Tremble you liberal heathens...

[Eagler]

Originally posted by weazel
I don't know which is more laughable, the stupid squeak who wrote this crap...or the idiots who believe that the media is controlled by the *left* wing.

From Bartcop.

 

Wallow in your angst Hortlund.

glad you didn't type all that, what a waste of my time reading it - hate to think you wated your time typing it

BTW it is a load of crap, as stated in other posts beside the Fox news guys, the rest you listed cept a few are as liberal as they come

[Kieran]

The media is, was, and always will be liberal. Sensationalism sells news, and liberals just seem better able to capitalize on the tactic.

[Sandman]

C'mon Kieran. You make it sound as if there were no market for conservative views.

[Shuckins]

As I read these posts, a cardinal is incessantly pecking at the window behind me.

Perhaps he wants to offer some commentary.  It would probably be more intelligent than some of the other guff seen here.

Oh...wait!  The bird feeder is empty.  If he wants it refilled does that mean he's a Democrat?  Or is he a Republican trying to tell me he doesn't need my help to find a meal?


Puzzled,  Shuckins

[Kieran]

I didn't say or mean that. I mean that the liberal side is better at exploiting the media than the conservative side. It doesn't mean the conservatives don't try; they are hopelessly inept at it.

The market is determined by viewership. Sensationalism sells, and in my opinion (right or wrong) the liberal side is more effective in this approach than the conservative side- hey, this should  be obvious by the very nature of their relative constituencies.

Let's take a current topic: religion. How many news stories are currently running about Catholic priests molesting boys? It is a problem, it should be exposed, but how many stories about homosexual child molesters do you see running? Bound to be far more of them out there than only the Catholic priests, right? Instead, what should be an issue about homosexuality and child molestation becomes an issue of the corruption of religion. Who do you think slanted that view?

Is there a market for conservatives? Of course there is. What happens if a conservative spouts conservative views? Remember Dan Quayle? The press thoroughly enjoyed themselves in making him a buffoon because of his comments. Everyone was quick to get in line to call him a fool, so much pushing and shoving to tell the best Quayle joke. Now we have Bush, made out by the liberals to be retarded, when in fact his I.Q. is probably higher than most of his detractors (remember, average is 100 points) who are merely miming what the machine tells them.

Is Bush the greatest president we ever had? Not even close. Is he the worst? Not even close. He isn't the danger to life as we know it on this planet, as some posters here suggest frequently. He doesn't check polls to see what he is thinking every day, and right or wrong, he does stick to his views and overall plan. In short, he leads, which is what I wanted when I voted.

[Kieran]

BTW Sandman, have you seen what happens when there is a discussion on this BBS concerning religion? I take one side, and several others take turns getting the best one-liner in. I'm not a far-right conservative (how could I be, working as a teacher), but my views are, shall we say, unpopular.

Hey, don't take that as "Woe is me", it's par for Christians in this society. I am not an apologetic Christian, and I know there is going to be ridicule in virtually every discussion. The amazing thing to me is how Christians on this board are spun to be the most disgusting group of beings to ever walk the planet, yet the verbal attacks almost inevitably begin on the other side. This is a parallel to society as a whole in my view. Quite a conundrum, you are going to be attacked, and you are not allowed to respond with anything but a smile- or so the expectation goes. If a Christian should be foolish enough to lose his or her temper, the other side will use it as proof of the failing of religion.

So in the media environment we have it is far easier for the liberal side to exploit the media for it purposes than it is for the conservative, mostly religious faction.

[weazel]

Two people standing near each other can witness a crime, if questioned afterwards they invariably will have different opinions or recollections of what transpired.  

Hortlund:

After reading that roadkill *conservative* fairy tale you posted I felt justified in adding something just as ignorant and asinine in rebuttal.

"The take a look at your post. Listings like that doesnt really impress anyone. This is what I think would happen if..." is not the best way to win an argument.

Especially against a lawyer who sticks to the facts. And you just quoting him without any own contribution is even worse, but I suppose it tells everyone a great deal about your level of intelligence."

Wow...I bet your dicks going to be really sore after stepping on it.

