The new Ultra Mega Bad Ass Mother 3000 Political Thread o Rama! [Archive] - Page 21

Sabrinaset

03-24-2006, 06:46 PM

And now, for some more news...

Russia provided intelligence to Iraq's government on U.S. military movements in the opening days of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003...

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-03-24T203341Z_01_N24241162_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-RUSSIA.xml&rpc=22

A hodgepodge of stuff regarding Iraq, al-Quada, and others...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

Yet another idiot journalist! And this one is a Conservative too! ... there must be something in the water in Journalism School ... well, maybe he'll get a job at Wizard?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/03/ben_domenech_resigns.html

And one from the CBR Surgeon General! ...

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2006-03-24T170748Z_01_L24718046_RTRUKOC_0_US-SCIENCE-STEM-CELLS.xml&rpc=22

Is this for real...a TEEN repellent? I thought this was from the Onion at first...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/24/060324175603.gg50bf2u.html

Paul McEnery

03-24-2006, 07:00 PM

But I'm not saying that the two companies are in cahoots with each other. What I am saying is that there is a Liberal culture in the media in which Liberal darlings are at least given the benefit of the doubt and stories involving Liberals, if they are green-lighted, are given more care than those that involve investigating Conservatives. And, if the press lets a conservative off lightly, more often than not it's because they are not doing their jobs...because they're incompetant.

You're assuming that I think there's a huge Left-Wing Conspiracy out there. I doubt there is one. I do think that most journalists have a common (liberal) worldview, and that it affects, to some degree or another, their coverage of events. I also don't think it makes them bad people, but it does explain why they're not viewed very highly by the populace at large, at least judging by those poll numbers I posted.
You would hope that there would be a liberal bias to the media. Liberal is the center we, most of us, inhabit.

Unfortunately, while the majority of journalists may be liberal, the majority of media owners are not, and they're the ones who call the tune.

Sabrinaset

03-24-2006, 07:22 PM

Unfortunately, while the majority of journalists may be liberal, the majority of media owners are not, and they're the ones who call the tune.

How do we know this, that the owners are not? It would certainly not apply to Ted Turner. Doesn't Al Gore own a network now? Being super-rich does not necessarily mean you are Conservative. Ben and Jerry? George Soros, anyone...?

How do we know they even care what happens at the newspaper level, so long as the money comes in? Seems to me the only things the owners would care about are the shareholders, and not how something is reported on pg. 12 of a newspaper they own. Well, that and their golf score.

kingdom2000

03-24-2006, 09:50 PM

How do we know this, that the owners are not? It would certainly not apply to Ted Turner. Doesn't Al Gore own a network now? Being super-rich does not necessarily mean you are Conservative. Ben and Jerry? George Soros, anyone...?

How do we know they even care what happens at the newspaper level, so long as the money comes in? Seems to me the only things the owners would care about are the shareholders, and not how something is reported on pg. 12 of a newspaper they own. Well, that and their golf score.

Ted Turner sold CNN to Time Warner, owned by conservatives. Al owns a website, not a broadcasting source. George Soros don't know. Ben and Jerry? Are you making up names now?

Magneto_X

03-24-2006, 09:54 PM

Everyone's forgetting Rupert Murdock*. IIRC he's the douche who owns Fox.

*sorry everyone!

Sabrinaset

03-24-2006, 10:13 PM

Ted Turner sold CNN to Time Warner, owned by conservatives. Al owns a website, not a broadcasting source. George Soros don't know. Ben and Jerry? Are you making up names now?

You've never heard of Ben and Jerrys Ice Cream???

George Soros is like only the guy behing MoveOn.org, and a huge Liberal moneybags. Said several times during the election he'd empty his whole account to see W lose.

I'm unaware of Time-Warners politics. Who are the Conservatives who run it?

EdContradictory

03-25-2006, 05:36 AM

Ah, I COULD see you thinking that I thought that by the (poor) way I wrote...

I should have written that as "...when looking at Clinton, but CBS ran like the wind..."
You're still conflating the two groups together, creating a relationship where there is none. Your point only makes sense if they are working in tandem or part of that "liberal media conspiracy". Otherwise it doesn't matter what CBS does in comparison to Newsweek.

By the way, in an update to the ABC story, Mr. Green has a mea culpa...

[UPDATE: Green sent email to ABC staff: "By now some of you have seen the DRUDGE REPORT featuring a private email I sent to a colleague in 2004. I want all of you to know how much I regret the embarrassment this story causes ABC. It was an inappropriate thing to say and I'm deeply sorry.']
He sent it in 2004? "Interesting" Drudge didn't mention that in his initial write up.

Damn, Drudge is a scumbag.

EdContradictory

03-25-2006, 05:39 AM

Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement
In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.

The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
Can someone explain to me why these signing statements are not illegal?

Noah Johnson

03-25-2006, 06:30 AM

At the end of the day, all the other arguments pale before the big one. I mean, yes, the only argument that the media has a liberal bias is "I think it must be that way", (and no offense, Sabrina, but I have to believe they're teaching you to make diagnoses on better bases than that, because if I ever get health coverage I'll want a doctor who knows what they're doing) but you know what? That's not even the point.

The point is that we have a president who believes he is not bound by U.S. law. I mean, us liberals have been saying for a while that the bastard and the bastards running him have nothing but contempt for the Bill of Rights, but that's old news by now. By now all the good Kool-Aid drinkers have acknowledged that the Bill of Rights only applies when it isn't difficult or scary. But never mind trying to take us back to 1775, Bush's understanding of executive authority is apparently dated 1214. Can ANYONE defend this contempt for our nation's principles?

Adam Crocker

03-25-2006, 07:52 AM

Okay I went back and read what the hoo-ha over the media was about and I have to agree with Ed Sabrina. This is one big non story. So some ABC Exec lets off steam about Bush in private. Whoopty-doo. And this has all of what to do with ABC's record of reporting? As far as I can tell nothing, since no one has really put forward any reason for us to believe that this impacts ABC's reporting. Really this is Drudge posting something for Republicans wanting to go on about how liberal the media is so they can pretend that they are so abused to jerk off over.

You do know all these polls that suppose to show that the country doesn't like bush and whatnot are usually a poll of maybe 1000 people. In a country of hundreds of millions you really believe that this is a accurate view of the country? (This explains how Clinton could have high poll numbers in the 50's and 60's and yet he never got a majority of the vote during the presidential elections)

Bri, unless you can actually provide substantive evidence for all of the polls being inaccurate and that Bush's popularity is indeed not plummeting please shut the hell up. No really. I'm sick and tired of having to deal with your bullshit posts where instead of actually posting something substantive you post some tenuous hypothesis on something that gets up your arse, but you can't provide much to back it up. You just hope that people will bite. This is exactly why Steven Grant was closing those threads of yours way back before he enacted "discussions only in relation to what was mentioned in the column" rule. Come back when you've actually put some effort into it.

Can ANYONE defend this contempt for our nation's principles?

Sure, we can. Clinton did it!

(Well no, actually he didn't.)

Ogdred

03-25-2006, 10:08 AM

Well then, let's set the Way-Back machine to the Clinton Presidential Impeachment Hearings, where Peter Jennings was introducing the congressmen as they walked into the room. He identified every Republican as a Republican, and where they stood ideologically. The Democrats, he just identified by name. Yep, they're just normal people, don't need to be politically identified. And that's off the top of my head, but does that work as an example?

Nope, because you offer no compelling evidence that your version of events is accurate.

Ogdred

03-25-2006, 10:28 AM

Daddy is an art teacher, and if he uses the school e-mail to start sending messages similar to that, he gets busted. I would HOPE that FOX is a little more professional than a public school. It seems like ABC isn't, though.

Are you honestly trying to equate the e-mail policy of a public (i.e. tax-payer funded) school with that of a private (i.e. non-tax-payer funded) business when it comes to making comments on politics? And don't you think that a person who works for a news-gathering organization has more reason to comment on the frustration of trying to get a straight answer out of a public official than does a public-school art teacher?

Your proposed equivalency is bogus.

Ogdred

03-25-2006, 10:45 AM

On the subject of supposed liberal bias in media coverage of the war in Iraq, John Dickerson (chief political correspondent for Slate) had some interesting points in this article: The Good News From Iraq (http://www.slate.com/id/2138622/)

Some choice bits for discussion (emphasis mine):

...bombs and charred bodies have a certain unspinnable quality. That's why when there is a suicide attack in Israel, presidents, including this one, issue special statements of denunciation and concern. No matter how many upbeat stories one might hear about better electricity or rebuilt schools in Iraq, it's never going to balance out the horror of violence. And it shouldn't. To talk about press bias in response to questions about violence suggests an equivalence between dead soldiers and new hospitals. An increase in the number of positive stories is not going to rebuild support for Bush's policies. What raised his approval rating briefly last year was his effort to embrace the reality people saw on their television screens and then explain why the struggle was worth it.

And another (again, emphasis mine):

Press-bashing only highlights the administration's insufficient response to the underlying problem. When the basement is flooded, no one wants to hear complaints about not getting credit for the shiny new roof. It also does the administration no good when its allies challenge the professionalism of reporters in Iraq. Sixty-seven international journalists have died there along with 24 translators, drivers, and other support personnel—more than died in 20 years of fighting in Vietnam. The complaints also turn genuine media efforts to show the positive side of the war into farce when reality intrudes. In the middle of taping an NBC piece about a new school opening, a bomb went off, and as Bob Dole praised Fox for showing the positive side of Iraq this week, the other half of the network's split screen showed a burning truck.

I've excerpted what I think are the main points, but the whole article deserves to be read.

Sabrinaset

03-25-2006, 11:16 AM

(and no offense, Sabrina, but I have to believe they're teaching you to make diagnoses on better bases than that, because if I ever get health coverage I'll want a doctor who knows what they're doing)

This must be the fifth time someone has determined how good a surgeon I'm going to be based on how I argue politics. It's actually vaguely irritating, especially when I'm doing work above what my normal class is. Also, the fact that I admitted waaaaay back, like decades ago, that I was not a huge political science mega expert like say, Mr. McEnery. But...you'll only WISH you had me as your heart surgeon. How about if I tell ya this: Discussing the press is a way different animal that diagnosing medical conditions, and stop trying to link those two? Thanks.

