See, I'm not really Craaaaazy.... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-13-2002, 07:11 PM   #1
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 02:55 PM
See, I'm not really Craaaaazy....

I found this on the web today, After my last little enlightenment section on Liberals and Enron, I post this in the same vain, Not to really argue any sort of point, but just to educate people that the way things are presented in the Media and on the News, maybe aren't just exactly how they are in real life, or maybe there's more to a presented story than is being reported (The Dick Chaney/Nelson Mandela Voting Issue)..

Two recent Examples

Enron being an 'Embarrassment to Bush' ...
AND
OLeary's Resignation from ND being an 'Embarrassment to ND'..

Ok, These situations are nothing close to these headlines I presented, but that's how the media will present something to try and twist it to fit their likes, beliefs et al..

And we all know the media hates ND, otherwise Lou would have had three championships instead of two.. (feel free to argue with me on that point)

Ok, here's teh article...

Goldberg Variations
Evil genius or useful idiot? We report, you decide.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Thursday, January 10, 2002, at 4:19 PM PT


As a liberal, I had long suspected that we might have a secret coven over at CBS News. It's hard to say why, exactly. Maybe it's that little smirk of Dan Rather's whenever he gets to report something bad happening to America. Or maybe it was the famous episode when Walter Cronkite ended his broadcast by denouncing capitalism as "a system of class oppression that must be destroyed root and branch." But it was only a suspicion.
So I was happy to get confirmation from the current best seller (categorized as nonfiction) Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, by former CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg. The book is rich with anecdotes about the horrors—ideological and otherwise—of working for CBS, culled from Mr. Goldberg's three decades of working for CBS. He must have been chained to his TelePrompTer or something, because a man who "was once rated by TV Guide as one of the ten most interesting people on television," as his author ID brags, surely didn't need to spend all those years at a corrupt and dishonest institution.

One story has gotten the most attention. It involves a conversation with CBS News President Andrew Heyward: " 'Look, Bernie,' he said, 'of course there's a liberal bias in the news. All the networks tilt left.' But, 'If you repeat any of this, I'll deny it.' "

Bingo! This was the confirmation that I and every right-wing radio talk show host in America had been waiting for. But then I made the classic journalist's error: I checked it out. First I talked to Mr. Goldberg himself. "Look, Mike, of course I made that story up," he said. "It's brilliant, don't you think? If Heyward denies the story, that just confirms it in people's minds. The whole vast right-wing conspiracy has fallen for it. Fox News is so grateful that Roger Ailes is sending me suitcases full of cash. And if you repeat any of this, I'll deny it."

"Of course we haven't fallen for it," Ailes growled. "We just put it out there as prole meat. This Goldberg is what my Communist pals used to call a useful idiot. And what an idiot! They really don't build them like that anymore." Ailes' humor started to improve. Soon tears of happiness were streaming down his cheeks. "I mean, that stuff about CBS execs taking it up the keister from Dan Rather in prison?" He chortled, "I love it, I really do. And who cares if it's all true or not?" He winked. "We report, you decide. By the way, if you repeat any of this, I'll break your legs. And I'll deny it."

Finally, I checked with the chairman of the Vast Conspiracy, Wall Street Journal Editor Robert Bartley, who confirmed every detail. "Ailes is a bit of a train wreck himself," Bartley added with a thoughtful wave of his hookah. "Of course if you repeat any of this …"

Mr. Goldberg's original act of apostasy was in 1996. After managing to hold his tongue for a quarter of a century, he let loose with an op-ed in the Journal. To his astonishment, people he thought were his friends turned inexplicably hostile, merely because he had publicly denounced them as betrayers of their profession. Conservative commentary on Bias shares Mr. Goldberg's indignation, if not his surprise. Conservatives know the depths of ruthlessness to which the liberal establishment can sink when its supremacy is threatened.

At the Wall Street Journal editorial page, presumably, if a colleague announces to the world that he holds the institution and those who work there in contempt, he takes a bit of joshing around the water cooler, then everybody gathers for a group hug and returns to denouncing Tom Daschle. Bernard Goldberg was not so lucky. Trapped in an enraged mob of overpaid, middle-aged white men in suits, he was … taken out and tortured? Well, no. Tickled until he begged them to stop? No. Fired? Not at all. Given a cushy job until a bigger pension kicked in at age 55, when he left of his own accord? Yup. Those liberal swine! No wonder Goldberg is regarded (by himself, among others) as a martyr.

