercise of her rights?

Does Slim-Fast (as a corporate entity) have the right to express displeasure with Ms. Goldberg?

Should the speech rights of any group or individual have been suppressed because they expressed outrage at remarks uttered by a celebrity?

Is Ms. Goldberg&#39;s right to free speech somehow superior (as, say, a king is to a queen, in a deck of cards) to anyone else&#39;s, merely due to the fact she had a microphone and a full complement of media on hand to record her gracious expression of opinion?

Your thoughts, please.

[SuperJude™]

I would like to meet somebody who bought Slim Fast cause Whoopie Golberg did their adds. Heh.

Freedom is being a comediene and expressing yourself as is it firing a person doing your adds because you don&#39;t like their message. That is why this country is so awesome, such a mix.

I state (once again) my utter disconnectedness with either party, but......

Negative? Considering by all accounts Bush irl is a decent man who loves his family, I have never seen such negativity towards a president from people of another party, cause more of the media is democrat/liberal than not. The negativity towards Bush has been utterly shocking to me, and I am old enough to remember when Nixon was in power mind you.

Of course it doesn&#39;t excuse the Republicans for any negative displays but folks like it or not that is what things have become.

When you all stop downloading Nick Berg and Paris Hilton Videos, when dead bodies on mag covers sell less than those with babies, when we see that emmisions could be the #1 problem facing humanity then maybe the Parties will stop will all the negative adds. We are a negative society presently. What gets me is so many of the liberals are well educated and should know better but like addicts they can&#39;t help themselves.

All I mean in these posts is read between the lines, see the good and the bad in all things, cause just being a liberal spewing whatever pseudo-fact you are fed is not the same as being educated, plain and simple.

And no, nobody would expect people at a Dem fundraiser to praise Bush or vice versa, but could you imagine if they did? Dream on Jude...

-SJ™

[lynx]

I can honestly say I won&#39;t be buying any SlimFast products from now on. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by lynx@15 July 2004 - 23:45
I can honestly say I won&#39;t be buying any SlimFast products from now on. ;)
Me too.

Boycott Sals&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

I still there was nothing wrong with the conservatives calling for a boycott of Slim Fast. I would have if I was one.

On the converse, I believe there is nothing wrong me boycotting Slim Fast.

I think the actual right is a non-issue.

Having Whoopi Goldberg as a spokesperson so to speak is like having Bill Maher or even a person like me as a spokesperson.

If I think it&#39;s shit I&#39;ll tell you it&#39;s shit with no higher agenda.

For the most it seems some folks don&#39;t behave like good little doggies and go with the flow.
You fuck up and we&#39;ll turn on you in a heartbeat.

[vidcc]

as i said i heard the reason was
haven&#39;t heard what whoopi said just a short item on the news. Apparently she was dropped after "pressure from conservative groups suggesting they would boycott the products unless she was dropped". on CNN

The anti free speech..... the groups put presure on slimfast because they didn&#39;t like what she said.

Discriminatory... has nothing to do with being black...they chose to take their actions against one person because of her beliefs and her statements and put pressure on a company to dismiss her because of those beliefs and statements.

Discrimination..Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice


Given that Conservatives (individually or in groups) have the same rights as Ms. Goldberg

Of course they do have the same rights to free speech, but isn&#39;t the idea that one has free speech "without prejudice" so whoopi had the right to say what she did without fear of losing a "gig" which has no connection to her political or any other views. Had she been working for the Bush campaign and made the remarks ( i still don&#39;t know what she said) i could accept her termination.


Does Slim-Fast (as a corporate entity) have the right to express displeasure with Ms. Goldberg
yes it does, but from the report i have...CNN... it was decided after the presure was put on by the "conservative groups" (i admit i still don&#39;t know which groups but here is a link to the report on the net.CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/07/14/slimfast.whoopi/index.html) )

it would be interesting to see if her contract mentions political activity as an example of "improper conduct" or whatever they used to decide to drop her and if they will be financial compensation for early termination. Perhaps if it was a different celebrity they might have a lawsuit on their hands.


Is Ms. Goldberg&#39;s right to free speech somehow superior (as, say, a king is to a queen, in a deck of cards) to anyone else&#39;s, merely due to the fact she had a microphone and a full complement of media on hand to record her gracious expression of opinion?
absolutely not.....but at the same time it is not inferior. Just as i disagree with your political liking of Bush Jnr. I in no way think that your beliefs are inferior, rather just opposing.
The ONLY difference with celebrity is that microphone you mentioned does give them an advantage of being heard by more people.


Edit: the GOP also put pressure on slimfast to drop her

[Biggles]

Slim Fast appear to be between the devil and the deep blue sea.

If they do nothing then the Consevatives boycott them, sack Whoopi and the Liberals boycott them.

:D I guess they must have decided there are more fat Conservatives. :-"

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@15 July 2004 - 23:14

The anti free speech..... the groups put presure on slimfast because they didn&#39;t like what she said.

Discriminatory... has nothing to do with being black...they chose to take their actions against one person because of her beliefs and her statements and put pressure on a company to dismiss her because of those beliefs and statements.



Of course they do have the same rights to free speech, but isn&#39;t the idea that one has free speech "without prejudice" so whoopi had the right to say what she did without fear of losing a "gig" which has no connection to her political or any other views. Had she been working for the Bush campaign and made the remarks ( i still don&#39;t know what she said) i could accept her termination.


Vid-

I&#39;m glad you put this as you did.

First of all, you rightly peg Ms. Goldberg as an individual expressing her views, but then wish to grant her unencumbered leeway to say whatever she likes, insofar as you seem to wish to disqualify any answering expression as discriminatory, or unfair.

I&#39;ll assume I&#39;ve properly deduced your assessment in order to point out that, while what occurred is certainly not a perfect example, it still qualifies as debate.

She tried to make a point, a point that was (in relevent quarters) rejected.

It is as simple as that.

Slim-Fast tumbled to the conclusion that to retain Ms. Goldberg could potentially cause them financial harm, and, out of a well-placed sense of responsibility to it&#39;s stockholders, decided to sever with Ms. Goldberg.

How should they have handled this problem?

Should they have admonished their customers and informed them of Whoopi&#39;s right to speak, and also of the lack of a connection between her politics and their product?

More succinctly, if you were shopping for a new car, would you buy one from a company who had a spokesman named George?

I doubt it.

Funny thing is, at the end of the day, Whoopi can still say whatever she wants; her rights are intact. ;)

What a country&#33; :)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 July 2004 - 20:30


First of all, you rightly peg Ms. Goldberg as an individual expressing her views, but then wish to grant her unencumbered leeway to say whatever she likes, insofar as you seem to wish to disqualify any answering expression as discriminatory, or unfair.

.........

Funny thing is, at the end of the day, Whoopi can still say whatever she wants; her rights are intact. ;)

What a country&#33; :)
I dont follow.

They had every right to disagree, this is not in dispute.

They did not do this however, they decided to threaten boycot of her employer.


This does infringe on her Rights of Free Speech.

The fact that Ms Goldberg doesnt need the money is irrelevant.

If it had been a checkout girl at Wall Mart or a Fat Cat Director of a PLC......it wouldnt matter to me.

Someone was forced out of a job for expressing a political belief... it doesnt matter to me what that belief is; whether "Liberal" or "Conservative"

To say that this "does not infringe on Free Speech" is an astounding belief at best.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@15 July 2004 - 23:14
...but isn&#39;t the idea that one has free speech "without prejudice"...
Even more to the point, this idea of "without prejudice" is not within sniffing distance of the idea.

If you make comments that are controversial or "daring", you stand to be relieved of something, be it a fat slice of income, your entire livelihood, or merely your ignorance.

That&#39;s the gamble inherent in free speech, vid: It is not without risk; never has been, and never should be.

This is what is meant when people speak of the "responsible" exercise of rights, and while Whoopi&#39;s commentary was daring, it was also costly (to her) and demonstrative of a severe lack of foresight.

None of us should ever (and I do mean ever) speak (or post) without due consideration.

Please forego your urge to argue the point; I myself am oft-times at the mercy of my feelings, and allow them to intrude on my posting here.

But the fact of the matter is (trust me) just as I have outlined here.

You may state your interpretation of events as unfortunate, or extreme, but I assure you-none of it is outside of any moral or legal bounds.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@16 July 2004 - 17:28
This does infringe on her Rights of Free Speech.


No it does not.

1. She said, and may still say, anything her little heart desires.

2. It could be argued that her speech was penalized, but the law does not preclude this, and neither did the "law" penalize her: SlimFast did.

3. Her right was not violated; she was not legally estopped from speaking-she was not "muzzled".

4. In any case the Constitution says the "Government shall not abridge...etc.", and that is as far as the law goes.

5. SlimFast is not the Government.

6. Like everyone else, Whoopi is free to sue for breach.

End of story.

[hobbes]

I believed we had have discussed this topic before in World News (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=28195&view=findpost&p=190261).

At the time I said:

As for the celeb&#39;s themselves, they must realize that they are a product of society. On the upside, they can use their notoriety to rally people around their pet causes. Charleton Heston draws a lot more attention than J2K4 would, after all he is Moses.

On the other hand, as a commodity, they must be aware that public opinion or perceived opinion by movie financiers or owners of products they endorse is important. If Catherine Zeta Jones decides that a babies should be branded on the ass, she is welcome to voice this opinion on the "Tonight" show, but job offers might just fall of a touch.

But, as I said, I don&#39;t care what stars have to say, but I will stand behind their right to say it.

I don&#39;t think her freedom of speech has been violated. Notoriety is a double edged sword.

[vidcc]

J2


First of all, you rightly peg Ms. Goldberg as an individual expressing her views, but then wish to grant her unencumbered leeway to say whatever she likes, insofar as you seem to wish to disqualify any answering expression as discriminatory, or unfair.



She tried to make a point, a point that was (in relevent quarters) rejected.