Although the idea of diagnosing ABC the same way I would diagnose a disease might have some interesting parallels...

Nope, because you offer no compelling evidence that your version of events is accurate.

It's in Bias by Bernard Goldberg. Further exponded upon in Arrogance. If you can get past the feud he has with Dan Rather, there's a lot of stuff in there that would be hard to deny. And Goldberg IS an avowed Liberal. Or at least he was when he wrote the two books.

Are you honestly trying to equate the e-mail policy of a public (i.e. tax-payer funded) school with that of a private (i.e. non-tax-payer funded) business when it comes to making comments on politics? And don't you think that a person who works for a news-gathering organization has more reason to comment on the frustration of trying to get a straight answer out of a public official than does a public-school art teacher?

What is one of the prevailing beliefs (or illusions, if you prefer) of the press? Well, the main one is that they take no sides, but just report the facts, ma'am, just the facts. That was why people years and years ago had a much higher respect for the press and what it stood for. And I would say that back in the Edward R. Murrow days, it was deserved. But the minute it started becoming viewed as being advocates for causes...or the minute that the people who worked on the press were immediately seen as taking sides (however unfair you think of it) ...and Dan Rather doing a fund-raiser for his daughter, some bigwig for the Texas Democratic party or somesuch would be a decent example of this...the illusion that the press and it's employees were fair to both sides was shattered. The thing is, it seems that they still act like it hasn't been. At least the press during the Hearst/Yellow Journalism age were honest about the fact that they took sides.

I think a PROFESSIONAL...and definitely someone in MANAGEMENT...should keep his opinions to himself. Especially when it impacts negatively on his company.

Okay I went back and read what the hoo-ha over the media was about and I have to agree with Ed Sabrina. This is one big non story.

I think most of my comments on this were variations of "It looks bad for ABC" and not "The Sky is Falling for ABC". As stories go, it's not way up there, (and as far as I'm concerned, the story on stem-cells is more important than the ABC memo...and no one has commented on that one, darnit!) and is more of an amusing commentary on the state of management and professionalism at the top of the network. Now, you can extrapolate where the press stands and how it behaves from this comment, when you compare it to other examples, but really, and maybe I've not been too clear on this, but the more I've read about the press and how it performs it's function, the less I think of them as being biased, and the more I think of them as simply being incompetant.

Ogdred

03-25-2006, 11:41 AM

It's in Bias by Bernard Goldberg. Further exponded upon in Arrogance. If you can get past the feud he has with Dan Rather, there's a lot of stuff in there that would be hard to deny. And Goldberg IS an avowed Liberal. Or at least he was when he wrote the two books.

That is not compelling evidence. Show me the tape.

What is one of the prevailing beliefs (or illusions, if you prefer) of the press? Well, the main one is that they take no sides, but just report the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

And, somehow, by expressing annoyance (in an e-mail to a colleague) that a public official is engaging in spin means this reporter doesn't report facts?

I think a PROFESSIONAL...and definitely someone in MANAGEMENT...should keep his opinions to himself. Especially when it impacts negatively on his company.

So, basically, people should shut up and do what they're told and not question the President. Opinions, after all, are unprofessional. And professionalism is more important than uncovering the truth behind public-policy decisions that potentially impact every single person on the face of this planet.

Sabrinaset

03-25-2006, 02:09 PM

That is not compelling evidence. Show me the tape.

Just for YOU, Ogdred ... from pages 57-59 of Bias, by Bernard Goldberg.

During the Clinton Impeachment Trial in 1999, as the senators signed their names in the oath book swearing they would be fair and impartial, Peter Jennings, who was anchoring ABC News live coverage, made sure his audience knew which senators were conservative - but not a word about which ones were liberal.

As the senators each signed the oath book, Jennings identified several Democrats, including Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy, two of the most liberal members of the Senate, without ever mentioning that they are indeed liberal. That would have been just fine, except for what happened later. When Senator John McCain signed the book, Jennings said, "Senator John McCain of Arizona, left-hander. More right than left in his politics and intending to run for President of the United States."

Jennings spotted another conservative. "Senator McConnell of Kentucky, very determined conservative member of the Republican Party."

When Jennings identified the next enator to sign the book, it was, "Senator Mikulski of Maryland."

Plain and simple. Unadorned. Senator Mikulski of Maryland. Not a word that Mikulski is a liberal Democrat from Maryland.

Then a few seconds later, Jennings, with pinpoint precision, continued identifying the Conservatives. "Senator Rick Santorum, one of the younger members of the Senate, Republican, very determined conservative member of the Senate. That's Senator Daschle there in the left-hand side of your picture. "

Santorum was a conservative Republican, but Tom Daschle, a liberal from South Dakota was simply...Senator Daschle.

Charles Schumer, the newly elected liberal Senator from New York was "Senator Schumer"...no label needed. But the next Senator to sign the oath book was "Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, also another very, very conservative Republican intending to run for the Presidency."

When Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Ron Wyden of Oregon came up to sign - two more from the left-wing of the Democratic Party - Jennings simply identified them by name and state. The word liberal never passed through Peter's lips. In fact, Peter felt no need to identify any of the Democratic Liberals in the Senate. Not a single one. Only the conservative Republicans...

On that particular day, Peter identified the conservatives because he thought it mattered. He thought his viewers needed to know. And he was right. He didn't identify the liberals, obviously because he thought it didn't matter. And he was wrong.

In the world of the Jenningses and Brokaws and Rathers, conservatives are out of the mainstream and need to be identified. Liberals, on the other hand, are the mainstream and don't need to be identified.

Good thing I know how to type! Only way to get through med school...well, that and speed reading.

So, there's yer compelling evidence, Ogdred.

And, somehow, by expressing annoyance (in an e-mail to a colleague) that a public official is engaging in spin means this reporter doesn't report facts?

No, it means that this person is already biased against the President, and in whatever news that ABC chooses to run with, W already has a strike or two against him. In other words, this guy...I wouldn't trust him to simply report the facts. I would expect his bias to come into play somewhere. Which is why journalists are not generally trusted by (the) hoi polloi, because everyone expects journalists to do just that...sadly.

So, basically, people should shut up and do what they're told and not question the President. Opinions, after all, are unprofessional. And professionalism is more important than uncovering the truth behind public-policy decisions that potentially impact every single person on the face of this planet.

But this isn't about uncovering anything W did, it's about this guy thinking W makes him sick. In a business where you're not supposed to make personal judgements except on the editorial page. And you are still missing the point. Journalism used to be about the facts, NOT OPINIONS. The second that the personal opinions of journalists started creeping into the professional work done by them, their work became compromised. And the minute people started seeing this happen, trust in the business eroded.

Which is why I said, "This looks bad for ABC."

Jeff Brady

03-25-2006, 02:19 PM

Journalism used to be about the facts, NOT OPINIONS.

Well, it's certainly good that the person isn't a journalist, and only made those comments in a private email, not in an article or even an editorial.

LtMarvel

03-25-2006, 02:48 PM

They were the opposing party...the party that took action against the President. Of course Jennings needed to identify those that were trying to do something. The question of the day was how many GOPs could vote to impeach the President...against the will of the people. It seems that the author of the book has forgotten, or chose to ignore what was happening in the world of politics. The GOP impeached the President largely on a party vote. Clinton's approval ratings went UP 10 points. Why? Was it because the American People looked at the route that brought us to this point (Starr investigating EVERYTHING under the sun, before and during the Clinton administration, and only finding one piece of wrongdoing (lying under oath about an affair)--which only happened because of another conservative's witchhunt.) The case for impeachment was extremely weak and very unpopular. The audience and Mr. Jennings knew how the democrats would vote. No one knew how the GOP Senators would.

Sabrinaset

03-25-2006, 04:03 PM

Well, it's certainly good that the person isn't a journalist, and only made those comments in a private email, not in an article or even an editorial.

Nah, just the guy who is in charge of them and helps shape the editorial/journalistic content. The guy who decides which stories are shown and which aren't.

Lt. Marvel, you missed the point. It wasn't that Bill was being impeached, it was that Jennings only noted the leanings of the Republicans. Not the Democrats. I didn't personally think Bill should have been impeached, think I even said so elsewhere. What about the Democrats being the defending party, in that case? Shouldn't that have been identified too?

Jeff Brady

03-25-2006, 04:22 PM

So you're just going to assume that ABC doesn't have rules & standards to do the job, and just broadcast whatver on a whim?

Ogdred

03-25-2006, 04:34 PM

So, there's yer compelling evidence, Ogdred.

No, Sabrina, that is not compelling evidence. That is hearsay. If you want me to believe this version of events, produce a tape...don't just quote Bernard Goldberg, who is not exactly an unbiased source his own damn self.

No, it means that this person is already biased against the President, and in whatever news that ABC chooses to run with, W already has a strike or two against him. In other words, this guy...I wouldn't trust him to simply report the facts. I would expect his bias to come into play somewhere. Which is why journalists are not generally trusted by (the) hoi polloi, because everyone expects journalists to do just that...sadly.

Do you know why journalists have a liberal bias? Because, the idea of a free press is a liberal idea. The idea that a nation's populace has the right to question its leaders and hold them accountable for the things they say is a liberal idea. Now, a good portion of the rhetoric coming out of the White House over the past six years has proposed the notion that the American public doesn't have the right to know what its government is doing and that the news-media has a responsibility not to report things that might offer "aid and comfort to the enemy" -- that is, anything that might contradict the official Administration talking points. That's the sort of thing that should make any American sick, no matter what their political stripe.

But this isn't about uncovering anything W did, it's about this guy thinking W makes him sick.

But, you don't know that because you don't know the context. We have no idea if there's more to the e-mail or what, specifically, it's in response to. From what we're given, it looks like Green is responding to a criticism Bush is making of someone...but whom? The media? The Democrats? The terrorists? Other countries? The American people? The judges on American Idol? We have no idea what the fuck is being talked about, here.

In a business where you're not supposed to make personal judgements except on the editorial page. And you are still missing the point. Journalism used to be about the facts, NOT OPINIONS. The second that the personal opinions of journalists started creeping into the professional work done by them, their work became compromised. And the minute people started seeing this happen, trust in the business eroded.

