Didn't happen that way. Rather's assailants were the ones asking the question.Jay in Phoenix wrote:Rather was certifiably off the deep end when he asked Kenneth for his frequency.
Well, Smackie, I did some research (i.e., Googled) for the answers, and found this: http://blog.debate.org/2012/08/24/a-que ... s-sources/I wrote:What are some examples of what you (and anyone else engaged in this discussion) would consider to be unbiased and reliable sources for the "facts"?
I agree. And I have the right to drive through them, making them jump into a river. I hate Illinois nazis!Mace wrote:I agree. Free speech is just that. The Nazis and KKK have every right to preach their hatred. I don't have to agree with what they're preaching but I'll stand up for their right to say it....no matter how vile or politically incorrect it might be. That's how a free society has to work if it is truly free.mvscal wrote:The Founders absolutely intended the 1st Amendment to protect speech you might find vile or repugnant. They were quite explicit on that point.
That's not 88's objective.Smackie Chan wrote:
Let's say Jsc did respond with facts to back up his takes. Those facts would need to have some source. If the facts supported his takes, he'd be hammered for reliance on biased sources, and likely (or possibly) be countered with facts that come from some other source, which would be bashed by his side as being biased in the other direction. Back & forth it goes, each side accusing the other of dependence on unreliable sources based on respective political leanings, with nothing ever being resolved to everyone's (or anyone's) satisfaction.
Are you that far gone that you actually have to ask? Censorship and police state tactics which go too far are "bad things." Always. No exceptions. The "moderate and sensible" response to such tactics should be immediate violence.Jay in Phoenix wrote: I used them (the TSA) as an example of censorship or security control that is abused and goes to far. Does that make it a bad thing or a necessary evil? Or something in-between?
As to Dan Rather and Matthews...you're right. But in their case, those were individual choices.
And I have to assume what you're referring to with NBC, since you didn't specify. If you're talking about their apparent "rah-rah" cheerleading for Obama as an example, you are right.
Yes, I understand that Chuck is having trouble seeing daylight what with his head stuck so far up his ass. You share the same problem.Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent at NBC News, broke ranks (sort of) with his fellow journalists. In an interview with Politico, Todd said, “To me, the ideological bias in the media really hasn’t been there in a long time. But what is there that people mistake for ideological bias is geographic bias. It’s seeing everything through the lens of New York and Washington.”
But Dan Rather was at one time, a well respected news anchor, and Matthews and the NBC examples are the exceptions to the rule, rather than the norm.
mvscal wrote:...the Democratic Party...
I would say it's the bailouts.88 wrote:Obama's signature legislation thus far has been Obamacare. I do not think anyone would disagree with that.
With all due respect, tovarisch, it's Obamacare. There isn't a more vitriolic or divisive topic in America. We didn't grow up with a cradle-to-grave healthcare entitlement like you folks did. As a matter of reference, half the people in this country would argue that it isn't a function of the Fed to provide such a service (those folks being the ones that have a working understanding of our Constitution). Whether it's a good idea isn't relevent. Whether it violates the tenets of our Founding is.Martyred wrote:I would say it's the bailouts.88 wrote:Obama's signature legislation thus far has been Obamacare. I do not think anyone would disagree with that.
Smackie, I'm well aware of this. The sarcasm I was implying didn't come through the way I wanted. Whatevs'...Smackie Chan wrote:Didn't happen that way. Rather's assailants were the ones asking the question.Jay in Phoenix wrote:Rather was certifiably off the deep end when he asked Kenneth for his frequency.
Of course they are, which is verified by my example of "groping and scanning". I'm also playing 'devils advocate' by asking the questions. You have to look at an argument from both sides before you can develop a reasonable and infomred opinion. You know this but choose to view things only from your own prejudice. That's okay to a point, as your opinions count just as much as ever other persons do. But like the saying goes, opinions are like assholes and everybody has one. What keeps your opinion somewhat checked, or occasionally flat out wrong, is the nature of your bias. At any rate, censorship and police state tactics which go too far are not just bad, they are criminal. Saying the moderate and sensible approach to these tactics should be met with violence takes us back to that pesky little anarchy thingie. Can't have it. Like T1B and its own brand of "censorship", rules and laws are in place for a reason. You can't have a civilized society without them. You can't have freedom, not real freedom, without them. This is inarguable. So save your rhetoric.Are you that far gone that you actually have to ask? Censorship and police state tactics which go too far are "bad things." Always. No exceptions. The "moderate and sensible" response to such tactics should be immediate violence.
In a way, yes. But only if you balance the scales. You continue to site "liberal" examples but choose to conveniently ignore the faults and bias of the right-wing media. Rush Limpdick come to mind? He should. Sean Hannity continues to be over-the-top with twisted opinions. Then you have a Glen Beck or Dennis Miller. What I actually like about these two is they are not only intelligent, but funny. I don't always agree with their views, but as they ration their opinions with informed humor and aren't afraid to take potshots at the right when it's merited, and that gives them a feeling of fairness. What is the key factor here, is what they and others like them represent. Bias, but with an intellectual and honest balance. At least sometimes. You say that the bias is systemic and across the board. Not true. The examples you mention are just that...examples, not a blanket representation. Exceptions are a given.No, they aren't. They're (Rather and Matthews) representative of a systemic, across the board bias.
