no, that's false. i live here.

1/17/2007 9:08:14 PM

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: lets be real and honest here the left does have plenty of uneducated, uninformed individuals that vote heavily for them, probably as many as the right does thats only because the democrats promise them stuff (then never does anything for them)"

Black people don't vote.

They can't be pandered to or exploited for votes because they just don't fucking vote.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 9:09 PM. Reason : That's "real and honest."]

1/17/2007 9:08:44 PM

why would they

aint nobody black running but crack-ers

1/17/2007 9:10:01 PM

Quote :

"everybody in the south and midwest are dumb as shit! people on the west coast and new england are all smart!"

Because that was exactly my point.

Way to score a stupidity/sarcasm combo

1/17/2007 9:11:22 PM

^^Rational voter abstension.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 9:13 PM. Reason : sss]

1/17/2007 9:12:04 PM

^^you know damn well your point was that you believe that the majority of americans who voted for bush are dumb, ass-backwards redneck idiots...you just wont admit it...but your kerry elitism is very obvious

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 9:17 PM. Reason : boonedocks]

1/17/2007 9:16:54 PM

My point was that the GOP did a fantastic and overt job of stirring the dumb, ass-backwards redneck idiot voting bloc.

1/17/2007 9:27:32 PM

actually, its called appealing to the baseness of all humanity.

1/17/2007 9:45:07 PM

OMG BEHIND YOU!!






GAYS!

1/17/2007 9:55:06 PM

Quote :

"both sides have idiots that vote for them"

each group panders to stupid people on both sides

you must have missed this boonedocks because you said this

Quote :

"yet Republicans still refuse to admit that they pander to stupidity"

but this whole fucking elitist bullshit is sickening, you're no better than anyone else

I know plenty of conservatives that are well educated, work hard, and earn a great living

attitudes like yours are part of the reason Kerry slipped up and made his comment about troops...

average americans see right through the elitist crap, not everyone has the option of spending their life in school, some people want to do hard work, everyone in this country is different

but I guess it's en vogue to make fun of people that aren't like you as long as they aren't arab, black, oriental, latin american, or gay... more fucking hypocracy from some of you

grow up and get over the fact that this country is a melting pot of different people, social classes, ideals, jobs, etc etc


is the kind of crap you teach kids in your classes?

Quote :

"My point was that the GOP did a fantastic and overt job of stirring the dumb, ass-backwards redneck idiot voting bloc"

so how come every election year democrats suddenly care about the concerns of minorities?
...please, your ilk isn't any different... shit stinks no matter who lays the turd

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 11:06:19 PM

Both sides pander to certain groups. They both exploit misinformation.

Only one side panders to willful ignorance and bigotry. Seriously. They exploit Anti-science, anti-gay, anti-Muslim mindlessness every time an election comes around.

How does the Left encourage and revel in ignorance? How is it literally proud of its rejection of intellectualism?


I'm not even talking about Republicans as a whole. I'm talking about Republican politicians' tactics to motivate the ignorant to go out and vote.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 11:40 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 11:39:45 PM

BOTH SIDES DO THAT


one gets the church idiots and such, the other promises more free shit to a huge segment of the population


you wanna act like everything is black and white

by your explanation everyone that votes conservative is the following... a bible beater, anti-gay, anti-muslim backwoods uneducated hick... and it shows with your elitist attitude

I can't stand religion, think people should be treated equally, I have an education and I have a great career... honestly I wish a third party candidate would actually have a hope at getting elected, but right now they don't, so I vote for whomever I hate the least


just get over yourself and your high and mighty attitude

1/18/2007 12:05:11 AM

But when, exactly, is anti-intellectualism encouraged?

I've yet to see a liberal politician use "expert" or "professor" as a means to poison the well in a debate.

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 12:13 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2007 12:08:30 AM

yeah, I hate it when people don't act just like I want them to act, dress the way I want them to dress, or have the occupation i want them to have


and btw, the last dem president did the same thing, he just tried to appeal to a different group of idiots

if you're so damn smart and intellectual why didn't you go to an ivy league school, med school, law school etc?