Sabrina...do you have any evidence at all that this producer has allowed his personal feeling of nausea over Bush's rhetoric to seep into his work? No. You don't. You have part of an e-mail that he sent two years ago, with no indication of what he even meant. Drudge doesn't list any stories that Green produced which were slanted against the President. Why doesn't he? That, it seems to me, would be a way to check to see if this Green fella is just a political operative who uses his journalist's credentials as cover for the dissemination of his pinko-liberal-commie views.

And I wasn't missing your point about facts vs. opinion. Problem is, you've offered only your opinion that this guy's liberal bias is negatively affecting his ability to do his job. You offer no facts. And neither does Drudge.

But, tell me this...because I know your rant about fact vs. opinion is not just about this guy... So, how should the media report on things when the Bush Administration is saying one thing, but the evidence all points to the opposite? Should they only report what Bush says? When Bush posed in front of that "Mission Accomplished" banner, should all the reporters have packed up their gear and left without ever asking, "has this mission really been accomplished?" Because, it looks to me like you think "reporting facts" means reporting what the Bush Administration wants reported and that everything else is opinion.

kingdom2000

03-25-2006, 05:10 PM

Anyone else notice that in her effects to condemn the media (most of the points I agree with when remove the whole "liberal" slant she has), she goes out of her way to ignore the granddaddy, the great poobah, that which moved the decried approaches into the standard it is today - Fox News? I just find that interesting. I guess Fox news doesn't make mistakes nor slant its news. <snicker>

Sabrinaset

03-25-2006, 05:30 PM

No, Sabrina, that is not compelling evidence. That is hearsay. If you want me to believe this version of events, produce a tape...don't just quote Bernard Goldberg, who is not exactly an unbiased source his own damn self.

...uhm...you just DON'T wanna believe it happened. He's reporting on what happened. Shall we throw out all the online links people use because, after all, they're not taped either? And I suspect that even if I were to figure out a way to link a taped show onto this site, you'd come up with other ways to not haveta believe it. And I keep telling you, The News Trumps the Source (c) Sabrinaset You're not gunna believe it because Goldberg says it? C'mon...he's a self-described Liberal. Doesn't that count for anything by you? :)

Anyone else notice that in her effects to condemn the media (most of the points I agree with when remove the whole "liberal" slant she has), she goes out of her way to ignore the granddaddy, the great poobah, that which moved the decried approaches into the standard it is today - Fox News? I just find that interesting. I guess Fox news doesn't make mistakes nor slant its news. <snicker>

Well, okay, Kingdom. I'll giva ya FOX as biased towards the right, and that will just leave ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the NYTimes, the LATimes that are biased towards the left. Wow. Makes me wonder why Liberals are so terribly frightened of one cable network.

Wow. And I was slouching towards the news being merely incompetant rather than biased. That'll teach me to show any flexibility here.

Crowley

03-25-2006, 05:40 PM

Well, okay, Kingdom. I'll giva ya FOX as biased towards the right, and that will just leave ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the NYTimes, the LATimes that are biased towards the left. Wow. Makes me wonder why Liberals are so terribly frightened of one cable network.

to steal a line from Maddox:
Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media." To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.

Sabrinaset

03-25-2006, 05:44 PM

Which can be condensed to "Except for FOX and Talk Radio"

The NYPost still exists?

Ah well, I can say the same thing about Air America...:)

Crowley

03-25-2006, 05:49 PM

Sabrinaset

03-25-2006, 05:57 PM

the thing is Sabrina...

Objectivity has become "liberal" when it's not what fits the administration's agenda.

or did the media that so vehemently covered Lewinsky SUDDENly flip when Bush got into office?

No, no, no, no, NO...

Reporting on some screw-up the Bush administration did does NOT make someone Liberal, or biased, or worthy of being called such.

Commenting on W the way this guy did and then *pretending* that he can be unbiased, on the other hand...

Jeff Brady

03-25-2006, 06:30 PM

The NYPost still exists?

It sure does! Murdoch owns it.

Crowley

03-25-2006, 08:02 PM

No, no, no, no, NO...

Reporting on some screw-up the Bush administration did does NOT make someone Liberal, or biased, or worthy of being called such.

Commenting on W the way this guy did and then *pretending* that he can be unbiased, on the other hand...
unlike say Fox claiming to be Fair and Balanced?

LtMarvel

03-25-2006, 09:04 PM

Nah, just the guy who is in charge of them and helps shape the editorial/journalistic content. The guy who decides which stories are shown and which aren't.

Lt. Marvel, you missed the point. It wasn't that Bill was being impeached, it was that Jennings only noted the leanings of the Republicans. Not the Democrats. I didn't personally think Bill should have been impeached, think I even said so elsewhere. What about the Democrats being the defending party, in that case? Shouldn't that have been identified too?

The point wasn't that Bill was being impeached. The point was to identify the Senators who had to make a decision of going along with the GOP's wildly unpopular impeachment or vote against the impeachment. The Democrats were all going to vote against the impeachment...there was no confilict for them. Political insiders, like Jennings, were more interested, naturally, in the unknown.

Ogdred

03-25-2006, 09:07 PM

...uhm...you just DON'T wanna believe it happened. He's reporting on what happened. Shall we throw out all the online links people use because, after all, they're not taped either? And I suspect that even if I were to figure out a way to link a taped show onto this site, you'd come up with other ways to not haveta believe it. And I keep telling you, The News Trumps the Source (c) Sabrinaset You're not gunna believe it because Goldberg says it? C'mon...he's a self-described Liberal. Doesn't that count for anything by you? :)

No, it doesn't count for anything with me because I have seen Goldberg on talk shows and the man is an idiot. I don't care what political ideology he claims to subscribe to, I don't trust his filter. And I don't particularly trust yours, either. What you're giving me with all this Goldberg nonsense is a third-hand account of an incident. All I know is what you say Goldberg says about what Peter Jennings said. That's two levels of unreliable filters, as far as I'm concerned. So, no, in this case, the news does not trump the source.

This is not a case of wishing for something not to be true. I'm a skeptic. In this case, I would like to see a tape. I would like to count the actual number of times Jennings does what Goldberg claims, for example. And, no, I don't think you'd be able to convincingly doctor a tape, so that's just a dodge to make it seem like a request for more convincing evidence is unreasonable. But, considering it was the one example of liberal bias in the media that you could come up with "off the top" of your head, I would say it is not unreasonable at all to ask for more proof.

Ogdred

03-25-2006, 09:12 PM

I don't know if any of you have watched MSNBC lately, but between Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, and Tucker Carlson, the place is feeling like Fox-Lite.

xakko

03-25-2006, 09:24 PM

...uhm...you just DON'T wanna believe it happened. He's reporting on what happened. Shall we throw out all the online links people use because, after all, they're not taped either? And I suspect that even if I were to figure out a way to link a taped show onto this site, you'd come up with other ways to not haveta believe it. And I keep telling you, The News Trumps the Source (c) Sabrinaset You're not gunna believe it because Goldberg says it? C'mon...he's a self-described Liberal. Doesn't that count for anything by you? :)

i thought they actually did a search on some of the statistical claims made in Bias (or at least in his interviews plugging the book)- about how often conservative think tanks or celebrities were identified by as conservative or right wing versus the liberal think tanks and celebrities being identified as liberal or left wings. The idea is, I suppose, that by identifying a party as leaning one way or the other somehow reduces the credibility as being partisan. Anyway, when they actually did a statistical analysis, it turned out completely opposite of Goldberg's claim. In the interviews I heard with him, he offered that, and his own anecdotal evidence, which was filtered through his own bias.

I'm sorry if I can't just find an act of infidelity, which I abhor and hope Hillary kicked Bill in the crotch - hard- over, nearly as politically damaging or criminal as, say, the Iran-Contra affair. Remember when the terrorists were the good guys to the US government, so much so that the CIA made them a little manual on how to do it?

Corrina

03-25-2006, 09:27 PM

Sabrina, if you're going to claim the media has liberal bias, at least know what's going on in the media capital.

The NY Post exists and it has a very large circulation in NYC.- ( 686,207). I'd bet it has a larger circulation in NYC than the NYT, In fact, I edited to put in the exact figure for NY metro sales and it is much lower--260,526.

Basically, the Times has a larger overall circulation, close to a million, but it gets its butt kicked in its own backyard.

That's the Post and the Daily News (tops in NYC) focuses much more on metro events than national events.

My point is that the paper you point as representing the "liberal elite" media DOES NOT EVEN RULE THE MEDIA IN ITS OWN CITY.

USA Today, McPaper, has a larger national circulation than the NY Times as well, about 2.3 million, to a total NY Times circulation of approximately $1 million.

So if you're pointing at the NY Times as proof of the liberal media being prevalent in newspapers, the fact is that's just not true. It's just a nice whipping boy for those shouting "liberal media!"

And NO, the New York Times parent company doesn't even own the vast majority of newspapers in the U.S. It doesn't come close. Gannett owns 91 daily newspapers. The New York Times Company owns 15, the Tribune Corporation owns 11. (All figures cited from either the companies own websites or articles from such places as Business Week.)

And AP produces most of the national stories printed in local newspapers. And AP is not owned by the NY Times, it's owned by a conglomerate of the local papers who buy it's services.

Shouting that reporters have opinons about politicians might be fun, but reporters don't determine editorial policy. And a quick search of the print media shows that your call about bias because of the NY Times doesn't fly.

Jeff Brady

03-25-2006, 09:34 PM

The NY Post exists and it has a very large circulation in NYC. I'd bet it has a larger circulation in NYC than the NYT, in fact. That's because it focuses much more on metro events than national events.

Very true. And it only costs 25 cents. The Daily News costs 50 cents (has more comic strips. 4 pages vs NYP 1 page). And NYT is 75 cents, and you can beat someone to death with it.

kingdom2000

03-25-2006, 11:51 PM

I don't know if any of you have watched MSNBC lately, but between Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, and Tucker Carlson, the place is feeling like Fox-Lite.

