And people wonder why leftists are equated with traitors...

[MKSheppard]

Besides, we already wanted the SOB dead for the USS Cole and
the African Embassy bombings before 9/11...

[Darth Wong]

Funny ... that's exactly what Osama Bin Laden uses as his justification for terrorizing and killing people. Two sides of the same coin ...

Wow, so you think that killing Osama Bin Laden back in 2000, when he had
plans of the WTC in his hands, and was planning the hijacking of the jets
is the same as detonating a shrapnel filled bomb in a crowded shopping mall?

No, but wiping out innocent women and children for the supposedly impending actions of their husbands and fathers is. By arguing that it would actually be acceptable to indiscriminately kill populations in Middle East countries with WMD in order to "get them before they get us", you have proposed exactly that.

And keep your bullshit to yourself; it doesn't change the fact that your argument is a strawman.

[Alyrium Denryle]

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 1&start=50

And that he is a sick fuck for being in favor of nuking millions...

[Perinquus]

Perinquus makes it seem like the left is the only side with total dolts populating it. So I'll be happy to step in and remind everyone that any point of view, no matter how correct, is held by a complete, utter fucking moron, somewhere out there.

Just because you are inferring that, does not mean for an instant that I am suggesting, or even implying it.

No, the implication that you actually made was that leftists are all traitors.

Mike, you of all people are just about teh last one I should think I would have to point this sort of thing out to, but since you obviously missed it, I'll say it again. Only bigger this time:

And I don't mean ALL leftist, by any stretch of the imagination. [/quote]

Jesus H. Motherfucking Christ on a popsickle stick! If I can make that qualification with the very first fucking sentence I post, and still have people accuse me of this shit...

And to top it off, Durran Korr again pointed out that I said it.

When you make an error about what someone said, that's one thing. When you repeat the error after it has been corrected, it stops being a mistake and becomes a lie. You rightly condemn others for using such tactics Mike. It makes you look bad to use them yourself.

[Darth Wong]

You rightly condemn others for using such tactics Mike. It makes you look bad to use them yourself.

As long as you're going to play a hostile smart-ass with your big red bold-face screaming and accusations of dishonesty, I will return the favour in a more direct fashion and point out that if you're too fucking stupid to recognize that I said "implication" rather than "unqualified statement", you should give your head a shake.

You know perfectly well that you deliberately made the threat title in such a manner as to produce that implication, figuring that you could put a disclaimer in the post to act as though it was an accident.

EDIT: it should also be noted that saying "but I don't mean ALL leftists" is like saying "and people wonder why we think blacks are stupid" and then saying "but I don't mean ALL blacks"; it is only marginally less offensive. Suppose I made a thread with the title "and people wonder why we think all rightists are fascists" and then added a disclaimer in the opening post: "but I don't mean ALL right-wingers", would you be happy about that? Nothing to complain about? No nasty implications?

[Stormbringer]

Actually he's point out quite rightly that comments like that one give conservatives the impression that every leftist is traitor. It's an appalling statement and I don't think it's indicative of most liberals. But when people like that are part of the public face of the debate it's all to easy for the conservative wacko propogandists.

Of course, Shep's comment would be the conservative wacko response.

[Perinquus]

As long as you're going to play a hostile smart-ass with your big red bold-face screaming and accusations of dishonesty, I will return the favour in a more direct fashion and point out that if you're too fucking stupid to recognize that I said "implication" rather than "unqualified statement", you should give your head a shake.

If such a thing can be inferred from the title of the thread, than the explicit statement disavowing any intention to give people such an impression certainly ought to eliminate the matter from consideration. I cannot do more than state my assertions in plain language. That I have I have done and you still threw back a misrepresentation of my position. You yourself have said on many occasions, as I recall that explicit, statements trump vague implications. Or do you only hold that to be true when it is convenient for you?

You know perfectly well that you deliberately made the threat title in such a manner as to produce that implication, figuring that you could put a disclaimer in the post to act as though it was an accident.

No, I know I put that title in because there is a limit to the number of characters I can use, so I made the title one that would draw attention. And I put the qualifying statement in first, in order to prevent people from getting the wrong idea before they've even read the substance of the post. Don't presume you can know with certainty what I am thinking.

EDIT: it should also be noted that saying "but I don't mean ALL leftists" is like saying "and people wonder why we think blacks are stupid" and then saying "but I don't mean ALL blacks"; it is only marginally less offensive. Suppose I made a thread with the title "and people wonder why we think all rightists are fascists" and then added a disclaimer in the opening post: "but I don't mean ALL right-wingers", would you be happy about that? Nothing to complain about? No nasty implications?