Of course, just like Chris Tingle and Tavis Niqqer err Smiley, Andrea believes that the primary responsibility of journalism is the regurgitation of political propaganda.Andrea Mitchell Scolds Fellow Reporters: 'You Guys Let the Assault Weapons Ban Die!'
MITCHELL: Joining me now for more on that and all the other political news for our Daily Fix today - Chris Cillizza, MSNBC contributor and managing editor of PostPolitics.com and USA Today's Washington bureau chief Susan Page. Hi to both of you. Well, while I'm away you guys let the assault weapons ban, you know, die. Practically. At least Harry Reid says he's not gonna let it go forward.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-d ... z2O8b2XHUs
nevermind that piddly shit, what about Gay Marriage? Huh? Huh?... what about it? Gay marriage is what people care about, not trivia like Ben... whatever his name is. Get on the right side of history for a change. And besides, what about the Koch Brothers?mvscal wrote:Are you that far gone that you actually have to ask? Censorship and police state tactics which go too far are "bad things." Always. No exceptions. The "moderate and sensible" response to such tactics should be immediate violence.Jay in Phoenix wrote: I used them (the TSA) as an example of censorship or security control that is abused and goes to far. Does that make it a bad thing or a necessary evil? Or something in-between?
As to Dan Rather and Matthews...you're right. But in their case, those were individual choices.
No, they aren't. They're representative of a systemic, across the board bias.
And I have to assume what you're referring to with NBC, since you didn't specify. If you're talking about their apparent "rah-rah" cheerleading for Obama as an example, you are right.
Well, of course there is that. Then there is the editing of the Zimmerman 911 call in an attempt to smear him as a racist. Oh yes, and the attempt to smear NASCAR fans as anti-Muslim bigots. I could go on, but I believe the point is made. When was the last time Fox News ever did anything that scummy and dishonest?
Yes, I understand that Chuck is having trouble seeing daylight what with his head stuck so far up his ass. You share the same problem.Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent at NBC News, broke ranks (sort of) with his fellow journalists. In an interview with Politico, Todd said, “To me, the ideological bias in the media really hasn’t been there in a long time. But what is there that people mistake for ideological bias is geographic bias. It’s seeing everything through the lens of New York and Washington.”
But Dan Rather was at one time, a well respected news anchor, and Matthews and the NBC examples are the exceptions to the rule, rather than the norm.
You're assbackwards.
In 2008, Oshitskin promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. He tripled it instead. Where is the mainstream media on that? How was that not a central issue in the campaign? How is he not hammered with that every single day when he goes out and blames Republicans for the puny, insignificant reductions in spending rate in HIS sequestration plan??
In 2008, Oshitskin promised the most transparent administration in history. Instead we get closed door negotiations on issues of tremendous public importance. The largest, most expensive piece of legislation in US history is passed with a parliamentary gimmick to avoid debate and his flunky, Nancy Pelosi, is sent out to scold the American people and state that, "We will have to pass the law to find out what's in it." Does that sound like the right answer to you? Where was the MSM on that? That was one of the most stunningly arrogant and irresponsible things I've ever heard in my life from a public "servant." Of course she said it because she knew she could get away with it. Her kneepadders in the MSM would ignore it and/or minimize it.
The Democratic controlled Senate has not passed a budget in four years now. Where is the MSM on that? Why is that not the first question Harry Reid is asked everytime he steps in front of a camera. Four fucking years without a budget. Sound like the right answer to you? Is that what you call responsible governance?
Benghazi. A United States ambassador and three other State Dept employees were murdered and a secure diplomatic facility was looted. This was an open and shut case of inexcusable negligence running up to the attack, total indifference during the attack and a media blitz of deliberate lies for a month after the event. The official response from the Secretary of State on this complete clusterfuck? "What difference does it make?" Where is the MSM on this? Well, they're busy puffing her up as the frontrunner in 2016 that's where they are.
I could do this all night long. Anyone who, by now, doesn't understand that the mainstream media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party is either a fucking liar or a fucking idiot.
The Reagan administration was itself put into jail more than any other administration by far--plus all of the indictments and forced resignations. Face it, Reagan was a puppet (already suffering Alzheimers in his first term) and allowed unprecedented criminal subversion of the constitution and basic civil rights. He ended his disgraceful career in a witness box being grilled for serious crimes--all of which, like Jodi Arias, he claimed he couldn't remember. What did he do again that you so admire? Cut corporate tax? Cut capital gains tax? Bust unions? Invade Panama?88 wrote:Obama is definitely Wall Street's boy. But how does that make his policies that of a "moderate Republican" of the 1980's? Remember, Clinton cast away Glass-Steagall. Reagan's crew put hundreds of S&L banksters in jail.Martyred wrote:Is your ass so chaffed that you can't admit that Obama is Wall Street's boy?