"Fair and Balanced"? :nonono:

I just don't think there's an actual attempt by the "liberal media" out there to hold back more conservative voices. The whole notion of right-wing backlash relies on the notion of being "persecuted" by liberals who won't let the Bill O'Reillys of the world take over the anchor desks. In some ways, it's really pathetic to blame the "liberal media" for your own inability to get to a certain position. Rather childish, I think. It negates your own responsibility to hold someone else accountable.

Yes, there's liberal media personalities, but I'd bet the executives in charge are overwhelmingly conservative

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I just don't think there's an actual attempt by the "liberal media" out there to hold back more conservative voices. The whole notion of right-wing backlash relies on the notion of being "persecuted" by liberals who won't let the Bill O'Reillys of the world take over the anchor desks. In some ways, it's really pathetic to blame the "liberal media" for your own inability to get to a certain position. Rather childish, I think. It negates your own responsibility to hold someone else accountable.

This could be easily twisted with a few word switches to a good argument against affirmative action.

Of course it could; those poor rich people who own everything and control everything never got a fair shake in this country, so we had to have a media affirmative action program for them, but now if they can't make it without some assistance, well that's the breaks.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> I just don't think there's an actual attempt by the "liberal media" out there to hold back more conservative voices. The whole notion of right-wing backlash relies on the notion of being "persecuted" by liberals who won't let the Bill O'Reillys of the world take over the anchor desks. In some ways, it's really pathetic to blame the "liberal media" for your own inability to get to a certain position. Rather childish, I think. It negates your own responsibility to hold someone else accountable.

This could be easily twisted with a few word switches to a good argument against affirmative action.

Well, in all seriousness, take a few moments after reading one of Ann Coulter's rants to ask yourself "now, is she saying all this because liberals really do hate America, or is it more because she couldn't get a job at the Times or any other major publications?" I realize that example of the Times might lead you to more ridicule of an obviously faltering newspaper, but just insert the name of whatever major publication you hold in high esteem. Now, if she's right (and God help us if she ever is ) then you can say she has a legitimate arguement. But if you can see no obvious reason for what she's talking about other than what she says, you might want to take a step back and see if there's something more to her efforts than genuine outrage.

I doubt you'll change your whole philosophy if you come to the conclusion that maybe Ann's a bit of a fibber, but it wouldn't hurt to consider alternative views

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Of course it could; those poor rich people who own everything and control everything never got a fair shake in this country, so we had to have a media affirmative action program for them, but now if they can't make it without some assistance, well that's the breaks.

Neocon media figures do not own everything. That's Teresa Heinz you are thinking of.

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > I just don't think there's an actual attempt by the "liberal media" out there to hold back more conservative voices. The whole notion of right-wing backlash relies on the notion of being "persecuted" by liberals who won't let the Bill O'Reillys of the world take over the anchor desks. In some ways, it's really pathetic to blame the "liberal media" for your own inability to get to a certain position. Rather childish, I think. It negates your own responsibility to hold someone else accountable. >

This could be easily twisted with a few word switches to a good argument against affirmative action.

Well, in all seriousness, take a few moments after reading one of Ann Coulter's rants to ask yourself "now, is she saying all this because liberals really do hate America, or is it more because she couldn't get a job at the Times or any other major publications?" I realize that example of the Times might lead you to more ridicule of an obviously faltering newspaper, but just insert the name of whatever major publication you hold in high esteem. Now, if she's right (and God help us if she ever is ) then you can say she has a legitimate arguement. But if you can see no obvious reason for what she's talking about other than what she says, you might want to take a step back and see if there's something more to her efforts than genuine outrage. I doubt you'll change your whole philosophy if you come to the conclusion that maybe Ann's a bit of a fibber, but it wouldn't hurt to consider alternative views

I usually read Ann's articles knowing she's going to drop a few exaggerated quips here and there in order to bolster her points. She's incredibly partisan, but most of the time, the points she makes are the correct ones, or at the very least she points out fallacies in liberal policies. Her underlying message is what counts and not her over the top antics (which happen to be entertaining). Hey and she doesn't fabricate lies, such as Michael "Mammoth" Moore.

