Minas Tirith Forums
profile | register |
search | faq | avatars | citizens
donate | about | library
  This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2  3  ...  20  21  22  23  24 
Minas Tirith Forums » The Prancing Pony Archive » Hillary Clinton to run for Prez (Page 23)
Author Topic: Hillary Clinton to run for Prez
Roll of Honor pi
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 5374

posted      Profile for pi   Author's Homepage   Email pi   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
true - hot [] [] [] comes in all colors of hair and skin.
From: Virgo Supercluster, 40º N 75º W | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor Celebrían
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 2057

posted      Profile for Celebrían   Email Celebrían   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
Kalkin, I disagree. I think the little beastie leaves its skin behind and swims off nekkid. Like Joseph around Potiphar, if you take my meanin'.
From: First Homely House, Rivendell, Eriador | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kalkin
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 1029

posted      Profile for Kalkin   Email Kalkin   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
Celebrian

Well, I was recalling facts from an Introductory Biology course I took as a sophomore in college a looooong time ago (specifics are not necessary), so it's possible I was mistaken. I wikied it and found this....

quote:
They have the peculiar adaptation of expelling first sticky threads, perhaps to incapacitate predators, and then their internal organs when startled by a potential predator. These organs can then be regrown. (See defensive vomiting).


....it's not as interesting as the Joseph and Potiphar analogy, but hey, what can I say? Biology is often gross.
From: Chicago | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor Wandering Tuor
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 1685

posted      Profile for Wandering Tuor   Email Wandering Tuor   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
(See defensive vomiting).
I've done that! Sometimes you gotta leave some stuff behind so you can start over, you know?
From: My place | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor Gna
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 3830

posted      Profile for Gna   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
I've actually had a sea cucumber (a small one, fortunately) do that in my hand. That's what I get for hanging off a dock at Friday Harbor Marine Station in the middle of the night, holding a submersible lamp. But a squid also swam by...that was utterly cool. []
From: Andustar | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Imbëar
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 729
posted      Profile for Imbëar   Author's Homepage   Email Imbëar   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I've done that! Sometimes you gotta leave some stuff behind so you can start over, you know?
...as if these Boards weren't evidence enough.


Imbëar

From: Auburn, CA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor Wandering Tuor
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 1685

posted      Profile for Wandering Tuor   Email Wandering Tuor   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
I hesitate to jump to any conclusions before all the facts are in, but I think Imbëar just attempted a joke.
From: My place | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor pi
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 5374

posted      Profile for pi   Author's Homepage   Email pi   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
[] [] [] []
From: Virgo Supercluster, 40º N 75º W | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Artaresto
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 6089

posted      Profile for Artaresto   Email Artaresto   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
He did []
From: Forochel | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor Wandering Tuor
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 1685

posted      Profile for Wandering Tuor   Email Wandering Tuor   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
[] []

Rush Limbaugh recently:

1. On the American people:
quote:
“USA Today’s got a poll: ‘Do you think something’s wrong about the firing of eight US attorneys?’ 72% said yes. 72% of the American people, a bunch of blithering idiots who have no idea what they’re talking about, but yet they voted, so these polls matter.”
2. Winning elections is more important than competence:
quote:
I’m at a loss to understand why it is that even some people on our side and the conservative media think throwing Gonzales away is going to stop this. Now, they’ll say, “Well, that’s not what we’re trying to do. We want competence. We are conservatives, and we have high values, and high standards.” (Hee hee. Read up on Monica Goodling. High standards?? Bwa ha ha ha ha.) This is a battle going on here. There’s an election that’s going to hinge on stuff like this, and everybody the administration throws overboard is a tantamount admission to people that pay scant attention to politics there’s all kinds of corruption going on in there.
[] []

That's good stuff.

From: My place | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor Silmahtar
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 4806

posted      Profile for Silmahtar   Author's Homepage   Email Silmahtar   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
Gna:
quote:
Certainly the lefties at The Nation aren't claiming Paglia as one of their own.
So that disqualifies her comment about liberal bias, how?
From: Vinya-Tárilos | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor Gna
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 3830

posted      Profile for Gna   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So that disqualifies her comment about liberal bias, how?
Did I say that it did? How?

I agree with Siegel that Paglia seems to have this weird obsession with presenting herself as some sort of combative and phenomenally independent-minded media personality. She seems to have what a friend of mine would call attention deficit disorder, in the sense that she can't get enough attention.