But they have Olbermann (he doesn't like O'Reilly which is simply unforgivable). Therefore they MUST be liberal. Plus in the past they have critized the president. A big no-no. When they attacked Clinton and other liberals, that was just news and reporting the facts. When do that to conservatives, thats just twisting the facts and being biased. Its true because a year ago CBS screwed up on a story and that proves that all the thousands of stories before and after that event are automatically wrong and fact free. If a "liberal" media, that is inexcusable. If conservative, that was just an oops and better luck next time. I mean duh, everyone knows that.

Noah Johnson

03-25-2006, 11:55 PM

EdContradictory

03-26-2006, 04:51 AM

Commenting on W the way this guy did and then *pretending* that he can be unbiased, on the other hand...
You have not produced one shred of evidence that Green has ever produced one biased report in his entire professional career.

Are you even going to bother to try?

Adam Crocker

03-26-2006, 12:11 PM

Sabrina, the reason we bring up your politics and how they conflict with your profession is that medicine is based on the scientific method, coming to conclusions based on the evidence, and your style of argumentation is to start from a conclusion, find some evidence that supports it, and ignore any facts that fail to fit your existing opinions.

There may be a contradiction and I find your criticism of her political debating relevant, but it is still irrelevant to her medical career though. Unless we have evidence that her politics will interfer with ensuring her patients get proper care for the most part I don't see the point pursuing this avenue of discussion. There's no evidence that the two are linked Noah, and frankly it comes off as a mean-spirited personal swipe. So drop it.

I think most of my comments on this were variations of "It looks bad for ABC" and not "The Sky is Falling for ABC".

But you've been asserting this as a proof of liberal bias in the media without searching for evidence of such in ABC's record.

[...] ...and is more of an amusing commentary on the state of management and professionalism at the top of the network.

No it is not. You have yet to substantiate that the executive in question allows private political views to interfere with how he handles his job.

kingdom2000

03-26-2006, 01:19 PM

I have noticed that in the business fields, the people tend to be republican. In the other science fields though, they tend to be liberal. Nothing to back this up, just my impression. I think a lot of it has to do with how one thinks. For business, obviously you will always benefit with republicans in charge. In the sciences though you have this extra layer of training and thinking that tends to override what the talking heads just tell you. Basically a trained bullshit detector. Sabrina doesn't have that...yet. I think once she gets more real world experience as a doctor and has to deal with day to day politics of medicine her perspective may change. Of course if she starts her own practice it may not (like I said before if I had my own business I would probably love Bush).

But all that is just best guesses and speculation. To assumes that because she is a doctor she should be liberal is silly. The only reason her attempt to practice medicine (she has what 6 years to go?) is relevant is if it impacts her oath to due no harm. If for example doesn't provide care to gays, the pregnant or Arabs, or any other "enemies" of the Republican way of thinking. I don't know enough about her beliefs to entertain a thought on that possibilty.

Sabrinaset

03-26-2006, 07:55 PM

There may be a contradiction and I find your criticism of her political debating relevant, but it is still irrelevant to her medical career though. Unless we have evidence that her politics will interfer with ensuring her patients get proper care for the most part I don't see the point pursuing this avenue of discussion. There's no evidence that the two are linked Noah, and frankly it comes off as a mean-spirited personal swipe. So drop it.

You know, I almost was about to tell Noah to keep up the personal attacks just so he could be that way, but then I saw what you wrote, Darnit, Adam, yer too mature! Okay...I'll wear my kilt skirt just for you tomorrow.

And I've stated elsewhere that I've worked on (accused) rapists and murderers...and I'd be willing to bet that I've done prep work on child molesters, thieves, and maybe a lawyer or two. I'm VERY used to working on people whose personal life decisions are different from mine. When I see them, they're usually unconscious anyway. I'm more likely to ask them, "What's your blood type?" than "So, are you a Liberal...?"

Guys, I never SAID I was Paul McEnery-esque in my debating technique, okay? I just know this...If there was some vetrenarian out there who was a bigot, saying "n*gger" this and "n*gger" that...and yet was an accomplished vet nonetheless...do you think West3Man would bring him his pets? What if this was the best auto mechanic in the state, would West3Man bring his car there? Why, he's done thousands of cars, and done an excellent job on them all...but if you were Black, I wager you'd be wary of him. Maybe even if he was the manager of said vet clinic or auto shop. Yeah, you'd take your business elsewhwere, at the very least.

See, on another thread, I was accused, and I suppose with some merit, of looking at a Liberal view through Conservative eyes. Now, I'm challenging you guys to start looking past your Liberal worldviews (in short, what you guys keep asking Conservatives to do) and see what I see. Some Imperial Poobah at ABC wrote a memo disparaging of W. Ignore for the moment who W is, forget whether you like or dislike him. Do you really think that, based on this e-mail, and the fact that at least one other person, the person he sent the e-mail to, that this W character is going to get a fair shake? What if we had found out the opposite, that this Green guy had written "W, I really admire him. He's cool." I also daresay that anyone here would have thought Green capable, or at least less capable, of writing a piece critical of this W guy.

Is this inference? Sure, considering that I have no idea what other, if any, things Green has written. But inference is a tool that has been used by more than just me. There has been, by many posters, a LOT inferred about W on CBR...as well as Tom Cruise, Hillary Clinton, John Byrne, Brian Bendis, Paris Hilton...

Well, maybe not Paris. Everyone KNOWS she's a skank...

...and everyone just accepts that.

DJ, I keep trying to say that I've been going away from the press being biased, and more like incompetant...and the more I keep talking to you guys, the more I wanna go back to biased again. And you're right, I can't substantiate whether or not he allows it to affect his job, but I can make an educated guess at it.

I have noticed that in the business fields, the people tend to be republican. In the other science fields though, they tend to be liberal. Nothing to back this up, just my impression... But all that is just best guesses and speculation. To assumes that because she is a doctor she should be liberal is silly. The only reason her attempt to practice medicine (she has what 6 years to go?) is relevant is if it impacts her oath to due no harm. If for example doesn't provide care to gays, the pregnant or Arabs, or any other "enemies" of the Republican way of thinking. I don't know enough about her beliefs to entertain a thought on that possibilty.

Half the doctors I know are Republicans. For what it's worth, my class seems to be 2/3 Republican. The kids seem to be more Conservative than the teachers are. I have no idea what to make of it.

I'm Bi, Kingdom. I was a flaming militant lesbian in High School. Pregnant people are NOT enemies of Republicans. In fact, considering we're more likely to be pro-life, I would posit that pregnant women might be more a Liberals enemy. How are Arabs a Republicans enemy...? W was FOR the Dubai port deal, right? Besides, as avowed capitalists, we wanna do business with the guys who have money!

Guys, one more time: Surgeons take an oath to heal everyone. When I take the Hippocratic Oath, I will take it seriously. Although there's also a "White Coat Ceremony" out there too...eh. Hippocrates is kinda a personal hero of mine. I think I'd have a lot less problems with the press if maybe they took their jobs as seriously as I will mine. Maybe THEY need to take an oath!

And I'm less than a year away from residency. It's four years of college, four years of actual med school...but I took a LOT of college classes in High School. In effect, I started with two-plus years of classes already outta the way before I graduated. Weekend courses, on-line classes, stuff like that.

Edit to say: And now, I'm really done with this. Someone else start another topic, I've said all I haveta say here.

Whew!

kingdom2000

03-26-2006, 10:22 PM

By pregnant I meant to add "one who is seeking an abortion."

Whats a flaming militant lesbian?

Magneto_X

03-26-2006, 10:24 PM

Whats a flaming militant lesbian?

A lesbian in military fatigue while on fire? :confused:

Crowley

03-26-2006, 10:44 PM

wasn't it ABC that canned Bill Maher's ass?

Magneto_X

03-26-2006, 11:09 PM

wasn't it ABC that canned Bill Maher's ass?

I think it was.

Noah Johnson

03-27-2006, 01:25 AM

You know, I almost was about to tell Noah to keep up the personal attacks just so he could be that way, but then I saw what you wrote, Darnit, Adam, yer too mature! Okay...I'll wear my kilt skirt just for you tomorrow.
Well, if there's a kilt skirt involved, that puts a different face on the matter...

Seriously, I don't mean it as a personal attack, I'm just saying that you ought to use the intelligence and critical thinking skills you clearly possess on political issues as well as others. I understand that you feel some ideological affinity for the right wing for your own reasons, but you can do better.

See, on another thread, I was accused, and I suppose with some merit, of looking at a Liberal view through Conservative eyes. Now, I'm challenging you guys to start looking past your Liberal worldviews (in short, what you guys keep asking Conservatives to do) and see what I see. Some Imperial Poobah at ABC wrote a memo disparaging of W. Ignore for the moment who W is, forget whether you like or dislike him. Do you really think that, based on this e-mail, and the fact that at least one other person, the person he sent the e-mail to, that this W character is going to get a fair shake? What if we had found out the opposite, that this Green guy had written "W, I really admire him. He's cool." I also daresay that anyone here would have thought Green capable, or at least less capable, of writing a piece critical of this W guy.
Fair enough. Excellent stating of your point, and I see where you're coming from. That being said, I honestly wouldn't think much of it. I'd look a bit askance at it, sure, but I'd really feel about it kind of the way I felt about Cheney shooting that guy, at first. When I first heard about it, I thought "Well, that's messed up and from my perspective kind of funny, but honestly, what's the big deal?" Of course, later it turned out they'd tried to cover it up, which is symptomatic of a deeper problem, but that's a separate issue.

Really, I do believe that people can separate their personal feelings from their professional obligations. Hell, I can, and my job is directly and intimately tied to my personal feelings and view of the world.

Samurai

03-27-2006, 01:47 AM

Well, if there's a kilt skirt involved, that puts a different face on the matter...

Seriously, I don't mean it as a personal attack, I'm just saying that you ought to use the intelligence and critical thinking skills you clearly possess on political issues as well as others. I understand that you feel some ideological affinity for the right wing for your own reasons, but you can do better.