Had they just condemed the remarks or rebutted them that would have been fine, but they actively put pressure on her unconnected employer to dismiss her. Had her remarks been about slimfast "being crap" it would have been connected.

do you feel that it&#39;s appropriate the GOP should be involved in the way they have influencing a private company as to who plugs their product?


Slim-Fast tumbled to the conclusion that to retain Ms. Goldberg could potentially cause them financial harm, and, out of a well-placed sense of responsibility to it&#39;s stockholders, decided to sever with Ms. Goldberg.


again i repeat that i am going by the story i have seen reported and i am basing the point on this.
Q: why did slimfast come to this "conclusion"?
A: because conservative groups and the GOP put pressure on them to drop her because they didn&#39;t like her remarks, threatening a boycott.

Again i repeat had it been reversed and whoopi made anti democrat remarks at a republican fundraiser and a witch hunt had been conducted in the same way by the democrats it would be just as unacceptable



more succinctly, if you were shopping for a new car, would you buy one from a company who had a spokesman named George?

I doubt it.


you might be confusing me with a whole other person.. do you think i am 8 years old or something? I would buy whichever car i felt served my needs best and offered the best value and reliability.

I buy products because i like the product, not because of who is used in an advert.

i am a grown up with a mind of my own and not so childish as to boycott a product because i don&#39;t like the man in the advert. It takes a special kind of stupid to be swayed into buying something on the basis of the person in the advert....LOOK AT THE PRODUCT NOT THE MOUTHPIECE.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by vidcc@16 July 2004 - 20:55


i am a grown up with a mind of my own and not so childish as to boycott a product because i don&#39;t like the man in the advert. It takes a special kind of stupid to be swayed into buying something on the basis of the person in the advert....LOOK AT THE PRODUCT NOT THE MOUTHPIECE.
Vidcc,

You may think that way, but the business world certainly doesn&#39;t.

Did you know that Michael Jordon made most of his money in endorsements, not from his basketball salary.

Why was he paid hundreds of millions if people bought stuff based on the product and not the mouthpiece? Companies knew that to associate his name with their product would make big money. That&#39;s how the business world works.

Sex and celebrities sell products.

Look at all the endorsements OJ Simpson lost, and he, according to a court of law, did nothing wrong. Public opinion of the spokesperson is often more important in selling an item than the quality of a product.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@16 July 2004 - 17:55
Had they just condemed the remarks or rebutted them that would have been fine, but they actively put pressure on her unconnected employer to dismiss her. .
One more time, vid-

The GOP had nothing to do with the break-up of Whoopi and SlimFast, though some conservative groups did.

My point, though, and the one you seem bound to overlook, is this:

The boycott, or pressure, as you put it, is nothing more than....Free Speech&#33;

Kobi Bryant was dropped as the spokesman for Coca Cola, for example, because he is on trial for rape; it has nothing to do with any GOP plot, I assure you.

More free speech, there.

[Rat Faced]

Had they just condemed the remarks or rebutted them that would have been fine, but they actively put pressure on her unconnected employer to dismiss her. Had her remarks been about slimfast "being crap" it would have been connected.


I quite agree.

If Slim Fast had acted without pressure from outside organisations, I wouldnt have a problem.

[vidcc]

some post have been posted in the delay i had replying. i would like to address a couple.

i didn&#39;t say any laws were broken and free speech rights had been infringed...i said i felt it was ANTI free speech, because you have the right to say what you want but if we dissagree we will hound you down with malice, which is also where the discrimination comes in.
As pointed out slim fast may be in breach of contract and liable for a lawsuit but it appears that ms goldberg isn&#39;t going to go down that road. ( in fact the reaction she got probably gave better publicity to her cause than she would have if the conservative groups and gop just shrugged it off )

We may never know if slimfast would have acted the same way if the pressure hadn&#39;t been applied but if it hadn&#39;t been for the pressure i probably wouldn&#39;t be typing any arguement against the termination.
just because something doesn&#39;t break the technical word of law as it stands doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s just or we wouldn&#39;t have amendments to laws.
Discrimination and infringements of rights have wide sweeping definitions and implications

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+16 July 2004 - 16:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 16 July 2004 - 16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@16 July 2004 - 17:55
Had they just condemed the remarks or rebutted them that would have been fine, but they actively put pressure on her unconnected employer to dismiss her. .
One more time, vid-

The GOP had nothing to do with the break-up of Whoopi and SlimFast, though some conservative groups did.

My point, though, and the one you seem bound to overlook, is this:

The boycott, or pressure, as you put it, is nothing more than....Free Speech&#33;

Kobi Bryant was dropped as the spokesman for Coca Cola, for example, because he is on trial for rape; it has nothing to do with any GOP plot, I assure you.

More free speech, there. [/b][/quote]

Some conservative groups and GOP supporters had threatened to boycott Slim-Fast products if it did not take action.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/07/14/slimfast.whoopi/index.html)

I concede this point..... it was "supporters" In the tv report it said GOP but reading the internet report it clarifies it

[vidcc]

@ hobbes

I agree that sponsership is big money but the question was about would "I buy"... and i wouldn&#39;t be swayed one way or the other for the reason i spouted.
That said the product needs to be worth buying and not just have a "name" to it

[SuperJude™]

In my not so humble opinion celebrities don&#39;t know a goddamn thing. The bigger they get the more isolated they become. We watch them and listen to them cause they are entertaining, but that for me doesn&#39;t mean I give a crap what they have to say.

I download tv shows just to avoid commercials personally, and my opinion of actors and musicians pretty much goes like this: Entertain me, it is what you get paid for. When I want them to start having opinions about anything other than entertainment will be when I talk to them irl, likely or not to happen.

They live in another world, and because the media hates Bush, all these people are getting insane media attention at the moment. Like Richard Gere or Adam Yauch have any opinions that matter to me. Or Whoopie or Kobe or any of them. It&#39;s all entertainment anyway.

-SJ™

[clocker]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@16 July 2004 - 16:58


They live in another world, and because the media hates Bush, all these people are getting insane media attention at the moment. Like Richard Gere or Adam Yauch have any opinions that matter to me. Or Whoopie or Kobe or any of them. It&#39;s all entertainment anyway.

-SJ™
A bit of a sweeping generalization, I think.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+16 July 2004 - 19:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 16 July 2004 - 19:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude™@16 July 2004 - 16:58


They live in another world, and because the media hates Bush, all these people are getting insane media attention at the moment. Like Richard Gere or Adam Yauch have any opinions that matter to me. Or Whoopie or Kobe or any of them. It&#39;s all entertainment anyway.

-SJ™
A bit of a sweeping generalization, I think.[/b][/quote]
But one that is, nonetheless, justified.

Clocker, I could document much of that which Jude notes; if, for example, the media quotes Barney Frank 100 times, and defines him as "liberal" 5 times, then quotes Tom Tancredo 100 times, and calls him "conservative" 95 times, that is biased reporting, period.

There can be no disputing that this occurs; there is more than ample documentation to support the truth of my assertion.

A recent poll of news journalists revealed something on the order of 95% of them identify themselves as liberal.

Most college faculties are conservative-free.

You bang on about FOXNEWS and it&#39;s "bias", but do a little research before you tell me it is much more than a flea on the back of an overwhelmingly liberal national news media.

I could go on, believe me.

Vid-

If you are saying merely that you don&#39;t agree with the situation and that, in your opinion, Whoopi was treated unfairly, that&#39;s fine, and you are one compassionate fellow.

If you are saying you empathize with Whoopi, well, gee...you&#39;re only human.

If you are saying that laws ought to be written to keep it from recurring, I must respectfully disagree.

BTW-From LegalDefinitions.com:

Discrimination Definition
discrimination definition – discrimination is defined as treating one person unfairly over another according to factors unrelated to their ability or potential, such as age, disability, sex, or national origin.

Whoopi&#39;s treatment by SlimFast doesn&#39;t comport at all, does it? ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 July 2004 - 18:10
BTW-From LegalDefinitions.com:

Discrimination Definition
discrimination definition – discrimination is defined as treating one person unfairly over another according to factors unrelated to their ability or potential, such as age, disability, sex, or national origin.

Whoopi&#39;s treatment by SlimFast doesn&#39;t comport at all, does it? ;)
those are just examples, it misses out religious beliefs for example yet it is discrimination to treat one person differently because of their religious beliefs.
In whoopi&#39;s case it is her political beliefs as her statement or whatever it was( i hear it was a joke) was unrelated to slimfast.
If she had a mind to file court proceedings she would probably come out with a satisfactory result, but then i am saying this without seeing a copy of her contract and we don&#39;t know what if any settlement they came to.
As i said i would probably not be debating this if it wasn&#39;t for outside interference.

It&#39;s funny i think that you look at free speech as

Even more to the point, this idea of "without prejudice" is not within sniffing distance of the idea.

If you make comments that are controversial or "daring", you stand to be relieved of something, be it a fat slice of income, your entire livelihood, or merely your ignorance.

That&#39;s the gamble inherent in free speech, vid: It is not without risk; never has been, and never should be.


where as i always thought of it as:

"I don&#39;t agree with what you say but i will fight to the death your right to say it"

Of course i agree with responsibility in free speech but i doubt whoopi acyually said anything that was sooooooooooo contraversial that it would shock the world.


Perhaps if she did make Kerry the subject there would be no fuss at all.... well not from the people that seem so offended by something that isn&#39;t exactly clear what she said by all accounts

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+16 July 2004 - 20:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 16 July 2004 - 20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@16 July 2004 - 18:10
BTW-From LegalDefinitions.com:

Discrimination Definition
discrimination definition – discrimination is defined as treating one person unfairly over another according to factors unrelated to their ability or potential, such as age, disability, sex, or national origin.

