Conservative?Liberal?Moderate?

[gordontravels]

How many people have to tell you that that statement was made sarcastically before you listen to them? To date three separate people have pointed this fact out, including the original poster, yet you to continue to ignore the fact. Seems rather odd to me.

I don't really care how many people tell me a statement is sarcastic when the individual uses it to make his point without denoting sarcasm. Enjoy someone that uses the word "stupid" to paint anyone that votes a certain way, even when they are the majority? No. The use of the label "stupid" is beyond even the courtesy of debate. It is a weak arguement and weakens the credibility of the user. It is the use of insult and then after the fact the user and his supporters cry "sarcasm". I don't think it odd at all to have an opinion of the term or the user. You want to stick up for the sarcaster? Be my guest, just don't include me.

I don't read anyone's profile, only their posts to threads I am interested in or maybe some of their posts elsewhere to get an idea of their direction or intent; content and meaning. I don't look at 3 elephants and think that individual is anything other than the words they use. Words mean something. You will find a sword duel at the end of each post I make but I prefer pistols.

QUOTE from RightatNYU:

Are you still harping on the fact that I used the NYT and 1 year as an example? Aside from the fact that I also searched all papers, the reason I used 1 year for the NYT is simple: You can only find up to a maximum of 1000 results, and that was the longest I could search for inside those parameters. Happy? END QUOTE

I ran a search of the NYT's. They allow you to go back to 1996. My searches came up with the results of 4800+ and 4600+ respectively. You say they only let you have 1000 results? Ok. Your 1000 should give you a good average just as my 4800 did. Guess you are looking at the NYT and not the New York Times. Please don't complain about my numbers as long as you are out in left field (sarcasm). :duel

 

[RightinNYC]

This thread went from interesting, to irritating, and now it's trending toward hilarious...

I don't really care how many people tell me a statement is sarcastic when the individual uses it to make his point without denoting sarcasm. Enjoy someone that uses the word "stupid" to paint anyone that votes a certain way, even when they are the majority? No. The use of the label "stupid" is beyond even the courtesy of debate. It is a weak arguement and weakens the credibility of the user.

It's a weak argument? Really? Perhaps THAT WAS THE POINT. The whole point of that little post was to poke fun at some people on the left who make broad, foolish statements against those on the right. I was alluding to the fact that those on the right are generally smarter, but you're shooting me in the foot here...

It is the use of insult and then after the fact the user and his supporters cry "sarcasm". I don't think it odd at all to have an opinion of the term or the user. You want to stick up for the sarcaster? Be my guest, just don't include me.

It's also your priviledge to create words apparently....Sarcaster? I kind of like it.

I don't read anyone's profile, only their posts to threads I am interested in or maybe some of their posts elsewhere to get an idea of their direction or intent; content and meaning. I don't look at 3 elephants and think that individual is anything other than the words they use.

I see, and from the 3 or 4 posts I made which drew question with one of your claims, you determined that I'm a liberal? Interesting.

Words mean something. You will find a sword duel at the end of each post I make but I prefer pistols.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I love it. What does that even mean?

QUOTE from RightatNYU:

Are you still harping on the fact that I used the NYT and 1 year as an example? Aside from the fact that I also searched all papers, the reason I used 1 year for the NYT is simple: You can only find up to a maximum of 1000 results, and that was the longest I could search for inside those parameters. Happy? END QUOTE

I ran a search of the NYT's. They allow you to go back to 1996. My searches came up with the results of 4800+ and 4600+ respectively. You say they only let you have 1000 results? Ok. Your 1000 should give you a good average just as my 4800 did. Guess you are looking at the NYT and not the New York Times. Please don't complain about my numbers as long as you are out in left field (sarcasm).

:duel

What on earth are you talking about? New York Times as opposed to NYT's? Where are you doing this search, the Times Website?

 

[Pacridge]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I love it. What does that even mean?

