# The Left Controls the Media



## PoliticalChic

1.	Have you seen the posts by our less informed colleagues challenging the idea that the *media is Leftist*?  Consider this story the next time you read one of those misguided individuals.


2.	New York-based *nonprofit news organization ProPublica is getting a boost from NBC, thanks to its new owner Comcast.* And New York television viewers will see more investigative stories. *a partnership with ProPublica*ProPublica, which does extensive investigative reporting and data mining, ProPublica will receive a donation from NBC, and, in return, will get a wider audience for its stories.  http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111206/MEDIA_ENTERTAINMENT/111209923

3.	This is how deeply the Left has infiltrated every form of information disseminatonfrom* Wikipedia: ProPublica *is a non-profit corporation based in New York City. It describes itself as an *independent non-profit newsroom *that produces investigative journalism in the public interestProPublica has *partnered with more than 50 different news organizations,* ProPublica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4.	Sowho is *ProPublica? *The best comparison would be to say that NBC just agreed to take its news from the old *Pravda.*

a.	ProPublica began funded by a billionaire husband and wife team who not only spent millions campaigning for President Obama but also *topped donor lists to groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org. *On its website, Pro Publica describes itself as championing the values of the weak against the strong.

b.	The $10 million yearly grant from *Herbert and Marion Sandler,* the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, which was one of the nations largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans. Just before the financial crisis, the Sandlers in 2008 sold their business to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion. The Sandlers are major donors to the Democratic Party and are top funders of ACORN, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union and other* far-leftist groups *like Human Rights Watch.                 
NBC newsroom gets fresh leftist invasion. Network teams up with


5.	Still not convinced about the *control of the media*? Perhaps these Leftists simply want to invest in *excellence in journalism*? Think again. This from the Left-leaning Slate:*Slate journalist Jack Shafer raised questions *[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...what_do_herbert_and_marion_sandler_want.html] about Pro Publica's ability to provide independent nonpartisan journalism *given the nature of Sandler's other *political donations which include "giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic Party campaigns." The concern was borne out in a vicious December 2008 attack on natural gas drilling that followed the Democrat no-American-energy agenda. Pro Publica

6.	From the Capital Research Center: *ProPublica churns out little more than left-wing hit pieces *about Sarah Palin and blames the U.S. government for giving out too little foreign aid. http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1241117859.pdf


7.	Ohand BTW.*The Associated Press today announced a program to promote *nonprofit investigative journalism, including *articles from ProPublica*, to its members for republication. The material will be distributed to AP membersincluding essentially all of the nations leading newspapersthrough the Web-based delivery system AP Exchange . Associated Press Joins Steal Our Stories Movement - ProPublica

8.	So, what is going on? Capital Research Center (op. cit.) explains it this way: Create a media outlet that will produce left-wing investigative hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost. *NBCAPwherever you get your news.The Left has a well-funded effort underway*.


----------



## Mr. H.

Investigative stories... like Gasland?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> *The Pro-Republican News Media*
> 
> The concept of the Liberal Media is a myth  and has always been a myth.
> The various news media are clearly and unmistakably Pro-Republican.
> 
> *Only twice since 1932 have a majority of newspapers endorsed the Democratic candidate *
> 
> The Pro-Republican News Media



The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> So, what is going on? *Capital Research Center* (op. cit.) explains it this way: Create a media outlet that will produce left-wing investigative hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost. NBCAPwherever you get your news.The Left has a well-funded effort underway.


The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank whose stated mission is to do "opposition research" exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups. The CRC was founded in 1984 by Willa Johnson. Prior to founding CRC Johnson had been Senior Vice President of the Heritage Foundation, then worked as Deputy Director of the Office of Presidential Personnel in the first Reagan administration


----------



## NoNukes

The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.


----------



## The Infidel

NoNukes said:


> The left controls the media because the *media is comprised of educated people*.





Here is another childish icon


----------



## NYcarbineer

Conservatives claiming to be victims of media bias is one of the oldest examples of victimology in the modern era.


----------



## PoliticalChic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> *The Pro-Republican News Media*
> 
> The concept of the Liberal Media is a myth  and has always been a myth.
> The various news media are clearly and unmistakably Pro-Republican.
> 
> *Only twice since 1932 have a majority of newspapers endorsed the Democratic candidate *
> 
> The Pro-Republican News Media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.
Click to expand...


Jonesy....can't you read?

Try the OP again.


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is going on? *Capital Research Center* (op. cit.) explains it this way: Create a media outlet that will produce left-wing investigative hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost. NBCAPwherever you get your news.The Left has a well-funded effort underway.
> 
> 
> 
> The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank whose stated mission is to do "opposition research" exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups. The CRC was founded in 1984 by Willa Johnson. Prior to founding CRC Johnson had been Senior Vice President of the Heritage Foundation, then worked as Deputy Director of the Office of Presidential Personnel in the first Reagan administration
Click to expand...


"The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank..."

I was hoping some slow-witted dolt would jump at the bait....Right on cue, Beets!


Now...how conservative is Slate.com???


How 'bout dat, boyeeeeeee???


----------



## Zoom

I was under the impression Fox was the number one rated station out there.  IF so, here is a question.  Are they left leaning?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.



Speaking of education....here comes yours:

1.	*The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities*They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalismI watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, *so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover*.  Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, p. 294-295.

2.	The radicals were* not likely to go into business *or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, *print and electronic journalism,* church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p. 51

3.	[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood. Ibid p. 53

4. [Dr. Thomas Sowell] has an enviable gift for showing that many of our social problems arise from the differences between* the theories of intellectuals and the realities of the world. When confronted by these differences, many intellectuals conclude that its the world that is wrong and needs changing.*Intellectuals often make the mistake of basing political analysis on clichés that misrepresent reality. Sowell shows, for instance, how debates about income distribution in the United States have been distorted by a preoccupation with statistical categories.
An Independent Mind by Daniel J. Mahoney, City Journal 18 June 2010


Now then, when you're finished slapping your forehead, say 'thank you,' and be gone.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Zoom said:


> I was under the impression Fox was the number one rated station out there.  IF so, here is a question.  Are they left leaning?



What is the basis of your question?

Certainly, not logic.

Did you believe "Fox was the number one rated" = "left leaning"?

No, Fox is "Fair and Balanced," as well as "number one rated."

In point of fact Fox hires more Liberals than the other cables hire conservatives.

Alan Colmes
Susan Estrich
Bob Beckel
Juan Williams
Mara Laiason
Mort Kondrache
Kirsten Powers
Shepard Smith
Pat Caddell
Greta Van Sustren (defended Clinton)
Geraldo Rivera
Leslie Marshall
Lanny Davis
Ellis Henican
Ed Henry
Marc Lamont Hill
Professor Caroline Heldman
Representative Martin Frost
Nina Easton
Judy Miller
Evan Bayh
Joe Trippi
Joey Jackson
Alicia Menendez
Juan Hernandez
A.B.Stoddard
Lis Wiehl
Kimberly Guilfoyle
John Roberts
Rick Folbaum


----------



## code1211

NoNukes said:


> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.





Educated people are not a problem.

Impudent educated people are.

It is the educated people who believe in their hearts that they are superior to the great unwashed masses that are the danger.  These folks will altruistically torture the rest of us with stupid ideas and bad plans based on the noblest of intentions.  One of my great pleasures is to watch a media minion possessed of the idea that he/she is intelligent coming into contact with someone who actually is intelligent on a mission to make them look bad.  

Generally, the media minion does not even know that their innate, vacuous and embarrassing lack of depth or understanding is on display for the amusement of all.  

If it was painful to them, I would feel bad for them, but they blissfully continue as if everyone sees them as they see themselves.  It's not too much different than watching a dog put his nose into a fan.  

The dog learns, though.


----------



## NYcarbineer

This is just standard rightwing poisoning of the well.  Proclaim propublica a tool of the left, and then summarily dismiss any work they do as biased.


----------



## Trajan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> *The Pro-Republican News Media*
> 
> The concept of the Liberal Media is a myth  and has always been a myth.
> The various news media are clearly and unmistakably Pro-Republican.
> 
> *Only twice since 1932 have a majority of newspapers endorsed the Democratic candidate *
> 
> The Pro-Republican News Media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.
Click to expand...


really? so if msnbc went to a cons slant,  their viewership would not grow? Or say, CBS?


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives claiming to be victims of media bias is one of the oldest examples of victimology in the modern era.



no not really, an uber- partisan like you knows no difference becasue you eat whats put in front of you, and you are a  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





you are happy with what you have becasue you probably never started from a point where in you had any intellectual honesty/objectivity anyway. so, to you what was was just left of center say,  20 years ago is now zero on the number line dead center. Anything right of center is now far far right wing. Eat your grass.


----------



## Trajan

Zoom said:


> I was under the impression Fox was the number one rated station out there.  IF so, here is a question.  Are they left leaning?



you can always measure the throw weight, that is the viewers and potential viewers of cnn abc msnbc, abc cbs and nbc, vs fox. what do you come up with?


----------



## Truthseeker420

Trajan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Pro-Republican News Media*
> 
> The concept of the Liberal Media is a myth  and has always been a myth.
> The various news media are clearly and unmistakably Pro-Republican.
> 
> *Only twice since 1932 have a majority of newspapers endorsed the Democratic candidate *
> 
> The Pro-Republican News Media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really? so if msnbc went to a cons slant,  their viewership would not grow? Or say, CBS?
Click to expand...


No... Fox has cornered the market on stupidity.


----------



## Trajan

NoNukes said:


> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.




thats walter lippman, circa 1922, in short the public is to stupid. Oh wait only the righties , right?


----------



## Trajan

Truthseeker420 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? so if msnbc went to a cons slant,  their viewership would not grow? Or say, CBS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... Fox has cornered the market on stupidity.
Click to expand...


apparently they left plenty for you, try not to OD, you're close enough as it is.


----------



## Zoom

PoliticalChic said:


> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression Fox was the number one rated station out there.  IF so, here is a question.  Are they left leaning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis of your question?
> 
> Certainly, not logic.
> 
> Did you believe "Fox was the number one rated" = "left leaning"?
> 
> No, Fox is "Fair and Balanced," as well as "number one rated."
> 
> In point of fact Fox hires more Liberals than the other cables hire conservatives.
> 
> Alan Colmes
> Susan Estrich
> Bob Beckel
> Juan Williams
> Mara Laiason
> Mort Kondrache
> Kirsten Powers
> Shepard Smith
> Pat Caddell
> Greta Van Sustren (defended Clinton)
> Geraldo Rivera
> Leslie Marshall
> Lanny Davis
> Ellis Henican
> Ed Henry
> Marc Lamont Hill
> Professor Caroline Heldman
> Representative Martin Frost
> Nina Easton
> Judy Miller
> Evan Bayh
> Joe Trippi
> Joey Jackson
> Alicia Menendez
> Juan Hernandez
> A.B.Stoddard
> Lis Wiehl
> Kimberly Guilfoyle
> John Roberts
> Rick Folbaum
Click to expand...


How many of these folks have a show on Fox?  Greta Van Palin is left?  Wow.  Juan Williams is left?  Oh my goodness.  Shepard Smith is more down the middle than anything, but I am sure he is not a dem.

You honestly believe they are not right leaning.  OH and that was funny you saying they are fair and balanced.  I got a chuckle out of that one.  I honestly did.  No one actually believes that.  You were joking, right?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> No one actually believes that. You were joking, right?



Sadly, no.


----------



## whitehall

NoNukes said:


> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.



Now we are making progress. The left admits that the media is left wing. Whether or not they are "educated" is a topic for discussion.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is going on? *Capital Research Center* (op. cit.) explains it this way: Create a media outlet that will produce left-wing investigative hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost. NBCAPwherever you get your news.The Left has a well-funded effort underway.
> 
> 
> 
> The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank whose stated mission is to do "opposition research" exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups. The CRC was founded in 1984 by Willa Johnson. Prior to founding CRC Johnson had been Senior Vice President of the Heritage Foundation, then worked as Deputy Director of the Office of Presidential Personnel in the first Reagan administration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank..."
> 
> I was hoping some slow-witted dolt would jump at the bait....Right on cue, Beets!
> 
> 
> *Now...how conservative is Slate.com???*
> 
> 
> How 'bout dat, boyeeeeeee???
Click to expand...

More CON$ervative than FOX!


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of education....here comes yours:
> 
> 1.	*The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities&#8230;*They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. &#8220;&#8230;they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism&#8230;I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, *so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover*.&#8221;  Collier and Horowitz, &#8220;Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,&#8221; p. 294-295.
> 
> 2.	&#8220;The radicals were* not likely to go into business *or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, *print and electronic journalism,* church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.&#8221; Robert H. Bork, &#8220;Slouching Toward Gomorrah,&#8221; p. 51
> 
> 3.	&#8220;[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.&#8221; Ibid p. 53
> 
> 4. [Dr. Thomas Sowell] has an enviable gift for showing that many of our social problems arise from the differences between* &#8220;the theories of intellectuals and the realities of the world.&#8221; When confronted by these differences, many intellectuals conclude that it&#8217;s the world that is &#8220;wrong and needs changing.&#8221;*Intellectuals often make the mistake of basing political analysis on clichés that misrepresent reality. Sowell shows, for instance, how debates about income distribution in the United States have been distorted by a preoccupation with statistical categories.
> An Independent Mind by Daniel J. Mahoney, City Journal 18 June 2010
> 
> 
> Now then, when you're finished slapping your forehead, say 'thank you,' and be gone.
Click to expand...


This means absolutely nothing, one person's opinion. My opinion is different than his and I am as well educated as Sowell and respected in the academic community, but this does not mean that I am always correct. When you get over yourself you will realize that no one is slapping their forehead over this, or anything that Ann Coulter has to say.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of education....here comes yours:
> 
> 1.	*The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities*They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalismI watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, *so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover*.  Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, p. 294-295.
> 
> 2.	The radicals were* not likely to go into business *or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, *print and electronic journalism,* church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p. 51
> 
> 3.	[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood. Ibid p. 53
> 
> 4. [Dr. Thomas Sowell] has an enviable gift for showing that many of our social problems arise from the differences between* the theories of intellectuals and the realities of the world. When confronted by these differences, many intellectuals conclude that its the world that is wrong and needs changing.*Intellectuals often make the mistake of basing political analysis on clichés that misrepresent reality. Sowell shows, for instance, how debates about income distribution in the United States have been distorted by a preoccupation with statistical categories.
> An Independent Mind by Daniel J. Mahoney, City Journal 18 June 2010
> 
> 
> Now then, when you're finished slapping your forehead, say 'thank you,' and be gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This means absolutely nothing, one person's opinion. My opinion is different than his and I am as well educated as Sowell and respected in the academic community, but this does not mean that I am always correct. When you get over yourself you will realize that no one is slapping their forehead over this, or anything that Ann Coulter has to say.
Click to expand...


So, a post from the USMB version of Morbus gallicus!

"I am as well educated as Sowell and respected in the academic community,..."
I've seen your work, gnat, and you'd hardly be respected in either a homeless shelter or a dog pound

To compare yourself to Dr. Sowell is beyond hubris...it is evidence of a mental disorder.
I realize that you are crazynot crazy in a lets paint the kitchen red kind of way, but in a gas oven, toothpaste sandwich, I am God kind of way.


Has Jodie Foster responded to your notes yet?


----------



## Truthmatters

the media is corporate.

That iss cold hard documented fact.


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank whose stated mission is to do "opposition research" exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups. The CRC was founded in 1984 by Willa Johnson. Prior to founding CRC Johnson had been Senior Vice President of the Heritage Foundation, then worked as Deputy Director of the Office of Presidential Personnel in the first Reagan administration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank..."
> 
> I was hoping some slow-witted dolt would jump at the bait....Right on cue, Beets!
> 
> 
> *Now...how conservative is Slate.com???*
> 
> 
> How 'bout dat, boyeeeeeee???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More CON$ervative than FOX!
Click to expand...


So glad that you've verified that you know less than nothing.

"Slate is a liberal current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On 21 December 2004 it was purchased by the Washington Post Company. Since 4 June 2008 Slate has been managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by the Washington Post Company to develop and manage web-only magazines."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_(magazine)


Here, check to see how 'conservative' it is:
Slate Magazine - Politics, Business, Technology, and the Arts - Slate Magazine


----------



## Truthmatters

The media is coporate owned.

That is a cold hard fact.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression Fox was the number one rated station out there.  IF so, here is a question.  Are they left leaning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis of your question?
> 
> Certainly, not logic.
> 
> Did you believe "Fox was the number one rated" = "left leaning"?
> 
> No, Fox is "Fair and Balanced," as well as "number one rated."
> 
> In point of fact Fox hires more Liberals than the other cables hire conservatives.
> 
> Alan Colmes
> Susan Estrich
> Bob Beckel
> Juan Williams
> Mara Laiason
> Mort Kondrache
> Kirsten Powers
> Shepard Smith
> Pat Caddell
> Greta Van Sustren (defended Clinton)
> Geraldo Rivera
> Leslie Marshall
> Lanny Davis
> Ellis Henican
> Ed Henry
> Marc Lamont Hill
> Professor Caroline Heldman
> Representative Martin Frost
> Nina Easton
> Judy Miller
> Evan Bayh
> Joe Trippi
> Joey Jackson
> Alicia Menendez
> Juan Hernandez
> A.B.Stoddard
> Lis Wiehl
> Kimberly Guilfoyle
> John Roberts
> Rick Folbaum
Click to expand...

Not a Leftist on the list, just moderates and CON$ervatives. Of course to whacko extremists, anyone to the Right of the Coultergiest is a Leftist. You are obviously desperate to call CON$ervative Dems like Evan Bayh a "Left" winger!


----------



## konradv

They're STILL crying about this now that they have FOX and Rush?!?!


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of education....here comes yours:
> 
> 1.	*The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities&#8230;*They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. &#8220;&#8230;they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism&#8230;I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, *so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover*.&#8221;  Collier and Horowitz, &#8220;Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,&#8221; p. 294-295.
> 
> 2.	&#8220;The radicals were* not likely to go into business *or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, *print and electronic journalism,* church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.&#8221; Robert H. Bork, &#8220;Slouching Toward Gomorrah,&#8221; p. 51
> 
> 3.	&#8220;[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.&#8221; Ibid p. 53
> 
> 4. [Dr. Thomas Sowell] has an enviable gift for showing that many of our social problems arise from the differences between* &#8220;the theories of intellectuals and the realities of the world.&#8221; When confronted by these differences, many intellectuals conclude that it&#8217;s the world that is &#8220;wrong and needs changing.&#8221;*Intellectuals often make the mistake of basing political analysis on clichés that misrepresent reality. Sowell shows, for instance, how debates about income distribution in the United States have been distorted by a preoccupation with statistical categories.
> An Independent Mind by Daniel J. Mahoney, City Journal 18 June 2010
> 
> 
> Now then, when you're finished slapping your forehead, say 'thank you,' and be gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This means absolutely nothing, one person's opinion. My opinion is different than his and I am as well educated as Sowell and respected in the academic community, but this does not mean that I am always correct. When you get over yourself you will realize that no one is slapping their forehead over this, or anything that Ann Coulter has to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, a post from the USMB version of Morbus gallicus!
> 
> "I am as well educated as Sowell and respected in the academic community,..."
> I've seen your work, gnat, and you'd hardly be respected in either a homeless shelter or a dog pound
> 
> To compare yourself to Dr. Sowell is beyond hubris...it is evidence of a mental disorder.
> I realize that you are crazy&#8230;not crazy in a &#8216;let&#8217;s paint the kitchen red&#8217; kind of way, but in a &#8216;gas oven, toothpaste sandwich, I am God&#8217; kind of way.
> 
> 
> Has Jodie Foster responded to your notes yet?
Click to expand...


Your insults prove that you have no argument.

I teach a college course on the 60s and have quite a bit of expertise, along with having lived through that glorious period.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> This means absolutely nothing, one person's opinion. My opinion is different than his and I am as well educated as Sowell and respected in the academic community, but this does not mean that I am always correct. When you get over yourself you will realize that no one is slapping their forehead over this, or anything that Ann Coulter has to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, a post from the USMB version of Morbus gallicus!
> 
> "I am as well educated as Sowell and respected in the academic community,..."
> I've seen your work, gnat, and you'd hardly be respected in either a homeless shelter or a dog pound
> 
> To compare yourself to Dr. Sowell is beyond hubris...it is evidence of a mental disorder.
> I realize that you are crazy&#8230;not crazy in a &#8216;let&#8217;s paint the kitchen red&#8217; kind of way, but in a &#8216;gas oven, toothpaste sandwich, I am God&#8217; kind of way.
> 
> 
> Has Jodie Foster responded to your notes yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your insults prove that you have no argument.
> 
> I teach a college course on the 60s and have quite a bit of expertise, along with having lived through that glorious period.
Click to expand...


I would think that you're used to insults, Morbus.

"I teach a college course..."
Based on your writing, it must be Clown College.
Do you get to use that little car when the clowns aren't practicing?

"the 60's...that glorious period."
You didn't know that it's "the 60's, not the 60s"?
What a dunce.

Oh....you nean you specialize in the 60 ounce 'Colt 45'?

"the 60's...that glorious period."
See what I mean?
No understanding of what a disasterous time it was for America...and 
the deleterious effects it has left us with.
(Oops...did I end that sentence with a preposition?
Ah...you probably wouldn't notice...)

It seems that rather than 'teaching a course' your meant 'leading a horse.'


The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Trajan said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats walter lippman, circa 1922, in short the public is to stupid. Oh wait only the righties , right?
Click to expand...



Walter Lippmann???
Wow....too bad I can't add a rep!

You know, Traj, you and I are probably the only ones who have read Lippmann.

For those interested...

1. . Modern journalism: use of media to teach people. *Alter journalism from reporting facts to editorializing *in the news, as the elites always know better. Walter Lippmann, in Public Opinion, When properly deployed in the public interest, *the manufacture of consent is useful* and necessary for a cohesive society, because, in many cases, the common interests of the public are not obvious, and only become clear upon careful analysis of the collected data  a critical intellectual exercise in which most people either are uninterested or incapable of doing. Therefore, most people must have the world summarized for them, by the well-informed. Public Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But even Walter Lippmann learned his lesson.

2. Seventy-four years ago, in 1937, at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant progressive, noted that:
Throughout the world, in the name of progress, *men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come*. . . . [T]he premises of *authoritarian collectivism *have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

What worried Lippmann the mostand what should worry us stillwas *the failure of those who considered themselves progressives to remember how much of what they cherish as progressive has come by emancipation from political dominion, by the limitation of power, *by the release of personal energy from authority and collective coercion.
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/digital/rahe/default.asp


Trajan, it seems that the failures of public education have fallen to some of us to correct.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a post from the USMB version of Morbus gallicus!
> 
> "I am as well educated as Sowell and respected in the academic community,..."
> I've seen your work, gnat, and you'd hardly be respected in either a homeless shelter or a dog pound
> 
> To compare yourself to Dr. Sowell is beyond hubris...it is evidence of a mental disorder.
> I realize that you are crazynot crazy in a lets paint the kitchen red kind of way, but in a gas oven, toothpaste sandwich, I am God kind of way.
> 
> 
> Has Jodie Foster responded to your notes yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your insults prove that you have no argument.
> 
> I teach a college course on the 60s and have quite a bit of expertise, along with having lived through that glorious period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that you're used to insults, Morbus.
> 
> "I teach a college course..."
> Based on your writing, it must be Clown College.
> Do you get to use that little car when the clowns aren't practicing?
> 
> "the 60's...that glorious period."
> You didn't know that it's "the 60's, not the 60s"?
> What a dunce.
> 
> Oh....you nean you specialize in the 60 ounce 'Colt 45'?
> 
> "the 60's...that glorious period."
> See what I mean?
> No understanding of what a disasterous time it was for America...and
> the deleterious effects it has left us with.
> (Oops...did I end that sentence with a preposition?
> Ah...you probably wouldn't notice...)
> 
> It seems that rather than 'teaching a course' your meant 'leading a horse.'
> 
> 
> The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.
Click to expand...


Once again, you use insults because you have no argument. I deal with you pseudo intellectuals frequent in the course of my teaching. You type a lot of fancy words, but you say nothing.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your insults prove that you have no argument.
> 
> I teach a college course on the 60s and have quite a bit of expertise, along with having lived through that glorious period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that you're used to insults, Morbus.
> 
> "I teach a college course..."
> Based on your writing, it must be Clown College.
> Do you get to use that little car when the clowns aren't practicing?
> 
> "the 60's...that glorious period."
> You didn't know that it's "the 60's, not the 60s"?
> What a dunce.
> 
> Oh....you nean you specialize in the 60 ounce 'Colt 45'?
> 
> "the 60's...that glorious period."
> See what I mean?
> No understanding of what a disasterous time it was for America...and
> the deleterious effects it has left us with.
> (Oops...did I end that sentence with a preposition?
> Ah...you probably wouldn't notice...)
> 
> It seems that rather than 'teaching a course' your meant 'leading a horse.'
> 
> 
> The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you use insults because you have no argument. I deal with you pseudo intellectuals frequent in the course of my teaching. You type a lot of fancy words, but you say nothing.
Click to expand...


Wow!

You recognize 'fancy words'??


Sadly, understanding them is beyond your ken.


"I deal with you pseudo intellectuals frequent in the course of my teaching."
Did you just write "frequent"?

Did you???

Didn't you know they don't charge extra for the "-ly"?

Your vocabulary is as bad as, like, whatever. 
I'm having too much fun here.

Yup...you're a college prof.
Probably the Chairman of the Department.

C'mon, Morbus.....

....we both know you don't teach any course.
In fact, it would be astounding if you ever passed any course....at any level.
You're just a dunce with a rich and growing fantasy world.

Based on ability, I'd say you're best suited for the job of hostess on a live bait barge.
Did I hit the nail on the head?
Close?

Dairy Queen??


----------



## NYcarbineer

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your insults prove that you have no argument.
> 
> I teach a college course on the 60s and have quite a bit of expertise, along with having lived through that glorious period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that you're used to insults, Morbus.
> 
> "I teach a college course..."
> Based on your writing, it must be Clown College.
> Do you get to use that little car when the clowns aren't practicing?
> 
> "the 60's...that glorious period."
> You didn't know that it's "the 60's, not the 60s"?
> What a dunce.
> 
> Oh....you nean you specialize in the 60 ounce 'Colt 45'?
> 
> "the 60's...that glorious period."
> See what I mean?
> No understanding of what a disasterous time it was for America...and
> the deleterious effects it has left us with.
> (Oops...did I end that sentence with a preposition?
> Ah...you probably wouldn't notice...)
> 
> It seems that rather than 'teaching a course' your meant 'leading a horse.'
> 
> 
> The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you use insults because you have no argument. I deal with you pseudo intellectuals frequent in the course of my teaching. You type a lot of fancy words, but you say nothing.
Click to expand...


To borrow the line used to describe Gingrich, she's the stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claiming to be victims of media bias is one of the oldest examples of victimology in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no not really, an uber- partisan like you knows no difference becasue you eat whats put in front of you, and you are a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are happy with what you have becasue you probably never started from a point where in you had any intellectual honesty/objectivity anyway. so, to you what was was just left of center say,  20 years ago is now zero on the number line dead center. Anything right of center is now far far right wing. Eat your grass.
Click to expand...


Does anyone know what the seemingly random combination of words above is supposed to mean?

Try proving me wrong about something if you think I'm wrong about so much.


----------



## mudwhistle

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.	Have you seen the posts by our less informed colleagues challenging the idea that the *media is Leftist*?  Consider this story the next time you read one of those misguided individuals.
> 
> 
> 2.	New York-based *nonprofit news organization ProPublica is getting a boost from NBC, thanks to its new owner Comcast.* And New York television viewers will see more investigative stories. *a partnership with ProPublica*ProPublica, which does extensive investigative reporting and data mining, ProPublica will receive a donation from NBC, and, in return, will get a wider audience for its stories.  http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111206/MEDIA_ENTERTAINMENT/111209923
> 
> 3.	This is how deeply the Left has infiltrated every form of information disseminatonfrom* Wikipedia: ProPublica *is a non-profit corporation based in New York City. It describes itself as an *independent non-profit newsroom *that produces investigative journalism in the public interestProPublica has *partnered with more than 50 different news organizations,* ProPublica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4.	Sowho is *ProPublica? *The best comparison would be to say that NBC just agreed to take its news from the old *Pravda.*
> 
> a.	ProPublica began funded by a billionaire husband and wife team who not only spent millions campaigning for President Obama but also *topped donor lists to groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org. *On its website, Pro Publica describes itself as championing the values of the weak against the strong.
> 
> b.	The $10 million yearly grant from *Herbert and Marion Sandler,* the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, which was one of the nations largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans. Just before the financial crisis, the Sandlers in 2008 sold their business to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion. The Sandlers are major donors to the Democratic Party and are top funders of ACORN, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union and other* far-leftist groups *like Human Rights Watch.
> NBC newsroom gets fresh leftist invasion. Network teams up with
> 
> 
> 5.	Still not convinced about the *control of the media*? Perhaps these Leftists simply want to invest in *excellence in journalism*? Think again. This from the Left-leaning Slate:*Slate journalist Jack Shafer raised questions *[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...what_do_herbert_and_marion_sandler_want.html] about Pro Publica's ability to provide independent nonpartisan journalism *given the nature of Sandler's other *political donations which include "giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic Party campaigns." The concern was borne out in a vicious December 2008 attack on natural gas drilling that followed the Democrat no-American-energy agenda. Pro Publica
> 
> 6.	From the Capital Research Center: *ProPublica churns out little more than left-wing hit pieces *about Sarah Palin and blames the U.S. government for giving out too little foreign aid. http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1241117859.pdf
> 
> 
> 7.	Ohand BTW.*The Associated Press today announced a program to promote *nonprofit investigative journalism, including *articles from ProPublica*, to its members for republication. The material will be distributed to AP membersincluding essentially all of the nations leading newspapersthrough the Web-based delivery system AP Exchange . Associated Press Joins Steal Our Stories Movement - ProPublica
> 
> 8.	So, what is going on? Capital Research Center (op. cit.) explains it this way: Create a media outlet that will produce left-wing investigative hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost. *NBCAPwherever you get your news.The Left has a well-funded effort underway*.



Funny how so many billionaires are helping Obama.


----------



## Trajan

PoliticalChic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats walter lippman, circa 1922, in short the public is to stupid. Oh wait only the righties , right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Walter Lippmann???
> Wow....too bad I can't add a rep!
> 
> You know, Traj, you and I are probably the only ones who have read Lippmann.
> 
> For those interested...
> 
> 1. . Modern journalism: use of media to teach people. *Alter journalism from reporting facts to editorializing *in the news, as the elites always know better. Walter Lippmann, in Public Opinion, When properly deployed in the public interest, *the manufacture of consent is useful* and necessary for a cohesive society, because, in many cases, the common interests of the public are not obvious, and only become clear upon careful analysis of the collected data  a critical intellectual exercise in which most people either are uninterested or incapable of doing. Therefore, most people must have the world summarized for them, by the well-informed. Public Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> But even Walter Lippmann learned his lesson.
> 
> 2. Seventy-four years ago, in 1937, at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant progressive, noted that:
> Throughout the world, in the name of progress, *men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come*. . . . [T]he premises of *authoritarian collectivism *have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.
> 
> What worried Lippmann the mostand what should worry us stillwas *the failure of those who considered themselves progressives to remember how much of what they cherish as progressive has come by emancipation from political dominion, by the limitation of power, *by the release of personal energy from authority and collective coercion.
> https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/digital/rahe/default.asp
> 
> 
> Trajan, it seems that the failures of public education have fallen to some of us to correct.
Click to expand...


*shrugs* I had good teachers and a possess a healthy curiosity and I like to read, thats all it takes.


----------



## William Joyce

A major factor about the media that's rarely brought up is the heavy Jewish influence behind it.  Yes, it's liberal/left in orientation -- nobody really disputes that.  They've done surveys of newsrooms where Democrats outnumbered Republicans 10:1.  Yes, it's often "corporate", as in, it looks to make a profit.  Nobody really disputes that.

But look at the figures who OWN those corporate interests, the figures in power in the newsrooms, and so on, and you find that Jews are astoundingly overrepresented vis a vis their numbers in the population.

I submit that's why, for instance, you see plenty liberal agitation in the press but never any criticism of Israel.  It's why "anti-Semitism" is a huge story, but anti-white discrimination is never talked about.  Why the cares and concerns of Jews rank high, but not those of Christians.  Why you'll see the NYT call Christians "dumb followers", but never say anything untoward about Jews.

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?cat=61

California Girl mentions Pro Publica.  But there's nothing "pro publica" about it...   it's rich Jews funding their own ethnic agenda:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2008/02/propublica-or-projudaica/

_Months ago, Slate&#8217;s Jack Shafer cast a sharply critical eye on the ProPublica enterprise, asking whether the major funders, Herb and Marion Sandler, will create a firewall between their own deeply Democratic leanings and the journalism.

The Sandlers, Bay Area billionaires who made their fortune in finance, have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats.  That&#8217;s enough to make a conservative or a skeptic wary about their intentions in setting up &#8220;ProPublica.&#8221;

But as Businessweek reports, the Sandlers aren&#8217;t just big fans of Democrats &#8212; they&#8217;re big fans of Jewish causes, and have given handsomely to those projects, as well.  And naturally, both are Jewish.

...

Most conservatives, and many American whites, are convinced that the media is hopelessly liberal.  It might enhance their understanding to look a little deeper at the ethnic motivations behind that trend._


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression Fox was the number one rated station out there.  IF so, here is a question.  Are they left leaning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis of your question?
> 
> Certainly, not logic.
> 
> Did you believe "Fox was the number one rated" = "left leaning"?
> 
> No, Fox is "Fair and Balanced," as well as "number one rated."
> 
> In point of fact Fox hires more Liberals than the other cables hire conservatives.
> 
> Alan Colmes
> Susan Estrich
> Bob Beckel
> Juan Williams
> Mara Laiason
> Mort Kondrache
> Kirsten Powers
> Shepard Smith
> Pat Caddell
> Greta Van Sustren (defended Clinton)
> Geraldo Rivera
> Leslie Marshall
> Lanny Davis
> Ellis Henican
> Ed Henry
> Marc Lamont Hill
> Professor Caroline Heldman
> Representative Martin Frost
> Nina Easton
> Judy Miller
> Evan Bayh
> Joe Trippi
> Joey Jackson
> Alicia Menendez
> Juan Hernandez
> A.B.Stoddard
> Lis Wiehl
> Kimberly Guilfoyle
> John Roberts
> Rick Folbaum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a Leftist on the list, just moderates and CON$ervatives. Of course to whacko extremists, anyone to the Right of the Coultergiest is a Leftist. You are obviously desperate to call CON$ervative Dems like Evan Bayh a "Left" winger!
Click to expand...


There's an old saying, Beets, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
The good news about the hole youre digging for yourself is that your grave is already halfway done!

Question: How do liberal interest groups rate Senator Evan Bayh (D)?

Answer: The overall liberal interest group rating for Senator Evan Bayh (D) is 86%. 
0%=No Agreement and 100%=Most Agreement. 

Individual liberal group ratings for Senator Evan Bayh (D) are: ACLU: 55% ADA: 95% CDF: 100% LCV: 73% NAACP: 93% NARAL: 100% SEIU: 83%
How do liberal interest groups rate Senator Evan Bayh (D)?

When ever youre ready just yell check please.


----------



## PoliticalChic

William Joyce said:


> A major factor about the media that's rarely brought up is the heavy Jewish influence behind it.  Yes, it's liberal/left in orientation -- nobody really disputes that.  They've done surveys of newsrooms where Democrats outnumbered Republicans 10:1.  Yes, it's often "corporate", as in, it looks to make a profit.  Nobody really disputes that.
> 
> But look at the figures who OWN those corporate interests, the figures in power in the newsrooms, and so on, and you find that Jews are astoundingly overrepresented vis a vis their numbers in the population.
> 
> I submit that's why, for instance, you see plenty liberal agitation in the press but never any criticism of Israel.  It's why "anti-Semitism" is a huge story, but anti-white discrimination is never talked about.  Why the cares and concerns of Jews rank high, but not those of Christians.  Why you'll see the NYT call Christians "dumb followers", but never say anything untoward about Jews.
> 
> Media bias « The Occidental Observer Blog
> 
> California Girl mentions Pro Publica.  But there's nothing "pro publica" about it...   it's rich Jews funding their own ethnic agenda:
> 
> ProPublica, or ProJudaica? | The Occidental Observer - White Identity, Interests, and Culture
> 
> _Months ago, Slates Jack Shafer cast a sharply critical eye on the ProPublica enterprise, asking whether the major funders, Herb and Marion Sandler, will create a firewall between their own deeply Democratic leanings and the journalism.
> 
> The Sandlers, Bay Area billionaires who made their fortune in finance, have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats.  Thats enough to make a conservative or a skeptic wary about their intentions in setting up ProPublica.
> 
> But as Businessweek reports, the Sandlers arent just big fans of Democrats  theyre big fans of Jewish causes, and have given handsomely to those projects, as well.  And naturally, both are Jewish.
> 
> ...
> 
> Most conservatives, and many American whites, are convinced that the media is hopelessly liberal.  It might enhance their understanding to look a little deeper at the ethnic motivations behind that trend._




1. Clean off those specs, Old Timer...there's no Cali Girl here.

2. Could I get you to autograph a copy of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'?


----------



## midcan5

Can someone provide information on something, anything in MSM that is leftist?  Concrete examples, not vague accusations or presumptive nonsense. Since it is so obvious, please provide a few specific examples. Should be easy.


----------



## Zoom

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a post from the USMB version of Morbus gallicus!
> 
> "I am as well educated as Sowell and respected in the academic community,..."
> I've seen your work, gnat, and you'd hardly be respected in either a homeless shelter or a dog pound
> 
> To compare yourself to Dr. Sowell is beyond hubris...it is evidence of a mental disorder.
> I realize that you are crazynot crazy in a lets paint the kitchen red kind of way, but in a gas oven, toothpaste sandwich, I am God kind of way.
> 
> 
> Has Jodie Foster responded to your notes yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your insults prove that you have no argument.
> 
> I teach a college course on the 60s and have quite a bit of expertise, along with having lived through that glorious period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that you're used to insults, Morbus.
> 
> "I teach a college course..."
> Based on your writing, it must be Clown College.
> Do you get to use that little car when the clowns aren't practicing?
> 
> "the 60's...that glorious period."
> You didn't know that it's "the 60's, not the 60s"?
> What a dunce.
> 
> Oh....you *nean* you specialize in the 60 ounce 'Colt 45'?
> 
> "the 60's...that glorious period."
> See what I mean?
> No understanding of what a *disasterous *time it was for America...and
> the deleterious effects it has left us with.
> (Oops...did I end that sentence with a preposition?
> Ah...you probably wouldn't notice...)
> 
> It seems that rather than 'teaching a course' your meant 'leading a horse.'
> 
> 
> The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.
Click to expand...


I only hope you get the irony here.


----------



## Old Rocks

When dealing with PC there is plenty of that to see.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that you're used to insults, Morbus.
> 
> "I teach a college course..."
> Based on your writing, it must be Clown College.
> Do you get to use that little car when the clowns aren't practicing?
> 
> "the 60's...that glorious period."
> You didn't know that it's "the 60's, not the 60s"?
> What a dunce.
> 
> Oh....you nean you specialize in the 60 ounce 'Colt 45'?
> 
> "the 60's...that glorious period."
> See what I mean?
> No understanding of what a disasterous time it was for America...and
> the deleterious effects it has left us with.
> (Oops...did I end that sentence with a preposition?
> Ah...you probably wouldn't notice...)
> 
> It seems that rather than 'teaching a course' your meant 'leading a horse.'
> 
> 
> The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you use insults because you have no argument. I deal with you pseudo intellectuals frequent in the course of my teaching. You type a lot of fancy words, but you say nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> You recognize 'fancy words'??
> 
> 
> Sadly, understanding them is beyond your ken.
> 
> 
> "I deal with you pseudo intellectuals frequent in the course of my teaching."
> Did you just write "frequent"?
> 
> Did you???
> 
> Didn't you know they don't charge extra for the "-ly"?
> 
> Your vocabulary is as bad as, like, whatever.
> I'm having too much fun here.
> 
> Yup...you're a college prof.
> Probably the Chairman of the Department.
> 
> C'mon, Morbus.....
> 
> ....we both know you don't teach any course.
> In fact, it would be astounding if you ever passed any course....at any level.
> You're just a dunce with a rich and growing fantasy world.
> 
> Based on ability, I'd say you're best suited for the job of hostess on a live bait barge.
> Did I hit the nail on the head?
> Close?
> 
> Dairy Queen??
Click to expand...


Your childish insults speak volumes.


----------



## NoNukes

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you use insults because you have no argument. I deal with you pseudo intellectuals frequent in the course of my teaching. You type a lot of fancy words, but you say nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> You recognize 'fancy words'??
> 
> 
> Sadly, understanding them is beyond your ken.
> 
> 
> "I deal with you pseudo intellectuals frequent in the course of my teaching."
> Did you just write "frequent"?
> 
> Did you???
> 
> Didn't you know they don't charge extra for the "-ly"?
> 
> Your vocabulary is as bad as, like, whatever.
> I'm having too much fun here.
> 
> Yup...you're a college prof.
> Probably the Chairman of the Department.
> 
> C'mon, Morbus.....
> 
> ....we both know you don't teach any course.
> In fact, it would be astounding if you ever passed any course....at any level.
> You're just a dunce with a rich and growing fantasy world.
> 
> Based on ability, I'd say you're best suited for the job of hostess on a live bait barge.
> Did I hit the nail on the head?
> Close?
> 
> Dairy Queen??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your childish insults speak volumes.
Click to expand...


One would think that your 5 years as hall pass monitor in high school would have over qualified you for your present position with the vocabulary police.


----------



## midcan5

midcan5 said:


> Can someone provide information on something, anything in MSM that is leftist?  Concrete examples, not vague accusations or presumptive nonsense. Since it is so obvious, please provide a few specific examples. Should be easy.



And again, can someone?


----------



## PoliticalChic

midcan5 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide information on something, anything in MSM that is leftist?  Concrete examples, not vague accusations or presumptive nonsense. Since it is so obvious, please provide a few specific examples. Should be easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, can someone?
Click to expand...


They have all their napkins monogrammed with the following:

"Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism."

Want one?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> You recognize 'fancy words'??
> 
> 
> Sadly, understanding them is beyond your ken.
> 
> 
> "I deal with you pseudo intellectuals frequent in the course of my teaching."
> Did you just write "frequent"?
> 
> Did you???
> 
> Didn't you know they don't charge extra for the "-ly"?
> 
> Your vocabulary is as bad as, like, whatever.
> I'm having too much fun here.
> 
> Yup...you're a college prof.
> Probably the Chairman of the Department.
> 
> C'mon, Morbus.....
> 
> ....we both know you don't teach any course.
> In fact, it would be astounding if you ever passed any course....at any level.
> You're just a dunce with a rich and growing fantasy world.
> 
> Based on ability, I'd say you're best suited for the job of hostess on a live bait barge.
> Did I hit the nail on the head?
> Close?
> 
> Dairy Queen??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your childish insults speak volumes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One would think that your 5 years as hall pass monitor in high school would have over qualified you for your present position with the vocabulary police.
Click to expand...


Ohhhh....you don't like having your errors pointed out?

And that's 'spelling police,' dummy.

Make it Ms. Spelllng Police.

So, you claim to be a college teacher, as well educated as Dr. Thomas Sowell...but you write poorly, and can't spell. 
Makes sense.

BTW....did you look up my first childish insult, identifying  you as *Morbus gallicus*?
I thought that was one of my best!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> When dealing with PC there is plenty of that to see.



Well....then don't just stand there....thank me for the entertainment!


----------



## midcan5

PoliticalChic said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide information on something, anything in MSM that is leftist?  Concrete examples, not vague accusations or presumptive nonsense. Since it is so obvious, please provide a few specific examples. Should be easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, can someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have all their napkins monogrammed with the following:
> 
> "Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism."
> 
> Want one?
Click to expand...


Not an answer.  So far you are proving my point?  I'll wait for the specifics, should be a piece of cake.


----------



## PoliticalChic

midcan5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, can someone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have all their napkins monogrammed with the following:
> 
> "Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism."
> 
> Want one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not an answer.  So far you are proving my point?  I'll wait for the specifics, should be a piece of cake.
Click to expand...


How about you ask for specifics as to why the sky is blue....
...not worth answering since casual glance prove the point.


----------



## bripat9643

NoNukes said:


> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.




ROFL!

Well, it's certainly true that every journalist has been subjected to a 4 year course of pinko indoctrination.


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives claiming to be victims of media bias is one of the oldest examples of victimology in the modern era.



Claiming their victims are suffering from some kind of paranoid delusion is the oldest technique of totalitarian propaganda in the book.  The USSR put anyone who criticized the ruling class in insane asylums.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your childish insults speak volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One would think that your 5 years as hall pass monitor in high school would have over qualified you for your present position with the vocabulary police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh....you don't like having your errors pointed out?
> 
> And that's 'spelling police,' dummy.
> 
> Make it Ms. Spelllng Police.
> 
> So, you claim to be a college teacher, as well educated as Dr. Thomas Sowell...but you write poorly, and can't spell.
> Makes sense.
> 
> BTW....did you look up my first childish insult, identifying  you as *Morbus gallicus*?
> I thought that was one of my best!
Click to expand...


Oh my god, you were trying to be funny. Sorry, did not get that from what you wrote .


----------



## PoliticalChic

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claiming to be victims of media bias is one of the oldest examples of victimology in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming their victims are suffering from some kind of paranoid delusion is the oldest technique of totalitarian propaganda in the book.  The USSR put anyone who criticized the ruling class in insane asylums.
Click to expand...


Actually, Pat, our friend Carby has imposed his usual degree of misunderstanding to the situation.

Conservatives are the ones who are not the victims of media bias, as they continue to support rectitude and the correct course of action.

It is the 'Carbys' who are the victims, as they are manipulated, fooled, and, as the old saying goes, 'raised like mushrooms.'


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> One would think that your 5 years as hall pass monitor in high school would have over qualified you for your present position with the vocabulary police.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh....you don't like having your errors pointed out?
> 
> And that's 'spelling police,' dummy.
> 
> Make it Ms. Spelllng Police.
> 
> So, you claim to be a college teacher, as well educated as Dr. Thomas Sowell...but you write poorly, and can't spell.
> Makes sense.
> 
> BTW....did you look up my first childish insult, identifying  you as *Morbus gallicus*?
> I thought that was one of my best!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you were trying to be funny. Sorry, did not get that from what you wrote .
Click to expand...


Not to worry, Morbus!

It was clear from the start that there were tons of thing that you "did not get."

Most prominent among same was an education....dunce.

Let's set the record straight: you know that I was hardly trying to be 'funny.' I mean everything I said.

Rather than funny, it's pathetic that you pretend to have an education....claiming that you 'teach'...that you compare yourself to Dr. Sowell...when your posts contain errors and are written as though by a child.

Pathetic.

I almost feel guilty of poking one of such limited ablity....

Almost.
I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.


Whats that youre muttering?  Must-defend-self


----------



## NYcarbineer

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claiming to be victims of media bias is one of the oldest examples of victimology in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming their victims are suffering from some kind of paranoid delusion is the oldest technique of totalitarian propaganda in the book.  The USSR put anyone who criticized the ruling class in insane asylums.
Click to expand...