Fair enough. Excellent stating of your point, and I see where you're coming from. That being said, I honestly wouldn't think much of it. I'd look a bit askance at it, sure, but I'd really feel about it kind of the way I felt about Cheney shooting that guy, at first. When I first heard about it, I thought "Well, that's messed up and from my perspective kind of funny, but honestly, what's the big deal?" Of course, later it turned out they'd tried to cover it up, which is symptomatic of a deeper problem, but that's a separate issue.

Really, I do believe that people can separate their personal feelings from their professional obligations. Hell, I can, and my job is directly and intimately tied to my personal feelings and view of the world.
You are starting from the utterly false assumption that intelligent people are liberal, while conservatives are either greedy and evil or ignorant and brainwashed. She IS using her intellect when she espouses her conservative views. (And Sabrina, PLEASE don't say you wish you were more like Paul in political debates... no, you really, REALLY don't. Trust me on that one.)

And Cheney didn't "try to cover it up", he just felt that running to tell reporters wasn't the #1 important thing... getting the guy medical attention was. The guy himself, as well as every witness, said it was an accident. Your 1st instinct was right, it was not a huge deal, just a curiosity piece.

kingdom2000

03-27-2006, 02:18 AM

Wasn't aware it took more then 22 hours to get someone medical attention. Those must have been some mighty slow ambulances. And nevermind that he apparently was so put out and concerned that Cheney took the time to have a nice dinner. I still say he was waiting on word on if the guy would die or not (getting shot in the face, its a reasonable concern). My point was his "delay" was purely political.

EdContradictory

03-27-2006, 05:13 AM

Some Imperial Poobah at ABC wrote a memo disparaging of W. Ignore for the moment who W is, forget whether you like or dislike him. Do you really think that, based on this e-mail, and the fact that at least one other person, the person he sent the e-mail to, that this W character is going to get a fair shake? What if we had found out the opposite, that this Green guy had written "W, I really admire him. He's cool." I also daresay that anyone here would have thought Green capable, or at least less capable, of writing a piece critical of this W guy.
Writing a critical piece on Bush if you are conservative or writing a praising piece on Bush if you are liberal is not a demonstration of a lack of bias. It's a demonstration of pandering. Reporting facts, whatever they may be, is the demonstration of a lack of bias.

And again, you have no proof of your claim and haven't even made an attempt to prove it.

And while I don't think it's appropriate for people to attack you professionally, that is what you are doing to Green. I believe that if Bush and Michael Moore came to you with the same wound, you'd give them both equal treatment.

Corrina

03-27-2006, 05:38 AM

Sabrina, I agree, no reason to bring your profession into this.

However, I note you didn't reply at all to the point I made about the 'liberal' print media. Are you conceeding there? Are we going to stick to one private email by one executive at ABC news for proof of an overall liberal media bias?

Ogdred

03-27-2006, 06:49 AM

See, on another thread, I was accused, and I suppose with some merit, of looking at a Liberal view through Conservative eyes. Now, I'm challenging you guys to start looking past your Liberal worldviews (in short, what you guys keep asking Conservatives to do) and see what I see. Some Imperial Poobah at ABC wrote a memo disparaging of W. Ignore for the moment who W is, forget whether you like or dislike him. Do you really think that, based on this e-mail, and the fact that at least one other person, the person he sent the e-mail to, that this W character is going to get a fair shake? What if we had found out the opposite, that this Green guy had written "W, I really admire him. He's cool." I also daresay that anyone here would have thought Green capable, or at least less capable, of writing a piece critical of this W guy.

A senior producer is not an "Imperial Poobah."

The problem, Sabrina, is that you have ONLY this e-mail upon which to base a judgment, and you feel comfortable doing that. The rest of us have not said that Green hasn't crossed the line as far as allowing his personal views to affect his reporting (or producing). All we've said is that one cannot make an informed judgment about it if this is all the evidence we're given.

And what does that evidence show us? That at some point in 2004, Mr. Green was exasperated enough with the President to send an e-mail about it to at least one colleague. We know nothing about his opinion of Bush prior to that point or since then. Drudge offers us nothing. You offer us nothing. And yet, you want us to believe that this scrap of correspondence (do we even have the entire e-mail?) is proof that all journalists are either liberally biased or criminally incompetent.

(The truth is, though, I agree with you somewhat on the incompetence issue. Why else has it taken six years for any journalists to grow the balls to challenge the administration on anything?)

Anyway, yeah. Keep up your attacks on the media. I'm sure this country will be better served once all news outlets resemble Pravda.

the4thpip

03-27-2006, 01:11 PM

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2006/03/27/tomo/story.jpg

bfrank

03-27-2006, 01:22 PM

You are starting from the utterly false assumption that intelligent people are liberal, while conservatives are either greedy and evil or ignorant and brainwashed.

It looks to me, that he just thinks that they are stupid.....

Paul McEnery

03-27-2006, 05:34 PM

Guys, I never SAID I was Paul McEnery-esque in my debating technique, okay?
I should think not.

'Cause iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'm the only one.

Oh, and your argument about W doesn't hold water.

One could reach that opinion about W from having investigated and observed him. In fact, I'd say that any sane newsman would have reached that opinion.

And, indeed, all but the most partisan Republicans seem to have done so, now they've been given enough information to work with.

Too bad they weren't curious enough to do the same as, oh, say, me, in the first place.

(And, of course, too bad the Dems put up a couple of stiffs against him; but that's another matter.)

Karl J. Barnes

03-27-2006, 05:41 PM

I should think not.

'Cause iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'm the only one.

Oh, and your argument about W doesn't hold water.

One could reach that opinion about W from having investigated and observed him. In fact, I'd say that any sane newsman would have reached that opinion.

And, indeed, all but the most partisan Republicans seem to have done so, now they've been given enough information to work with.

Too bad they weren't curious enough to do the same as, oh, say, me, in the first place.

(And, of course, too bad the Dems put up a couple of stiffs against him; but that's another matter.)

All they would have needed to do is read Molly Ivins columns and even shifting out the humor and all, could have come to the same conclusions.

Sabrinaset

03-27-2006, 09:48 PM

By the way, since the4thpip showed Cheney's itenerary, The Smoking Gun also put up John Kerry's...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0327061kerry1.html

...although again, this stuff is old news. Carter and Reagan did it too. I'll bet just about every President did it.

On the other hand, I found THIS from ABC...It's not bias, but geez louise...are these guys outta their minds???

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0327062extreme1.html

]MARCH 27--Not content with humdrum stories of poverty, heartache, and distress, the producers of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" have compiled a creepy wish list of woe for the next season of the hit ABC television series, The Smoking Gun has learned. In an e-mail forwarded earlier this month by an ABC executive to network affiliates, the program's casting agent details the exact kind of tragedies and rare illnesses being sought by the Top 20 show...

Based on the ABC e-mail, it appears that victims of hate crimes and violent home invasions and families coping with the loss of a child killed by a drunk driver make for good television. And the show would also absolutely love to feature those battling skin cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, and muscular dystrophy. Oh, and families with multiple children with Down Syndrome would be ideal, whether the kids are "either adopted or biological," the e-mail notes. And, shooting the moon, the program's "family casting director," Charisse Simonian, would love to locate a kid suffering from Progeria, the rare condition that causes rapid aging in a child (for those unaware of Progeria, the ABC e-mail helpfully describes it as "aka 'little old man disease.'") As if that terrible affliction weren't enough, Simonian is also on the hunt for a child with congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis. "This is where kids cannot feel any physical pain," she notes. But the hunt for a young victim--who will likely die before 30--will not be easy. "There are 17 known cases in US," she writes, before chirpily adding, "let me know if one is in your town!" Such spirit in the face of tragedy....

...and some people here were questioning MY medical ethics? Jesus, I hope ABC doesn't have a registered doctor on staff, the callousness here would have made his head explode.

Maybe you haveta be a medical person to feel what I felt when I read this, so perhaps none of you would understand how I felt reading this. This kind of exploitation of the sick made my stomach crawl. I've gone from thinking ABC was biased...to incompetant ... and now...they're ghoulish. Man, I hope this was a prank someone played on The Smoking Gun, although they've been pretty accurate so far...

IF ABC feels it MUST exploit a disease-ridden freak of nature for the sake of ratings, then use Paris Hilton!

Noah Johnson

03-27-2006, 09:58 PM

...and some people here were questioning MY medical ethics? Jesus, I hope ABC doesn't have a registered doctor on staff, the callousness here would have made his head explode.

Maybe you haveta be a medical person to feel what I felt when I read this, so perhaps none of you would understand how I felt reading this.
On this we can agree: the cheap, tacky profit-driven pandering of television entertainment cheapens human life, human emotions, and our entire culture.

Magneto_X

03-27-2006, 11:12 PM

I expected some really wierd stuff from Cheney and Kerry's itinerary but they're not *that* odd. How disappointing.

LtMarvel

03-27-2006, 11:26 PM

Really. No TV set to a certain channel, no temp setting. Just a meal from 4-5 choices that most high end hotels would have.

Paul McEnery

03-28-2006, 12:21 AM

Crowley

03-28-2006, 06:39 AM

i find the VP only wanting to hear news from FOX to be deeply disturbing.

Ogdred

03-28-2006, 07:11 AM

...and some people here were questioning MY medical ethics? Jesus, I hope ABC doesn't have a registered doctor on staff, the callousness here would have made his head explode.

ABC isn't a doctor, so ABC isn't required to have "medical ethics."

Maybe you haveta be a medical person to feel what I felt when I read this, so perhaps none of you would understand how I felt reading this. This kind of exploitation of the sick made my stomach crawl. I've gone from thinking ABC was biased...to incompetant ... and now...they're ghoulish. Man, I hope this was a prank someone played on The Smoking Gun, although they've been pretty accurate so far...

You're conflating the entertainment department with the news division. The ethics (or competence) of the one have nothing to do with the other, except for the fact that programming and marketing directors have been pushing news divisions to cover "softer" news, with a "human interest" angle, in order to keep from upsetting viewers with unpleasant things like...oh, you know, war and stuff.

But, this demonstrates the slipperiness of conservatives' criticism of "the media." When they can't support their charges of liberal bias, they change focus and say, "well, look at this? isn't this awful?!!? are you defenders of the media going to defend THIS?!!?" Well, yeah, it's awful. Write an angry letter to ABC. But don't pretend that a primetime show meant for entertainment has any bearing on the current state of journalism.