Maybe it means- word's mean something, therefore I'll post this image so you'll get my meaning?

What on earth are you talking about? New York Times as opposed to NYT's? Where are you doing this search, the Times Website?

If you don't understand his posts, don't feel lonely I find can only decode about 50% of most of his stuff.

 

[gordontravels]

This thread went from interesting, to irritating, and now it's trending toward hilarious...

It's a weak argument? Really? Perhaps THAT WAS THE POINT. The whole point of that little post was to poke fun at some people on the left who make broad, foolish statements against those on the right. I was alluding to the fact that those on the right are generally smarter, but you're shooting me in the foot here...

It's also your priviledge to create words apparently....Sarcaster? I kind of like it.

I see, and from the 3 or 4 posts I made which drew question with one of your claims, you determined that I'm a liberal? Interesting.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I love it. What does that even mean?

What on earth are you talking about? New York Times as opposed to NYT's? Where are you doing this search, the Times Website?

Maybe joining PAC would be of help if you can't understand what is plain language in my posts. Example? You ask where I do my search of the Times? You can read as in previous posts, can't you? Yes, I sometimes will make up a word to express myself but I believe the word is straight forward if you want to know my meaning.

You may paint me as conservative and most of my leaning is definitely in that direction and produces that support. However, what do you think those from the left think as you "poke fun" by refering to anyone as "stupid". You claim conservatism and the lack of that that may be interpreted as insult in a post is what I think sets many conservatives apart from liberals or even liberals that call themselves progressives.

PAC is kind to admit he doesn't understand half of what I say so I can write only half of a reply to his posts and save both he and I time. As to the comment of pistols over swords, what is it you don't understand or do you wish to stand on your lack of understanding my actual written words and leave it at that?

I like this forum, especially if it's a place where I will be ridiculed for my style or words. Acceptance has never been my suit. I retired to write at the age of 36 and haven't worked a day for anyone since. I will admit that sometimes I may not be understood completely but as long as I know that the meaning of my position lies within my words, I am satisfied.

If you want to know where I searched the NYT's just read what I have written in this thread. :duel

 

[Pacridge]

PAC is kind to admit he doesn't understand half of what I say so I can write only half of a reply to his posts and save both he and I time. As to the comment of pistols over swords, what is it you don't understand or do you wish to stand on your lack of understanding my actual written words and leave it at that?

If you're attempting to say that I made that statement in an effort to have you limit the number of words you use in your posts you're incorrect. I said that because just like the above paragraph of yours I have difficulty in understanding what exactly is your point.

 

[flip2]

Is it a moot point to figure out why many in the journalism industry, notably electronic (television) and periodical media, tend to be more left of center or liberal?

Isn't it clear as to why newsradio and blogs are more, not all, but more right of center or conservative?

This is healthy, in my opinion. As someone stated earlier, this is a free-market society, with a guaranteed free press. It's up to the individual to determine whether or not to be informed from one source or from many.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, and if you do read it, you are misinformed.

-- Mark Twain (1835-1910).

...& for the source...

http://www.youdontsay.org/Itsbeen.htm

 

[gordontravels]

If you're attempting to say that I made that statement in an effort to have you limit the number of words you use in your posts you're incorrect. I said that because just like the above paragraph of yours I have difficulty in understanding what exactly is your point.

Sorry PAC. I forgot to add (sarcasm). :duel

 

[gordontravels]

Is it a moot point to figure out why many in the journalism industry, notably electronic (television) and periodical media, tend to be more left of center or liberal?

Isn't it clear as to why newsradio and blogs are more, not all, but more right of center or conservative?

This is healthy, in my opinion. As someone stated earlier, this is a free-market society, with a guaranteed free press. It's up to the individual to determine whether or not to be informed from one source or from many.

Finally someone that really, really gets it. And "healthy" is the word. Those that won't go to a site because they know it is liberal or conservative and just rely on the news that sounds good to them are lost to humanity and irrelevant to any debate. Liberals have good ideas and intentions but not all of them come under the heading of good. Conservatives have good ideas and intentions but not all of them come under the heading of good.