My disdain for the LA Times simply comes from reading it every once in a while for a few years, and the NY Times is a favorite target for conservatives.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> Of course it could; those poor rich people who own everything and control everything never got a fair shake in this country, so we had to have a media affirmative action program for them, but now if they can't make it without some assistance, well that's the breaks.

Neocon media figures do not own everything. That's Teresa Heinz you are thinking of. I don't know any poor people who own media empires...do you?

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > Of course it could; those poor rich people who own everything and control everything never got a fair shake in this country, so we had to have a media affirmative action program for them, but now if they can't make it without some assistance, well that's the breaks.>

Neocon media figures do not own everything. That's Teresa Heinz you are thinking of.

I don't know any poor people who own media empires...do you?

Murdoch ain't no neocon, he's an 'old ass rich Aussie'con. Ingraham, Coulter, and the list goes on are the media neo-cons...

Murdoch may be rightist with his economic policy, but he's not a neocon who combine rightist economic policy and conservative values. He supports neocons though since they are the bloodline of the current Republican party who are the ones who will advocate the economic policies he desires. When Rabid Pachyderms Attack Trans-Gender Midgets does not come from a neocon.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > > > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > > I just don't think there's an actual attempt by the "liberal media" out there to hold back more conservative voices. The whole notion of right-wing backlash relies on the notion of being "persecuted" by liberals who won't let the Bill O'Reillys of the world take over the anchor desks. In some ways, it's really pathetic to blame the "liberal media" for your own inability to get to a certain position. Rather childish, I think. It negates your own responsibility to hold someone else accountable. > > >

This could be easily twisted with a few word switches to a good argument against affirmative action.

Well, in all seriousness, take a few moments after reading one of Ann Coulter's rants to ask yourself "now, is she saying all this because liberals really do hate America, or is it more because she couldn't get a job at the Times or any other major publications?" I realize that example of the Times might lead you to more ridicule of an obviously faltering newspaper, but just insert the name of whatever major publication you hold in high esteem. Now, if she's right (and God help us if she ever is ) then you can say she has a legitimate arguement. But if you can see no obvious reason for what she's talking about other than what she says, you might want to take a step back and see if there's something more to her efforts than genuine outrage. I doubt you'll change your whole philosophy if you come to the conclusion that maybe Ann's a bit of a fibber, but it wouldn't hurt to consider alternative views

I usually read Ann's articles knowing she's going to drop a few exaggerated quips here and there in order to bolster her points. She's incredibly partisan, but most of the time, the points she makes are the correct ones, or at the very least she points out fallacies in liberal policies. Her underlying message is what counts and not her over the top antics (which happen to be entertaining). Hey and she doesn't fabricate lies, such as Michael "Mammoth" Moore.

My disdain for the LA Times simply comes from reading it every once in a while for a few years, and the NY Times is a favorite target for conservatives.

I'm not saying everything liberals have done has been OK, but just because Ann says they're fallacies doesn't make it so. What sources does she quote? Try looking up the originals when you have the time, I'd be willing to bet you'll find some discrepencies between her writing and the original. I could be wrong, but I think I'm right

Anyway, enough of this gay banter, I'm here to talk about this parrot which I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique :D

I can understand why excerpts such as the one i'll post below may be troublesome to Democrats, but it points out that with all the anti Iraq war rhetoric of the past two years, which has been adopted by the Dem.s, that Saddam would be in power. Now she makes that point by picking on a crackhead politician, a drunk murdering fool, and some other fools.

The Democrats want Saddam back. I suppose it was only a matter of time for the party that also welcomed back Marion Barry, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Al Sharpton, Frank Lautenberg, Hillary Clinton, etc., etc.

Originally posted by Taboo # 7Anyway, enough of this gay banter, I'm here to talk about this parrot which I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique :D

Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?