NashBama
Hall of Famer
[]
[] Posteddocument.write(''+ myTimeZone('Fri, 04 May 2007 14:10:06 GMT-0700', '04 May 2007 04:10 PM')+'');04 May 2007 04:10 PM 04 May 2007 04:10 PM Hide Post
quote:
I think it is an excellent example of how the alternative media tells the truth and the corporate media spins the lies.
The only people to fill your head with "crap" is the corporate media.
You are free to "expose" any of the "crap" you claim it to be.
I've exposed plenty, this is going no where and it's just not worth the effort. People like you only hear what you want to hear. It doesn't take a genius to see through the spin on both sides, just a little common sense. Those "reliable" web sites talk up the global warming farce as if it's fact when anyone with a basic understanding of science can see through it. Just the other day I heard someone griping about how far left the mainstream media is and how it's run by liberals. You say the exact same thing except you replace "left" with "right". You've done exactly what I predicted you would do in my first post on this thread, mindlessly regurgitate propaganda. It's what people who listen to the raving conservative talk shows do and you've done the exact same thing.
You've simply proven my original point in the first place. The far left and the far right are exact mirror images of each other. They all think they know the real truth when they're only getting half truths and lots of spin. When you can look at both sides, use you brain and filter fact from fiction, then you'll find the truth. To do this would require you to actually think independently and you've shown by your responses you are either unable or unwilling to do so. I'll prove it, ask yourself if you have ever come across a story in one of your "progressive" sites that made you stop and say "Now wait a second, that doesn't sound right." I'm guessing you haven't.
Like I said before, question everything, think on your own, and then you'll find the truth. Until then, you're just another sheep following your herd.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I have stated continually that for 35 years I have read and watched mainstream media. I also read the independent media. I base my opinions on what I read asnd see.
I have found the independent media to be accurate and reliable and report important facts
and insights that are left out os Mainstream Corporate media.
I have given examples of how the corporate media have lied. I have said the media watch group FAIR has published studies on how the media is domainated by the right.
I am aware that the right wing claims the media is "Liberal" but a close examination shows it's not true. They place their spin on events and
"Manufacture Consent" for govenrment and corporate policies that benefit corproations and wealthy elite's.
The term "Manufacture Consent" come from Walter Lippman," a conservative, who said the American people are not smart enough to make choices on their own and it's the presses' responibliy to manufacture consent for policies. WW1 was one of those policies.
Mainstream media are just huge corporations that are owned and controlled by conservative CEO's. In general they are liberal on many social issues like women's and civil rights but conservative on economics and defense.
Global Warrming is real and is another good example of how the corporate media ignored a serious issue for over 20 years to benefit corporate greed.
quote:I have stated continually that for 35 years I have read and watched mainstream media. I also read the independent media. I base my opinions on what I read asnd see.
I have found the independent media to be accurate and reliable and report important facts
and insights that are left out os Mainstream Corporate media.
I have given examples of how the corporate media have lied. I have said the media watch group FAIR has published studies on how the media is domainated by the right.
I am aware that the right wing claims the media is "Liberal" but a close examination shows it's not true. They place their spin on events and
"Manufacture Consent" for govenrment and corporate policies that benefit corproations and wealthy elite's.
The term "Manufacture Consent" come from Walter Lippman," a conservative, who said the American people are not smart enough to make choices on their own and it's the presses' responibliy to manufacture consent for policies. WW1 was one of those policies.
Mainstream media are just huge corporations that are owned and controlled by conservative CEO's. In general they are liberal on many social issues like women's and civil rights but conservative on economics and defense.
Global Warrming is real and is another good example of how the corporate media ignored a serious issue for over 20 years to benefit corporate greed.
Sorry, the more you type the more you prove that you are unable to think independently. Any news source that openly admits they have a bias is not a news source with any credibility, but you just can't seem to grasp that concept. If you truly believe a website that openly claims to have a political bias and agenda is going to give you the honest, untutored truth, you are only fooling yourself. You've made many statements that shows you have a distorted view of reality and you are unable to see just how far off you really are. It's very sad for you, but you made your decision not to develop your own opinions but rather use someone else's. Too bad.
pogo, when dealing with numb nuts, pulling on the short hairs is a waste of time.