If when a liberal mind hears the word "conservative" or vice versa and then that individual turns his mind off, there is the true waste of humanity and reading his/her words becomes nothing but frustration, not debate. When a Democrat or Republican think their party is the only answer they forget that they will sit with members of the other party and need to be ready for that. It's those who think "only my party" that are truly irrelevant to those who are willing to sit at the table and get the work done. True, some of them need to do the work of getting someone elected but those elected have a job to do. :duel

 

[shuamort]

Finally someone that really, really gets it. And "healthy" is the word. Those that won't go to a site because they know it is liberal or conservative and just rely on the news that sounds good to them are lost to humanity and irrelevant to any debate. Liberals have good ideas and intentions but not all of them come under the heading of good. Conservatives have good ideas and intentions but not all of them come under the heading of good.

If when a liberal mind hears the word "conservative" or vice versa and then that individual turns his mind off, there is the true waste of humanity and reading his/her words becomes nothing but frustration, not debate. When a Democrat or Republican think their party is the only answer they forget that they will sit with members of the other party and need to be ready for that. It's those who think "only my party" that are truly irrelevant to those who are willing to sit at the table and get the work done. True, some of them need to do the work of getting someone elected but those elected have a job to do. :duel

Well said! :applaud

 

[RightinNYC]

You may paint me as conservative and most of my leaning is definitely in that direction and produces that support. However, what do you think those from the left think as you "poke fun" by refering to anyone as "stupid". You claim conservatism and the lack of that that may be interpreted as insult in a post is what I think sets many conservatives apart from liberals or even liberals that call themselves progressives.

I'm not trying to paint you as anything. At this point, I've given up on trying to figure out where you stand. And I would hope that anyone, liberal or conservative, would have been smart enough to understand the jest in which my original post was made.

PAC is kind to admit he doesn't understand half of what I say so I can write only half of a reply to his posts and save both he and I time. As to the comment of pistols over swords, what is it you don't understand or do you wish to stand on your lack of understanding my actual written words and leave it at that?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say yes?

I like this forum, especially if it's a place where I will be ridiculed for my style or words. Acceptance has never been my suit. I retired to write at the age of 36 and haven't worked a day for anyone since.

Best of luck with that.

 

[gordontravels]

I'm not trying to paint you as anything. At this point, I've given up on trying to figure out where you stand. And I would hope that anyone, liberal or conservative, would have been smart enough to understand the jest in which my original post was made.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say yes?

Best of luck with that.

Your first comment still says if you poke fun or sarcasm you expect all to take note. I know little about you and so read your words. Have I been told you were sarcasting? (my word) Of course and so, don't let that breath out, I say...... ok.

Second comment...... good guess.

Third? I'm on page 296 of a very good ghost novel (President Clinton even makes an appearance); and I think I have a good story. I just need to keep up what seems to be some better than average writing. But, I'm not halfway through as yet. And, I do appreciate your sincere wishes for Best of Luck. That wasn't sarcasm was it? :duel

 

[RightinNYC]

Your first comment still says if you poke fun or sarcasm you expect all to take note. I know little about you and so read your words. Have I been told you were sarcasting? (my word) Of course and so, don't let that breath out, I say...... ok.

Second comment...... good guess.

Third? I'm on page 296 of a very good ghost novel (President Clinton even makes an appearance); and I think I have a good story. I just need to keep up what seems to be some better than average writing. But, I'm not halfway through as yet. And, I do appreciate your sincere wishes for Best of Luck. That wasn't sarcasm was it? :duel

I wish you nothing but the best of luck in your writing. Honestly.

 

[gordontravels]

I wish you nothing but the best of luck in your writing. Honestly.

Thanks because believe me, I need it.