If I were being critical of doctors and their medical ethics, but used chiropractors and acupuncturists as my examples, I'm sure you'd call "foul." And rightly so.

Nick Soapdish

03-28-2006, 07:21 AM

By the way, since the4thpip showed Cheney's itenerary, The Smoking Gun also put up John Kerry's...

...although again, this stuff is old news. Carter and Reagan did it too. I'll bet just about every President did it.

I wonder if there's a difference between prefers and requires. ;)

Nick Soapdish

03-28-2006, 07:23 AM

You're conflating the entertainment department with the news division. The ethics (or competence) of the one have nothing to do with the other, except for the fact that programming and marketing directors have been pushing news divisions to cover "softer" news, with a "human interest" angle, in order to keep from upsetting viewers with unpleasant things like...oh, you know, war and stuff.

But, this demonstrates the slipperiness of conservatives' criticism of "the media." When they can't support their charges of liberal bias, they change focus and say, "well, look at this? isn't this awful?!!? are you defenders of the media going to defend THIS?!!?" Well, yeah, it's awful. Write an angry letter to ABC. But don't pretend that a primetime show meant for entertainment has any bearing on the current state of journalism.

Same is true of Fox. They're the news organization that trumpets conservative values, but they were the ones that set the low bar with their actual programming. (I think that WB has displaced them since then, but I don't watch TV so I'm going on hearsay.)

kid_mash

03-28-2006, 07:26 AM

i find the VP only wanting to hear news from FOX to be deeply disturbing.

...and yet, unforchantly, not entirely surprising.

the4thpip

03-28-2006, 08:42 AM

Yeah, the "all stations turned to Fox" was the only really funny thing about Dick's. And the fact that they seem to think that there is such a thing as Sprite with caffeine. :confused:

Ogdred

03-28-2006, 09:28 AM

Yeah, the "all stations turned to Fox" was the only really funny thing about Dick's. And the fact that they seem to think that there is such a thing as Sprite with caffeine. :confused:

Since the Sprite label makes a point of saying "caffeine free" on it, it would be easy to imagine that there might be a caffeinated variety.

On this issue, Dick Cheney and I have no problem with one another.

Sabrinaset

03-28-2006, 11:17 AM

i find the VP only wanting to hear news from FOX to be deeply disturbing.

I notice that you didn't see that "The New York Times" was also on the list. Or didn't care to see.

Lubichev

03-28-2006, 11:21 AM

He only reads the NY TIMES for the Family Circus cartoons.

the4thpip

03-28-2006, 07:31 PM

Democrats in Vermont to Weigh Impeachment

By DAVID GRAM, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 25 minutes ago

Leading Democrats in Vermont plan to decide in April whether to urge state lawmakers to petition for President Bush's impeachment using a little-known provision in the rules of the U.S. House.

Democratic committees in at least half of the state's 14 counties have passed resolutions calling for impeachment, citing a rule in "Jefferson's Manual," a book of parliamentary guidelines written by Thomas Jefferson that supplements U.S. House rules.

The anti-Bush movement is "genuinely bubbling up from the grass roots," said Jon Copans, the state party's executive director.

The state Democratic committee is scheduled to decide the issue in a special meeting April 8.

The resolutions accuse the Bush administration of lying about the case for war in Iraq and illegally engaging in electronic surveillance of Americans.

They rely on "Jefferson's Manual," which says impeachment proceedings can begin "by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state."

Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington said lawmakers should stay focused on state issues and suggested Bush critics work to elect a different Congress in November "that could investigate the actions of the president and change the direction of the country."

James Barnett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, said presidents should not be impeached "because we disagree with them," adding that evidence for impeachment was drawn from "left-wing blogs and conspiracy theories."

A message seeking comment from the White House press office was not immediately returned.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/democrats_impeachment&printer=1;_ylt=ApHlq7lvNswmWm8mIwQBxNEGw_IE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

the4thpip

03-28-2006, 07:32 PM

Since the Sprite label makes a point of saying "caffeine free" on it, it would be easy to imagine that there might be a caffeinated variety.

On this issue, Dick Cheney and I have no problem with one another.
I call that more bad intelligence.

Sabrinaset

03-28-2006, 08:44 PM

Sharon Stone: Hillary Clinton Too Sexy To Run For President

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=7312

"I think Hillary Clinton is fantastic. But I think it is too soon for her to run. This may sound odd, but a woman should be past her sexuality when she runs. Hillary still has sexual power and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening."

Sharon Stone speaking of Hillary Clinton.

Quote taken from "Hollywood Life" magazine

Sometimes, I think the term "Hollywood Halfwit" was invented just for Stone, the same woman who thought a great Father's Day present for her husband was locking him up in a cage with a live Komodo Dragon.

Hillary might be enjoying the PR from Sharon, but when your husband gets a hummer from the fat chick at work, maybe putting "sexual power" on the top of her resume might not be such a good idea :D

the4thpip

03-29-2006, 09:11 AM

Sharon Stone: Hillary Clinton Too Sexy To Run For President

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=7312

Sometimes, I think the term "Hollywood Halfwit" was invented just for Stone, the same woman who thought a great Father's Day present for her husband was locking him up in a cage with a live Komodo Dragon.

Hillary might be enjoying the PR from Sharon, but when your husband gets a hummer from the fat chick at work, maybe putting "sexual power" on the top of her resume might not be such a good idea :D
Wow, for a lesbian you sure come over like somebody who does not like women sometimes.

Lubichev

03-29-2006, 09:28 AM

Not fat, just big boned.

Boned. Heh.

Ogdred

03-29-2006, 09:40 AM

Wow, for a lesbian you sure come over like somebody who does not like women sometimes.

There's no rule that says lesbians cannot be chauvanists. Or, maybe there is. I've never read the lesbian rule-book. Is there one? Sabrina? Y'all got rules?

Noah Johnson

03-29-2006, 02:54 PM

Wow, for a lesbian you sure come over like somebody who does not like women sometimes.
Only women who fail to conform to the One True Faith.

Besides, remember Mencken's dictum: A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other.

Magneto_X

03-29-2006, 03:10 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/democrats_impeachment&printer=1;_ylt=ApHlq7lvNswmWm8mIwQBxNEGw_IE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

What are they "weighing"? Just impeach the bastard already!

Sabrina:

Sharon Stone did *what*????????? :eek:

Sabrinaset

03-29-2006, 05:10 PM

Wow, for a lesbian you sure come over like somebody who does not like women sometimes.

Ah, where to begin...

SABRINA: "Sharon Stone thinks Hillary is too sexy to be President. She's an idiot."

THE4THPIP: "You're a Lesbian who hates women."

Somehow, your logic escapes me...although your repeated, yet failed, attempts at making personal insults is amusing. Ignoring for the moment that I was a Lesbian in High School, and I'm just Bi now, and also ignoring for the moment why you've referenced my sexuality at least twice, which makes me wonder what your interest really is...eh. I'll just have to tell ya that it is actually possible to think Sharon Stone is an idiot, think Hillary is not the be-all and end-all of existence as Sharon does, and still like the other 99.9999999% of women out there. Or maybe somewhat less if they're as nutty as Sharon is.

Unless you do think that Sharon and Hillary represent all women, or in fact constitute a large majority of them. I should take a statistics course as an elective, I'm obviously uninformed as to how all this math stuff actually works!

There's no rule that says lesbians cannot be chauvanists. Or, maybe there is. I've never read the lesbian rule-book. Is there one? Sabrina? Y'all got rules?

Please, Ogdred...inform me how I've been chauvinistic. I would love to hear the justification for the inference. My Excite Dictionary defines "Chauvinism" as

1) Militant devotion to and glorification of one's country; fanatical patriotism.
2) Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind: “the chauvinism... of making extraterrestrial life in our own image” (Henry S.F. Cooper, Jr.)

So please...do go on :)

Only women who fail to conform to the One True Faith.

Well, at least Noah is improving. He hasn't slammed my professional ethics...so far. Today. This is actually a step up. Good job, Noah!

Please, Noah, tell me more about this One True Faith I have.

Well, at least you three are consistent. I post an article about Sharon and Hillary, and all you can do is make comments about me, and not the article itself.

Sabrinaset

03-29-2006, 05:25 PM

Sabrina:

Sharon Stone did *what*????????? :eek:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/06/10/MN156967.DTL

Komodo Dragons...I mean, what were they thinking? If indeed, thinking at all...? I had a class on possible diseases transmitted by animal bite/attack and how to treat them...no surprise that rabies is way up on that list, bugs were covered in another class, by the way...and the Professor saved the Komodo Dragon for last...the most interesting topic of all, although we're not likely to ever treat a victim. Seriously, those things can kill you in so many ways it isn't funny, and they have no idea what fear is. Possibly the most vicious and deadly animal walking the planet today, just in its ability to attack, and never mind the deadly, septic bacteria running around in it's system which usually kills it's victims... And Sharon has her husband in a cage with it as a present.

Ogdred

03-29-2006, 05:47 PM

Please, Ogdred...inform me how I've been chauvinistic. I would love to hear the justification for the inference. My Excite Dictionary defines "Chauvinism" as

1) Militant devotion to and glorification of one's country; fanatical patriotism.
2) Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind: “the chauvinism... of making extraterrestrial life in our own image” (Henry S.F. Cooper, Jr.)

So please...do go on :)

Apologies. I meant misogynistic. Of course, you do seem convinced of your superiority as a conservative, so maybe the charge of chauvinism should stand. (And, by the way, I didn't make an "inference." The speaker implies, while the listener infers.)

Mainly, though, I was making light of the whole thing and ignoring your Clinton-bashing. Funny how you dropped the "liberal media bias" thing when you couldn't produce any evidence to back up your assertions and switched, reliably, to insulting Hillary and referencing Monica.

GOP debating point #1: attack the media
GOP debating point #2: when #1 doesn't pan out, go after the Clintons

And, of course, Hollywood stars always make easy targets, as well.