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 12:20 AM. Reason : more hypocracy]

1/18/2007 12:19:42 AM

Now you're just grasping at strawmen

1. First part has nothing to do with what I said.
2. So please give me an example of where Clinton used the support of an expert or intellectual to poison the well
3. So I can only be intellectually curious if I go to an Ivy League grad school? Because only people in these schools can have an appreciation of learning
4. How is this hypocracy? Is that the word of the week for you guys?

1/18/2007 12:28:05 AM

is the hijacking done with? or can we get back to the issues of puproseful bias, lying, etc from the MEDIA?

1/18/2007 12:28:29 AM

Quote :

"They exploit Anti-science, anti-gay, anti-Muslim mindlessness every time an election comes around"

While I don't think they exactly "exploit Anti-science", I do agree that they cater to Christians...probably because they're Christian themselves? What a novel concept...regardless of your own personal stances on religion, for one thing they appear to actually stand up for what they believe in...let alone a supposedly open-minded person like yourself loves to hate on Christians (I'm agnostic btw, just so you dont think I'm here with a personal vendetta)...but your ignorance and selective prejudice is blatantly obvious

Anti-gay...well they definitely have tended to be on the 'anti' side of gay marriage...I do however think its something they believe in...by the way, its quite humorous that you love talking shit about average Americans while giving Muslims in the Middle East the benefit of the doubt...for the so-called tolerant party, you're not too tolerant of fellow Americans

If you want to interpret their stance as anti-Muslim, go right ahead...of course you probably don't think Muslim fundamentalists want to kill Americans, while at the same time you have no trouble talking plenty of shit about Christian fundamentalists

1/18/2007 12:34:49 AM

they do try though. it has just started backfiring on them.
reference missouri senate race and stem cell research and that creationist school board in PA

1/18/2007 12:36:37 AM

^^ I bring up something and you scream "strawman"


umm yeah thats it... I made a valid point but as usual in the soapbox you wanna be poly sci people start up with that crap

you insinuate that since bush wears a cowboy hat, has a ranch, was an oilman, or whatever the hell he does he somehow is encouraging "stupidity"

guess what, eveyr politican panders to his constituency, quit acting like your side is above it(hence the hypocracy statement)

have you already forgotten that clinton was "the first black president"?

you act like you're so much more intelligent and informed than everyone else, if you're that damn intelligent you'd probably be doing something else

typical SB crap... sorry I'm not down with the status quo

(my comments were on topic, then the usual suspects jumped on my nuts, again)

1/18/2007 12:37:13 AM

^^^

Quote :

"I'm not even talking about Republicans as a whole. I'm talking about Republican politicians' tactics to motivate the ignorant to go out and vote."

And when have I given fundamental Islam the benefit of the doubt? Quotes prz



[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 12:42 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2007 12:38:33 AM

^^^well I've always said, regardless of your opinion of Bush, you at least know what he stands for...he comes out and says it...he doesnt pussyfoot and dance around the issue while giving the most "politically correct" answers...I'm not saying Bush or his people are honest (like any politician is honest)...but at least people know what he stands for...maybe if Kerry let people know his views he wouldve gotten elected

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 12:39 AM. Reason : ^^^]

1/18/2007 12:38:40 AM

i didnt realize that being called the first black president meant you were pandering to ignorance. huh.

in other news.

Quote :

"'m not saying Bush or his people are honest (like any politician is honest)...but at least people know what he stands for"

2 + 2 =5

1/18/2007 12:39:30 AM

wow, thats the intelligent answer i would expect

1/18/2007 12:40:12 AM

your definition of ignorance may be different than mine, I don't generalize any group as a whole as ignorant

I never said black people as a whole are ignorant, but neither are church people(whatever floats their boat), farmers, ranchers, truck drivers... whoever


ignorance is in every class, including your own.. I guess you lefties are too high and mighty to admit that

1/18/2007 12:42:11 AM

You're not even addressing my issue.

I don't give a crap about cowboy hats. I have a problem with Republican politicians using the work "experts," "academics," "intellectuals," and "professors" as derogatory terms.

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 12:44 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2007 12:42:48 AM

well i have a problem with people referring to average americans as dumbass backwards rednecks but that doesnt seem to stop you

1/18/2007 12:43:32 AM

Quote :

"I'm not even talking about Republicans as a whole. I'm talking about Republican politicians' tactics to motivate the ignorant to go out and vote."

