Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hmm
Hmm
#1
Well. I exhibit no surprise.
Ja, -n

===============================================
"Puripuri puripuri... Bang!"
Reply
Re: Hmm
#2
You know, *another* article about how Americans can't seem to get *another* thing right that the rest of the 1st world does seems kind of anti-climactic.--
Christopher Angel, aka JPublic
The Works of Christopher Angel
[Image: Con.gif]
Reply
This again?
#3
All I have to do is see the source - Rolling Stone, and the author - Robert Kennedy Jr, to know that this is yet one more in a long long line of conspiracy fantasies.
Look - Three simple little words:
Get.
Over.
it.
If you STILL hold to these conspiracy theories after all this time, you are in such a state of denial that...
*Sigh*
Never mind. Nothing I say or do can talk sense to this kind of thinking.
Carry on. Forget I said anything.
Ah. Wait a sec. Hold that thought. Tell you what, okay? You (by which I don't mean the personal "you", just generally I mean - The Left in general.) go right on thinking that there wasn't anything wrong with your campaign or your ideas or your candidate and that somehow the elections of 2000 and 2004 were "stolen". Please DO keep thinking that. Please DO deny to yourselves that the democrats could be in a serious disconnect with the American people. Deny that you lost. KEEP thinking that.
And I GUARANTEE you that the Republicans will keep on winning.
Oh I'm not so sure about this coming election, to be sure. President Bush and the repubs have ROYALLY screwed the pooch on the whole immigration issue. BIG time.
In fact, I'd almost _welcome_ a shellacking this coming November. It might make the Repubs WAKE UP and realize who their constituancy really is!
But you know what? That just means the next election is theirs to lose. Not that it's the Democrats to win. Not the way the Dems and the left have been going lately.
Look. There's certainly room in this country for a measured, reasonable opposition party. A "loyal opposition" in the classic sense. But the current Democratic party run by it's far left wing is NOT IT.
And the more you buy into this paranoia the less that is ever going to change.
Listen to me. REALLY listen. You want to win elections? Don't keep looking back at the last one and whine how you got cheated. Look at the NEXT election and think how you can win!
Otherwise, how can anyone take you seriously?-Logan
-----------------
"This kind of thing tends invariably to devolve into the kind of "No, Nakajima, THIS is true power!!" argument that only really works if you're yelling it from the cockpit of a giant robot . . ."
-----------------
Reply
Re: Hmm
#4
Quote:
You know, *another* article about how Americans can't seem to get *another* thing right that the rest of the 1st world does seems kind of anti-climactic.
LOL. Doesn't it?
Maybe I should take up German again...
Ja, -n

===============================================
"Puripuri puripuri... Bang!"
Reply
Re: Hmm
#5
Ha ha ha.
Democrats. "Far left wing".
Ha ha ha.
Aside from that, doesn't it bother you at least a little bit that somebody might be subverting democracy in your country? Shouldn't it offend you on a deep, visceral level that there's a good possibility that people have been deliberately trying to rig the elections and take away people's votes?
Or do abuses of power and violations of the law only matter when the other side does them?
Reply
Re: Hmm
#6
It would offend me more if the people shouting so loudly about it hadn't been doing it, on a much more massive scale, for DECADES, themselves.
All I get is proof that all politicians are hypocrites, especially Democrats.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!

--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Reply
Re: Hmm
#7
So... in other words, you do only care if the other side does it. If your own side if abusing power and democracy, that's a-ok with you? I mean, that's what you just said, right?
Reply
Re: Hmm
#8
Quote:
It would offend me more if the people shouting so loudly about it hadn't been doing it, on a much more massive scale, for DECADES, themselves.
Sources, please?

===============================================
"Puripuri puripuri... Bang!"
Reply
Re: Hmm
#9
I'm kind of surprised at the issue with voters at the wrong precinct location.
In the area I'm in, they actually have two different precincts that vote in the same building. If you're from one precinct, you go to the left. From the other, you go to the right.
Voting at the right precinct is easy enough that it surprised me to read that voting at the wrong precinct is supposed to be allowed. It seems like a good way to filter out people who don't have their logic and rational thought turned on.
(Though in this particular case, it looks like people had a right to be confused. But as a general principle, it's startling.)
On a different issue, I continue to find it amusing to contrast lines like this:
Quote:
while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election.
With the way various conservative sources basically call the national media a mouthpiece of the democrats. How can they be opposed to everyone?
-Morgan, wonders why some terms in the article were well defined and not others..."I have no interest in ordinary humans. If there are any aliens, time travelers, or espers here, come sleep with me."
---From "The Ecchi of Haruhi Suzumiya"
-----(Not really)
Reply
Re: Hmm
#10
Quote:
LOL. Doesn't it?
Maybe I should take up German again...
If I may offer a piece of advise: if it has to be German, try Swiss-German. If you come to Germany it'll be five to ten years tops and you'll be at the same point you are now. What if: Chibi Usa, Veteran Speznas Ninja Commando From Hell(tm)?What if: Chibi Usa, Veteran Speznas Ninja Commando From Hell(tm)?
Reply
Re: Re: Hmm
#11
Quote:
With the way various conservative sources basically call the national media a mouthpiece of the democrats. How can they be opposed to everyone?
They're not, they're just not as openly critical of the right-wing as the extremists on the left (those who attack them as right-wing tools) would like.
--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!