Actually, I wouldn't mind much at all. Since there are incontrovertibly rightists who are fascists, as well as many more who are not, I would not consider that statement, by itself to be offensive or inflammatory. Even the possible inference I might draw from your choice of words that you may even consider most rightists to be fascists would not offend me, though I would certianly consider it to be inaccurate and might be inclined to argue the point.

However, I note you put the word all in your hypothetical thread title, while I, on the other hand, did not. So you would be contradicting yourself. I am not. You therefore have no excuse not to take my plainly worded statements at face value.

[Darth Wong]

If such a thing can be inferred from the title of the thread, than the explicit statement disavowing any intention to give people such an impression certainly ought to eliminate the matter from consideration. I cannot do more than state my assertions in plain language. That I have I have done and you still threw back a misrepresentation of my position. You yourself have said on many occasions, as I recall that explicit, statements trump vague implications. Or do you only hold that to be true when it is convenient for you?

So if you see someone running around saying "and people wonder why we think atheists are evil" and then says "but I don't mean ALL atheists", you would have no problem whatsoever with that?

No, I know I put that title in because there is a limit to the number of characters I can use, so I made the title one that would draw attention.

... draw attention BY CREATING A WHOLLY UNREASONABLE AND UNJUSTIFIED IMPLICATION, which is precisely what I said. You made the thread title in order to create an implication.

Actually, I wouldn't mind much at all. Since there are incontrovertibly rightists who are fascists, as well as many more who are not, I would not consider that statement, by itself to be offensive or inflammatory. Even the possible inference I might draw from your choice of words that you may even consider most rightists to be fascists would not offend me, though I would certianly consider it to be inaccurate and might be inclined to argue the point.

Funny, then, that when Enlightenment routinely said that Muslims are worthless, or that right-wingers are fascists, he was descended upon by what seemed like a horde of locusts.

However, I note you put the word all in your hypothetical thread title, while I, on the other hand, did not. So you would be contradicting yourself. I am not. You therefore have no excuse not to take my plainly worded statements at face value.

Fine, the word "all" changes everything, right? So if someone comes onto the board, says "and people wonder why we think atheists are evil", adds a disclaimer in the post, and then provides an example of ONE atheist who is immoral, you would have no problem whatsoever with his conduct? Or if someone says "people wonder why we think blacks are stupid" and then provides one example of a stupid black guy with a disclaimer that it's not an absolute rule, you would have no problem? Even with the disclaimer, the implication remains that most blacks are stupid, or most atheists are evil, or (in the case of your post) that most leftists are traitors.

[Perinquus]

So if you see someone running around saying "and people wonder why we think atheists are evil" and then says "but I don't mean ALL atheists", you would have no problem whatsoever with that?

It would depend upon the context in which that statement was made. Right now, whether you agree with them or not, there are a number of people out there, many of them extremists I grant you, but some who are not, who are accusing some of those on the left of engaging in basically traitorous behavior. And they are accusing them because of things that certain leftists have said or done. To the best of my knowledge, there are not many people right now accusing atheists of being evil. This thread was started in order to draw people's attention to one particularly egregious example of such behavior, and the nature of this statement all by itself helps explain why some people get that impression about some of these leftists.

If there were a significant number of atheist running around out there right now saying and doing outrageous things that actually helped to create the impression that atheists are evil, I doubt that such a statement would offend me because I would undoubtdly view it in light of that fact. There isn't a significant or visible group of atheists doing any such thing right now. But there are significant numbers of very strident and vocal leftists out there who are saying things like this, and like "We support our troops when they shoot their officers", and other such things. They may be a minority, but they are a very vocal and visible minority, and like it or not, they cause others on the left to be perceived, rightly or wrongly, in the same light they are. Guilt by association might not be fair, but it's human nature, and you know it.

... draw attention BY CREATING A WHOLLY UNREASONABLE AND UNJUSTIFIED IMPLICATION, which is precisely what I said. You made the thread title in order to create an implication.

You are confusing effect with intent. Looking at it now, I can see how one would get that impression; I'll grant you that. And I was not completely unaware of it at the time, which is why I made my very first post a qualification -- to remove all doubt in the event that someone should still misinterpret a necessarily brief thread title. But as I have said, it is not my intention to imply that I think all leftists are traitors, nor was it ever. If I am guilty of anything, it is choosing my words with a bit less care than I should have. Silly me, I just assumed people wouldn't automatically attribute bad motives to me, and might actually consider that I meant what I said.