NashBama,
ANY NEWS SOURCE THAT CLAIMS TO BE UNBIASED IS LYING. Lying does not lend credibility to news, it is the antithesis of news. Everyone has biases they are necessary to analysis and survival.
NashBama,
ANY NEWS SOURCE THAT CLAIMS TO BE UNBIASED IS LYING. Lying does not lend credibility to news, it is the antithesis of news. Everyone has biases they are necessary to analysis and survival.
For years I heard the arguement that the independent press is baised and "How do I know they are telling the truth?
Those lines sort of worked when I was younger and I struggled to make sure I got every opinion but after decades, decades, of following both I see with my own eyes.
Just turn on you TV. The news is nonsense, double talk, distraction stories and excuses.
The Iraq War is an excellent example.
Or the elction, it's all gossip. No real issues or substances.
The people who have to "broaden" their sources are those who rely on only the corporate media.
Those lines sort of worked when I was younger and I struggled to make sure I got every opinion but after decades, decades, of following both I see with my own eyes.
Just turn on you TV. The news is nonsense, double talk, distraction stories and excuses.
The Iraq War is an excellent example.
Or the elction, it's all gossip. No real issues or substances.
The people who have to "broaden" their sources are those who rely on only the corporate media.
quote:pogo, when dealing with numb nuts, pulling on the short hairs is a waste of time.
NashBama,
ANY NEWS SOURCE THAT CLAIMS TO BE UNBIASED IS LYING. Lying does not lend credibility to news, it is the antithesis of news. Everyone has biases they are necessary to analysis and survival.
Quite possibly the dumbest thing you've said yet. True journalists are taught that an accurate story is told objectively from both sides. Our job is to give the facts and let the viewer or reader decide on their own. Sure, it's impossible to be completely without bias, but an openly biased story is looked at as bad journalism. I was taught that a true journalist has to put their opinions aside and report only the facts. If you disagree with that, you'll have to take it up with my professors who are teaching that concept.
People who are unable to look at both sides of an issue, weigh the pros and cons on their own, and come to an educated opinion for themselves will either turn to the extreme conservative or progressive media. Those of us who don't need someone to provide an opinion for us look at every argument and decide for ourselves.
You did get one thing right, arguing with numb nuts is a waste of time. If you're unable to think on your own, then you are unable to see your own mistakes no matter how much someone points them out to you. I prefer discussing issues with people who are open minded and can think, so I'm done with this thread.
OK, you have just given me permission to respond in kind.quote:Originally posted by NashBama:quote:pogo, when dealing with numb nuts, pulling on the short hairs is a waste of time.
NashBama,
ANY NEWS SOURCE THAT CLAIMS TO BE UNBIASED IS LYING. Lying does not lend credibility to news, it is the antithesis of news. Everyone has biases they are necessary to analysis and survival.
Quite possibly the dumbest thing you've said yet. True journalists are taught that an accurate story is told objectively from both sides. Our job is to give the facts and let the viewer or reader decide on their own. Sure, it's impossible to be completely without bias, but an openly biased story is looked at as bad journalism. I was taught that a true journalist has to put their opinions aside and report only the facts. If you disagree with that, you'll have to take it up with my professors who are teaching that concept.
People who are unable to look at both sides of an issue, weigh the pros and cons on their own, and come to an educated opinion for themselves will either turn to the extreme conservative or progressive media. Those of us who don't need someone to provide an opinion for us look at every argument and decide for ourselves.
You did get one thing right, arguing with numb nuts is a waste of time. If you're unable to think on your own, then you are unable to see your own mistakes no matter how much someone points them out to you. I prefer discussing issues with people who are open minded and can think, so I'm done with this thread.
I was a Journalist, and I was a journalism TEACHER at the college level.
YOU MORON, the way to maintain credibility is to know that your biases may have colored the report, and to attempt objectivity, knowing that in many cases even the choice of what story to tell is affected by your own biases.
I have seen you attack material posted from what you denigrate as "liberal" sources. But I have yet to see you critical of the material you base your argument on despite they come from professed Neo Conservative sources. When you quote the position of Bill O'Reilly you claim it is GOSPEL, yet you feel totally free to dismiss information from anyone who does not have the same bias.
You are a NEO CON DUPE. You have been indoctrinated by the radical, reactionary, right wing press and pundits, and take pride in your stupidity.