Are you referring to the OP's penchant for personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with her?


----------



## NYcarbineer

If the Left did in fact control the Media,

wouldn't that more than anything be a measure of the Right's impotence?


----------



## jillian

If the left controls the media, where does PC get all of her cut and paste hack jobs?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claiming to be victims of media bias is one of the oldest examples of victimology in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming their victims are suffering from some kind of paranoid delusion is the oldest technique of totalitarian propaganda in the book.  The USSR put anyone who criticized the ruling class in insane asylums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the OP's penchant for personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with her?
Click to expand...


Who else would I 'personally attack' ya' big dummy???

I'd have to have your degree of dementia to 'personally attack' folks who agree with me.

Duuh.

All of you Lefty public-school-graduates still believe that in real life folks are going to pat you on the head and look fascinated by the stupid prattle that comes out of your mouth...or keyboard.
And your 'witttle' feelings are hurt by a dose of honesty. 

Until you wise up, learn to live by this rule: 
Silence is golden. Duct tape is silver.


----------



## PoliticalChic

jillian said:


> If the left controls the media, where does PC get all of her cut and paste hack jobs?



I'll bet that's not the only thing you're puzzled about.


----------



## Trajan

midcan5 said:


> Can someone provide information on something, anything in MSM that is leftist?  Concrete examples, not vague accusations or presumptive nonsense. Since it is so obvious, please provide a few specific examples. Should be easy.



Ok, easy one- why is there such a preponderance of labeling, as in using the term conservative for just about any  goper? And  a huge lack of reciprocity, as in naming or introducing  'democrats' as liberals?


----------



## Trajan

jillian said:


> If the left controls the media, where does PC get all of her cut and paste hack jobs?



I am curious, are you inferring that the 'media' or whats commonly termed as the MSM, does not have a left slant?


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> If the Left did in fact control the Media,
> 
> wouldn't that more than anything be a measure of the Right's impotence?



when the average news org. or network newsroom is over 80% ideologically predisposed to the left, what would you expect? They don't call Will or Brooks 'house republicans' for nothing.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> If the Left did in fact control the Media,
> 
> wouldn't that more than anything be a measure of the Right's impotence?




Ya' know...*that's a pretty good analysis*. 
Who wrote it for you???
No, really...if I were a Lefty, I'd have used it.

OK...*now for the pretty good answer*.

1. The 60's, fueled by the economic ebullience of families as a result of the post-WWII boom, gave us the arrogant, self-absorbed, violent, anti-American savages known as the *'counter-culture*.'

2.	One member gave this prescription: four-square against anti-Communism, *eight-square against American-culture*, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly.  Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage, p. 109-110

3.	The unrest was born in June of 1962 at the AFL-CIO camp at* Port Huron, Michigan*. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962. 
It sets forth an *agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world*. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents.

a. Tom Hayden writes in the draft of* men as infinitely perfectible. *Here is the ominous echo and common view of all* totalitarian *movements: human nature is infinitely malleable and the simple rearrangement of various institutions a better, and even perfect nature. 

4. The radicals of the sixties *did not remain within the universities*They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalismI watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get *advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited* in the streets under an academic cover.  Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, p. 294-295.

Oops! There I go....starting to write the kind of long piece that you're so afraid to read.
OK....*here's the 'money shot:*'

5. The radicals were *not likely to go into business *or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the *chattering class, talkers *interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, *print and electronic journalism,* church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, *anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced*. And they are exerting influence. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p. 51


See...they took over areas of *dissemination of information*...while the rest of Americans went to work in real jobs....you know, those 'evil' corporations.


Good thing I have self-discipline...or I'd go off into a discussion of how Bernie Sanders formed the most powerful caucus in Congress, the Marxist-socialist Progressive Caucus.

But..stay tuned.


----------



## midcan5

PoliticalChic said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have all their napkins monogrammed with the following:
> 
> "Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism."
> 
> Want one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an answer.  So far you are proving my point?  I'll wait for the specifics, should be a piece of cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you ask for specifics as to why the sky is blue....
> ...not worth answering since casual glance prove the point.
Click to expand...


You've proved my point.  You - no one else either - can present a single example of the left leaning MSM that supports your necessary fantasy. You only believe and repeat because it is easier to point fingers than to examine and be honest about the complex issues that face America. 

"Unions, organizations formerly steeped in the doctrine of class struggle and filled with members who sought broad social and political rights for the working class, have been transformed into domesticated negotiators with the capitalist class. Cars rolling off the Ford plants in Michigan were said to be made by UAW Ford. But where unions still exist, they have been reduced to simple bartering tools, if that. The social demands of unions in the early twentieth century that gave the working class weekends off, the right to strike, the eight-hour workday, and Social Security, have been abandoned. Universities, especially in political science and economics departments, parrot the discredited ideology of unregulated capitalism and have no new ideas.*The arts, just as hungry as the media or the academy for corporate money and sponsorship, refuse to address the social and economic disparities that create suffering for tens of millions of citizens. Commercial artists peddle the mythical narrative, one propagated by corporations, self-help gurus, Oprah and the Christian Right, that if we dig deep enough within ourselves, focus on happiness, find our inner strength, or believe in miracles, we can have everything we desire. Such magical thinking, a staple of the entertainment industry, blinds citizens to corporate structures that have made it impossible for families to lift themselves out of poverty or live with dignity." * Chris Hedges  'Death of the Liberal Class'


----------



## NYcarbineer

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Left did in fact control the Media,
> 
> wouldn't that more than anything be a measure of the Right's impotence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when the average news org. or network newsroom is over 80% ideologically predisposed to the left, what would you expect? They don't call Will or Brooks 'house republicans' for nothing.
Click to expand...


Where do networks come from?  The Network Tree?  Solely owned by leeeeeeberals?

Conservatives want a conservative network, then start one.  Buy one.  Didn't GE buy NBC?

Why didn't some conservatives make a better offer?

Where did Foxnews channel come from?  Conservatives want more Fox news channels, start them.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh....you don't like having your errors pointed out?
> 
> And that's 'spelling police,' dummy.
> 
> Make it Ms. Spelllng Police.
> 
> So, you claim to be a college teacher, as well educated as Dr. Thomas Sowell...but you write poorly, and can't spell.
> Makes sense.
> 
> BTW....did you look up my first childish insult, identifying  you as *Morbus gallicus*?
> I thought that was one of my best!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you were trying to be funny. Sorry, did not get that from what you wrote .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to worry, Morbus!
> 
> It was clear from the start that there were tons of thing that you "did not get."
> 
> Most prominent among same was an education....dunce.
> 
> Let's set the record straight: you know that I was hardly trying to be 'funny.' I mean everything I said.
> 
> Rather than funny, it's pathetic that you pretend to have an education....claiming that you 'teach'...that you compare yourself to Dr. Sowell...when your posts contain errors and are written as though by a child.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> I almost feel guilty of poking one of such limited ablity....
> 
> Almost.
> I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.
> 
> 
> Whats that youre muttering?  Must-defend-self
Click to expand...


You are a pathetic little person attempting to sound like an intellectual. As I said before, I run into your kind in the academic world often. Attempting to impress people on a message board is such a sign of insecurity and is quite pathetic. I have people come and hear me lecture once a week, and I am also invited to lecture in museums and at other universities. Your dependence on a message board is quite the shame. But, you are not totally devoid of humor, you are half witty.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you were trying to be funny. Sorry, did not get that from what you wrote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to worry, Morbus!
> 
> It was clear from the start that there were tons of thing that you "did not get."
> 
> Most prominent among same was an education....dunce.
> 
> Let's set the record straight: you know that I was hardly trying to be 'funny.' I mean everything I said.
> 
> Rather than funny, it's pathetic that you pretend to have an education....claiming that you 'teach'...that you compare yourself to Dr. Sowell...when your posts contain errors and are written as though by a child.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> I almost feel guilty of poking one of such limited ablity....
> 
> Almost.
> I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.
> 
> 
> Whats that youre muttering?  Must-defend-self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a pathetic little person attempting to sound like an intellectual. As I said before, I run into your kind in the academic world often. Attempting to impress people on a message board is such a sign of insecurity and is quite pathetic. I have people come and hear me lecture once a week, and I am also invited to lecture in museums and at other universities. Your dependence on a message board is quite the shame. But, you are not totally devoid of humor, you are half witty.
Click to expand...


More dodge from the dunce,

malarkey from the Morbus.


----------



## PoliticalChic

midcan5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an answer.  So far you are proving my point?  I'll wait for the specifics, should be a piece of cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you ask for specifics as to why the sky is blue....
> ...not worth answering since casual glance prove the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've proved my point.  You - no one else either - can present a single example of the left leaning MSM that supports your necessary fantasy. You only believe and repeat because it is easier to point fingers than to examine and be honest about the complex issues that face America.
> 
> "Unions, organizations formerly steeped in the doctrine of class struggle and filled with members who sought broad social and political rights for the working class, have been transformed into domesticated negotiators with the capitalist class. Cars rolling off the Ford plants in Michigan were said to be made by UAW Ford. But where unions still exist, they have been reduced to simple bartering tools, if that. The social demands of unions in the early twentieth century that gave the working class weekends off, the right to strike, the eight-hour workday, and Social Security, have been abandoned. Universities, especially in political science and economics departments, parrot the discredited ideology of unregulated capitalism and have no new ideas.*The arts, just as hungry as the media or the academy for corporate money and sponsorship, refuse to address the social and economic disparities that create suffering for tens of millions of citizens. Commercial artists peddle the mythical narrative, one propagated by corporations, self-help gurus, Oprah and the Christian Right, that if we dig deep enough within ourselves, focus on happiness, find our inner strength, or believe in miracles, we can have everything we desire. Such magical thinking, a staple of the entertainment industry, blinds citizens to corporate structures that have made it impossible for families to lift themselves out of poverty or live with dignity." * Chris Hedges  'Death of the Liberal Class'
Click to expand...



Yeah, you're right...they're right-wingers top to bottom.

Next election:

A.	Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B.	Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.


Can I guess your choice?


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to worry, Morbus!
> 
> It was clear from the start that there were tons of thing that you "did not get."
> 
> Most prominent among same was an education....dunce.
> 
> Let's set the record straight: you know that I was hardly trying to be 'funny.' I mean everything I said.
> 
> Rather than funny, it's pathetic that you pretend to have an education....claiming that you 'teach'...that you compare yourself to Dr. Sowell...when your posts contain errors and are written as though by a child.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> I almost feel guilty of poking one of such limited ablity....
> 
> Almost.
> I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.
> 
> 
> Whats that youre muttering?  Must-defend-self
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetic little person attempting to sound like an intellectual. As I said before, I run into your kind in the academic world often. Attempting to impress people on a message board is such a sign of insecurity and is quite pathetic. I have people come and hear me lecture once a week, and I am also invited to lecture in museums and at other universities. Your dependence on a message board is quite the shame. But, you are not totally devoid of humor, you are half witty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More dodge from the dunce,
> 
> malarkey from the Morbus.
Click to expand...


You have spent 3 or 4 days calling me names from behind your computer instead of challenging  my expertise, so you are obviously afraid of me. I will leave you alone now, you pathetic little thing.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pathetic little person attempting to sound like an intellectual. As I said before, I run into your kind in the academic world often. Attempting to impress people on a message board is such a sign of insecurity and is quite pathetic. I have people come and hear me lecture once a week, and I am also invited to lecture in museums and at other universities. Your dependence on a message board is quite the shame. But, you are not totally devoid of humor, you are half witty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More dodge from the dunce,
> 
> malarkey from the Morbus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have spent 3 or 4 days calling me names from behind your computer instead of challenging  my expertise, so you are obviously afraid of me. I will leave you alone now, you pathetic little thing.
Click to expand...


I've seen your posts, dunce.

You have no expertise.
Just fantasies.

There's medication that might be helpful.
See your doctor...I'm sure he's just down the corridor.


Now, step off.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Left did in fact control the Media,
> 
> wouldn't that more than anything be a measure of the Right's impotence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' know...*that's a pretty good analysis*.
> Who wrote it for you???
> No, really...if I were a Lefty, I'd have used it.
> 
> OK...*now for the pretty good answer*.
> 
> 1. The 60's, fueled by the economic ebullience of families as a result of the post-WWII boom, gave us the arrogant, self-absorbed, violent, anti-American savages known as the *'counter-culture*.'
> 
> 2.	One member gave this prescription: &#8220;four-square against anti-Communism, *eight-square against American-culture*, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly.&#8221;  Todd Gitlin, &#8220;The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage,&#8221; p. 109-110
> 
> 3.	The unrest was born in June of 1962 at the AFL-CIO camp at* Port Huron, Michigan*. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962.
> It sets forth an *agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world*. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents.
> 
> a. Tom Hayden writes in the draft of* men as &#8220;infinitely perfectible.&#8221; *Here is the ominous echo and common view of all* totalitarian *movements: human nature is infinitely malleable and the simple rearrangement of various institutions a better, and even perfect nature.
> 
> 4. The radicals of the sixties *did not remain within the universities*&#8230;They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. &#8220;&#8230;they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism&#8230;I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get *advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited* in the streets under an academic cover.&#8221;  Collier and Horowitz, &#8220;Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,&#8221; p. 294-295.
> 
> Oops! There I go....starting to write the kind of long piece that you're so afraid to read.
> OK....*here's the 'money shot:*'
> 
> 5. &#8220;The radicals were *not likely to go into business *or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the *chattering class, talkers *interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, *print and electronic journalism,* church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, *anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced*. And they are exerting influence.&#8221; Robert H. Bork, &#8220;Slouching Toward Gomorrah,&#8221; p. 51
> 
> 
> See...they took over areas of *dissemination of information*...while the rest of Americans went to work in real jobs....you know, those 'evil' corporations.
> 
> 
> Good thing I have self-discipline...or I'd go off into a discussion of how Bernie Sanders formed the most powerful caucus in Congress, the Marxist-socialist Progressive Caucus.
> 
> But..stay tuned.
Click to expand...


The word 'media' is plural.  When you refer to 'media', you are referring to, among others, radio,

where the rightwing overwhelmingly dominates.

For starters.


----------



## Trajan

midcan5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an answer.  So far you are proving my point?  I'll wait for the specifics, should be a piece of cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you ask for specifics as to why the sky is blue....
> ...not worth answering since casual glance prove the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've proved my point.  You - no one else either - can present a single example of the left leaning MSM that supports your necessary fantasy. You only believe and repeat because it is easier to point fingers than to examine and be honest about the complex issues that face America.
> 
> "Unions, organizations formerly steeped in the doctrine of class struggle and filled with members who sought broad social and political rights for the working class, have been transformed into domesticated negotiators with the capitalist class. Cars rolling off the Ford plants in Michigan were said to be made by UAW Ford. But where unions still exist, they have been reduced to simple bartering tools, if that. The social demands of unions in the early twentieth century that gave the working class weekends off, the right to strike, the eight-hour workday, and Social Security, have been abandoned. Universities, especially in political science and economics departments, parrot the discredited ideology of unregulated capitalism and have no new ideas.*The arts, just as hungry as the media or the academy for corporate money and sponsorship, refuse to address the social and economic disparities that create suffering for tens of millions of citizens. Commercial artists peddle the mythical narrative, one propagated by corporations, self-help gurus, Oprah and the Christian Right, that if we dig deep enough within ourselves, focus on happiness, find our inner strength, or believe in miracles, we can have everything we desire. Such magical thinking, a staple of the entertainment industry, blinds citizens to corporate structures that have made it impossible for families to lift themselves out of poverty or live with dignity." * Chris Hedges  'Death of the Liberal Class'
Click to expand...




> You've proved my point.  You - no one else either - can present a single example of the left leaning MSM that supports your necessary fantasy. You only believe and repeat because it is easier to point fingers than to examine and be honest about the complex issues that face America.




hello.....you asked the question, see post 65, I answered,....was it to tough for you?


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Left did in fact control the Media,
> 
> wouldn't that more than anything be a measure of the Right's impotence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when the average news org. or network newsroom is over 80% ideologically predisposed to the left, what would you expect? They don't call Will or Brooks 'house republicans' for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do networks come from?  The Network Tree?  Solely owned by leeeeeeberals?
> 
> Conservatives want a conservative network, then start one.  Buy one.  Didn't GE buy NBC?
> 
> Why didn't some conservatives make a better offer?
> 
> Where did Foxnews channel come from?  Conservatives want more Fox news channels, start them.
Click to expand...


so your answer is; to buy networks or stations etc. and stack  them with ideologically predisposed stooges to counter act the media as is stands?well yes of course that's your answer. 

 Nice, thx for the admission. god you're such a great foil. gimme a hug man...


----------



## Trajan

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, you were trying to be funny. Sorry, did not get that from what you wrote .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to worry, Morbus!
> 
> It was clear from the start that there were tons of thing that you "did not get."
> 
> Most prominent among same was an education....dunce.
> 
> Let's set the record straight: you know that I was hardly trying to be 'funny.' I mean everything I said.
> 
> Rather than funny, it's pathetic that you pretend to have an education....claiming that you 'teach'...that you compare yourself to Dr. Sowell...when your posts contain errors and are written as though by a child.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> I almost feel guilty of poking one of such limited ablity....
> 
> Almost.
> I get that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.
> 
> 
> Whats that youre muttering?  Must-defend-self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a pathetic little person attempting to sound like an intellectual. As I said before, I run into your kind in the academic world often. Attempting to impress people on a message board is such a sign of insecurity and is quite pathetic. I have people come and hear me lecture once a week, and I am also invited to lecture in museums and at other universities. Your dependence on a message board is quite the shame. But, you are not totally devoid of humor, you are half witty.
Click to expand...




> As I said before, I run into your kind in the academic world often.




yea well, emptying their waste baskets doesn't count, ok?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> when the average news org. or network newsroom is over 80% ideologically predisposed to the left, what would you expect? They don't call Will or Brooks 'house republicans' for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do networks come from?  The Network Tree?  Solely owned by leeeeeeberals?
> 
> Conservatives want a conservative network, then start one.  Buy one.  Didn't GE buy NBC?
> 
> Why didn't some conservatives make a better offer?
> 
> Where did Foxnews channel come from?  Conservatives want more Fox news channels, start them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so your answer is; to buy networks or stations etc. and stack  them with ideologically predisposed stooges to counter act the media as is stands?well yes of course that's your answer.
> 
> Nice, thx for the admission. god you're such a great foil. gimme a hug man...
Click to expand...


That doesn't remotely resemble what I said.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More dodge from the dunce,
> 
> malarkey from the Morbus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have spent 3 or 4 days calling me names from behind your computer instead of challenging  my expertise, so you are obviously afraid of me. I will leave you alone now, you pathetic little thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen your posts, dunce.
> 
> You have no expertise.
> Just fantasies.
> 
> There's medication that might be helpful.
> See your doctor...I'm sure he's just down the corridor.
> 
> 
> Now, step off.
Click to expand...


A pseudo intellectual Ann Coulter wannabe, how sad.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Left did in fact control the Media,
> 
> wouldn't that more than anything be a measure of the Right's impotence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' know...*that's a pretty good analysis*.
> Who wrote it for you???
> No, really...if I were a Lefty, I'd have used it.
> 
> OK...*now for the pretty good answer*.
> 
> 1. The 60's, fueled by the economic ebullience of families as a result of the post-WWII boom, gave us the arrogant, self-absorbed, violent, anti-American savages known as the *'counter-culture*.'
> 
> 2.	One member gave this prescription: four-square against anti-Communism, *eight-square against American-culture*, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly.  Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage, p. 109-110
> 
> 3.	The unrest was born in June of 1962 at the AFL-CIO camp at* Port Huron, Michigan*. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962.
> It sets forth an *agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world*. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents.
> 
> a. Tom Hayden writes in the draft of* men as infinitely perfectible. *Here is the ominous echo and common view of all* totalitarian *movements: human nature is infinitely malleable and the simple rearrangement of various institutions a better, and even perfect nature.
> 
> 4. The radicals of the sixties *did not remain within the universities*They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalismI watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get *advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited* in the streets under an academic cover.  Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, p. 294-295.
> 
> Oops! There I go....starting to write the kind of long piece that you're so afraid to read.
> OK....*here's the 'money shot:*'
> 
> 5. The radicals were *not likely to go into business *or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the *chattering class, talkers *interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, *print and electronic journalism,* church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, *anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced*. And they are exerting influence. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p. 51
> 
> 
> See...they took over areas of *dissemination of information*...while the rest of Americans went to work in real jobs....you know, those 'evil' corporations.
> 
> 
> Good thing I have self-discipline...or I'd go off into a discussion of how Bernie Sanders formed the most powerful caucus in Congress, the Marxist-socialist Progressive Caucus.
> 
> But..stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word 'media' is plural.  When you refer to 'media', you are referring to, among others, radio,
> 
> where the rightwing overwhelmingly dominates.
> 
> For starters.
Click to expand...


So...other than radio, you find nothing in the brief history from the 60's on, to be inaccurate? 

So glad we agree.

The point to be gleaned is that the radicals had quite a head start, and, if nothing else positive is to be said for these barbarians, they are patient. Decades so.

Things are changing...the turning point is Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge.

An additional point: in a thread based on your post, called 'Impotence of the Right,'
I explained the aim of these Leftist 'journalists,' as follows-

 "Here, the thinking, right out of Fabian socialism, and the aims: We will never have 100% public support for health reform. We don't need to. But to ensure that reform is implemented successfully, we do need *to capture and keep the support of persuadable voters.*" 
Q = A + 1

The Left looks for the uninformed, *"persuadable voters."*
This tactic has proven quite successful. They hide their true intentions.

You might find that OP interesting.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have spent 3 or 4 days calling me names from behind your computer instead of challenging  my expertise, so you are obviously afraid of me. I will leave you alone now, you pathetic little thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen your posts, dunce.
> 
> You have no expertise.
> Just fantasies.
> 
> There's medication that might be helpful.
> See your doctor...I'm sure he's just down the corridor.
> 
> 
> Now, step off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pseudo intellectual Ann Coulter wannabe, how sad.
Click to expand...



I had a professor who used a phrase about hangers-on that he couldn't seem to get rid of..."He stuck to me like manure to a wet blanket."

As a result of your posting, I now see exactly what he meant.


Now, disappear into the oblivion you so richly deserve.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen your posts, dunce.
> 
> You have no expertise.
> Just fantasies.
> 
> There's medication that might be helpful.
> See your doctor...I'm sure he's just down the corridor.
> 
> 
> Now, step off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pseudo intellectual Ann Coulter wannabe, how sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I had a professor who used a phrase about hangers-on that he couldn't seem to get rid of..."He stuck to me like manure to a wet blanket."
> 
> As a result of your posting, I now see exactly what he meant.
> 
> 
> Now, disappear into the oblivion you so richly deserve.
Click to expand...


It was not very nice for that professor to say that to you.


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do networks come from?  The Network Tree?  Solely owned by leeeeeeberals?
> 
> Conservatives want a conservative network, then start one.  Buy one.  Didn't GE buy NBC?
> 
> Why didn't some conservatives make a better offer?
> 
> Where did Foxnews channel come from?  Conservatives want more Fox news channels, start them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so your answer is; to buy networks or stations etc. and stack  them with ideologically predisposed stooges to counter act the media as is stands?well yes of course that's your answer.
> 
> Nice, thx for the admission. god you're such a great foil. gimme a hug man...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That doesn't remotely resemble what I said*.
Click to expand...


Translation;

_I was drunk when I posted that and....oops._





Tool Cat says....


----------



## Trajan

Trajan said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you ask for specifics as to why the sky is blue....
> ...not worth answering since casual glance prove the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've proved my point.  You - no one else either - can present a single example of the left leaning MSM that supports your necessary fantasy. You only believe and repeat because it is easier to point fingers than to examine and be honest about the complex issues that face America.
> 
> "Unions, organizations formerly steeped in the doctrine of class struggle and filled with members who sought broad social and political rights for the working class, have been transformed into domesticated negotiators with the capitalist class. Cars rolling off the Ford plants in Michigan were said to be made by UAW Ford. But where unions still exist, they have been reduced to simple bartering tools, if that. The social demands of unions in the early twentieth century that gave the working class weekends off, the right to strike, the eight-hour workday, and Social Security, have been abandoned. Universities, especially in political science and economics departments, parrot the discredited ideology of unregulated capitalism and have no new ideas.*The arts, just as hungry as the media or the academy for corporate money and sponsorship, refuse to address the social and economic disparities that create suffering for tens of millions of citizens. Commercial artists peddle the mythical narrative, one propagated by corporations, self-help gurus, Oprah and the Christian Right, that if we dig deep enough within ourselves, focus on happiness, find our inner strength, or believe in miracles, we can have everything we desire. Such magical thinking, a staple of the entertainment industry, blinds citizens to corporate structures that have made it impossible for families to lift themselves out of poverty or live with dignity." * Chris Hedges  'Death of the Liberal Class'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've proved my point.  You - no one else either - can present a single example of the left leaning MSM that supports your necessary fantasy. You only believe and repeat because it is easier to point fingers than to examine and be honest about the complex issues that face America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hello.....you asked the question, see post 65, I answered,....was it to tough for you?
Click to expand...



well Midcan5 I guess it _was_ to tough for you. 

another one bites the dust.


----------



## midcan5

"Russell Baker, legendary columnist for the New York Times, put the matter well in December 2003: "Today's topdrawer Washington news people are part of a highly educated, upper middle class elite; they belong to the culture for which the American system works extremely well. Which is to say, they are, in the pure sense of the word, extremely conservative.""  Media is also corporate owned and operated, they do not shoot themselves.



Trajan said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide information on something, anything in MSM that is leftist?  Concrete examples, not vague accusations or presumptive nonsense. Since it is so obvious, please provide a few specific examples. Should be easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, easy one- why is there such a preponderance of labeling, as in using the term conservative for just about any  goper? And  a huge lack of reciprocity, as in naming or introducing  'democrats' as liberals?
Click to expand...


That doesn't give me anything specific from MSM but I'll answer. The framing of conservative and liberal is loaded today with all sorts of baggage. Republicans use 'conservative' to define themselves as the word means certain positives to their audience. Count the times it has been used in the GOP debates. They even claim higher levels of conservative. Liberal on the other hand has been castigated for so long, even liberals now use progressive. No one in the media calls themselves liberal today. I do hear progressive used, but it is addressed at mostly democrats and sometimes republicans, and it is used to describe policy positions.



PoliticalChic said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you ask for specifics as to why the sky is blue....
> ...not worth answering since casual glance prove the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've proved my point.  You - no one else either - can present a single example of the left leaning MSM that supports your necessary fantasy. You only believe and repeat because it is easier to point fingers than to examine and be honest about the complex issues that face America....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're right...they're right-wingers top to bottom.
> 
> Next election:
> 
> A.	Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.
> 
> B.	Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.
> 
> Can I guess your choice?
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?  You're even more off track unless I have magically become MSM,  let me check. Nope.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> so your answer is; to buy networks or stations etc. and stack  them with ideologically predisposed stooges to counter act the media as is stands?well yes of course that's your answer.
> 
> Nice, thx for the admission. god you're such a great foil. gimme a hug man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That doesn't remotely resemble what I said*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation;
> 
> _I was drunk when I posted that and....oops._
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The complaint that 'the left' controls the media implies that there are forces at work that prevent 'the right' from having whatever presence the right desires in the media.

That would appear to be false based on the evidence of the right in the media where the right has chosen to be.

If 'the right' wants another cable news network, how is the left's implied 'control' stopping that?

If 'the left' controlled the media, would 'the left' have allowed Foxnews to become the number 1 rated cablenews channel?  Wouldn't 'the left' have exerted some of that alleged 'control' to prevent that?


----------



## Dante

PoliticalChic said:


> ...
> 
> Have you seen the posts by our less informed colleagues challenging the idea that the *media is Leftist*?  Consider this story the next time you read one of those misguided individuals&#8230;.
> 
> ...
> ...


Damn, that damn propublica .. highlighting that officials say the darnedest things ... 

*That&#8217;s one of the things that I like about him &#8212; because he&#8217;s been consistent since he changed his mind.
 - Christine O&#8217;Donnell, appearing on CNN to endorse Mitt Romney.




I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.
 - Newt Gingrich, in a letter to the Family Leader, a conservative group in Iowa. 
*
Officials Say the darnedest Things


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dante said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Have you seen the posts by our less informed colleagues challenging the idea that the *media is Leftist*?  Consider this story the next time you read one of those misguided individuals.
> 
> ...
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, that damn propublica .. highlighting that officials say the darnedest things ...
> 
> *Thats one of the things that I like about him  because hes been consistent since he changed his mind.
> - Christine ODonnell, appearing on CNN to endorse Mitt Romney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.
> - Newt Gingrich, in a letter to the Family Leader, a conservative group in Iowa.
> *
> Officials Say the darnedest Things
Click to expand...


Does this come with coo-coo clock sound effects?

Oh...now I see why you neg rep!
Your posts are far from insightful, and you reveal that you didn't understand the OP!

But...glad to see you make the effort...inept though it is.
Atta boy!


----------



## daveman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> *The Pro-Republican News Media*
> 
> The concept of the Liberal Media is a myth  and has always been a myth.
> The various news media are clearly and unmistakably Pro-Republican.
> 
> *Only twice since 1932 have a majority of newspapers endorsed the Democratic candidate *
> 
> The Pro-Republican News Media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Only the right pursues an agenda.

Right?


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.


"Educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".


----------



## Trajan

midcan5 said:


> "Russell Baker, legendary columnist for the New York Times, put the matter well in December 2003: "Today's topdrawer Washington news people are part of a highly educated, upper middle class elite; they belong to the culture for which the American system works extremely well. Which is to say, they are, in the pure sense of the word, extremely conservative.""  Media is also corporate owned and operated, they do not shoot themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide information on something, anything in MSM that is leftist?  Concrete examples, not vague accusations or presumptive nonsense. Since it is so obvious, please provide a few specific examples. Should be easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, easy one- why is there such a preponderance of labeling, as in using the term conservative for just about any  goper? And  a huge lack of reciprocity, as in naming or introducing  'democrats' as liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't give me anything specific from MSM but I'll answer. The framing of conservative and liberal is loaded today with all sorts of baggage. Republicans use 'conservative' to define themselves as the word means certain positives to their audience. Count the times it has been used in the GOP debates. They even claim higher levels of conservative. Liberal on the other hand has been castigated for so long, even liberals now use progressive. No one in the media calls themselves liberal today. I do hear progressive used, but it is addressed at mostly democrats and sometimes republicans, and it is used to describe policy positions.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've proved my point.  You - no one else either - can present a single example of the left leaning MSM that supports your necessary fantasy. You only believe and repeat because it is easier to point fingers than to examine and be honest about the complex issues that face America....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're right...they're right-wingers top to bottom.
> 
> Next election:
> 
> A.	Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.
> 
> B.	Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.
> 
> Can I guess your choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?  You're even more off track unless I have magically become MSM,  let me check. Nope.
Click to expand...




> That doesn't give me anything specific from MSM but I'll answer. The framing of conservative and liberal is loaded today with all sorts of baggage. Republicans use 'conservative' to define themselves as the word means certain positives to their audience. Count the times it has been used in the GOP debates. They even claim higher levels of conservative. Liberal on the other hand has been castigated for so long, even liberals now use progressive.No one in the media calls themselves liberal today. I do hear progressive used, but it is addressed at mostly democrats and sometimes republicans, and it is used to describe policy positions.



you are partly right in that liberals will not name each other as liberal generally as,  they know that only 21% of the country IDs themselves as such. so they avoid it.   

Only 40% of the country IDs as con. yet they use it with such preponderance compared to the term liberal, you would think thats who makes up the country as a large majority,  let alone they use it derisively which is also the point as well. 
They have figured out that 79% of the country is not what they are , 60% isn't what cons are, so they just use con., kind of unfair isn't it? They are supposed to be objective. 

and of course that begs another comment- so, liberals are to shy to make know their ideology and affiliation? Why? 

and of course you just answered my question,  in that yes there is a bias on that issue,  thank you.


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.
> 
> 
> 
> "Educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".
Click to expand...


There is usually a connection though.


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left controls the media because the media is comprised of educated people.
> 
> 
> 
> "Educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is usually a connection though.
Click to expand...

In the hard sciences, yes.  In the soft squishy subjects -- not necessarily.


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is usually a connection though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the hard sciences, yes.  In the soft squishy subjects -- not necessarily.
Click to expand...


I did my post graduate work in education, what is your expertise based on your post graduate work? What are the soft squishy subjects, if you know that they are soft, squishy, you must have a firsthand knowledge of them?


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is usually a connection though.
> 
> 
> 
> In the hard sciences, yes.  In the soft squishy subjects -- not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did my post graduate work in education, what is your expertise based on your post graduate work? What are the soft squishy subjects, if you know that they are soft, squishy, you must have a firsthand knowledge of them?
Click to expand...

You don't realize it, but you prove my point.


----------



## NYcarbineer

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is usually a connection though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the hard sciences, yes.  In the soft squishy subjects -- not necessarily.
Click to expand...


Squishy?  Like what?  Theology?  That would be one of the squishiest ones wouldn't it?


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is usually a connection though.
> 
> 
> 
> In the hard sciences, yes.  In the soft squishy subjects -- not necessarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Squishy?  Like what?  Theology?  That would be one of the squishiest ones wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's fairly. squishy.  Like Womyn's Studies and all the other Liberal Arts majors.


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the hard sciences, yes.  In the soft squishy subjects -- not necessarily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did my post graduate work in education, what is your expertise based on your post graduate work? What are the soft squishy subjects, if you know that they are soft, squishy, you must have a firsthand knowledge of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't realize it, but you prove my point.
Click to expand...


In other words, you have no answer.


----------



## midcan5

Trajan said:


> you are partly right in that liberals will not name each other as liberal generally as,  they know that only 21% of the country IDs themselves as such. so they avoid it.
> 
> Only 40% of the country IDs as con. yet they use it with such preponderance compared to the term liberal, you would think thats who makes up the country as a large majority,  let alone they use it derisively which is also the point as well.
> They have figured out that 79% of the country is not what they are , 60% isn't what cons are, so they just use con., kind of unfair isn't it? They are supposed to be objective.
> 
> and of course that begs another comment- so, liberals are to shy to make know their ideology and affiliation? Why?
> 
> and of course you just answered my question,  in that yes there is a bias on that issue,  thank you.



It's nice that you can give assent to your reply but you realize that is a sign of hubris or insanity, take your pick.

*Still not a single example of leftist MSM, none. Given your assumptions that should have been easy, but you know too what they say of assumptions. I actually saw something on MSM this past weekend which would classify partly as leftist in my definition of the concept. Anyone know what it was?*

As for the words conservative or liberal, you are removing them from the discussion by relying on surveys rather than behaviors. If I were to define conservative as supporting America, working hard, succeeding economically, raising first rate children, being married forever, buying American, paying all my taxes, voting, then I am conservative. But you see conservative in terms of its negatives: anti all sorts of things including government and personal freedom and rights. Most people when asked the question today define it through my behavioral definition rather than the political partisanship you seem to represent. I think asking the question isn't relevant outside of context, and context doesn't exist in these surveys. Consider the low rating of the tea party and Christian right as examples of American sentiment.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/199539-tea-party-sinking-fast.html

Liberal is a four letter word today and your use of it with MSM is a demonstration of that fact. You seem to miss that obvious connection completely. When PC or others call MSM liberal they are only engaging in rhetoric and not thought. MSM is corporate owned, operated, and supported, it cannot by its very nature be anything but boring pablum.

Please note that I have never shied away from the use of liberal. 

"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls


----------



## Bfgrn




----------



## Gadawg73

Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
And media gives it's customers what they want.
WELL DUH.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Gadawg73 said:


> Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
> ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
> And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
> And media gives it's customers what they want.
> WELL DUH.



The usual response from the uninformed.


1.  Katie Couric rhymes a healthcare message CBS "news anchor" Katie Couric recently whipped out her "reporter's notebook" and closed her newscast with a pro"health-care reform" poemGood grief! What a relief that we have nonpartisan "journalists" like Couric to help us navigate this "tough topic." 

Couric's "poem" explicitly supports "health-care reform." She clearly wants the sides to come together and produce something. She never questions the presumed need for "reform," much less suggests it wrong  indeed unconstitutional  for the federal government to take money from taxpayer A and give it to B (who may or may not be a taxpayer or, for that matter, even a citizen) because B lacks health insurance. Katie rhymes for health-care 'reform'   Wishing for Senator Snowe to vote the right way.

	a. In another Notebook clip she denounced fear and frankly ignorance that is driving people to town hall forums opposing health care. Katie Couric's Notebook: Fear and Frustration - Couric & Co. - CBS News


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did my post graduate work in education, what is your expertise based on your post graduate work? What are the soft squishy subjects, if you know that they are soft, squishy, you must have a firsthand knowledge of them?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize it, but you prove my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no answer.
Click to expand...

  Thanks for proving my thesis:  "Educated" and "intelligent" are not synonymous.


----------



## Bfgrn

PoliticalChic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
> ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
> And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
> And media gives it's customers what they want.
> WELL DUH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual response from the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 1.  &#8220;Katie Couric rhymes a healthcare message&#8221; CBS "news anchor" Katie Couric recently whipped out her "reporter's notebook" and closed her newscast with a pro&#8211;"health-care reform" poem&#8230;Good grief! What a relief that we have nonpartisan "journalists" like Couric to help us navigate this "tough topic."
> 
> Couric's "poem" explicitly supports "health-care reform." She clearly wants the sides to come together and produce something. She never questions the presumed need for "reform," much less suggests it wrong &#8211; indeed unconstitutional &#8211; for the federal government to take money from taxpayer A and give it to B (who may or may not be a taxpayer or, for that matter, even a citizen) because B lacks health insurance.&#8221; Katie rhymes for health-care 'reform'   Wishing for Senator Snowe to vote the right way.
> 
> a. In another &#8220;Notebook&#8221; clip she denounced &#8216;fear and frankly ignorance&#8217; that is driving people to town hall forums opposing health care. Katie Couric's Notebook: Fear and Frustration - Couric & Co. - CBS News
Click to expand...


You know PC, as I continue to read your dire attempts to do what conservatives do and have always done; create some form of an aristocracy, I can't help thinking that your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man&#8212;the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, And nothing to look forward to with hope."

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me


----------



## daveman

PoliticalChic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
> ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
> And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
> And media gives it's customers what they want.
> WELL DUH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual response from the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 1.  &#8220;Katie Couric rhymes a healthcare message&#8221; CBS "news anchor" Katie Couric recently whipped out her "reporter's notebook" and closed her newscast with a pro&#8211;"health-care reform" poem&#8230;Good grief! What a relief that we have nonpartisan "journalists" like Couric to help us navigate this "tough topic."
> 
> Couric's "poem" explicitly supports "health-care reform." She clearly wants the sides to come together and produce something. She never questions the presumed need for "reform," much less suggests it wrong &#8211; indeed unconstitutional &#8211; for the federal government to take money from taxpayer A and give it to B (who may or may not be a taxpayer or, for that matter, even a citizen) because B lacks health insurance.&#8221; Katie rhymes for health-care 'reform'   Wishing for Senator Snowe to vote the right way.
> 
> a. In another &#8220;Notebook&#8221; clip she denounced &#8216;fear and frankly ignorance&#8217; that is driving people to town hall forums opposing health care. Katie Couric's Notebook: Fear and Frustration - Couric & Co. - CBS News
Click to expand...

It's not biased if it agrees with the left's agenda.

Or at least that's what I understand from the leftists here.


----------



## daveman

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
> ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
> And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
> And media gives it's customers what they want.
> WELL DUH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual response from the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 1.  Katie Couric rhymes a healthcare message CBS "news anchor" Katie Couric recently whipped out her "reporter's notebook" and closed her newscast with a pro"health-care reform" poemGood grief! What a relief that we have nonpartisan "journalists" like Couric to help us navigate this "tough topic."
> 
> Couric's "poem" explicitly supports "health-care reform." She clearly wants the sides to come together and produce something. She never questions the presumed need for "reform," much less suggests it wrong  indeed unconstitutional  for the federal government to take money from taxpayer A and give it to B (who may or may not be a taxpayer or, for that matter, even a citizen) because B lacks health insurance. Katie rhymes for health-care 'reform'   Wishing for Senator Snowe to vote the right way.
> 
> a. In another Notebook clip she denounced fear and frankly ignorance that is driving people to town hall forums opposing health care. Katie Couric's Notebook: Fear and Frustration - Couric & Co. - CBS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know PC, as I continue to read your dire attempts to do what conservatives do and have always done; create some form of an aristocracy, I can't help thinking that your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired manthe fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, And nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
> Me
Click to expand...

No, you CAN'T annoint Obama as king.  The Constitution which you hold in such contempt won't allow it.


----------



## Gadawg73

PoliticalChic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
> ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
> And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
> And media gives it's customers what they want.
> WELL DUH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual response from the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 1.  Katie Couric rhymes a healthcare message CBS "news anchor" Katie Couric recently whipped out her "reporter's notebook" and closed her newscast with a pro"health-care reform" poemGood grief! What a relief that we have nonpartisan "journalists" like Couric to help us navigate this "tough topic."
> 
> Couric's "poem" explicitly supports "health-care reform." She clearly wants the sides to come together and produce something. She never questions the presumed need for "reform," much less suggests it wrong  indeed unconstitutional  for the federal government to take money from taxpayer A and give it to B (who may or may not be a taxpayer or, for that matter, even a citizen) because B lacks health insurance. Katie rhymes for health-care 'reform'   Wishing for Senator Snowe to vote the right way.
> 
> a. In another Notebook clip she denounced fear and frankly ignorance that is driving people to town hall forums opposing health care. Katie Couric's Notebook: Fear and Frustration - Couric & Co. - CBS News
Click to expand...


The uninformed quote and watch Katie Couric.
I operate three corporations and could care less what talking head media say.
You obviously follow her closely.


----------



## Bfgrn

daveman said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The usual response from the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 1.  Katie Couric rhymes a healthcare message CBS "news anchor" Katie Couric recently whipped out her "reporter's notebook" and closed her newscast with a pro"health-care reform" poemGood grief! What a relief that we have nonpartisan "journalists" like Couric to help us navigate this "tough topic."
> 
> Couric's "poem" explicitly supports "health-care reform." She clearly wants the sides to come together and produce something. She never questions the presumed need for "reform," much less suggests it wrong  indeed unconstitutional  for the federal government to take money from taxpayer A and give it to B (who may or may not be a taxpayer or, for that matter, even a citizen) because B lacks health insurance. Katie rhymes for health-care 'reform'   Wishing for Senator Snowe to vote the right way.
> 
> a. In another Notebook clip she denounced fear and frankly ignorance that is driving people to town hall forums opposing health care. Katie Couric's Notebook: Fear and Frustration - Couric & Co. - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know PC, as I continue to read your dire attempts to do what conservatives do and have always done; create some form of an aristocracy, I can't help thinking that your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired manthe fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, And nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
> Me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you CAN'T annoint Obama as king.  The Constitution which you hold in such contempt won't allow it.
Click to expand...


I don't want to anoint Obama king. I am not a right wing authoritarian follower, and Obama is not George W. Bush...

Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking."
George W. Bush


----------



## Gadawg73

How is one influenced by liberal media if one does not watch it?
Only idiots watch cable media.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bfgrn said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
> ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
> And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
> And media gives it's customers what they want.
> WELL DUH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual response from the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 1.  Katie Couric rhymes a healthcare message CBS "news anchor" Katie Couric recently whipped out her "reporter's notebook" and closed her newscast with a pro"health-care reform" poemGood grief! What a relief that we have nonpartisan "journalists" like Couric to help us navigate this "tough topic."
> 
> Couric's "poem" explicitly supports "health-care reform." She clearly wants the sides to come together and produce something. She never questions the presumed need for "reform," much less suggests it wrong  indeed unconstitutional  for the federal government to take money from taxpayer A and give it to B (who may or may not be a taxpayer or, for that matter, even a citizen) because B lacks health insurance. Katie rhymes for health-care 'reform'   Wishing for Senator Snowe to vote the right way.
> 
> a. In another Notebook clip she denounced fear and frankly ignorance that is driving people to town hall forums opposing health care. Katie Couric's Notebook: Fear and Frustration - Couric & Co. - CBS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know PC, as I continue to read your dire attempts to do what conservatives do and have always done; create some form of an aristocracy, I can't help thinking that your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired manthe fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, And nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
> Me
Click to expand...


Meritocracy.
Look up the difference.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Gadawg73 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
> ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
> And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
> And media gives it's customers what they want.
> WELL DUH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual response from the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 1.  Katie Couric rhymes a healthcare message CBS "news anchor" Katie Couric recently whipped out her "reporter's notebook" and closed her newscast with a pro"health-care reform" poemGood grief! What a relief that we have nonpartisan "journalists" like Couric to help us navigate this "tough topic."
> 
> Couric's "poem" explicitly supports "health-care reform." She clearly wants the sides to come together and produce something. She never questions the presumed need for "reform," much less suggests it wrong  indeed unconstitutional  for the federal government to take money from taxpayer A and give it to B (who may or may not be a taxpayer or, for that matter, even a citizen) because B lacks health insurance. Katie rhymes for health-care 'reform'   Wishing for Senator Snowe to vote the right way.
> 
> a. In another Notebook clip she denounced fear and frankly ignorance that is driving people to town hall forums opposing health care. Katie Couric's Notebook: Fear and Frustration - Couric & Co. - CBS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The uninformed quote and watch Katie Couric.
> I operate three corporations and could care less what talking head media say.
> You obviously follow her closely.
Click to expand...


 On Thanksgiving Day, November 1999, five year old Elian Gonzalez was one of three survivors fleeing Castros Cuba. Included in the deaths of the sinking boat were Elians mother and her boyfriend. Miami relatives took the boy in.* For the liberal press, it was an opportunity to demonstrate absolute feasance to the wishes of this Communist dictator. *And the Clinton administration proved abundantly willing to permit Castro to control events in America: 

a.	The media made it clear that the Cuban-American community in Miami was nothing but extremists and fanatics. "Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans."
-- Headline over April 11 New York Times story. 

b.	"Some suggested over the weekend that its wrong to expect Elian Gonzalez to live in a place that tolerates no dissent or freedom of political expression. They were talking about Miami NBCs Katie Couric opening the April 3 Today.

c.	In Miami, its impossible to overestimate how everything here is colored by a hatred of communism and Fidel Castro. Its a community with very little tolerance for those who might disagree.
 ABC correspondent John Quinones on World News Tonight, April 4, 2000

d.	Cuban-Americans, Ms. Falk, have been quick to point fingers at Castro for exploiting the little boy. Are their actions any less reprehensible?
 Early Show co-host Bryant Gumbel to CBS News consultant Pam Falk, April 14, 2000


----------



## xotoxi

PoliticalChic said:


> *The Left Controls the Media*



Your argument will only have validity if Fox News is somehow silenced.

Come back to me when this happens and we will discuss the problem.


