“I doubt you will find anyone who even voted for Kerry who thinks he did the greatest job, yet you will be hard pressed to find even one conservative who will admit any faults as far as the guy they voted for.”
Hard pressed? Let’s see. I am one. As is Boston Barrister. Contributors to the National Review and the Weekly Standard, both journals of conservative opinion, have been critical of Bush. I haven’t even scratched the surface.
Your statement is pure idiocy - I’d have been embarrassed to have uttered it.
“I am also biased, but if someone proves me wrong, that is all there is to it.”
[quote]100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Where? I went to that site and looked all over it. I searched under swift vets and under media study. Find me the actual link to the story, please. Cause I pretty much am calling bullshit on you. I dont believe the CJR site said the swifties were lying with impunity.
for not finding it I’ll pretty much be calling B.S. on you joe weider
[/quote]
yup, okay, sorry, thanks, found it this time.
Did some more reading while I was there.
Not one story from a conservative or even republican point of view. None of the links to articles they cite to debunk other articles are of anything but lefty sites.
So that tells me that they aren’t part of the solution, they’re part of the problem.
Nice try though.
[quote]Jay Sherman wrote:
Just want to say though that I have no problem with biased news as there is no such thing as being objective. Anyone who pretends to be objective is a lying son of a bitch.
In an actually working democracy you would have different viewpoints from across the spectrum. Instead we have FOX and hate radio with their rightwing bias, and then all the rest who pretend to be objective. And pretty much nothing for the actual leftwing except the internet.
This is not surprising as mainstream media is all about the money and no billionaires want to advocate having their property redistributed. [/quote]
Wow…I hope you at least got cookies with your kool-aid.
“I doubt you will find anyone who even voted for Kerry who thinks he did the greatest job, yet you will be hard pressed to find even one conservative who will admit any faults as far as the guy they voted for.”
Hard pressed? Let’s see. I am one. As is Boston Barrister. Contributors to the National Review and the Weekly Standard, both journals of conservative opinion, have been critical of Bush. I haven’t even scratched the surface.
Your statement is pure idiocy - I’d have been embarrassed to have uttered it.
“I am also biased, but if someone proves me wrong, that is all there is to it.”
Done and done.[/quote]
Just for the record, I have some problems with GWB myself. Immigration and prescription drug welfare, to name a couple.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hard pressed? Let’s see. I am one. As is Boston Barrister. Contributors to the National Review and the Weekly Standard, both journals of conservative opinion, have been critical of Bush. I haven’t even scratched the surface.
Your statement is pure idiocy - I’d have been embarrassed to have uttered it.[/quote]
Right, and since you ignored the entire base of my post which was,
I can only assume that my straw man has picked up a little weight.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hard pressed? Let’s see. I am one. As is Boston Barrister. Contributors to the National Review and the Weekly Standard, both journals of conservative opinion, have been critical of Bush. I haven’t even scratched the surface.
[/quote]
I know for a fact that I have posted my gripes with G-Dub here before, as have most of the right wingers on here.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I know for a fact that I have posted my gripes with G-Dub here before, as have most of the right wingers on here.
[/quote]
Yes, but it is too bad that your constant posts and whining about how liberal the media is if they ever focus on the same seem to overshadow any of it. I can’t think of one post where any of you have gone into detail about what you disagree with. If those posts are out there, they are few and far between. What we usually get is a quick, “well I don’t really agree with social security reform” and then a few thousand, “Go Bush, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, no one can!!!” remarks.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Oh, so we show you that we can disagree with the President, now we have to go into detail about how staunchly we oppose some of his ideas?
Where does it end, ProfX? Honestly, you need to put the paint brush down before you are squarely in the corner. [/quote]
You two should do a pay per view.
Hey, Professor X, name me two big time liberal ideas/policies championed by a well known lib leader that you don’t agree with, and don’t forget to go into detail.
At least a page per.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Hey, Professor X, name me two big time liberal ideas/policies championed by a well known lib leader that you don’t agree with, and don’t forget to go into detail.
At least a page per.[/quote]
You first. I asked the question first so please, you go, and I will surely follow in detail to the best of my ability. Go ahead, show me how it’s done.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Oh, so we show you that we can disagree with the President, now we have to go into detail about how staunchly we oppose some of his ideas?
[/quote]
Why not go into detail? Why avoid going into detail?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Prof X, maybe I am a little dense, but why wouldn’t Bush’s support team coordinate with the Swift Boat dudes?
It was helping him get elected.
Kerry’s team coordinated with Moveon.org and similar organizations.