I post on a few Forums from and "sound off's" on different sites I have found and I also will post on the AOL Message Boards and I have found this one to be the most "civil." AOL is a Zoo.
It gets frustrating I know when it gets down to "Is So, - Is Not" "Is So, - Is Not."
NashBama, when you tell me that I just parrot what I read on the left sites I say the same to what I find on most Forums and in my daily life. Most people just "parrot" what they hear on TV, the so called "responsible opinions." When they talk about Iraq we never hear any "pundit" talk abut withdrawing from Iraq, they all talk about different strategies and how such but I have even seen on Tucker or Crossfire and others, at the end of the conversation the Tucker or Matthew's will say, "But we all agree we must stay" and they all nod in agreement. Even the so called Liberals. There is no left voices on the news.
It's the same with every issue, Impeachment, the economy, alternative energy, Iran and it was with Global Warming but some of the news is "breaking ranks: because the evidence is becoming over whelming. The corporate news is just a propaganda machine and I see people who rely in it just quote it back to me.
If you read alternative sources you will you will learn facts that are not discussed at all on the news, like the Iraqi people want us out to leave. Polls continually show it but it's never mentioned. It is just times mentioned that Iraqi's also feel US soldiers are "Legitimate Targets," but they usually they shake their heads in disbelief. I actually heard them say the Iraqi people are "an ungrateful people."
You never hear the war was launched on lies and is about oil. If you checkout the evidence you will know it is. I have followed the news and that region for 30 years. We are after the oil. There were WMD. The war was based on lies. We would never go to war to "Bring Democracy to Iraq." You never hear this in the corporate media.
You do have to look at all sources of news and then make up your mind. The computer is geat. I read news papers all around the country and world and sites and opinions that are excuded from the corporate media.
It gets frustrating I know when it gets down to "Is So, - Is Not" "Is So, - Is Not."
NashBama, when you tell me that I just parrot what I read on the left sites I say the same to what I find on most Forums and in my daily life. Most people just "parrot" what they hear on TV, the so called "responsible opinions." When they talk about Iraq we never hear any "pundit" talk abut withdrawing from Iraq, they all talk about different strategies and how such but I have even seen on Tucker or Crossfire and others, at the end of the conversation the Tucker or Matthew's will say, "But we all agree we must stay" and they all nod in agreement. Even the so called Liberals. There is no left voices on the news.
It's the same with every issue, Impeachment, the economy, alternative energy, Iran and it was with Global Warming but some of the news is "breaking ranks: because the evidence is becoming over whelming. The corporate news is just a propaganda machine and I see people who rely in it just quote it back to me.
If you read alternative sources you will you will learn facts that are not discussed at all on the news, like the Iraqi people want us out to leave. Polls continually show it but it's never mentioned. It is just times mentioned that Iraqi's also feel US soldiers are "Legitimate Targets," but they usually they shake their heads in disbelief. I actually heard them say the Iraqi people are "an ungrateful people."
You never hear the war was launched on lies and is about oil. If you checkout the evidence you will know it is. I have followed the news and that region for 30 years. We are after the oil. There were WMD. The war was based on lies. We would never go to war to "Bring Democracy to Iraq." You never hear this in the corporate media.
You do have to look at all sources of news and then make up your mind. The computer is geat. I read news papers all around the country and world and sites and opinions that are excuded from the corporate media.
quote:I was a Journalist, and I was a journalism TEACHER at the college level.
YOU MORON, the way to maintain credibility is to know that your biases may have colored the report, and to attempt objectivity, knowing that in many cases even the choice of what story to tell is affected by your own biases.
I've had several journalism professors, a few who made it clear they were liberals teach the exact opposite of what you just said. Everything I've been taught and read about journalism says that true journalists strive for objectivity. True journalists simply report the facts. True news is supposed to have no opinion interjected into it. It's almost impossible to do that, but the goal is to try and be objective. Once a journalist starts purposely inserting opinion in news, the journalist and the medium loses true credibility.
Since you want to call me names, here's one for you, liar. For you to say what you did proves you're a liar. You've said that you have discussed the war in Iraq with members of the Greek parliament in a Internet chat room. You call me the moron? Either you're completely delusional or you are simply a liar, I'm betting on the latter.
I'll end this by keeping it simple. Conservative talk radio is to the Republicans what "progressive" websites and media is to the Democrats. If you believe the Democrats are going to tell you the real truth, you're only fooling yourself. Just like you, EdEKit, they're both liars.