 

[SixStringHero]

I'm an independent, especially when it comes to party affiliations. In my opinion I believe that Republicans and Democrats are demagogue ideologies when certain belief structures are upheld above common sense. I consider myself middle of the road, or for all intents and purposes a MODERATE.

When it comes down to it I find that I have more in common with the Libertarians as far as social and civil liberties go. I also agree with republicans on many fiscal issues.

I watch Fox News, CNN, MS NBC and listen to Air America and NPR news. I think I'm fairly well rounded when it comes to the media information, but I have to admit there is definitely a liberal bias in the media. Hell, NPR which is tax payer funded admitted to having a liberal bias. Is this right? I don't think so. At least Fox News isn't funded that way.

I also have a problem with the ACLU who gets tax payer money in very duplicitous ways. If they have a problem with the Boy Scouts of America using the word GOD during prayer in a city park so they sue. If they win the case, then as such, the city has to pay the lawyer costs and court fees which amounts to a hefty fine which comes out of our pockets. I find it reprehensible to support an organization that supports NAMBLA of all things.

Anyways I went on a wild tangent there, but maybe it will open the doors for more discussion.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

You have found my fault, I must admit that for non-profit would not be worthy in a transitory society that uses money.

Luckily, the issue is not a matter in socialism because money would be abolished.

What about publicly funded news, like the BBC ??? I think that's probably the most ideal way to run a news company. The BBC seems to maintain it's integrity. What do you think?

 

[gordontravels]

What about publicly funded news, like the BBC ??? I think that's probably the most ideal way to run a news company. The BBC seems to maintain it's integrity. What do you think?

Publicly funded BBC News is hardly the complete definition. How about "Mandatorily Publicly Funded BBC News even if you don't want to fund it?" You are required to pay for your television in Britain. In the USA public television and radio are funded from our taxes and donations. I watch BBC News here in America and see plenty of bias. I watch Public Television here in America and see plenty of bias.

A Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken can be biased all they want because a Rush is funded by commercial purchases and Al is funded by hopeful investors and not much in the way of commercial interests who expect a return, not a gamble.

I don't subscribe to the Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, Green, Communist or any other political party. My state forces me to be an Independent when I registered Non-Partisan. I think my single vote is more powerful than all the political parties combined but since they have the political power, I am forced to be one of them either by choice or by default; my states default.

Let me register Non-Partisan so the politicians have to wonder about me instead of me wondering about them. :duel

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Let me register Non-Partisan so the politicians have to wonder about me instead of me wondering about them. :duel

That's a very good point.

I was recently doing some research on organizing protests, and google didn't produce very many good sources. But I found a great article on BBC's site explaining the pros and cons of organizing a protest. It also talked about potential problems that might arise, things to watch out for, etc. They also have some really hip music broadcasts (not that has a lot to do with protests), but it's things like this that give me faith in BBC. It shows that they are really tuned in to the people.

 

[gordontravels]

That's a very good point.

I was recently doing some research on organizing protests, and google didn't produce very many good sources. But I found a great article on BBC's site explaining the pros and cons of organizing a protest. It also talked about potential problems that might arise, things to watch out for, etc. They also have some really hip music broadcasts (not that has a lot to do with protests), but it's things like this that give me faith in BBC. It shows that they are really tuned in to the people.

Don't get me wrong because I think protest is a right anyone should be able to tap whether it is pro or con. The BBC is not a balanced organization and if you see them tuned in to the people you miss the people they tune out. This goes for ALL news organizations because there are no "news" organizations left in the world. What you get now is "newsopinionagenda" organizations.

A network like ABC or CBS will actually ignore some portions of a story because it doesn't fit their slant. A network like Fox News Channel will have a opinion/agenda while calling themselves "fair and balanced". There is not a news organization and, in particular the BBC, that is unbiased.

If you rely on one of two outlets for your news you miss what's really going on. It would be the same if you agreed with what Ms. Sheehan is doing and never paid attention to other mothers that have lost sons and support the war and President Bush. You know that there are outspoken parents completely on the other side from Cindy Sheehan but do you think the news media is showing you that? Bias is bias and it is the most prevalent part of news production in our media today.