OK, OK, Bernard Goldberg may be so dim, or so drunk on self-righteousness, that he can't see the comic futility of trying to insulate a quote from denial by adding a second quote promising to lie about the first one—all in the name of high journalistic standards. (Who is going to doubt the first quote but believe the second?) But he's obviously right about liberal bias, isn't he? Maybe. The point is that this dumb book adds nothing to the argument, and it is the accusers who are offering it as evidence.

Like a stopped clock, Goldberg isn't always wrong. He's probably sincere. But he's remarkably dense. And you have to wonder whether his glorifiers are just as dense, or deeply cynical, or living on a different planet. Do they really think it is devastating evidence of bias that a TV producer would decide to label a full-time ideologue like Phyllis Schlafly as "conservative" but not feel obliged to label avocational activist Rosie O'Donnell as "liberal"?

I don't doubt that Goldberg heard a colleague disparage Gary Bauer as "the little nut from the Christian group." Did he never hear casual disparagement of liberal politicians? "I can't tell you how many times I heard the term 'white trash' thrown around," Goldberg told Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. Was it ever, perchance, applied to Bill Clinton? Goldberg said he "resents" the term white trash because of his own lower-middle-class background. His resentment is truly omnivorous. Bernard Goldberg may carry many burdens, but the danger of being considered white trash is not one of them.

Other epithets are available.

Just Exposing ya'll to this.. Now I'm going to go SCUBA dive in a Vat Of Milk Of Magnesia Wearing a NeoPrene Wetsuit. Bottoms Up.

L. Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-13-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-13-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-13-2002).]
__________________

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 01-13-2002, 08:06 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 08:55 AM
Suggestion to the mods:

A new forum called "Lemonite Stand" where he could exclusvely post all of this information for us.

But, no, I do not wish to be a mod in that forum.

~U2Alabama
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 01-13-2002, 08:48 PM   #3
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
Suggestion to the mods:

A new forum called "Lemonite Stand" where he could exclusvely post all of this information for us.

But, no, I do not wish to be a mod in that forum.

~U2Alabama
Haha.. I would suggest however that the Name be "Pork Fried Jizzbo-Jazzbo"... Hahaa.. At least I crack myself up eh?

L. Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-13-2002).]
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 01-13-2002, 10:03 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:55 AM
*yawn*

Old news.

Every word "liberal" could be replaced with "conservative," because both are power hungry as institutions.

Example:

"Liberals know the depths of ruthlessness to which the conservative establishment can sink when its supremacy is threatened."

Or let's substitute it in a religious spin:

"Atheists know the depths of ruthlessness to which the religious establishment can sink when its supremacy is threatened."

Or, my personal favorite:

"Homosexuals know the depths of ruthlessness to which the fundamentalist establishment can sink when its supremacy is threatened."

Simply a recitation of the pattern of human nature.

And why is the media "liberal"? Well, they just don't pick up some yokel off the street. Journalists go to college, and most people attracted to the journalism profession are liberals. If few conservatives get into journalism, then you will see few conservatives in the media.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-13-2002, 10:12 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,341
Local Time: 06:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite:
And we all know the media hates ND, otherwise Lou would have had three championships instead of two.. (feel free to argue with me on that point)

Minor correction here...

Lou Holtz only won one "national title" for NCAA football at Notre Dame. His team came in second in the polls twice and third once.

Holtz won his title in 1988. In 1989, his team had a chance for another title with a 12-1 record. However, the polls said that Miami, with their 11-1 record, deserved the title because in head-to-head competition, Miami beat ND (hence their one loss). O.K., fair enough, Miami gets the title.

Now shift to 1993. Florida State is 12-1 and Notre Dame is 11-1. Florida State's one loss is to... you guessed it, ND. So in head-to-head competition, ND beat FSU. Therefore, using the 1989 rules, ND should get the title, right? Nope, FSU received it.

It's clear how ridiculous the bias is here. One could make up all sorts of excuses, but the fact is the press loves to see ND "not win."

However, these ridiculous polls go beyond ND. In 1994, Penn State was ranked #1 and Nebraska was #2. One weekend, late in the season, Penn State crushed fellow Big 10 team, Wisconsin, who was ranked in the Top 25, by some ridiculous score (like 72-20). Nebraska beat Colorado, who was ranked #2, by a score of about 27-10 (I know my numbers are off, but the general range is correct).