Funny, then, that when Enlightenment routinely said that Muslims are worthless, or that right-wingers are fascists, he was descended upon by what seemed like a horde of locusts.

You didn't find me among them did you? In fact, I did not read those particular threads (or if I did, I don't remember them), and I am not aware of the context of those statements of his. So I don't know whether he was being deliberately provocative, whether he genuinely holds those rather obnoxious views, or whether he has some sort of explanation for having said those things. But from what you have said above, it does not make it sound like he attempted to qualify that statement in any way, and if he or anyone else were to make a blanket statement that absolutely all X were Y, I would disagree with that as I would with any hasty generalization, and I would regard that viewpoint with the contempt it deserves. Maybe I didn't do as good a job of it as I intended but I have at least attempted not to tar everyone in a particular group with the same brush.

Fine, the word "all" changes everything, right? So if someone comes onto the board, says "and people wonder why we think atheists are evil", adds a disclaimer in the post, and then provides an example of ONE atheist who is immoral, you would have no problem whatsoever with his conduct?

See above.

Or if someone says "people wonder why we think blacks are stupid" and then provides one example of a stupid black guy with a disclaimer that it's not an absolute rule, you would have no problem? Even with the disclaimer, the implication remains that most blacks are stupid, or most atheists are evil, or (in the case of your post) that most leftists are traitors.

First off, I did not even mean to imply that I think most leftists are traitors. But again, I can see how one might get that impression, and I will concede that's my fault. My only excuse is that the need to keep the title of the thread short led me to make it as brief as I could, when it would have been better to have made it a little more clear. But once again, that is not my intention to give that impression, so let me make that plain.

And with reference to your use of blacks as a parallel, I don't think that holds up very well. First off, your political ideology is something you have some degree of control over. You arrive at your political outlook through a lot of voluntary and conscious decisions on your part. The views you hold are largely a matter of your own choice. Your race, on the other hand, is something over which you have absolutely no control whatsoever. To fault a group of people for things they choose to believe is one thing, to fault them for something they haven't a shred of control over is something else again. One is justifiable; the other isn't. This is why race is such a hot button these days - outrage over perceived injustices commited against people simply because they belong to a certain race, which they had no control over, and so cannot be blamed for. And also the fact that it is well known that the idea of one race being innately less intelligent than another is something without a shred of scientific evidence to back it up. Therefore the statement that "blacks are stupid" would be offensive and ignorant for that reason as well.

Moreover, you could make a case that people are drawn to particular ideologies because they are stupid, or traitorous, or more inclined to think emotionally rather than logically, or more inclined to engage in self-righteous moral preening, or more arrogant, etc. etc. (whether or not it is a good case, or whether or not you agree with that is a whole other issue). But you cannot make a case that people are drawn to be blacks because they are stupid.

[Iceberg]

And what, Perinquus, about the right-winger minority who wants to establish a global American Empire and glass any country that doesn't knuckle under - people like Dick Cheney's "Project for a New American Century?" We haven't heard very much about them, and when we do, it tends to be buried in tiny columns and articles in the middle pages of newspapers, where the editors bury the news they don't want you to read.

Why? Because media companies are owned by conservatives who have a vested interest in marginalizing the opposition as much as possible. Small businesses tend to be liberal or pro-regulation moderate (because aggressive enforcement of government regulations benefits them by hindering the ability of the big boys to muscle in on their markets), while big businesses tend to be lasseiz-faire conservative (because an unregulated business environment benefits them).

Sorry, conservatives, the era of "media liberals" is way past over. It's pretty obvious to an unbiased (or only slightly biased) observer that the media these days and for several years has been in the Republican Party's pocket. Why do you think it is that we have barely if ever heard anything about GWB's missteps in office (and there have been plenty, from things as silly as the pretzel incident to as serious as ignoring and fabricating intelligence), while Clinton was under the microscope every second of his eight years?

[Perinquus]

And what, Perinquus, about the right-winger minority who wants to establish a global American Empire and glass any country that doesn't knuckle under - people like Dick Cheney's "Project for a New American Century?" We haven't heard very much about them, and when we do, it tends to be buried in tiny columns and articles in the middle pages of newspapers, where the editors bury the news they don't want you to read.