From: Andustar | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor Adulithien
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 2193

posted      Profile for Adulithien   Email Adulithien   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
[] That's one of the funniest things I've heard today!
From: Austin | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grimwulf Stormspear
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 5157
posted      Profile for Grimwulf Stormspear   Email Grimwulf Stormspear   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
Eric Alterman’s colorful version of the facts usually takes the form of systematic omission of inconvenient data, innuendo & personal attacks, dubious leaps of logic, & selective criticism. [] It makes him hard to pin down. But sometimes he goes further:

The colorful world of Eric Alterman. []

Alterman’s false accusation of plagiarism. (Is he the guilty party?) []

Also, during the Clinton years, Alterman wrote:

quote:
Since 1976, only four white defendants have been executed for killing blacks, yet 75 black defendants have been executed for murdering whites.

Blacks who kill whites are 19 times as likely to be executed as whites who kill blacks.

The math here is simple. [] Or rather, Alterman’s math is simplistic.

As of 1995, black-on-white murder accounted for twice as many killings as white-on-black murder, so Alterman’s ration is about two times too high. [] Moreover, he implies that racial bias must be the explanation for any statistical difference, without any attempt to examine the question of previous criminal records of the convicts. Convicted killers with criminal records are more likely to be executed and for various reasons, black men are more likely to have previous criminal records.

What reasons? Not because blacks are “born criminals” — most black men are not criminals at all. [] The single biggest factor may be the fact that most black men today grow up apart from their fathers. Culture, not race, is the explanatory factor.

Likewise, before Alterman accuses our juries of racial bias, he should ask whether the murders were committed as part of felony (such as armed robbery) or if multiple victims were involved. [] He does not take this step. He does not ask the question. His bias does not lead him to ask such questions.


The problem I have with Alterman’s version of the facts is not that he is being consciously dishonest. [] It is his rather fantastic perception of the world. And that is more than enough.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Furthermore, it is my opinion that Obamacare must be repealed.

From: The central lake-lands of the Great Peninsula. | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grimwulf Stormspear
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 5157
posted      Profile for Grimwulf Stormspear   Email Grimwulf Stormspear   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
…Bombadil, before you do make any more comments on abortion coverage (as promised), you should take a closer look. [] I cited a series of articles from the L.A. Times, not a conservative media-watch organization. In the first of these articles, the David Shaw noted:

  • Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.
  • Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are sometimes ignored or given minimal attention by the media.
  • Many news organizations have given more prominent play to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion rights opponents.
  • Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation's major daily newspapers.


It’s not just that 80% - 90% of reporters favor abortion rights, according to different studies. [] It’s not just that one study showed, in 1989, “the networks used ‘pro-choice’ in 74% of their references to abortion-rights advocates and used ‘pro-life’ in only 6% of their references to abortion opponents.” We can see evidence of a steady, persistent underlying narrative that assumes that abortion rights are good.

  • When the networks broadcast an abortion story, the backdrop has often been the large word “abortion” — with the first “O” in the word stylized into the biological symbol for female. The networks could just as easily stylize the “O” to represent a womb, with a drawing of a fetus inside. But they don’t.
  • When the Washington Post wrote about proposed anti-abortion legislation in Louisiana last month, it spoke of the state House of Representatives’ making a decision on “a woman’s reproductive rights.” As Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, pointed out, “In discussing abortion as a matter of ‘a woman’s reproductive rights,’ the Post “adopts both the paradigm and the polemic of the abortion-rights lobby.”
  • When the Los Angeles Times covered the same story, it referred to the proposed legislation as “the nation’s harshest.” That’s the view of abortion-rights advocates; it’s “harsh” toward women’s rights. But abortion opponents regard the legislation as benevolent — toward the fetus. The language used in coverage of the Louisiana legislation is not an anomaly. Virtually all the media refer to anti-abortion legislation as “restrictive.” What is it “restricting”? The right of a woman to have an abortion. But abortion opponents would describe the legislation as “protective” — “protective” of the fetus.

The reporter went on to ask, “Wouldn’t the word ‘strict’ be more value-neutral since the legislation would be ‘strict’ both in its protection of the fetus and in its restriction of the woman?”

So, here was a reporter criticizing his own newspaper, championing the quixotic goal of neutrality & objectivity, conceding (as I do) that “journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid,” & he still found the major media strongly biased on this subject.

As I keep repeating, it is not a matter of a giant conspiracy run by Freemasons & Jews, it is a matter of perspective. [] In an atmosphere where (as previously noted) Washington reporters consider a NOW march the “in” thing to do — Linda Greenhouse, who still covers the Supreme Court for New York Times, took part in one such march — the perspective which the average reporter brings to the subject assumes that pro-choice policies are good.