Whoopi&#39;s treatment by SlimFast doesn&#39;t comport at all, does it? ;)
those are just examples, it misses out religious beliefs for example yet it is discrimination to treat one person differently because of their religious beliefs.
[/b][/quote]
You have missed many instances on this board, then, when J&#39;Pol and myself (but especially J&#39;Pol), have been discriminated against by anointed "defenders" of free speech when we have broached the subject of religion.

Anyway, I&#39;m just telling you how it is; I didn&#39;t write the Constitution or any of the amendments, but if I had....they would be just the same, but with several fewer amendments. ;)

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by clocker+17 July 2004 - 01:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 17 July 2004 - 01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude™@16 July 2004 - 16:58

and because the media hates Bush

-SJ™
A bit of a sweeping generalization, I think. [/b][/quote]
Perhaps I should have said "most of the media" because of that there is no doubt, and it is most assuredly not a sweeping generalization.

-SJ™

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 July 2004 - 18:10

Clocker, I could document much of that which Jude notes; if, for example, the media quotes Barney Frank 100 times, and defines him as "liberal" 5 times, then quotes Tom Tancredo 100 times, and calls him "conservative" 95 times, that is biased reporting, period.

There can be no disputing that this occurs; there is more than ample documentation to support the truth of my assertion.


Of course your assertion can be disputed, it&#39;s pure crap.
The conservative Right howls so loudly that sheer volume has supplanted proof.

Wanna start swapping Googled surveys?
Here, I&#39;ll start. (http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html)

Don&#39;t you have a better use for your hot air supply today?
Go blow out some candles... :P

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 July 2004 - 19:25
You have missed many instances on this board, then, when J&#39;Pol and myself (but especially J&#39;Pol), have been discriminated against by anointed "defenders" of free speech when we have broached the subject of religion.


I have seen many post related to religion and although i have to say as you know i am a non believer, i have never denied that there is a god because i am not so arrogant as to think i am right without any doubt.
I would never argue against ones religious beliefs but i would argue against the religious moral beliefs of one being forced upon another.

However you have not been discriminated against by anyone forcing your loss of revenue because they disagree with your beliefs......or have you? :unsure:

[clocker]

Originally posted by SuperJude™+16 July 2004 - 19:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SuperJude™ @ 16 July 2004 - 19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by clocker@17 July 2004 - 01:13
<!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude™@16 July 2004 - 16:58

and because the media hates Bush

-SJ™
A bit of a sweeping generalization, I think.
Perhaps I should have said "most of the media" because of that there is no doubt, and it is most assuredly not a sweeping generalization.

-SJ™ [/b][/quote]
Of course there is doubt.
Can you prove this "liberal media" generalization at all, or is this another "everyone knows" kinda thing?

[SuperJude™]

You are kidding right?

-SJ™

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by clocker@17 July 2004 - 03:08
Wanna start swapping Googled surveys?
Here, I&#39;ll start. (http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html)

Come on, Don&#39;t find a liberal outlet site as your first piece of evidence.... just look at some respectable gallup polls.

I think that you will have to search long and hard for a poll to produce your opinion.

Heres a good Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/content/login.aspx?ci=9430)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+17 July 2004 - 06:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny @ 17 July 2004 - 06:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@17 July 2004 - 03:08
Wanna start swapping Googled surveys?
Here, I&#39;ll start. (http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html)

Come on, Don&#39;t find a liberal outlet site as your first piece of evidence.... just look at some respectable gallup polls.

I think that you will have to search long and hard for a poll to produce your opinion.

Heres a good Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/content/login.aspx?ci=9430) [/b][/quote]
You misunderstand...

No one is doubting that poll either, it doesnt contradict what clocker is saying...it confirms it...


Forty-five percent of Americans believe the news media in this country are too liberal, while only 14% say the news media are too conservative. These perceptions of liberal bias have not changed over the last three years. More generally, a little more than half of Americans have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the news media when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Trust in the news media has not changed significantly over the last six years.



clocker isnt saying there is no belief in Liberal Bias, he is saying that the studies consistantly show there is no justification for that belief.

The study was from a University, not from the outlet...however as fair.org attacks censorship and bias whoever it comes from, then i&#39;d like to know why you consider it a "liberal" organisation.

There are just as many Conservatives that actually want to know what is going on, without someone else deciding what should and shouldnt be reported. The "Liberals" try and surpress news too, not just the "Conservatives"..they both get slammed for it.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 July 2004 - 04:34



clocker isnt saying there is no belief in Liberal Bias, he is saying that the studies consistantly show there is no justification for that belief.


Precisely, RF.

"The Liberal Media" is simply another urban myth that has gained creedence by virtue of repetition, much like cell phones causing gas stations to explode and the whole Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment fiasco.

[j2k4]

Some "hot air" for you, Clocker, courtesy of the lib media:


The media want Kerry to win. They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and
this glow is going to be worth maybe 15 points."
— Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas, July 10.

Peter Jennings: “One of the Bush administration’s most controversial assertions in its argument for war in Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had links to al-Qaeda. Today the 9/11 Commission said, unequivocally, not so....”
Terry Moran: “After the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq undermined President Bush’s main argument for going to war, this new finding by the 9/11 Commission challenges his case on another front.”
— ABC’s World News Tonight, June 16.

Reality Check:
Chairman Thomas Kean: “Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there’s no question they were there....”
Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton: “I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government. We don’t disagree with that....It seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.”
— The two top members of the 9/11 Commission at a June 17 press conference.

“I read the book [My Life by Bill Clinton] completely. And I think it compares very favorably with Ulysses S. Grant’s gold standard of presidential autobiographies.”
— Dan Rather on CNN’s Larry King Live, June 18.

vs.

“While Dan Rather, who interviewed Mr. Clinton for 60 Minutes, has already compared the book to the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, arguably the most richly satisfying autobiography by an American President, My Life has little of that classic’s unsparing candor or historical perspective. Instead, it devolves into a hodgepodge of jottings: part policy primer, part 12-step confessional, part stump speech and part presidential archive, all, it seems, hurriedly written and even more hurriedly edited.”
— New York Times book reviewer Michiko Kakutani in a June 20 front-page critique of My Life.

“I used to say I thought if you were down on your luck and you got through the Secret Service, got in the Oval Office and said, ‘Mr. President, I’m down on my luck,’ he would literally give you the shirt off his back. And then he’d sit down in his undershirt and he’d sign legislation throwing your kids off school lunch program, maybe your parents off Social Security, and of course the Welfare Queen off of welfare.”
– ABC’s Sam Donaldson, who covered the White House during the 1980s, on Good Morning America, June 11.

“Can you tell, Thelma,...if the crowds really look like America? Are they ethnically diverse – African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans – or is it largely white?”
– CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asking reporter Thelma Gutierrez about the crowds at Reagan’s presidential library during live coverage shortly after 12pm EDT on June 8.

“We haven’t seen many African-American faces up at the presidential library, or this morning.”
– ABC’s Peter Jennings during live coverage as Reagan’s casket left Point Mugu Naval Air Station en route to Washington D.C., about 12:13pm EDT on June 9.

“Pretty simplistic. Pretty old-fashioned. And I don’t think they have much application to what’s currently wrong or troubling a lot of people....Nor do I think he really understands the enormous difficulty a lot of people have in just getting through life, because he’s lived in this fantasy land for so long.”
– NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw speculating on Reagan’s values in Mother Jones, April 1983.

“A new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that nearly two-thirds of Americans think the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq. Nearly six in ten say the administration lacks a clear plan. And for the first time, fewer than half of the Americans we talked to, 47 percent, approve of Mr. Bush’s overall job as President; 50 percent disapprove.”
– The only numbers from an ABC News/Washington Post poll cited by Peter Jennings on World News Tonight, May 24.

vs.
“Kerry draws just modest benefit from Bush’s difficulties. He’s got a scant five-point lead over Bush in trust to handle the economy, and it’s Bush +6 in trust to handle Iraq and Bush +13 in trust to handle terrorism. But Bush did somewhat better against the Democratic candidate on all these a month ago. Bush continues to be better rated than Kerry in honesty, strong leadership and consistency; he’s also much better rated in trust to handle a crisis and making the country more secure.”
– ABC News polling analyst Gary Langer, in an analysis of the same survey posted May 24 on ABCNews.com.

“Today the government said that America’s prison population grew 2.9 percent last year to nearly 2.1 million. That’s a record number of people in jail and prison. One out of every 75 American men was incarcerated. The number went up even though the crime rate continued to fall.”
– ABC’s Peter Jennings on World News Tonight, May 27.

Fred Francis: “In the Arab street and much of the world, outrage has produced a consensus: Rumsfeld must go. In Egypt, Marabat Molson [ph.], considered a moderate journalist, says Arabs reject the Rumsfeld apology that still seemed more arrogant than contrite.”
Marabat Molson: “He is reminding me of a sort of neo-Nazi character who’s coming back to life and anything which is not American is wrong.”
Francis: “In Cairo, anti-U.S. sentiment is so strong many here see no difference here between the actions of Saddam Hussein and George Bush....One Arab businessman [said], ‘That is not Jeffersonian democracy. It’s more like a lesson from Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf.’”
— Story on the May 10 NBC Nightly News.

“The front page of a Baghdad paper shows the defiled prisoners and the caption: ‘This is the freedom and democracy that Bush promised us.’ Psychologically, if not in fact, these pictures shred the last good reason to feel righteous about having gone to war.”
— Time’s Nancy Gibbs in the May 17 edition.

“This story resonates in so many ways. Just to emphasize how worked up the Democrats are on Capitol Hill, Congressman Charles Rangel of New York has filed articles of impeachment against the Secretary of Defense for his conduct of the war in Iraq and his handling of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.”
— Peter Jennings on ABC’s World News Tonight, May 6.