Ogdred

03-29-2006, 05:50 PM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/06/10/MN156967.DTL

Komodo Dragons...I mean, what were they thinking? If indeed, thinking at all...? I had a class on possible diseases transmitted by animal bite/attack and how to treat them...no surprise that rabies is way up on that list, bugs were covered in another class, by the way...and the Professor saved the Komodo Dragon for last...the most interesting topic of all, although we're not likely to ever treat a victim. Seriously, those things can kill you in so many ways it isn't funny, and they have no idea what fear is. Possibly the most vicious and deadly animal walking the planet today, just in its ability to attack, and never mind the deadly, septic bacteria running around in it's system which usually kills it's victims... And Sharon has her husband in a cage with it as a present.

And what does this have to do with the price of fish?

the4thpip

03-29-2006, 05:51 PM

Ah, where to begin...

SABRINA: "Sharon Stone thinks Hillary is too sexy to be President. She's an idiot."

THE4THPIP: "You're a Lesbian who hates women."

Funny, on my computer, your post called Sharon Stone a dumb blond, Monica Lewinsky a fat intern, and say that Hillary Clinton can't be very attractive if her husband cheats on her. You talk about three different women, and have nothing but the most mean-spirited bile for them.

also ignoring for the moment why you've referenced my sexuality at least twice, which makes me wonder what your interest really is...

Well, as a gay activist, I find you one of the weirdest lesbians I have ever met. Hence my interest. Sorry if you expected more.

Sabrinaset

03-29-2006, 06:02 PM

Ah, okay, misogynistic then. Defined as "One who hates women" Okay, Ogdred, please prove that I hate women. I'll be waiting. This ought to be interesting! :)

And, I think I already covered that when I said I was not McEnery-esque.

And what does this have to do with the price of fish?

I'll make this simple. Magneto X asked about what Sharon Stone did when I referenced her locking her husband up with a Komodo Dragon. I linked a story...well, I guess you *could* have read it, but that would imply reading what a Conservative linked to, so I can understand your not doing so. I then further talked about Komodo Dragons themselves.

And yes, Hollywood Halfwits DO make easy targets. Think of it this way: Charlton Heston announces he has Alzheimers. George Clooney made fun of him.

See? It works both ways!

Sabrinaset

03-29-2006, 06:10 PM

Funny, on my computer, your post called Sharon Stone a dumb blond, Monica Lewinsky a fat intern, and say that Hillary Clinton can't be very attractive if her husband cheats on her. You talk about three different women, and have nothing but the most mean-spirited bile for them.

Well, as a gay activist, I find you one of the weirdest lesbians I have ever met. Hence my interest. Sorry if you expected more.

...and Sharon Stone, Monica Lewinski, and Hillary Clinton are the sum total of women, according to you? Wow. If someone does not like the three of them, they hate ALL women? Wow! That must have been some statistics class.

I really ought to find out if you've said negative things about three men. Any three men. If I do, does that mean you hate ALL men? I mean...that's your logic...right?

I'm SO sorry I have failed to meet your expectations. After all, I haveta keep remembering...we're only normal if we fit YOUR expectations, Pip.

Ogdred

03-29-2006, 06:42 PM

Ah, okay, misogynistic then. Defined as "One who hates women" Okay, Ogdred, please prove that I hate women. I'll be waiting. This ought to be interesting! :)

It was a friggin' joke, ya jack-ass. Pip said, "Wow, for a lesbian you sure come over like somebody who does not like women sometimes." And I responded to him, saying there was no rule against it in the lesbian rule-book. Then I pondered whether or not there actually was a lesbian rule-book. And then I asked you if there were any rules against it. So far, you've declined to answer, but I'm beginning to get the feeling that you haven't even read the lesbian rule-book.

(I'm guessing you had your lesbian rule-book revoked when you outed yourself as bisexual.)

At any rate, please try to keep up. I can't keep explaining everything to you.

Paul McEnery

03-29-2006, 06:44 PM

Sharon Stone: Hillary Clinton Too Sexy To Run For President

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=7312

Sometimes, I think the term "Hollywood Halfwit" was invented just for Stone, the same woman who thought a great Father's Day present for her husband was locking him up in a cage with a live Komodo Dragon.

Hillary might be enjoying the PR from Sharon, but when your husband gets a hummer from the fat chick at work, maybe putting "sexual power" on the top of her resume might not be such a good idea :D
I'm... too sexy for the presidency, too sexy for the presidency, but not for disco dancing!

You are completely correct about Stone.

And why the hell a woman can't be hot and president, I don't know.

Nick Soapdish

03-29-2006, 07:21 PM

Komodo Dragons...I mean, what were they thinking? If indeed, thinking at all...? I had a class on possible diseases transmitted by animal bite/attack and how to treat them...no surprise that rabies is way up on that list, bugs were covered in another class, by the way...and the Professor saved the Komodo Dragon for last...the most interesting topic of all, although we're not likely to ever treat a victim. Seriously, those things can kill you in so many ways it isn't funny, and they have no idea what fear is. Possibly the most vicious and deadly animal walking the planet today, just in its ability to attack, and never mind the deadly, septic bacteria running around in it's system which usually kills it's victims... And Sharon has her husband in a cage with it as a present.

It was probably a present for herself. :D

Seems like there's a sizeable chunk of the population that's idiotic about animals. They seem to think that since animals are living around civilization, they must be civilized. In Florida, we keep on getting people that feed the gators marshmallows and stuff. So they get acclimated to the presence of people and get "tame". Except they're actually learning that people = food. Usually Fish & Game is able to take care of them, but sometimes they nab a poodle or something.

Similar problem with bears in lots of places.

Anyway, I figure they just saw the dragon in the zoo and figured that it must be tame. :rolleyes:

I gotta admit that Komodo dragons are a stunningly impressive example of that sort of stupidity. Their lethality is legendary. There was a Frenchman that died of a Komodo dragon bite in Paris - two years after he was bit. I have a tough time seeing them as the most vicious animal around. Any reptile isn't going to be a good candidate for being vicious simply because it requires too much energy. They aren't cuddly by any means, but they aren't likely to go out of their way to mess up your day.

the4thpip

03-29-2006, 07:38 PM

I'm SO sorry I have failed to meet your expectations. After all, I haveta keep remembering...we're only normal if we fit YOUR expectations, Pip.
In the end, the only person you're letting down is yourself.

Sabrinaset

03-29-2006, 07:59 PM

It was a friggin' joke, ya jack-ass. Pip said, "Wow, for a lesbian you sure come over like somebody who does not like women sometimes." And I responded to him, saying there was no rule against it in the lesbian rule-book. Then I pondered whether or not there actually was a lesbian rule-book. And then I asked you if there were any rules against it. So far, you've declined to answer, but I'm beginning to get the feeling that you haven't even read the lesbian rule-book.

Usually, when telling a joke, one puts the :) or :D emoticon afterwards, just so you can be sure...which it was NOT, in your case. Ironically, something I myself did when writing about Sharon Stone, which caused Pip to declare me as hating all women. He over-reacted to a joke himself. Oddly enough, I don't see you getting on his case.

Considering I needed to explain a post about Komodo Dragons to you...oh never mind. Then again, since the preferred rule of thumb for you is also to throw out personal insults...well, what can I say?

The First Rule of the Lesbian Rule-Book is...there is no Lesbian Rule-Book.

In the end, the only person you're letting down is yourself.

...and the math teacher who says 3 = All. I let him down too.

I'm... too sexy for the presidency, too sexy for the presidency, but not for disco dancing!
You are completely correct about Stone.
And why the hell a woman can't be hot and president, I don't know.

Right Said Fred...geez hehehe ... whatever happened to him?

Waitasec...Did PAUL MCENERY just say *I* was completely correct about something?

OHMIGOD...I think I just had an *orgasm*...! :D

Magneto_X

03-29-2006, 08:04 PM

I'm... too sexy for the presidency, too sexy for the presidency, but not for disco dancing!

You are completely correct about Stone.

And why the hell a woman can't be hot and president, I don't know.

We (used to) have a hot female president. Laura Roslin from Battlestar Galactica. :p

Crowley

03-29-2006, 09:04 PM

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB185/index.htm

ON 30th ANNIVERSARY OF ARGENTINE COUP

NEW DECLASSIFIED DETAILS ON REPRESSION AND
U.S. SUPPORT FOR MILITARY DICTATORSHIP

Kissinger sought immediate support for the new
military regime in spite of staff warnings on bloodshed

22,000 people murdered or disappeared by military between
1975 and 1978 according to secret Chilean intelligence report

Secret Argentine documents record Operation Condor kidnappings
and disappearances carried out by military intelligence Battalion 601.

Posted - March 23, 2006

Washington, D.C., March 23, 2006 - On the eve of the 30th anniversary of the military coup in Argentina, the National Security Archive posted a series of declassified U.S. documents and, for the first time, secret documents from Southern Cone intelligence agencies recording detailed evidence of massive atrocities committed by the military junta in Argentina. The documents include a formerly secret transcript of Henry Kissinger's staff meeting during which he ordered immediate U.S. support for the new military regime, and Defense and State Department reports on the ensuing repression. The Archive has also obtained internal memoranda and cables from the infamous Argentina intelligence unit, Battalion 601, as well as the Chilean secret police agency, known as DINA, which was secretly collaborating with the military in Buenos Aires.

The documents record Washington's initial reaction to the military takeover. "I do want to encourage them. I don't want to give the sense that they're harassed by the United States," Secretary of State Kissinger ordered his staff after his assistants warned him that the junta would initiate a bloodbath following the coup. According to the transcript, Kissinger's top deputy on Latin America, William Rogers, told him two days after the coup that "we've got to expect a fair amount of repression, probably a good deal of blood, in Argentina before too long."

State Department cables, including some obtained previously by the Argentine newspaper, Clarin, show that U.S. officials had prior knowledge of coup plotting. More than a week before the coup, Ambassador Robert Hill sent Assistant Secretary Rogers a secret cable reporting that the commander of the Navy, Admiral Emilio Massera, had requested that the U.S. embassy "indicate to him one or two reputable public relations firms in the U.S. which might handle the problem for a future military government." Massera, according to the cable, promised that the Argentine military would "not follow the lines of the Pinochet takeover in Chile," and would "try to proceed within the law and with full respect for human rights."