----------



## Bfgrn

PoliticalChic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The usual response from the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 1.  Katie Couric rhymes a healthcare message CBS "news anchor" Katie Couric recently whipped out her "reporter's notebook" and closed her newscast with a pro"health-care reform" poemGood grief! What a relief that we have nonpartisan "journalists" like Couric to help us navigate this "tough topic."
> 
> Couric's "poem" explicitly supports "health-care reform." She clearly wants the sides to come together and produce something. She never questions the presumed need for "reform," much less suggests it wrong  indeed unconstitutional  for the federal government to take money from taxpayer A and give it to B (who may or may not be a taxpayer or, for that matter, even a citizen) because B lacks health insurance. Katie rhymes for health-care 'reform'   Wishing for Senator Snowe to vote the right way.
> 
> a. In another Notebook clip she denounced fear and frankly ignorance that is driving people to town hall forums opposing health care. Katie Couric's Notebook: Fear and Frustration - Couric & Co. - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know PC, as I continue to read your dire attempts to do what conservatives do and have always done; create some form of an aristocracy, I can't help thinking that your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired manthe fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, And nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
> Me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meritocracy.
> Look up the difference.
Click to expand...


Synonym: Social Darwinism

Two very important shapers of political thought during this time were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They believed Social Darwinism provided a way to perfect mankind behaviorally and socially. Marx even offered to dedicate his first volume of Das Kapital to Darwin. Darwin's book had given God's presence "the death-blow," he exulted to fellow socialist, Lassalle (Marx). By enhancing Socialism with Darwinism, Communism emerged as a powerful movement led by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, later wrenching control of Russia in the Revolution of 1917. All land, materials, and biological (including human) resources became property of the state. Lenin implemented social programs and began starving and slaughtering whole societies whom he regarded as herds of animals. He was encouraged by the deaths of millions and believed people would lose faith in God and turn more to socialism. To survive the famine, many turned to cannibalism. Lenin's ideology was inspired by Darwin's Origin of Species: "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows" (Darwin 1886). As Darwinism spread throughout Europe, violence was legitimized under the "struggle for existence" theory. As Austro-Hungarian chief of staff, Franz Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorff wrote in his post-war memoirs: "It is in accordance with this great principle that the catastrophe of the World War came about as the result of the motive forces in the lives of states and peoples--" (qtd. in Joll 164).

Following in Lenin's footsteps, Stalin took control of Soviet Russia. Earlier in life, right before Stalin became a priest he read Origin of Species, and his life quickly changed; he became atheist and joined the Bolsheviks. As dictator, he executed scientists who rejected evolution and the projects developed from it, like soaking seeds in cold water for long periods of time expecting them to adapt to the low temperatures in Russia. As a result, 9 million starved to death and cannibalism once again turned humans into wild savages. During Stalin's reign, 40 million died at his hands, more than the 25 million that died fighting Nazi Germany. The system of Communism paved the way for other disciples of Marxist-Leninist-Darwinism to rise to power in Asia, such as Mao Zedong. After Darwin's work was translated in 1895 into Chinese, many believed constant violence was how evolution occurred. Under Mao, 40 million starved in his Great Leap Forward social program, 78 million in general. Communism eventually spread into surrounding North Korea, North Vietnam, and Cambodia, dragging America into strung out bloody guerilla wars with the terrorist regimes. Today, these ideologies still exist - effecting world politics in no small measure - and make Evolution mandatory learning in the education system, force families apart premised on views that humans as advanced apes do not need them, or religion and ethics, and instead must show loyalty only to the state as the highest authority.

Fascist forms of government indoctrinate the same concepts of Darwinism as Communist governments. Mussolini and Hitler were great advocates of Darwin and Spencer's work. Hitler's National Socialist German Worker's (Nazi) Party combined their deep mystical beliefs with Darwinism to inspire a grandiose vision of world conquest, leading the globe into a new age of enlightenment. Anyone who did not conform to Hitler's ideas of the model citizen were rounded up and executed as inferior races that were holding back the rest of society from evolving. Professor of modern European History, Richard Weikart reviewing his book, From Darwin to Hitler, says "Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis" (Weikart).


----------



## PoliticalChic

xotoxi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Left Controls the Media*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument will only have validity if Fox News is somehow silenced.
> 
> Come back to me when this happens and we will discuss the problem.
Click to expand...


First, it would seem to be more efficacious to discuss same with someone who has knowledge of the subject.

Second, are you aware of the the numbers of viewers of broadband vs. cable?

If the three nightly network newscast audiences in November 2003 were combined, a total of 29.3 million viewers, it would be more than 12 times the prime time audience for cable, 2.4 million viewers, during the same period.
Cable Audience | State of the Media same period.

So, your post kind of falls apart right there, huh?

Merry Christmas.


----------



## Gadawg73

PoliticalChic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The usual response from the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 1.  Katie Couric rhymes a healthcare message CBS "news anchor" Katie Couric recently whipped out her "reporter's notebook" and closed her newscast with a pro"health-care reform" poemGood grief! What a relief that we have nonpartisan "journalists" like Couric to help us navigate this "tough topic."
> 
> Couric's "poem" explicitly supports "health-care reform." She clearly wants the sides to come together and produce something. She never questions the presumed need for "reform," much less suggests it wrong  indeed unconstitutional  for the federal government to take money from taxpayer A and give it to B (who may or may not be a taxpayer or, for that matter, even a citizen) because B lacks health insurance. Katie rhymes for health-care 'reform'   Wishing for Senator Snowe to vote the right way.
> 
> a. In another Notebook clip she denounced fear and frankly ignorance that is driving people to town hall forums opposing health care. Katie Couric's Notebook: Fear and Frustration - Couric & Co. - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The uninformed quote and watch Katie Couric.
> I operate three corporations and could care less what talking head media say.
> You obviously follow her closely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On Thanksgiving Day, November 1999, five year old Elian Gonzalez was one of three survivors fleeing Castros Cuba. Included in the deaths of the sinking boat were Elians mother and her boyfriend. Miami relatives took the boy in.* For the liberal press, it was an opportunity to demonstrate absolute feasance to the wishes of this Communist dictator. *And the Clinton administration proved abundantly willing to permit Castro to control events in America:
> 
> a.	The media made it clear that the Cuban-American community in Miami was nothing but extremists and fanatics. "Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans."
> -- Headline over April 11 New York Times story.
> 
> b.	"Some suggested over the weekend that its wrong to expect Elian Gonzalez to live in a place that tolerates no dissent or freedom of political expression. They were talking about Miami NBCs Katie Couric opening the April 3 Today.
> 
> c.	In Miami, its impossible to overestimate how everything here is colored by a hatred of communism and Fidel Castro. Its a community with very little tolerance for those who might disagree.
>  ABC correspondent John Quinones on World News Tonight, April 4, 2000
> 
> d.	Cuban-Americans, Ms. Falk, have been quick to point fingers at Castro for exploiting the little boy. Are their actions any less reprehensible?
>  Early Show co-host Bryant Gumbel to CBS News consultant Pam Falk, April 14, 2000
Click to expand...



Tell us how that influenced you in any way to believe it.
Again, how is ANYONE influenced by media WHEN THEY DO NOT READ IT OR WATCH IT?
Bryant Gumbel, Katie Couric and The New York Times may be your best source for information but as a professional purveryor of information and the analysis of it they do not make my cut.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Gadawg73 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The uninformed quote and watch Katie Couric.
> I operate three corporations and could care less what talking head media say.
> You obviously follow her closely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thanksgiving Day, November 1999, five year old Elian Gonzalez was one of three survivors fleeing Castros Cuba. Included in the deaths of the sinking boat were Elians mother and her boyfriend. Miami relatives took the boy in.* For the liberal press, it was an opportunity to demonstrate absolute feasance to the wishes of this Communist dictator. *And the Clinton administration proved abundantly willing to permit Castro to control events in America:
> 
> a.	The media made it clear that the Cuban-American community in Miami was nothing but extremists and fanatics. "Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans."
> -- Headline over April 11 New York Times story.
> 
> b.	"Some suggested over the weekend that its wrong to expect Elian Gonzalez to live in a place that tolerates no dissent or freedom of political expression. They were talking about Miami NBCs Katie Couric opening the April 3 Today.
> 
> c.	In Miami, its impossible to overestimate how everything here is colored by a hatred of communism and Fidel Castro. Its a community with very little tolerance for those who might disagree.
>  ABC correspondent John Quinones on World News Tonight, April 4, 2000
> 
> d.	Cuban-Americans, Ms. Falk, have been quick to point fingers at Castro for exploiting the little boy. Are their actions any less reprehensible?
>  Early Show co-host Bryant Gumbel to CBS News consultant Pam Falk, April 14, 2000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how that influenced you in any way to believe it.
> Again, how is ANYONE influenced by media WHEN THEY DO NOT READ IT OR WATCH IT?
> Bryant Gumbel, Katie Couric and The New York Times may be your best source for information but as a professional purveryor of information and the analysis of it they do not make my cut.
Click to expand...


How about we stick to the subject and continue you prove what an ass you are.

The press toed the Lefts anti-Vietnam line.

a.	NYTimes Harrison Salisbury traveled to North Vietnam in 1966-67, and *reported that the US was deliberately targeting the civilian *population. But Guenter Lewy, in America in Vietnam, revealed that Only after the articles had appeared did a small number of persons learn that *Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda *and the New York Times printed it as though Salisbury had established it himself with his own on-the-scene reportingborrowed extensively from a North Vietnamese propaganda pamphlet, Report on US War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City Lewy, p. 400-401

b.	One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations. Linda Ellerbee, commentator for ABC and CBS, made the following joke: These *boat people* "Why would any Vietnamese come to America *after what America did for Vietnam?* Don't they remember My Lai, napalm, Sylvester Stallone? Clearly they have no more sense over there, than say, Mexicans who keep trying to get into this country even though this country stole large parts of their country from them in the first place." Best of Notable Quotables 1991 -- Media Research Center

c.	 And the *LATimes urged the cutoff of funds to the Lon Nol government "for the good of the suffering Cambodian people.*.."Peter Rodman, More Precious Than Peace: Fighting and Winning the Cold War in the Third World, p.186.

d.	*NYTimes Sydney Schanberg, wrote this*, published on the front page April 13, 1975: for the ordinary people of Indochinait is difficult to imagine how their *lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone*. So, communist victory was nothing to dread.

e.	"it would be *tendentious to forecast [genocide] as a national policy under a Communist government *once the war is over." A year later, Mr. Schanberg was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, though not for tendentiousness. Stephens: From WikiLeaks to the Killing Fields - WSJ.com


Still want to contend that the press isn't Leftist?
Or...throw in the towel, Dullard.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zoom said:


> I was under the impression Fox was the number one rated station out there.  IF so, here is a question.  Are they left leaning?



They are slightly left in news reporting, slightly right in commentary.

They don't change the tilt overall, given the dozens of sources that are openly run by the DNC, such as the NY Times, Washington Post, the source of all news by forum lefties - Comedy Central, ABCBSMSNBC, et al. 

Fox is the #1 CABLE news source, but the far left NY Times still controls the news America gets, including what Fox reports.


----------



## Uncensored2008

NYcarbineer said:


> This is just standard rightwing poisoning of the well.  Proclaim propublica a tool of the left, and then summarily dismiss any work they do as biased.



Propublica is a far left propaganda source. 

This is just a matter of fact.


----------



## Gadawg73

PoliticalChic said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Left Controls the Media*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument will only have validity if Fox News is somehow silenced.
> 
> Come back to me when this happens and we will discuss the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, it would seem to be more efficacious to discuss same with someone who has knowledge of the subject.
> 
> Second, are you aware of the the numbers of viewers of broadband vs. cable?
> 
> If the three nightly network newscast audiences in November 2003 were combined, a total of 29.3 million viewers, it would be more than 12 times the prime time audience for cable, 2.4 million viewers, during the same period.
> Cable Audience | State of the Media same period.
> 
> So, your post kind of falls apart right there, huh?
> 
> Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...


Under your logic if every media source that you view that offers their political perspective as conservative now all of a sudden went on air today on broadband and stated:
"All of us were wrong on all of our conservative opinions since we started. We know that the liberal position was right all along"
And you would then change your opinion IMMEDIATELY, become a liberal and go lock step with their opinions and bias.
That is what you claim, that the liberal bias of current media AFFECTS those that view it and make them liberals.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> *The Left Controls the Media*


"We have the media now." 
- Ann Coulter to Brent Bozell on the 7/26/2005 Sean Hannity Show


----------



## Gadawg73

PoliticalChic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thanksgiving Day, November 1999, five year old Elian Gonzalez was one of three survivors fleeing Castros Cuba. Included in the deaths of the sinking boat were Elians mother and her boyfriend. Miami relatives took the boy in.* For the liberal press, it was an opportunity to demonstrate absolute feasance to the wishes of this Communist dictator. *And the Clinton administration proved abundantly willing to permit Castro to control events in America:
> 
> a.	The media made it clear that the Cuban-American community in Miami was nothing but extremists and fanatics. "Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans."
> -- Headline over April 11 New York Times story.
> 
> b.	"Some suggested over the weekend that its wrong to expect Elian Gonzalez to live in a place that tolerates no dissent or freedom of political expression. They were talking about Miami NBCs Katie Couric opening the April 3 Today.
> 
> c.	In Miami, its impossible to overestimate how everything here is colored by a hatred of communism and Fidel Castro. Its a community with very little tolerance for those who might disagree.
>  ABC correspondent John Quinones on World News Tonight, April 4, 2000
> 
> d.	Cuban-Americans, Ms. Falk, have been quick to point fingers at Castro for exploiting the little boy. Are their actions any less reprehensible?
>  Early Show co-host Bryant Gumbel to CBS News consultant Pam Falk, April 14, 2000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how that influenced you in any way to believe it.
> Again, how is ANYONE influenced by media WHEN THEY DO NOT READ IT OR WATCH IT?
> Bryant Gumbel, Katie Couric and The New York Times may be your best source for information but as a professional purveryor of information and the analysis of it they do not make my cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we stick to the subject and continue you prove what an ass you are.
> 
> The press toed the Lefts anti-Vietnam line.
> 
> a.	NYTimes Harrison Salisbury traveled to North Vietnam in 1966-67, and *reported that the US was deliberately targeting the civilian *population. But Guenter Lewy, in America in Vietnam, revealed that Only after the articles had appeared did a small number of persons learn that *Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda *and the New York Times printed it as though Salisbury had established it himself with his own on-the-scene reportingborrowed extensively from a North Vietnamese propaganda pamphlet, Report on US War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City Lewy, p. 400-401
> 
> b.	One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations. Linda Ellerbee, commentator for ABC and CBS, made the following joke: These *boat people* "Why would any Vietnamese come to America *after what America did for Vietnam?* Don't they remember My Lai, napalm, Sylvester Stallone? Clearly they have no more sense over there, than say, Mexicans who keep trying to get into this country even though this country stole large parts of their country from them in the first place." Best of Notable Quotables 1991 -- Media Research Center
> 
> c.	 And the *LATimes urged the cutoff of funds to the Lon Nol government "for the good of the suffering Cambodian people.*.."Peter Rodman, More Precious Than Peace: Fighting and Winning the Cold War in the Third World, p.186.
> 
> d.	*NYTimes Sydney Schanberg, wrote this*, published on the front page April 13, 1975: for the ordinary people of Indochinait is difficult to imagine how their *lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone*. So, communist victory was nothing to dread.
> 
> e.	"it would be *tendentious to forecast [genocide] as a national policy under a Communist government *once the war is over." A year later, Mr. Schanberg was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, though not for tendentiousness. Stephens: From WikiLeaks to the Killing Fields - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> Still want to contend that the press isn't Leftist?
> Or...throw in the towel, Dullard.
Click to expand...



I am proud to be a ass. 
Where did I ever claim the left was not majority left?
You are a dumb ass.


----------



## Gadawg73

I just read _A Christmas Carol _by Dickens again for about the 20th time.
Accordingly, I am now biased and sending checks to the needy. Message me with your names and addresses and how much you need.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gadawg73 said:


> Under your logic if every media source that you view that offers their political perspective as conservative now all of a sudden went on air today on broadband and stated:
> "All of us were wrong on all of our conservative opinions since we started. We know that the liberal position was right all along"
> And you would then change your opinion IMMEDIATELY, become a liberal and go lock step with their opinions and bias.
> That is what you claim, that the liberal bias of current media AFFECTS those that view it and make them liberals.



If presentation had no effect on the reader/viewer, if only hard fact were considered, then no one would ever buy a Macintosh computer. But we know that hype, spin, and packaging are often more important than facts and reality, thus Macs sell and the media shapes opinions.


----------



## Trajan

midcan5 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are partly right in that liberals will not name each other as liberal generally as,  they know that only 21% of the country IDs themselves as such. so they avoid it.
> 
> Only 40% of the country IDs as con. yet they use it with such preponderance compared to the term liberal, you would think thats who makes up the country as a large majority,  let alone they use it derisively which is also the point as well.
> They have figured out that 79% of the country is not what they are , 60% isn't what cons are, so they just use con., kind of unfair isn't it? They are supposed to be objective.
> 
> and of course that begs another comment- so, liberals are to shy to make know their ideology and affiliation? Why?
> 
> and of course you just answered my question,  in that yes there is a bias on that issue,  thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice that you can give assent to your reply but you realize that is a sign of hubris or insanity, take your pick.
> 
> *Still not a single example of leftist MSM, none. Given your assumptions that should have been easy, but you know too what they say of assumptions. I actually saw something on MSM this past weekend which would classify partly as leftist in my definition of the concept. Anyone know what it was?*
> 
> As for the words conservative or liberal, you are removing them from the discussion by relying on surveys rather than behaviors. If I were to define conservative as supporting America, working hard, succeeding economically, raising first rate children, being married forever, buying American, paying all my taxes, voting, then I am conservative. But you see conservative in terms of its negatives: anti all sorts of things including government and personal freedom and rights. Most people when asked the question today define it through my behavioral definition rather than the political partisanship you seem to represent. I think asking the question isn't relevant outside of context, and context doesn't exist in these surveys. Consider the low rating of the tea party and Christian right as examples of American sentiment.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/199539-tea-party-sinking-fast.html
> 
> Liberal is a four letter word today and your use of it with MSM is a demonstration of that fact. You seem to miss that obvious connection completely. When PC or others call MSM liberal they are only engaging in rhetoric and not thought. MSM is corporate owned, operated, and supported, it cannot by its very nature be anything but boring pablum.
> 
> Please note that I have never shied away from the use of liberal.
> 
> "Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls
Click to expand...



1) meandering  gobbledygook thats all over the place, try and focus please, 
2)  it appears to me either you barely glanced at my answer or just chose to ignore it, see no. 1 
3)  I told you why they don't use liberal,  yes it is not a popular phrase /term outside the 79% of the country that doesn't feel the way they do, there I said it again, and I told you why they refrain from using it....... 
4) you are repeating yourself. 

you have been provided with an example across every medium of the media. its not a secret, left of center orgs have  acknowledged the identity disparity. 

I was apparently right, it was to tough for you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Gadawg73 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how that influenced you in any way to believe it.
> Again, how is ANYONE influenced by media WHEN THEY DO NOT READ IT OR WATCH IT?
> Bryant Gumbel, Katie Couric and The New York Times may be your best source for information but as a professional purveryor of information and the analysis of it they do not make my cut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we stick to the subject and continue you prove what an ass you are.
> 
> The press toed the Lefts anti-Vietnam line.
> 
> a.	NYTimes Harrison Salisbury traveled to North Vietnam in 1966-67, and *reported that the US was deliberately targeting the civilian *population. But Guenter Lewy, in America in Vietnam, revealed that Only after the articles had appeared did a small number of persons learn that *Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda *and the New York Times printed it as though Salisbury had established it himself with his own on-the-scene reportingborrowed extensively from a North Vietnamese propaganda pamphlet, Report on US War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City Lewy, p. 400-401
> 
> b.	One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations. Linda Ellerbee, commentator for ABC and CBS, made the following joke: These *boat people* "Why would any Vietnamese come to America *after what America did for Vietnam?* Don't they remember My Lai, napalm, Sylvester Stallone? Clearly they have no more sense over there, than say, Mexicans who keep trying to get into this country even though this country stole large parts of their country from them in the first place." Best of Notable Quotables 1991 -- Media Research Center
> 
> c.	 And the *LATimes urged the cutoff of funds to the Lon Nol government "for the good of the suffering Cambodian people.*.."Peter Rodman, More Precious Than Peace: Fighting and Winning the Cold War in the Third World, p.186.
> 
> d.	*NYTimes Sydney Schanberg, wrote this*, published on the front page April 13, 1975: for the ordinary people of Indochinait is difficult to imagine how their *lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone*. So, communist victory was nothing to dread.
> 
> e.	"it would be *tendentious to forecast [genocide] as a national policy under a Communist government *once the war is over." A year later, Mr. Schanberg was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, though not for tendentiousness. Stephens: From WikiLeaks to the Killing Fields - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> Still want to contend that the press isn't Leftist?
> Or...throw in the towel, Dullard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud to be a ass.
> Where did I ever claim the left was not majority left?
> You are a dumb ass.
Click to expand...

1. I assume that you are contending that the media is majority leftist.

2. Clearly, this change in your position is due to the spanking that I've 
been forced to administer.

3. How do I prove that?
This is your post #103...
"Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
And media gives it's customers what they want."

This nation is a center-right nation, with exit polls regularly 
collecting data of 40% conservative vs. 20% liberal.

Thus, viewers, rather than controlling the media, are subject to their 
Leftist views.

4. Your dishonest attempt to change and fabricate information-nor is
this the first time you've done so- is the reason
why my contempt for you is immaculate.

5. Have a Merry Christmas, and use that time to think about
mending your ways.


----------



## daveman

Bfgrn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know PC, as I continue to read your dire attempts to do what conservatives do and have always done; create some form of an aristocracy, I can't help thinking that your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man&#8212;the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, And nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
> Me
> 
> 
> 
> No, you CAN'T annoint Obama as king.  The Constitution which you hold in such contempt won't allow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to anoint Obama king. I am not a right wing authoritarian follower, and Obama is not George W. Bush...
Click to expand...

Nonsense.  You desperately want to be a subject of government.

Me, I'm a citizen.  The government works for me...not the other way around, the way you want it.


Bfgrn said:


> Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking."
> George W. Bush



"You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -- Barack Obama

"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff." -- Barack Obama


----------



## Bfgrn

daveman said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you CAN'T annoint Obama as king.  The Constitution which you hold in such contempt won't allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to anoint Obama king. I am not a right wing authoritarian follower, and Obama is not George W. Bush...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.  You desperately want to be a subject of government.
> 
> Me, I'm a citizen.  The government works for me...not the other way around, the way you want it.
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking."
> George W. Bush
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -- Barack Obama
> 
> "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff." -- Barack Obama
Click to expand...


Oh yea, I talked to thousands of you 'citizens' when Bush was in office...there was not a PEEP about less government, debts, deficits, or overreaching government. No mention of the 'Constitution' when the Patriot Act was passed. And I see how you 'citizens' wrap your arms tightly around little despots like Scott Walker, Rick Scott and other right wing governors. And never a PEEP when government wants to invade your body fluids. You TRUST government then, don't you?


----------



## Gadawg73

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under your logic if every media source that you view that offers their political perspective as conservative now all of a sudden went on air today on broadband and stated:
> "All of us were wrong on all of our conservative opinions since we started. We know that the liberal position was right all along"
> And you would then change your opinion IMMEDIATELY, become a liberal and go lock step with their opinions and bias.
> That is what you claim, that the liberal bias of current media AFFECTS those that view it and make them liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If presentation had no effect on the reader/viewer, if only hard fact were considered, then no one would ever buy a Macintosh computer. But we know that hype, spin, and packaging are often more important than facts and reality, thus Macs sell and the media shapes opinions.
Click to expand...


Never said it had no effect. 
Most Americans know shit from shinola but of course pro wrasslin is Exhibit A how mass media hype is believed by many a fool
Just like many a fool believe Obama is .a Kenyan secret agent and not born in Hawaii.
Hype, spin and packaging gave us Bush II and Obama so I agree with your premise.
However, those folks were sold before the marketing.
Media NEWS and opinion of the news has little effect to CHANGE ones' opinion. No one watches the news and hears a talking head talk up a politician that is from the OTHER party they are from and WALLAH, change parties.
That shit simply does not happen.
Media is controlled by THE VIEWERS be they liberal, conservative or the majority, INDEPENDENT.
Note: MOST MEDIA has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, ideology or agendas.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gadawg73 said:


> Never said it had no effect.
> Most Americans know shit from shinola but of course pro wrasslin is Exhibit A how mass media hype is believed by many a fool
> Just like many a fool believe Obama is .a Kenyan secret agent and not born in Hawaii.
> Hype, spin and packaging gave us Bush II and Obama so I agree with your premise.
> However, those folks were sold before the marketing.
> Media NEWS and opinion of the news has little effect to CHANGE ones' opinion. No one watches the news and hears a talking head talk up a politician that is from the OTHER party they are from and WALLAH, change parties.
> That shit simply does not happen.
> Media is controlled by THE VIEWERS be they liberal, conservative or the majority, INDEPENDENT.
> Note: MOST MEDIA has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, ideology or agendas.



Really?

So people are just sort of born with an opinion, and it never changes?

I mean, it's not like Oprah was spending hours a day touting Obama as the savior of man kind to the mindless fools who drooled over her show each day - or if she was, she had no influence on them (as her advertisers would attest..)

ROFL

Dude, drop the shit. Most of the American people are sheep led around by a cynical media, believing every bit of crap these clowns tell them. Yes, the flat-out propaganda by the leftist media DOES form the opinions of the the viewers, particularly in the case of television.


----------



## daveman

Bfgrn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to anoint Obama king. I am not a right wing authoritarian follower, and Obama is not George W. Bush...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  You desperately want to be a subject of government.
> 
> Me, I'm a citizen.  The government works for me...not the other way around, the way you want it.
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking."
> George W. Bush
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -- Barack Obama
> 
> "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff." -- Barack Obama
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yea, I talked to thousands of you 'citizens' when Bush was in office...there was not a PEEP about less government, debts, deficits, or overreaching government. No mention of the 'Constitution' when the Patriot Act was passed. And I see how you 'citizens' wrap your arms tightly around little despots like Scott Walker, Rick Scott and other right wing governors. And never a PEEP when government wants to invade your body fluids. You TRUST government then, don't you?
Click to expand...

Odd.  I heard plenty of criticism from the right about all those issues.

Perhaps you're just lying.  

Say, have you signed the petition to put Obama's likeness on Mount Rushmore?  How many times?


----------



## Gadawg73

PoliticalChic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we stick to the subject and continue you prove what an ass you are.
> 
> The press toed the Lefts anti-Vietnam line.
> 
> a.	NYTimes Harrison Salisbury traveled to North Vietnam in 1966-67, and *reported that the US was deliberately targeting the civilian *population. But Guenter Lewy, in America in Vietnam, revealed that Only after the articles had appeared did a small number of persons learn that *Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda *and the New York Times printed it as though Salisbury had established it himself with his own on-the-scene reportingborrowed extensively from a North Vietnamese propaganda pamphlet, Report on US War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City Lewy, p. 400-401
> 
> b.	One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations. Linda Ellerbee, commentator for ABC and CBS, made the following joke: These *boat people* "Why would any Vietnamese come to America *after what America did for Vietnam?* Don't they remember My Lai, napalm, Sylvester Stallone? Clearly they have no more sense over there, than say, Mexicans who keep trying to get into this country even though this country stole large parts of their country from them in the first place." Best of Notable Quotables 1991 -- Media Research Center
> 
> c.	 And the *LATimes urged the cutoff of funds to the Lon Nol government "for the good of the suffering Cambodian people.*.."Peter Rodman, More Precious Than Peace: Fighting and Winning the Cold War in the Third World, p.186.
> 
> d.	*NYTimes Sydney Schanberg, wrote this*, published on the front page April 13, 1975: for the ordinary people of Indochinait is difficult to imagine how their *lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone*. So, communist victory was nothing to dread.
> 
> e.	"it would be *tendentious to forecast [genocide] as a national policy under a Communist government *once the war is over." A year later, Mr. Schanberg was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, though not for tendentiousness. Stephens: From WikiLeaks to the Killing Fields - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> Still want to contend that the press isn't Leftist?
> Or...throw in the towel, Dullard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud to be a ass.
> Where did I ever claim the left was not majority left?
> You are a dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I assume that you are contending that the media is majority leftist.
> 
> 2. Clearly, this change in your position is due to the spanking that I've
> been forced to administer.
> 
> 3. How do I prove that?
> This is your post #103...
> "Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
> ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
> And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
> And media gives it's customers what they want."
> 
> This nation is a center-right nation, with exit polls regularly
> collecting data of 40% conservative vs. 20% liberal.
> 
> Thus, viewers, rather than controlling the media, are subject to their
> Leftist views.
> 
> 4. Your dishonest attempt to change and fabricate information-nor is
> this the first time you've done so- is the reason
> why my contempt for you is immaculate.
> 
> 5. Have a Merry Christmas, and use that time to think about
> mending your ways.
Click to expand...


Never changed my opinion of the media or you.
One is left and the other is a blow hard.
Media goes after RATINGS and gets paid accordingly. Why do you think Rush, Sean, Glenn and my favorite Neal Boortz get paid the big bucks?
A little lesson for you as you have no clue how economics work:
The more people that listen or watch them the MORE MONEY THEY MAKE. 
Why is that? Because the sponsors, THE FOLKS THAT KEEP MEDIA IN BUSINESS, pay based on ratings.
Polls are for dumbasses like you. Those of us that have to provide facts for jury trials as a living know that registered voters are a little more Democratic than Republican with the majority of the voters as independent.
77% of American adults are registered to vote. 31% are Democrats and 29% are Republicans.
I know facts are an area you shy away from and avoid but those are REGISTERED voters. 
Since I am responding to you I will give you a hand and do the math:
31 + 29 = 60%.
Your contempt is the only thing about you that is immaculate. Those of us that have been beat up, shot at and left for dead do not sweat the small stuff like you do.
I am sure you attempts at feminine charm may work at times in your neck of the woods as there are many a desperate man around these days. However, I have seen your kind before and no matter how hard any man could try, a turd can never be polished.
And a Merry Christmas to you also. I am headed to Cozumel. Someone has to do it and it might as well be ME.


----------



## Gadawg73

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it had no effect.
> Most Americans know shit from shinola but of course pro wrasslin is Exhibit A how mass media hype is believed by many a fool
> Just like many a fool believe Obama is .a Kenyan secret agent and not born in Hawaii.
> Hype, spin and packaging gave us Bush II and Obama so I agree with your premise.
> However, those folks were sold before the marketing.
> Media NEWS and opinion of the news has little effect to CHANGE ones' opinion. No one watches the news and hears a talking head talk up a politician that is from the OTHER party they are from and WALLAH, change parties.
> That shit simply does not happen.
> Media is controlled by THE VIEWERS be they liberal, conservative or the majority, INDEPENDENT.
> Note: MOST MEDIA has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, ideology or agendas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So people are just sort of born with an opinion, and it never changes?
> 
> I mean, it's not like Oprah was spending hours a day touting Obama as the savior of man kind to the mindless fools who drooled over her show each day - or if she was, she had no influence on them (as her advertisers would attest..)
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Dude, drop the shit. Most of the American people are sheep led around by a cynical media, believing every bit of crap these clowns tell them. Yes, the flat-out propaganda by the leftist media DOES form the opinions of the the viewers, particularly in the case of television.
Click to expand...


Weak attempt at a come back.
Your side states media CHANGES voters.
To date you have provided NOTHING to prove that. 
All you offer is the "influence" argument which I clearly stated 100009 times I agreed with.
So you would change your vote and political party  based on media. At least you admit and I admire your honesty.

I have dropped the shit. The last time I saw something like your post, I flushed it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Gadawg73 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud to be a ass.
> Where did I ever claim the left was not majority left?
> You are a dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I assume that you are contending that the media is majority leftist.
> 
> 2. Clearly, this change in your position is due to the spanking that I've
> been forced to administer.
> 
> 3. How do I prove that?
> This is your post #103...
> "Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
> ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
> And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
> And media gives it's customers what they want."
> 
> This nation is a center-right nation, with exit polls regularly
> collecting data of 40% conservative vs. 20% liberal.
> 
> Thus, viewers, rather than controlling the media, are subject to their
> Leftist views.
> 
> 4. Your dishonest attempt to change and fabricate information-nor is
> this the first time you've done so- is the reason
> why my contempt for you is immaculate.
> 
> 5. Have a Merry Christmas, and use that time to think about
> mending your ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never changed my opinion of the media or you.
> One is left and the other is a blow hard.
> Media goes after RATINGS and gets paid accordingly. Why do you think Rush, Sean, Glenn and my favorite Neal Boortz get paid the big bucks?
> A little lesson for you as you have no clue how economics work:
> The more people that listen or watch them the MORE MONEY THEY MAKE.
> Why is that? Because the sponsors, THE FOLKS THAT KEEP MEDIA IN BUSINESS, pay based on ratings.
> Polls are for dumbasses like you. Those of us that have to provide facts for jury trials as a living know that registered voters are a little more Democratic than Republican with the majority of the voters as independent.
> 77% of American adults are registered to vote. 31% are Democrats and 29% are Republicans.
> I know facts are an area you shy away from and avoid but those are REGISTERED voters.
> Since I am responding to you I will give you a hand and do the math:
> 31 + 29 = 60%.
> Your contempt is the only thing about you that is immaculate. Those of us that have been beat up, shot at and left for dead do not sweat the small stuff like you do.
> I am sure you attempts at feminine charm may work at times in your neck of the woods as there are many a desperate man around these days. However, I have seen your kind before and no matter how hard any man could try, a turd can never be polished.
> And a Merry Christmas to you also. I am headed to Cozumel. Someone has to do it and it might as well be ME.
Click to expand...


Oooo......
Angry, huh?

That must mean that I've skewered you.

My work here is done.


----------



## Gadawg73

PoliticalChic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I assume that you are contending that the media is majority leftist.
> 
> 2. Clearly, this change in your position is due to the spanking that I've
> been forced to administer.
> 
> 3. How do I prove that?
> This is your post #103...
> "Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
> ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
> And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
> And media gives it's customers what they want."
> 
> This nation is a center-right nation, with exit polls regularly
> collecting data of 40% conservative vs. 20% liberal.
> 
> Thus, viewers, rather than controlling the media, are subject to their
> Leftist views.
> 
> 4. Your dishonest attempt to change and fabricate information-nor is
> this the first time you've done so- is the reason
> why my contempt for you is immaculate.
> 
> 5. Have a Merry Christmas, and use that time to think about
> mending your ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never changed my opinion of the media or you.
> One is left and the other is a blow hard.
> Media goes after RATINGS and gets paid accordingly. Why do you think Rush, Sean, Glenn and my favorite Neal Boortz get paid the big bucks?
> A little lesson for you as you have no clue how economics work:
> The more people that listen or watch them the MORE MONEY THEY MAKE.
> Why is that? Because the sponsors, THE FOLKS THAT KEEP MEDIA IN BUSINESS, pay based on ratings.
> Polls are for dumbasses like you. Those of us that have to provide facts for jury trials as a living know that registered voters are a little more Democratic than Republican with the majority of the voters as independent.
> 77% of American adults are registered to vote. 31% are Democrats and 29% are Republicans.
> I know facts are an area you shy away from and avoid but those are REGISTERED voters.
> Since I am responding to you I will give you a hand and do the math:
> 31 + 29 = 60%.
> Your contempt is the only thing about you that is immaculate. Those of us that have been beat up, shot at and left for dead do not sweat the small stuff like you do.
> I am sure you attempts at feminine charm may work at times in your neck of the woods as there are many a desperate man around these days. However, I have seen your kind before and no matter how hard any man could try, a turd can never be polished.
> And a Merry Christmas to you also. I am headed to Cozumel. Someone has to do it and it might as well be ME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooo......
> Angry, huh?
> 
> That must mean that I've skewered you.
> 
> My work here is done.
Click to expand...


I am having fun. You remind me of 5 year old T ball. There is no score so the little goobers make it up. 
Who is the sponsor of your imaginary score board? Depends.
Got to go. The Cougar P Baron is fueled.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Left Controls the Media*
> 
> 
> 
> "We have the media now."
> - Ann Coulter to Brent Bozell on the 7/26/2005 Sean Hannity Show
Click to expand...

PC has cut and run.

That must mean that I've made you eat your programmer's words and you do not like the taste.

My work here is done.


----------



## daveman

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/potus-has-coffee-with-progressive-media-stars/
Those there included the Washington Posts Ezra Klein and Greg Sargent, MSNBC anchors Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Hayes, the Nations editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, the New York Times Frank Bruni, and stars of the interwebs Arianna Huffington, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress and Joy Reid of The Reid Report.
-Jake Tapper​
Getting the marching orders.


----------



## xotoxi

PoliticalChic said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Left Controls the Media*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument will only have validity if Fox News is somehow silenced.
> 
> Come back to me when this happens and we will discuss the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, it would seem to be more efficacious to discuss same with someone who has knowledge of the subject.
> 
> Second, are you aware of the the numbers of viewers of broadband vs. cable?
> 
> If the three nightly network newscast audiences in November 2003 were combined, a total of 29.3 million viewers, it would be more than 12 times the prime time audience for cable, 2.4 million viewers, during the same period.
> Cable Audience | State of the Media same period.
> 
> So, your post kind of falls apart right there, huh?
> 
> Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...


November 2003...hmmm...

Merry Christmas to you and yours.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gadawg73 said:


> Weak attempt at a come back.
> Your side states media CHANGES voters.



There is no question of that. No way someone with the politics of Barack Obama gets in office without a media campaign to market him and his radical views as mainstream. Few other than Oprah could pull it off. 



> To date you have provided NOTHING to prove that.



You're just not paying attention.

Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> All you offer is the "influence" argument which I clearly stated 100009 times I agreed with.
> So you would change your vote and political party  based on media. At least you admit and I admire your honesty.



I'm a Libertarian, which is to say contrarian.  Still, I'm influenced by what I read and hear. 



> I have dropped the shit. The last time I saw something like your post, I flushed it.



Yeah, but not until you ate it and passed it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Left Controls the Media*
> 
> 
> 
> "We have the media now."
> - Ann Coulter to Brent Bozell on the 7/26/2005 Sean Hannity Show
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PC has cut and run.
> 
> That must mean that I've made you eat your programmer's words and you do not like the taste.
> 
> My work here is done.
Click to expand...



"Imitation is the sincerest of flattery." 
Charles Caleb Colton, Lacon, volume I, no. 183


----------



## midcan5

Re: Still no examples of that leftist MSM the right requires so they can anguish over imaginary foes and ignore real issues. Attempts do not constitute proof. 

Katie Couric - Healthcare reform in America is bad? I think most humans viewing our system of debt, and bankruptcy, along with millions uninsured would consider that the humane thing to do. *I do not find bias in sensible reform measures - that for me is how life should be worked, we try and try some more. Giving up is not in the American spirit.*

Elian Gonzalez had a father who wanted to care for him, any parent would understand this is not political - enough said.

Vietnam grew out of the fear of communism, it grew out of the domino theory of fear and was created by cold war hysteria, honest reporting on the consequences of American involvement does not constitute leftist propaganda. No one was praising North Vietnam communism. South Vietnam was corrupt, it is corrupt as Afghanistan is today. Is calling something what it is somehow wrong? History changed attitudes due to the Draft and the deaths of fifty six thousand Americans. MSM followed the lead of the protesting Americans who were tired of death and deception. If the draft existed today attitudes towards Iraq and Afghanistan would be different. The Arab Spring should demonstrate that nations need to change from within and power will always fight change.

Propublica is not MSM and from a casual view not very leftist IMHO but they do appear fair. I need to check it out more. 

Forty years of bashing the word 'liberal' has worked and proven beyond any doubt that MSM cannot be liberal, aka leftist in the minds of some. *Consider that even Eisenhower called his administration 'progressive' and you have to give corporate and conservative think tanks great credit.* Together they have brain washed so many that the obvious becomes the invisible. When MSM media presents the real conditions of poverty in America, of working Americans, of Corporate malfeasance, our crumbling infrastructure, our sad inner city educational system, and our deplorable healthcare system in honest ways, I will change to calling MSM fair and liberal in the sense of change and moving forward, leftist as I would define it, they will never be.

And to the one responder who continues in a self referential circle with no real answer, proof may exist in your head, but please recognize, it stops there. 

"President Eisenhower describes his administration's political philosophy as 'dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive, dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive moderation,' then as 'moderate progressivism,' and then as 'positive progressivism.'"  William Manchester, 'The Glory and the Dream'


----------



## Gadawg73

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weak attempt at a come back.
> Your side states media CHANGES voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question of that. No way someone with the politics of Barack Obama gets in office without a media campaign to market him and his radical views as mainstream. Few other than Oprah could pull it off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To date you have provided NOTHING to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just not paying attention.
> 
> Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you offer is the "influence" argument which I clearly stated 100009 times I agreed with.
> So you would change your vote and political party  based on media. At least you admit and I admire your honesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a Libertarian, which is to say contrarian.  Still, I'm influenced by what I read and hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have dropped the shit. The last time I saw something like your post, I flushed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but not until you ate it and passed it.
Click to expand...


I am also Libertarian.
 Have to admit that in my business over the last 30 years dealing with lawyers I had to eat a lot.
But all is good now as life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you make the less shit you have to eat.


----------



## Gadawg73

I grew up with a Marine Colonel that was a combat vet WWII turned English college Professor and leaned liberal. Most of the folks I grew up with were liberals. I read a lot of stuff and included is left wing material.
I am not a liberal.


----------



## edthecynic

"Don't believe the right-wing ideologues when they tell you the left still controls the media agenda. It does not any longer. It's a fact."
- Bill O'Reilly July 27, 2005 Talking Points


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> "Don't believe the right-wing ideologues when they tell you the left still controls the media agenda. It does not any longer. It's a fact."
> - Bill O'Reilly July 27, 2005 Talking Points


Funny how you believe that from him, but not anything else.


----------



## rdean

Hilarious.

If the left controlled the media, we never would have been tricked into invading Iraq.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't believe the right-wing ideologues when they tell you the left still controls the media agenda. It does not any longer. It's a fact."
> - Bill O'Reilly July 27, 2005 Talking Points
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you believe that from him, but not anything else.
Click to expand...

"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, the New Yorker, 5/22/95


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gadawg73 said:


> I grew up with a Marine Colonel that was a combat vet WWII turned English college Professor and leaned liberal. Most of the folks I grew up with were liberals. I read a lot of stuff and included is left wing material.
> I am not a liberal.



Do you view yourself as the typical American?


----------



## edthecynic

"There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media]. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
- Rich Bond,  chair of the Republican Party, 1992


----------



## Uncensored2008

edthecynic said:


> "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media]. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
> - Rich Bond,  chair of the Republican Party, 1992



Yep, nothing biased about our media...







You Obamabot fascists are fucking geniuses!


----------



## Uncensored2008

"...If you say that this is how our culture is and then you send your child to a Swiss boarding school. You know, this is what happens with communism. It's a great concept. On paper it makes perfect sense." - Whoppi Goldberg on "The View."


No bias there....


----------



## Uncensored2008

{, former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw warned that a "class war" could develop unless "income inequality" is addressed. Brokaw:

They've landed on something that I think resonates with a lot of people, and that's the one percent versus 99 percent. Most people, the overwhelming majority obviously, are in the 99 percent. And there is that great concern about income inequality in this country.



In the course of the last three weeks, I've been all over America, 19 cities altogether. And I've had a lot of high-income people come to me and say we really do have to do something about income inequality because that could trigger a class war in this country. And the consequences are not very pretty to contemplate.}

Can you say "Obamabot?"


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> "Don't believe the right-wing ideologues when they tell you the left still controls the media agenda. It does not any longer. It's a fact."
> - Bill O'Reilly July 27, 2005 Talking Points



Then there was the proof of media bias for Obama when the JournoList scandal showed hundreds of journalists conspiring to minimize negative publicity surrounding Obamas radical ties.  Klein, "Red Army."

a.	Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage. urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obamas relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obamas conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares  and call them racists. Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright | The Daily Caller


----------



## PoliticalChic

rdean said:


> Hilarious.
> 
> If the left controlled the media, we never would have been tricked into invading Iraq.



*Networks *portray Obama as a taxcutter. From the 2010 report: Obama also signed a $65-billion tax hike into law. Up to $4.2 trillion more in tax increases will hit taxpayers starting January 1. Yet, when the networks talked about tax cuts, *ABC, CBS and NBC *have portrayed Obama as a tax cutter more than four times as often as they talked about him raising taxes. Those potential tax increases are almost 20 times the size of the $214 billion temporary tax cuts Obama included in the stimulus bill. Tax cutter? Hardly.  Obama the Tax Cutter: A Network Fairy Tale: Executive Summary

a.	In a typical network example, NBCs John Yang credited the president with significant tax cuts when he lauded Obamas successful passage of the enormous stimulus bill that was *more than 70 percent spending *and less than 30 percent tax relief, saying: Obama hasnt been in office even four weeks yet and hes already won passage of the biggest spending increase and tax cut bill in history. NBC Nightly News went on to *depict Obama as a tax cutter 14 times as often as they discussed his tax increases*. Ibid.

b.	When journalists did consult economists, they went to liberals like administration officials Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag and left-wing groups like Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center *more than 4 times as often (38 to 9).*Ibid.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> If the left controlled the media, we never would have been tricked into invading Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Networks *portray Obama as a taxcutter. From the 2010 report: Obama also signed a $65-billion tax hike into law.* Up to $4.2 trillion more in tax increases* will hit taxpayers starting January 1. Yet, when the networks talked about tax cuts, *ABC, CBS and NBC *have portrayed Obama as a tax cutter more than four times as often as they talked about him raising taxes. *Those potential tax increases* are almost 20 times the size of the $214 billion temporary tax cuts Obama included in the stimulus bill. Tax cutter? Hardly.  Obama the Tax Cutter: A Network Fairy Tale: Executive Summary
> 
> a.    In a typical network example, NBCs John Yang credited the president with significant tax cuts when he lauded Obamas successful passage of the enormous stimulus bill that was *more than 70 percent spending *and less than* 30 percent tax relief*, saying: Obama hasnt been in office even four weeks yet and hes already won passage of the biggest spending increase and tax cut bill in history. NBC Nightly News went on to *depict Obama as a tax cutter 14 times as often as they discussed his tax increases*. Ibid.
> 
> b.    When journalists did consult economists, they went to liberals like administration officials Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag and left-wing groups like Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center *more than 4 times as often (38 to 9).*Ibid.
Click to expand...

Brent Bozo's MRC  Now you are really desperate! 

"Potential" tax increases that never happened should have been "reported" as tax increases that did happen for media to not be Liberal. 

"Spending" increases should have been "reported" as tax increases for the media to not be Liberal.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't believe the right-wing ideologues when they tell you the left still controls the media agenda. It does not any longer. It's a fact."
> - Bill O'Reilly July 27, 2005 Talking Points
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you believe that from him, but not anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
> William Kristol, the New Yorker, 5/22/95
Click to expand...

No quotes from Rush?