“What kind of absurd political twilight zone is it where George Bush and Dick Cheney can make John Kerry look like an unpatriotic chicken by focusing attention on his combat duty in Vietnam?...What is the word that has more gall than gall? Nerve? Cheek, chutzpah, conceit, arrogance, condescension?...Where do these people come off impugning John Kerry’s Vietnam era guts and patriotism? John McCain, Colin Powell, Tom Ridge or Chuck Hagel might have some moral standing, but not these chickenhawks.”
— Former CBS Evening News producer Dick Meyer in a CBSNews.com column posted April 30.

“Is it, do you think, I mean this is a criticism that we get a lot, particularly from the Left, that we in the media generally have not been aggressive enough in reporting on bad news and that we have been too willing to accept the administration’s message on good news?”
— CNN anchor Aaron Brown to former CBS and NBC correspondent Marvin Kalb, now a senior fellow with Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, on the May 11 NewsNight

“The other day, while taking a break by the Al-Hamra Hotel pool...I was accosted by an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials....She came to the point. Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’”
— British journalist Toby Harnden, a reporter for the London Daily Telegraph, in an article published in the May 15 edition of The Spectator, a British-based weekly, recounting a conversation at a Baghdad hotel.

“We’ll take ‘A Closer Look’ tonight at John Kerry’s dilemma: After brave and honorable service in Vietnam, a post-war record that dogs him.”
– ABC’s Peter Jennings on World News Tonight, April 26.

“We’ll take ‘A Closer Look’ tonight at John Kerry’s distinguished war record. His opponents are trying hard to use it against him.”
– ABC’s Charles Gibson, World News Tonight, April 21.

“It’s pretty interesting to hear the Bush camp go into this area of Senator Kerry’s military record. It seems like that’s the last place they’d want to go, not wanting to draw any more attention to President Bush’s military record.”
– Daryn Kagan anchoring CNN Live Today, April 26.

“The best defense is a good offense, they say, and the Bush campaign seems to be buying. On a week when the President and Vice President will go before the 9/11 commission, on a week when the Supreme Court will hear a case to open the records of the Vice President’s energy task force and, on a week that will end on May 1, the anniversary of the President’s speech declaring major combat over in Iraq, the Vice President took to the stump today to say John Kerry’s judgment on national security is questionable....It is a somewhat strange set of circumstances that 33-year-old questions are being asked of a candidate who volunteered to go to Vietnam and served with distinction, however briefly.”
– Aaron Brown on CNN’s NewsNight, April 26.
“There has to be a danger in the White House response to this....The 1970, ‘73, ‘74 era is kind of a black hole for them, too. Kerry said in response tonight, ‘All of this is coming from a President who can’t even prove that he showed up for duty with the National Guard.’ That’s perhaps not a serve that goes right past your opponent, but it’s a pretty good return.”
– Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown, April 26.

“Do you think this is a stupid argument that’s been going on from the other side, attacking you for throwing away what you said, or implied, or allowed the people to imply were medals when in fact they were ribbons?”
“What do you think of guys like [Vice President] Cheney who said, ‘I’m gonna have a kid at the right time. I’m going to grad school at the right time. I’m gonna stack up those deferments until I’m 83 years old, before they get anywhere near me,’ and they’re also hawkish?”
“Do you think the people around the President have hoisted themselves on their own petard by bringing up this issue of your service?”
“Do you think this administration and its political handlers like Karl Rove are capable of recognizing they can’t beat you on the jobs issue, they can’t beat you on foreign policy, so they’re gonna drop this nonsensical stuff [on you]?”
– Some of Chris Matthews’ questions to Senator John Kerry on MSNBC’s Hardball, April 27.


I could go on, if you like...

[Rat Faced]

Fact: A lot of journalists could well be "Liberal"

Fact: Even the Liberal Journalists mostly work for "Conservatives", and they therefore must "Toe the Line" to a point or lose their job.

Fact: Even the "Liberal" viewpoints of the USA are considered quite Right Wing, by most of the West... (By "Liberal" im refering to the Democrats)

Fact: No matter how many opinions you post, it does not hold the weight of a study based on the whole Media. Especially if you insist on using subjective matter such as Book Reviews.



I notice that you have given a Conservative opinion with each Liberal one..often from the same source...This in itself suggests the source itself is balanced, and that there is as much "Conservative" biased as "Liberal"

[clocker]

I could go on, if you like...
Please do...perhaps eventually you&#39;ll find an example that proves your point.

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by clocker@17 July 2004 - 13:44
"The Liberal Media" is simply another urban myth that has gained creedence by virtue of repetition, much like cell phones causing gas stations to explode and the whole Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment fiasco.
Hmmm I guess this post will contain this guys quote but is directed to people with an open mind willing to listen.

So clocker says prove it or it is an urban myth (do you people see only what you wish to see?) but statements like that put the onus on people like me to do the groundwork when in fact I am sure most people would agree that the media is most assuredly more liberal than not.

Well I sell magazines where I work and we got this weeks in today, so while putting them away I did a quick flip through and to the best of my ability this is the split between right and left:

Conservative:
NY Post
Washinton Times
The Economist
US News & World Report (borderline).

Now for the liberal&#33;
NY Times
NY Daily News
Kingston Freeman
Woodstock Times
Adbusters
The Citizen
Time
Newsweek
The Nation
New Criterion
Foreign Affairs
New York Mag
Village Voice
Saturday Evening Post
Washignton Post
Tikkun
People

That is just a quick glimpse, let alone the entertainment mags:
Rolling Stone
Sync
Q
Spin
Premiere.

Argue any way you want, butI really did look through all these and it is what it is. Besides to get a Communications Degree most people do go to liberal arts colleges correct? I know that doesn&#39;t mean "liberal" per se but I bet more leftists come from liberal arts colleges than not.

Or is that just an urban myth too?

-SJ™

EDIT: Oh btw, hate to burst your bubbles guys but get this one: The cheif owner of Slimfast, S. Daniel Abraham, is an ardent Democrat btw. Gave the max 25 thousand to Kerry&#39;s campaign and has admitted giving millions over the years in soft money to Democratic and defeat Bush causes. Funny huh? And that is most assuredly NOT an urban myth folks.

[Rat Faced]

EDIT: Oh btw, hate to burst your bubbles guys but get this one: The cheif owner of Slimfast, S. Daniel Abraham, is an ardent Democrat btw. Gave the max 25 thousand to Kerry&#39;s campaign and has admitted giving millions over the years in soft money to Democratic and defeat Bush causes. Funny huh? And that is most assuredly NOT an urban myth folks.



Which goes to support the view that he probably wouldnt have fired her without outside interferance.... ?


Liberal & Conservative are subjective as to where your personal persective is SJ.

Im sure that someone with a different outlook would probably classify them differently.... which is why I put more weight into a Study of the Media, than peoples opinions.


(alright, the people doing the study may have views too...but they will have rules by which to classify too that they will have to follow)


Edit:


SJ,

I notice the "Conservative" list is preceded by a colon, whereas the "Liberal" list is preceded by an exclamation mark... I assume this was subconcious?

It would certainly leave a subconsious impression to the reader.... :P

[clocker]

So clocker says prove it or it is an urban myth (do you people see only what you wish to see?) but statements like that put the onus on people like me to do the groundwork when in fact I am sure most people would agree that the media is most assuredly more liberal than not.
The onus is most assuredly upon you...you are the one making the disputed statement after all.

Who are "you people"?

What "most people" might agree on is hardly the issue.
As RF has already pointed out, perception and reality can be very different things.

BTW...you would classify People as liberal?

Trash, maybe.....

[SuperJude™]

It is posts like that which keep me from really delving too much into political discussion. Some people will just argue anything I guess. Seeing as how posting anything in response to you clocker is utterly pointless I guess I should just shut up and agree with you.

Right?

Nothing worse than just blindly making points. BTW clocker were you blender before?

-SJ™

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 July 2004 - 11:24

EDIT: Oh btw, hate to burst your bubbles guys but get this one: The cheif owner of Slimfast, S. Daniel Abraham, is an ardent Democrat btw. Gave the max 25 thousand to Kerry&#39;s campaign and has admitted giving millions over the years in soft money to Democratic and defeat Bush causes. Funny huh? And that is most assuredly NOT an urban myth folks.



Which goes to support the view that he probably wouldnt have fired her without outside interferance.... ?


Im sure that someone with a different outlook would probably classify them differently.... which is why I put more weight into a Study of the Media, than peoples opinions.


(alright, the people doing the study may have views too...but they will have rules by which to classify too that they will have to follow)



Rat-

You seem to want to conclude (as many liberals are wont to do) that Conservatives/Republicans are a pesky and (numerically) extremely small segment of the actual population.

Such is undoubtedly true on this board, but it is not the case in the U.S., or Republicans would not be holding the majorities (however tenuously).

To your statement that ...he probably wouldnt have fired her without outside interferance...., I can only say, what harm? If we conservatives are so numerically insignificant, and Mr. Abraham is (as are ALL liberals) a man for whom principle counts most, why did he fire her?

Could it be that reality does indeed intrude, and there is no "pie-in-the-sky"?

Your last supposition does itself in:

If you concede that study results are subject to the whims of those doing the study, I will, likewise; the fallacy of "duelling studies" has been borne out on the board many times, and been shown to be true at every turn, so, we are left, therefore, with opinion pieces (which I have always preferred), which allow room for one&#39;s own conclusions (which I also prefer).

Just about the only thing I&#39;ve ever googled for use in this forum has been either an opinion or a direct quote.

On the odd occasion I&#39;ve googled studies, it has been merely to provide a counter to someone else&#39;s study.

For the most part, studies are for assholes, and there are studies to prove it. ;)

[clocker]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@17 July 2004 - 10:08
It is posts like that which keep me from really delving too much into political discussion. Some people will just argue anything I guess. Seeing as how posting anything in response to you clocker is utterly pointless I guess I should just shut up and agree with you.

Right?

Nothing worse than just blindly making points. BTW clocker were you blender before?

-SJ™
I was hardly debating "just anything" SJ, but I never expected you to agree with me either.
I would say that making absurd statements based on "what everybody agrees on" is a far more egregious trespass than just "blindly making points".