Nice strawman. PNAC advocates trying to maintain and/or expand the United States' military lead over rival nations and its current economic dominance. When have superpowers ever behaved otherwise in any era? From this you conclude somehow that Cheney's got his finger poised on the button, ready to "glass any country that doesn't knuckle under". Gimme a break.

Why? Because media companies are owned by conservatives who have a vested interest in marginalizing the opposition as much as possible. Small businesses tend to be liberal or pro-regulation moderate (because aggressive enforcement of government regulations benefits them by hindering the ability of the big boys to muscle in on their markets), while big businesses tend to be lasseiz-faire conservative (because an unregulated business environment benefits them).

This is, of course, why the major newspapers like the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, etc. are constantly endorsing Democratic candidates - because they must toe the Republican party line.

Sorry, conservatives, the era of "media liberals" is way past over. It's pretty obvious to an unbiased (or only slightly biased) observer that the media these days and for several years has been in the Republican Party's pocket. Why do you think it is that we have barely if ever heard anything about GWB's missteps in office (and there have been plenty, from things as silly as the pretzel incident to as serious as ignoring and fabricating intelligence), while Clinton was under the microscope every second of his eight years?

Bullshit. According to Dick Morris, who was Clinton's political advisor, The New York Times virtually ignored Bill Clinton's Arkansas scandals in exchange for an exclusive interview with the president during the 1996 election campaign. Morris said Joseph Lelyveld, then managing editor, came to him for help after failing for many months to land an exclusive interview with President Clinton. When Morris spoke of Clinton's sensitivity to criticism from the Times, Lelyveld then assured him with sotto voice: "You know, we don't think that the public cares about what happened back in Arkansas." And according to Morris, "in the two months before Election Day '96, the Times ran no stories on its front page about Paula Jones, the Rose Law Firm, Hillary's billing records and only lightly covered Whitewater."

And Morris goes on:

Later, he recalls, "I fed the reporter's questions to Clinton, and we worked out answers. . . answers to hit the ball out of the park."
"What if he asks about Whitewater?" Clinton asked.
"He won't," Morris assured. "He's told me exactly what he's going to ask."
Sure enough, on May 19, 1996, The New York Times Magazine published a fawning cover story headlined, "Facets of Clinton."
The White House was delighted, Morris says, especially with descriptions of Clinton as "breathtakingly bright" and as "one of the biggest, most talented, articulate, intelligent, open, colorful characters ever to inhabit the Oval Office."

By contrast, we have CBS News recently accusing Bush of presing forward with the war, even though he knew the intelligence about buying uranium from Africa was false:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/ ... 0449.shtml

Bush said:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa...

This statement in the SOTU address was based on a British Intel report, which the British still stand by, by the way, and the CIA still authorized the statement's inclusion. How do you get "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False" out of that? That's what CBS asserts - that Bush knowingly and deliberately misled the American people. Yet all Bush did in the SOTU address was to relate that the British were reporting that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from Africa, and that statement is factually accurate - the British were (and still are) reporting that. Deliberately misleading articles like this one are a perfect example of why conservatives will tell you that the media tilts to the left.

CBS was not alone either. CNN's Aaron Brown gave network coverage to the same story which they got from an internet source -- a source that retracted it before Brown went on the air.

And what about things other reporters have to say about President Bush? Here are some choice quotes from White House reporter Helen Thomas:

I think the chipping away of our civil liberties is unprecedented. Even in World War II, I never saw anything like that in Washington or any of the wars.

Guess she never heard about Manzanar, or any of the other camps where we threw the Japanese Americans. Here's more Helen Thomas:

It's bombs away for Iraq and on our civil liberties if Bush and his cronies get their way.

-------------------------------------------------

The imperial presidency has arrived. On the domestic front President Bush has found that in many ways he can govern by executive order. In foreign affairs he has the nerve to tell other people that they should get rid of their current leaders.

How's that for unbiased reporting?

This idea that Clinton got raked over the coals enlessly while Bush is getting a free ride from the media is just ridiculous.

But media bias doesn't stop with the president.

Take a look at how Peter Jennings, news anchor for one of the "Big Three", characterized the American people electing a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives on November 14th, 1994

Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming....Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.

So according to Mr. Jennings, the only thing that would allow the Republicans to get a majority is if the American people had a collective temper tantrum! Noooooooo... That's not biased toward the left in any way. Not at all.