So Penn State, who is #1, destroys a ranked opponent and fellow Big 10 team, while Nebraska simply beats a higher ranked team. Who became the new #1? Yep, Nebraska. The polls were suddenly "overwhelmed" with Nebraska's play. Tell me, what more could Penn State have done to keep their #1 ranking? They did all that they could, yet they still fell. Both teams finished the year perfect - yet Nebraska was crowned the champs in the poll.

While the current BCS system is a tiny fraction better, it relies far too heavily on the polls, scores (encouraging teams to run up scores, thus humiliating their opponenets) and some "mystical" computer generated number. Considering that there are some 5000 bowl games played every year, it boggles my mind why a true play-off system can't be established. NCAA IA football is the ONLY sport, college or pros, that has no play-offs. Even the IIA division has a play-off system. Heck, high schools have a play-off. But not the IA.

Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, there is no true champion crowned every year. Even if ND wins the polls next year, I won't consider it a true championship until a play-off system is established. These aren't the Academy awards where people vote for their favorites - this is a sports league. Yet people vote for their favorites anyway. Some "champion"...



[This message has been edited by doctorwho (edited 01-15-2002).]
__________________
doctorwho is online now  
Old 01-13-2002, 10:17 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 08:55 AM
Doesn't the current BCS formula give Notre Dame some type of affirmative action preference for the at-large slots?
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 01-13-2002, 11:04 PM   #7
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho:
Minor correction here...

Lou Holtz only won one "national title" for NCAA football at Notre Dame. His team came in second in the polls twice and third once.

Holtz won his title in 1988. In 1989, his team had a chance for another title with a 12-1 record. However, the polls said that Miami, with their 11-1 record, deserved the title because in head-to-head competition, Miami beat ND (hence their one loss). O.K., fair enough, Miami gets the title.

Now shift to 1993. Florida State is 12-1 and Notre Dame is 11-1. Florida State's one loss is to... you guessed it, ND. So in head-to-head competition, ND beat FSU. Therefore, using the 1989 rules, ND should get the title, right? Nope, FSU received it.

It's clear how ridiculous the bias is here. One could make up all sorts of excuses, but the fact is the press loves to see ND "not win."

However, these ridiculous polls go beyond ND. In 1994, Penn State was ranked #1 and Nebraska was #2. One weekend, late in the season, Penn State crushed fellow Big 10 team, Wisconsin, who was ranked in the Top 25, but some ridiculous score (like 72-20). Nebraska beat Colorado, who was ranked #2, by a score of about 27-10 (I know my numbers are off, but the general range is correct).

So Penn State, who is #1, destroys a ranked opponent and fellow Big 10 team, while Nebraska simply beats a higher ranked team. Who became the new #1? Yep, Nebraska. The polls were suddenly "overwhelmed" with Nebraska's play. Tell me, what more could Penn State have done to keep their #1 ranking? They did all that they could, yet they still fell. Both teams finished the year perfect - yet Nebraska was crowned the champs in the poll.

While the current BCS system is a tiny fraction better, it relies far too heavily on the polls, scores (encouraging teams to run up scores, thus humiliating their opponenets) and some "mystical" computer generated number. Considering that there are some 5000 bowl games played every year, it boggles my mind why a true play-off system can't be established. NCAA IA football is the ONLY sport, college or pros, that has no play-offs. Even the IIA division has a play-off system. Heck, high schools have a play-off. But not the IA.

Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, there is no true champion crowned every year. Even if ND wins the polls next year, I won't consider it a true championship until a play-off system is established. These aren't the Academy awards where people vote for their favorites - this is a sports league. Yet people vote for their favorites anyway. Some "champion"...

Oops, my fault.. TYPO.. about the Nat. Championship thingee..

Seriously though, Doctorwho.. Maybe now with a black head coach, we'll get those extra votes that Bowden and Osborne always got..

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 01-13-2002, 11:19 PM   #8
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
*yawn*

Old news.


And why is the media "liberal"? Well, they just don't pick up some yokel off the street. Journalists go to college, and most people attracted to the journalism profession are liberals. If few conservatives get into journalism, then you will see few conservatives in the media.

Melon

Melon, I'm glad to see you write it as 'old news', but seriously, to the large portion of people out there It's Not OLD NEWS, they don't know enough to know any better that it's a slanted presentation.. many times bordering on propaganda.. what is presented in the news is what they believe and what sticks in their mind..