Sure, we can look at the slant of Iraq War coverage & recognize that anti-war bias in the media is driven by other factors. [] Yes, the media — especially television news programs — are biased towards “what happened today,” which means car bombs get more coverage than long-term reconstruction projects. Yes, few reporters or editors understand much about military history or strategy & so remain clueless about US successes in Ramadi (to take one example). Yes, many reporters in Baghdad tend to stay in sheltered zones & miss out on most of the stories that involve more than press conferences & body counts. Yes, bad news (dead Americans) gets more viewers than good news (captured terrorists).

So, yes, more than media liberalism is driving the misleading reporting on Iraq. [] I have not focused on war coverage in Iraq.

Yes, even the poor coverage of racial discrimination allegations is due to more than liberal bias. [] Yes, the ignorance of economic principles & history play a role, although I think that media liberalism deserves much of the blame.

But on this one issue, can you admit that media coverage is biased to paint a fairly liberal picture of the subject? []

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Furthermore, it is my opinion that Obamacare must be repealed.

From: The central lake-lands of the Great Peninsula. | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor bombadil
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 1329

posted      Profile for bombadil   Author's Homepage   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
Good points, GS. They definitely point to journalistic ignorance on this one issue. I still think the anti-"anti" crowd overreacts -- plenty of liberal positions are labeled "anti"-something, as I've elaborated on before, yet no one accuses the press of being biased on those issues. But I see your point. On this one issue.

But -- on a tangent, I admit -- let's not forget the pro-life crowd is known to use deception and outright lies to promote their cause. I'm sure we've all seen this e-mail, at least once:

quote:
Q1: If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?

If you said "yes," you just killed Beethoven.

Problem is, the story's not true. Beethoven was the third child; both his older siblings died as infants, but that was not unusual in the last half of the eighteenth century; there is no evidence that his mother had syphilis; and there is no evidence of any other children in his household having had any of the afflictions mentioned. See here .

Admittedly, this is not journalistic bias; but it's certainly bias, intentional at least at its outset and probably at many points in its nauseatingly frequent repetition, on the part of the pro-life movement.

Another aside -- when I said I had more to say, I meant that my position on abortion is certainly not the typical left-wing position. That's all.

Back to the point. More important, I still think your evidence doesn't point to a pervasive liberal bias as much as it points to the pitiful state of modern journalism. As a former journalist myself, I often shake my head in disgust after reading the newspaper -- and broadcast media is usually far worse. I think what you've pointed out is far more a result of journalists repeating something they've already heard or read in use, without bothering to think about the ramifications. That cuts both ways, liberal and conservative. To name just one example off the top of my head -- the WTO protests in Seattle a few years back. The overwhelming majority of the protesters were peaceful and cooperative, but you wouldn't have known that (and most still don't) from the press accounts. Examples from the Clinton/Gore administration abound, from the runway haircut to the "I invented the internet" and "Love Story" lies.

More often, the idiocy is neutral politically, but it affects people deeply nonetheless. A great example in this regard is coverage of Hurricane Katrina. For the first day after the storm, most of what you heard was that New Orleans had dodged the bullet. No one reported on the atomic-bomb-like devastation on the Mississippi and Southeast Louisiana Gulf Coasts, unprecedented in any previous hurricane, because there was no way to get the news out. (Indeed, the average American doesn't even realize that New Orleans is not on the Gulf Coast. But that's another story.) When the helicopter flyovers finally started showing the unbelievable destruction in those places, the cameras still focused primarily on New Orleans because the levee breaches had finally been discovered and that made more dramatic news. And for most of the past 18 months since the storm, almost all the stories have had New Orleans datelines and have been about New Orleans, even though New Orleans got the weak side of the storm and the destruction was far more jaw-dropping and stupefying in Mississippi and Southeast Louisiana. That's not to say New Orleans didn't get slammed -- both Snowiz and my sister who live there can attest to that fact. But look at pictures of New Orleans, and compare them to pictures of Waveland, Bay St. Louis, or Pass Christian, MS, or Buras, Pilottown, or Venice, LA, and you'll see what I mean. I read every Katrina story that runs in my local rag, and many that run on national services. I'm not exaggerating when I say that over 90% of the stories are about New Orleans. Again, I agree that New Orleans was hit hard when the levees broke. But did New Orleans get 90% of the damage and destruction? Not even close. The media's not being biased here -- they're just following the popcorn trail and not paying attention to anything that requires more effort and originality.