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> If the left controlled the media, we never would have been tricked into invading Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Networks *portray Obama as a taxcutter. From the 2010 report: Obama also signed a $65-billion tax hike into law.* Up to $4.2 trillion more in tax increases* will hit taxpayers starting January 1. Yet, when the networks talked about tax cuts, *ABC, CBS and NBC *have portrayed Obama as a tax cutter more than four times as often as they talked about him raising taxes. *Those potential tax increases* are almost 20 times the size of the $214 billion temporary tax cuts Obama included in the stimulus bill. Tax cutter? Hardly.  Obama the Tax Cutter: A Network Fairy Tale: Executive Summary
> 
> a.    In a typical network example, NBCs John Yang credited the president with significant tax cuts when he lauded Obamas successful passage of the enormous stimulus bill that was *more than 70 percent spending *and less than* 30 percent tax relief*, saying: Obama hasnt been in office even four weeks yet and hes already won passage of the biggest spending increase and tax cut bill in history. NBC Nightly News went on to *depict Obama as a tax cutter 14 times as often as they discussed his tax increases*. Ibid.
> 
> b.    When journalists did consult economists, they went to liberals like administration officials Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag and left-wing groups like Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center *more than 4 times as often (38 to 9).*Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brent Bozo's MRC  Now you are really desperate!
> 
> "Potential" tax increases that never happened should have been "reported" as tax increases that did happen for media to not be Liberal.
> 
> "Spending" increases should have been "reported" as tax increases for the media to not be Liberal.
Click to expand...


John-david Morgan, a lobbyist and spokesman for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1, was *caught on tape bragging about how his union works with local news outlets to push stories *that make Republican Gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker look bad. 

Morgan had no idea that the person he was talking to outside a Milwaukee bar was a Walker campaign aide with an iPhone voice recorder app.
Breitbart.tv » FLASHBACK: SEIU Brags About Local Media


----------



## midcan5

Reading the conservative, republican(?), libertarian, replies is telling. It would be too easy to find other quotes from media people that present another point of view. If you agree or disagree with the quote, it does not follow that MSM is whatever you've come to believe it is. It only shows you're not thinking. Has anyone watched 'the five' on fox? You could easily pull comments from that show that are downright off the wall? So then does that prove MSM is off the wall? If you ever watch the show note how many strawman statements are used.

But consider that if MSM were liberal or leftist and they presented an in depth review of labor practices at say Walmart, how long do you think Walmart would support them? Don't worry the story wouldn't even pass the editors or production desk. Anyone can think of lots of examples. It is only after the public mood has changed that any MSM network will touch the controversial. Consider outsourcing at the major corporations - ever see anything on that called leftist MSM? No? Wonder why? 

I will say 'Vanguard' on Current TV often appears fair and covers tough topics. I consider them fair, but many would call them liberal in today's America. Watch their show on 'Two Americas' as an example of well done reporting on reality and not just words.

Two Americas // Current TV


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Networks *portray Obama as a taxcutter. From the 2010 report: Obama also signed a $65-billion tax hike into law.* Up to $4.2 trillion more in tax increases* will hit taxpayers starting January 1. Yet, when the networks talked about tax cuts, *ABC, CBS and NBC *have portrayed Obama as a tax cutter more than four times as often as they talked about him raising taxes. *Those potential tax increases* are almost 20 times the size of the $214 billion temporary tax cuts Obama included in the stimulus bill. Tax cutter? Hardly.  Obama the Tax Cutter: A Network Fairy Tale: Executive Summary
> 
> a.    In a typical network example, NBCs John Yang credited the president with significant tax cuts when he lauded Obamas successful passage of the enormous stimulus bill that was *more than 70 percent spending *and less than* 30 percent tax relief*, saying: Obama hasnt been in office even four weeks yet and hes already won passage of the biggest spending increase and tax cut bill in history. NBC Nightly News went on to *depict Obama as a tax cutter 14 times as often as they discussed his tax increases*. Ibid.
> 
> b.    When journalists did consult economists, they went to liberals like administration officials Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag and left-wing groups like Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center *more than 4 times as often (38 to 9).*Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> Brent Bozo's MRC  Now you are really desperate!
> 
> "Potential" tax increases that never happened should have been "reported" as tax increases that did happen for media to not be Liberal.
> 
> "Spending" increases should have been "reported" as tax increases for the media to not be Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John-david Morgan, a lobbyist and spokesman for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1, was *caught on tape bragging about how his union works with local news outlets to push stories *that make Republican Gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker look bad.
> 
> Morgan had no idea that the person he was talking to outside a Milwaukee bar was a Walker campaign aide with an iPhone voice recorder app.
> Breitbart.tv » FLASHBACK: SEIU Brags About Local Media
Click to expand...

If it's BigotBarf, you know it's faked.
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## Gadawg73

I counted 11 TV Jesus freak telethon "God commands you to send us cash, the Bentley needs fuel" shows on the tube today.
All controlled by liberal media I am sure.
You folks are about as naive and gullible as they come. 
Anyone that owns their own corporations, has been a conservative for 40 years and has an advertising budget knows that media is controlled by SPONSORS. 
They do anything I tell them to.
What you morons speak of are the miniscule fraction of media that GIVES THEIR OPINION yet claims they are "reporting the news".
LOL, talking heads do not report the news. They offer their opinions.
Anyone that bases their political beliefs on what a talking head media geek says is a God Damn Fool.
But that has already been proven here. Goldwater conservatives do not bow and kiss the feet of Sean, Rush, Glenn and and all the others like you folks do.
One has only to look at the popularity of Ron Paul in Iowa to know that the current GOP is as dysfunctional as it gets. Paul endorsed and supported Cynthia McKinney in the 2004 election!
Thank God for Mitt Romney. He will be the next President.
And you knuckleheads will claim liberal media elected him.


----------



## Gadawg73

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> If the left controlled the media, we never would have been tricked into invading Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Networks *portray Obama as a taxcutter. From the 2010 report: Obama also signed a $65-billion tax hike into law. Up to $4.2 trillion more in tax increases will hit taxpayers starting January 1. Yet, when the networks talked about tax cuts, *ABC, CBS and NBC *have portrayed Obama as a tax cutter more than four times as often as they talked about him raising taxes. Those potential tax increases are almost 20 times the size of the $214 billion temporary tax cuts Obama included in the stimulus bill. Tax cutter? Hardly.  Obama the Tax Cutter: A Network Fairy Tale: Executive Summary
> 
> a.	In a typical network example, NBCs John Yang credited the president with significant tax cuts when he lauded Obamas successful passage of the enormous stimulus bill that was *more than 70 percent spending *and less than 30 percent tax relief, saying: Obama hasnt been in office even four weeks yet and hes already won passage of the biggest spending increase and tax cut bill in history. NBC Nightly News went on to *depict Obama as a tax cutter 14 times as often as they discussed his tax increases*. Ibid.
> 
> b.	When journalists did consult economists, they went to liberals like administration officials Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag and left-wing groups like Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center *more than 4 times as often (38 to 9).*Ibid.
Click to expand...


I am sure The Brookings Institute's numerous articles in support of George Bush's foreign policy were "left wing".
The Institute has numerous Republicans on their board including the chief of staff for Ronald Reagan. They partner with numerous business universities. 
Those of us with that background know there is NO liberal or left leaning in MBA programs. 
I doubt you have ever read a damn thing they have offered. 
Those that claim to be conservative should know better. 
We demand more than the parroting of stale irrelevant cut and paste clips which is all you ever have to offer.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> If the left controlled the media, we never would have been tricked into invading Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Networks *portray Obama as a taxcutter. From the 2010 report: Obama also signed a $65-billion tax hike into law. Up to $4.2 trillion more in tax increases will hit taxpayers starting January 1. Yet, when the networks talked about tax cuts, *ABC, CBS and NBC *have portrayed Obama as a tax cutter more than four times as often as they talked about him raising taxes. Those potential tax increases are almost 20 times the size of the $214 billion temporary tax cuts Obama included in the stimulus bill. Tax cutter? Hardly.  Obama the Tax Cutter: A Network Fairy Tale: Executive Summary
> 
> a.	In a typical network example, NBCs John Yang credited the president with significant tax cuts when he lauded Obamas successful passage of the enormous stimulus bill that was *more than 70 percent spending *and less than 30 percent tax relief, saying: Obama hasnt been in office even four weeks yet and hes already won passage of the biggest spending increase and tax cut bill in history. NBC Nightly News went on to *depict Obama as a tax cutter 14 times as often as they discussed his tax increases*. Ibid.
> 
> b.	When journalists did consult economists, they went to liberals like administration officials Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag and left-wing groups like Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center *more than 4 times as often (38 to 9).*Ibid.
Click to expand...


Does the irony escape you that your post above uses the Business and Media Institute as its information source?

*The Business & Media Institute (BMI) was founded in 1992 as the Free Market Project by the conservative media watchdog group Media Research Center whose President is L.Brent Bozell. *

Please don't tell us you can't see the laugh out loud irony of that.


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> If the left controlled the media, we never would have been tricked into invading Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Networks *portray Obama as a taxcutter. From the 2010 report: &#8220;Obama also signed a $65-billion tax hike into law. Up to $4.2 trillion more in tax increases will hit taxpayers starting January 1. Yet, when the networks talked about tax cuts, *ABC, CBS and NBC *have portrayed Obama as a tax cutter more than four times as often as they talked about him raising taxes. Those potential tax increases are almost 20 times the size of the $214 billion temporary tax cuts Obama included in the stimulus bill. Tax cutter? Hardly.&#8221;  Obama the Tax Cutter: A Network Fairy Tale: Executive Summary
> 
> a.	In a typical network example, NBC&#8217;s John Yang credited the president with significant tax cuts when he lauded Obama&#8217;s successful passage of the enormous stimulus bill that was *more than 70 percent spending *and less than 30 percent tax relief, saying: &#8220;Obama hasn&#8217;t been in office even four weeks yet and he&#8217;s already won passage of the biggest spending increase and tax cut bill in history.&#8221; NBC &#8220;Nightly News&#8221; went on to *depict Obama as a tax cutter 14 times as often as they discussed his tax increases*. Ibid.
> 
> b.	When journalists did consult economists, they went to liberals like administration officials Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag and left-wing groups like Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center *more than 4 times as often (38 to 9).*Ibid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the irony escape you that your post above uses the Business and Media Institute as its information source?
> 
> *The Business & Media Institute (BMI) was founded in 1992 as the Free Market Project by the conservative media watchdog group Media Research Center whose President is L.Brent Bozell. *
> 
> Please don't tell us you can't see the laugh out loud irony of that.
Click to expand...


you can always take it upon yourself to  disprove their assertions or facts. facts as in the medias use of the pejorative con vs. liberal  labeling which I have already described. 

Their assertions are to that the  combined throw weight of the media submerges con outlets, by a huge margin, there fore this provides a platform that is overwhelming, and I won't even count the day time shows the view, good  morning America etc etc etc ....the TV' entertainment' programming. 


And what makes that fact important is;  each on of us,  you me all of us employ bias.  we seek out and extend from ourselves what we perceive or feel is 'right' in every context and medium. 

The newsrooms, media depts. etc etc etc . of that media  have a combined pop. that is over 85% self identifying left of center/liberal. 

Fox is slanted, no doubt about it,  and so to are the rest. it really is that simple.


----------



## Gadawg73

Where has anyone stated anywhere that the media is not biased?
You folks keep coming back with that time and time and time again.
Because your claim was that the the left CONTROLS ALL media.
Which you can not prove. 
Media is controlled BY THE CONSUMER. 
You wannabe conservatives read more liberal media than conservative as evidenced by the repetitive cut and paste posts you copy here.


----------



## Gadawg73

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Networks *portray Obama as a taxcutter. From the 2010 report: Obama also signed a $65-billion tax hike into law. Up to $4.2 trillion more in tax increases will hit taxpayers starting January 1. Yet, when the networks talked about tax cuts, *ABC, CBS and NBC *have portrayed Obama as a tax cutter more than four times as often as they talked about him raising taxes. Those potential tax increases are almost 20 times the size of the $214 billion temporary tax cuts Obama included in the stimulus bill. Tax cutter? Hardly.  Obama the Tax Cutter: A Network Fairy Tale: Executive Summary
> 
> a.	In a typical network example, NBCs John Yang credited the president with significant tax cuts when he lauded Obamas successful passage of the enormous stimulus bill that was *more than 70 percent spending *and less than 30 percent tax relief, saying: Obama hasnt been in office even four weeks yet and hes already won passage of the biggest spending increase and tax cut bill in history. NBC Nightly News went on to *depict Obama as a tax cutter 14 times as often as they discussed his tax increases*. Ibid.
> 
> b.	When journalists did consult economists, they went to liberals like administration officials Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag and left-wing groups like Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center *more than 4 times as often (38 to 9).*Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the irony escape you that your post above uses the Business and Media Institute as its information source?
> 
> *The Business & Media Institute (BMI) was founded in 1992 as the Free Market Project by the conservative media watchdog group Media Research Center whose President is L.Brent Bozell. *
> 
> Please don't tell us you can't see the laugh out loud irony of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can always take it upon yourself to  disprove their assertions or facts. facts as in the medias use of the pejorative con vs. liberal  labeling which I have already described.
> 
> Their assertions are to that the  combined throw weight of the media submerges con outlets, by a huge margin, there fore this provides a platform that is overwhelming, and I won't even count the day time shows the view, good  morning America etc etc etc ....the TV' entertainment' programming.
> 
> 
> And what makes that fact important is;  each on of us,  you me all of us employ bias.  we seek out and extend from ourselves what we perceive or feel is 'right' in every context and medium.
> 
> The newsrooms, media depts. etc etc etc . of that media  have a combined pop. that is over 85% self identifying left of center/liberal.
> 
> Fox is slanted, no doubt about it,  and so to are the rest. it really is that simple.
Click to expand...


I agree with most of that. Slanted means biased but that is NOT CONTROL.
The claim is that the left CONTROLS MEDIA.
And that is bull shit.


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> This is just standard rightwing poisoning of the well.  Proclaim propublica a tool of the left, and then summarily dismiss any work they do as biased.



"Poisoning the well" must be a liberal euphemism meaning to expose propaganda. "The well" is already pretty foul because it's just a vast geyser of horseshit.


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.



Obviously not, because otherwise MSNBC would be trying to appeal to conservatives instead of just liberals.


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives claiming to be victims of media bias is one of the oldest examples of victimology in the modern era.




The Nazis said similar things about the Jews and so did Stalin about the Kulaks.


----------



## daveman

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just standard rightwing poisoning of the well.  Proclaim propublica a tool of the left, and then summarily dismiss any work they do as biased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Poisoning the well" mus be a liberal euphemism meaning to expost propaganda. The well is already pretty foul because it's just a vast geyser of horseshit.
Click to expand...

If leftists didn't re-define words, they couldn't make an argument at all.


----------



## bripat9643

daveman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just standard rightwing poisoning of the well.  Proclaim propublica a tool of the left, and then summarily dismiss any work they do as biased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Poisoning the well" mus be a liberal euphemism meaning to expost propaganda. The well is already pretty foul because it's just a vast geyser of horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If leftists didn't re-define words, they couldn't make an argument at all.
Click to expand...


Notice all the outright lying and obfuscation these turds resort to when their scams are exposed.

Libs will never admit the MSM is just one vast propaganda organ. Propaganda doesn't work when its targets know they are being fed horseshit.


----------



## bripat9643

Gadawg73 said:


> I am also Libertarian.
> Have to admit that in my business over the last 30 years dealing with lawyers I had to eat a lot.
> But all is good now as life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you make the less shit you have to eat.



You're about as libertarian as Pol Pot.


----------



## bripat9643

Gadawg73 said:


> I grew up with a Marine Colonel that was a combat vet WWII turned English college Professor and leaned liberal. Most of the folks I grew up with were liberals. I read a lot of stuff and included is left wing material.
> I am not a liberal.



You walk like a duck, talk like a duck and look like a duck.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> Oh yea, I talked to thousands of you 'citizens' when Bush was in office...there was not a PEEP about less government, debts, deficits, or overreaching government. No mention of the 'Constitution' when the Patriot Act was passed. And I see how you 'citizens' wrap your arms tightly around little despots like Scott Walker, Rick Scott and other right wing governors. And never a PEEP when government wants to invade your body fluids. You TRUST government then, don't you?



Yeah, sure you did.  Do you ever post anything that's not a complete 100% sleazy lie?


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression Fox was the number one rated station out there. IF so, here is a question. Are they left leaning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis of your question?
> 
> Certainly, not logic.
> 
> Did you believe "Fox was the number one rated" = "left leaning"?
> 
> No, Fox is "Fair and Balanced," as well as "number one rated."
> 
> In point of fact Fox hires more Liberals than the other cables hire conservatives.
> 
> Alan Colmes
> Susan Estrich
> Bob Beckel
> Juan Williams -FAIL
> Mara Laiason-FAIL
> Mort Kondrache-FAIL
> *Kirsten Powers*
> Shepard Smith
> Pat Caddell-FAIL: hasn't been a Democrat since the late 1970s. Was a Perot advisor.
> Greta Van Sustren (defended Clinton)-FAIL
> Geraldo Rivera
> *Leslie Marshall*
> Lanny Davis-FAIL: Lawyer who defends tyrants in Africa.
> *Ellis Henican*
> Ed Henry-FAIL: Rightwinger
> *Marc Lamont Hill*
> *Professor Caroline Heldman*
> Representative Martin Frost- FAIL: Center-Right Democrat
> *Nina Easton*
> Judy Miller-FAIL: Neo-Con
> Evan Bayh-FAIL: Center-Right Democrat
> Joe Trippi
> *Joey Jackson*
> *Alicia Menendez*
> *Juan Hernandez*
> A.B.Stoddard FAIL: she appears on MSNBC and CNN, also
> *Lis Wiehl*
> *Kimberly Guilfoyle*
> John Roberts FAIL
> *Rick Folbaum*
Click to expand...

 

All the bolded are complete nobodies who no one gives a shit about.


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Pro-Republican News Media*
> 
> The concept of the Liberal Media is a myth  and has always been a myth.
> The various news media are clearly and unmistakably Pro-Republican.
> 
> *Only twice since 1932 have a majority of newspapers endorsed the Democratic candidate *
> 
> The Pro-Republican News Media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really? so if msnbc went to a cons slant,  their viewership would not grow? Or say, CBS?
Click to expand...

No.  Why would they want to migrate to a smaller potential viewership pool?


----------



## daveman

bripat9643 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Poisoning the well" mus be a liberal euphemism meaning to expost propaganda. The well is already pretty foul because it's just a vast geyser of horseshit.
> 
> 
> 
> If leftists didn't re-define words, they couldn't make an argument at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice all the outright lying and obfuscation these turds resort to when their scams are exposed.
> 
> Libs will never admit the MSM is just one vast propaganda organ. Propaganda doesn't work when its targets know they are being fed horseshit.
Click to expand...

That's why they have their utter hatred for Fox News.  The proles are being exposed to dangerous unapproved thought.  

Progressivism can't succeed when people have information.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression Fox was the number one rated station out there. IF so, here is a question. Are they left leaning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis of your question?
> 
> Certainly, not logic.
> 
> Did you believe "Fox was the number one rated" = "left leaning"?
> 
> No, Fox is "Fair and Balanced," as well as "number one rated."
> 
> In point of fact Fox hires more Liberals than the other cables hire conservatives.
> 
> Alan Colmes
> Susan Estrich
> Bob Beckel
> Juan Williams -FAIL
> Mara Laiason-FAIL
> Mort Kondrache-FAIL
> *Kirsten Powers*
> Shepard Smith
> Pat Caddell-FAIL: hasn't been a Democrat since the late 1970s. Was a Perot advisor.
> Greta Van Sustren (defended Clinton)-FAIL
> Geraldo Rivera
> *Leslie Marshall*
> Lanny Davis-FAIL: Lawyer who defends tyrants in Africa.
> *Ellis Henican*
> Ed Henry-FAIL: Rightwinger
> *Marc Lamont Hill*
> *Professor Caroline Heldman*
> Representative Martin Frost- FAIL: Center-Right Democrat
> *Nina Easton*
> Judy Miller-FAIL: Neo-Con
> Evan Bayh-FAIL: Center-Right Democrat
> Joe Trippi
> *Joey Jackson*
> *Alicia Menendez*
> *Juan Hernandez*
> A.B.Stoddard FAIL: she appears on MSNBC and CNN, also
> *Lis Wiehl*
> *Kimberly Guilfoyle*
> John Roberts FAIL
> *Rick Folbaum*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All the bolded are complete nobodies who no one gives a shit about.
Click to expand...

TRANSLATION:  "Yes, I acknowledge they are liberal, but I'm desperate to downplay their significance due to my irrational hatred for Fox."


----------



## Synthaholic

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did my post graduate work in education, what is your expertise based on your post graduate work? What are the soft squishy subjects, if you know that they are soft, squishy, you must have a firsthand knowledge of them?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize it, but you prove my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no answer.
Click to expand...

 

Correct.  And since he has no answer, he will now play a game of making believe that he has already said or proven something, and you're just not smart enough to get it.

Typical daveman troll-job.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize it, but you prove my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving my thesis:  "Educated" and "intelligent" are not synonymous.
Click to expand...

Like clockwork!


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> POTUS has Coffee with Progressive Media Stars - ABC News
> Those there included the Washington Posts Ezra Klein and Greg Sargent, MSNBC anchors Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Hayes, the Nations editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, the New York Times Frank Bruni, and stars of the interwebs Arianna Huffington, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress and Joy Reid of The Reid Report.
> -Jake Tapper​


And what is wrong with that? He has yet to give an interview to any of those people, yet he's done two with O'Reilly and at least one with Chris Wallace.

And where was your outrage over this?



*Obama Dines With Conservative Journalists*


President-elect *Barack Obama *made an unscheduled stop this evening to attend a dinner party at the Washington, D.C. area home of conservative columnist *George Will*.

A press pool photographer also spied fellow conservatives *William Kristol *of The Weekly Standard and *David Brooks *of the New York Times. A spokesman for Obama was also in attendance; a full guest list was not made public. 


​Oh, that's right: you didn't have any. Hack.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize it, but you prove my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  And since he has no answer, he will now play a game of making believe that he has already said or proven something, and you're just not smart enough to get it.
> 
> Typical daveman troll-job.
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to keep telling you?  "Troll" does NOT mean "someone who hurts my widdle feewings".


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my thesis:  "Educated" and "intelligent" are not synonymous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like clockwork!
Click to expand...

If you'd like to make the case that they are synonymous, go ahead, but fair warning -- you will fail.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> POTUS has Coffee with Progressive Media Stars - ABC News
> Those there included the Washington Posts Ezra Klein and Greg Sargent, MSNBC anchors Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Hayes, the Nations editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, the New York Times Frank Bruni, and stars of the interwebs Arianna Huffington, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress and Joy Reid of The Reid Report.
> -Jake Tapper​
> 
> 
> 
> And what is wrong with that? He has yet to give an interview to any of those people, yet he's done two with O'Reilly and at least one with Chris Wallace.
> 
> And where was your outrage over this?
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama Dines With Conservative Journalists*
> 
> 
> President-elect *Barack Obama *made an unscheduled stop this evening to attend a dinner party at the Washington, D.C. area home of conservative columnist *George Will*.
> 
> A press pool photographer also spied fellow conservatives *William Kristol *of The Weekly Standard and *David Brooks *of the New York Times. A spokesman for Obama was also in attendance; a full guest list was not made public.
> 
> 
> ​Oh, that's right: you didn't have any. Hack.
Click to expand...

Of course I wasn't outraged over that...just as I'm not outraged over the leftist ass-kiss-a-thon Obama had with his cheerleaders.  

Not everyone operates solely on emotion like you leftists.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> POTUS has Coffee with Progressive Media Stars - ABC News
> Those there included the Washington Posts Ezra Klein and Greg Sargent, MSNBC anchors Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Hayes, the Nations editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, the New York Times Frank Bruni, and stars of the interwebs Arianna Huffington, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress and Joy Reid of The Reid Report.
> -Jake Tapper​
> 
> 
> 
> And what is wrong with that? He has yet to give an interview to any of those people, yet he's done two with O'Reilly and at least one with Chris Wallace.
> 
> And where was your outrage over this?
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama Dines With Conservative Journalists*
> 
> 
> President-elect *Barack Obama *made an unscheduled stop this evening to attend a dinner party at the Washington, D.C. area home of conservative columnist *George Will*.
> 
> A press pool photographer also spied fellow conservatives *William Kristol *of The Weekly Standard and *David Brooks *of the New York Times. A spokesman for Obama was also in attendance; a full guest list was not made public.
> 
> 
> ​Oh, that's right: you didn't have any. Hack.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I wasn't outraged over that...just as I'm not outraged over the leftist ass-kiss-a-thon Obama had with his cheerleaders.
> 
> Not everyone operates solely on emotion like you leftists.
Click to expand...

Then what was your point in posting it?

Oh, that's right:  you are a mindless hack.


----------



## Gadawg73

bripat9643 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up with a Marine Colonel that was a combat vet WWII turned English college Professor and leaned liberal. Most of the folks I grew up with were liberals. I read a lot of stuff and included is left wing material.
> I am not a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You walk like a duck, talk like a duck and look like a duck.
Click to expand...


Very funny lad. 
Now try and come up with some facts for a change.
But also include the fairy tales. You are a riot!


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is wrong with that? He has yet to give an interview to any of those people, yet he's done two with O'Reilly and at least one with Chris Wallace.
> 
> And where was your outrage over this?
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama Dines With Conservative Journalists*
> 
> 
> President-elect *Barack Obama *made an unscheduled stop this evening to attend a dinner party at the Washington, D.C. area home of conservative columnist *George Will*.
> 
> A press pool photographer also spied fellow conservatives *William Kristol *of The Weekly Standard and *David Brooks *of the New York Times. A spokesman for Obama was also in attendance; a full guest list was not made public.
> 
> 
> ​Oh, that's right: you didn't have any. Hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I wasn't outraged over that...just as I'm not outraged over the leftist ass-kiss-a-thon Obama had with his cheerleaders.
> 
> Not everyone operates solely on emotion like you leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what was your point in posting it?
> 
> Oh, that's right:  you are a mindless hack.
Click to expand...

My point?  I was laughing at the lapdogs showing up to get scratched behind the ears.  Like a cocker spaniel, I bet Ed Schultz peed on the rug in ecstasy.


----------



## Gadawg73

bripat9643 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also Libertarian.
> Have to admit that in my business over the last 30 years dealing with lawyers I had to eat a lot.
> But all is good now as life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you make the less shit you have to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're about as libertarian as Pol Pot.
Click to expand...


You do not know what a libertarian is.
Try again but keep it up. You a funny boy.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I wasn't outraged over that...just as I'm not outraged over the leftist ass-kiss-a-thon Obama had with his cheerleaders.
> 
> Not everyone operates solely on emotion like you leftists.
> 
> 
> 
> Then what was your point in posting it?
> 
> Oh, that's right:  you are a mindless hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point?  I was laughing at the lapdogs showing up to get scratched behind the ears.  Like a cocker spaniel, I bet Ed Schultz peed on the rug in ecstasy.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, you're just showing your ass again.

Carry on.


----------



## Castor

In the free market "media outlets" have the right to run as biased sources, or not.

If you don't like the bias, then don't watch.


----------



## Meister

Castor said:


> In the free market "media outlets" have the right to run as biased sources, or not.
> 
> If you don't like the bias, then don't watch.



You're right, they do have the right to be bias, but let's not pretend that there isn't any bias, right?


----------



## The T

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. And since he has no answer, he will now play a game of making believe that he has already said or proven something, and you're just not smart enough to get it.
> 
> Typical daveman troll-job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to keep telling you? "Troll" does NOT mean "someone who hurts my widdle feewings".
Click to expand...

 Clown boy feeds on projection. It's best to ignore his dumbass. Maybe he will go back to his hole and feel sorry for himself like he should.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what was your point in posting it?
> 
> Oh, that's right:  you are a mindless hack.
> 
> 
> 
> My point?  I was laughing at the lapdogs showing up to get scratched behind the ears.  Like a cocker spaniel, I bet Ed Schultz peed on the rug in ecstasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in other words, you're just showing your ass again.
> 
> Carry on.
Click to expand...

Do you _ever_ stop whining?


----------



## daveman

The T said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. And since he has no answer, he will now play a game of making believe that he has already said or proven something, and you're just not smart enough to get it.
> 
> Typical daveman troll-job.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to keep telling you? "Troll" does NOT mean "someone who hurts my widdle feewings".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clown boy feeds on projection. It's best to ignore his dumbass. Maybe he will go back to his hole and feel sorry for himself like he should.
Click to expand...

He lacks the wit to recognize his intellectual bankruptcy.  

And it's fun highlighting it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives claiming to be victims of media bias is one of the oldest examples of victimology in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nazis said similar things about the Jews and so did Stalin about the Kulaks.
Click to expand...


When did the Nazis say anything about the Jews claiming to be victims of media bias?

And why would that be relevant?  The Nazis also believed in having a huge military, just like you do.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bripat9643 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not, because otherwise MSNBC would be trying to appeal to conservatives instead of just liberals.
Click to expand...


Why shouldn't MSNBC exist as a counterbalance to Foxnews?  Foxnews has taken it upon itself to be a mouthpiece for the right and the Republican party;

Foxnews has thus created the justification for a cablenews channel to exist to politically balance cable news.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Networks *portray Obama as a taxcutter. From the 2010 report: Obama also signed a $65-billion tax hike into law. Up to $4.2 trillion more in tax increases will hit taxpayers starting January 1. Yet, when the networks talked about tax cuts, *ABC, CBS and NBC *have portrayed Obama as a tax cutter more than four times as often as they talked about him raising taxes. Those potential tax increases are almost 20 times the size of the $214 billion temporary tax cuts Obama included in the stimulus bill. Tax cutter? Hardly.  Obama the Tax Cutter: A Network Fairy Tale: Executive Summary
> 
> a.	In a typical network example, NBCs John Yang credited the president with significant tax cuts when he lauded Obamas successful passage of the enormous stimulus bill that was *more than 70 percent spending *and less than 30 percent tax relief, saying: Obama hasnt been in office even four weeks yet and hes already won passage of the biggest spending increase and tax cut bill in history. NBC Nightly News went on to *depict Obama as a tax cutter 14 times as often as they discussed his tax increases*. Ibid.
> 
> b.	When journalists did consult economists, they went to liberals like administration officials Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Budget Director Peter Orszag and left-wing groups like Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center *more than 4 times as often (38 to 9).*Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the irony escape you that your post above uses the Business and Media Institute as its information source?
> 
> *The Business & Media Institute (BMI) was founded in 1992 as the Free Market Project by the conservative media watchdog group Media Research Center whose President is L.Brent Bozell. *
> 
> Please don't tell us you can't see the laugh out loud irony of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can always take it upon yourself to  disprove their assertions or facts. facts as in the medias use of the pejorative con vs. liberal  labeling which I have already described.
> 
> Their assertions are to that the  combined throw weight of the media submerges con outlets, by a huge margin, there fore this provides a platform that is overwhelming, and I won't even count the day time shows the view, good  morning America etc etc etc ....the TV' entertainment' programming.
> 
> 
> And what makes that fact important is;  each on of us,  you me all of us employ bias.  we seek out and extend from ourselves what we perceive or feel is 'right' in every context and medium.
> 
> The newsrooms, media depts. etc etc etc . of that media  have a combined pop. that is over 85% self identifying left of center/liberal.
> 
> Fox is slanted, no doubt about it,  and so to are the rest. it really is that simple.
Click to expand...


Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,

in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.

This rightwing complaint is without merit.


----------



## konradv

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you have no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  And since he has no answer, he will now play a game of making believe that he has already said or proven something, and you're just not smart enough to get it.
> 
> Typical daveman troll-job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to keep telling you?  "Troll" does NOT mean "someone who hurts my widdle feewings".
Click to expand...


We'll have save this and bring it out when the "PC is bad" types start whining..., AGAIN!


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> If you'd like to make the case that they are synonymous, go ahead, but fair warning -- you will fail.



Syndi is just demanding that George W. Bush with an MBA meant that Bush was highly intelligent!


----------



## Meister

NYcarbineer said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the irony escape you that your post above uses the Business and Media Institute as its information source?
> 
> *The Business & Media Institute (BMI) was founded in 1992 as the Free Market Project by the conservative media watchdog group Media Research Center whose President is L.Brent Bozell. *
> 
> Please don't tell us you can't see the laugh out loud irony of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can always take it upon yourself to  disprove their assertions or facts. facts as in the medias use of the pejorative con vs. liberal  labeling which I have already described.
> 
> Their assertions are to that the  combined throw weight of the media submerges con outlets, by a huge margin, there fore this provides a platform that is overwhelming, and I won't even count the day time shows the view, good  morning America etc etc etc ....the TV' entertainment' programming.
> 
> 
> And what makes that fact important is;  each on of us,  you me all of us employ bias.  we seek out and extend from ourselves what we perceive or feel is 'right' in every context and medium.
> 
> The newsrooms, media depts. etc etc etc . of that media  have a combined pop. that is over 85% self identifying left of center/liberal.
> 
> Fox is slanted, no doubt about it,  and so to are the rest. it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
Click to expand...


But the lions share of media does lean left.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom


----------



## HoosierJoe

PoliticalChic said:


> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression Fox was the number one rated station out there.  IF so, here is a question.  Are they left leaning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis of your question?
> 
> Certainly, not logic.
> 
> Did you believe "Fox was the number one rated" = "left leaning"?
> 
> No, Fox is "Fair and Balanced," as well as "number one rated."
> 
> In point of fact Fox hires more Liberals than the other cables hire conservatives.
> 
> Alan Colmes
> Susan Estrich
> Bob Beckel
> Juan Williams
> Mara Laiason
> Mort Kondrache
> Kirsten Powers
> Shepard Smith
> Pat Caddell
> Greta Van Sustren (defended Clinton)
> Geraldo Rivera
> Leslie Marshall
> Lanny Davis
> Ellis Henican
> Ed Henry
> Marc Lamont Hill
> Professor Caroline Heldman
> Representative Martin Frost
> Nina Easton
> Judy Miller
> Evan Bayh
> Joe Trippi
> Joey Jackson
> Alicia Menendez
> Juan Hernandez
> A.B.Stoddard
> Lis Wiehl
> Kimberly Guilfoyle
> John Roberts
> Rick Folbaum
Click to expand...


Right.  Whenever you find yourself in disagreement with the left, simply use facts!


----------



## konradv

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can always take it upon yourself to  disprove their assertions or facts. facts as in the medias use of the pejorative con vs. liberal  labeling which I have already described.
> 
> Their assertions are to that the  combined throw weight of the media submerges con outlets, by a huge margin, there fore this provides a platform that is overwhelming, and I won't even count the day time shows the view, good  morning America etc etc etc ....the TV' entertainment' programming.
> 
> 
> And what makes that fact important is;  each on of us,  you me all of us employ bias.  we seek out and extend from ourselves what we perceive or feel is 'right' in every context and medium.
> 
> The newsrooms, media depts. etc etc etc . of that media  have a combined pop. that is over 85% self identifying left of center/liberal.
> 
> Fox is slanted, no doubt about it,  and so to are the rest. it really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
Click to expand...


What, are we supposed to reward the losers?  If the media leans left, it's because the right has lost the war of ideas.


----------



## Uncensored2008

NYcarbineer said:


> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,



Isn't that precisely what you of the left seek the "Hush Rush" bill, censorship of Fox and FCC control of the Web? - Because people has access to alternative views?

Sure it is!



> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.



Yet the left continues to work on censoring all of these, through the "fairness doctrine" and "net neutrality"  which crush opposition media sources.


----------



## HoosierJoe

Eventually, many media outlets will find out that liberalism does not pay.  We will see programming change over gradually.  The old guard liberal media still dominates but they are getting older.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> What, are we supposed to reward the losers?  If the media leans left, it's because the right has lost the war of ideas.



You're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag, Konnie.

{Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didnt trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox  with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.

CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didnt trust CNN. }

Poll: Fox most trusted name in news - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com


----------



## Meister

konradv said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, are we supposed to reward the losers?  If the media leans left, it's because the right has lost the war of ideas.
Click to expand...


Do you have to work at being this big of a moron, or does it come naturally?
Your war of ideas has to do with having the fucking government take care of your sorry ass at every level, is this the war of ideas you're talking about?


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, are we supposed to reward the losers?  If the media leans left, it's because the right has lost the war of ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag, Konnie.
> 
> {Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.
> 
> A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.
> 
> Thirty-seven percent said they didnt trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.
> 
> There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox  with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.
> 
> CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didnt trust CNN. }
> 
> Poll: Fox most trusted name in news - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...


We're talking intelligence and ideas, NOT polls.  You can ask all your friends and they can all say the same thing, but that doesn't make it valid.


----------



## konradv

Meister said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, are we supposed to reward the losers?  If the media leans left, it's because the right has lost the war of ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have to work at being this big of a moron, or does it come naturally?
> Your war of ideas has to do with having the fucking government take care of your sorry ass at every level, is this the war of ideas you're talking about?
Click to expand...


How does media opinion equate with my life circumstances, a topic with which you have no information whatsoever?!?!   The war of ideas I'M talking about, is the one you're losing.   It's obvious or you'd bring up some examples, instead of throwing out the typical wingnut generic charges.


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that precisely what you of the left seek the "Hush Rush" bill, censorship of Fox and FCC control of the Web? - Because people has access to alternative views?
> 
> Sure it is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the left continues to work on censoring all of these, through the "fairness doctrine" and "net neutrality"  which crush opposition media sources.
Click to expand...


If the right's ideas are so good, why does the media lean left?


----------



## Uncensored2008

HoosierJoe said:


> Eventually, many media outlets will find out that liberalism does not pay.  We will see programming change over gradually.  The old guard liberal media still dominates but they are getting older.



For 40 years, Edward Murrow ran roughshod on Television news. Even NBC and ABC bowed to the Murrow methods of literally consulting the democratic party on the presentation of important stories. 

World War II hero and singing cowboy, Gene Autry bought Los Angeles television station KTLA specifically to run an alternative to what he called "Murrow's Communist propaganda."

For a very long lime, far left programming in news reporting did pay, and was the only option. Murrow spawned such far left news readers as Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley and a host of lesser icons of the golden age of controlled news. The party directly controlled what the nation saw on the news, with rare exception by local stations. Generally, ABC+CBS+NBC = DNC, and that was what America had. Murrow is dead and cable plus the internet have broken the back of managed news. The  old players still run the same game, but now look like fools for their effort.


----------



## Gadawg73

Some of my family watched the movie JFK last night.
Now keep in mind that movie is full of lies and distortions such as the CIA had Kennedy killed and the lawyer that Costner played was not a liar and a crook.
They loved the movie but the liberal PC bias of it did not change their opinion that Oswald was the lone shooter.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> We're talking intelligence and ideas, NOT polls.



Konnie, you were talking about winners and losers, the biggest winner in news is Fox.

What, are we supposed to reward the losers?



> You can ask all your friends and they can all say the same thing, but that doesn't make it valid.



You truly are a moron, Konnie.


----------



## Meister

konradv said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, are we supposed to reward the losers?  If the media leans left, it's because the right has lost the war of ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have to work at being this big of a moron, or does it come naturally?
> Your war of ideas has to do with having the fucking government take care of your sorry ass at every level, is this the war of ideas you're talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does media opinion equate with my life circumstances, a topic with which you have no information whatsoever?!?!   The war of ideas I'M talking about, is the one you're losing.   It's obvious or you'd bring up some examples, instead of throwing out the typical wingnut generic charges.
Click to expand...


Kon....it isn't a war of ideas....it's a war on ideology.  
 This last election wasn't about a war on ideas, the right picked up those seats because of Obama's ideology of a government.  Only wingnuts would be in denial about that.  By the way, where do you stand?


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> HoosierJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually, many media outlets will find out that liberalism does not pay.  We will see programming change over gradually.  The old guard liberal media still dominates but they are getting older.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For 40 years, Edward Murrow ran roughshod on Television news. Even NBC and ABC bowed to the Murrow methods of literally consulting the democratic party on the presentation of important stories.
> 
> World War II hero and singing cowboy, Gene Autry bought Los Angeles television station KTLA specifically to run an alternative to what he called "Murrow's Communist propaganda."
> 
> For a very long lime, far left programming in news reporting did pay, and was the only option. Murrow spawned such far left news readers as Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley and a host of lesser icons of the golden age of controlled news. The party directly controlled what the nation saw on the news, with rare exception by local stations. Generally, ABC+CBS+NBC = DNC, and that was what America had. Murrow is dead and cable plus the internet have broken the back of managed news. The  old players still run the same game, but now look like fools for their effort.
Click to expand...


Like we're going to take as gospel who's a Communist from the board Nazi!!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> If the right's ideas are so good, why does the media lean left?



If the left's ideas are so good, why does the most popular and most trusted source of news lean right?

Do you think before you post? You might consider it - seriously!


----------



## konradv

Meister said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have to work at being this big of a moron, or does it come naturally?
> Your war of ideas has to do with having the fucking government take care of your sorry ass at every level, is this the war of ideas you're talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does media opinion equate with my life circumstances, a topic with which you have no information whatsoever?!?!   The war of ideas I'M talking about, is the one you're losing.   It's obvious or you'd bring up some examples, instead of throwing out the typical wingnut generic charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kon....it isn't a war of ideas....it's a war on ideology.
> This last election wasn't about a war on ideas, the right picked up those seats because of Obama's ideology of a government.  Only wingnuts would be in denial about that.  By the way, where do you stand?
Click to expand...


Stand on what?  Kind of a general question.  Be specific, I don't have all day.  "War on Ideas", "War on Ideology", To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to!


----------



## Meister

konradv said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does media opinion equate with my life circumstances, a topic with which you have no information whatsoever?!?!   The war of ideas I'M talking about, is the one you're losing.   It's obvious or you'd bring up some examples, instead of throwing out the typical wingnut generic charges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kon....it isn't a war of ideas....it's a war on ideology.
> This last election wasn't about a war on ideas, the right picked up those seats because of Obama's ideology of a government.  Only wingnuts would be in denial about that.  By the way, where do you stand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stand on what?  Kind of a general question.  Be specific, I don't have all day.  "War on Ideas", "War on Ideology", To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to!
Click to expand...


I see your not acting like a moron, you are a......


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the right's ideas are so good, why does the media lean left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the left's ideas are so good, why does the most popular and most trusted source of news lean right?
Click to expand...


I think the right usually blames it on lousy educational standards, but then they benefit from it, too!  Quite a dilemma!!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> Like we're going to take as gospel who's a Communist from the board Nazi!!!



Konnie, you have an IQ in the low 60's - so I don't blame you from not grasping what you read.

Still, it was Gene Autry who accused Murrow of spreading Communist propaganda. I will say that I trusted Autry a lot more than Murrow.


----------



## Gadawg73

Uncensored2008 said:


> HoosierJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually, many media outlets will find out that liberalism does not pay.  We will see programming change over gradually.  The old guard liberal media still dominates but they are getting older.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For 40 years, Edward Murrow ran roughshod on Television news. Even NBC and ABC bowed to the Murrow methods of literally consulting the democratic party on the presentation of important stories.
> 
> World War II hero and singing cowboy, Gene Autry bought Los Angeles television station KTLA specifically to run an alternative to what he called "Murrow's Communist propaganda."
> 
> For a very long lime, far left programming in news reporting did pay, and was the only option. Murrow spawned such far left news readers as Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley and a host of lesser icons of the golden age of controlled news. The party directly controlled what the nation saw on the news, with rare exception by local stations. Generally, ABC+CBS+NBC = DNC, and that was what America had. Murrow is dead and cable plus the internet have broken the back of managed news. The  old players still run the same game, but now look like fools for their effort.
Click to expand...


Murrow had the guts to fly on bombing raids as a reporter over Germany. He established the on site reporting crews after the invasion in Europe. He had the balls to call McCarthy a God Damned Liar for being a God Damned Liar and was willing to take the heat for doing so. For his bravery as a reporter on the front lines in WWII he was awarded as a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth. Most all other European countries gave him similar honors.
Murrow was no communist. That is bull shit. Anyone that believes so is distorting the truth.


----------



## konradv

Meister said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kon....it isn't a war of ideas....it's a war on ideology.
> This last election wasn't about a war on ideas, the right picked up those seats because of Obama's ideology of a government.  Only wingnuts would be in denial about that.  By the way, where do you stand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stand on what?  Kind of a general question.  Be specific, I don't have all day.  "War on Ideas", "War on Ideology", To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see *your *not acting like a moron, you are a......
Click to expand...


See what I mean by falling educational standards?


----------



## daveman

konradv said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  And since he has no answer, he will now play a game of making believe that he has already said or proven something, and you're just not smart enough to get it.
> 
> Typical daveman troll-job.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to keep telling you?  "Troll" does NOT mean "someone who hurts my widdle feewings".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have save this and bring it out when the "PC is bad" types start whining..., AGAIN!
Click to expand...

If you drooling idiot leftists didn't keep redefining words, we wouldn't complain about it.


----------



## daveman

Uncensored2008 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd like to make the case that they are synonymous, go ahead, but fair warning -- you will fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syndi is just demanding that George W. Bush with an MBA meant that Bush was highly intelligent!
Click to expand...

And he got higher grades in college than did Kerry.  Gore, too, I believe.  

But Synthia will insist that's different.  Somehow.  It just is.


----------



## daveman

konradv said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, are we supposed to reward the losers?  If the media leans left, it's because the right has lost the war of ideas.
Click to expand...

The left's ideas cannot survive exposure to opposition.  That's why the left seeks to silence the opposition, so they have exclusive control over what the people are exposed to.


----------



## daveman

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, are we supposed to reward the losers?  If the media leans left, it's because the right has lost the war of ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag, Konnie.
> 
> {Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.
> 
> A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.
> 
> Thirty-seven percent said they didnt trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.
> 
> There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox  with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.
> 
> CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didnt trust CNN. }
> 
> Poll: Fox most trusted name in news - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking intelligence and ideas, NOT polls.  You can ask all your friends and they can all say the same thing, but that doesn't make it valid.
Click to expand...

But you and your friends repeating the same ideas at the same time is valid?


----------



## daveman

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that precisely what you of the left seek the "Hush Rush" bill, censorship of Fox and FCC control of the Web? - Because people has access to alternative views?
> 
> Sure it is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the left continues to work on censoring all of these, through the "fairness doctrine" and "net neutrality"  which crush opposition media sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the right's ideas are so good, why does the media lean left?
Click to expand...

If the left's ideas are so good, why do they seek to mandate them by law without letting the people know what's in the bills?


----------



## daveman

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HoosierJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually, many media outlets will find out that liberalism does not pay.  We will see programming change over gradually.  The old guard liberal media still dominates but they are getting older.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For 40 years, Edward Murrow ran roughshod on Television news. Even NBC and ABC bowed to the Murrow methods of literally consulting the democratic party on the presentation of important stories.
> 
> World War II hero and singing cowboy, Gene Autry bought Los Angeles television station KTLA specifically to run an alternative to what he called "Murrow's Communist propaganda."
> 
> For a very long lime, far left programming in news reporting did pay, and was the only option. Murrow spawned such far left news readers as Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley and a host of lesser icons of the golden age of controlled news. The party directly controlled what the nation saw on the news, with rare exception by local stations. Generally, ABC+CBS+NBC = DNC, and that was what America had. Murrow is dead and cable plus the internet have broken the back of managed news. The  old players still run the same game, but now look like fools for their effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like we're going to take as gospel who's a Communist from the board Nazi!!!
Click to expand...

Nazi?  You may as well come right out and say that you got nothin'.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Uncensored2008 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that precisely what you of the left seek the "Hush Rush" bill, censorship of Fox and FCC control of the Web? - Because people has access to alternative views?
> 
> Sure it is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the left continues to work on censoring all of these, through the "fairness doctrine" and "net neutrality"  which crush opposition media sources.
Click to expand...


You're lying about my views for starters.