And I love how Republican politicians insult America by calling the homophobic bigots they try to motivate to vote every election year "average Americans."

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 12:45 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2007 12:44:31 AM

might be the attitude that many in that field are espousing


I dunno, I've never considered it a bad word, just a bad attitude that some in those specific communities have


or it could be these people returning fire since "most" of those people are bombarding the right with shit all the time

I have no idea other than that
^ the left is guilty of the same goddamn thing... all politicians do it, it's not right, but suddenly now the dems don't? yeah fucking right

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 12:46 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2007 12:45:31 AM

^^so you're jealous because your party didnt urge enough people to vote? i seriously doubt you would be bitching and moaning about this if your party had done a good enough job of "catering to the dumbasses" to actually win a presidential election...and not only that, but to lose an election to the biggest dumbass the world has ever seen? i guess i would be pissed also

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 12:46 AM. Reason : ^^]

1/18/2007 12:46:15 AM

So how did the 2004 election go again?

Oh right, we managed to win without scapegoating a single minority. Go us.

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 12:47 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2007 12:47:19 AM

You managed to win? Come again?

Oh I get it...youre saying the Republicans scapegoated the "dumb" minority...but I thought they were the dumb majority?

Bottom line is you're just pissed because your own party's respective pandering to "dumbass Americans" didnt work

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 12:50 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2007 12:49:13 AM

lol, obviously the world revolves around franklin street politics


or at least it does in some peoples minds

I think most people can be glad that the government didn't listen to the polls back when the civil rights movement started

1/18/2007 12:50:14 AM

WHY DO YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS? WHY CANT YOU BE TOLERANT OF THEM?

WHY DO YOU HATE MUSLIMS? WHY CANT YOU BE TOLERANT OF THEM?

DEATH TO REDNECKS! I HATE THOSE ASS BACKWARDS AMERICANS!

1/18/2007 12:54:34 AM

BBC confesses bias
on religion, politics
Internal memo reveals execs saying
Bible tossed in trash OK, not Quran

An internal British Broadcasting Corporation memo reveals senior figures admitted the national news agency was guilty of promoting left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.

News of the memo, reported by British media, comes as the BBC continues to struggle against claims of biased reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and distorted coverage of the global fight against terror, reports the Israeli YnetNews.com.

The admissions of bias were made at a recent "impartiality" summit the BBC held. Most executives admitted the corporation's representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, YnetNews.com said. The British news agency, the report said, leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside.

At the summit, executives were given a fictitious scenario in which they were asked to make a judgment.

In the illustration, Jewish comedian Sasha Baron Cohen would participate in a studio program in which guests were allowed to symbolically throw in a garbage bin things they hated.

What would you do, the executives were asked, if Cohen decided to throw kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bible and the Quran in the trash.

Everything would be allowed, the executives said, except for the Quran, for fear of offending the British Muslim community.

The BBC also revealed its executives favored interviewing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden if the opportunity arose, the Washington Times reported.

The executives were presented with a current hot-button issue in Britain, the wearing of Muslim veils. Should a veiled woman be allowed to present the news, they were asked. The BBC's diversity editor said yes, since news anchors were allowed to wear crosses.

A senior BBC executive admitted to the British paper Daily Express, "There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it."

BBC news airs often on the right-wing outlet NPR.

1/18/2007 11:01:41 AM

1/18/2007 11:49:40 AM

so, after I have already said why that article doesnt prove what you want it to prove you REPASTE the article. as if that will fix the problem. congrats.

1/18/2007 12:30:30 PM

THE PUBLIC EDITOR: Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004

"OF course it is."

1/18/2007 8:01:44 PM

so, after I have already said why that article doesnt prove what you want it to prove you REPASTE the article. as if that will fix the problem. congrats.

1/18/2007 8:43:32 PM

Concerning the legitimacy of Fox News, NPR evidently trusts the cable news channel. Fox News' reporter Jim Angle was part of a panel of journalists this morning on The Diane Rehm Show.

1/19/2007 10:31:50 AM

so does that disprove my assertion that their hosts lie or your assertion that NPR is a bunch of liberals?

1/19/2007 12:00:09 PM

I am the one following the AINT IT COOL NEWS!