Who was "blender"?

[Rat Faced]

J2K4,

As i said everything is subjective...

To me there arent many "Liberals" at all in the USA, both the Democratic and Republican Parties are "Conservative"... I would therefore bet that to me none of those publications will sound "Liberal".

The difference between an opinion and a study, is that the study will have a "Terms of Reference"...

A fixed point that the people conducting the study will stick by.

I would assume that this would be based upon on the subject being studied... in this case the US media, and that they will have a Centre Point, by which to judge the criteria.



If the same "Terms of Reference" were used in the UK, then the study may well have the opposite result, showing all or most UK media was "Liberal", unless the Terms were changed to reflect what is classed as "Liberal" and "Conservative" in this country.


I trust this clears up my feelings on the matter to you... in my opinion there is very little to no "Liberal" mainstream media outlets in the USA.

This does however, also contradict the Study :P

[j2k4]

Well, then, let me change the pitch a bit.

Fifty cents to the first person who can find a quote from a Conservative that matches the vitriol of this commentary, provided by a black female member of the media about a black conservative member of our Supreme Court:

USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Thomas:
"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."

As SuperJude said, it&#39;s downright difficult to match the libs for crudeness.

BTW-Ms. Malveaux&#39;s commentary didn&#39;t raise an eyebrow in any liberal quarters that I&#39;m aware of; she certainly didn&#39;t suffer economically.

Rat-

Nice opt-out: "It&#39;s all conservative to me&#33;"

Tish and pish. :P

[Biggles]

If the media is capable of upsetting both the left and the right, as the Beeb does on a regular basis, then one can reasonably assume that it is not partisan.

The question of whether media outlets are Liberal or not is an altogether different question. It is commonly held that Rupert Murdoch is Satan.....oops sorry, I mean Conservative. However, his main paper in the UK, The Sun, takes salaciousness to extremes and is full of naked women. The Vatican would view this as intolerably Liberal. The Hun, nevertheless, often speaks as if it is the Pontiff casting judgement on all and sundry, seemingly oblivious to the naked women. A nasty case of the Borgias one thinks.

However, The Bun is simply reflecting what its readers want - which is why it sells so well. A good mixture of rant and sleaze is what the populace wants. It is therefore reasonable to assume that these people, whilst holding some remarkably Conservative views on some issues are extremely Liberal on others. This is the quandry for politicians. They know there is no mileage in "going back to Victorian values". If people were to have their Daily Nun seized at the printers for being salacious they would beat their chests full sore. If they were told, you cannot have a divorce because it is against nature they would mutter darkly. If women were told that they were to return to being chattels and had no right to own property then nasty things would be done with knitting needles.

In short, by comparison to even 100 years ago most of us are Liberals. There are one or two that would take us back to these narrowly Conservative values but they are most certainly not the Silent Majority.

The Majority actually knows it is the Confused Majority. It knows it does not want to go back to a straight-jacketed society, but it would like the police to catch criminals. It does not want to grow wealthy off the backs of starving peasants in the Third World, but it doesn&#39;t want to pay taxes either. Consequently, they hedge their bets. In the UK when we had a Conservative Government just about every city council was Labour. Labour have gained dominance by being Consevative (driving the real Conservatives nearly demented trying to sound different). I believe similar balancing acts occur in the US. Personally I see this as Risk Management in action. If you are going to have politicians then at least keep them guessing.



Apologies, this has become longer than I intended.


Incidently, isn&#39;t Slim Fast an Anglo Dutch company? I still think they based their decision on market research - Republicans must eat more :D

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 July 2004 - 17:58
As i said everything is subjective...

well, where to draw the line? of course we all can draw the line between conservative and liberal individually but the point that many people have brought up is where you live is the factor. So one could say that what society as a whole thinks is right in the middle should be where the line is drawn.

Ahh democracy; power to the people.

so what do the people think? well they think that media is on the liberal side.

so if you think that the media is spot on and most of the country is on the conservative side; well, my friend you drew the line right at your feet instead of in the middle. (sorry for the metaphor, I aknowledge that many people will write this off as "babble")


on a side note, I know that the majority can and often will be wrong, but the foundation of democracy is what they say goes; that&#39;s what elections are all about&#33;

j2k4, actually I noticed the large inbalence between liberal and conservatives on this board which determined my decision to join...you&#39;ve done a sweet job holding these discussions so largely outnumbered... :D

[j2k4]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@17 July 2004 - 15:20

j2k4, actually I noticed the large inbalence between liberal and conservatives on this board which determined my decision to join...you&#39;ve done a sweet job holding these discussions so largely outnumbered... :D
Very nice of you to say, sir.

I am hostage to the task of relieving this lot of it&#39;s pecksniffian crassitude.. :lol:

Such is my sorry lot in this place. :P

Seriously, though-they like me here &#39;cuz I work cheap and I provide good entertainment value-if they can&#39;t afford the flicker or a concert ticket, they can just log-in instead:

"Hey, Joe; I&#39;ve heard that elephant does tricks..." :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, sometimes I just kill myself.... :P

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4@17 July 2004 - 20:31


I am hostage to the task of relieving this lot of it&#39;s pecksniffian crassitude.. :lol:


I aspire to pecksniffian crassitude - don&#39;t you dare relieve me of it before I even get there. :unsure:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles+17 July 2004 - 15:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 17 July 2004 - 15:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 July 2004 - 20:31


I am hostage to the task of relieving this lot of it&#39;s pecksniffian crassitude.. :lol:


I aspire to pecksniffian crassitude - don&#39;t you dare relieve me of it before I even get there. :unsure: [/b][/quote]
Okay, Biggles-

BTW-Ever see a flying elephant? :D

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+17 July 2004 - 20:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 17 July 2004 - 20:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Biggles@17 July 2004 - 15:34
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 July 2004 - 20:31


I am hostage to the task of relieving this lot of it&#39;s pecksniffian crassitude.. :lol:


I aspire to pecksniffian crassitude - don&#39;t you dare relieve me of it before I even get there. :unsure:
Okay, Biggles-

BTW-Ever see a flying elephant? :D [/b][/quote]
In a movie once


I think it was a nature documentary - a mouse taught to it fly or something like that. :blink:

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@17 July 2004 - 12:09
Well, then, let me change the pitch a bit.

Fifty cents to the first person who can find a quote from a Conservative that matches the vitriol of this commentary, provided by a black female member of the media about a black conservative member of our Supreme Court:





Bill O&#39;Reilly: "Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi regime and whose very famous quote was, &#39;If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.&#39; All right? &#39;If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.&#39; And that&#39;s what Stuart Smalley and Michael Moore and all of these guys do. They just run around [...] So who turns out for the screening of this movie [Fahrenheit 9/11] last night? You ready? Now, here are the celebrities that turn out. Here are the people who would turn out to see Joseph Goebbels convince you that Poland invaded the Third Reich. It&#39;s the same thing, by the way. Propaganda is propaganda. Okay? Billy Crystal. Martin Sheen. Leonardo DiCaprio. Ellen DeGeneres. David Duchovny. Sharon Stone. Meg Ryan. Ashton Kutcher. Demi Moore. Norman Lear. Rob Reiner. Jodie Foster. Chris Rock. Larry David. Jack Black. Matthew Perry. Diane Lane."
You owe me &#036;.50..
No checks or money orders please.

As SuperJude said, it&#39;s downright difficult to match the libs for crudeness.
O&#39;Reilly?

[spinningfreemanny]

Oh come on, There was not one instance of even name calling.... from what I can gather, he is saying that michael moore lied (not that he is a liar) and that they promote propaganda. Sorry I did not read "I wish Michael Moore dead" on that...

my 2 cents.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@18 July 2004 - 00:23
Oh come on, There was not one instance of even name calling.... from what I can gather, he is saying that michael moore lied (not that he is a liar) and that they promote propaganda. Sorry I did not read "I wish Michael Moore dead" on that...

my 2 cents.
Being compared to Goebbels is not exactly rooting for someone.....











or in the strange world of the media is it? Cue Twilight Zone music. :)

[j2k4]

Bill O&#39;Reilly: "Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi regime and whose very famous quote was, &#39;If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.&#39; All right? &#39;If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.&#39; And that&#39;s what Stuart Smalley and Michael Moore and all of these guys do. They just run around [...] So who turns out for the screening of this movie [Fahrenheit 9/11] last night? You ready? Now, here are the celebrities that turn out. Here are the people who would turn out to see Joseph Goebbels convince you that Poland invaded the Third Reich. It&#39;s the same thing, by the way. Propaganda is propaganda. Okay? Billy Crystal. Martin Sheen. Leonardo DiCaprio. Ellen DeGeneres. David Duchovny. Sharon Stone. Meg Ryan. Ashton Kutcher. Demi Moore. Norman Lear. Rob Reiner. Jodie Foster. Chris Rock. Larry David. Jack Black. Matthew Perry. Diane Lane."
You owe me &#036;.50..
No checks or money orders please.
[/QUOTE]

I didn&#39;t note any death wishes, Clocker.

Hmmmmm.

I&#39;ll give you two bits for the effort, though. ;)

Please try again. :)


Odd.

FOXNEWS is the arch-Conservative Republican media headquarters, but we can&#39;t even get anyone to admit any of the rest of the media is liberal?

I think I feel another hmmmm... coming on.

[clocker]

No, no death threats.
Just comparing people who showed up at a movie premiere ( many of whom just happen to be Jewish) to Nazis enthralled by Goebbels.
No biggie, I guess.
You want death threats?

Hmmm. let&#39;s see...this shouldn&#39;t be too hard...
Oh, OK.


"In the Old West, and I would have loved to have been in the Old West, Al and I, we would have had a little shootout. We would have gone out on Willshire Avenue, six shooters. Now he&#39;s a much smaller target than I am, about 4&#39;11, but he&#39;s wider and it would have been, you know, Clint Eastwood time, you know, I would have the cheroot, the serape, and I had my squint, and I would have put a bullet right between his head."
-Bill O&#39;Reilly Radio Show, June 2, 2003

That should fit the Bill, eh?