Do you dispute that everyone who has media access in general has access to conservative broadcasting?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can always take it upon yourself to  disprove their assertions or facts. facts as in the medias use of the pejorative con vs. liberal  labeling which I have already described.
> 
> Their assertions are to that the  combined throw weight of the media submerges con outlets, by a huge margin, there fore this provides a platform that is overwhelming, and I won't even count the day time shows the view, good  morning America etc etc etc ....the TV' entertainment' programming.
> 
> 
> And what makes that fact important is;  each on of us,  you me all of us employ bias.  we seek out and extend from ourselves what we perceive or feel is 'right' in every context and medium.
> 
> The newsrooms, media depts. etc etc etc . of that media  have a combined pop. that is over 85% self identifying left of center/liberal.
> 
> Fox is slanted, no doubt about it,  and so to are the rest. it really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
Click to expand...


What's the point if a person has access to a broad spectrum of left/right bias?


----------



## Meister

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the point if a person has access to a broad spectrum of left/right bias?
Click to expand...


Not everyone has a broad spectrum, and most do not involve themselves in politics except for a headline.  This is where the left (IMO) has the advantage....because they own the lions share of news.  I'm not bitching, but I'm stating a fact. TV and newspapers have the advantage for the left.  Radio has the advantage for the right.


----------



## Gadawg73

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point if a person has access to a broad spectrum of left/right bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not everyone has a broad spectrum, and most do not involve themselves in politics except for a headline.  This is where the left (IMO) has the advantage....because they own the lions share of news.  I'm not bitching, but I'm stating a fact. TV and newspapers have the advantage for the left.  Radio has the advantage for the right.
Click to expand...


So when Obama spends his 1.2 billion on media advertising with the full support of the left wing controlled media supporting him and he loses, how will you explain your thesis then?


----------



## Meister

Gadawg73 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point if a person has access to a broad spectrum of left/right bias?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone has a broad spectrum, and most do not involve themselves in politics except for a headline.  This is where the left (IMO) has the advantage....because they own the lions share of news.  I'm not bitching, but I'm stating a fact. TV and newspapers have the advantage for the left.  Radio has the advantage for the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when Obama spends his 1.2 billion on media advertising with the full support of the left wing controlled media supporting him and he loses, how will you explain your thesis then?
Click to expand...


So why don't you point out where my post is wrong?


----------



## Synthaholic

Meister said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone has a broad spectrum, and most do not involve themselves in politics except for a headline.  This is where the left (IMO) has the advantage....because they own the lions share of news.  I'm not bitching, but I'm stating a fact. TV and newspapers have the advantage for the left.  Radio has the advantage for the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when Obama spends his 1.2 billion on media advertising with the full support of the left wing controlled media supporting him and he loses, how will you explain your thesis then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why don't you point out where my post is wrong?
Click to expand...

Why are you dodging Gadawg's question?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point if a person has access to a broad spectrum of left/right bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not everyone has a broad spectrum, and most do not involve themselves in politics except for a headline.  This is where the left (IMO) has the advantage....because they own the lions share of news.  I'm not bitching, but I'm stating a fact. TV and newspapers have the advantage for the left.  Radio has the advantage for the right.
Click to expand...


Who?  Who can't listen to rightwing radio all day and all night, but instead has to listen to or watch something liberal?

Who has cable or satellite that doesn't have Foxnews but has CNN and MSNBC, etc.?

Who are you talking about?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can always take it upon yourself to  disprove their assertions or facts. facts as in the medias use of the pejorative con vs. liberal  labeling which I have already described.
> 
> Their assertions are to that the  combined throw weight of the media submerges con outlets, by a huge margin, there fore this provides a platform that is overwhelming, and I won't even count the day time shows the view, good  morning America etc etc etc ....the TV' entertainment' programming.
> 
> 
> And what makes that fact important is;  each on of us,  you me all of us employ bias.  we seek out and extend from ourselves what we perceive or feel is 'right' in every context and medium.
> 
> The newsrooms, media depts. etc etc etc . of that media  have a combined pop. that is over 85% self identifying left of center/liberal.
> 
> Fox is slanted, no doubt about it,  and so to are the rest. it really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
Click to expand...


I'm familiar with that 6 year old study.  I've used it before to counter the rightwing argument that PBS is liberal.

The opening lines of your link:

*While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media.*

Do you really accept as credible that study's conclusions?

1.  that the WSJ is more liberal than the NY Times?

2.  that PBS and NPR are more conservative than the rest of the mainstream media?

lol, I hope you'll step up to support me the next time we hear some clueless conservative claim that public television and radio are leftist propaganda.


----------



## HUGGY

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.	Have you seen the posts by our less informed colleagues challenging the idea that the *media is Leftist*?  Consider this story the next time you read one of those misguided individuals.
> 
> 
> 2.	New York-based *nonprofit news organization ProPublica is getting a boost from NBC, thanks to its new owner Comcast.* And New York television viewers will see more investigative stories. *a partnership with ProPublica*ProPublica, which does extensive investigative reporting and data mining, ProPublica will receive a donation from NBC, and, in return, will get a wider audience for its stories.  http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111206/MEDIA_ENTERTAINMENT/111209923
> 
> 3.	This is how deeply the Left has infiltrated every form of information disseminatonfrom* Wikipedia: ProPublica *is a non-profit corporation based in New York City. It describes itself as an *independent non-profit newsroom *that produces investigative journalism in the public interestProPublica has *partnered with more than 50 different news organizations,* ProPublica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4.	Sowho is *ProPublica? *The best comparison would be to say that NBC just agreed to take its news from the old *Pravda.*
> 
> a.	ProPublica began funded by a billionaire husband and wife team who not only spent millions campaigning for President Obama but also *topped donor lists to groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org. *On its website, Pro Publica describes itself as championing the values of the weak against the strong.
> 
> b.	The $10 million yearly grant from *Herbert and Marion Sandler,* the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, which was one of the nations largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans. Just before the financial crisis, the Sandlers in 2008 sold their business to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion. The Sandlers are major donors to the Democratic Party and are top funders of ACORN, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union and other* far-leftist groups *like Human Rights Watch.
> NBC newsroom gets fresh leftist invasion. Network teams up with
> 
> 
> 5.	Still not convinced about the *control of the media*? Perhaps these Leftists simply want to invest in *excellence in journalism*? Think again. This from the Left-leaning Slate:*Slate journalist Jack Shafer raised questions *[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...what_do_herbert_and_marion_sandler_want.html] about Pro Publica's ability to provide independent nonpartisan journalism *given the nature of Sandler's other *political donations which include "giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic Party campaigns." The concern was borne out in a vicious December 2008 attack on natural gas drilling that followed the Democrat no-American-energy agenda. Pro Publica
> 
> 6.	From the Capital Research Center: *ProPublica churns out little more than left-wing hit pieces *about Sarah Palin and blames the U.S. government for giving out too little foreign aid. http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1241117859.pdf
> 
> 
> 7.	Ohand BTW.*The Associated Press today announced a program to promote *nonprofit investigative journalism, including *articles from ProPublica*, to its members for republication. The material will be distributed to AP membersincluding essentially all of the nations leading newspapersthrough the Web-based delivery system AP Exchange . Associated Press Joins Steal Our Stories Movement - ProPublica
> 
> 8.	So, what is going on? Capital Research Center (op. cit.) explains it this way: Create a media outlet that will produce left-wing investigative hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost. *NBCAPwherever you get your news.The Left has a well-funded effort underway*.



As usual you play the idiot.  "The Media" is controlled by those corps that buy advertising and those in the media that chose who gets to buy advertising.

By all means...Let us know the next time you see a "leftist" organization sponsor a morning, daytime or prime time television or radio broadcast.

PC..you are such a gullible twat.


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the point if a person has access to a broad spectrum of left/right bias?
Click to expand...


are you  saying that the number of stations, newsrooms etc. really has no meaning, because there is fox, there is parity?


----------



## Meister

Synthaholic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when Obama spends his 1.2 billion on media advertising with the full support of the left wing controlled media supporting him and he loses, how will you explain your thesis then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you point out where my post is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you dodging Gadawg's question?
Click to expand...


I thought it was a stupid question, synth.  
People are going to vote on how they perceive our country is doing, such as unemployment, debt and also the obamacare. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, even you and gag can do it.....I'm sure you can.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point if a person has access to a broad spectrum of left/right bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you  saying that the number of stations, newsrooms etc. really has no meaning, because there is fox, there is parity?
Click to expand...


How many channels do you watch at one time?


----------



## NYcarbineer

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every American who has access to the media has access to conservative programming,
> 
> in abundance.  No one is being denied access to the remote, or the radio dial, or having their internet access filtered.
> 
> This rightwing complaint is without merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with that 6 year old study.  I've used it before to counter the rightwing argument that PBS is liberal.
> 
> The opening lines of your link:
> 
> *While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media.*
> 
> Do you really accept as credible that study's conclusions?
> 
> 1.  that the WSJ is more liberal than the NY Times?
> 
> 2.  that PBS and NPR are more conservative than the rest of the mainstream media?
> 
> lol, I hope you'll step up to support me the next time we hear some clueless conservative claim that public television and radio are leftist propaganda.
Click to expand...


I guess that study lost its charm, upon further review.


----------



## Meister

NYcarbineer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with that 6 year old study.  I've used it before to counter the rightwing argument that PBS is liberal.
> 
> The opening lines of your link:
> 
> *While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media.*
> 
> Do you really accept as credible that study's conclusions?
> 
> 1.  that the WSJ is more liberal than the NY Times?
> 
> 2.  that PBS and NPR are more conservative than the rest of the mainstream media?
> 
> lol, I hope you'll step up to support me the next time we hear some clueless conservative claim that public television and radio are leftist propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that study lost its charm, upon further review.
Click to expand...


In regards to the WSJ, please provide your proof?

If you read the entire article, you would have noted it does state the criteria for coming up with those results.  
It will take some research on your part, but I'll be waiting, carb.


----------



## Synthaholic

Meister said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you point out where my post is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you dodging Gadawg's question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was a stupid question, synth.
> *People are going to vote on how they perceive our country is doing, such as unemployment, debt and also the obamacare*. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, even you and gag can do it.....I'm sure you can.
Click to expand...



Then you are admitting that the fantasy about a Liberal Media controlling who is going to be president is false.


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point if a person has access to a broad spectrum of left/right bias?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you  saying that the number of stations, newsrooms etc. really has no meaning, because there is fox, there is parity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many channels do you watch at one time?
Click to expand...


answer please, yes, or no.


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the lions share of media does lean left.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with that 6 year old study.  I've used it before to counter the rightwing argument that PBS is liberal.
> 
> The opening lines of your link:
> 
> *While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media.*
> 
> Do you really accept as credible that study's conclusions?
> 
> 1.  that the WSJ is more liberal than the NY Times?
> 
> 2.  that PBS and NPR are more conservative than the rest of the mainstream media?
> 
> lol, I hope you'll step up to support me the next time we hear some clueless conservative claim that public television and radio are leftist propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that study lost its charm, upon further review.
Click to expand...

"Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media."

That's a comparison, not an absolute.  NPR is still liberal.


----------



## Old Rocks

Uber Liberal Ruppert Murdoch, damn him anyways.


----------



## Meister

Synthaholic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you dodging Gadawg's question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was a stupid question, synth.
> *People are going to vote on how they perceive our country is doing, such as unemployment, debt and also the obamacare*. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, even you and gag can do it.....I'm sure you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are admitting that the fantasy about a Liberal Media controlling who is going to be president is false.
Click to expand...


Where did I say anything about the liberal media controlling who is going to be president?
I stated that there is a left bias overall in the media, and backed it up.
A little comprehension goes a long ways in a discussion, synth.


----------



## Dr.Drock

rdean said:


> Hilarious.
> 
> If the left controlled the media, we never would have been tricked into invading Iraq.



And you still support Obama whenever he randomly decides to invade another nation.  


Weird


----------



## Uncensored2008

NYcarbineer said:


> You're lying about my views for starters.



I didn't say anything about your views, moron.



> Do you dispute that everyone who has media access in general has access to conservative broadcasting?



Those with cable and/or the internet have access to alternative views from the state run media.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gadawg73 said:


> So when Obama spends his 1.2 billion on media advertising with the full support of the left wing controlled media supporting him and he loses, how will you explain your thesis then?



Straw man.

If Obama still loses, it won't be due to lack of effort by the state run media. Obama presides over a train wreck. His administration is the hallmark of utter incompetence, the economy is in shambles while his cronies loot the public treasury. That he didn't step down is evidence of the power of the left-wing media to spin him in a more positive light.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Synthaholic said:


> Why are you dodging Gadawg's question?



I don't think she is dodging Gadawgs straw man at all.


----------



## PoliticalChic

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.	Have you seen the posts by our less informed colleagues challenging the idea that the *media is Leftist*?  Consider this story the next time you read one of those misguided individuals.
> 
> 
> 2.	New York-based *nonprofit news organization ProPublica is getting a boost from NBC, thanks to its new owner Comcast.* And New York television viewers will see more investigative stories. *a partnership with ProPublica*ProPublica, which does extensive investigative reporting and data mining, ProPublica will receive a donation from NBC, and, in return, will get a wider audience for its stories.  http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111206/MEDIA_ENTERTAINMENT/111209923
> 
> 3.	This is how deeply the Left has infiltrated every form of information disseminatonfrom* Wikipedia: ProPublica *is a non-profit corporation based in New York City. It describes itself as an *independent non-profit newsroom *that produces investigative journalism in the public interestProPublica has *partnered with more than 50 different news organizations,* ProPublica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4.	Sowho is *ProPublica? *The best comparison would be to say that NBC just agreed to take its news from the old *Pravda.*
> 
> a.	ProPublica began funded by a billionaire husband and wife team who not only spent millions campaigning for President Obama but also *topped donor lists to groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org. *On its website, Pro Publica describes itself as championing the values of the weak against the strong.
> 
> b.	The $10 million yearly grant from *Herbert and Marion Sandler,* the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, which was one of the nations largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans. Just before the financial crisis, the Sandlers in 2008 sold their business to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion. The Sandlers are major donors to the Democratic Party and are top funders of ACORN, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union and other* far-leftist groups *like Human Rights Watch.
> NBC newsroom gets fresh leftist invasion. Network teams up with
> 
> 
> 5.	Still not convinced about the *control of the media*? Perhaps these Leftists simply want to invest in *excellence in journalism*? Think again. This from the Left-leaning Slate:*Slate journalist Jack Shafer raised questions *[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...what_do_herbert_and_marion_sandler_want.html] about Pro Publica's ability to provide independent nonpartisan journalism *given the nature of Sandler's other *political donations which include "giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic Party campaigns." The concern was borne out in a vicious December 2008 attack on natural gas drilling that followed the Democrat no-American-energy agenda. Pro Publica
> 
> 6.	From the Capital Research Center: *ProPublica churns out little more than left-wing hit pieces *about Sarah Palin and blames the U.S. government for giving out too little foreign aid. http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1241117859.pdf
> 
> 
> 7.	Ohand BTW.*The Associated Press today announced a program to promote *nonprofit investigative journalism, including *articles from ProPublica*, to its members for republication. The material will be distributed to AP membersincluding essentially all of the nations leading newspapersthrough the Web-based delivery system AP Exchange . Associated Press Joins Steal Our Stories Movement - ProPublica
> 
> 8.	So, what is going on? Capital Research Center (op. cit.) explains it this way: Create a media outlet that will produce left-wing investigative hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost. *NBCAPwherever you get your news.The Left has a well-funded effort underway*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual you play the idiot.  "The Media" is controlled by those corps that buy advertising and those in the media that chose who gets to buy advertising.
> 
> By all means...Let us know the next time you see a "leftist" organization sponsor a morning, daytime or prime time television or radio broadcast.
> 
> PC..you are such a gullible twat.
Click to expand...


So sorry you weren't able to understand the OP, Huggy....

As an aside, it seems that in a number of your posts you aim to puff out your chest and choose what you see as a macho tone of speech....

...while I would hope that you would be a bit more circumspect, it would also help if you were to doff the pink "Hello, Kitty" back-pack.


----------



## Meister

Uncensored2008 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you dodging Gadawg's question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think she is dodging Gadawgs straw man at all.
Click to expand...


Actually, she is a he.....but thanks for being my wingman on this.


----------



## Synthaholic

Meister said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was a stupid question, synth.
> *People are going to vote on how they perceive our country is doing, such as unemployment, debt and also the obamacare*. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, even you and gag can do it.....I'm sure you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are admitting that the fantasy about a Liberal Media controlling who is going to be president is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Where did I say anything about the liberal media controlling who is going to be president?*
> I stated that there is a left bias overall in the media, and backed it up.
> A little comprehension goes a long ways in a discussion, synth.
Click to expand...


Don't you see this argument made by Rightwing posters?  I do.


----------



## Meister

Synthaholic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are admitting that the fantasy about a Liberal Media controlling who is going to be president is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Where did I say anything about the liberal media controlling who is going to be president?*
> I stated that there is a left bias overall in the media, and backed it up.
> A little comprehension goes a long ways in a discussion, synth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you see this argument made by Rightwing posters?  I do.
Click to expand...


But, you're talking to me.  Just stick to what I'm posting and there will be less confusion.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with that 6 year old study.  I've used it before to counter the rightwing argument that PBS is liberal.
> 
> The opening lines of your link:
> 
> *While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media.*
> 
> Do you really accept as credible that study's conclusions?
> 
> 1.  that the WSJ is more liberal than the NY Times?
> 
> 2.  that PBS and NPR are more conservative than the rest of the mainstream media?
> 
> lol, I hope you'll step up to support me the next time we hear some clueless conservative claim that public television and radio are leftist propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that study lost its charm, upon further review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In regards to the WSJ, please provide your proof?
> 
> If you read the entire article, you would have noted it does state the criteria for coming up with those results.
> It will take some research on your part, but I'll be waiting, carb.
Click to expand...


I quoted verbatim from your fucking link you idiot.  Do you want to see it in size 7?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you  saying that the number of stations, newsrooms etc. really has no meaning, because there is fox, there is parity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many channels do you watch at one time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> answer please, yes, or no.
Click to expand...


There is currently parity in so-called cable news channels.  The mere fact that Foxnews has a viewership that is equal to or larger than CNN and MSNBC combined (assuming you consider them the so-called lberal media in the category) is ample proof of that.


----------



## Meister

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that study lost its charm, upon further review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to the WSJ, please provide your proof?
> 
> If you read the entire article, you would have noted it does state the criteria for coming up with those results.
> It will take some research on your part, but I'll be waiting, carb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted verbatim from your fucking link you idiot.  Do you want to see it in size 7?
Click to expand...


Moron,

*Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op&#8209;Eds from their tallies.* This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx


----------



## NYcarbineer

daveman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with that 6 year old study.  I've used it before to counter the rightwing argument that PBS is liberal.
> 
> The opening lines of your link:
> 
> *While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media.*
> 
> Do you really accept as credible that study's conclusions?
> 
> 1.  that the WSJ is more liberal than the NY Times?
> 
> 2.  that PBS and NPR are more conservative than the rest of the mainstream media?
> 
> lol, I hope you'll step up to support me the next time we hear some clueless conservative claim that public television and radio are leftist propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that study lost its charm, upon further review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media."
> 
> That's a comparison, not an absolute.  NPR is still liberal.
Click to expand...


Everything from John McCain leftward is liberal to you.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to the WSJ, please provide your proof?
> 
> If you read the entire article, you would have noted it does state the criteria for coming up with those results.
> It will take some research on your part, but I'll be waiting, carb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted verbatim from your fucking link you idiot.  Do you want to see it in size 7?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moron,
> 
> *Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op&#8209;Eds from their tallies.* This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
Click to expand...


What?  How does that dispute what I said?  It merely restates what the quote said.


----------



## Meister

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted verbatim from your fucking link you idiot.  Do you want to see it in size 7?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron,
> 
> *Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op&#8209;Eds from their tallies.* This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  How does that dispute what I said?  It merely restates what the quote said.
Click to expand...

Being a moron, you wouldn't be able to understand, carb.  You couldn't comprehend what the criteria for the study was. This was for the benefit for all the other posters that aren't morons.


----------



## Flopper

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that study lost its charm, upon further review.
> 
> 
> 
> "Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media."
> 
> That's a comparison, not an absolute.  NPR is still liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything from John McCain leftward is liberal to you.
Click to expand...

Left and Right are meaningless abstractions.  Someone to my Right, may be to your Left.  Thus Right and Left are completely relative to the writer.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was a stupid question, synth.
> *People are going to vote on how they perceive our country is doing, such as unemployment, debt and also the obamacare*. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, even you and gag can do it.....I'm sure you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are admitting that the fantasy about a Liberal Media controlling who is going to be president is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about the liberal media controlling who is going to be president?
> *I stated that there is a left bias overall in the media, and backed it up.*
> A little comprehension goes a long ways in a discussion, synth.
Click to expand...

Sure, you "backed it up" all Right, with a phony contrived "study" that said Drudge leans Left!


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are admitting that the fantasy about a Liberal Media controlling who is going to be president is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about the liberal media controlling who is going to be president?
> *I stated that there is a left bias overall in the media, and backed it up.*
> A little comprehension goes a long ways in a discussion, synth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, you "backed it up" all Right, with a phony contrived "study" that said Drudge leans Left!
Click to expand...


Please don't read the study, edddiethe$ynic, you have the same problem as another poster on here.  It stated the criteria they used along with the specifics of the Drudge Report....but don't bother yourself with those details. 

PS....UCLA isn't really considered a conservative school, in fact, they are quite liberal.


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that study lost its charm, upon further review.
> 
> 
> 
> "Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media."
> 
> That's a comparison, not an absolute.  NPR is still liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything from John McCain leftward is liberal to you.
Click to expand...


Instead of making stupid assumptions and pretending you know everything (hint:  you don't), all you have to do is ask.  

Meanwhile, you made a ridiculous claim that isn't backed up by what you posted based not on reality but what you want reality to be.

Politics is relative.  For instance, to a Marxist, a socialist is a fundy rethug.  

Others think NPR is conservative.  They're really far to the left.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about the liberal media controlling who is going to be president?
> *I stated that there is a left bias overall in the media, and backed it up.*
> A little comprehension goes a long ways in a discussion, synth.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, you "backed it up" all Right, with *a phony contrived "study"* that said Drudge leans Left!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't read the study, edddiethe$ynic, you have the same problem as another poster on here.  It stated *the criteria they used* along with the specifics of the Drudge Report....but don't bother yourself with those details.
> 
> PS....UCLA isn't really considered a conservative school, in fact, they are quite liberal.
Click to expand...

It's the criteria they used that is phony and contrived to create the outcome they wanted. Saying that Drudge leans Left proves just how contrived their "criteria" really was.
Get it???

PS it is even more moronic to ASSume there are no CON$ at UCLA!!!


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many channels do you watch at one time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answer please, yes, or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is currently parity in so-called cable news channels.  The mere fact that Foxnews has a viewership that is equal to or larger than CNN and MSNBC combined (assuming you consider them the so-called lberal media in the category) is ample proof of that.
Click to expand...


uh huh. 

so there is parity or isn't there ? 



or...

you've thought it over and realize how preposterous your statement was and are now trying to back pedal....good boy, you're learning.


----------



## Trajan

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about the liberal media controlling who is going to be president?
> *I stated that there is a left bias overall in the media, and backed it up.*
> A little comprehension goes a long ways in a discussion, synth.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, you "backed it up" all Right, with a phony contrived "study" that said Drudge leans Left!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't read the study, edddiethe$ynic, you have the same problem as another poster on here.  It stated the criteria they used along with the specifics of the Drudge Report....but don't bother yourself with those details.
> 
> PS....UCLA isn't really considered a conservative school, in fact, they are quite liberal.
Click to expand...


please pardon my vulgarity but it really is the; "your shit stinks mine don't" group think. 


if you accept the premise that Fox has bias, then so to are the rest. now , me you and the logical people here realize that. 

we also realize that as fox has preponderance of cons that of course effects their views, there fore their prodcuts..... 


BUT there are folks right here,  who will tell you ( or will dance till their feet fall off when you press them) , no, that is not so,  their poopy don't stank...only ours does. 

See, liberals have this magic unicorn that distributes objectivity amongst them, that is denied to Cons...Ergo;  libs are sweetness and light, sensible, objective, they report right down the middle of the road, Cons? they cannot help themselves.


----------



## Trajan

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, you "backed it up" all Right, with *a phony contrived "study"* that said Drudge leans Left!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't read the study, edddiethe$ynic, you have the same problem as another poster on here.  It stated *the criteria they used* along with the specifics of the Drudge Report....but don't bother yourself with those details.
> 
> PS....UCLA isn't really considered a conservative school, in fact, they are quite liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the criteria they used that is phony and contrived to create the outcome they wanted. Saying that Drudge leans Left proves just how contrived their "criteria" really was.
> Get it???
> 
> PS it is even more moronic to ASSume there are no CON$ at UCLA!!!
Click to expand...


well, thats always possible. please describe and provide some examples that lead to the contrived or jigged results they wished to validate...thank you in advance.


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, you "backed it up" all Right, with *a phony contrived "study"* that said Drudge leans Left!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't read the study, edddiethe$ynic, you have the same problem as another poster on here.  It stated *the criteria they used* along with the specifics of the Drudge Report....but don't bother yourself with those details.
> 
> PS....UCLA isn't really considered a conservative school, in fact, they are quite liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the criteria they used that is phony and contrived to create the outcome they wanted. Saying that Drudge leans Left proves just how contrived their "criteria" really was.
> Get it???
> 
> PS it is even more moronic to ASSume there are no CON$ at UCLA!!!
Click to expand...


Once you get away from rushbo, you really have nothing, huh? 
Most of the Drudge Report's articles are straight from msm, doofus.
'His' reports are right leaning, but most of his stuff he gets from the left leaning msm. 
It really is pathetic that you just can't read the article...I know it was small type and there wasn't pictures or cartoons, but......


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't read the study, edddiethe$ynic, you have the same problem as another poster on here.  It stated *the criteria they used* along with the specifics of the Drudge Report....but don't bother yourself with those details.
> 
> PS....UCLA isn't really considered a conservative school, in fact, they are quite liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> It's the criteria they used that is phony and contrived to create the outcome they wanted. Saying that Drudge leans Left proves just how contrived their "criteria" really was.
> Get it???
> 
> PS it is even more moronic to ASSume there are no CON$ at UCLA!!!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once you get away from rushbo, you really have nothing, huh?
> Most of the Drudge Report's articles are straight from msm, doofus.
> *'His' reports are right leaning*, but most of his stuff he gets from the left leaning msm.
> It really is pathetic that you just can't read the article...I know it was small type and there wasn't pictures or cartoons, but......
Click to expand...

Well at least you subconsciously admit Drudge leans Right. Just because he posts left leaning stuff on his site for ridicule, does not make him lean Left. It clearly makes him lean further Right.


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the criteria they used that is phony and contrived to create the outcome they wanted. Saying that Drudge leans Left proves just how contrived their "criteria" really was.
> Get it???
> 
> PS it is even more moronic to ASSume there are no CON$ at UCLA!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you get away from rushbo, you really have nothing, huh?
> Most of the Drudge Report's articles are straight from msm, doofus.
> *'His' reports are right leaning*, but most of his stuff he gets from the left leaning msm.
> It really is pathetic that you just can't read the article...I know it was small type and there wasn't pictures or cartoons, but......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well at least you subconsciously admit Drudge leans Right. Just because he posts left leaning stuff on his site for ridicule, does not make him lean Left. It clearly makes him lean further Right.
Click to expand...

I didn't subconsciously admit anything, I was stating a fact.  I'm also stating a fact about the "Drudge Report", the "subject" of the discussion.
I'm waiting for you to admit that you just may be wrong about the UCLA study.....something tells me you don't have the integrity to do that.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you get away from rushbo, you really have nothing, huh?
> Most of the Drudge Report's articles are straight from msm, doofus.
> *'His' reports are right leaning*, but most of his stuff he gets from the left leaning msm.
> It really is pathetic that you just can't read the article...I know it was small type and there wasn't pictures or cartoons, but......
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you subconsciously admit Drudge leans Right. Just because he posts left leaning stuff on his site for ridicule, does not make him lean Left. It clearly makes him lean further Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't subconsciously admit anything, I was stating a fact.  I'm also stating a fact about the "Drudge Report", the "subject" of the discussion.
> I'm waiting for you to admit that you just may be wrong about the UCLA study.....something tells me you don't have the integrity to do that.
Click to expand...

The "study" is worthless because the CRITERIA used to create the "data" is moronic. You are just too dishonest to admit that!


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you subconsciously admit Drudge leans Right. Just because he posts left leaning stuff on his site for ridicule, does not make him lean Left. It clearly makes him lean further Right.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't subconsciously admit anything, I was stating a fact.  I'm also stating a fact about the "Drudge Report", the "subject" of the discussion.
> I'm waiting for you to admit that you just may be wrong about the UCLA study.....something tells me you don't have the integrity to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "study" is worthless because the CRITERIA used to create the "data" is moronic. You are just too dishonest to admit that!
Click to expand...

How do you know?  Did you read the study?

Or is this just knee-jerk leftist dismissal of everything that doesn't exactly parallel your narrow little worldview?

I expect it's the latter.


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you subconsciously admit Drudge leans Right. Just because he posts left leaning stuff on his site for ridicule, does not make him lean Left. It clearly makes him lean further Right.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't subconsciously admit anything, I was stating a fact.  I'm also stating a fact about the "Drudge Report", the "subject" of the discussion.
> I'm waiting for you to admit that you just may be wrong about the UCLA study.....something tells me you don't have the integrity to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "study" is worthless because the CRITERIA used to create the "data" is moronic. You are just too dishonest to admit that!
Click to expand...


I knew you had no integrity, eddiethe$ynic.  No facts about the study, just your partisan hack view.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't subconsciously admit anything, I was stating a fact.  I'm also stating a fact about the "Drudge Report", the "subject" of the discussion.
> I'm waiting for you to admit that you just may be wrong about the UCLA study.....something tells me you don't have the integrity to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> The "study" is worthless because the CRITERIA used to create the "data" is moronic. You are just too dishonest to admit that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How do you know?  Did you read the study?*
> 
> Or is this just knee-jerk leftist dismissal of everything that doesn't exactly parallel your narrow little worldview?
> 
> I expect it's the latter.
Click to expand...

Yes I've read the fake study, obviously you haven't. You CON$ have been parroting it on this messageboard for years. It keeps being debunked only to be parroted on a new thread.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "study" is worthless because the CRITERIA used to create the "data" is moronic. You are just too dishonest to admit that!
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you know?  Did you read the study?*
> 
> Or is this just knee-jerk leftist dismissal of everything that doesn't exactly parallel your narrow little worldview?
> 
> I expect it's the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I've read the fake study, obviously you haven't. You CON$ have been parroting it on this messageboard for years. It keeps being debunked only to be parroted on a new thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what HuffPo told you.  

Funny how you believed that horseshit study about liberals being smarter than conservatives, huh?


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "study" is worthless because the CRITERIA used to create the "data" is moronic. You are just too dishonest to admit that!
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you know?  Did you read the study?*
> 
> Or is this just knee-jerk leftist dismissal of everything that doesn't exactly parallel your narrow little worldview?
> 
> I expect it's the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I've read the fake study, obviously you haven't. You CON$ have been parroting it on this messageboard for years. It keeps being debunked only to be parroted on a new thread.
Click to expand...


Prove it.  It's been debunked you say, so prove it.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't subconsciously admit anything, I was stating a fact.  I'm also stating a fact about the "Drudge Report", the "subject" of the discussion.
> I'm waiting for you to admit that you just may be wrong about the UCLA study.....something tells me you don't have the integrity to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> The "study" is worthless because the CRITERIA used to create the "data" is moronic. You are just too dishonest to admit that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you had no integrity, eddieth$ynic.  No facts about the study, just your partisan hack view.
Click to expand...

I gave you an obvious fact, it said Drudge leans Left. Any criteria that comes up with Drudge leaning Left is obviously flawed. You are just too dishonest to admit it. The shear stupidity of using politicians and think tanks to rate the media is moronic on its face!!! Only a total HACK can't see that!!!


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "study" is worthless because the CRITERIA used to create the "data" is moronic. You are just too dishonest to admit that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no integrity, eddieth$ynic.  No facts about the study, just your partisan hack view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you an obvious fact, it said Drudge leans Left. Any criteria that comes up with Drudge leaning Left is obviously flawed. You are just too dishonest to admit it. The shear stupidity of using politicians and think tanks to rate the media is moronic on its face!!! Only a total HACK can't see that!!!
Click to expand...


Idiot!  It didn't say Drudge leans left, it says the "Drudge Report" leans left, and it gave their reason for saying it.  You are one dishonest hack with no integrity.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you know?  Did you read the study?*
> 
> Or is this just knee-jerk leftist dismissal of everything that doesn't exactly parallel your narrow little worldview?
> 
> I expect it's the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I've read the fake study, obviously you haven't. You CON$ have been parroting it on this messageboard for years. It keeps being debunked only to be parroted on a new thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's what HuffPo told you.
> 
> Funny how you believed that horseshit study about liberals being smarter than conservatives, huh?
Click to expand...

Please provide links to both lies.
Thank you in advance.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "study" is worthless because the CRITERIA used to create the "data" is moronic. You are just too dishonest to admit that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no integrity, eddieth$ynic.  No facts about the study, just your partisan hack view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you an obvious fact, it said Drudge leans Left. Any criteria that comes up with Drudge leaning Left is obviously flawed. You are just too dishonest to admit it. The shear stupidity of using politicians and think tanks to rate the media is moronic on its face!!! Only a total HACK can't see that!!!
Click to expand...

You didn't read the study.  Why did you lie about it?

Oh, yeah.  You're a leftist.  Leftists lie.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I've read the fake study, obviously you haven't. You CON$ have been parroting it on this messageboard for years. It keeps being debunked only to be parroted on a new thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's what HuffPo told you.
> 
> Funny how you believed that horseshit study about liberals being smarter than conservatives, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please provide links to both lies.
> Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the study.


----------



## Meister

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's what HuffPo told you.
> 
> Funny how you believed that horseshit study about liberals being smarter than conservatives, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide links to both lies.
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't read the study.
Click to expand...


No he didn't, now he's doing some damage control.

Have you noticed that once he gets away from his buddy rush, that he has nothing?
He's completely out of his element.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no integrity, eddieth$ynic.  No facts about the study, just your partisan hack view.
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you an obvious fact, it said Drudge leans Left. Any criteria that comes up with Drudge leaning Left is obviously flawed. You are just too dishonest to admit it. The shear stupidity of using politicians and think tanks to rate the media is moronic on its face!!! Only a total HACK can't see that!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot!  It didn't say Drudge leans left, it says the "Drudge Report" leans left, and it gave their reason for saying it.  You are one dishonest hack with no integrity.
Click to expand...

The Right wing extremist DRUDGE REPORT does NOT lean Left even a little. Drudge and his fellow CON$ write the mocking headlines to the Liberal links they post. Mocking Libs does not make the site lean Left.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no integrity, eddieth$ynic.  No facts about the study, just your partisan hack view.
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you an obvious fact, it said Drudge leans Left. Any criteria that comes up with Drudge leaning Left is obviously flawed. You are just too dishonest to admit it. *The shear stupidity of using politicians and think tanks to rate the media is moronic on its face!!!* Only a total HACK can't see that!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't read the study.  Why did you lie about it?
> 
> Oh, yeah.  You're a leftist.  Leftists lie.
Click to expand...

The fact that you obviously don't know that the highlighted part is how the phony "study" determines bias only proves YOU never read the fake "study!"


----------



## Synthaholic

Meister said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where did I say anything about the liberal media controlling who is going to be president?*
> I stated that there is a left bias overall in the media, and backed it up.
> A little comprehension goes a long ways in a discussion, synth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you see this argument made by Rightwing posters?  I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, you're talking to me.  Just stick to what I'm posting and there will be less confusion.
Click to expand...



I've seen this game played too often, Meister.

Rightwingers believe certain things just like Left-wingers believe certain things.  But every time I attribute a Rightwing value or held position to a message board Right-winger, by amazing coincidence it's the one Rightwing position that they do not ascribe to.

How does that keep happening?


----------



## madasheck

So if the left controls the media, how come the most popular (ratings wise) cable news channel is a Republican feeding trough? And how come most media corporations are controlled by the bottom line, clearly a conservative idea? 

Maybe the real answer is the media appears to be left because truth has a left-wing bias.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no integrity, eddieth$ynic.  No facts about the study, just your partisan hack view.
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you an obvious fact, it said Drudge leans Left. Any criteria that comes up with Drudge leaning Left is obviously flawed. You are just too dishonest to admit it.* The shear stupidity of using politicians and think tanks to rate the media is moronic on its face!!!* Only a total HACK can't see that!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot!  It didn't say Drudge leans left, it says the "Drudge Report" leans left, and *it gave their reason for saying it.*  You are one dishonest hack with no integrity.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's highlighted in my post. You can't address the absolute stupidity of their criteria, politicians and cited think tanks, so you attack me personally instead.
Thank you.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron,
> 
> *Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op&#8209;Eds from their tallies.* This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.
> 
> Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  How does that dispute what I said?  It merely restates what the quote said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being a moron, you wouldn't be able to understand, carb.  You couldn't comprehend what the criteria for the study was. This was for the benefit for all the other posters that aren't morons.
Click to expand...


The study said the WSJ was more liberal than the NYT.  It said that public broadcasting was more conservative than the mainstream media.

I asked you if you accepted that as fact, and in response you went into some irrelevant rant about news vs. opinion, which, you moron, I already get, because we are talking about bias in the NEWS here and have been for 300 posts.

You posted the study.  My takeaway from the study is that in the interests of fair and balanced we ought to be investing in expanding the role of PUBLIC BROADCASTING in the delivery of the news.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you see this argument made by Rightwing posters?  I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, you're talking to me.  Just stick to what I'm posting and there will be less confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen this game played too often, Meister.
> 
> Rightwingers believe certain things just like Left-wingers believe certain things.  But every time I attribute a Rightwing value or held position to a message board Right-winger, by amazing coincidence it's the one Rightwing position that they do not ascribe to.
> 
> How does that keep happening?
Click to expand...

As difficult as it is for a kollektivist to believe, people are individuals.  Say it with me:  "In - di - vid - u - als".

Okay, not bad for a first try.  Just keep practicing.


----------



## daveman

madasheck said:


> So if the left controls the media, how come the most popular (ratings wise) cable news channel is a Republican feeding trough? And how come most media corporations are controlled by the bottom line, clearly a conservative idea?
> 
> Maybe the real answer is the media appears to be left because truth has a left-wing bias.


If the truth has a left-wing bias, the left wouldn't have to distort it so often.


----------



## madasheck

daveman said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the left controls the media, how come the most popular (ratings wise) cable news channel is a Republican feeding trough? And how come most media corporations are controlled by the bottom line, clearly a conservative idea?
> 
> Maybe the real answer is the media appears to be left because truth has a left-wing bias.
> 
> 
> 
> If the truth has a left-wing bias, the left wouldn't have to distort it so often.
Click to expand...


You're kidding, right? This thread is an excellent example of the ongoing distortion by the right. The right never is.


----------



## daveman

madasheck said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the left controls the media, how come the most popular (ratings wise) cable news channel is a Republican feeding trough? And how come most media corporations are controlled by the bottom line, clearly a conservative idea?
> 
> Maybe the real answer is the media appears to be left because truth has a left-wing bias.
> 
> 
> 
> If the truth has a left-wing bias, the left wouldn't have to distort it so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? This thread is an excellent example of the ongoing distortion by the right. The right never is.
Click to expand...


Ahhh, the old "No, YOU!!" gambit, popular among third-graders everywhere.  Devastating.


----------



## madasheck

daveman said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the truth has a left-wing bias, the left wouldn't have to distort it so often.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? This thread is an excellent example of the ongoing distortion by the right. The right never is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh, the old "No, YOU!!" gambit, popular among third-graders everywhere.  Devastating.
Click to expand...


I notice you couldn't argue my contention of rightwing distortion.


----------



## daveman

madasheck said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? This thread is an excellent example of the ongoing distortion by the right. The right never is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, the old "No, YOU!!" gambit, popular among third-graders everywhere.  Devastating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice you couldn't argue my contention of rightwing distortion.
Click to expand...

What's to argue?  There isn't any.


----------



## bripat9643

madasheck said:


> So if the left controls the media, how come the most popular (ratings wise) cable news channel is a Republican feeding trough? And how come most media corporations are controlled by the bottom line, clearly a conservative idea?
> 
> Maybe the real answer is the media appears to be left because truth has a left-wing bias.



Because it's the only station where people can go to get away from a steady diet of left-wing sermons, preaching and propaganda and one sided presentation of the news.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, you're talking to me.  Just stick to what I'm posting and there will be less confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen this game played too often, Meister.
> 
> Rightwingers believe certain things just like Left-wingers believe certain things.  But every time I attribute a Rightwing value or held position to a message board Right-winger, by amazing coincidence it's the one Rightwing position that they do not ascribe to.
> 
> How does that keep happening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As difficult as it is for a kollektivist to believe, people are individuals.  Say it with me:  "In - di - vid - u - als".
> 
> Okay, not bad for a first try.  Just keep practicing.
Click to expand...



No, it's that none of you are willing or able to defend conservative talking points when directly challenged.


----------



## Synthaholic

Synthaholic said:


> No, it's that *none of you are willing or able  to defend conservative talking points when directly challenged*.








madasheck said:


> I notice you couldn't argue my contention of rightwing distortion.





daveman said:


> *What's to argue?  There isn't any.*




Perfect!  Thanks for the lightning-quick confirmation of my point!


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen this game played too often, Meister.
> 
> Rightwingers believe certain things just like Left-wingers believe certain things.  But every time I attribute a Rightwing value or held position to a message board Right-winger, by amazing coincidence it's the one Rightwing position that they do not ascribe to.
> 
> How does that keep happening?
> 
> 
> 
> As difficult as it is for a kollektivist to believe, people are individuals.  Say it with me:  "In - di - vid - u - als".
> 
> Okay, not bad for a first try.  Just keep practicing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's that none of you are willing or able to defend conservative talking points when directly challenged.
Click to expand...

Yes, I admit we're not in the same league as leftists defending Obama with screeches of Bush!!  BOOOOSH!!"

Meanwhile, you just can't admit that conservatives don't walk in lockstep.  That's because you yourself do and can't conceive that people can think for themselves.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's that *none of you are willing or able  to defend conservative talking points when directly challenged*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you couldn't argue my contention of rightwing distortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What's to argue?  There isn't any.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect!  Thanks for the lightning-quick confirmation of my point!
Click to expand...


"There is rightwing distortion" is a rightwing talking point?

You're really not very bright.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As difficult as it is for a kollektivist to believe, people are individuals.  Say it with me:  "In - di - vid - u - als".
> 
> Okay, not bad for a first try.  Just keep practicing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's that none of you are willing or able to defend conservative talking points when directly challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I admit we're not in the same league as leftists defending Obama with screeches of Bush!!  BOOOOSH!!"
> 
> Meanwhile, *you just can't admit that conservatives don't walk in lockstep*.  That's because you yourself do and can't conceive that people can think for themselves.
Click to expand...


I can admit that conservatives can not defend conservative talking points, like:

"The Liberal Media will pick the next president".


----------



## Dr.Drock

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's that none of you are willing or able to defend conservative talking points when directly challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I admit we're not in the same league as leftists defending Obama with screeches of Bush!!  BOOOOSH!!"
> 
> Meanwhile, *you just can't admit that conservatives don't walk in lockstep*.  That's because you yourself do and can't conceive that people can think for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can admit that conservatives can not defend conservative talking points, like:
> 
> "The Liberal Media will pick the next president".
Click to expand...


That talking point is stupid I agree, the media props up 2 identical liberals and we're given a "choice" between them.  

So either way, D or R, you people who like big gov't, big spending, big deficits and big debt will get your way.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's that none of you are willing or able to defend conservative talking points when directly challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I admit we're not in the same league as leftists defending Obama with screeches of Bush!!  BOOOOSH!!"
> 
> Meanwhile, *you just can't admit that conservatives don't walk in lockstep*.  That's because you yourself do and can't conceive that people can think for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can admit that conservatives can not defend conservative talking points, like:
> 
> "The Liberal Media will pick the next president".
Click to expand...

See?  I was right.


----------



## madasheck

daveman said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, the old "No, YOU!!" gambit, popular among third-graders everywhere.  Devastating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you couldn't argue my contention of rightwing distortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's to argue?  There isn't any.
Click to expand...


If the media is supposedly controlled by the left, then there shouldn't be a right wing media of any consequence. But there is. Explain that.


----------



## madasheck

bripat9643 said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the left controls the media, how come the most popular (ratings wise) cable news channel is a Republican feeding trough? And how come most media corporations are controlled by the bottom line, clearly a conservative idea?
> 
> Maybe the real answer is the media appears to be left because truth has a left-wing bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's the only station where people can go to get away from a steady diet of left-wing sermons, preaching and propaganda and one sided presentation of the news.
Click to expand...


What one-sided presentations and sermons? Have you ever worked in the news business? Do you know how news is gathered in the first place?


----------



## madasheck

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I admit we're not in the same league as leftists defending Obama with screeches of Bush!!  BOOOOSH!!"
> 
> Meanwhile, *you just can't admit that conservatives don't walk in lockstep*.  That's because you yourself do and can't conceive that people can think for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can admit that conservatives can not defend conservative talking points, like:
> 
> "The Liberal Media will pick the next president".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See?  I was right.
Click to expand...


You certainly know talking points.


----------



## Meister

madasheck said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you couldn't argue my contention of rightwing distortion.
> 
> 
> 
> What's to argue?  There isn't any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the media is supposedly controlled by the left, then there shouldn't be a right wing media of any consequence. But there is. Explain that.
Click to expand...


What???????


----------



## madasheck

Meister said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's to argue?  There isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the media is supposedly controlled by the left, then there shouldn't be a right wing media of any consequence. But there is. Explain that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What???????
Click to expand...


If the left supposedly controls the media, wouldn't it stand to reason it would suppress any right-wing media?


----------



## Meister

madasheck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the media is supposedly controlled by the left, then there shouldn't be a right wing media of any consequence. But there is. Explain that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the left supposedly controls the media, wouldn't it stand to reason it would suppress any right-wing media?
Click to expand...


no....because the left doesn't control "all" the media, nobody is saying that.  The majority of the media is controlled by the left, that's what the issue is.
majority of talk radio is controlled by the right
majority of television is controlled by the left
majority of major newspapers is controlled by the left.
IMO


----------



## daveman

madasheck said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you couldn't argue my contention of rightwing distortion.
> 
> 
> 
> What's to argue?  There isn't any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the media is supposedly controlled by the left, then there shouldn't be a right wing media of any consequence. But there is. Explain that.
Click to expand...

Simple:  the free market.  The popularity of Fox and of conservative talk radio shows that people are tired of the stranglehold the left has on the media.

But that doesn't stop the left from attempting to legislate conservative views off the air.


----------



## daveman

madasheck said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can admit that conservatives can not defend conservative talking points, like:
> 
> "The Liberal Media will pick the next president".
> 
> 
> 
> See?  I was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly know talking points.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see them from the left every day.  Like "Conservatives all walk in lockstep!!"  

And now Synthia has highlighted how wrong that is.  I forgot to thank him for that.


----------



## daveman

Meister said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's to argue?  There isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the media is supposedly controlled by the left, then there shouldn't be a right wing media of any consequence. But there is. Explain that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What???????
Click to expand...