Recently, Jennings said:

There are a number of militant conservatives or activist conservatives or whatever you want to call them, who decided that our coverage was liberal and Fox's was accurate." Talking to the Bee reporter at a San Francisco bar, Jennings expressed befuddlement: "I don't quite understand it, because I don't see it in the coverage.

Amazing! He can say things like that quote I provided above, and yet he just can't understand why on earth the American people would ever preceive his network's news coverage as biased.

What about Dan Rather? Here's an interesting quote from him:

Timing is everything. Al Gore must stand and deliver here tonight as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. And now Gore must do so against the backdrop of a potentially damaging, carefully orchestrated story leak about President Clinton. The story is that Republican-backed special prosecutor Robert Ray, Ken Starr's successor, has a new grand jury looking into possible criminal charges against the president growing out of Mr. Clinton's sex life.

The day before Al Gore's speech to the 2000 Democratic National Convention, the Associated Press printed an anonymously sourced story which shifted media attention from Gore back to one of the Clinton scandals. Dan Rather immediately blamed the "Republican-backed" Special Prosecutor Robert Ray and suggested the whole affair was a Republican plot to sabotage Gore's big day. As it turned out, the leak's source was a Carter-appointed judge who had inadvertently revealed the information. Rather never apologized or issued a correction.

Well so much for politics, what about other issues? Are reporters giving the news a liberal slant there?

Well, we have such things as the 29 May, 2003 statement from John Carroll, the Editor and Executive Vice President of the LA Times, which refers to a May 22, story the Times published on its front-page, by reporter Scott Hood in Houston headlined, “Texas OKs Disputed Abortion Legislation.”

Carroll chastised his staff:

The apparent bias of the writer and/or the desk reveals itself in the third paragraph, which characterizes such bills in Texas and elsewhere as requiring 'so-called counseling of patients.' I don't think people on the anti-abortion side would consider it 'so-called,' a phrase that is loaded with derision.

Carroll correctly identified this as an LA Times reporter pushing a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times. It should have been caught before the story ran, and wasn't.

What about gun control? No unbiased observer can help but conclude the media slants the stories one way. For example: In an examination of New York Times stories from 2001, John Lott found 104 articles related to the use of guns by criminals, totaling 50,745 words. By contrast, the national "newspaper of record" wrote 163 words about the defensive use of a gun by a citizen in only one story. The results were similar for USA Today, which reported 5,660 words on criminal use of guns but no reporting on the use of guns to stop crimes, and the Washington Post, which devoted 46,884 words to the criminal use of firearms and 953 words to their defensive use by law-abiding citizens. Doesn't sound much like they're telling both sides of that story, does it?

But you say media is fiscally conservative because they are controlled by big corporations. Well, let's take a look at how they report the issue of tax cuts - something conservatives overwhelmingly favor.

“The top five percent of taxpayers would get more than half of the benefits from the tax cut,” ABC's Linda Douglass complained on World News Tonight back on Thursay, May 22nd, as an on-screen graphic screamed, “TAX CUT WINNERS: Top 5% taxpayers get more than half of benefits.” But in suggesting some kind of unfair skew toward the wealthy, Douglass didn't bother to inform viewers that the top five percent of income earners also pay more than half of the income taxes collected -- 56 percent to be exact. So the tax cut distribution matches who pays the taxes. Sounds perfectly fair to all but liberals and journalists.

And there's CBS news reporter Eric Engberg on 8 February, 1996 doing a David Letterman-style top ten list about presidential candidate Steve Forbes, in which he used the word "wacky" to describe Forbes' flat tax plan ("Forbes number one wackiest falt tax promise is..."). The entire tone of the piece was thoroughly derisive, and economists were cherry picked who would support the assertion that the flat tax was a bad idea, while prominent economists who support the flat tax (and there are several) were conspicuous by their absence. No, not a hint of bias there.

I could go on, and on, and on with numerous examples of outrageous leftward media bias, but I've made this post long enough already, especially for something that wasn't really the original topic to begin with.

Sorry, the era of "media liberals" is anything but way past over.

[Joe]

And what, Perinquus, about the right-winger minority who wants to establish a global American Empire and glass any country that doesn't knuckle under - people like Dick Cheney's "Project for a New American Century?" We haven't heard very much about them, and when we do, it tends to be buried in tiny columns and articles in the middle pages of newspapers, where the editors bury the news they don't want you to read.