[Edited on January 19, 2007 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2007 12:45:37 PM

This needs to be in here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRRywAlop4Q

What's even funnier than the blatant smearing is the fact that they're working on the assumption that Muslims = teh debil

1/19/2007 4:55:20 PM

Ill just copy and paste and cut out my sarcasm

Quote :

" "In Indonesia, I’d spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I’d pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended.""

Quote :

" "Without the money to go to the international school that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools and ran the streets with the children of farmers, servants, tailors, and clerks.""

First quote from first book. Second quote from second book.

Now, why did Fox news say "he was brought up a muslim and then become an atheist" and fail to mention that he converted to christianity as an adult, and is apparently a very active member of his church. who is leaving what out here?

[Edited on January 19, 2007 at 5:09 PM. Reason : Q q]

1/19/2007 5:08:54 PM

I find it amusing that you can put all the evidence out there in the world (the 75% or so of articles/stories are negative about Iraq and Bush), but liberals will call Fox News bias....and only point to a handful of newscasts to prove their point. Its like in the other thread where I said if Fox is so bias then why dont we all watch the programs for a couple of weeks and record what we think is bias......and BridgetSPK's answer was "we dont have to prove it, it just is".

1/19/2007 5:20:00 PM

Talking about how badly Bush and Iraq are doing isn't liberal; it's reality.

[Edited on January 19, 2007 at 5:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2007 5:23:33 PM

actually I didnt point to a handful of anything. But then again, if you think that "putting all the evidence in the world out there" includes mentioning one anecdote which may or may not be true, and has little to do with bias if it is true...then what does that say about you?

[Edited on January 19, 2007 at 5:55 PM. Reason : left out last phrase]

1/19/2007 5:55:04 PM

Since some of you put so much faith in academic studies, here's a recent one that clearly shows there is liberal bias in the media:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Some quotations from the study:

Quote :

"Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample."

Quote :

"Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public.[2] Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry.[3] This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.[4] These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush in 1992, nearly double the rate of journalists. In the Eighth Massachusetts district, which includes Cambridge, nineteen percent voted for Bush, approximately triple the rate of journalists.[5]"

Quote :

"However, contrary to the prediction of the typical firm-location model, we find a a systematic liberal bias of the U.S. media. This is echoed by three other studies—Hamilton (2004), Lott and Hasset (2004), and Sutter (2004), the only empirical studies of media bias by economists of which we are aware."

1/20/2007 4:49:00 AM

did you even read the study?
They used citations of think tanks to prove bias. Its hardly a convincing method of proving bias.

Quote :

"Conservatives frequently list NPR as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet.[27] However, by our estimate the outlet hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet. For instance, its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report, and its score is slightly less than the Washington Post’s. Further, our estimate places it well to the right of the New York Times, and also to the right of the average speech by Joe Lieberman."

Quote :

"That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample."

In other words, they ommitted 90% of the programming on Fox, MSNBC, etc. They ignored editorial articles etc.

1/20/2007 9:43:27 AM

Quote :

"Since some of you put so much faith in academic studies"

If academics are so faliable (I'm not saying they aren't but to act like they should be dismissed for being academics is pure folly), then what research should be trusted on these issues? Aside from, say, non-partisan think-tanks, where are you going to find any gathering of individuals presenting well-researched reports on this?

Never mind that any such group will undoubtably be made up of experts who study the issues in-depth...you know, academics.

I don't understand how you love to slam academic, peer-reviewed studies on issues, but will extoll tabloid media books like that "Do As I Say..." nonsense that really does nothing but attack individuals and not the actual issues themselves.

Is there bias in media? Sure. Our job is to be critical readers and determine what the facts are, and typically those stories ("Bush meets with Iraqi PM", "X number of people die in roadside blast") are pretty straightforward. As for the opinions, we have to decide how valid the argument is in the face of stated facts, not simply dismiss something that doesn't line up with our initial impression.

I enjoy George F. Will simply for the fact that when it comes to conservative commentators, he tends to actually argue the point instead of attacking individuals, as many people on both sides of the media do. Do I agree with him? Not usually, but I do realize that he makes very valid points.

[Edited on January 20, 2007 at 11:50 AM. Reason : .]

1/20/2007 11:38:31 AM

[Edited on January 20, 2007 at 12:16 PM. Reason : nevermind, this is over yalls head]

1/20/2007 12:16:10 PM