Admittedly, I have a bias here -- I grew up on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and still have a brother and a sister there, both of whom (particularly my brother) were affected immensely by the storm. But I also have the aforementioned sister in New Orleans, and several close high school friends there, and New Orleans for years has been the city I love to talk about and the city I mention first when I talk about how much I miss the South. This is about more than my bias, and it certainly isn't about media bias. It's about media laziness and ignorance.

From: Meridian ID | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grimwulf Stormspear
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 5157
posted      Profile for Grimwulf Stormspear   Email Grimwulf Stormspear   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
OK, Bombadil, but if the state of journalism is as bad as you say it is, what does that fact suggest? [] If journalists are frequently ignorant of the topics they cover, is it surprising that they fill in the narrative with their own beliefs? (That is how the mind works after all.) And since we know that a large majority of reporters are left of center, should we be surprised if the narrative they supply is left of center?

Again, I think most reporters try to be balanced & fair, but true neutrality is seldom really possible. [] As a result, I think the editorial pages are more likely to be balanced than the news pages. On the Op-Ed page, editors know they are dealing with opinion. But the subtle bias in news reports is more likely to go unnoticed by reporters & editors who mostly share that bias. I’m not even sure it can be avoided.

I’m not sure you can maintain that 100% of reporters are heroically, consistently able to find a neutral perspective on subjects that may not even have a neutral perspective, while at the same complaining that they are lazy, ignorant slobs. [] I don’t think you can tell both stories at the same time.

[Please mentally add all the usual disclaimers.] []

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Furthermore, it is my opinion that Obamacare must be repealed.

From: The central lake-lands of the Great Peninsula. | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor bombadil
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 1329

posted      Profile for bombadil   Author's Homepage   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I’m not sure you can maintain that 100% of reporters are heroically, consistently able to find a neutral perspective on subjects that may not even have a neutral perspective, while at the same complaining that they are lazy, ignorant slobs.
Well, since I have used neither the figure 100%, nor the phrase "lazy, ignorant slobs," I would agree with you.
From: Meridian ID | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grimwulf Stormspear
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 5157
posted      Profile for Grimwulf Stormspear   Email Grimwulf Stormspear   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
Literalist. []

Are saying that only 95% of reporters (including those guilty of “media laziness and ignorance,” to use your words) are able to consistently find a neutral perspective? []

From: The central lake-lands of the Great Peninsula. | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor Adulithien
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 2193

posted      Profile for Adulithien   Email Adulithien   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And since we know that a large majority of reporters are left of center, should we be surprised if the narrative they supply is left of center?
Who knows this? It's not as if even in very conservative areas all the liberal-minded people magically gravitate toward media work, assuming there are even enough liberals in said areas to fully staff such businesses. We can make an educated guess based on scientific polling that heavily "liberal" areas are common on the West & East coast, and in small islands of metro areas across the nation. This would imply that there are a lot more "conservative" areas than "liberal" ones. And considering that media outlets are distributed with little correlation to population (particularly in the case of newspapers), it seems a bit absurd to just assume that we all "know" the vast majority of reporters to be liberal.

Maybe this rings true only if we consider reporters on the global level, realizing that the vast majority of "developed" nations are far more liberal than ours is. However, as your posts show large tendency to be U.S.-centric, I would imagine that you had the U.S. in mind when you made the comment.

This also depends largely upon your definition of liberal. For instance, I feel that there are very few truly liberal people in the U.S. at all. Many Democrats are/have been quite centrist, and true liberalism ends up being labelled, marginalized and essentially shelved. Meaning that even supposedly "liberal" news sources are probably not giving voice to anarchists, marxists, etc. I doubt very seriously that such liberal groups have much representation in the staffs of news media outlets at all.

If you're using Democrat as interchangeable with liberal, then maybe I see your point, but I think most people in the U.S. have a fairly skewed definition of "liberal."

[ 04-05-2007, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Adulithien ]

From: Austin | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor Wandering Tuor
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 1685

posted      Profile for Wandering Tuor   Email Wandering Tuor   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
Grimwulf, if you want to analyze reporters' voting patterns and hazard guesses at their "beliefs", and then extrapolate that they must slant their reporting to the left, feel free. I believe that the mainstream media has an anti-liberal bias based on their actual reporting. I've given several examples of this, and could give a hundred more, but what's the point? Belief in liberal media bias is like belief in God – it persists without regard to (and perhaps because of) the absence of any evidence that it's real. And since you believe the reporting in the 2000 Presidential election was substantially pro-Gore – which is just bizarre – it's practically certain that you wouldn't accept any challenge to your core belief vis-à-vis the media, no matter how strongly supported and sourced.