Edit:
Tired of ole Bill O?
I know I am.
How about some Ann Coulter?

College Liberals = Traitors

A late January 2002 quote from Coulter&#39;s address to CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference).

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

Her words were applauded by National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, and Lynne Cheney (wife of Vice President Cheney), all of whom were in attendance.


Yup, boy howdy.
Those damn Liberals sure aren&#39;t as nice and civilized as the Conservatives are they?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@17 July 2004 - 23:25

"In the Old West, and I would have loved to have been in the Old West, Al and I, we would have had a little shootout. We would have gone out on Willshire Avenue, six shooters. Now he&#39;s a much smaller target than I am, about 4&#39;11, but he&#39;s wider and it would have been, you know, Clint Eastwood time, you know, I would have the cheroot, the serape, and I had my squint, and I would have put a bullet right between his head."
-Bill O&#39;Reilly Radio Show, June 2, 2003


Although I have no intention of jumping into the middle of this little conratemps, I just couldn&#39;t let this pass.


Shoot a bullet between his head?

I have heard of between the eyes.

Maybe they had 2 heads in the Old West, but then again a bullet between them would be a miss. So that wouldn&#39;t be a death threat at all.

I&#39;m am very confused here.
http://www.thewb.com/THEWB/Images/Dynamic/i25/JK-JudgeJamie_1x1_90.jpg


And, I believe Clocker is up to 52 cents in earning if you are following along at home.


Oh come on, There was not one instance of even name calling.... from what I can gather, he is saying that michael moore lied (not that he is a liar) and that they promote propaganda. Sorry I did not read "I wish Michael Moore dead" on that...

my 2 cents.

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@17 July 2004 - 18:49

Although I have no intention of jumping into the middle of this little conratemps, I just couldn&#39;t let this pass.



I have it on good authority that the correct spelling is "contretemps".

But don&#39;t let me be pecksniffian about it.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker+17 July 2004 - 23:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 17 July 2004 - 23:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@17 July 2004 - 18:49

Although I have no intention of jumping into the middle of this little conratemps, I just couldn&#39;t let this pass.



I have it on good authority that the correct spelling is "contretemps".

But don&#39;t let me be pecksniffian about it. [/b][/quote]
Don&#39;t involve me in your "pecker sniffing" as I consider that crassitude.

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@17 July 2004 - 19:07

Don&#39;t involve me in your "pecker sniffing" as I consider that crassitude.
I am a Liberal...I can&#39;t help it.

Our hidden agenda requires everyone to join us in "pecker-sniffing".
A Constitutional amendment is soon to come.

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by clocker@18 July 2004 - 03:15
I am a Liberal...I can&#39;t help it.


And I am neither liberal nor conservative as I keep saying. Funny how liberal these days means "agree or you are wrong&#33;".

My god you people (yes clocker I said it, YOU PEOPLE i.e. liberals) all seem to be so utterly convinced that you are always right that YOU PEOPLE are now just as bad as the goddamn conservatives.

Actually what am I saying?

You are liberal and thus MUCH smarter than I most assuredly....

So there is no liberal media, it is 100% untrue and all the media out there (including the list I so kindly provided you) is completely unbiased and middle of the road.

Oops forgot my sarcasm tags.

That is why I find myself identifying with liberals less and less, which is more of a shock to myself than you could ever know, and the reason is I find a lot of liberals to be full of hot air blowhards who argue anything just to argue and be right.

It&#39;s like they opened the floodgates and everybody who had to shut up the last few years is now united in hating our President, so much so that anybody with ANY view other than yours must be wrong. That is crap, pure crap and I am really sick of it cause I hear it all day at my job from pushy rude assholes that claim to be liberal (which really means anything their parents were not), and then online from people like clocker who will even try to debate that the media does not lean towards the left.

WTF?

It almost made me quit posting in this thread such in my infuriation at some peoples inability to actually take something in and think about it before posting. And because I do not agree with the liberal constituants of this board I am now treated like some Bush loving conservative, which again I am not. Why? Cause I have a different and somewhat informed opinion. When did that become wrong?

Of course I have my own theories about the media personally, but that is for another day, and I for FACT have been misquoted in the NY Post, 9-22-2001 edition so I know first hand how the media manipulates things. I should say I was "paraphrased" heh, but still it made me see some things. Now here I see that more and more there are groups of people who say they are liberal roaming around like they now have carte blance. Like "the world hates Bush and America so now I can come out of the closet and diss even people who have a slightly different view than me". Unsettling and god I hope it changes over the next few years. Nothing wrong with political beliefs and the beauty of our system is we have so many points of view that it enrichens our country to the fullest. I just hope some of the loud mouths out there in my real life workd pipe down and some people on the internet stop taking it as their personal quest to smash down all who disagree with them.

I am allowed my own opinion right?

Also this: frustrating to present facts like before and get shot down like nothing. I actually spent my break going through all those mags so it would be an unformed post.

clocker- Blender was a mod here at one point and your avatar looked similar to his, that&#39;s all, had nothing to do with this thread really.

-SJ™

[clocker]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@17 July 2004 - 19:57

And I am neither liberal nor conservative as I keep saying. Funny how liberal these days means "agree or you are wrong&#33;".

My god you people (yes clocker I said it, YOU PEOPLE i.e. liberals) all seem to be so utterly convinced that you are always right that YOU PEOPLE are now just as bad as the goddamn conservatives.


Yea, you do keep saying that, although for the life of me I can&#39;t figure out why.

I am not an asshole because I&#39;m liberal, I&#39;m an asshole who just happens to be a liberal.
A fine distinction, but relevant, I think.

If at any point you had said "In my opinion the media is biased" we won&#39;t be where we are now.
Instead, you tried to foist off this assertion as though it were a proven fact...proven because "there can be no doubt" and "everyone will agree".
Sorry, but that boat don&#39;t float.

Of course I have my own theories about the media personally, but that is for another day, and I for FACT have been misquoted in the NY Post, 9-22-2001 edition so I know first hand how the media manipulates things.
In a previous post you listed this paper under Conservative Media.
Oooops.

clocker- Blender was a mod here at one point and your avatar looked similar to his, that&#39;s all, had nothing to do with this thread really.
Oh.
I think you meant Bender.
I miss him.

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by clocker@18 July 2004 - 04:17
Oh.
I think you meant Bender.
I miss him.
No I absolutely meant Blender.

And so what if the Post is conservative media? This is what I mean by you have no point to make. Sure it is conservative media but WTF does that have to do with them doing an article on me and my buddy at the Trade Center?

Please in the future read more carefully what others post clocker. There is no way I can see you making any correlation between me listing the NY Post as conservative and me being in their paper????

Whatever political agenda the editors have at a paper doesn&#39;t mean the reporters share the same views, and my ONLY discernable point was that the media can misrepresent something so simple as a short interview.

But had you actually spent time reading more closely you would have known that.

-SJ™

[clocker]

Hold on a minute.
For two pages now you&#39;ve been trying to convince us that the "media hates Bush" and is guilty of filtering the news through a liberal bias ( after all " everyone" knows this, right?) and then you put up a personal example of being misquoted by a conservative paper ( your definition, not mine) to prove it.
And it&#39;s me who isn&#39;t following the topic?
I realize that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, but really, a little would go a long way here.


No I absolutely meant Blender.
Oh, ok.
Check the members list when you have a spare moment.

[Busyman]

After all of this SJ, your view has been muddled.

I can&#39;t tell if it&#39;s different or not.

....nor at this point do I care.

People "hate" Bush for a reason, not some bandwagon. The man is ass-backwards with not a hint of turning around.

Oh and Blender...neva hoid of &#39;em.

Maybe a mod changed their name. <_<

[clocker]

SJ,
A bit of personal backround may be in order here.

I spent my formative years in D.C. and my ex-wife was a producer for NBC News.
I have socialized with everyone from on-air talent ( a debatable term, but the one they use) to staff researchers.
The only common agenda that I could see was they held all politicians with equal contempt.
Saturated as they were in politics, the disconnect between what politicos say in public and what they do behind closed doors lead them all to extreme cynicism.
Lately it seems that politicians of all stripes have decided that it would be a good thing to project an image of holier than thou piety and righteousness ( hence the great concern about the "morals of America").
Such bloviation is an irresistable target to a curious and jaded journalist.
If Bush insists that he is the "great uniter" and then spends all his time trying to bulldoze through legislation that marginalizes and excludes vast numbers of people, who could resist the temptation to call him on it?
And, more importantly, why would that make one a "hate filled Liberal" instead of a critical thinking independent?

Hell, I&#39;ll bet half the people I knew in the business didn&#39;t even vote at all, so disgusted with the farce of American democracy it seemed pointless.

To me that doesn&#39;t add up to a liberal conspiracy.

[hobbes]

Bender was a Mod, and I do believe that Clocker did have a blender as an avatar, but I can&#39;t recall it exactly.

We all remember this one:

http://www.blitzhumor.com/head-up-ass.jpg

Bloviation- what a victorious day it has been for my list of words I know the definition of, whatever that is called.

SJ- Clocker is an acquired taste, but one well worth the investment. But he is a fag.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@18 July 2004 - 01:19
But he is a fag.
"Not that anything is wrong with that"


Jerry Seinfeld

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Busyman+18 July 2004 - 03:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 18 July 2004 - 03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@18 July 2004 - 01:19
But he is a fag.
"Not that anything is wrong with that"


Jerry Seinfeld [/b][/quote]
Yeah, a good kind of fag.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Busyman+17 July 2004 - 22:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 17 July 2004 - 22:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@18 July 2004 - 01:19
But he is a fag.
"Not that anything is wrong with that"


Jerry Seinfeld [/b][/quote]
Well, nothing that a Constitutional amendment wouldn&#39;t cure anyway.