Here follows a Stereotypical Generalization.. But they always have some bit of root truth in them..
It's long been said that Journalists are journalists.. toting their Arts and Letters Degrees, cuz they couldn't get any better job, It's the best they could do.. (Sure maybe some of them truly do want to be journalists, but honestly, they're not the brightest bunch) I mean, Take Matt Lauer.. All he's got going for him are his good looks backed up with absolutely no brain or intellect whatsoever (written in lemonite's finest prose haha) if you ask any educated person that actually knows .. well.. knows sh#t, Just look at his interview with Dick Chaney, He just spouted the latest slams on chaney from Politically Incorrect the night before, and made a complete idiot of himself and showed jsut how out of his league he was in trying to insult and 'corner' chaney..

Fox News gets this 'rep' of being a conservative news station, when in fact it's just more nonbiased than other networks, or looks at things from more of an objective eye, yet, because it's such a different angle from the usual media take it's looked on as a Republican network..

Melon, you're right on target with your statement, but I's just giving out the info for people to beware of and try and find out the whole story of things because there is a bias, which many would say there shouldn't be in the news reports, unless it's like a commentary column. Because it's more just the completely wrong points, or Hammering of Issues that the media goes off on that really make no sense..

Like, Let's see.. I think some journalist just a day or two ago asked RUmsfeld something to the point of.. (about those detainees on the plane to cuba.. the al queda soldiers).. 'Why Are You Treating them Soo Roughly'.. What a ri-cock-ulous question.. It's those kind of things that would get reported, for example how Bad It is that We're Hooding those prisoners on their way to Cuba.. When everyone knows that the more sedated those murderers the better

ANyways, Nothing really controversial, just information...


And I love your inclusion of the word Yokel, Though I would also suggest that you preface it with 'Slack JAwed'.

L. Unplugged



[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-13-2002).]
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 01-14-2002, 08:09 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:

And why is the media "liberal"? Well, they just don't pick up some yokel off the street. Journalists go to college, and most people attracted to the journalism profession are liberals. If few conservatives get into journalism, then you will see few conservatives in the media.

Shift to Cletus: "Mayor Quimby, can you explain agin' to the people why theys cain't marry theys cousins?"
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 01-14-2002, 07:01 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite:
Melon, I'm glad to see you write it as 'old news', but seriously, to the large portion of people out there It's Not OLD NEWS, they don't know enough to know any better that it's a slanted presentation.. many times bordering on propaganda.. what is presented in the news is what they believe and what sticks in their mind..
Well, I will agree with this statement. One must definitely be skeptical of what they are told news-wise, whether the source is "liberal," "conservative," from the government, or even from religious organizations. Inherently, the source will paint the story to glamorize its own biases and the exaggerate its enemies. That's why I believe it is important to have a well-rounded education.

Quote:
Here follows a Stereotypical Generalization.. But they always have some bit of root truth in them..
It's long been said that Journalists are journalists.. toting their Arts and Letters Degrees, cuz they couldn't get any better job, It's the best they could do..
Considering I went to a college with one of the largest journalism schools in the country, I don't think that is true.

There are a few problems in journalism, but in much of our educational system:

1) Journalism is an oversaturated job market, and the pay is generally lousy. Sure, the talking heads on the national news networks are going to make good money, but most journalists in America are relegated to local newspapers, local radio stations, and local television stations. In all three cases, starting salaries are generally dreadfully low, which, in turn, will always lead to a brain drain.

2) The American educational system shifted from a "think for yourself" into a "do what your told" environment within the last three decades. Rather than generating self-starting, idealistic go-getters, we're generating machines that simply strokes the ego of business. That may work in some industries successfully, but good journalism, specifically, requires one to take chances, take risks, and rattle a few heads of the mainstream. How many people truly know how to do that anymore?

And the newspaper editorials I read nowadays are pure tripe. Editorial writers either regurgitate the opinions of "experts" that fit their ideological bias or simply regurgitate the latest political correctness.

3) Media ownership has a lot to do with it now as well. You speak of the liberal bias, but that is slowly shifting. Especially since 1996, most media organizations are owned by mega corporations with their own vested interests (i.e., ABC by Disney, CBS by Viacom, NBC by General Electric). The most "liberal" newscasters seem to be monoliths of the network--the ones the public would notice if the parent companies suddenly fired them.

As I've taken notice of many of the newer journalists on TV, they just lack the passion. It's almost as if they are just doing what is necessary to make money. The other possible explanation for this is that they are just being overshadowed by the monoliths, and, upon their retirement or death, they will shine on their own. However, how many newer journalists seem to be interested in hard news reporting anymore? It's all tabloid-style news blips, superficial Hollywood news, or government spoonfed news that no one tries to follow-up.