Why should they report on something that really isn't of concern? Extremists aside, a gigantic American Empire is the last direction our current foreign policy is headed; if this is the case we should be seeing increased deployment, not the disengagement we are seeing now. Granted, it may take a war or two to make disengagement an option in some places (dealing with Iraq to withdraw from Saudi Arabia, for example), but disengagement is the trend regardless. Empire is not the aim of Bush's foreign policy, and despite caterwauling from both the Buchananite right and the left, it never was (there was fear of American completely disengaging from the rest of the world before 9/11) and it still isn't.

Why? Because media companies are owned by conservatives who have a vested interest in marginalizing the opposition as much as possible. Small businesses tend to be liberal or pro-regulation moderate (because aggressive enforcement of government regulations benefits them by hindering the ability of the big boys to muscle in on their markets), while big businesses tend to be lasseiz-faire conservative (because an unregulated business environment benefits them).

Then you had better inform the American media that they had better start supporting Bush's tax cuts, from which they will benefit greatly, because with the exception of Fox News, the media sure as hell doesn't support them now.

You are a very naive boy with poor knowledge of American history if you honestly believe that American corporations tend to advocate laissez-faire capitalism. On the contrary, if you look at the history, you'll find that businesses, starting after the Civil War, could consistently be counted on to support deviations from laissez-faire when it supported their interests; government-granted monopolies, protective tariffs (the ultimate restraint of trade), and the subsidies that we refer to as "corporate welfare" are just a few examples of these. Big business, like all of us, wants the government on its side, passing legislation to protect its interests. Small businesses are no different in this regard.

Sorry, conservatives, the era of "media liberals" is way past over. It's pretty obvious to an unbiased (or only slightly biased) observer that the media these days and for several years has been in the Republican Party's pocket. Why do you think it is that we have barely if ever heard anything about GWB's missteps in office (and there have been plenty, from things as silly as the pretzel incident to as serious as ignoring and fabricating intelligence), while Clinton was under the microscope every second of his eight years?

You're being willfully ignorant now. Print has always been and still is a liberal Empire, and with the exception of some of the cable news networks there has been quite a bit of criticism leveled concerning the domestic policy of the Bush administration (and the handling of the recent big business scandals in particular) with little positive analysis. Perhaps the media hasn't been as tough on the Bush administration with regards to the war as it could be, but there is absolutely no way this can be argued about domestic policy. The American media has never been on the side of the Republican party on domestic issues for the last ten years; it was a cheerleader for Bill Clinton's national health plan, it was just as tough on Newt Gingrich as it was on Clinton, and poor reporting in the media is at least partially responsible for the myth that the Clinton impeachment hearings were really just about sex, when in reality they were about perjury and obstruction of justice.

I should also add that the media (again, with the exception of Fox News) is just about as doom and gloom as it gets right now on the situation in Iraq.

[Iceberg]

I was watching Fox News softballing Condoleezza Rice this afternoon in utter disgust. She refused to give a straight answer to a single question, and the interviewer never bothered to press her further on any of the questions.

"Fair and balanced" my ass.

[Stormbringer]

I was watching Fox News softballing Condoleezza Rice this afternoon in utter disgust. She refused to give a straight answer to a single question, and the interviewer never bothered to press her further on any of the questions.

"Fair and balanced" my ass.

Wow, Fox News is conservative. Who the fuck saw that coming?

[Iceberg]

I was watching Fox News softballing Condoleezza Rice this afternoon in utter disgust. She refused to give a straight answer to a single question, and the interviewer never bothered to press her further on any of the questions.

"Fair and balanced" my ass.

Wow, Fox News is conservative. Who the fuck saw that coming?

*whack*

It's not "conservative." It's "bad journalism." Christ, I could have given a better interview, and I'm a fucking computer science major.

[Stormbringer]

*whack*

It's not "conservative." It's "bad journalism." Christ, I could have given a better interview, and I'm a fucking computer science major.

Well, duh.

It's not exactly a suprise that a conservative network soft balled a conservative interviewee. CNN's done the same thing with liberal interviewees numerous times. It's all a matter of persuasion/bias.

[LordShaithis]

Question: If someone posted a thread titled "They wonder why Christians are associated with stupidity!" but made sure to clarify in the first sentence of the post that they don't mean all Christians, only fundie dolts, would anyone really care?

[Hamel]

Question: If someone posted a thread titled "They wonder why Christians are associated with stupidity!" but made sure to clarify in the first sentence of the post that they don't mean all Christians, only fundie dolts, would anyone really care?

Yeah

Stravo wouldn't take kindly to that