Neither side is supposed to work with these groups under the campaign finance laws, but of course they did.
Politics is dirty business. Mud slinging is nothing new.[/quote]
There is no doubt that it is dirty business, but I do believe it against the law to support an outside group to that degree. BostonBarrier would be the one to know the ins and outs of that situation and just how deep that line of thought goes.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Hey, Professor X, name me two big time liberal ideas/policies championed by a well known lib leader that you don’t agree with, and don’t forget to go into detail.
At least a page per.
You first. I asked the question first so please, you go, and I will surely follow in detail to the best of my ability. Go ahead, show me how it’s done.[/quote]
The problem, my friend (and I really mean that bit) is that I’ve said things about GWB I’m not thrilled with. You’ve never done anything but bash him–so you’ve gotta put a toe in the water at least, show me you’re serious!
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
The problem, my friend (and I really mean that bit) is that I’ve said things about GWB I’m not thrilled with. You’ve never done anything but bash him–so you’ve gotta put a toe in the water at least, show me you’re serious!
[/quote]
I don’t have to show you anything more than I have. Any issues I have had with this administration, I have stated clearly. My goal is discussion, not a control of all independant thought. You, however, seem to be bent on quieting any dissenting positions or at least acting as if they are all invalid or less intelligent than yours. In light of that, I am pointing out that while some of you may say you don’t agree with everything, your voices of disapproval are like hushed whispers compared to your screaming approval of every other issue or decision. I don’t put any political powers on a pedestal because I understand the nature of the game. Only a child would see this as moral against unmoral or veracity against untruth.
If the argument is against the last election, it has always been my position that we should choose the lesser of two evils, not that there was one good politician against one bad. I, as an individual, do not trust the government. There are too many powerful and rich men with limited points of view in control of far too many. In a country where it is supposed to be for the people and by the people, we end up with policies being pushed through either because of general public ignorance, or a complete disregard for those of lesser fortune or social status. I see much that needs to improve. Arguing over “who” takes a deep back seat to arguing over “what”. I am not republican or democrat. I try to see the world far more expansively than that.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You do realize that this would only have any significance at all if compared to the media coverage of past elections and the relation to how the president in office is portrayed during those elections, right?
Of course, you did.
No. You’re arguing in circles again.
The issue is liberal bias in the media today. Not ten years, not twenty years ago.
Given that Bush was 3 times as likely to be negatively reported on, liberal bias is the best conclusion. Occam’s Razor.
The job of the media is not to present postitive or negative reporting, merely to present facts. And we still don’t have John Kerry’s service record, but we have the CBS News forged Bush records, don’t we?
Prof, you’re too smart to always argue falsely.[/quote]
Occam’s Razor states: ALL THINGS being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the best.
Without exhaustive research into all of the evidence and factors surrounding an issue, you cannot make a comprehensive explanation (simple or not). It is clear that you have no idea how to apply Occam’s Razor.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
So, ProfX, let me get this clear:
in your world, liberal = good, conservative = bad. As such, there’s no way a conservative person can possibly amount to anything or even defend him/herself, because you’ve got them screwed both directions.
Nice.
[/quote]
Joe,
This statement has no real basis other than you believe that Professor X is a liberal.
You really shouldn’t lock into a battle of wits with the good Professor. You are sadly unarmed.
futuredave wrote:
why are these people mostly liberal?
Joe Weider wrote:
That’s simple–most people who go into journalism actually want to change the world.
Next?
So, people who “want to change the world” are liberals.
I happily agree.
The question then is: Should the world be changed or not? Or are we happy with the level of poverty, disease, corporate crime, deception and greed?
Now where did you see me say that?
I guess I should have added more, but I figured everyone here was smart.
Sorry, my mistake.
These kids are indoctrinated by screamin’ lib nutcase high school teachers, then by panty sniffin college professors, and so they become farther left than the most ardent communist. It’s very cute, really. Then they go into journalism, determined to make everyone agree with them.
Like the people at CBS news.
There is less poverty in America than anywhere in the world. Yet we’ve been fighting the “War on Poverty” for 50 years. And every 2 years the libs march before us and scream and cry about how it’s worse than ever.
And they were in charge for 40 years…amazing!
Corporate crime? NY Times economist Paul Krugman has been nothing but critical of GWB, and yet he was an Enron advisor.
Odd…huh?[/quote]
If your reasoning was right, then most high school and an even higher percentage of college graduates would be liberal, correct? So who is pushing the Republican movement? Dropouts?
Does the US actually have the lowest poverty rate in the world? Check your facts please…