----------



## madasheck

Meister said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> What???????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the left supposedly controls the media, wouldn't it stand to reason it would suppress any right-wing media?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no....because the left doesn't control "all" the media, nobody is saying that.  The majority of the media is controlled by the left, that's what the issue is.
> majority of talk radio is controlled by the right
> majority of television is controlled by the left
> majority of major newspapers is controlled by the left.
> IMO
Click to expand...


You're basically saying anything that isn't controlled by the right is controlled by the left. Which isn't true. It's obvious that talk radio and Fox News are right-wing. But the opposite isn't necessarily true. And you're suggesting a left-wing conspiracy is at work. That's a right-wing mantra, but conservatives who say that have never been within an inch of working for a news organization or even taken journalism classes.


----------



## Meister

madasheck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the left supposedly controls the media, wouldn't it stand to reason it would suppress any right-wing media?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no....because the left doesn't control "all" the media, nobody is saying that.  The majority of the media is controlled by the left, that's what the issue is.
> majority of talk radio is controlled by the right
> majority of television is controlled by the left
> majority of major newspapers is controlled by the left.
> IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're basically saying anything that isn't controlled by the right is controlled by the left. Which isn't true. It's obvious that talk radio and Fox News are right-wing. But the opposite isn't necessarily true. And you're suggesting a left-wing conspiracy is at work. That's a right-wing mantra, but conservatives who say that have never been within an inch of working for a news organization or even taken journalism classes.
Click to expand...

WOW!  Seriously?  I suggest no conspiracy.
I find it rather amausing that "It's obvious that talk radio and Fox News are right-wing. But the opposite isn't necessarily true."
That statement says it all and is so typical of the far left.  You can only see one side, but blinded to the other side.  There is nothing I can say or show that could ever change your partisan mind.  Good day.


----------



## PoliticalChic

madasheck said:


> So if the left controls the media, how come the most popular (ratings wise) cable news channel is a Republican feeding trough? And how come most media corporations are controlled by the bottom line, clearly a conservative idea?
> 
> Maybe the real answer is the media appears to be left because truth has a left-wing bias.



Would you care to apply your insight to the OP?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Meister said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> no....because the left doesn't control "all" the media, nobody is saying that.  The majority of the media is controlled by the left, that's what the issue is.
> majority of talk radio is controlled by the right
> majority of television is controlled by the left
> majority of major newspapers is controlled by the left.
> IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're basically saying anything that isn't controlled by the right is controlled by the left. Which isn't true. It's obvious that talk radio and Fox News are right-wing. But the opposite isn't necessarily true. And you're suggesting a left-wing conspiracy is at work. That's a right-wing mantra, but conservatives who say that have never been within an inch of working for a news organization or even taken journalism classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW!  Seriously?  I suggest no conspiracy.
> I find it rather amausing that "It's obvious that talk radio and Fox News are right-wing. But the opposite isn't necessarily true."
> That statement says it all and is so typical of the far left.  You can only see one side, but blinded to the other side.  There is nothing I can say or show that could ever change your partisan mind.  Good day.
Click to expand...


I think he's saying Fox News and most talk radio is far right, but you can't blindly assume EVERYTHING else is far left.  

You can see these newspaper and these stations are far left or lean left, but not all of them.

I think the media is the way it is for 2 reasons.

1.) to make money
2.) to be buddy buddy with gov't, whether it's a gov't run by reps or dems.

Reps pretend Bush had it rough with the media, but that's a lie.  He had it rough the last 2-3 years when the population hated him so much not even the media could convince them otherwise so they hopped on the bandwagon.

Remember after 9/11?  Basically the media assumed everyone who was a politician was a hero.  They weren't angry or asking questions as to how gov't could let this happen, politicians were just blindly propped up as heroes cuz it was the "patriotic" thing to do.  Never have I seen any 2 people get as much media love as Giuliani and Bush did after 9/11.

It's true the media for the most part loves Obama, he sounds really neat and gives off the hip vibe.  I bet he's on the same timeline as Bush, in 2 or 3 years when gov't is still in shambles and the economy is still stagnant they'll be forced to abandon ship.


----------



## madasheck

Dr.Drock said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're basically saying anything that isn't controlled by the right is controlled by the left. Which isn't true. It's obvious that talk radio and Fox News are right-wing. But the opposite isn't necessarily true. And you're suggesting a left-wing conspiracy is at work. That's a right-wing mantra, but conservatives who say that have never been within an inch of working for a news organization or even taken journalism classes.
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!  Seriously?  I suggest no conspiracy.
> I find it rather amausing that "It's obvious that talk radio and Fox News are right-wing. But the opposite isn't necessarily true."
> That statement says it all and is so typical of the far left.  You can only see one side, but blinded to the other side.  There is nothing I can say or show that could ever change your partisan mind.  Good day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he's saying Fox News and most talk radio is far right, but you can't blindly assume EVERYTHING else is far left.
> 
> You can see these newspaper and these stations are far left or lean left, but not all of them.
> 
> I think the media is the way it is for 2 reasons.
> 
> 1.) to make money
> 2.) to be buddy buddy with gov't, whether it's a gov't run by reps or dems.
> 
> Reps pretend Bush had it rough with the media, but that's a lie.  He had it rough the last 2-3 years when the population hated him so much not even the media could convince them otherwise so they hopped on the bandwagon.
> 
> Remember after 9/11?  Basically the media assumed everyone who was a politician was a hero.  They weren't angry or asking questions as to how gov't could let this happen, politicians were just blindly propped up as heroes cuz it was the "patriotic" thing to do.  Never have I seen any 2 people get as much media love as Giuliani and Bush did after 9/11.
> 
> It's true the media for the most part loves Obama, he sounds really neat and gives off the hip vibe.  I bet he's on the same timeline as Bush, in 2 or 3 years when gov't is still in shambles and the economy is still stagnant they'll be forced to abandon ship.
Click to expand...


Yes, you pretty much got it. I don't agree that the media loves Obama, though. He's gotten his share of bad press, though not as much as Fox News would like.


----------



## madasheck

PoliticalChic said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the left controls the media, how come the most popular (ratings wise) cable news channel is a Republican feeding trough? And how come most media corporations are controlled by the bottom line, clearly a conservative idea?
> 
> Maybe the real answer is the media appears to be left because truth has a left-wing bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to apply your insight to the OP?
Click to expand...


I was being slightly snarky with the left-wing bias phrase, but the idea that all media that isn't right-wing is left-wing is complete b.s.


----------



## Synthaholic

madasheck said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can admit that conservatives can not defend conservative talking points, like:
> 
> "The Liberal Media will pick the next president".
> 
> 
> 
> See?  I was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly know talking points.
Click to expand...


He is the Troll King of wingnut talking points and non sequiturs.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> The Left Controls the Media



Well if they are theyre doing a crappy job

During the 40 year period between 1969 and 2009, democrats held the WH for only 12 of those 40 years. 

Good  job liberal media.


----------



## newpolitics

Mr. H. said:


> Investigative stories... like Gasland?



you think the information contained in Gasland is fake? That there is no validity to serious concerns over fracking? With what information do you forge these views?


----------



## SayMyName

I know we always here that the left control the media, but, when you take a close look at it, the corporations that own the outlets simply allow to be marketed that which has an audience. There are plenty of venues that espouse mainly ideas that are right of center, some that are centrist, and indeed a great many that are to the liberal side of the aisle. 

Overall, however, if it didn't sell, we wouldn't see it.


----------



## Synthaholic

Mr. H. said:


> Investigative stories... like Gasland?


What parts of Gasland are not accurate?  Be specific.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Meister said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> What???????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the left supposedly controls the media, wouldn't it stand to reason it would suppress any right-wing media?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no....because the left doesn't control "all" the media, *nobody is saying that*.
Click to expand...


Except the person who titled this thread 'the left controls the media'.


----------



## Chris

The left does not control the media.

Giant corporations control the media.


----------



## NYcarbineer

What's the point of the claim anyway?  Other than to give a conservatives one more opportunity to blame something or someone other than themselves for their failures?


----------



## Meister

NYcarbineer said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the left supposedly controls the media, wouldn't it stand to reason it would suppress any right-wing media?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no....because the left doesn't control "all" the media, *nobody is saying that*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the person who titled this thread 'the left controls the media'.
Click to expand...


, I bet you didn't do too well in school did you?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> no....because the left doesn't control "all" the media, *nobody is saying that*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the person who titled this thread 'the left controls the media'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> , I bet you didn't do too well in school did you?
Click to expand...


Did the OP acknowledge that the left doesn't actually control the media?  Did the OP admit that ?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?  I was right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly know talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is the Troll King of wingnut talking points and non sequiturs.
Click to expand...

Luckily, Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions.  Your butthurt will be covered.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Maybe if conservatives had the business acumen that liberals apparently do, they could come up with conservative programming that would sell and then they could "control the media".


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> Maybe if conservatives had the business acumen that liberals apparently do, they could come up with conservative programming that would sell and then they could "control the media".



Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly know talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is the Troll King of wingnut talking points and non sequiturs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Luckily, Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions.  Your butthurt will be covered.
Click to expand...

You have once again failed to man up, which should surprise no one.

Is it or is it not a Rightwing talking point that the Liberal media will pick the president?

Not if it's true or not, only that it's a Rightwing claim.

*Now watch, everybody, as daveman evades the question once again!*


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is the Troll King of wingnut talking points and non sequiturs.
> 
> 
> 
> Luckily, Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions.  Your butthurt will be covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have once again failed to man up, which should surprise no one.
> 
> Is it or is it not a Rightwing talking point that the Liberal media will pick the president?
> 
> Not if it's true or not, only that it's a Rightwing claim.
> 
> *Now watch, everybody, as daveman evades the question once again!*
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose it's a rightwing talking point, if a couple of rightwingers saying something is a talking point.

But outside of this thread, I haven't heard it from any rightwingers.  Do you have any links, or are you going to just insist it's true without providing any corroboration?  You know -- like you usually do.

Oh, and I checked -- the death panels have decided your butthurt is too expensive to treat.  Sucks to be you -- in a myriad of ways.


Now, were you saying something about avoiding the question?  This is the part where you redefine some words so you can pretend you "won".


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luckily, Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions.  Your butthurt will be covered.
> 
> 
> 
> You have once again failed to man up, which should surprise no one.
> 
> Is it or is it not a Rightwing talking point that the Liberal media will pick the president?
> 
> Not if it's true or not, only that it's a Rightwing claim.
> 
> *Now watch, everybody, as daveman evades the question once again!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I suppose it's a rightwing talking point, if a couple of rightwingers saying something is a talking point.
> 
> But outside of this thread, I haven't heard it from any rightwingers.  *Do you have any links, or are you going to just insist it's true without providing any corroboration?*  You know -- like you usually do.
> 
> Oh, and I checked -- the death panels have decided your butthurt is too expensive to treat.  Sucks to be you -- in a myriad of ways.
> 
> 
> Now, were you saying something about avoiding the question?  This is the part where you redefine some words so you can pretend you "won".
Click to expand...



Are you saying that if I come up with links, then you agree that it's a Rightwing talking point?

Oh, and "Death Panels" is a Rightwing talking point, also.  You just can't help yourself, can you???  

Or do you need links for that, too?


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luckily, Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions.  Your butthurt will be covered.
> 
> 
> 
> You have once again failed to man up, which should surprise no one.
> 
> Is it or is it not a Rightwing talking point that the Liberal media will pick the president?
> 
> Not if it's true or not, only that it's a Rightwing claim.
> 
> *Now watch, everybody, as daveman evades the question once again!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I suppose it's a rightwing talking point, if a couple of rightwingers saying something is a talking point.
> 
> But outside of this thread, I haven't heard it from any rightwingers.  Do you have any links, or are you going to just insist it's true without providing any corroboration?  You know -- like you usually do.
Click to expand...

The typical CON$ervative "Lie and Deny" tactic.

The whole CON$ervative rationalization for Operation Chaos in the 2008 election was that the "MEDIA" chose the GOP candidate. And CON$ also rationalized that the "MEDIA" created Obama, so the "MEDIA" chose both candidates in the 2008 election, so no matter which one won, the "MEDIA" picked it.

The same thing is happening now. CON$ are claiming that the "MEDIA" wants Romney and is out to destroy any non-Romney who leads in the GOP primaries. So again, whoever wins a Romney v Obama election was picked by the "MEDIA."


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have once again failed to man up, which should surprise no one.
> 
> Is it or is it not a Rightwing talking point that the Liberal media will pick the president?
> 
> Not if it's true or not, only that it's a Rightwing claim.
> 
> *Now watch, everybody, as daveman evades the question once again!*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I suppose it's a rightwing talking point, if a couple of rightwingers saying something is a talking point.
> 
> But outside of this thread, I haven't heard it from any rightwingers.  *Do you have any links, or are you going to just insist it's true without providing any corroboration?*  You know -- like you usually do.
> 
> Oh, and I checked -- the death panels have decided your butthurt is too expensive to treat.  Sucks to be you -- in a myriad of ways.
> 
> 
> Now, were you saying something about avoiding the question?  This is the part where you redefine some words so you can pretend you "won".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that if I come up with links, then you agree that it's a Rightwing talking point?
Click to expand...

If you come up with links, I'll be surprised, because you mostly never do.

Let's look at this from your pitiful point of view.

You consider me a conservative dittohead, incapable of original thought.  Correct?  Of course, that's utterly laughable, but you and reality don't get along too well.

If it were a rightwing talking point, I would have heard it.  Right?

But I haven't.

Predictably, you will laughably claim I'm lying, but will have no way to prove it.  NOTE:  You throwing a hissy fit is not proof.  


Synthaholic said:


> Oh, and "Death Panels" is a Rightwing talking point, also.  You just can't help yourself, can you???
> 
> Or do you need links for that, too?


I was making fun of you, dumbass.  Holy shit, you really are a stupid, _stupid_ little man.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have once again failed to man up, which should surprise no one.
> 
> Is it or is it not a Rightwing talking point that the Liberal media will pick the president?
> 
> Not if it's true or not, only that it's a Rightwing claim.
> 
> *Now watch, everybody, as daveman evades the question once again!*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I suppose it's a rightwing talking point, if a couple of rightwingers saying something is a talking point.
> 
> But outside of this thread, I haven't heard it from any rightwingers.  Do you have any links, or are you going to just insist it's true without providing any corroboration?  You know -- like you usually do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The typical CON$ervative "Lie and Deny" tactic.
> 
> The whole CON$ervative rationalization for Operation Chaos in the 2008 election was that the "MEDIA" chose the GOP candidate. And CON$ also rationalized that the "MEDIA" created Obama, so the "MEDIA" chose both candidates in the 2008 election, so no matter which one won, the "MEDIA" picked it.
> 
> The same thing is happening now. CON$ are claiming that the "MEDIA" wants Romney and is out to destroy any non-Romney who leads in the GOP primaries. So again, whoever wins a Romney v Obama election was picked by the "MEDIA."
Click to expand...

Do you really want to hold me responsible for things I didn't say?

That's an interesting game.

I suppose you don't need oil, you ride the bus!  And you support our troops when they shoot their officers.  

Right?  Or are you going to be a flaming hypocrite?


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I suppose it's a rightwing talking point, if a couple of rightwingers saying something is a talking point.
> 
> But outside of this thread, I haven't heard it from any rightwingers.  Do you have any links, or are you going to just insist it's true without providing any corroboration?  You know -- like you usually do.
> 
> 
> 
> The typical CON$ervative "Lie and Deny" tactic.
> 
> The whole CON$ervative rationalization for Operation Chaos in the 2008 election was that the "MEDIA" chose the GOP candidate. And CON$ also rationalized that the "MEDIA" created Obama, so the "MEDIA" chose both candidates in the 2008 election, so no matter which one won, the "MEDIA" picked it.
> 
> The same thing is happening now. CON$ are claiming that the "MEDIA" wants Romney and is out to destroy any non-Romney who leads in the GOP primaries. So again, whoever wins a Romney v Obama election was picked by the "MEDIA."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really want to hold me responsible for things I didn't say?
> 
> That's an interesting game.
> 
> I suppose you don't need oil, you ride the bus!  And you support our troops when they shoot their officers.
> 
> Right?  Or are you going to be a flaming hypocrite?
Click to expand...

Keep those cliched right-wing talking points coming.


----------



## madasheck

daveman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if conservatives had the business acumen that liberals apparently do, they could come up with conservative programming that would sell and then they could "control the media".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.
Click to expand...


But then, Air America did accomplish something Rush hasn't .. it was the springboard for one of its own to the Senate. And Rush still sits flabbing his fat mouth to his lemmings on the not-so-Excellence in Broadcasting Network.


----------



## Sarah G

madasheck said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if conservatives had the business acumen that liberals apparently do, they could come up with conservative programming that would sell and then they could "control the media".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then, Air America did accomplish something Rush hasn't .. it was the springboard for one of its own to the Senate. And Rush still sits flabbing his fat mouth to his lemmings on the not-so-Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Click to expand...


Air America was more political, Rush is just a bad comedian, he used to be funnier and people were drawn to his wit.  Then he got off drugs and now he's just vicious.  He wouldn't run because he knows he wouldn't win.


----------



## madasheck

Sarah G said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then, Air America did accomplish something Rush hasn't .. it was the springboard for one of its own to the Senate. And Rush still sits flabbing his fat mouth to his lemmings on the not-so-Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Air America was more political, Rush is just a bad comedian, he used to be funnier and people were drawn to his wit.  Then he got off drugs and now he's just vicious.  He wouldn't run because he knows he wouldn't win.
Click to expand...


And all of his skeletons would be out of the closet. Of course, his lemmings would overlook that stuff.


----------



## Meister

madasheck said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, Air America did accomplish something Rush hasn't .. it was the springboard for one of its own to the Senate. And Rush still sits flabbing his fat mouth to his lemmings on the not-so-Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air America was more political, Rush is just a bad comedian, he used to be funnier and people were drawn to his wit.  Then he got off drugs and now he's just vicious.  He wouldn't run because he knows he wouldn't win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And all of his skeletons would be out of the closet. Of course, his lemmings would overlook that stuff*.
Click to expand...


You are talking about Obama, right?


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air America was more political, Rush is just a bad comedian, he used to be funnier and people were drawn to his wit.  Then he got off drugs and now he's just vicious.  He wouldn't run because he knows he wouldn't win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And all of his skeletons would be out of the closet. Of course, his lemmings would overlook that stuff*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are talking about Obama, right?
Click to expand...

The perpetual CON$ervative dumb act. DittoTards still haven't figured out that everything your MessiahRushie hates about himself, he projects onto Obama. See my Sig for an obvious example!


----------



## Meister

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And all of his skeletons would be out of the closet. Of course, his lemmings would overlook that stuff*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about Obama, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The perpetual CON$ervative dumb act. DittoTards still haven't figured out that everything your MessiahRushie hates about himself, he projects onto Obama. See my Sig for an obvious example!
Click to expand...


The only dittotard on this board is you, eddie.  Think about it.


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about Obama, right?
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetual CON$ervative dumb act. DittoTards still haven't figured out that everything your MessiahRushie hates about himself, he projects onto Obama. See my Sig for an obvious example!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The only dittotard on this board is you,* eddie.  Think about it.
Click to expand...

The obvious babbling of a DittoTard HACK. Think about it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Now watch, everybody, as daveman evades the question once again!



I dont believe its a matter of evading the question, but lack of comprehension to start with. The consequence of having ones head encased in a block of conservative concrete.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The typical CON$ervative "Lie and Deny" tactic.
> 
> The whole CON$ervative rationalization for Operation Chaos in the 2008 election was that the "MEDIA" chose the GOP candidate. And CON$ also rationalized that the "MEDIA" created Obama, so the "MEDIA" chose both candidates in the 2008 election, so no matter which one won, the "MEDIA" picked it.
> 
> The same thing is happening now. CON$ are claiming that the "MEDIA" wants Romney and is out to destroy any non-Romney who leads in the GOP primaries. So again, whoever wins a Romney v Obama election was picked by the "MEDIA."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really want to hold me responsible for things I didn't say?
> 
> That's an interesting game.
> 
> I suppose you don't need oil, you ride the bus!  And you support our troops when they shoot their officers.
> 
> Right?  Or are you going to be a flaming hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep those cliched right-wing talking points coming.
Click to expand...

So you're going with flaming hypocrite.  I gotta tell you, I'm not at all surprised.


----------



## daveman

madasheck said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if conservatives had the business acumen that liberals apparently do, they could come up with conservative programming that would sell and then they could "control the media".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then, Air America did accomplish something Rush hasn't .. it was the springboard for one of its own to the Senate. And Rush still sits flabbing his fat mouth to his lemmings on the not-so-Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Click to expand...

True.  And the way Air America stole money from the boy's and girl's club.  Excellent.  I can't imagine how proud those poor kids must have been knowing they were helping a mediocre comedian realize his dream of believing his own horseshit.


----------



## daveman

Sarah G said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then, Air America did accomplish something Rush hasn't .. it was the springboard for one of its own to the Senate. And Rush still sits flabbing his fat mouth to his lemmings on the not-so-Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Air America was more political, Rush is just a bad comedian, he used to be funnier and people were drawn to his wit.  Then he got off drugs and now he's just vicious.  He wouldn't run because he knows he wouldn't win.
Click to expand...

Rush serves his purpose.  His job is to get the veins in leftists' foreheads throbbing.

He's very good at his job.


----------



## daveman

madasheck said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, Air America did accomplish something Rush hasn't .. it was the springboard for one of its own to the Senate. And Rush still sits flabbing his fat mouth to his lemmings on the not-so-Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air America was more political, Rush is just a bad comedian, he used to be funnier and people were drawn to his wit.  Then he got off drugs and now he's just vicious.  He wouldn't run because he knows he wouldn't win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all of his skeletons would be out of the closet. Of course, his lemmings would overlook that stuff.
Click to expand...

What's Obama's college transcript look like?


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And all of his skeletons would be out of the closet. Of course, his lemmings would overlook that stuff*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about Obama, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The perpetual CON$ervative dumb act. DittoTards still haven't figured out that everything your MessiahRushie hates about himself, he projects onto Obama. See my Sig for an obvious example!
Click to expand...

I think it's absolutely hilarious how you spend so much time listening to a man you loath.  

But, hey, gotta keep the hate pump primed, huh?


----------



## daveman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Now watch, everybody, as daveman evades the question once again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe its a matter of evading the question, but lack of comprehension to start with. The consequence of having ones head encased in a block of conservative concrete.
Click to expand...


----------



## Trajan

Trajan said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't read the study, edddiethe$ynic, you have the same problem as another poster on here.  It stated *the criteria they used* along with the specifics of the Drudge Report....but don't bother yourself with those details.
> 
> PS....UCLA isn't really considered a conservative school, in fact, they are quite liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> It's the criteria they used that is phony and contrived to create the outcome they wanted. Saying that Drudge leans Left proves just how contrived their "criteria" really was.
> Get it???
> 
> PS it is even more moronic to ASSume there are no CON$ at UCLA!!!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, thats always possible. please describe and provide some examples that lead to the contrived or jigged results they wished to validate...thank you in advance.
Click to expand...


hello edthecynic, still waiting....


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, Air America did accomplish something Rush hasn't .. it was the springboard for one of its own to the Senate. And Rush still sits flabbing his fat mouth to his lemmings on the not-so-Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air America was more political, Rush is just a bad comedian, he used to be funnier and people were drawn to his wit.  Then he got off drugs and now he's just vicious.  He wouldn't run because he knows he wouldn't win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rush serves his purpose.  His job is to get the veins in leftists' foreheads throbbing.
> 
> He's very good at his job.
Click to expand...

His job is to fill mindless drones like you with disinformation.

He's very good at his job.


----------



## NYcarbineer

daveman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if conservatives had the business acumen that liberals apparently do, they could come up with conservative programming that would sell and then they could "control the media".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.
Click to expand...


Well, there you go...we have one nut in this thread admitting that the left doesn't control the media.


----------



## NYcarbineer

madasheck said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, Air America did accomplish something Rush hasn't .. it was the springboard for one of its own to the Senate. And Rush still sits flabbing his fat mouth to his lemmings on the not-so-Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air America was more political, Rush is just a bad comedian, he used to be funnier and people were drawn to his wit.  Then he got off drugs and now he's just vicious.  He wouldn't run because he knows he wouldn't win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all of his skeletons would be out of the closet. Of course, his lemmings would overlook that stuff.
Click to expand...


Rush's skeleton is in a closet of blubber, held together by a very very thin skin.


----------



## edthecynic

Trajan said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the criteria they used that is phony and contrived to create the outcome they wanted. Saying that Drudge leans Left proves just how contrived their "criteria" really was.
> Get it???
> 
> PS* it is even more moronic to ASSume there are no CON$ at UCLA!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well,* thats always possible.* please *describe and provide some examples that lead to the contrived or jigged results they wished to validate*...thank you in advance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hello edthecynic, still waiting....
Click to expand...

The perpetual CON$ervative dumb act again. They were posted in my exchange with the right-wing hack Meister.

Since, as a CON$ervative, you are too lazy to go back and read them, I'll summarize.

The authors, passed off as Libs because of their connection to UCLA, are hacks for the biggest and most radical right-wing think tanks, Heritage Foundation, AEI, and the Hoover Institute, as well as contributers of right -wing propaganda for RW extremist publications like The American Spectator. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997.

To get their cooked results, they used a Politician's ADA ratings and think tanks to determine MEDIA bias. So if a poiltician with a CON$ervative rating cites the ACLU think tank, that makes the ACLU CON$ervative and any media that cites the ACLU is also CON$ervative. Now you say, the ACLU is about as Liberal as a think tank can get, but in the fake "study" the ACLU was rated as CON$ervative, the Right-wing Rand Corporation was rated Liberal, and the Liberal think tank Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments was rated as more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union. Thus Drudge leans Left and Brit Hume is in the Middle. 

Now depending on how many times the Media cited the think tanks that were rated by the politician cites determines the media bias. This rating system is so moronic and worthless that only a CON$ervative would be stupid enough not to see it no matter how many times it is explained and swallow it whole and without question. Obviously CON$ are the target audience for the phony "study" from the "Liberal" UCLA.

Thank you in advance for your apology.


----------



## Dr.House

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if conservatives had the business acumen that liberals apparently do, they could come up with conservative programming that would sell and then they could "control the media".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there you go...we have one nut in this thread admitting that the left doesn't control the media.
Click to expand...


Weak comeback...  You were pwned....


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I suppose it's a rightwing talking point, if a couple of rightwingers saying something is a talking point.
> 
> But outside of this thread, I haven't heard it from any rightwingers.  *Do you have any links, or are you going to just insist it's true without providing any corroboration?*  You know -- like you usually do.
> 
> Oh, and I checked -- the death panels have decided your butthurt is too expensive to treat.  Sucks to be you -- in a myriad of ways.
> 
> 
> Now, were you saying something about avoiding the question?  This is the part where you redefine some words so you can pretend you "won".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that if I come up with links, then you agree that it's a Rightwing talking point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you come up with links, I'll be surprised, because you mostly never do.
> 
> Let's look at this from your pitiful point of view.
> 
> You consider me a conservative dittohead, incapable of original thought.  Correct?  Of course, that's utterly laughable, but you and reality don't get along too well.
> 
> *If it were a rightwing talking point, I would have heard it.  Right?
> 
> But I haven't.*
Click to expand...


Edthecynic just gave you a prime example, with Operation Chaos.

Are you claiming that you never heard of it?  Or the rationale behind it?  Or did you just not understand it?  

Your claim that you haven't heard it is just another blatant lie from a blatant liar.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air America was more political, Rush is just a bad comedian, he used to be funnier and people were drawn to his wit.  Then he got off drugs and now he's just vicious.  He wouldn't run because he knows he wouldn't win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all of his skeletons would be out of the closet. Of course, his lemmings would overlook that stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's Obama's college transcript look like?
Click to expand...

Paper?


Is Poor Sarah ever going to release her High School diploma?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Now depending on how many times the Media cited the think tanks that were rated by the politician cites determines the media bias. This rating system is so moronic and worthless that only a CON$ervative would be stupid enough not to see it no matter how many times it is explained and swallow it whole and without question. Obviously CON$ are the target audience for the phony "study" from the "Liberal" UCLA.



If not stupid than desperate to fill the void that is rightist dogma.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Dr.House said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there you go...we have one nut in this thread admitting that the left doesn't control the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weak comeback...  You were pwned....
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how getting daveman to admit that the left does not control the media translates into getting 'pwned' but I'm sure you'll entertain us with an explanation of that.


----------



## Trajan

edthecynic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> well,* thats always possible.* please *describe and provide some examples that lead to the contrived or jigged results they wished to validate*...thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hello edthecynic, still waiting....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The perpetual CON$ervative dumb act again. They were posted in my exchange with the right-wing hack Meister.
> 
> Since, as a CON$ervative, you are too lazy to go back and read them, I'll summarize.
> 
> The authors, passed off as Libs because of their connection to UCLA, are hacks for the biggest and most radical right-wing think tanks, Heritage Foundation, AEI, and the Hoover Institute, as well as contributers of right -wing propaganda for RW extremist publications like The American Spectator. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997.
> 
> To get their cooked results, they used a Politician's ADA ratings and think tanks to determine MEDIA bias. So if a poiltician with a CON$ervative rating cites the ACLU think tank, that makes the ACLU CON$ervative and any media that cites the ACLU is also CON$ervative. Now you say, the ACLU is about as Liberal as a think tank can get, but in the fake "study" the ACLU was rated as CON$ervative, the Right-wing Rand Corporation was rated Liberal, and the Liberal think tank Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments was rated as more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union. Thus Drudge leans Left and Brit Hume is in the Middle.
> 
> Now depending on how many times the Media cited the think tanks that were rated by the politician cites determines the media bias. This rating system is so moronic and worthless that only a CON$ervative would be stupid enough not to see it no matter how many times it is explained and swallow it whole and without question. Obviously CON$ are the target audience for the phony "study" from the "Liberal" UCLA.
> 
> Thank you in advance for your apology.
Click to expand...


so their rating system is flawed? I see. and the screed against the authors?  in your understanding, anyone that takes grants from any 'right wing' org. is tainted, there fore any study performed under the umbrella of a liberal org. ala  grants is tainted as well?  


anyway,  if the results are cooked, why did UCLA not disown the study? It is published as their sponsored product ...no? 

and as ucla noted;

_"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said._

according to the press release I saw Hume was rated right of center not centrist btw and they noted; 

_Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op&#8209;Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts._


I find it interesting that you seem to admit the aclu is a liberal org. and I wasn't aware they ran a think tank too,  can you link to it please? 


and if you are going to just cite media matters you really would have been better off just linking to them. 


have you read the study itself? for instance your examples ala Rand corp.;



_The second apparent anomaly is the RAND Corporation, which has a fairly liberal average score, 60.4.  We mentioned this finding to some employees of RAND, who told us they were not surprised.  

While RAND strives to be middle-of-the-road ideologically, the more conservative scholars at RAND tend to work on military studies, while the more liberal scholars tend to work on domestic studies.  Because the military studies are sometimes classified and often more technocratic than the domestic studies, the media and members of Congress tend to cite the domestic studies disproportionately.  As a consequence, RAND appears liberal when judged by these citations.  It is important to note that this fact&#8212;that the research at RAND is more conservative than the numbers in Table 1 suggest&#8212;will not bias our results.  To see this, think of RAND as two think tanks: RAND I, the left-leaning think tank which produces the research that the media and members of Congress tend to cite, and RAND II, the conservative think tank which produces the research that they tend not to cite.  Our results exclude RAND II from the analysis.  This causes no more bias than excluding any other think tank that is rarely cited in Congress or the media.
_




anyway,   I assume you have read my posts here-


Q;  in light of the following I am curious-

85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.

what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?


----------



## Trajan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Now depending on how many times the Media cited the think tanks that were rated by the politician cites determines the media bias. This rating system is so moronic and worthless that only a CON$ervative would be stupid enough not to see it no matter how many times it is explained and swallow it whole and without question. Obviously CON$ are the target audience for the phony "study" from the "Liberal" UCLA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If not stupid than desperate to fill the void that is rightist dogma.
Click to expand...


or as inept a some who cannot seem to use the quote feature at least half assed effectively, van you please ensure the persons names are on the quoted portion of your posts please?


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air America was more political, Rush is just a bad comedian, he used to be funnier and people were drawn to his wit.  Then he got off drugs and now he's just vicious.  He wouldn't run because he knows he wouldn't win.
> 
> 
> 
> Rush serves his purpose.  His job is to get the veins in leftists' foreheads throbbing.
> 
> He's very good at his job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His job is to fill mindless drones like you with disinformation.
> 
> He's very good at his job.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, you quote him more than anyone else here.  

He's playing you, Ed.  And you fall for it.  Every.  Single.  Time.


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if conservatives had the business acumen that liberals apparently do, they could come up with conservative programming that would sell and then they could "control the media".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there you go...we have one nut in this thread admitting that the left doesn't control the media.
Click to expand...

Now, now, there's no need to mindlessly lash out when I point out what an utter failure your vaunted "liberal business acumen" is.  

But then, that's pretty much all you're capable of.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that if I come up with links, then you agree that it's a Rightwing talking point?
> 
> 
> 
> If you come up with links, I'll be surprised, because you mostly never do.
> 
> Let's look at this from your pitiful point of view.
> 
> You consider me a conservative dittohead, incapable of original thought.  Correct?  Of course, that's utterly laughable, but you and reality don't get along too well.
> 
> *If it were a rightwing talking point, I would have heard it.  Right?
> 
> But I haven't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Edthecynic just gave you a prime example, with Operation Chaos.
> 
> Are you claiming that you never heard of it?  Or the rationale behind it?  Or did you just not understand it?
> 
> Your claim that you haven't heard it is just another blatant lie from a blatant liar.
Click to expand...

Wait, I thought you were going to provide links proving conservatives saying the media picks the president is a talking point?

Meanwhile, we weren't talking about Operation Chaos.  

Your deflection is noted and expected.  You fail.  As usual.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all of his skeletons would be out of the closet. Of course, his lemmings would overlook that stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> What's Obama's college transcript look like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paper?
Click to expand...

Oh, look -- a lemming overlooking stuff.  Right on cue.


Synthaholic said:


> Is Poor Sarah ever going to release her High School diploma?


Is Poor Sarah the President of the United States, put there in part because of some alleged overwhelming intelligence?

Hint:  No.  But again, your deflection is noted and expected.


----------



## daveman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Now depending on how many times the Media cited the think tanks that were rated by the politician cites determines the media bias. This rating system is so moronic and worthless that only a CON$ervative would be stupid enough not to see it no matter how many times it is explained and swallow it whole and without question. Obviously CON$ are the target audience for the phony "study" from the "Liberal" UCLA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If not stupid than desperate to fill the void that is rightist dogma.
Click to expand...


I wish to Gaea's shell-pink nipples that you would learn how the Quote function works, you fucking moron.  

My achin' pancreas, why do you continue the charade that you're intelligent?


----------



## Dr.House

NYcarbineer said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there you go...we have one nut in this thread admitting that the left doesn't control the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weak comeback...  You were pwned....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how getting daveman to admit that the left does not control the media translates into getting 'pwned' but I'm sure you'll entertain us with an explanation of that.
Click to expand...


Even weaker...  If it weren't you, I wouldn't have expected it...

Your fail is, how they say, epic....


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there you go...we have one nut in this thread admitting that the left doesn't control the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weak comeback...  You were pwned....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how getting daveman to admit that the left does not control the media translates into getting 'pwned' but I'm sure you'll entertain us with an explanation of that.
Click to expand...

Say, was stealing money from a boy's and girl's club part of Air America's liberal-business-acumen-filled business plan?


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weak comeback...  You were pwned....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how getting daveman to admit that the left does not control the media translates into getting 'pwned' but I'm sure you'll entertain us with an explanation of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say, was stealing money from a boy's and girl's club part of Air America's liberal-business-acumen-filled business plan?
Click to expand...

Keep those CON$ervofascist talking points coming.


----------



## edthecynic

Trajan said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> hello edthecynic, still waiting....
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetual CON$ervative dumb act again. They were posted in my exchange with the right-wing hack Meister.
> 
> Since, as a CON$ervative, you are too lazy to go back and read them, I'll summarize.
> 
> The authors, passed off as Libs because of their connection to UCLA, are hacks for the biggest and most radical right-wing think tanks, Heritage Foundation, AEI, and the Hoover Institute, as well as contributers of right -wing propaganda for RW extremist publications like The American Spectator. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997.
> 
> To get their cooked results, they used a Politician's ADA ratings and think tanks to determine MEDIA bias. So if a poiltician with a CON$ervative rating cites the ACLU think tank, that makes the ACLU CON$ervative and any media that cites the ACLU is also CON$ervative. Now you say, the ACLU is about as Liberal as a think tank can get, but in the fake "study" the ACLU was rated as CON$ervative, the Right-wing Rand Corporation was rated Liberal, and the Liberal think tank Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments was rated as more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union. Thus Drudge leans Left and Brit Hume is in the Middle.
> 
> Now depending on how many times the Media cited the think tanks that were rated by the politician cites determines the media bias. This rating system is so moronic and worthless that only a CON$ervative would be stupid enough not to see it no matter how many times it is explained and swallow it whole and without question. Obviously CON$ are the target audience for the phony "study" from the "Liberal" UCLA.
> 
> Thank you in advance for your apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so their rating system is flawed? I see. and *the screed against the authors?  in your understanding, anyone that takes grants from any 'right wing' org. is tainted, there fore any study performed under the umbrella of a liberal org. ala  grants is tainted as well?  *
> 
> 
> anyway,  if the results are cooked, why did UCLA not disown the study? It is published as their sponsored product ...no?
> 
> and as ucla noted;
> 
> _"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said._
> 
> according to the press release I saw Hume was rated right of center not centrist btw and they noted;
> 
> _Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op&#8209;Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts._
> 
> 
> *I find it interesting that you seem to admit the aclu is a liberal org. and I wasn't aware they ran a think tank too,  can you link to it please? *
> 
> 
> and if you are going to just cite media matters you really would have been better off just linking to them.
> 
> 
> have you read the study itself? for instance your examples ala Rand corp.;
> 
> 
> 
> _The second apparent anomaly is the RAND Corporation, which has a fairly liberal average score, 60.4.  We mentioned this finding to some employees of RAND, who told us they were not surprised.
> 
> While RAND strives to be middle-of-the-road ideologically, the more conservative scholars at RAND tend to work on military studies, while the more liberal scholars tend to work on domestic studies.  Because the military studies are sometimes classified and often more technocratic than the domestic studies, the media and members of Congress tend to cite the domestic studies disproportionately.  As a consequence, RAND appears liberal when judged by these citations.  It is important to note that this factthat the research at RAND is more conservative than the numbers in Table 1 suggestwill not bias our results.  To see this, think of RAND as two think tanks: RAND I, the left-leaning think tank which produces the research that the media and members of Congress tend to cite, and RAND II, the conservative think tank which produces the research that they tend not to cite.  Our results exclude RAND II from the analysis.  This causes no more bias than excluding any other think tank that is rarely cited in Congress or the media.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyway,   I assume you have read my posts here-
> 
> 
> Q;  in light of the following I am curious-
> 
> 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
> 
> what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
Click to expand...

Gee, what a surprise! NOT! Rather  than admit the rating system is not just flawed, but moronic on its face, you choose to misrepresent what I said. I pointed out the the authors are CON$ and not Libs because they are from UCLA as presented by CON$. Rather than admit your fellow travelers were deliberately misrepresenting the authors as Libs, you misrepresent me. No surprise there from a typical CON$ervative.

And it is the "study" you are worshiping that lists the ACLU as a CON$ervative think tank, so you have unwittingly exposed yet another flaw in their "study."
Thank you, keep it up.

And don't change the subject with questions from more phony data to deflect from the stupidity of the "study" in question.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how getting daveman to admit that the left does not control the media translates into getting 'pwned' but I'm sure you'll entertain us with an explanation of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Say, was stealing money from a boy's and girl's club part of Air America's liberal-business-acumen-filled business plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep those CON$ervofascist talking points coming.
Click to expand...

Poor Ed.  Just can't handle the truth.

Air America Funds Returned To a Bronx Boys and Girls Club - September 28, 2006 - The New York Sun

Last summer, as part of DOI's investigation into the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club regarding improper expenditures of city funds, the agency discovered that the club had transferred $875,000 to Air America in the period leading up to the network's launch in March 2004. A co-founder of Air America, Evan Montvel Cohen, had simultaneously served as development director for the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Cohen later told The New York Sun that he arranged the transfer of $875,000 to the radio network from the club.​Screw the poor kids.  There are leftist rants that need to be broadcast!!


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetual CON$ervative dumb act again. They were posted in my exchange with the right-wing hack Meister.
> 
> Since, as a CON$ervative, you are too lazy to go back and read them, I'll summarize.
> 
> The authors, passed off as Libs because of their connection to UCLA, are hacks for the biggest and most radical right-wing think tanks, Heritage Foundation, AEI, and the Hoover Institute, as well as contributers of right -wing propaganda for RW extremist publications like The American Spectator. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997.
> 
> To get their cooked results, they used a Politician's ADA ratings and think tanks to determine MEDIA bias. So if a poiltician with a CON$ervative rating cites the ACLU think tank, that makes the ACLU CON$ervative and any media that cites the ACLU is also CON$ervative. Now you say, the ACLU is about as Liberal as a think tank can get, but in the fake "study" the ACLU was rated as CON$ervative, the Right-wing Rand Corporation was rated Liberal, and the Liberal think tank Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments was rated as more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union. Thus Drudge leans Left and Brit Hume is in the Middle.
> 
> Now depending on how many times the Media cited the think tanks that were rated by the politician cites determines the media bias. This rating system is so moronic and worthless that only a CON$ervative would be stupid enough not to see it no matter how many times it is explained and swallow it whole and without question. Obviously CON$ are the target audience for the phony "study" from the "Liberal" UCLA.
> 
> Thank you in advance for your apology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so their rating system is flawed? I see. and *the screed against the authors?  in your understanding, anyone that takes grants from any 'right wing' org. is tainted, there fore any study performed under the umbrella of a liberal org. ala  grants is tainted as well?  *
> 
> 
> anyway,  if the results are cooked, why did UCLA not disown the study? It is published as their sponsored product ...no?
> 
> and as ucla noted;
> 
> _"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said._
> 
> according to the press release I saw Hume was rated right of center not centrist btw and they noted;
> 
> _Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op&#8209;Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts._
> 
> 
> *I find it interesting that you seem to admit the aclu is a liberal org. and I wasn't aware they ran a think tank too,  can you link to it please? *
> 
> 
> and if you are going to just cite media matters you really would have been better off just linking to them.
> 
> 
> have you read the study itself? for instance your examples ala Rand corp.;
> 
> 
> 
> _The second apparent anomaly is the RAND Corporation, which has a fairly liberal average score, 60.4.  We mentioned this finding to some employees of RAND, who told us they were not surprised.
> 
> While RAND strives to be middle-of-the-road ideologically, the more conservative scholars at RAND tend to work on military studies, while the more liberal scholars tend to work on domestic studies.  Because the military studies are sometimes classified and often more technocratic than the domestic studies, the media and members of Congress tend to cite the domestic studies disproportionately.  As a consequence, RAND appears liberal when judged by these citations.  It is important to note that this fact&#8212;that the research at RAND is more conservative than the numbers in Table 1 suggest&#8212;will not bias our results.  To see this, think of RAND as two think tanks: RAND I, the left-leaning think tank which produces the research that the media and members of Congress tend to cite, and RAND II, the conservative think tank which produces the research that they tend not to cite.  Our results exclude RAND II from the analysis.  This causes no more bias than excluding any other think tank that is rarely cited in Congress or the media.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyway,   I assume you have read my posts here-
> 
> 
> Q;  in light of the following I am curious-
> 
> 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
> 
> what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, what a surprise! NOT! Rather  than admit the rating system is not just flawed, but moronic on its face, you choose to misrepresent what I said. I pointed out the the authors are CON$ and not Libs because they are from UCLA as presented by CON$. Rather than admit your fellow travelers were deliberately misrepresenting the authors as Libs, you misrepresent me. No surprise there from a typical CON$ervative.
> 
> And it is the "study" you are worshiping that lists the ACLU as a CON$ervative think tank, so you have unwittingly exposed yet another flaw in their "study."
> Thank you, keep it up.
> 
> And don't change the subject with questions from more phony data to deflect from the stupidity of the "study" in question.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Trajan!  You just admit Ed is right, or he'll oh-so-cleverly put a dollar sign in "conservative" and capitalize the first three letters again!

Because, you know, that's utterly devastating.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you come up with links, I'll be surprised, because you mostly never do.
> 
> Let's look at this from your pitiful point of view.
> 
> You consider me a conservative dittohead, incapable of original thought.  Correct?  Of course, that's utterly laughable, but you and reality don't get along too well.
> 
> *If it were a rightwing talking point, I would have heard it.  Right?
> 
> But I haven't.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edthecynic just gave you a prime example, with Operation Chaos.
> 
> Are you claiming that you never heard of it?  Or the rationale behind it?  Or did you just not understand it?
> 
> Your claim that you haven't heard it is just another blatant lie from a blatant liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait, I thought you were going to provide links proving conservatives saying the media picks the president is a talking point?
> 
> *Meanwhile, we weren't talking about Operation Chaos.  *
> 
> Your deflection is noted and expected.  You fail.  As usual.
Click to expand...



Operation Chaos is an example - do you need me to link to Operation Chaos?  

Keep running from your contention that it's not a Republican talking point that the media picks the president.  You're not fooling anyone, except maybe Dr. House.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say, was stealing money from a boy's and girl's club part of Air America's liberal-business-acumen-filled business plan?
> 
> 
> 
> Keep those CON$ervofascist talking points coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor Ed.  Just can't handle the truth.
> 
> Air America Funds Returned To a Bronx Boys and Girls Club - September 28, 2006 - The New York Sun
> 
> Last summer, as part of DOI's investigation into the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club regarding improper expenditures of city funds, the agency discovered that the club had transferred $875,000 to Air America in the period leading up to the network's launch in March 2004. A co-founder of Air America, Evan Montvel Cohen, had simultaneously served as development director for the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Cohen later told The New York Sun that he arranged the transfer of $875,000 to the radio network from the club.​Screw the poor kids.  There are leftist rants that need to be broadcast!!
Click to expand...

The New York Sun!!!  

They are further down the journalistic rung than The National Enquirer.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say, was stealing money from a boy's and girl's club part of Air America's liberal-business-acumen-filled business plan?
> 
> 
> 
> Keep those CON$ervofascist talking points coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor Ed.  Just can't handle the truth.
> 
> Air America Funds Returned To a Bronx Boys and Girls Club - September 28, 2006 - The New York Sun
> Last summer, as part of DOI's investigation into the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club regarding improper expenditures of city funds, the agency discovered that* the club had transferred $875,000 to Air America* in the period leading up to the network's launch in March 2004. A co-founder of Air America, Evan Montvel Cohen, had simultaneously served as development director for the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Cohen later told The New York Sun that he arranged the transfer of $875,000 to the radio network from the club.​Screw the poor kids.  There are leftist rants that need to be broadcast!!
Click to expand...

Defend one CON$ervative talking point with yet another CON$ervative talking point. 

First of all GOP operative Cohen, former Chief of Staff for Republican Governor Tommy Tanaka, only transferred $480,000 to Progress Media, not Air America, the other $395,000 was embezzled by the other executives of the Gloria Wise B & G Club for their own personal use. When Progress Media was sold to Piquant LLC in 2004, the $875,000 was repaid by Piquant, not Air America, as part of the sale. The truth is never quite the same as CON$ spin it! But keep those CON$ervative talking points coming.