NashBama, Evidently you, and a few others, have concluded, that it is impossible that a group of Greek Parliamentarians, would seek out an informed American citizen to ask for information on American public opinion. I can actually understand that. I can easily believe that you find my report of a conversation with members of the Greek government totally incredible.quote:Originally posted by NashBama:quote:I was a Journalist, and I was a journalism TEACHER at the college level.
YOU MORON, the way to maintain credibility is to know that your biases may have colored the report, and to attempt objectivity, knowing that in many cases even the choice of what story to tell is affected by your own biases.
I've had several journalism professors, a few who made it clear they were liberals teach the exact opposite of what you just said. Everything I've been taught and read about journalism says that true journalists strive for objectivity. True journalists simply report the facts. True news is supposed to have no opinion interjected into it. It's almost impossible to do that, but the goal is to try and be objective. Once a journalist starts purposely inserting opinion in news, the journalist and the medium loses true credibility.
Since you want to call me names, here's one for you, liar. For you to say what you did proves you're a liar. You've said that you have discussed the war in Iraq with members of the Greek parliament in a Internet chat room. You call me the moron? Either you're completely delusional or you are simply a liar, I'm betting on the latter.
I'll end this by keeping it simple. Conservative talk radio is to the Republicans what "progressive" websites and media is to the Democrats. If you believe the Democrats are going to tell you the real truth, you're only fooling yourself. Just like you, EdEKit, they're both liars.
I am rather proud of having been picked out of a group of Americans discussing American Public opinion by those Grecian Politicians. That is why I reported it. I think you would be proud of having the same distinction.
I am fairly well informed. I read foreign newspapers, and urge you and others to do the same. I also seek the opinions of several people I have met over the years online who are not Americans.
Among those people are several Palestinians. There is one Man who lives in Fresno, California whose family was driven out of Israel shortly after that nation was formed. Two others are Palestinian women who no longer live in Palestine. There are a dozen or more Australians I regularly talk to online. Another large group of Canadians, a couple of Germans, at least one Frenchman, and a few Englishmen. I talk to a Hungarian National who is about my age. He had to leave his homeland after fighting against the Soviets in the Hungarian uprising in the 1950's. His life has been spent in foreign trade, mostly in South Asia. He is well informed.
It does not surprise me that any one of those people would ask my opinion. I ask theirs often. I was surprised when I was invited to talk to a group of Greek politicians and citizens. My opinion, in isolation, is of little value. I am well informed, and while I did not like seeing Bush defeat Kerry, it was predictable. There are a lot of people who make decisions the same way you do.
I participate in this particular forum because you participate in it. I will challenge your position on many issues. I will approach your positions based on my social philosophy. I expect you to do the same. I will give your opinion the same respect you give mine. I will express my opinion of your personal sincerity and honesty the same way you express your opinion of mine.
You have been told, by Kindred Spirit, that she was aware of the conversation I reported. I said it happened, she confirmed that she had been told it had happened by a respected relative. You continue to call the report a lie. You know better. I know you know better. Kindred Spirit knows you know better. When you contend that it did not happen you are denying the truth of it. YOU ARE LYING when you deny that the incident happened.
I am sure that Journalism professors approach the subject of objectivity differently. Some teach that every effort should be made to be objective. Others teach that it is not possible for a human being to be totally objective but that it is the duty of the reported to examine his own biases when reporting on controversial subjects.
Some insist that subjective words be removed from all reports. It is possible to say "murder," without the adjective "brutal." It is rare, to read of a "humane murder." Though you do see "humane execution." You do see reports of "execution style murder," or "tortured and murdered." Both of those phrases are opinion neutral. They describe a method of murder. "Brutal" is not opinion neutral. So, when you say that your several liberal journalism professors "teach the exact opposite" of what I said, do you mean that they teach students to "liven up" reports with descriptive adjectives, or with opinion?
I find that report incredible, I cannot believe it. You are saying that a Journalism professor is teaching that students should report subjectively. That a reporter should express how the reporter "feels" about what was said, or done, or happened. I can think of some great, memorable, reports that did just that. The eyewitness reports from the World Trade Center are recent examples. The Crash of the Hindenburg is another. But in those reports the reporter was the witness.