If it's liberal, pay attention. If it's conservative, pay attention. To take one side or the other without knowing what your choices are is spelled "uninformed". :duel

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

This goes for ALL news organizations because there are no "news" organizations left in the world. What you get now is "newsopinionagenda" organizations. :duel

You make some great points. Although, just because we don't see true investigative journalism anymore, (thanks to Murdoch the Hitler of journalism) does not mean it's not out there. Rarely does true journalism surface because the mainstream media is controlled by a few omnipotent MNC's. They want to push the status-quo, the corporate friendly agenda and that's it.

For example, Charles Lewis (former 60 minutes producer, and author of "Buying of The President 2000") created the Center for Public Integrity so that he didn't have corporate lackey editors setting the agenda for him by giving x amount of time to investigate a 20 year unsolved mystery and then cutting out key pieces of the story. Lewis, considers his organization non-partisan. The Center for Public Integrity broke the Lincoln Bedroom scandal, and has investigated George Bush's past as well. He says that it's tough to get any investigative reports out on these huge corporations because the mainstream media won't touch the stories. I think there are many organizations out there like this. But, we've got a major problem here in the U.S., because no one gets the truth anymore. In 10 years, we've seen the corporations controlling 90% of the media dwindle from 50 to 10. Journalists have been replaced by pundits. Fox is leading the charge and all other "news" networks are following along.

 

[gordontravels]

You make some great points. Although, just because we don't see true investigative journalism anymore, (thanks to Murdoch the Hitler of journalism) does not mean it's not out there. Rarely does true journalism surface because the mainstream media is controlled by a few omnipotent MNC's. They want to push the status-quo, the corporate friendly agenda and that's it.

For example, Charles Lewis (former 60 minutes producer, and author of "Buying of The President 2000") created the Center for Public Integrity so that he didn't have corporate lackey editors setting the agenda for him by giving x amount of time to investigate a 20 year unsolved mystery and then cutting out key pieces of the story. Lewis, considers his organization non-partisan. The Center for Public Integrity broke the Lincoln Bedroom scandal, and has investigated George Bush's past as well. He says that it's tough to get any investigative reports out on these huge corporations because the mainstream media won't touch the stories. I think there are many organizations out there like this. But, we've got a major problem here in the U.S., because no one gets the truth anymore. In 10 years, we've seen the corporations controlling 90% of the media dwindle from 50 to 10. Journalists have been replaced by pundits. Fox is leading the charge and all other "news" networks are following along.

There's a little known new cable channel called "Current". It is the fledgling network brought to you by Al Gore and company. It isn't on cable here in the states yet because it has little commercial value and the cable companies control who gets in and who gets on very carefully. Probably the only way it will get on the cable roles is for a major to buy it and then it will soar until gliding or crashing.

HOWEVER, it is on the air in Canada on their cable systems. How the heck does Canada get "Current" before it debuts in the United States? Well, why not ask the "Hitler of journalism"? Known for his right wing views it was Murdock that put up the money and made sure that this Al Gore run liberal cable channel got it's shot. I am apalled by the use of anything Hitler to describe anyone in today's world since he was a monster of the most individual style.

To read someone like you refer to Mr. Murdock as "Hitler journalism" just shows your lack of what? Skill? Information? Knowledge? No, I don't think so. Just your bias, uninformed as it is. :duel

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by gordontravels:
There's a little known new cable channel called "Current". It is the fledgling network brought to you by Al Gore and company. It isn't on cable here in the states yet because it has little commercial value and the cable companies control who gets in and who gets on very carefully. Probably the only way it will get on the cable roles is for a major to buy it and then it will soar until gliding or crashing.