Air America Scam Artist, Montvel-Cohen, Arrested in Guam

Cohen was the Director of Development for the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs, in 2003, when he and business partner Rex Sorensen, CEO of Sorensen Media Group, created Progress Media Inc.   On March 31, 2004, Air America was launched. It was discovered that  Cohen had secured part of the money used to found the network by a loan  from his employer, the non-profit Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs.*   Approved by the board of directors and in the amount of $480,000, it  went to Cohen's company Progress Media, then owner of Air America Radio.*  The Gloria Wise group was a non-profit organization, partially funded  by the city of New York, which provided services for children and  seniors in the Bronx.   When the funds were transferred, Evan Montvel-Cohen, was still Director  of Development for Gloria Wise. *This was part of a larger  misappropriation of funds by the organization's executives, which saw  several of them receiving money from the organization that was in turned  used for personal expenditures.* *  By the time this was revealed, Progress Media Inc. had sold its Air  America rights to Piquant LLC (in November 2004), who later agreed to  repay Gloria Wise $875,000 worth of the debt, as a condition of the  sale. *


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edthecynic just gave you a prime example, with Operation Chaos.
> 
> Are you claiming that you never heard of it?  Or the rationale behind it?  Or did you just not understand it?
> 
> Your claim that you haven't heard it is just another blatant lie from a blatant liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, I thought you were going to provide links proving conservatives saying the media picks the president is a talking point?
> 
> *Meanwhile, we weren't talking about Operation Chaos.  *
> 
> Your deflection is noted and expected.  You fail.  As usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Operation Chaos is an example - do you need me to link to Operation Chaos?
Click to expand...

You said:  "Is it or is it not a Rightwing talking point that the Liberal media will pick the president?"

You didn't mention OC.  Why do you want to move the goalposts now?

That's a rhetorical question.  I already know the answer.


Synthaholic said:


> Keep running from your contention that it's not a Republican talking point that the media picks the president.  You're not fooling anyone, except maybe Dr. House.


Did you ever find any links proving "the liberal media will pick the President" is a right-wing talking point?

Because you haven't posted any.  I know you desperately want me to just accept your word, but that's simply not going to happen.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep those CON$ervofascist talking points coming.
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Ed.  Just can't handle the truth.
> 
> Air America Funds Returned To a Bronx Boys and Girls Club - September 28, 2006 - The New York Sun
> 
> Last summer, as part of DOI's investigation into the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club regarding improper expenditures of city funds, the agency discovered that the club had transferred $875,000 to Air America in the period leading up to the network's launch in March 2004. A co-founder of Air America, Evan Montvel Cohen, had simultaneously served as development director for the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Cohen later told The New York Sun that he arranged the transfer of $875,000 to the radio network from the club.​Screw the poor kids.  There are leftist rants that need to be broadcast!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The New York Sun!!!
> 
> They are further down the journalistic rung than The National Enquirer.
Click to expand...

Yet not one word of condemnation for leftists that take charity money from children.

Despicable.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep those CON$ervofascist talking points coming.
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Ed.  Just can't handle the truth.
> 
> Air America Funds Returned To a Bronx Boys and Girls Club - September 28, 2006 - The New York Sun
> Last summer, as part of DOI's investigation into the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club regarding improper expenditures of city funds, the agency discovered that* the club had transferred $875,000 to Air America* in the period leading up to the network's launch in March 2004. A co-founder of Air America, Evan Montvel Cohen, had simultaneously served as development director for the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Cohen later told The New York Sun that he arranged the transfer of $875,000 to the radio network from the club.​Screw the poor kids.  There are leftist rants that need to be broadcast!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defend one CON$ervative talking point with yet another CON$ervative talking point.
> 
> First of all GOP operative Cohen...
Click to expand...

From your link:
Montvel-Cohen was the founder and first chairman of Air America.​Looks like you're a liar, Ed.  

But so what else is new?


----------



## NYcarbineer

daveman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there you go...we have one nut in this thread admitting that the left doesn't control the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, now, there's no need to mindlessly lash out when I point out what an utter failure your vaunted "liberal business acumen" is.
> 
> But then, that's pretty much all you're capable of.
Click to expand...


I said that to get someone like you to take the bait and fall into the trap of admitting that the left doesn't control the media.  I assumed either talk radio, or Foxnew's ratings, would be the comeback.

You went with the former, right on cue.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all of his skeletons would be out of the closet. Of course, his lemmings would overlook that stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> What's Obama's college transcript look like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paper?
> 
> 
> Is Poor Sarah ever going to release her High School diploma?
Click to expand...


Not a good idea.  Todd wiped his ass with it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

daveman said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was masterful the way Air America put Rush out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there you go...we have one nut in this thread admitting that the left doesn't control the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, now, there's no need to mindlessly lash out when I point out what an utter failure your vaunted "liberal business acumen" is.
> 
> But then, that's pretty much all you're capable of.
Click to expand...


Ok, so liberals don't control the media because they don't have the business acumen to do so,

or liberals DO control the media.

Which is it?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Time for a fact break: 



> *Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media.*
> 
> *Fact: The media are being increasingly monopolized by parent corporations with pro-corporate or conservative agendas.*
> 
> *Summary*
> 
> The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, *all of whom have conservative economic agendas.* The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. *However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news.* On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.
> 
> *Argument*
> 
> Conservatives often promote the myth that the U.S. media are liberal. This myth serves several purposes: it raises public skepticism about liberal news stories, hides conservative bias when it appears, and goads the media to the right. *GOP strategist William Kristol also reveals another reason: "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." *(1)
> 
> In unguarded moments, however, even far-right figures like Pat Buchanan come clean: "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive." He further conceded: "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." (2)
> 
> The U.S. has a liberal media


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there you go...we have one nut in this thread admitting that the left doesn't control the media.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now, there's no need to mindlessly lash out when I point out what an utter failure your vaunted "liberal business acumen" is.
> 
> But then, that's pretty much all you're capable of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that to get someone like you to take the bait and fall into the trap of admitting that the left doesn't control the media.  I assumed either talk radio, or Foxnew's ratings, would be the comeback.
> 
> You went with the former, right on cue.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.  Still trying to pretend the left doesn't have a lock on broadcast news and print.

And still no word of condemnation for Air America and their leftist enablers taking money from poor kids.

Hey, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right?


----------



## daveman

NYcarbineer said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there you go...we have one nut in this thread admitting that the left doesn't control the media.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now, there's no need to mindlessly lash out when I point out what an utter failure your vaunted "liberal business acumen" is.
> 
> But then, that's pretty much all you're capable of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so liberals don't control the media because they don't have the business acumen to do so,
> 
> or liberals DO control the media.
> 
> Which is it?
Click to expand...

Liberals control broadcast news (which reaches the most people) and print media.

Liberals haven't been able to break into talk radio because they lack the business acumen and because people just don't want to hear angry ranting leftists all the time.


----------



## Synthaholic

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep those CON$ervofascist talking points coming.
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Ed.  Just can't handle the truth.
> 
> Air America Funds Returned To a Bronx Boys and Girls Club - September 28, 2006 - The New York Sun
> Last summer, as part of DOI's investigation into the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club regarding improper expenditures of city funds, the agency discovered that* the club had transferred $875,000 to Air America* in the period leading up to the network's launch in March 2004. A co-founder of Air America, Evan Montvel Cohen, had simultaneously served as development director for the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Cohen later told The New York Sun that he arranged the transfer of $875,000 to the radio network from the club.​Screw the poor kids.  There are leftist rants that need to be broadcast!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defend one CON$ervative talking point with yet another CON$ervative talking point.
> 
> First of all GOP operative Cohen, former Chief of Staff for Republican Governor Tommy Tanaka, only transferred $480,000 to Progress Media, not Air America, the other $395,000 was embezzled by the other executives of the Gloria Wise B & G Club for their own personal use. When Progress Media was sold to Piquant LLC in 2004, the $875,000 was repaid by Piquant, not Air America, as part of the sale. The truth is never quite the same as CON$ spin it! But keep those CON$ervative talking points coming.
> 
> Air America Scam Artist, Montvel-Cohen, Arrested in Guam
> 
> Cohen was the Director of Development for the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs, in 2003, when he and business partner Rex Sorensen, CEO of Sorensen Media Group, created Progress Media Inc.   On March 31, 2004, Air America was launched. It was discovered that  Cohen had secured part of the money used to found the network by a loan  from his employer, the non-profit Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs.*   Approved by the board of directors and in the amount of $480,000, it  went to Cohen's company Progress Media, then owner of Air America Radio.*  The Gloria Wise group was a non-profit organization, partially funded  by the city of New York, which provided services for children and  seniors in the Bronx.   When the funds were transferred, Evan Montvel-Cohen, was still Director  of Development for Gloria Wise. *This was part of a larger  misappropriation of funds by the organization's executives, which saw  several of them receiving money from the organization that was in turned  used for personal expenditures.* *  By the time this was revealed, Progress Media Inc. had sold its Air  America rights to Piquant LLC (in November 2004), who later agreed to  repay Gloria Wise $875,000 worth of the debt, as a condition of the  sale. *
Click to expand...

daveman is caught in ANOTHER lie???

Who - besides everyone who has ever encountered him - would have thought!


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Ed.  Just can't handle the truth.
> 
> Air America Funds Returned To a Bronx Boys and Girls Club - September 28, 2006 - The New York Sun
> Last summer, as part of DOI's investigation into the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club regarding improper expenditures of city funds, the agency discovered that* the club had transferred $875,000 to Air America* in the period leading up to the network's launch in March 2004. A co-founder of Air America, Evan Montvel Cohen, had simultaneously served as development director for the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Cohen later told The New York Sun that he arranged the transfer of $875,000 to the radio network from the club.​Screw the poor kids.  There are leftist rants that need to be broadcast!!
> 
> 
> 
> Defend one CON$ervative talking point with yet another CON$ervative talking point.
> 
> First of all GOP operative Cohen, former Chief of Staff for Republican Governor Tommy Tanaka, only transferred $480,000 to Progress Media, not Air America, the other $395,000 was embezzled by the other executives of the Gloria Wise B & G Club for their own personal use. When Progress Media was sold to Piquant LLC in 2004, the $875,000 was repaid by Piquant, not Air America, as part of the sale. The truth is never quite the same as CON$ spin it! But keep those CON$ervative talking points coming.
> 
> Air America Scam Artist, Montvel-Cohen, Arrested in Guam
> 
> Cohen was the Director of Development for the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs, in 2003, when he and business partner Rex Sorensen, CEO of Sorensen Media Group, created Progress Media Inc.   On March 31, 2004, Air America was launched. It was discovered that  Cohen had secured part of the money used to found the network by a loan  from his employer, the non-profit Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs.*   Approved by the board of directors and in the amount of $480,000, it  went to Cohen's company Progress Media, then owner of Air America Radio.*  The Gloria Wise group was a non-profit organization, partially funded  by the city of New York, which provided services for children and  seniors in the Bronx.   When the funds were transferred, Evan Montvel-Cohen, was still Director  of Development for Gloria Wise. *This was part of a larger  misappropriation of funds by the organization's executives, which saw  several of them receiving money from the organization that was in turned  used for personal expenditures.* *  By the time this was revealed, Progress Media Inc. had sold its Air  America rights to Piquant LLC (in November 2004), who later agreed to  repay Gloria Wise $875,000 worth of the debt, as a condition of the  sale. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> daveman is caught in ANOTHER lie???
> 
> Who - besides everyone who has ever encountered him - would have thought!
Click to expand...

So you're saying leftists DIDN'T illegally divert funds from a club for poor children to underwrite Air America?

You sure you want to go with that?

Oh, and don't you DARE criticize that behavior.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, I thought you were going to provide links proving conservatives saying the media picks the president is a talking point?
> 
> *Meanwhile, we weren't talking about Operation Chaos.  *
> 
> Your deflection is noted and expected.  You fail.  As usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Operation Chaos is an example - do you need me to link to Operation Chaos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said:  "Is it or is it not a Rightwing talking point that the Liberal media will pick the president?"
> 
> *You didn't mention OC.  Why do you want to move the goalposts now?
> *
> *That's a rhetorical question.  I already know the answer.*
Click to expand...


OC is an example, as I've said a few times already.  Why are you ignoring it?

Rhetorical questions are the only questions you are able to answer, because you are asking yourself.



			
				daveman said:
			
		

> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep running from your contention that it's not a Republican talking point that the media picks the president.  You're not fooling anyone, except maybe Dr. House.
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you ever find any links proving "the liberal media will pick the President" is a right-wing talking point?*
> 
> Because you haven't posted any.  I know you desperately want me to just accept your word, but that's simply not going to happen.
Click to expand...


The Media Want To Pick A President For You Because You Aren?t Smart Enough : Personal Liberty Digest&#8482;

Bachmann: Media, Not Voters, Picking Winners - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

The media will choose our next president - Topix

EastCoastChickens.com &bull; View topic - will the news media pick our president?

Why do you let the Media pick your President? - Yahoo! Answers

Media Choosing Our Next President? YES!, page 1

Debate: Does the press pick presidents? - US Elections - Helium

Do You Let The Media Pick Your President? | Socyberty

Don

How The Corporate Media Hand-Picks Presidential Candidates! Time to WAKE UP! | Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show

Don&#8217;t Let the Media Pick Our Candidate | Conservative Byte

https://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2011...epublican-candidate-for-president-they-think/





*FOOL!*


----------



## Synthaholic

NYcarbineer said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's Obama's college transcript look like?
> 
> 
> 
> Paper?
> 
> 
> Is Poor Sarah ever going to release her High School diploma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a good idea.  Todd wiped his ass with it.
Click to expand...

I suspected her grades were shitty.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Operation Chaos is an example - do you need me to link to Operation Chaos?
> 
> 
> 
> You said:  "Is it or is it not a Rightwing talking point that the Liberal media will pick the president?"
> 
> *You didn't mention OC.  Why do you want to move the goalposts now?
> *
> *That's a rhetorical question.  I already know the answer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OC is an example, as I've said a few times already.  Why are you ignoring it?
Click to expand...

Because we weren't discussing it, were we?


Synthaholic said:


> Rhetorical questions are the only questions you are able to answer, because you are asking yourself.


If you weren't so painfully predictable, I wouldn't have to ask questions I already know the answer to.


Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep running from your contention that it's not a Republican talking point that the media picks the president.  You're not fooling anyone, except maybe Dr. House.
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you ever find any links proving "the liberal media will pick the President" is a right-wing talking point?*
> 
> Because you haven't posted any.  I know you desperately want me to just accept your word, but that's simply not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Media Want To Pick A President For You Because You Aren?t Smart Enough : Personal Liberty Digest
> 
> Bachmann: Media, Not Voters, Picking Winners - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
> 
> The media will choose our next president - Topix
> 
> EastCoastChickens.com &bull; View topic - will the news media pick our president?
> 
> Why do you let the Media pick your President? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> Media Choosing Our Next President? YES!, page 1
> 
> Debate: Does the press pick presidents? - US Elections - Helium
> 
> Do You Let The Media Pick Your President? | Socyberty
> 
> Don
> 
> How The Corporate Media Hand-Picks Presidential Candidates! Time to WAKE UP! | Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show
> 
> Dont Let the Media Pick Our Candidate | Conservative Byte
> 
> https://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2011...epublican-candidate-for-president-they-think/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FOOL!*
Click to expand...

There, was that so hard?  How many hours did it take you to find those links?

I'll grant it may indeed be a talking point among a few of the right. (Yahoo Answers?  Really?  )

But I hadn't heard it.  Nor, I suspect, have most other conservatives here.  

But you just keep telling yourself you won.


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defend one CON$ervative talking point with yet another CON$ervative talking point.
> 
> First of all GOP operative Cohen, former Chief of Staff for Republican Governor Tommy Tanaka, only transferred $480,000 to Progress Media, not Air America, the other $395,000 was embezzled by the other executives of the Gloria Wise B & G Club for their own personal use. When Progress Media was sold to Piquant LLC in 2004, the $875,000 was repaid by Piquant, not Air America, as part of the sale. The truth is never quite the same as CON$ spin it! But keep those CON$ervative talking points coming.
> 
> Air America Scam Artist, Montvel-Cohen, Arrested in Guam
> 
> Cohen was the Director of Development for the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs, in 2003, when he and business partner Rex Sorensen, CEO of Sorensen Media Group, created Progress Media Inc.   On March 31, 2004, Air America was launched. It was discovered that  Cohen had secured part of the money used to found the network by a loan  from his employer, the non-profit Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs.*   Approved by the board of directors and in the amount of $480,000, it  went to Cohen's company Progress Media, then owner of Air America Radio.*  The Gloria Wise group was a non-profit organization, partially funded  by the city of New York, which provided services for children and  seniors in the Bronx.   When the funds were transferred, Evan Montvel-Cohen, was still Director  of Development for Gloria Wise. *This was part of a larger  misappropriation of funds by the organization's executives, which saw  several of them receiving money from the organization that was in turned  used for personal expenditures.* *  By the time this was revealed, Progress Media Inc. had sold its Air  America rights to Piquant LLC (in November 2004), who later agreed to  repay Gloria Wise $875,000 worth of the debt, as a condition of the  sale. *
> 
> 
> 
> daveman is caught in ANOTHER lie???
> 
> Who - besides everyone who has ever encountered him - would have thought!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying leftists DIDN'T illegally divert funds from a club for poor children to underwrite Air America?
> 
> You sure you want to go with that?
> 
> Oh, and don't you DARE criticize that behavior.
Click to expand...

What were you saying about moving goalposts?


----------



## madasheck

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman is caught in ANOTHER lie???
> 
> Who - besides everyone who has ever encountered him - would have thought!
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying leftists DIDN'T illegally divert funds from a club for poor children to underwrite Air America?
> 
> You sure you want to go with that?
> 
> Oh, and don't you DARE criticize that behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were you saying about moving goalposts?
Click to expand...


You know, I keep waiting for Daveman to actually _argue_ rather than spew insults and automatic talking points. Think that's his New Year's resolution?


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said:  "Is it or is it not a Rightwing talking point that the Liberal media will pick the president?"
> 
> *You didn't mention OC.  Why do you want to move the goalposts now?
> *
> *That's a rhetorical question.  I already know the answer.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OC is an example, as I've said a few times already.  Why are you ignoring it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we weren't discussing it, were we?
> 
> If you weren't so painfully predictable, I wouldn't have to ask questions I already know the answer to.
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you ever find any links proving "the liberal media will pick the President" is a right-wing talking point?*
> 
> Because you haven't posted any.  I know you desperately want me to just accept your word, but that's simply not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Media Want To Pick A President For You Because You Aren?t Smart Enough : Personal Liberty Digest
> 
> Bachmann: Media, Not Voters, Picking Winners - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
> 
> The media will choose our next president - Topix
> 
> EastCoastChickens.com &bull; View topic - will the news media pick our president?
> 
> Why do you let the Media pick your President? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> Media Choosing Our Next President? YES!, page 1
> 
> Debate: Does the press pick presidents? - US Elections - Helium
> 
> Do You Let The Media Pick Your President? | Socyberty
> 
> Don
> 
> How The Corporate Media Hand-Picks Presidential Candidates! Time to WAKE UP! | Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show
> 
> Dont Let the Media Pick Our Candidate | Conservative Byte
> 
> https://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2011...epublican-candidate-for-president-they-think/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FOOL!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There, was that so hard?  How many hours did it take you to find those links?
> 
> I'll grant it may indeed be a talking point among a few of the right. (Yahoo Answers?  Really?  )
> 
> But I hadn't heard it.  Nor, I suspect, have most other conservatives here.
> 
> But you just keep telling yourself you won.
Click to expand...

It took all of one Google search, a few minutes ago:

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

*That's FAIL #1*

I included the Yahoo! Answers one because - obviously - a wingnut who has been exposed to this Rightwing Talking Point has perpetuated it.

*That's FAIL #2*

If you claim to not have ever heard the meme that the mainstream media is picking the president, then it just confirms that you are a liar.

*That's FAIL #3*




I most certainly did 'win'.  

*That's FAIL #4*


Damn - even California Girl couldn't fail that many times in such a short post!  You're starting off the New Year in perfect form.


----------



## madasheck

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> OC is an example, as I've said a few times already.  Why are you ignoring it?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we weren't discussing it, were we?
> 
> If you weren't so painfully predictable, I wouldn't have to ask questions I already know the answer to.
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Media Want To Pick A President For You Because You Aren?t Smart Enough : Personal Liberty Digest
> 
> Bachmann: Media, Not Voters, Picking Winners - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
> 
> The media will choose our next president - Topix
> 
> EastCoastChickens.com &bull; View topic - will the news media pick our president?
> 
> Why do you let the Media pick your President? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> Media Choosing Our Next President? YES!, page 1
> 
> Debate: Does the press pick presidents? - US Elections - Helium
> 
> Do You Let The Media Pick Your President? | Socyberty
> 
> Don
> 
> How The Corporate Media Hand-Picks Presidential Candidates! Time to WAKE UP! | Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show
> 
> Dont Let the Media Pick Our Candidate | Conservative Byte
> 
> https://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2011...epublican-candidate-for-president-they-think/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FOOL!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There, was that so hard?  How many hours did it take you to find those links?
> 
> I'll grant it may indeed be a talking point among a few of the right. (Yahoo Answers?  Really?  )
> 
> But I hadn't heard it.  Nor, I suspect, have most other conservatives here.
> 
> But you just keep telling yourself you won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It took all of one Google search, a few minutes ago:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=the...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
> 
> *That's FAIL #1*
> 
> I included the Yahoo! Answers one because - obviously - a wingnut who has been exposed to this Rightwing Talking Point has perpetuated it.
> 
> *That's FAIL #2*
> 
> If you claim to not have ever heard the meme that the mainstream media is picking the president, then it just confirms that you are a liar.
> 
> *That's FAIL #3*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I most certainly did 'win'.
> 
> *That's FAIL #4*
> 
> 
> Damn - even California Girl couldn't fail that many times in such a short post!  You're starting off the New Year in perfect form.
Click to expand...


Prediction: His next answer will be "You didn't prove a thing." You read it here first.


----------



## Trajan

edthecynic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetual CON$ervative dumb act again. They were posted in my exchange with the right-wing hack Meister.
> 
> Since, as a CON$ervative, you are too lazy to go back and read them, I'll summarize.
> 
> The authors, passed off as Libs because of their connection to UCLA, are hacks for the biggest and most radical right-wing think tanks, Heritage Foundation, AEI, and the Hoover Institute, as well as contributers of right -wing propaganda for RW extremist publications like The American Spectator. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997.
> 
> To get their cooked results, they used a Politician's ADA ratings and think tanks to determine MEDIA bias. So if a poiltician with a CON$ervative rating cites the ACLU think tank, that makes the ACLU CON$ervative and any media that cites the ACLU is also CON$ervative. Now you say, the ACLU is about as Liberal as a think tank can get, but in the fake "study" the ACLU was rated as CON$ervative, the Right-wing Rand Corporation was rated Liberal, and the Liberal think tank Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments was rated as more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union. Thus Drudge leans Left and Brit Hume is in the Middle.
> 
> Now depending on how many times the Media cited the think tanks that were rated by the politician cites determines the media bias. This rating system is so moronic and worthless that only a CON$ervative would be stupid enough not to see it no matter how many times it is explained and swallow it whole and without question. Obviously CON$ are the target audience for the phony "study" from the "Liberal" UCLA.
> 
> Thank you in advance for your apology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so their rating system is flawed? I see. and *the screed against the authors?  in your understanding, anyone that takes grants from any 'right wing' org. is tainted, there fore any study performed under the umbrella of a liberal org. ala  grants is tainted as well?  *
> 
> 
> anyway,  if the results are cooked, why did UCLA not disown the study? It is published as their sponsored product ...no?
> 
> and as ucla noted;
> 
> _"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said._
> 
> according to the press release I saw Hume was rated right of center not centrist btw and they noted;
> 
> _Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op&#8209;Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts._
> 
> 
> *I find it interesting that you seem to admit the aclu is a liberal org. and I wasn't aware they ran a think tank too,  can you link to it please? *
> 
> 
> and if you are going to just cite media matters you really would have been better off just linking to them.
> 
> 
> have you read the study itself? for instance your examples ala Rand corp.;
> 
> 
> 
> _The second apparent anomaly is the RAND Corporation, which has a fairly liberal average score, 60.4.  We mentioned this finding to some employees of RAND, who told us they were not surprised.
> 
> While RAND strives to be middle-of-the-road ideologically, the more conservative scholars at RAND tend to work on military studies, while the more liberal scholars tend to work on domestic studies.  Because the military studies are sometimes classified and often more technocratic than the domestic studies, the media and members of Congress tend to cite the domestic studies disproportionately.  As a consequence, RAND appears liberal when judged by these citations.  It is important to note that this factthat the research at RAND is more conservative than the numbers in Table 1 suggestwill not bias our results.  To see this, think of RAND as two think tanks: RAND I, the left-leaning think tank which produces the research that the media and members of Congress tend to cite, and RAND II, the conservative think tank which produces the research that they tend not to cite.  Our results exclude RAND II from the analysis.  This causes no more bias than excluding any other think tank that is rarely cited in Congress or the media.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyway,   I assume you have read my posts here-
> 
> 
> Q;  in light of the following I am curious-
> 
> 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
> 
> what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, what a surprise! NOT! Rather  than admit the rating system is not just flawed, but moronic on its face, you choose to misrepresent what I said. I pointed out the the authors are CON$ and not Libs because they are from UCLA as presented by CON$. Rather than admit your fellow travelers were deliberately misrepresenting the authors as Libs, you misrepresent me. No surprise there from a typical CON$ervative.
> 
> And it is the "study" you are worshiping that lists the ACLU as a CON$ervative think tank, so you have unwittingly exposed yet another flaw in their "study."
> Thank you, keep it up.
> 
> And don't change the subject with questions from more phony data to deflect from the stupidity of the "study" in question.
Click to expand...


here, Reading Comprehension Connection: Home

I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.

I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion. 

You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is; 

*The Left Controls the Media*


so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-

Question 1;  in light of the following I am curious-

85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.

what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?



and to your point ala the aclu;

here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;

The web site, WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.

WheretodoResearch

WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites

American Civil Liberties Union


I found this interesting to;

_While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous.  The first is the ACLU.  The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8.  Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1.  This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a  right-leaning organization.  The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often.  In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold.  If we omit McConnells citations, the ACLUs average score increases to 55.9.   Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.  _


I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.  



So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted, so, again;

Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.

is that correct?  


yes, or no. 

so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman is caught in ANOTHER lie???
> 
> Who - besides everyone who has ever encountered him - would have thought!
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying leftists DIDN'T illegally divert funds from a club for poor children to underwrite Air America?
> 
> You sure you want to go with that?
> 
> Oh, and don't you DARE criticize that behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were you saying about moving goalposts?
Click to expand...

You just make sure you don't criticize that behavior. 

No enemies on the Left.  You don't give a shit about poor kids, as long as the agenda is served.


----------



## daveman

madasheck said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying leftists DIDN'T illegally divert funds from a club for poor children to underwrite Air America?
> 
> You sure you want to go with that?
> 
> Oh, and don't you DARE criticize that behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> What were you saying about moving goalposts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I keep waiting for Daveman to actually _argue_ rather than spew insults and automatic talking points. Think that's his New Year's resolution?
Click to expand...

"It's a strange world when left is always right and right is always wrong."

Yes, you're one of those "independent thinkers" who just coincidentally comes up with the same idea as the rest of the "independent thinkers", aren't you?


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> It took all of one Google search, a few minutes ago:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=the...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
> 
> *That's FAIL #1*


Yes, but you made the claim about 27 hours ago.  

So, it looks like you fail.


Synthaholic said:


> I included the Yahoo! Answers one because - obviously - a wingnut who has been exposed to this Rightwing Talking Point has perpetuated it.
> 
> *That's FAIL #2*


Double standard much?  You've criticized me countless times for citing leftist message board posters.  So Yahoo Answers is disallowable, using your own standards.

So, it looks like you fail.


Synthaholic said:


> If you claim to not have ever heard the meme that the mainstream media is picking the president, then it just confirms that you are a liar.
> 
> *That's FAIL #3*


No, it doesn't.  It means you can't prove I've heard it.  

So, it looks like you fail.



Synthaholic said:


> I most certainly did 'win'.
> 
> *That's FAIL #4*
> 
> 
> Damn - even California Girl couldn't fail that many times in such a short post!  You're starting off the New Year in perfect form.


Yes, you won.

Oh, wait -- no, you didn't.


----------



## daveman

madasheck said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we weren't discussing it, were we?
> 
> If you weren't so painfully predictable, I wouldn't have to ask questions I already know the answer to.
> 
> There, was that so hard?  How many hours did it take you to find those links?
> 
> I'll grant it may indeed be a talking point among a few of the right. (Yahoo Answers?  Really?  )
> 
> But I hadn't heard it.  Nor, I suspect, have most other conservatives here.
> 
> But you just keep telling yourself you won.
> 
> 
> 
> It took all of one Google search, a few minutes ago:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=the...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
> 
> *That's FAIL #1*
> 
> I included the Yahoo! Answers one because - obviously - a wingnut who has been exposed to this Rightwing Talking Point has perpetuated it.
> 
> *That's FAIL #2*
> 
> If you claim to not have ever heard the meme that the mainstream media is picking the president, then it just confirms that you are a liar.
> 
> *That's FAIL #3*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I most certainly did 'win'.
> 
> *That's FAIL #4*
> 
> 
> Damn - even California Girl couldn't fail that many times in such a short post!  You're starting off the New Year in perfect form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prediction: His next answer will be "You didn't prove a thing." You read it here first.
Click to expand...

He proved some people have said it.  He didn't prove I've heard it, or that it's a common right-wing talking point.

You're just as stupid as he is, aren't you?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

More evidence demonstrating the myth of liberal media bias:  



> The sections below provide more systematic coverage of these different myth-making approaches. *The bottom line is that, I have yet to see *any* credible study that proves that the mainstream media (MSM) in the U.S. has a "liberal bias" overall.* As an aside, let me add that I am fully aware that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Which is why, at Illiberal Conservative Media, I am amassing evidence to show why the mainstream media in the U.S. is not liberal (i.e., it is illiberal) *and most often conservatively biased.*
> 
> Welcome to Illiberal Conservative Media (ICM) - by eRiposte


----------



## Synthaholic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It took all of one Google search, a few minutes ago:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=the...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
> 
> *That's FAIL #1*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you made the claim about 27 hours ago.
> 
> So, it looks like you fail.
Click to expand...


And I didn't post examples immediately because it's a common meme.  It would be like you saying that Ron Paul believes we should end the Federal Reserve - would you have to produce links to that on a political message board, or do you assume anyone posting on a political message board has a modicum of knowledge about current politics?

Plus, Edthecynic almost immediately posted a perfect example, making you look stupid.  Do I need to pile on?  I mean, sure, it's fun, but it shouldn't be necessary.




> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I included the Yahoo! Answers one because - obviously - a wingnut who has been exposed to this Rightwing Talking Point has perpetuated it.
> 
> *That's FAIL #2*
> 
> 
> 
> Double standard much?  You've criticized me countless times for citing leftist message board posters.  So Yahoo Answers is disallowable, using your own standards.
> 
> So, it looks like you fail.
Click to expand...

No, moron.  There is a difference between using Yahoo! Answers to try to prove a *fact* and using Yahoo! Answers to prove the existence of an* opinion*.




> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you claim to not have ever heard the meme that the mainstream media is picking the president, then it just confirms that you are a liar.
> 
> *That's FAIL #3*
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It means you can't prove I've heard it.
> 
> So, it looks like you fail.
Click to expand...

So, your defense is that you are ignorant?  OK.




> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I most certainly did 'win'.
> 
> *That's FAIL #4*
> 
> 
> Damn - even California Girl couldn't fail that many times in such a short post!  You're starting off the New Year in perfect form.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you won.
> 
> Oh, wait -- no, you didn't.
Click to expand...



An objective reading would say that I won.  So sorry for your butthurt.  It's not covered under the Affordable Care Act.  But feel free to use more taxpayer dollars getting it looked at by Air Force medics.  The operative word there is 'free'.


----------



## daveman

Synthaholic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It took all of one Google search, a few minutes ago:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=the...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
> 
> *That's FAIL #1*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you made the claim about 27 hours ago.
> 
> So, it looks like you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I didn't post examples immediately because it's a common meme.  It would be like you saying that Ron Paul believes we should end the Federal Reserve - would you have to produce links to that on a political message board, or do you assume anyone posting on a political message board has a modicum of knowledge about current politics?
> 
> Plus, Edthecynic almost immediately posted a perfect example, making you look stupid.  Do I need to pile on?  I mean, sure, it's fun, but it shouldn't be necessary.
> 
> 
> No, moron.  There is a difference between using Yahoo! Answers to try to prove a *fact* and using Yahoo! Answers to prove the existence of an* opinion*.
> 
> 
> So, your defense is that you are ignorant?  OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I most certainly did 'win'.
> 
> *That's FAIL #4*
> 
> 
> Damn - even California Girl couldn't fail that many times in such a short post!  You're starting off the New Year in perfect form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you won.
> 
> Oh, wait -- no, you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An objective reading would say that I won.  So sorry for your butthurt.  It's not covered under the Affordable Care Act.  But feel free to use more taxpayer dollars getting it looked at by Air Force medics.  The operative word there is 'free'.
Click to expand...

And you complete your fail by riffing on one of MY jokes.  

Well, that's what happens when you have no sense of humor or any imagination.


----------



## madasheck

daveman said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It took all of one Google search, a few minutes ago:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=the...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
> 
> *That's FAIL #1*
> 
> I included the Yahoo! Answers one because - obviously - a wingnut who has been exposed to this Rightwing Talking Point has perpetuated it.
> 
> *That's FAIL #2*
> 
> If you claim to not have ever heard the meme that the mainstream media is picking the president, then it just confirms that you are a liar.
> 
> *That's FAIL #3*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I most certainly did 'win'.
> 
> *That's FAIL #4*
> 
> 
> Damn - even California Girl couldn't fail that many times in such a short post!  You're starting off the New Year in perfect form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prediction: His next answer will be "You didn't prove a thing." You read it here first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He proved some people have said it.  He didn't prove I've heard it, or that it's a common right-wing talking point.
> 
> You're just as stupid as he is, aren't you?
Click to expand...


So you admit people said it, but you didn't hear it? Is that like a tree falling in the forest when there's nobody around?


----------



## Synthaholic

madasheck said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prediction: His next answer will be "You didn't prove a thing." You read it here first.
> 
> 
> 
> He proved some people have said it.  He didn't prove I've heard it, or that it's a common right-wing talking point.
> 
> You're just as stupid as he is, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit people said it, but you didn't hear it? Is that like a tree falling in the forest when there's nobody around?
Click to expand...

At this point, he's just flailing and failing.


----------



## edthecynic

Trajan said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> so their rating system is flawed? I see. and *the screed against the authors?  in your understanding, anyone that takes grants from any 'right wing' org. is tainted, there fore any study performed under the umbrella of a liberal org. ala  grants is tainted as well?  *
> 
> 
> anyway,  if the results are cooked, why did UCLA not disown the study? It is published as their sponsored product ...no?
> 
> and as ucla noted;
> 
> _"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said._
> 
> according to the press release I saw Hume was rated right of center not centrist btw and they noted;
> 
> _Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op&#8209;Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts._
> 
> 
> *I find it interesting that you seem to admit the aclu is a liberal org. and I wasn't aware they ran a think tank too,  can you link to it please? *
> 
> 
> and if you are going to just cite media matters you really would have been better off just linking to them.
> 
> 
> have you read the study itself? for instance your examples ala Rand corp.;
> 
> 
> 
> _The second apparent anomaly is the RAND Corporation, which has a fairly liberal average score, 60.4.  We mentioned this finding to some employees of RAND, who told us they were not surprised.
> 
> While RAND strives to be middle-of-the-road ideologically, the more conservative scholars at RAND tend to work on military studies, while the more liberal scholars tend to work on domestic studies.  Because the military studies are sometimes classified and often more technocratic than the domestic studies, the media and members of Congress tend to cite the domestic studies disproportionately.  As a consequence, RAND appears liberal when judged by these citations.  It is important to note that this factthat the research at RAND is more conservative than the numbers in Table 1 suggestwill not bias our results.  To see this, think of RAND as two think tanks: RAND I, the left-leaning think tank which produces the research that the media and members of Congress tend to cite, and RAND II, the conservative think tank which produces the research that they tend not to cite.  Our results exclude RAND II from the analysis.  This causes no more bias than excluding any other think tank that is rarely cited in Congress or the media.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyway,   I assume you have read my posts here-
> 
> 
> Q;  in light of the following I am curious-
> 
> 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
> 
> what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, what a surprise! NOT! Rather  than admit the rating system is not just flawed, but moronic on its face, you choose to misrepresent what I said. I pointed out the the authors are CON$ and not Libs because they are from UCLA as presented by CON$. Rather than admit your fellow travelers were deliberately misrepresenting the authors as Libs, you misrepresent me. No surprise there from a typical CON$ervative.
> 
> And it is the "study" you are worshiping that lists the ACLU as a CON$ervative think tank, so you have unwittingly exposed yet another flaw in their "study."
> Thank you, keep it up.
> 
> And don't change the subject with questions from more phony data to deflect from the stupidity of the "study" in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here, Reading Comprehension Connection: Home
> 
> I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.
> 
> I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion.
> 
> You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is;
> 
> *The Left Controls the Media*
> 
> 
> so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-
> 
> Question 1;  in light of the following I am curious-
> 
> 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
> 
> what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
> 
> 
> 
> and to your point ala the aclu;
> 
> here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;
> 
> The web site, WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.
> 
> WheretodoResearch
> 
> WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> 
> I found this interesting to;
> 
> _While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous.  The first is the ACLU.  The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8.  Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1.  This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a  right-leaning organization.  The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often.  In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold.  If we omit McConnells citations, the ACLUs average score increases to 55.9.   Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.  _
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.
> 
> 
> 
> So, lets clear things up,it appears *in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted,* so, again;
> 
> Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.
> 
> is that correct?
> 
> 
> yes, or no.
> 
> so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.
Click to expand...

It's always the case that the most arrogantly condescending CON$ comprehend the least. 

CON$ tried to pass off the CON$ervative authors of the phony "study" as Libs from the bastion of Liberalism, UCLA. It is my contention that even CON$ knew just how slanted the phony "study" was and and tried to pass the authors off as Libs in a feeble attempt to preempt the obvious Right-wing bias in the phony "study." The dishonesty of the CON$ in representing the authors as Libs telegraphs the CON$ own awareness of the phoniness of the "study."

You are too dishonest to admit that your fellow travelers were deliberately deceptive in presenting the phony "study" as a study by Libs, so you create a straw man, *"any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted,"* BTW the exact argument CON$ use to reject any study from a Liberal, rather than acknowledge that passing off the authors as Libs is an obviously red flag to any honest person.

So my question is, if the "study" was so solid, why did the CON$ervative who posted it feel obligated to misrepresent the authors as Libs from UCLA????


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defend one CON$ervative talking point with yet another CON$ervative talking point.
> 
> First of all* GOP operative Cohen, former Chief of Staff for Republican Governor Tommy Tanaka,* only transferred $480,000 to Progress Media, not Air America, the other $395,000 was embezzled by the other executives of the Gloria Wise B & G Club for their own personal use. When Progress Media was sold to Piquant LLC in 2004, the $875,000 was repaid by Piquant, not Air America, as part of the sale. The truth is never quite the same as CON$ spin it! But keep those CON$ervative talking points coming.
> 
> Air America Scam Artist, Montvel-Cohen, Arrested in Guam
> 
> Cohen was the Director of Development for the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs, in 2003, when he and business partner Rex Sorensen, CEO of Sorensen Media Group, created Progress Media Inc.   On March 31, 2004, Air America was launched. It was discovered that  Cohen had secured part of the money used to found the network by a loan  from his employer, the non-profit Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Clubs.*   Approved by the board of directors and in the amount of $480,000, it  went to Cohen's company Progress Media, then owner of Air America Radio.*  The Gloria Wise group was a non-profit organization, partially funded  by the city of New York, which provided services for children and  seniors in the Bronx.   When the funds were transferred, Evan Montvel-Cohen, was still Director  of Development for Gloria Wise. *This was part of a larger  misappropriation of funds by the organization's executives, which saw  several of them receiving money from the organization that was in turned  used for personal expenditures.* *  By the time this was revealed, Progress Media Inc. had sold its Air  America rights to Piquant LLC (in November 2004), who later agreed to  repay Gloria Wise $875,000 worth of the debt, as a condition of the  sale. *
> 
> 
> 
> daveman is caught in ANOTHER lie???
> 
> Who - besides everyone who has ever encountered him - would have thought!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying* leftists *DIDN'T illegally divert funds from a club for poor children to underwrite Air America?
> 
> You sure you want to go with that?
> 
> Oh, and don't you DARE criticize that behavior.
Click to expand...

Cohen is a REPUBLICAN!!!!!! And he diverted funds to HIS OWN company PROGRESS MEDIA, not Air America, for HIS OWN personal use. Air America fired Cohen after a few months because their books didn't jive under Cohen. IOW, Republican Cohen was stealing from Air America too!!!


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> Cohen is a REPUBLICAN!!!!!! And he diverted funds to HIS OWN company PROGRESS MEDIA, not Air America, for HIS OWN personal use.


Progress Media owned Air America at the time.


edthecynic said:


> Air America fired Cohen after a few months because their books didn't jive under Cohen.


Wrong.  Progress Media sold AA to Piquant LLC.
Mr. Cohen, 39, helped lead the launch of Air America in March 2004. Less than two months later, Piquant LLC acquired the radio network from Mr. Cohen's Progress Media. Piquant LLC has agreed to pay $875,000 to Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, without interest, in installments over the next two years.​


edthecynic said:


> IOW, Republican Cohen was stealing from Air America too!!!


No one was stealing from Air America.

Are you really claiming that Cohen, the _founder_ of Air America, is a Republican?

The Evan Cohen that donated two grand to John Kerry in 2003?

You really need to stop hanging around the lefty echo chambers.  They're lying to you.

Of course, you like the lies, so you eagerly lap them up.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Trajan said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> so their rating system is flawed? I see. and *the screed against the authors?  in your understanding, anyone that takes grants from any 'right wing' org. is tainted, there fore any study performed under the umbrella of a liberal org. ala  grants is tainted as well?  *
> 
> 
> anyway,  if the results are cooked, why did UCLA not disown the study? It is published as their sponsored product ...no?
> 
> and as ucla noted;
> 
> _"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said._
> 
> according to the press release I saw Hume was rated right of center not centrist btw and they noted;
> 
> _Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op&#8209;Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts._
> 
> 
> *I find it interesting that you seem to admit the aclu is a liberal org. and I wasn't aware they ran a think tank too,  can you link to it please? *
> 
> 
> and if you are going to just cite media matters you really would have been better off just linking to them.
> 
> 
> have you read the study itself? for instance your examples ala Rand corp.;
> 
> 
> 
> _The second apparent anomaly is the RAND Corporation, which has a fairly liberal average score, 60.4.  We mentioned this finding to some employees of RAND, who told us they were not surprised.
> 
> While RAND strives to be middle-of-the-road ideologically, the more conservative scholars at RAND tend to work on military studies, while the more liberal scholars tend to work on domestic studies.  Because the military studies are sometimes classified and often more technocratic than the domestic studies, the media and members of Congress tend to cite the domestic studies disproportionately.  As a consequence, RAND appears liberal when judged by these citations.  It is important to note that this factthat the research at RAND is more conservative than the numbers in Table 1 suggestwill not bias our results.  To see this, think of RAND as two think tanks: RAND I, the left-leaning think tank which produces the research that the media and members of Congress tend to cite, and RAND II, the conservative think tank which produces the research that they tend not to cite.  Our results exclude RAND II from the analysis.  This causes no more bias than excluding any other think tank that is rarely cited in Congress or the media.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyway,   I assume you have read my posts here-
> 
> 
> Q;  in light of the following I am curious-
> 
> 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
> 
> what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, what a surprise! NOT! Rather  than admit the rating system is not just flawed, but moronic on its face, you choose to misrepresent what I said. I pointed out the the authors are CON$ and not Libs because they are from UCLA as presented by CON$. Rather than admit your fellow travelers were deliberately misrepresenting the authors as Libs, you misrepresent me. No surprise there from a typical CON$ervative.
> 
> And it is the "study" you are worshiping that lists the ACLU as a CON$ervative think tank, so you have unwittingly exposed yet another flaw in their "study."
> Thank you, keep it up.
> 
> And don't change the subject with questions from more phony data to deflect from the stupidity of the "study" in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here, Reading Comprehension Connection: Home
> 
> I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.
> 
> I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion.
> 
> You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is;
> 
> *The Left Controls the Media*
> 
> 
> so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-
> 
> Question 1;  in light of the following I am curious-
> 
> 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
> 
> what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
> 
> 
> 
> and to your point ala the aclu;
> 
> here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;
> 
> The web site, WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.
> 
> WheretodoResearch
> 
> WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> 
> I found this interesting to;
> 
> _While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous.  The first is the ACLU.  The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8.  Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1.  This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a  right-leaning organization.  The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often.  In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold.  If we omit McConnells citations, the ACLUs average score increases to 55.9.   Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.  _
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.
> 
> 
> 
> So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted, so, again;
> 
> Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.
> 
> is that correct?
> 
> 
> yes, or no.
> 
> so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.
Click to expand...


You're falsely assuming that it is impossible for the news to be reported objectively if the reporters, editors, readers, etc., etc., have political opinions that put them anywhere but dead center.

That logically leads to the assumption that there is no such thing as objective news reporting.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cohen is a REPUBLICAN!!!!!! And he diverted funds to HIS OWN company PROGRESS MEDIA, not Air America, for HIS OWN personal use.
> 
> 
> 
> Progress Media owned Air America at the time.
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air America fired Cohen after a few months because their books didn't jive under Cohen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Progress Media sold AA to Piquant LLC.Mr. Cohen, 39, helped lead the launch of Air America in March 2004. Less than two months later, Piquant LLC acquired the radio network from Mr. Cohen's Progress Media. Piquant LLC has agreed to pay $875,000 to Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, without interest, in installments over the next two years.​
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, Republican Cohen was stealing from Air America too!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one was stealing from Air America.
> 
> Are you really claiming that Cohen, the _founder_ of Air America, is a Republican?
> 
> *The Evan Cohen that donated two grand to John Kerry in 2003?
> *
> You really need to stop hanging around the lefty echo chambers.  They're lying to you.
> 
> Of course, you like the lies, so you eagerly lap them up.
Click to expand...

No, the Evan Montvel-Cohen who donated nothing to Kerry in 2003, but was the Chief of Staff to REPUBLICAN Govenor Tommy Tanaka. That Evan MONTVEL-Cohen!!!

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...&capcode=sqmkt&submit=Submit+your+Donor+Query


----------



## NYcarbineer

If 1. talk radio is dominated by the right and 2. cable news is dominated by Foxnews,

how can anyone claim the left controls the media?  

btw, who dominates the media of the internet?  Does the left control that too?