Beyond that . . .
quote:
It's about media laziness and ignorance.
This is basically my viewpoint, with two additional, related points:

1. The Republicans have been in control of the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, and insiderism (basically what bombadil calls laziness) is 10 times more powerful an indicator than private political beliefs, if you really want to examine root causes; and

2. Especially over the past decade, the Republicans have learned to "work the refs" to get the media coverage they want – in part by complaining endlessly about liberal media bias, just as you are here.

The result: the media is cowed, timid and has become reflexively anti-liberal and anti-Democrat. Sorry, but "labeling" studies on abortion coverage from 1989 don't really change my mind on this point.

As for the two links on Alterman's alleged sins, they are almost comically paltry. I'll respond in more detail on that, because I've wanted to address the Instapundit Fallacy for a while now (this relates to the criticism in the Reason article that Alterman is wrong to call Bill O'Reilly a right-winger because O'Reilly is supposedly pro-choice). [] []

This discussion should really be moved to a separate thread, btw.

[ 04-05-2007, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Wandering Tuor ]

From: My place | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor bombadil
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 1329

posted      Profile for bombadil   Author's Homepage   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
Agreed, Tuor -- it'd be better discussed elsewhere. Maybe I'll do just that tomorrow -- I'm too tired tonight after parent-teacher conferences.

quote:
Are saying that only 95% of reporters (including those guilty of “media laziness and ignorance,” to use your words) are able to consistently find a neutral perspective?
I'd hesitate to quantify it without doing some serious research. I'm just saying what you call liberal bias in one isolated instance is what I call a symptom of a much more pervasive and serious problem. And it cuts both ways politically, as WT and I have pointed out.
From: Meridian ID | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grimwulf Stormspear
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 5157
posted      Profile for Grimwulf Stormspear   Email Grimwulf Stormspear   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
LOL. []

Wandering Tuor writes:

quote:
Grimwulf, if you want to analyze reporters' voting patterns and hazard guesses at their “beliefs,” and then extrapolate that they must slant their reporting to the left, feel free. I believe that the mainstream media has an anti-liberal bias based on their actual reporting. I’ve given several examples of this, and could give a hundred more, but what’s the point? Belief in liberal media bias is like belief in God — it persists without regard to (and perhaps because of) the absence of any evidence that it’s real. And since you believe the reporting in the 2000 Presidential election was substantially pro-Gore — which is just bizarre — it’s practically certain that you wouldn’t accept any challenge to your core belief vis-à-vis the media, no matter how strongly supported and sourced.
LOL. []

Am I the only one who sees the humor is his post? [] []

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Furthermore, it is my opinion that Obamacare must be repealed.

From: The central lake-lands of the Great Peninsula. | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roll of Honor Adulithien
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 2193

posted      Profile for Adulithien   Email Adulithien   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
Apparently. []

I'm sure I find it to be humorous for much different reasons than you.

From: Austin | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grimwulf Stormspear
Guard of the Citadel
Citizen # 5157
posted      Profile for Grimwulf Stormspear   Email Grimwulf Stormspear   New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post 
WT, if you want to count the number of GOP aminstations over the last few years and then extrapolate that they must slant their reporting to the right, feel free. [] I believe that the mainstream media has an anti-conservative bias based on their actual reporting. I’ve given several examples of this, and could give a hundred more, but what’s the point? [] Evidence of liberal media bias is almost like evidence of God — it is pervasive, but people manage to ignore it anyway. [] And since you believe the reporting in the 2000 Presidential election was substantially anti-Gore — which is just bizarre — it’s practically certain that you wouldn’t accept any challenge to your core belief vis-à-vis the media, no matter how strongly supported and sourced.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Furthermore, it is my opinion that Obamacare must be repealed.

From: The central lake-lands of the Great Peninsula. | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Minas Tirith Forums » The Prancing Pony Archive » Hillary Clinton to run for Prez (Page 23)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2  3  ...  20  21  22  23  24 
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic       The Red Arrow!       Admin Options: Make Topic Sticky   Close Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic

About  ~ • ~  Contact  ~ • ~  Minas Tirith  ~ • ~  F. A. Q.  ~ • ~  Help

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.6.1