Quote:
I mean, Take Matt Lauer.. All he's got going for him are his good looks backed up with absolutely no brain or intellect whatsoever
An illustration of my point above. Where are the hard news journalists anymore?

Quote:
well.. knows sh#t, Just look at his interview with Dick Chaney, He just spouted the latest slams on chaney from Politically Incorrect the night before, and made a complete idiot of himself and showed jsut how out of his league he was in trying to insult and 'corner' chaney..
Well, it was also the "Today" show, which is more about entertainment than news. I think you would get a different tone with, let's say, "60 Minutes." But Dick Chaney probably wouldn't step foot on a show like that, because he'd expect to get burned.

Quote:
Fox News gets this 'rep' of being a conservative news station, when in fact it's just more nonbiased than other networks, or looks at things from more of an objective eye, yet, because it's such a different angle from the usual media take it's looked on as a Republican network..
Riiiiight. *gag* Fox News Channel is not "nonbiased." It obviously reports news from a conservative angle, but you consider it "nonbiased," because you share it's political views. Tell me, how many liberal journalists are on that station? If you want a network that is truly "nonbiased," you would need a network that has respected journalists from both ends of the political spectrum and everyone in the middle. And, considering inherent bias of patriotic sentiments in specific nations, you would have to have a multinational coalition of journalists allied in one global network. Then, you would get very close to nonbiased, but, still, I doubt you could ever eradicate it.

But that's where critical thinking is supposed to come in. Theoretically, upon presentation of several points of view, the viewer would have to discern what is "true." Admittedly, no such global network exists, and, even if one did, how many people care about news enough to take the time to discern the "truth"?

Of course, I could try and make such a network, but I've already got 10 other substantial long-term projects on my clipboard. I wish I could do everything sometimes.

Quote:
Melon, you're right on target with your statement, but I's just giving out the info for people to beware of and try and find out the whole story of things because there is a bias, which many would say there shouldn't be in the news reports, unless it's like a commentary column. Because it's more just the completely wrong points, or Hammering of Issues that the media goes off on that really make no sense..
But here's the problem. While understandably knocking the liberal bias in media, you are simply regurgitating what someone else wrote, and, since it fit your own ideological bias, you have decided it to be "true." But this article is just as sloppy as any so-called "liberal bias" article. As much as it tries to be "informative," it mostly tries to entertain. A lot of bit quotes thrown in likely out-of-context and tons of hypothetical assumptions thrown in the mix. Some possible mistruths as well, which was the origin of Gore's so-called "I founded the internet" statement. Regardless, the words "presumably" and "probably" don't hold much water when you're trying to report fact.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-15-2002, 11:02 AM   #11
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 02:55 PM
M, an excellent post, no.. a yamtastic post.. And Yah, I'm just trying to maybe help bring to light that the general mass media out there isn't from a nonobjective point of view, and in the majority it is a liberal's viewpoint.

I'm sure you get just frustrated with it, as you are an educated, and intellectual.. two different things, person, who apparently knows some of the inner workings of journalism, Just how say for instance, when Bush would give a speech, or Dole gave his Republican convention speech a while back, ALL that ms woodruf or bernard shaw would talk about.. The ONLY thing was how 'Dole Mentioned Clinton's name 34 times', It's just that whenever some issue comes up and it happens to be .. say even a good thing that republicans do, IT is ALWAYS slammed, it is always just shit upon. And It is just like that these news anchors are just spouting pure poison for the not as well informed people to believe, because seriously.. why shouldn't they believe them.

And I realize that I can't write from a nonobjective point of view, But when I mention fox news, That news station is not as far right as say, CNN is left.. It is more of a nonobjective pov than cnn, though stil maybe pointed in its favored direction.

And I know this is going to open a whole new discussion, but I believe that everyone should listen to Rush Limbaugh, I know he may get high on his horse, or act pompously, but seriously, He is extremely intelligent, He knows his shiz, and He calls tihngs for what they are, And will disagree with the republicans if he feels they are wrong, or agree with the democrats if he feels they are right, ..

And I'm also a big fan of chris MAtthews, ... let's see there are some others, russert being one, but I can't think of them at the moment...

Cheers,
Off to class.. Or Maybe just to Swallow a sword.. samurai perhaps. I've got no time to reread this deeply, so Im sure there are points i'll maybe have to elaborate on, but anyways,... enuf.. where's the dome.. ah, it's right there through the snow...

L. Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-15-2002).]
__________________

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com