--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Reply
Re: Re: Hmm
#12
The fact most media in the US is owned by huge right-wing conglomerates with deep ties to the Republican party certainly doesn't lend any credence to allegations they are basically tools of the administration.
After all, it's certainly not like papers (say, the New York Post) would print already-debunked stories (say, about Iran) favourable to the administration point of view (say, comparing them directly to Nazis) which would then be parroted with great righteous indignation... right, ECSNorway?
I mean, that would never happen. You'd have to be some kind of guy who thinks with his asshole and not his brains to believe that would happen, right?
Reply
Re: Re: Hmm
#13
Corporate ownership is one thing; attitudes of the editorial and newsroom staff quite another, and the latter has much more effect on the bias of the news reported than the former.
UCLA Scientific Study of Media Bias
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

QED.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!

--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Reply
Re: Re: Hmm
#14
Quote:
The fact most media in the US is owned by huge right-wing conglomerates with deep ties to the Republican party certainly doesn't lend any credence to allegations they are basically tools of the administration.
Sources?
Quote:
I mean, that would never happen. You'd have to be some kind of guy who thinks with his asshole and not his brains to believe that would happen, right?
And now you've devolved to personal attacks.
This thread is quickly headed towards Godwin.-Logan
-----------------
"This kind of thing tends invariably to devolve into the kind of "No, Nakajima, THIS is true power!!" argument that only really works if you're yelling it from the cockpit of a giant robot . . ."
-----------------
Reply
Re: Re: Hmm
#15
Sweetie, Logan, honey?
I'm quoting ECSNorway from another thread in this same forum.
Where he said myself, several other people, and anybody else who did not think Iran was necessarily run by the Legion of Super-Hitlers were people "who think with their assholes instead of their brains" because of a story about Iran that they were going to make Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians wear colour-coded ID tags.
This story was ridiculous, unbelievable, and was retracted by the National Post (Canada's own right-wing rag) one day after it ran with apologies and complaints from the Iranian government (then rerun by the New York Post, after it was withdrawn, as factual news).
After it was pointed out that his hysterical overreaction was based on a hoax, ECSNorway then mysteriously vanished from the thread, never to post again, certainly not to apologise for his slanderous comment based on a story he believed whole-heartedly and without collaboration despite it being a pack of lies.
I notice you weren't there lecturing him about his politeness at the time, Logan. Now what, I wonder, could be the cause for that double-standard?
As for your other question, let me just make sure we're on the same page here:
You're asking me to source an assertion that huge corporations (including, for instance, fricking Clear Channel) are friendly to the Republican Party.
YOU ARE ASKING FOR A SOURCE ON AN ASSERTION THAT BIG-BUSINESS AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE FRIENDLY.
You are asking for this?
Seriously?
Incidentally, deigning to acknowledge ECSNorway for a moment, I'd like to know where the leftist slant of the media was during Clinton's terms. Considering more ink was spent on Whitewater than any three Bush scandals (and there's tons to choose from) put together, and Whitewater ultimately proved to be nothing, and all. Or, you know, the well-publicised but now convienently forgotten hero-worshipful fellating that occured towards George W. Bush in his "mission accomplished" speech.
Have you forgotten that so soon? I'll bet you have. Let me refresh your memory at just how much those dirty leftist media hippies hate your President.
"...the president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. Do you think he is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief?" - Chris Matthews, on Hardball
"Well, first of all, Chris, the -- I think that -- you know, I was -- when I first heard about it, I was kind of annoyed. It sounded like the kind of PR stunt that Bill Clinton would pull. But and then I saw it. And you know, there's a real -- there's a real affection between him and the troops." - "Democrat" Pat Caddell on the same show
"There was a riskier landing that the president wanted to make. The Secret Service, though, just wouldn't let the commander in chief ride in an F/A-18 strike fighter. But CNN's Kyra Phillips will be doing just that in a matter of only a few minutes. She's in the cockpit of this F/A-18 Hornet. Right now, Navy jets like this one, of course, helped win the war in Iraq. Now, they're headed home." - Wolf Blitzer
"And two immutable truths about the president that the Democrats can't change: He's a youthful guy. He looked terrific and full of energy in a flight suit. He is a former pilot, so it's not a foreign art farm -- art form to him. Not all presidents could have pulled this scene off today." - Brian Williams
"Never before has a president landed aboard a carrier at sea, much less taken the controls of the aircraft. His decision to sleep aboard the ship this evening in the captain's quarters conjured images of the presidency at sea not seen since Franklin D. Roosevelt used to sail to summit meetings." - New York Times
"As far as I'm concerned, that was one of the great pictures of all time." - Bob Schieffer
"Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. That was the first thing that came to mind for me. And it just shows you how high a mountain these Democrats are going to have to climb." - Time columnist Joe Klein
Why, what a bunch of lefties. Look at how harshly they criticised the president.
Hell, look at how harshly they criticise him now. Long south of 30 in the polls, one of the most unpopular presidents in 50 years, caught lying multiple times, started a war on false pretenses that he has since admitted were false, has failed miserably to accomplish a single objective from that war that was promised, has authorised the use of torture in contravention to the Geneva conventions, authorised illegal spying on Americans, etc, etc, etc... and yet the mainstream media in the US varies between the most diffident and guarded criticism and out and out cheerleading.
I'm not even going to start in on Fox News, except to note that there isn't a dedicatedly biased left-leaning news conglomerate, and gee, I wonder why that might be?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)