HOWEVER, it is on the air in Canada on their cable systems. How the heck does Canada get "Current" before it debuts in the United States? Well, why not ask the "Hitler of journalism"? Known for his right wing views it was Murdock that put up the money and made sure that this Al Gore run liberal cable channel got it's shot. I am apalled by the use of anything Hitler to describe anyone in today's world since he was a monster of the most individual style.

To read someone like you refer to Mr. Murdock as "Hitler journalism" just shows your lack of what? Skill? Information? Knowledge? No, I don't think so. Just your bias, uninformed as it is.

You don't see any similarities between what's going on politically in this country and Germany in the 1930's. I'll give you Bush is definately not Hitler. But there are similarities.

• Both thought there election was pre-ordained.

• Both were elected by a majority of Christians.

• Both launched attacks on countries that did nothing to them.

• Both set the stage for Crimes against Humanity.

• Both nations looked the other way in disbelief when made aware
  of atrocities being committed in their name.

Hitler was a better military stategist. But Bush is more arrogant.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

To read someone like you refer to Mr. Murdock as "Hitler journalism" just shows your lack of what? Skill? Information? Knowledge? No, I don't think so. Just your bias, uninformed as it is. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/I][/B]:duel

Sorry to offend you. You are correct, I should not have used the H word in a metaphor to prove a point. It was distasteful. It was not my intention to upset you. I had no idea you would react so emotionally. Honestly, and sincerely. I apologize. Please do not insult me anymore. Thank you.

As for this... "Current". I have heard of it. Thank you for telling me that Rupert put up the money for it.

This information does immediately raises a question. Why would Rupert go against his political views by bringing on a show of opposing ideology? It seems like an attempt to discredit his critics. Or maybe he has a keen notion that the show will flop? I don't know, maybe he is a genuine and caring person who wants to see both sides represented equally? What do you think?

 

[gordontravels]

QUOTES in black belong to ban.the.electoral.college - Sorry to offend you. You are correct, I should not have used the H word in a metaphor to prove a point. It was distasteful. It was not my intention to upset you. I had no idea you would react so emotionally. Honestly, and sincerely. I apologize. Please do not insult me anymore. Thank you.

Ok.

As for this... "Current". I have heard of it. Thank you for telling me that Rupert put up the money for it.

Don't misunderstand, I know he put up a considerable amount but I don't think he put up everything.

This information does immediately raises a question. Why would Rupert go against his political views by bringing on a show of opposing ideology? It seems like an attempt to discredit his critics. Or maybe he has a keen notion that the show will flop? I don't know, maybe he is a genuine and caring person who wants to see both sides represented equally? What do you think?

Well again, if you know anything about Rupert Murdock you will find charity work along with contributions to both Democrats and Republicans so that he would back Current isn't surprising. He was probably approached and saw the value of an outlet of this caliber and content. I have found that there are conservatives and liberals that will cross lines when they see the value in doing so. That value may be for the self or maybe even because of the cause. Either way, lables are easy to use and harder to make stick if you don't know of which you speak.

One thing we agree on, Hitler is the bottom of the barrel for debate tactic. Only weakens that side. :duel

 

[freethought6t9]

I looked into Current and don't believe Murdoch gave any money, he did give it a slot on DirecTV, which was a big boost. Most of the funds came from democratic fund raisers. I do have a theory as to why Murdoch did give this liberal youth channel a slot;

He thought it might make him some money. I say this because if you look at all of his other media outlets you can't deny the conservative bias, unless it costs him money. A good example is his little squabble with China, he had made some remark about dictatorships being bad (it was very strongly worded) and China banned sattelite T.V. So Murdoch changed his position and said dictatorships have good qualities, he also removed the BBC from his Asian output as China had a bit of a problem with the BBC due to their coverage of Tiananman Square. He also published a biography of the President of China written by his daughter (Chinas Presidents, not Murdochs). So while he does have conservative values, as does most of his output, but he would never let his personal politics get in the way of his personal greed, that and Canada wouldn't pick up FNC.