[Busyman]

:lol: :lol: :lol: .....ta both a you faggots.

[3RA1N1AC]

as far as i know, Julianne Malveaux has never sought the Democratic nomination for the presidency and doesn&#39;t own a cable television network, so i&#39;d count Pat Robertson as being just as prominent as (if not more than) Malveaux:

Robertson: Pray for Justices&#39; Retirement
Tuesday, July 15, 2003

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson (search) urged his nationwide audience Monday to pray for God to remove three justices from the Supreme Court so they could be replaced by conservatives.

"We ask for miracles in regard to the Supreme Court," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network&#39;s The 700 Club.

Robertson has launched a 21-day "prayer offensive" directed at the Supreme Court (search) in the wake of its 6-3 June vote that decriminalized sodomy. Robertson said in a letter on the CBN Web site that the ruling "has opened the door to homosexual marriage, bigamy, legalized prostitution and even incest."

The same letter targets three justices in particular: "One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"

Judging from the descriptions, Robertson was referring to Justice John Paul Stevens (search), who was born in 1920, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (search), who had colon cancer surgery in 1999. The identity of the third justice was unclear.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92030,00.html

i suppose "retirement" is subject to interpretation. though i think it&#39;d be disingenuous to interpret a prayer for God to "retire" people with terminal illnesses as nothing to do with death.

perhaps not the Grand Old Party&#39;s finest moment:

Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He&#39;d better have a bodyguard. -- Senator Jesse Helms, 1994.
and that&#39;s prolly one of the least vitriolic statements he&#39;s ever made in public. i wouldn&#39;t go so far as to say Jesse Helms is crude but, well... okay, he is pretty crude, ain&#39;t he?

[Rat Faced]

There are assholes in all walks of life and with every political belief.

SJ & J2K4,

I was trying to point out that somewhere, someone will think Limburgh is a screaming Liberal...

Unless you have a "Reference" to go by, then your opinion on what is Liberal and what is Conservative is just as valid as that persons.


To me, all the mainstream US media is quite far to the Right. However that is because I come from a more "Liberal" environment, and our media does reflect that...

Im not saying that Im right, any more than im saying you are... however, this is the reason I support Studies into the subject rather more than your opinions.


Im sure that you will be able to come up with a study showing that the Media is Liberal, and depending upon who conducted the study, i&#39;d then put as much weight to that Study as I have to the other one.

I have admitted that I really cannot judge, based on what opinions are expressed in this debate as my opinion is clouded by my "Liberal" attitude and the Media in the UK.

That is not backing out of the Debate, its actually admitting that my view is biased and I cannot rightfully argue the point. Its not my Culture, and my concept of what is "Liberal" is wholley different from yours...which are merely shades of "Conservatism" to me.


However, until i see a Study that shows the Media is "Liberally Biased" then I have to go with Clocker... he is the only one that has actually submitted any evidence rather than opinion.

[Biggles]

If people were disgusted with the Washington Post (I am not sure which side of the fence it falls) would they not simply buy another paper.

In Scotland one of the two Broadsheets (The Scotsman) was taken over and the new owners placed Andrew Neil in overall charge. Mr Neil is a right winger and took the paper from a centre Liberal stance to an anti Europe anti Scottish Parliament stance. He has over the subsequent years reduced the readership by over 35% - quite an achievement really. I switched to The Herald (as did many others) as I could not be doing with the daily moan about all things Liberal.

There was little in the way of a right wing media outlet in Scotland and it is interesting that they have perservered with the editorial stance despite the decline in income. Perhaps commercial bodies are altruistic after all. :)

If there is a perception that much of the media is Liberal is this not because that is generally what the population want? If they did not then they would all watch Fox and listen to the Lindbergh chap.

Is Ann Coulter real? She sounds like a Saturday Night Live creation.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@18 July 2004 - 09:58
If people were disgusted with the Washington Post (I am not sure which side of the fence it falls) would they not simply buy another paper.

In Scotland one of the two Broadsheets (The Scotsman) was taken over and the new owners placed Andrew Neil in overall charge. Mr Neil is a right winger and took the paper from a centre Liberal stance to an anti Europe anti Scottish Parliament stance. He has over the subsequent years reduced the readership by over 35% - quite an achievement really. I switched to The Herald (as did many others) as I could not be doing with the daily moan about all things Liberal.

There was little in the way of a right wing media outlet in Scotland and it is interesting that they have perservered with the editorial stance despite the decline in income. Perhaps commercial bodies are altruistic after all. :)

If there is a perception that much of the media is Liberal is this not because that is generally what the population want? If they did not then they would all watch Fox and listen to the Lindbergh chap.

Is Ann Coulter real? She sounds like a Saturday Night Live creation.
Indeed she is real. Another brainwashed automaton.

What does the reference mean?

I assume that the way she actually is seems exagerated as if on SNL.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Busyman@18 July 2004 - 14:06

Is Ann Coulter real? She sounds like a Saturday Night Live creation. [/QUOTE]
Indeed she is real. Another brainwashed automaton.

What does the reference mean?

I assume that the way she actually is seems exagerated as if on SNL. [/quote]
Above someone quoted her advocating the execution of someone to frighten Liberals.

[clocker]

Oh yes, she is very real.

SNL would have made a more believable caricature.

[Biggles]

Coulter is a Scottish surname, could I make a plea that she is not deported back like Willie in The Simpsons was in one episode. :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Okay-

So far, I gather I&#39;m out about &#036;.83, given Clocker&#39;s stumbling over O&#39;Really&#39;s statements (though I must insist I find it totally unfair to have O&#39;Really&#39;s comments count, just &#39;cuz he works for FOXNEWS).

Ann Coulter&#39;s commentary didn&#39;t vouch for killing libs, it merely said John Walker Lindh&#39;s execution would demonstrate to liberals that they were not invulnerable to terrorism, and they would do well to remember this when comes time to support the Government&#39;s efforts against terrorism.

Pat Robertson&#39;s comments about the Supreme Court pale in comparison to anything else I&#39;ve seen, and, while subject to interpretation (as is everything else), to contend they broach the barrier we speak of here is, to put it mildly, a bit of a reach.

So, to sum up:

A total of &#036;.75 goes to Clocker, broken down as follows:

&#036;.50 for the O&#39;Really quotes, but only &#036;.25 of it for vitriol; Bill bloviates with the best of them, and so I qualify for a &#036;.25 H.A.D. (Hot Air Discount) on the original &#036;.50 penalty.

The other &#036;.25 is for Bill&#39;s appalling grammar.

Coulter&#39;s comment is of questionable value, but I&#39;ll throw in &#036;.25 because she did say "kill" and not least of all because I am a compassionate Conservative.

Robertson&#39;s observation about the Supreme Court is spot-on, but I will spend the &#036;.08 gladly, just to rid myself of the single nickel and the few useless pennies.

Geez, and I thought you&#39;d all fold your tents and go home. :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@18 July 2004 - 09:17
Coulter is a Scottish surname, could I make a plea that she is not deported back like Willie in The Simpsons was in one episode.&nbsp; :ph34r:
You all make too much of poor Annie; she has merely adopted the tactic of defending Conservative ideals by use of Liberal tactics. ;

Actually, I probably should have saved us some cyber-ink by suggesting you all visit this site, http://www.spinsanity.com/, as it does a superb job of highlighting rhetoric and spin on both sides.

Inflammatory rhetoric can be fun, but is not often constructive; I sincerely wish it wasn&#39;t the favored tool of every pundit under the sun. :huh: )

[Busyman]

Reason magazine or The Nation

You make the call.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@18 July 2004 - 07:34

You all make too much of poor Annie; she has merely adopted the tactic of defending Conservative ideals by use of Liberal tactics. ;


"Liberal tactics"?

Nevermind.

Life&#39;s too short.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker+18 July 2004 - 13:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 18 July 2004 - 13:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@18 July 2004 - 07:34

You all make too much of poor Annie; she has merely adopted the tactic of defending Conservative ideals by use of Liberal tactics. ;


"Liberal tactics"?

Nevermind.

Life&#39;s too short.[/b][/quote]
Wow, Clockers silence has been bought for a mere 75 cents. You can&#39;t even buy the Sunday edition liberal tabloid with that.

In winning, he has lost.











Yo-hobbes-gi, who hasn&#39;t contributed one worthwhile post to this thread and who will shut up now. And BM is a fag.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+18 July 2004 - 10:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 18 July 2004 - 10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@18 July 2004 - 07:34

You all make too much of poor Annie; she has merely adopted the tactic of defending Conservative ideals by use of Liberal tactics. ;


"Liberal tactics"?

Nevermind.

Life&#39;s too short. [/b][/quote]
Thought you&#39;d like that. :D

Have you any plans for your windfall?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@18 July 2004 - 11:46

Yo-hobbes-gi, who hasn&#39;t contributed one worthwhile post to this thread and who will shut up now. And BM is a fag.
&#39;Tis a lie, Hobbes; you contributed a welcome bit of silence, befitting your unique posture and status here.

I cannot speak to the rest. B)

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4+18 July 2004 - 09:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 18 July 2004 - 09:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by clocker@18 July 2004 - 10:57
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@18 July 2004 - 07:34

You all make too much of poor Annie; she has merely adopted the tactic of defending Conservative ideals by use of Liberal tactics. ;


"Liberal tactics"?

Nevermind.

Life&#39;s too short.
Thought you&#39;d like that. :D

Have you any plans for your windfall? [/b][/quote]
You may consider my refusal to rise to the bait a belated birthday present..
In fact, let&#39;s toss Christmas in there also.

OK, so now we&#39;re square.

No more freebies.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@18 July 2004 - 15:17
No more freebies.
Great.

What do I do with the six bits? :huh:

[clocker]

Put it towards a ticket to Farenheit 9/11.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@18 July 2004 - 15:28
Put it towards a ticket to Farenheit 9/11.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[ruthie]

Another kind statement by coulter...