I added 33 words of commentary to the article from Bartcop, over twice as many as you added to the article by the trailer park trash Coulter  squeak.

Your "Especially against a lawyer who sticks to the facts" comment has wonderful comedic value.

 Having known a few lawyers personally as well as employing others for legal matters you obviously must wear a blindfold  and ear plugs in court.

 I can honestly say that some of them are decent folks when away from the job...one I know well privately admits that when on a case with a potentially large windfall his ethics shrink in corellation to the sum he will recieve for a favorable verdict.

Be sure to check any future clients of yours for flea and tick collars.....parasite.  

[Hortlund]

After reading that roadkill *conservative* fairy tale you posted I felt justified in adding something just as ignorant and asinine in rebuttal.

[/b]
Name one thing in the quote I posted that is not true. Name one fact she has gotten wrong. Unless you do that, why do you say that it is a "conservative fairy tale"?

Ignore, evade, shift focus. That is all you are capable of doing. Instead of taking the debate, instead of arguing over the issues presented, instead of answering at all, you act like a rude obnoxious amazinhunk.

I have met so many like you Weazel. You act as if you knew all the answers to all the important questions. You act as if you are right, and anyone who dares to disagree with you is not only wrong, but also evil or dangerous.

But in reality, you dont have any answers at all. In reality you are incapable of arguing, because you have not bothered to learn the facts. All you are capable of is being rude, alternatively trying to get some witty one-liner in.

I have checked some of what you have posted on these boards before Weazel, and guess what. I have yet to read one intelligent or interesting comment from you. You are a clown. All you are capabel of is attacking people for their beliefs, calling them names, trying to throw in witty one liners here and there. You seem to do anyting just so you can avoid getting caught in a situation where you actually have to think or argue. Much easier to just blurt out "that is just conservative roadkill" and leave it at that.

You are pathetic.  I can respect some liberals because they have  their beliefs, and they do their best to explain them or defend them. But all you have is hate. Hate and low IQ. You disgust me.

[Montezuma]

Does she say who wrote the editorial or was it the opinion of the Times?  No, because that would expose her to discussing whatever the editorial was about.  

Which of course she will not do because in the very next paragraph she has a laundry list of issues that she wants the reader to associate with the New York Times.   Obviously all of those things were not in that editorial column, which probably wasn't even written by the staff of the newspaper.  

Ann's Logic:
"An editorial in the New York Times, who's author and subject I will not reveal, said something bad about Bush.  

Therefore, liberals and the New York Times support terrorism. "


She is intellectually dishonest and her writing style can confuse people not familiar with critical thinking.

Originally posted by Hortlund

...liberals returned to their infernal griping about George W. Bush-or "Half a Commander in Chief," as he was called in the headline of a lead New York Times editorial on November 5, 2001. From that moment on, the left's primary contribution to the war effort was to complain.

They complained about the detention of terror suspects, they complained we were going to lose the war, they complained about military tribunals for terrorists, they complained about the Bush administration's failure to solve the anthrax cases instantly, they complained about monitoring terrorists' jailhouse conversations, they complained about the war taking too long, they complained about a trial for John Walker, they complained about (nonexistent) ethnic profiling at airports, they complained about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and they complained about Bush's "axis of evil" speech.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kieran
BTW Sandman, have you seen what happens when there is a discussion on this BBS concerning religion? I take one side, and several others take turns getting the best one-liner in. I'm not a far-right conservative (how could I be, working as a teacher), but my views are, shall we say, unpopular.

We're opposite sides of the same coin.

Given a choice, I'll argue for tolerance. I'll tolerate your religion as long as you (and everyone else) will tolerate my lack of same. It's a big world and a big country. There's room for peaceful coexistence.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by weazel
A brunette with *bad breath*.  

Weazel has erotic dreams of this one

[Sandman]

I'm sure Janet was hot during the Depression.

[GRUNHERZ]

Weazel and other left wing whackos...

Is this the sort of site you get your info from??

http://www.bartcop.com/

[GRUNHERZ]

Or.....


Oh poor little Iraq!  Why side with YOUR country?

http://www.bartcop.com/

[Sandman]

Cool poster.

What could be more American than a dissenting opinion?