But although the military repression in Argentina drew less international attention than the Pinochet regime's in Chile, it far exceeded it in terms of human rights violations. By mid 1978, according to a secret cable from the DINA station in Buenos Aires, posted here publicly for the first time, the secret police battalion 601 had "counted 22,000 between dead and disappeared, from 1975 to the present date [July 1978]." Thousands of additional victims were killed between 1978 and 1983 when the military was forced from power.

Ogdred

03-29-2006, 09:27 PM

Usually, when telling a joke, one puts the :) or :D emoticon afterwards, just so you can be sure...which it was NOT, in your case.

That's your rule, not mine. I don't believe in emoticons. It is poor form to laugh at one's own jokes.

Ironically, something I myself did when writing about Sharon Stone, which caused Pip to declare me as hating all women. He over-reacted to a joke himself. Oddly enough, I don't see you getting on his case.

Considering that what I said (about there being no rules against lesbians hating other women) was in response to his over-reaction, I actually was getting on his case.

Considering I needed to explain a post about Komodo Dragons to you...oh never mind.

What are you talking about? I never asked you to explain anything about Komodo Dragons to me. I understood your reference. I simply wondered what Sharon Stone's poor choice of a gift for her husband had to do with her blurting out something political. And, somehow, you weaseled out of answering that question. Hmmm.... Why'd you do that, Sabrina? Why didn't you answer the question? And what, exactly, was your point? That liberals make poor choices? That Sharon Stone did something stupid and dangerous and, therefore, her political opinions should be entirely discounted? Is that the standard? Personal mistakes mean you lose your right to express yourself on political matters?

I shall remember that standard the next time Dick Cheney has a hunting accident.

Then again, since the preferred rule of thumb for you is also to throw out personal insults...well, what can I say?

Since when is that the "preferred rule of thumb" for me? I only called you a jack-ass because you were acting like one.

Noah Johnson

03-29-2006, 10:25 PM

Okay, I think the Sabrina pile-on has lasted long enough. She posted something dumb, we mocked her, let's move on.

Speaking of moving on, the GOP's planned bullshit wedge issue to get out the crazies for the election was going to be gay adoption, but now it looks like they're going to have to talk openly about abortion all year, unless they can change the subject COMPLETELY over to Those Darn Mexicans... I mean, Illegal Immigrants.

Frankly, I'm in favor of this, as they're very vulnerable on abortion, being as most people think the religious nuts in the GOP base who keep trying to set policy on this are... you know, nuts.

Magneto_X

03-29-2006, 10:55 PM

13 Year Old Boy Charged For Threatening Bush (Jr.)

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2194893

RNC Memo Warns GOPer's Not To Distance Themselves From Bush (Jr.)

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2195098

Brain Drain Hits Homeland Security: Top Posts Remain Empty For Months

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2195593

Flordia Attorney General Subpoenas Voting Machine Companies (Diebold Election Systems , Election Systems & Sequoia Voting Systems)

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2195884

Lobbyist Abramoff Sentenced To 5 Years, 10 Months In SunCruz Fraud Case

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2195640

DeLay A Star At "War On Christians" (not sure why link isn't working) :confused:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/az=view_all&address=102x2195698

Top GOP Aide Admits Fraud

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2196648

Ex-Prosecuter Accused of Concealing Evidence In terror case

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2196361

Pentagon Blocked Move To Make Water Safer For Millions of Americans

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard./php?az=view_all&address=102x2196312

Whistleblowers Allege Influence Peddling By Congressmen, VP In Project

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard./php?az=view_all&address=102x2195924

Maryland Sex Abuse Bill Called "Victory" For Church

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2190612

President Showing Signs Of Losing Support Among Ohio Republicans

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2192065

Low Income SF Seniors To Lose Food Boxes To Federal Cutbacks

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/az=view_all&address=102x2192949

Sabrinaset

03-29-2006, 10:55 PM

I simply wondered what Sharon Stone's poor choice of a gift for her husband had to do with her blurting out something political. And, somehow, you weaseled out of answering that question. Hmmm.... Why'd you do that, Sabrina? Why didn't you answer the question? And what, exactly, was your point? That liberals make poor choices? That Sharon Stone did something stupid and dangerous and, therefore, her political opinions should be entirely discounted? Is that the standard? Personal mistakes mean you lose your right to express yourself on political matters?

I shall remember that standard the next time Dick Cheney has a hunting accident.

Will these threads do for you?

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=108205&highlight=dick+cheney
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=108358&highlight=dick+cheney
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=108209&highlight=dick+cheney

See? There's three threads for you to post on regarding Cheney. I posted one item regarding Stone. She IS an idiot, not the least of the reasons being that she thinks Hillary's sexuality has any bearing on her being elected or not. The Komodo Dragon thing was simply icing on the cake. It was meant as a funny piece, and yet, YOU seem all bent outta shape over it. Wow, well we can't have a Liberal Icon like Sharon Stone mocked for what she did, now, can we? Don't wanna hurt her feelings! :rolleyes:

Your question was completely unclear. I have no problem answering it, if you had actually made your point clearer. It wasn't her "poor choice of a husband" that was the point, it was the fact that she herself got him that present...that of locking him in a cage with the Komodo Dragon... that was. It's something she did that indicates what her intelligence level is.

The point wasn't that Liberals make poor choices. I don't think I mentioned her politics at all. Sure, you can infer that she is a Liberal if she loves Hillary that much, but I never identified her as such. That wasn't the point. In fact, I think you're going out of your way to miss the point. It was simply that she's an idiot twice over. Anything else that you're seeing is you reading into it. Hey, she's free to be as much as an idiot as she wants to be. In fact, I hope she continues to act the way she does, it's funny! I kind of think of her...well, maybe more her husband, I guess...as a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

Honestly, after all the stuff that's been said, all the invectives hurled, rightly or wrongly at W, Cheney, and co...and you get all worked up because someone posts about Sharon Stone, of all people...! Some people are so sensitive about their icons...well, if such she is...

Sabrinaset

03-29-2006, 11:04 PM

Crowley

03-29-2006, 11:17 PM

seriously Sabrina, you want to take the idiot angle?

"You took an oath to defend our flag and our freedom, and you kept that oath underseas and under fire." —George W. Bush, addressing war veterans, Washington, D.C., Jan. 10, 2006

"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself — not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch. As a matter of fact, the Colonel asked if I needed first aid when she first saw me. I was able to avoid any major surgical operations here, but thanks for your compassion, Colonel." —George W. Bush, after visiting with wounded veterans from the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1, 2006

"I think it's important to bring somebody from outside the system, the judicial system, somebody that hasn't been on the bench and, therefore, there's not a lot of opinions for people to look at." —George W. Bush, on the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Washington, D.C., October 4, 2005

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." —George W. Bush, to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his job performance, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005

"The good news is — and it's hard for some to see it now — that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house — he's lost his entire house — there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." (Laughter) —President Bush, touring Hurricane Katrina damage

"What didn't go right?'" –President Bush, as quoted by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), after she urged him to fire FEMA Director Michael Brown "because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right" in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort

"My thoughts are, we're going to get somebody who knows what they're talking about when it comes to rebuilding cities." —George W. Bush, on rebuilding New Orleans, Biloxi, Miss., Sept. 2, 2005

"The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American values or, you know — European values, they're universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere." —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005

"You see, not only did the attacks help accelerate a recession, the attacks reminded us that we are at war." —George W. Bush, on the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington, D.C., June 8, 2005

Crowley

03-29-2006, 11:19 PM

And now, for something completely different...

According to sources on Capitol Hill, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a Capitol police officer on Wednesday afternoon after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=77991

Ordinarily, I wouldn't have even cared, but two things caught my eye here...

Why? They're probably the MOST dangerous ones there!

and...

That has got to be a joke.

Well, at least we've come a long way from government officials having duels.
the policy is what we should worry about... as well as what the Republicans do behind closed doors:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB185/index.htm

ON 30th ANNIVERSARY OF ARGENTINE COUP

NEW DECLASSIFIED DETAILS ON REPRESSION AND
U.S. SUPPORT FOR MILITARY DICTATORSHIP

Kissinger sought immediate support for the new
military regime in spite of staff warnings on bloodshed

22,000 people murdered or disappeared by military between
1975 and 1978 according to secret Chilean intelligence report

Secret Argentine documents record Operation Condor kidnappings
and disappearances carried out by military intelligence Battalion 601.

Posted - March 23, 2006

Washington, D.C., March 23, 2006 - On the eve of the 30th anniversary of the military coup in Argentina, the National Security Archive posted a series of declassified U.S. documents and, for the first time, secret documents from Southern Cone intelligence agencies recording detailed evidence of massive atrocities committed by the military junta in Argentina. The documents include a formerly secret transcript of Henry Kissinger's staff meeting during which he ordered immediate U.S. support for the new military regime, and Defense and State Department reports on the ensuing repression. The Archive has also obtained internal memoranda and cables from the infamous Argentina intelligence unit, Battalion 601, as well as the Chilean secret police agency, known as DINA, which was secretly collaborating with the military in Buenos Aires.

The documents record Washington's initial reaction to the military takeover. "I do want to encourage them. I don't want to give the sense that they're harassed by the United States," Secretary of State Kissinger ordered his staff after his assistants warned him that the junta would initiate a bloodbath following the coup. According to the transcript, Kissinger's top deputy on Latin America, William Rogers, told him two days after the coup that "we've got to expect a fair amount of repression, probably a good deal of blood, in Argentina before too long."

State Department cables, including some obtained previously by the Argentine newspaper, Clarin, show that U.S. officials had prior knowledge of coup plotting. More than a week before the coup, Ambassador Robert Hill sent Assistant Secretary Rogers a secret cable reporting that the commander of the Navy, Admiral Emilio Massera, had requested that the U.S. embassy "indicate to him one or two reputable public relations firms in the U.S. which might handle the problem for a future military government." Massera, according to the cable, promised that the Argentine military would "not follow the lines of the Pinochet takeover in Chile," and would "try to proceed within the law and with full respect for human rights."

But although the military repression in Argentina drew less international attention than the Pinochet regime's in Chile, it far ex