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war." ---MSNBC

"If you don&#39;t hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don&#39;t love your country."---George, 7/99

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don&#39;t have set philosophical principles. You&#39;re either a liberal or you&#39;re a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

she&#39;s a real winner.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ruthie@18 July 2004 - 16:50
Another kind statement by coulter...

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war." ---MSNBC

"If you don&#39;t hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don&#39;t love your country."---George, 7/99

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don&#39;t have set philosophical principles. You&#39;re either a liberal or you&#39;re a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

she&#39;s a real winner.
None of that even approaches Ms. Malveaux&#39;s comment.

I&#39;ll give you &#036;.10 for the lot; you won&#39;t get a better offer than that.

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by clocker@18 July 2004 - 21:28
Put it towards a ticket to Farenheit 9/11.
Or Pirate it like Michael Moore said we could do :)

Then you can save the money and spend it on organic food, which you can eat while reading up on the real problem facing this planet: Emmisions.

-SJ™

[hobbes]

Originally posted by SuperJude™+18 July 2004 - 22:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SuperJude™ @ 18 July 2004 - 22:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@18 July 2004 - 21:28
Put it towards a ticket to Farenheit 9/11.
Or Pirate it like Michael Moore said we could do :)

Then you can save the money and spend it on organic food, which you can eat while reading up on the real problem facing this planet: Emmisions.

-SJ™ [/b][/quote]
Emmisions?

You mean "farts" or what?

[SuperJude™]

Heh. No I mean 19.6 pounds of carbon released by 1 gallon of gas...errrr......gasoline.

-SJ™

[hobbes]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@18 July 2004 - 22:57
Heh. No I mean 19.6 pounds of carbon released by 1 gallon of gas...errrr......gasoline.

-SJ™
Since my body is made of carbon, please explain how the release of carbon is a bad thing.

[SuperJude™]

Well you are not made up entirely of carbon obviously, we are carbon based. But here it is: excess carbon it the atmosphere, where is it to go? James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute, says human emmisions account for 2 watts per square meter of excess heat because human released carbon now exceeds that of nature, meaning we are dumping huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and by rote into the oceans, and it gets nary a headline save the occasional global warming article when it is unseasonably hot.

Busyman- just read your reply before, nice attempt at the popcorn psychology man, but nah I know my opinions 100%, and maybe me being middle of the road is too confusing for some people. :P

-SJ™

[Busyman]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@18 July 2004 - 21:20
Well you are not made up entirely of carbon obviously, we are carbon based. But here it is: excess carbon it the atmosphere, where is it to go? James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute, says human emmisions account for 2 watts per square meter of excess heat because human released carbon now exceeds that of nature, meaning we are dumping huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and by rote into the oceans, and it gets nary a headline save the occasional global warming article when it is unseasonably hot.

Busyman- just read your reply before, nice attempt at the popcorn psychology man, but nah I know my opinions 100%, and maybe me being middle of the road is too confusing for some people. :P

-SJ™
I am too in the middle, if there is such a label.

All the talk of your freedom of speech, and your opinions, and your right to blahblahblah has left us with a

:blink: huh :blink:

Let&#39;s try to get on topic again...you know...like the others. :P

[SuperJude™]

Confusing? You mean like the world we live in?

Yes the world is confusing and maybe I am trying to make minute points to individual things said within one post, instead of sticking with the "make post as statement thesis" format.

My statements are simple though: The left are seeming more and more like hypocrites who would scream foul if others did to them what they do now. The media, which in my opinion sits on the left, misrepresents things in such a manner that it portrays anything attached with Bush as wrong and deceitful. The left is supported by a group of people from Hollywood who don&#39;t know shit about anything and yet they get the most airplay because (you guessed it) they are in entertainment and media.

And yet here I had always thought myself pretty liberal, and now I find myself not identifying with the people who are supposed to represent freedom and equality, who more and more seem like conservative assholes with different cloths.

There, my statement. Well that and they are all rich white guys who go to the same schools.

-SJ™

[Busyman]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@19 July 2004 - 16:20
Confusing? You mean like the world we live in?

Yes the world is confusing and maybe I am trying to make minute points to individual things said within one post, instead of sticking with the "make post as statement thesis" format.

My statements are simple though: The left are seeming more and more like hypocrites who would scream foul if others did to them what they do now. The media, which in my opinion sits on the left, misrepresents things in such a manner that it portrays anything attached with Bush as wrong and deceitful. The left is supported by a group of people from Hollywood who don&#39;t know shit about anything and yet they get the most airplay because (you guessed it) they are in entertainment and media.

And yet here I had always thought myself pretty liberal, and now I find myself not identifying with the people who are supposed to represent freedom and equality, who more and more seem like conservative assholes with different cloths.

There, my statement. Well that and they are all rich white guys who go to the same schools.

-SJ™
Politicians in general are hypocrites.

[3RA1N1AC]

while the FST board was down, i registered at FreeRepublic.com. it only took me two replies before my messages were deleted and my account suspended. i guess they really don&#39;t like people interrupting their "Linda Rondstadt & Michael Moore are fat disgusting pigs who should be shot" threads with anything even remotely traitorous.

strike one, re: someone&#39;s suggestion that Linda Rondstadt should stay north of the Mason-Dixon if she dislikes Christian fundamentalists.

The real deal (Linda Ronstadt is Anti-Christian Comments)

Posted by patrioticdude911 to KellyAdmirer
On News/Activism 07/20/2004 4:13:31 PM PDT #22 of 37

good idea. now if only we could get fundamental Christians to stay on their side of the line...

and strike two.

Linda Ronstadt ejected from casino for praising Michael Moore

Posted by patrioticdude911 to onevoter
On General Interest (Chat) 07/20/2004 4:33:44 PM PDT #15 of 23

you&#39;ve really gotta be doing something wrong, to get booed off the stage in a town that has the amazingly good taste to continually support wayne newton and those homosexual kraut magicians.

YES&#33;&#33;

[vidcc]

whereas i thought the whoopi affair was a bit unjust with Linda Rondstadt i have to agree somewhat with the casino.

She was hired to entertain, and not give a political statement.

[3RA1N1AC]

eh. maybe she&#39;s becoming one of those "protest singers" i hear so much about.

my point mainly was
1) FST = relatively civilized and moderated relatively fairly
2) forums like FreeRepublic = hatefest or get out

[vidcc]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@21 July 2004 - 10:26

my point mainly was
1) FST = relatively civilized and moderated relatively fairly
2) forums like FreeRepublic = hatefest or get out
I agree and didn&#39;t call it into question, i just picked up on the singers issue

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@21 July 2004 - 12:26
eh.&nbsp; maybe she&#39;s becoming one of those "protest singers" i hear so much about.

my point mainly was
1) FST = relatively civilized and moderated relatively fairly
2) forums like FreeRepublic = hatefest or get out
3RA1N1AC-

Surely you must admit there are liberal sites to counter the one you object to; sites which would react to me, for instance, as they did to you.

Extremism is a vice no matter who practices it, wouldn&#39;t you say?

BTW-here is a quote from the lovely and gracious Ms. Ronstadt which indicates rather strongly her love and tolerance of all people:

"It&#39;s a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I&#39;d rather not know."

How is it, exactly, that she stumbles upon this information while she&#39;s supposed to be singing?

That should do wonders for her attendance, huh? ;)

[3RA1N1AC]

but i didn&#39;t object to the site until they tossed me out. it wasn&#39;t so much the hatefest part as much as it was the "or get out" part. i really wanted to be a freeper. at least until FST got back online.

and... i&#39;d have thunk that ever since her affair with Jerry Brown (ex-Moonbeam of California), people are pretty much aware that she&#39;s a bit of a trippy hippie? so what&#39;s the big surprise? :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@22 July 2004 - 01:09
and... i&#39;d have thunk that ever since her affair with Jerry Brown (ex-Moonbeam of California), people are pretty much aware that she&#39;s a bit of a trippy hippie? so what&#39;s the big surprise? :lol:
Well, one might assume that age would arrive with a modicum of reason in tow; look at Jerry Brown-he is, in fact, a mere shadow of his former self.

My God, even Madonna has grown up a wee bit.

[Rat Faced]

Surely you must admit there are liberal sites to counter the one you object to; sites which would react to me, for instance, as they did to you.

Extremism is a vice no matter who practices it, wouldn&#39;t you say?




I couldnt agree more.

However, havent you just spent the last week saying that there arent any Republican extremists? :blink:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@23 July 2004 - 11:55
However, havent you just spent the last week saying that there arent any Republican extremists? :blink:
No, certainly not; Clocker and others have run themselves ragged trying to prove that they do, indeed, exist; they&#39;ve had success on approximate par with Bush&#39;s search for WMD, which, by the way, gives rise to another thread-as soon as I can Google up a column.

When you see it, read it carefully, please, before we discuss it? ;)

:)

[SuperJude™]

"They sure love them some George Bush".

This from an article in the recent Village Voice concerning fun of the mill everyday Republcans. Anybody see the inherent judgementl snobbery in that statement right there?

Just saying (once again) to y&#39;all liberals, just cause you think it doesn&#39;t make it right. And that does not make me a Bush fanatic Conservative for saying so.

-SJ™

[clocker]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@24 July 2004 - 20:28


Just saying (once again) to y&#39;all liberals, just cause you think it doesn&#39;t make it right.
Of course the obverse is equally as true.

[SuperJude™]

Ecch sorry about the spelling, it was late and beer was involved.

What I have been trying to point out clocker is that yes the opposite is true, but that has been "known" for a long long time, and that now we are in an era which for whatever reason, the left which had always been one thing has turned into a mirror reflection of that which it claims to be against.

And I mean that in terms of the regular people not just the politicians, and it also seems to me that nobody on the left is willing to point that out.

-SJ™