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cohen is a REPUBLICAN!!!!!! And he diverted funds to HIS OWN company PROGRESS MEDIA, not Air America, for HIS OWN personal use.
> 
> 
> 
> *Progress Media owned Air America at the time.*
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air America fired Cohen after a few months because their books didn't jive under Cohen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Progress Media sold AA to Piquant LLC.Mr. Cohen, 39, helped lead the launch of Air America in March 2004. Less than two months later, Piquant LLC acquired the radio network from Mr. Cohen's Progress Media. Piquant LLC has agreed to pay $875,000 to Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, without interest, in installments over the next two years.​
Click to expand...

And Cohen controlled Progress Media, it was his company. Air America did not control Progress Media.

And 5 weeks after the launch of Air America, the other investors FORCED out Cohen early May 2004. Piquant LLC was formed AFTER Cohen was forced to resign.

You can't seem to get anything Right from the CON$ervative sources you use, but you will still mindlessly use them because, as a CON$ervative, you can't think or act for yourself.

Air America restructures under new banner - Chicago Tribune

*June 19, 2004*|By John Cook, Tribune staff reporter.

The  investors in Air America Radio, the liberal talk radio network that  launched in March, are restructuring the company to free it of any  obligations incurred by *ousted chairman and founding investor Evan  Cohen.*
*The investors, including Highland Park couple Sheldon and  Anita Drobny and Air America Chief Executive Doug Kreeger, formed a new  corporation, Piquant LLC. They plan to use the new entity to purchase  the assets of Air America from Progress Media and RadioFree America, two  related companies that own and operate the network.*










"We  have an asset purchase agreement we've entered into," said Norman Wain,  another investor. "Progress Media and RadioFree America are selling all  of their assets to Piquant."
Anita Drobny will be chairwoman of the board of the new company, according to people familiar with the deal.
The  purpose of the transaction is twofold: to eliminate Cohen and his  partner Rex Sorensen's shares in the company, and to insulate the  cash-strapped network from any debt or other obligation that Cohen may  have incurred.
The old companies will be shut down, the sources said.
Less  than three months old, Air America has rung up millions of dollars in  debt. It has been in financial distress since *May, when Cohen and  Sorensen were ousted by investors.*
It is unclear how much Piquant  is paying for the network. Though Cohen and Sorensen gave up control of  their shares when they left the company, they still own a significant  stake in Progress Media, which in turn owns a controlling interest in  RadioFree America.
Cohen said he and Sorensen are owed either cash  or shares in the new company. We "strongly hope that a mutually  agreeable solution and valuation will be finalized shortly," Cohen said.
One  source close to the company said the investors don't owe Cohen and  Sorensen anything. "Zero people think these guys deserve anything," the  source said.
Several people close to the company have accused Cohen of overstating his investment in the network, a charge he denies.
"That's revisionist history," Cohen said.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cohen is a REPUBLICAN!!!!!! And he diverted funds to HIS OWN company PROGRESS MEDIA, not Air America, for HIS OWN personal use.
> 
> 
> 
> Progress Media owned Air America at the time.
> 
> Wrong.  Progress Media sold AA to Piquant LLC.Mr. Cohen, 39, helped lead the launch of Air America in March 2004. Less than two months later, Piquant LLC acquired the radio network from Mr. Cohen's Progress Media. Piquant LLC has agreed to pay $875,000 to Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, without interest, in installments over the next two years.​
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, Republican Cohen was stealing from Air America too!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one was stealing from Air America.
> 
> Are you really claiming that Cohen, the _founder_ of Air America, is a Republican?
> 
> *The Evan Cohen that donated two grand to John Kerry in 2003?
> *
> You really need to stop hanging around the lefty echo chambers.  They're lying to you.
> 
> Of course, you like the lies, so you eagerly lap them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Evan Montvel-Cohen who donated nothing to Kerry in 2003, but was the Chief of Staff to REPUBLICAN Govenor Tommy Tanaka. That Evan MONTVEL-Cohen!!!
> 
> http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...&capcode=sqmkt&submit=Submit+your+Donor+Query
Click to expand...


Results:
Search Criteria: 
Donor name: Montvel-cohen, evan
Cycle(s) selected: 2012
Start another search

Sort by Name
Sort by Date (Descending)
Sort by Amount

records found in 0.036 seconds.
Total for this search: $0

No records found



Ooops.  You fail.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cohen is a REPUBLICAN!!!!!! And he diverted funds to HIS OWN company PROGRESS MEDIA, not Air America, for HIS OWN personal use.
> 
> 
> 
> *Progress Media owned Air America at the time.*
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air America fired Cohen after a few months because their books didn't jive under Cohen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Progress Media sold AA to Piquant LLC.Mr. Cohen, 39, helped lead the launch of Air America in March 2004. Less than two months later, Piquant LLC acquired the radio network from Mr. Cohen's Progress Media. Piquant LLC has agreed to pay $875,000 to Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, without interest, in installments over the next two years.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Cohen controlled Progress Media, it was his company. Air America did not control Progress Media.
> 
> And 5 weeks after the launch of Air America, the other investors FORCED out Cohen early May 2004. Piquant LLC was formed AFTER Cohen was forced to resign.
> 
> You can't seem to get anything Right from the CON$ervative sources you use, but you will still mindlessly use them because, as a CON$ervative, you can't think or act for yourself.
> 
> Air America restructures under new banner - Chicago Tribune
> 
> *June 19, 2004*|By John Cook, Tribune staff reporter.
> 
> The  investors in Air America Radio, the liberal talk radio network that  launched in March, are restructuring the company to free it of any  obligations incurred by *ousted chairman and founding investor Evan  Cohen.*
> *The investors, including Highland Park couple Sheldon and  Anita Drobny and Air America Chief Executive Doug Kreeger, formed a new  corporation, Piquant LLC. They plan to use the new entity to purchase  the assets of Air America from Progress Media and RadioFree America, two  related companies that own and operate the network.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We  have an asset purchase agreement we've entered into," said Norman Wain,  another investor. "Progress Media and RadioFree America are selling all  of their assets to Piquant."
> Anita Drobny will be chairwoman of the board of the new company, according to people familiar with the deal.
> The  purpose of the transaction is twofold: to eliminate Cohen and his  partner Rex Sorensen's shares in the company, and to insulate the  cash-strapped network from any debt or other obligation that Cohen may  have incurred.
> The old companies will be shut down, the sources said.
> Less  than three months old, Air America has rung up millions of dollars in  debt. It has been in financial distress since *May, when Cohen and  Sorensen were ousted by investors.*
> It is unclear how much Piquant  is paying for the network. Though Cohen and Sorensen gave up control of  their shares when they left the company, they still own a significant  stake in Progress Media, which in turn owns a controlling interest in  RadioFree America.
> Cohen said he and Sorensen are owed either cash  or shares in the new company. We "strongly hope that a mutually  agreeable solution and valuation will be finalized shortly," Cohen said.
> One  source close to the company said the investors don't owe Cohen and  Sorensen anything. "Zero people think these guys deserve anything," the  source said.
> Several people close to the company have accused Cohen of overstating his investment in the network, a charge he denies.
> "That's revisionist history," Cohen said.
Click to expand...


Yeah.  Cohen the Republican.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progress Media owned Air America at the time.
> 
> Wrong.  Progress Media sold AA to Piquant LLC.Mr. Cohen, 39, helped lead the launch of Air America in March 2004. Less than two months later, Piquant LLC acquired the radio network from Mr. Cohen's Progress Media. Piquant LLC has agreed to pay $875,000 to Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, without interest, in installments over the next two years.​No one was stealing from Air America.
> 
> Are you really claiming that Cohen, the _founder_ of Air America, is a Republican?
> 
> *The Evan Cohen that donated two grand to John Kerry in 2003?
> *
> You really need to stop hanging around the lefty echo chambers.  They're lying to you.
> 
> Of course, you like the lies, so you eagerly lap them up.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Evan Montvel-Cohen who donated nothing to Kerry in 2003, but was the Chief of Staff to REPUBLICAN Govenor Tommy Tanaka. That Evan MONTVEL-Cohen!!!
> 
> http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...&capcode=sqmkt&submit=Submit+your+Donor+Query
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Results:
> Search Criteria:
> Donor name: Montvel-cohen, evan
> Cycle(s) selected: 2012
> Start another search
> 
> Sort by Name
> Sort by Date (Descending)
> Sort by Amount
> 
> records found in 0.036 seconds.
> Total for this search: $0
> 
> No records found
> 
> 
> 
> Ooops.  You fail.
Click to expand...

*Results:*

*Search Criteria:* 
Donor name: Montvel-cohen, evan
Cycle(s) selected:  1990-2006Start another search

Sort by Name
Sort by Date (Descending)
Sort by Amount

 records found in 0.155 seconds.
Total for this search: $0
No records found



You claimed the guy who was the first chairman of Air America donated 2 grand to Kerry in 2003, because someone with a similar but different name did, and I proved he donated nothing to Kerry or anyone else and to a mindless DittoTard who can't think for themselves that means *I* failed. 
BRILLIANT!
NOT!

What a stupid  you are!


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Evan Montvel-Cohen who donated nothing to Kerry in 2003, but was the Chief of Staff to REPUBLICAN Govenor Tommy Tanaka. That Evan MONTVEL-Cohen!!!
> 
> http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...&capcode=sqmkt&submit=Submit+your+Donor+Query
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Results:
> Search Criteria:
> Donor name: Montvel-cohen, evan
> Cycle(s) selected: 2012
> Start another search
> 
> Sort by Name
> Sort by Date (Descending)
> Sort by Amount
> 
> records found in 0.036 seconds.
> Total for this search: $0
> 
> No records found
> 
> 
> 
> Ooops.  You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Results:*
> 
> *Search Criteria:*
> Donor name: Montvel-cohen, evan
> Cycle(s) selected:  1990-2006Start another search
> 
> Sort by Name
> Sort by Date (Descending)
> Sort by Amount
> 
> records found in 0.155 seconds.
> Total for this search: $0
> No records found
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the guy who was the first chairman of Air America donated 2 grand to Kerry in 2003, because someone with a similar but different name did, and I proved he donated nothing to Kerry or anyone else and to a mindless DittoTard who can't think for themselves that means *I* failed.
> BRILLIANT!
> NOT!
> 
> What a stupid  you are!
Click to expand...


The article you linked left out his first hyphenated name.  That's the name I used at OpenSecrets.  

Are you still bitterly clinging to the absolutely ludicrous idea that the founder of Air America is a Republican?

Have I told you how stupid that idea is?

Guess you didn't see where Cohen testified against Tanaka for the Democrat candidate, huh?
Gutierrez election
In 2003, Tanaka pled guilty to misprision of a felony as part of a political corruption probe by the Guam U.S. Attorney's Office in which Tanaka was accused of endorsing previously-rival Democratic candidate Gutierrez in 1997 in exchange for his construction firm receiving a large government contract to build school bus shelters a few months later. Judge William Alsup sentenced Tanaka to two years of supervised release, including six months of house arrest. In the trial, Air America Radio financier Evan Montvel Cohen testified against Tanaka.​


----------



## Douger

*YOU* control the media. If you didn't watch TV these assholes would be standing in line to fill out applications as Walmart greeters.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Results:
> Search Criteria:
> Donor name: Montvel-cohen, evan
> Cycle(s) selected: 2012
> Start another search
> 
> Sort by Name
> Sort by Date (Descending)
> Sort by Amount
> 
> records found in 0.036 seconds.
> Total for this search: $0
> 
> No records found
> 
> 
> 
> Ooops.  You fail.
> 
> 
> 
> *Results:*
> 
> *Search Criteria:*
> Donor name: Montvel-cohen, evan
> Cycle(s) selected:  1990-2006Start another search
> 
> Sort by Name
> Sort by Date (Descending)
> Sort by Amount
> 
> records found in 0.155 seconds.
> Total for this search: $0
> No records found
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the guy who was the first chairman of Air America donated 2 grand to Kerry in 2003, because someone with a similar but different name did, and I proved he donated nothing to Kerry or anyone else and to a mindless DittoTard who can't think for themselves that means *I* failed.
> BRILLIANT!
> NOT!
> 
> What a stupid  you are!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The article you linked left out his first hyphenated name.  That's the name I used at OpenSecrets.*
> 
> Are you still bitterly clinging to the absolutely ludicrous idea that the founder of Air America is a Republican?
> 
> Have I told you how stupid that idea is?
> 
> Guess you didn't see where Cohen testified against Tanaka for the Democrat candidate, huh?Gutierrez election
> In 2003, Tanaka pled guilty to misprision of a felony as part of a political corruption probe by the Guam U.S. Attorney's Office in which Tanaka was accused of endorsing previously-rival Democratic candidate Gutierrez in 1997 in exchange for his construction firm receiving a large government contract to build school bus shelters a few months later. Judge William Alsup sentenced Tanaka to two years of supervised release, including six months of house arrest. In the trial, Air America Radio financier Evan Montvel Cohen testified against Tanaka.​
Click to expand...

And as a result of using the incomplete name you got a completely different person, but that didn't stop you from using the invalid info, after all, that's what CON$ do.

And the fact that he testified against his boss, Tanaka, proves he's not only a Republican, but also a CON$ervative. CON$ will sell out their own mother if it gives them some benefit, like staying out of jail.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> And as a result of using the incomplete name you got a completely different person, but that didn't stop you from using the invalid info, after all, that's what CON$ do.


How do you know that's not him?

Oh...you don't.  Kerry on.


edthecynic said:


> And the fact that he testified against his boss, Tanaka, proves he's not only a Republican, but also a CON$ervative. CON$ will sell out their own mother if it gives them some benefit, like staying out of jail.


Pointing to your bigotry against and hatred of conservatives as proof of an assertion only proves that you're a hateful bigot.

Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a liberal.  Period.  End of story.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as a result of using the incomplete name you got a completely different person, but that didn't stop you from using the invalid info, after all, that's what CON$ do.
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you know that's not him?*
> 
> Oh...you don't.  Kerry on.
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact that he testified against his boss, Tanaka, proves he's not only a Republican, but also a CON$ervative. CON$ will sell out their own mother if it gives them some benefit, like staying out of jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing to your bigotry against and hatred of conservatives as proof of an assertion only proves that you're a hateful bigot.
> 
> Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a liberal.  Period.  End of story.
Click to expand...

Because he has a different name, the burden is on YOU to prove they are the same person using two different names.

Cohen, the Chief of Staff for GOP Governor Tanaka, is a Republican CON$ervative. Period. End of story.


----------



## JoeDirt

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is going on? *Capital Research Center* (op. cit.) explains it this way: Create a media outlet that will produce left-wing investigative hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost. NBCAPwherever you get your news.The Left has a well-funded effort underway.
> 
> 
> 
> The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank whose stated mission is to do "opposition research" exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups. The CRC was founded in 1984 by Willa Johnson. Prior to founding CRC Johnson had been Senior Vice President of the Heritage Foundation, then worked as Deputy Director of the Office of Presidential Personnel in the first Reagan administration
Click to expand...


Good to find people talking about the resurrected Opposition studies but I wonder if it isn't nonpartisan.


----------



## JoeDirt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> *The Pro-Republican News Media*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.
Click to expand...


that's a pretty good bet.  Hi, bored newbie, can't post much of anything until I have a few others in, trying to work my way.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as a result of using the incomplete name you got a completely different person, but that didn't stop you from using the invalid info, after all, that's what CON$ do.
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you know that's not him?*
> 
> Oh...you don't.  Kerry on.
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact that he testified against his boss, Tanaka, proves he's not only a Republican, but also a CON$ervative. CON$ will sell out their own mother if it gives them some benefit, like staying out of jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing to your bigotry against and hatred of conservatives as proof of an assertion only proves that you're a hateful bigot.
> 
> Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a liberal.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he has a different name, the burden is on YOU to prove they are the same person using two different names.
> 
> Cohen, the Chief of Staff for GOP Governor Tanaka, is a Republican CON$ervative. Period. End of story.
Click to expand...

What's your evidence?  That he was a Republican's chief of staff?

Weak.  Pathetic.  Not unlike yourself.

Now you get to explain why a Republican would found an extreme-left talk radio network.

And you also get to explain Cohen's own words:
With Walsh's departure, Cohen has become the liberal network's key spokesman and public advocate. He has an unlikely past for the role: He began his career as a Republican operative in his native Guam, serving as spokesman for Guam's Republican Party and as chief of staff for Sen. Tommy Tanaka, a pro-life Republican legislator.

Tanaka pleaded guilty to corruption charges last year.

"*I am a progressive," said Cohen*, adding that Guam's political climate is quite different from the mainland's. *"Republicans in Guam are to the left of [late Democratic Senator] Paul Wellstone*," he said.​
I suppose you'll go with the tried and true albeit desperate "He's LYING!!" 

Because you'll never admit you were wrong.  Never.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you know that's not him?*
> 
> Oh...you don't.  Kerry on.
> 
> Pointing to your bigotry against and hatred of conservatives as proof of an assertion only proves that you're a hateful bigot.
> 
> Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a liberal.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Because he has a different name, the burden is on YOU to prove they are the same person using two different names.
> 
> Cohen, the Chief of Staff for GOP Governor Tanaka, is a Republican CON$ervative. Period. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your evidence?  That he was a Republican's chief of staff?
> 
> Weak.  Pathetic.  Not unlike yourself.
> 
> Now you get to explain why a Republican would found an extreme-left talk radio network.
> 
> And you also get to explain Cohen's own words:With Walsh's departure, Cohen has become the liberal network's key spokesman and public advocate. He has an unlikely past for the role: He began his career as* a Republican operative *in his native Guam, serving as spokesman for Guam's Republican Party and as chief of staff for Sen. Tommy Tanaka, a pro-life Republican legislator.
> 
> Tanaka pleaded guilty to corruption charges last year.
> 
> "*I am a progressive," said Cohen*, adding that Guam's political climate is quite different from the mainland's. *"Republicans in Guam are to the left of [late Democratic Senator] Paul Wellstone*," he said.​I suppose you'll go with the tried and true albeit desperate "He's LYING!!"
> 
> Because you'll never admit you were wrong.  Never.
Click to expand...

If you want to believe that a GOP pro-life governor is to the Left of Wellstone, then you are the most gullible person in the universe. 

Your own pull quote reveals Cohen best, he's a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE obviously out to sabotage any alternate voice to GOP hate radio. He's a CON$ervative MOLE whose only purpose was to destroy Air America from within and line his pockets in the process. A true CON$ervative skunk.


----------



## madasheck

JoeDirt said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Pro-Republican News Media*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's a pretty good bet.  Hi, bored newbie, can't post much of anything until I have a few others in, trying to work my way.
Click to expand...


Much of the newspaper industry these days has corporate interests. Ain't like it used to be.


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> If you want to believe that a GOP pro-life governor is to the Left of Wellstone, then you are the most gullible person in the universe.
> 
> Your own pull quote reveals Cohen best, he's a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE obviously out to sabotage any alternate voice to GOP hate radio. He's a CON$ervative MOLE whose only purpose was to destroy Air America from within and line his pockets in the process. A true CON$ervative skunk.










You're looney tunes, ed.  

Cohen's a progressive crook.  Your fevered fantasies have no bearing on reality.  Deal with it.


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to believe that a GOP pro-life governor is to the Left of Wellstone, then you are the most gullible person in the universe.
> 
> Your own pull quote reveals Cohen best, he's a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE obviously out to sabotage any alternate voice to GOP hate radio. He's a CON$ervative MOLE whose only purpose was to destroy Air America from within and line his pockets in the process. A true CON$ervative skunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're looney tunes, ed.
> 
> Cohen's a progressive crook.  Your fevered fantasies have no bearing on reality.  Deal with it.
Click to expand...


Interesting photo of a family watching FOX News.


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to believe that a GOP pro-life governor is to the Left of Wellstone, then you are the most gullible person in the universe.
> 
> Your own pull quote reveals Cohen best, he's a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE obviously out to sabotage any alternate voice to GOP hate radio. He's a CON$ervative MOLE whose only purpose was to destroy Air America from within and line his pockets in the process. A true CON$ervative skunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're looney tunes, ed.
> 
> Cohen's a progressive crook.  Your fevered fantasies have no bearing on reality.  Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting photo of a family watching FOX News.
Click to expand...

Hey, you want to make the case the Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a Republican?  

Ed utterly failed.  And you're dumber than he is.


----------



## edthecynic

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're looney tunes, ed.
> 
> Cohen's a progressive crook.  Your fevered fantasies have no bearing on reality.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting photo of a family watching FOX News.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, you want to make the case the Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a Republican?
> 
> Ed utterly failed.  And you're dumber than he is.
Click to expand...

YOUR own pull quote says Cohen, the Chief of Staff for GOP governor Tanaka, is a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE, and somehow I failed!


----------



## daveman

edthecynic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting photo of a family watching FOX News.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you want to make the case the Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a Republican?
> 
> Ed utterly failed.  And you're dumber than he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOUR own pull quote says Cohen, the Chief of Staff for GOP governor Tanaka, is a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE, and somehow I failed!
Click to expand...


My own quote shows Cohen saying he's a progressive.

You lose.


----------



## Trajan

edthecynic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, what a surprise! NOT! Rather  than admit the rating system is not just flawed, but moronic on its face, you choose to misrepresent what I said. I pointed out the the authors are CON$ and not Libs because they are from UCLA as presented by CON$. Rather than admit your fellow travelers were deliberately misrepresenting the authors as Libs, you misrepresent me. No surprise there from a typical CON$ervative.
> 
> And it is the "study" you are worshiping that lists the ACLU as a CON$ervative think tank, so you have unwittingly exposed yet another flaw in their "study."
> Thank you, keep it up.
> 
> And don't change the subject with questions from more phony data to deflect from the stupidity of the "study" in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here, Reading Comprehension Connection: Home
> 
> I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.
> 
> I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion.
> 
> You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is;
> 
> *The Left Controls the Media*
> 
> 
> so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-
> 
> Question 1;  in light of the following I am curious-
> 
> 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
> 
> what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
> 
> 
> 
> and to your point ala the aclu;
> 
> here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;
> 
> The web site, WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.
> 
> WheretodoResearch
> 
> WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> 
> I found this interesting to;
> 
> _While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous.  The first is the ACLU.  The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8.  Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1.  This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a  right-leaning organization.  The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often.  In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold.  If we omit McConnells citations, the ACLUs average score increases to 55.9.   Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.  _
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.
> 
> 
> 
> So, lets clear things up,it appears *in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted,* so, again;
> 
> Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.
> 
> is that correct?
> 
> 
> yes, or no.
> 
> so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's always the case that the most arrogantly condescending CON$ comprehend the least.
> 
> CON$ tried to pass off the CON$ervative authors of the phony "study" as Libs from the bastion of Liberalism, UCLA. It is my contention that even CON$ knew just how slanted the phony "study" was and and tried to pass the authors off as Libs in a feeble attempt to preempt the obvious Right-wing bias in the phony "study." The dishonesty of the CON$ in representing the authors as Libs telegraphs the CON$ own awareness of the phoniness of the "study."
> 
> You are too dishonest to admit that your fellow travelers were deliberately deceptive in presenting the phony "study" as a study by Libs, so you create a straw man, *"any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted,"* BTW the exact argument CON$ use to reject any study from a Liberal, rather than acknowledge that passing off the authors as Libs is an obviously red flag to any honest person.
> 
> So my question is, if the "study" was so solid, why did the CON$ervative who posted it feel obligated to misrepresent the authors as Libs from UCLA????
Click to expand...


I don't care who passed off what, answer the questions please, we don't even need the study, stop  using it as a crutch.

do I need to post the questions again?


----------



## Meister

Trajan said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> here, Reading Comprehension Connection: Home
> 
> I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.
> 
> I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion.
> 
> You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is;
> 
> *The Left Controls the Media*
> 
> 
> so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-
> 
> Question 1;  in light of the following I am curious-
> 
> 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
> 
> what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
> 
> 
> 
> and to your point ala the aclu;
> 
> here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;
> 
> The web site, WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.
> 
> WheretodoResearch
> 
> WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> 
> I found this interesting to;
> 
> _While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous.  The first is the ACLU.  The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8.  Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1.  This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a  right-leaning organization.  The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often.  In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold.  If we omit McConnells citations, the ACLUs average score increases to 55.9.   Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.  _
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.
> 
> 
> 
> So, lets clear things up,it appears *in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted,* so, again;
> 
> Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.
> 
> is that correct?
> 
> 
> yes, or no.
> 
> so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the case that the most arrogantly condescending CON$ comprehend the least.
> 
> CON$ tried to pass off the CON$ervative authors of the phony "study" as Libs from the bastion of Liberalism, UCLA. It is my contention that even CON$ knew just how slanted the phony "study" was and and tried to pass the authors off as Libs in a feeble attempt to preempt the obvious Right-wing bias in the phony "study." The dishonesty of the CON$ in representing the authors as Libs telegraphs the CON$ own awareness of the phoniness of the "study."
> 
> You are too dishonest to admit that your fellow travelers were deliberately deceptive in presenting the phony "study" as a study by Libs, so you create a straw man, *"any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted,"* BTW the exact argument CON$ use to reject any study from a Liberal, rather than acknowledge that passing off the authors as Libs is an obviously red flag to any honest person.
> 
> So my question is, if the "study" was so solid, why did the CON$ervative who posted it feel obligated to misrepresent the authors as Libs from UCLA????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who passed off what, answer the questions please, we don't even need the study, stop  using it as a crutch.
> 
> do I need to post the questions again?
Click to expand...


It was me, Trajan.  eddie couldn't even get past the criteria that they used in the study.  He just started blabbering like he actually knew something.


----------



## Gadawg73

I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gadawg73 said:


> I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
> I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
> How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?



My Grandmother believed that UPC symbols were the mark of the Beast and proof that Jesus was returning. 

She saw no control of the 700 Club by the fringe fanatics of Christianity.

I'm just sayin.....


----------



## Meister

Gadawg73 said:


> I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
> I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
> How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?



The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
Then get back to us, okay?


----------



## edthecynic

Meister said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
> I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
> How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
> Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you* count the number of positive articles towards the right,* and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
> Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, *look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located *and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
> Then get back to us, okay?
Click to expand...

There is nothing positive about CON$ervatism, therefore any positive article about the Right, no matter where the location, shows a Right-wing bias.


----------



## madasheck

Meister said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
> I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
> How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
> Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
> Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
> Then get back to us, okay?
Click to expand...


When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.


----------



## freedombecki

Gadawg73 said:


> I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
> I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
> How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?


So glad you missed them. The leftist media appears directly after any political speech telling you what you should think about it, and it's always an obfuscated pitch to vote Democrat, who are always the good guys, not Republicans, who are always the bad guys. Just read around here. They're everywhere there is a home audience after an opportunity to make someone conservative look like an ass.

And they distribute putty to leftist audiences to cement those blinders in place.


----------



## daveman

madasheck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
> I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
> How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
> Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
> Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
> Then get back to us, okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.
Click to expand...

It's supposed to be reporting of fact, not political activism.

There's your problem.  Well, one of them, at least.


----------



## Martinsamerica

I wouldn't go so far to say the media is "controlled" by a leftist agenda, but it is fair to say that the media as a whole is certainly leftist leaning - some particular outlets are far more left than others though. 

martinsamerica.com


----------



## gxnelson

Martinsamerica said:


> I wouldn't go so far to say the media is "controlled" by a leftist agenda, but it is fair to say that the media as a whole is certainly leftist leaning - some particular outlets are far more left than others though.
> 
> martinsamerica.com



I wouldn't say controlled, but I wouldn't say leaning. If it was leaning I feel like we would hear the opinions of the right more often than we do. More like the media is left-biased. 

Which, annoys me to no end. But that's why I come on here, to hear the other side and listen to a repub radio station. (which does have some good points)


----------



## Trajan

NYcarbineer said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, what a surprise! NOT! Rather  than admit the rating system is not just flawed, but moronic on its face, you choose to misrepresent what I said. I pointed out the the authors are CON$ and not Libs because they are from UCLA as presented by CON$. Rather than admit your fellow travelers were deliberately misrepresenting the authors as Libs, you misrepresent me. No surprise there from a typical CON$ervative.
> 
> And it is the "study" you are worshiping that lists the ACLU as a CON$ervative think tank, so you have unwittingly exposed yet another flaw in their "study."
> Thank you, keep it up.
> 
> And don't change the subject with questions from more phony data to deflect from the stupidity of the "study" in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here, Reading Comprehension Connection: Home
> 
> I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.
> 
> I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion.
> 
> You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is;
> 
> *The Left Controls the Media*
> 
> 
> so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-
> 
> Question 1;  in light of the following I am curious-
> 
> 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
> 
> what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
> 
> 
> 
> and to your point ala the aclu;
> 
> here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;
> 
> The web site, WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.
> 
> WheretodoResearch
> 
> WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> 
> I found this interesting to;
> 
> _While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous.  The first is the ACLU.  The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8.  Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1.  This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a  right-leaning organization.  The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often.  In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold.  If we omit McConnells citations, the ACLUs average score increases to 55.9.   Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.  _
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.
> 
> 
> 
> So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted, so, again;
> 
> Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.
> 
> is that correct?
> 
> 
> yes, or no.
> 
> so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're falsely assuming that it is impossible for the news to be reported objectively if the reporters, editors, readers, etc., etc., have political opinions that put them anywhere but dead center.
> 
> That logically leads to the assumption that there is no such thing as objective news reporting.
Click to expand...


I have already said that everyone has a slant, you me everyone, keep up. 

and are you going to take ed to task for assuming that this report was cooked? becasue the authors previously took money from right wing sources? yet they purposefully avoided that with this study and said so and said why.Further they make several remarks speaking  to their own study and the what appears to be counter intuitive findings.


----------



## Trajan

Trajan said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> here, Reading Comprehension Connection: Home
> 
> I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.
> 
> I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion.
> 
> You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is;
> 
> *The Left Controls the Media*
> 
> 
> so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-
> 
> Question 1;  in light of the following I am curious-
> 
> 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.
> 
> what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?
> 
> 
> 
> and to your point ala the aclu;
> 
> here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;
> 
> The web site, WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.
> 
> WheretodoResearch
> 
> WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites
> 
> American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> 
> I found this interesting to;
> 
> _While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous.  The first is the ACLU.  The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8.  Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1.  This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a  right-leaning organization.  The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often.  In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold.  If we omit McConnells citations, the ACLUs average score increases to 55.9.   Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.  _
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.
> 
> 
> 
> So, lets clear things up,it appears *in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted,* so, again;
> 
> Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.
> 
> is that correct?
> 
> 
> yes, or no.
> 
> so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the case that the most arrogantly condescending CON$ comprehend the least.
> 
> CON$ tried to pass off the CON$ervative authors of the phony "study" as Libs from the bastion of Liberalism, UCLA. It is my contention that even CON$ knew just how slanted the phony "study" was and and tried to pass the authors off as Libs in a feeble attempt to preempt the obvious Right-wing bias in the phony "study." The dishonesty of the CON$ in representing the authors as Libs telegraphs the CON$ own awareness of the phoniness of the "study."
> 
> You are too dishonest to admit that your fellow travelers were deliberately deceptive in presenting the phony "study" as a study by Libs, so you create a straw man, *"any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted,"* BTW the exact argument CON$ use to reject any study from a Liberal, rather than acknowledge that passing off the authors as Libs is an obviously red flag to any honest person.
> 
> So my question is, if the "study" was so solid, why did the CON$ervative who posted it feel obligated to misrepresent the authors as Libs from UCLA????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who passed off what, answer the questions please, we don't even need the study, stop  using it as a crutch.
> 
> do I need to post the questions again?
Click to expand...


hello Ed...one more time..


_______________________________________________________________________

So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted, so, again;

Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.

is that correct?


yes, or no.

so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.


----------



## madasheck

daveman said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
> Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
> Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
> Then get back to us, okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's supposed to be reporting of fact, not political activism.
> 
> There's your problem.  Well, one of them, at least.
Click to expand...


There you go again, dave. 

And there's no reason that the over-the-edge Republican candidates should be centralized to keep the fringe happy. Let the fringe start its own TV station. Actually, they already have an out-there station that deludes its lemmings into thinking it's impartial.


----------



## daveman

madasheck said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> It's supposed to be reporting of fact, not political activism.
> 
> There's your problem.  Well, one of them, at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, dave.
> 
> And there's no reason that the over-the-edge Republican candidates should be centralized to keep the fringe happy. Let the fringe start its own TV station. Actually, they already have an out-there station that deludes its lemmings into thinking it's impartial.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a great deal of contempt for freedom of speech.

But then, you're a leftist.


----------



## Meister

madasheck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
> I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
> How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
> Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
> Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
> Then get back to us, okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.
Click to expand...

 Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Meister said:


> Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?



Anyone disagreeing with Noam Chomsky, more likely....


----------



## HUGGY

Meister said:


> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
> Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
> Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
> Then get back to us, okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?
Click to expand...


So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media?  Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.


----------



## edthecynic

Trajan said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the case that the most arrogantly condescending CON$ comprehend the least.
> 
> CON$ tried to pass off the CON$ervative authors of the phony "study" as Libs from the bastion of Liberalism, UCLA. It is my contention that even CON$ knew just how slanted the phony "study" was and and tried to pass the authors off as Libs in a feeble attempt to preempt the obvious Right-wing bias in the phony "study." The dishonesty of the CON$ in representing the authors as Libs telegraphs the CON$ own awareness of the phoniness of the "study."
> 
> You are too dishonest to admit that your fellow travelers were deliberately deceptive in presenting the phony "study" as a study by Libs, so you create a straw man, *"any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise  that the authors are slanted,"* BTW the exact argument CON$ use to reject any study from a Liberal, rather than acknowledge that passing off the authors as Libs is an obviously red flag to any honest person.
> 
> So my question is, if the "study" was so solid, why did the CON$ervative who posted it feel obligated to misrepresent the authors as Libs from UCLA????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care who passed off what, answer the questions please, we don't even need the study, stop  using it as a crutch.
> 
> do I need to post the questions again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hello Ed...one more time..
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 
> So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion *any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted,* so, again;
> 
> Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.
> 
> is that correct?
> 
> 
> yes, or no.
> 
> so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.
Click to expand...

Question 1 is the CON$ervative rationalization to reject anything they disagree with, as YOU well know. The fact that you keep trying to attribute it to me merely exposes YOUR dishonesty.

Question 2, CON$ dishonestly try to pass off Goreclose as a Lib when it is undeniable he is a CON$ervative. That fact exposes that the inherent dishonesty of the "study" is obvious even to CON$, who try to preempt the undeniable bias of the phony "study" by claiming it is a Lib study from the Liberal UCLA.

You have been shown this repeatedly, but I';m sure you will continue to play dumb and ask your stupid questions again and again pretending they have not been answered repeatedly.


----------



## daveman

HUGGY said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media?  Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.
Click to expand...

You should tell that to the morons who cite Chomsky.


----------



## HUGGY

daveman said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media?  Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should tell that to the morons who cite Chomsky.
Click to expand...


Not familiar with "Chomsky".  Should I be?  Over the years I have ignored some input.  Is Chomsky a commie?  Communism doesn't work in large groups.  That isn't to say that some communists don't have intelligence and have important points to make.  It is just that pure communism is a fools errand.  That does not mean that pure capitalism does not need to be regulated because pure capitalism is just as stupid and dangerous.  Pure capitalism ends up with one supplier in partnership with government which is really the goal of pure communism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media?  Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.



I take it that your definition of "insane" is any deviation to party dogma, right?

Therefore, sanity is doing as you do and bleating "Ohhhh Bahhhh Bahhh Bahhh Mahhh." Which is what you view as the extent of what the papers should carry....


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> Not familiar with "Chomsky".  Should I be?



Yes, most of your ideas come from him. That it is filtered and regurgitated from Moveon, Truthout, Think Progress and the other hate sites doesn't alter the original source.



> Over the years I have ignored some input.  Is Chomsky a commie?  Communism doesn't work in large groups.



Have you told Obama that?



> That isn't to say that some communists don't have intelligence and have important points to make.  It is just that pure communism is a fools errand.  That does not mean that pure capitalism does not need to be regulated because pure capitalism is just as stupid and dangerous.  Pure capitalism ends up with one supplier in partnership with government which is really the goal of pure communism.



So you don't support "pure" communism, but rather a hybrid system that combines corporate structures with direction and control by the state?


----------



## Meister

HUGGY said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> madasheck said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media?  Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.
Click to expand...


Anybody that disagrees with you is insane and doesn't deserve respect, huh?


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media?  Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that your definition of "insane" is any deviation to party dogma, right?
> 
> Therefore, sanity is doing as you do and bleating "Ohhhh Bahhhh Bahhh Bahhh Mahhh." Which is what you view as the extent of what the papers should carry....
Click to expand...


My definition of insane mostly includes people that base their foundation and input on make believe....AKA fantasy/hallucination/delusion.

I'm not a democrat...and your assuming that does not make it so.


----------



## HUGGY

Meister said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody that disagrees with you is a fruitcake, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media?  Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anybody that disagrees with you is insane and doesn't deserve respect, huh?
Click to expand...


Anyone that does not share my definition of the word "insane" loses credibility with me in a discussion of insanity.  People that make up definitions or reality as they go along do not deserve to be taken seriously.

"insanity" :  mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.

Many "religious" people including those previously mentioned in the earlier post cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.

The Definition of Insanity is... | Psychology Today


----------



## Meister

HUGGY said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media?  Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody that disagrees with you is insane and doesn't deserve respect, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone that does not share my definition of the word "insane" loses credibility with me in a discussion of insanity.  People that make up definitions or reality as they go along do not deserve to be taken seriously.
> 
> "insanity" :  mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.
> 
> Many "religious" people including those previously mentioned in the earlier post cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.
> 
> The Definition of Insanity is... | Psychology Today
Click to expand...


You're either crazy, or a moron, I can't tell which it is.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> My definition of insane mostly includes people that base their foundation and input on make believe....AKA fantasy/hallucination/delusion.
> 
> I'm not a democrat...and your assuming that does not make it so.



So who do you want to win the presidential election?


----------



## daveman

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe insane and rational people deserve equal respect and credibility in the media?  Sorry...just because everyone has an opportunity to voice an opinion does not guarantee standing.
> 
> 
> 
> You should tell that to the morons who cite Chomsky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not familiar with "Chomsky".  Should I be?
Click to expand...

The far left loves him because he hates America as much as they do.


HUGGY said:


> Over the years I have ignored some input.  Is Chomsky a commie?


He's a Commie apologist.


HUGGY said:


> Communism doesn't work in large groups.  That isn't to say that some communists don't have intelligence and have important points to make.


Communists are not intelligent because they never take human nature into account.  They never accept the reason communism has failed, every time, is due to their blindness.


HUGGY said:


> It is just that pure communism is a fools errand.  That does not mean that pure capitalism does not need to be regulated because pure capitalism is just as stupid and dangerous.  Pure capitalism ends up with one supplier in partnership with government which is really the goal of pure communism.


No one's calling for pure capitalism.


----------



## daveman

HUGGY said:


> "insanity" :  mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.



Sounds like the far left to me.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> My definition of insane mostly includes people that base their foundation and input on make believe....AKA fantasy/hallucination/delusion.
> 
> I'm not a democrat...and your assuming that does not make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who do you want to win the presidential election?
Click to expand...


----------



## easyt65

Like a true socialist puppet / socialist govt, Biden wants nothing but propaganda media and no question regarding his failed Presidency.


----------



## MarcATL

NYcarbineer said:


> This is just standard rightwing poisoning of the well.  Proclaim propublica a tool of the left, and then summarily dismiss any work they do as biased.


Basically. Rightwing propaganda 101.


----------



## daveman

MarcATL said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just standard rightwing poisoning of the well.  Proclaim propublica a tool of the left, and then summarily dismiss any work they do as biased.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically. Rightwing propaganda 101.
Click to expand...

Note:  Screeching NUH UH I DON'T LIKE IT THEREFORE ITS NOT TRUE is not a rational argument.


----------



## Uncensored2008

MarcATL said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just standard rightwing poisoning of the well.  Proclaim propublica a tool of the left, and then summarily dismiss any work they do as biased.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically. Rightwing propaganda 101.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you Nazis would never do anything like that...

Fox
Breitbart
NewsMax
OANN
\.


----------



## Uncensored2008

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> *The Pro-Republican News Media*
> 
> The concept of the Liberal Media is a myth  and has always been a myth.
> The various news media are clearly and unmistakably Pro-Republican.
> 
> *Only twice since 1932 have a majority of newspapers endorsed the Democratic candidate *
> 
> The Pro-Republican News Media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Charts ending 1996? SERIOUSLY Nazi?


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.    Have you seen the posts by our less informed colleagues challenging the idea that the *media is Leftist*?  Consider this story the next time you read one of those misguided individuals.
> 
> 
> 2.    New York-based *nonprofit news organization ProPublica is getting a boost from NBC, thanks to its new owner Comcast.* And New York television viewers will see more investigative stories. *a partnership with ProPublica*ProPublica, which does extensive investigative reporting and data mining, ProPublica will receive a donation from NBC, and, in return, will get a wider audience for its stories.  NBC, ProPublica partner on local news
> 
> 3.    This is how deeply the Left has infiltrated every form of information disseminatonfrom* Wikipedia: ProPublica *is a non-profit corporation based in New York City. It describes itself as an *independent non-profit newsroom *that produces investigative journalism in the public interestProPublica has *partnered with more than 50 different news organizations,* ProPublica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4.    Sowho is *ProPublica? *The best comparison would be to say that NBC just agreed to take its news from the old *Pravda.*
> 
> a.    ProPublica began funded by a billionaire husband and wife team who not only spent millions campaigning for President Obama but also *topped donor lists to groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org. *On its website, Pro Publica describes itself as championing the values of the weak against the strong.
> 
> b.    The $10 million yearly grant from *Herbert and Marion Sandler,* the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, which was one of the nations largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans. Just before the financial crisis, the Sandlers in 2008 sold their business to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion. The Sandlers are major donors to the Democratic Party and are top funders of ACORN, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union and other* far-leftist groups *like Human Rights Watch.
> NBC newsroom gets fresh leftist invasion. Network teams up with
> 
> 
> 5.    Still not convinced about the *control of the media*? Perhaps these Leftists simply want to invest in *excellence in journalism*? Think again. This from the Left-leaning Slate:*Slate journalist Jack Shafer raised questions *[Investigating Herbert and Marion Sandler, the funders of the new investigative journalism outfit.] about Pro Publica's ability to provide independent nonpartisan journalism *given the nature of Sandler's other *political donations which include "giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic Party campaigns." The concern was borne out in a vicious December 2008 attack on natural gas drilling that followed the Democrat no-American-energy agenda. Pro Publica
> 
> 6.    From the Capital Research Center: *ProPublica churns out little more than left-wing hit pieces *about Sarah Palin and blames the U.S. government for giving out too little foreign aid. http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1241117859.pdf
> 
> 
> 7.    Ohand BTW.*The Associated Press today announced a program to promote *nonprofit investigative journalism, including *articles from ProPublica*, to its members for republication. The material will be distributed to AP membersincluding essentially all of the nations leading newspapersthrough the Web-based delivery system AP Exchange . Associated Press Joins Steal Our Stories Movement - ProPublica
> 
> 8.    So, what is going on? Capital Research Center (op. cit.) explains it this way: Create a media outlet that will produce left-wing investigative hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost. *NBCAPwherever you get your news.The Left has a well-funded effort underway*.






Wow......ten years ago.


----------



## daveman

PoliticalChic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.    Have you seen the posts by our less informed colleagues challenging the idea that the *media is Leftist*?  Consider this story the next time you read one of those misguided individuals.
> 
> 
> 2.    New York-based *nonprofit news organization ProPublica is getting a boost from NBC, thanks to its new owner Comcast.* And New York television viewers will see more investigative stories. *a partnership with ProPublica*ProPublica, which does extensive investigative reporting and data mining, ProPublica will receive a donation from NBC, and, in return, will get a wider audience for its stories.  NBC, ProPublica partner on local news
> 
> 3.    This is how deeply the Left has infiltrated every form of information disseminatonfrom* Wikipedia: ProPublica *is a non-profit corporation based in New York City. It describes itself as an *independent non-profit newsroom *that produces investigative journalism in the public interestProPublica has *partnered with more than 50 different news organizations,* ProPublica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4.    Sowho is *ProPublica? *The best comparison would be to say that NBC just agreed to take its news from the old *Pravda.*
> 
> a.    ProPublica began funded by a billionaire husband and wife team who not only spent millions campaigning for President Obama but also *topped donor lists to groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org. *On its website, Pro Publica describes itself as championing the values of the weak against the strong.
> 
> b.    The $10 million yearly grant from *Herbert and Marion Sandler,* the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, which was one of the nations largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans. Just before the financial crisis, the Sandlers in 2008 sold their business to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion. The Sandlers are major donors to the Democratic Party and are top funders of ACORN, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union and other* far-leftist groups *like Human Rights Watch.
> NBC newsroom gets fresh leftist invasion. Network teams up with
> 
> 
> 5.    Still not convinced about the *control of the media*? Perhaps these Leftists simply want to invest in *excellence in journalism*? Think again. This from the Left-leaning Slate:*Slate journalist Jack Shafer raised questions *[Investigating Herbert and Marion Sandler, the funders of the new investigative journalism outfit.] about Pro Publica's ability to provide independent nonpartisan journalism *given the nature of Sandler's other *political donations which include "giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic Party campaigns." The concern was borne out in a vicious December 2008 attack on natural gas drilling that followed the Democrat no-American-energy agenda. Pro Publica
> 
> 6.    From the Capital Research Center: *ProPublica churns out little more than left-wing hit pieces *about Sarah Palin and blames the U.S. government for giving out too little foreign aid. http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1241117859.pdf
> 
> 
> 7.    Ohand BTW.*The Associated Press today announced a program to promote *nonprofit investigative journalism, including *articles from ProPublica*, to its members for republication. The material will be distributed to AP membersincluding essentially all of the nations leading newspapersthrough the Web-based delivery system AP Exchange . Associated Press Joins Steal Our Stories Movement - ProPublica
> 
> 8.    So, what is going on? Capital Research Center (op. cit.) explains it this way: Create a media outlet that will produce left-wing investigative hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost. *NBCAPwherever you get your news.The Left has a well-funded effort underway*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow......ten years ago.
Click to expand...

And now for something a little more up to date:

Fact check: Do 97 percent of journalist donations go to Democrats?​


> According to Juliana Heerschap, Brat's communications director, the congressman was referring to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), which examined donations by journalists to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries and the first month of the 2016 general election campaign.[2] CPI reported that more than 96 percent of those donations were made to Clinton.[3][4][5]
> 
> Ballotpedia also reviewed three other analyses. The Center for Responsive Politics found that 65 percent of contributions from those identified as journalists went to Democrats in the 2010 election cycle.[6] An analysis by MSNBC.com found that 87 percent of the 143 donors (who made contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign) gave to Democrats or liberal causes.[7] The Media Research Center found that 94 percent of donors affiliated with five news outlets also contributed to Democrats between 2008 and 2016.[8]


Reporters and editors from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times have been donating money in Election 2020, and Democrats are getting most of it.​
Most journalists don't make political contributions. But among those who do, they almost always give to Democrats.
Following Insider's questions, at least two news organizations have either suspended or reassigned reporters and editors found to have given political candidates cash.
News media endorsements in the 2020 United States presidential primaries​Synopsis:
Biden, 13 endorsements
Bloomberg, 5
Buttigieg, 4
Klobuchar, 14
Sanders, 17
Warren, 6
Yang, 2
Trump, 2
Weld, 2

So, in total, Democrats got 61 endorsements from news media, Republicans got 4.

C_Clayton_Jones, this is where you'd feel like an idiot if you had any self-awareness.​


----------