For the life of me I cannot think of a single report that started off, "John Doe, candidate for City Council, thinking he was addressing an audience of morons at the state hospital staff dinner, said, 'We are embarking on a bright new path toward mental health.'" I have seen reports that said, "John Doe, candidate for City Council said, to the State Hospital Staff, 'We are embarking on a bright new path toward mental health.'" Any journalism teacher who passed the first sentence without a blue pencil would be an unemployed journalism teacher. His students would not be able to keep jobs as reporters.
I will end this on a positive note, you are correct conservative talk radio is what progressive and liberal websites are. They are both propaganda. Pure, unadulterated, drum beating propaganda. I have no problem with that assessment. I think I do disagree with you on the division between Democrats and Republicans. That assumes that Republicans are as biased as you, and Democrats are as biased as I. I actually hope not.
Thanks for the reminder pogo. I am just "man" enough to get pretty vicious when threatened or attacked. I have taken your comments as a "gentle tap on the shoulder of consciousness."quote:Originally posted by Pogo142:
I post on a few Forums from and "sound off's" on different sites I have found and I also will post on the AOL Message Boards and I have found this one to be the most "civil." AOL is a Zoo.
It gets frustrating I know when it gets down to "Is So, - Is Not" "Is So, - Is Not."
NashBama, when you tell me that I just parrot what I read on the left sites I say the same to what I find on most Forums and in my daily life. Most people just "parrot" what they hear on TV, the so called "responsible opinions." When they talk about Iraq we never hear any "pundit" talk abut withdrawing from Iraq, they all talk about different strategies and how such but I have even seen on Tucker or Crossfire and others, at the end of the conversation the Tucker or Matthew's will say, "But we all agree we must stay" and they all nod in agreement. Even the so called Liberals. There is no left voices on the news.
<SNIP>
I appears we have descended into Nihilism, where knowledge is impossible, reality subjective.
As to the point in question, do missing emails indict W in an alleged election theft? Let us put away biases and preferences, and look at clear evidence.
I have not seen any. I have seen allegations taken as truth, speculation enshrined as fact, and politically motivated lies broadcast for the faithful to take to heart as gospel. They should be ashamed.
Show me the evidence. Show me the ballot box data that has been manipulated. Show me election officials who have testified under oath that deliberate election rigging occurred.
Until then, your ravings about Republican dirty tricks ring as hollow as your heads.
Do it now.
DF
As to the point in question, do missing emails indict W in an alleged election theft? Let us put away biases and preferences, and look at clear evidence.
I have not seen any. I have seen allegations taken as truth, speculation enshrined as fact, and politically motivated lies broadcast for the faithful to take to heart as gospel. They should be ashamed.
Show me the evidence. Show me the ballot box data that has been manipulated. Show me election officials who have testified under oath that deliberate election rigging occurred.
Until then, your ravings about Republican dirty tricks ring as hollow as your heads.
Do it now.
DF
It is the same on both sides. Do you expect anything less when two giants strive for domination of a village?quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
I appears we have descended into Nihilism, where knowledge is impossible, reality subjective.
As to the point in question, do missing emails indict W in an alleged election theft? Let us put away biases and preferences, and look at clear evidence.
I have not seen any. I have seen allegations taken as truth, speculation enshrined as fact, and politically motivated lies broadcast for the faithful to take to heart as gospel. They should be ashamed.
Show me the evidence. Show me the ballot box data that has been manipulated. Show me election officials who have testified under oath that deliberate election rigging occurred.
Until then, your ravings about Republican dirty tricks ring as hollow as your heads.
Do it now.
DF
I think it is enough to know that the giants were unequally matched.
There is a lot of wrongdoing that goes unreported, some that when reported goes without investigation, and still more when investigated goes untried. And yet more that is tried and not proven.
Missing e mails, that were supposed, by law, to be kept on file are suspicious. I have a friend who keeps a rattlesnake in a cage. If the cage is empty, the friend drops everything and searches for the rattlesnake till he finds it.
These e mails are like that rattlesnake. They DID exist, they were on file, but today the file is empty.
If you want to see the evidence, and you say you do,
Help us look, or at least help us insist that they be found.quote:Show me the evidence. Show me the ballot box data that has been manipulated.
You are saying bring me the proof and I will take action. It is a position that is not yours to take. You will not be the prosecutor, you are the victim if anyone is a victim. I am a victim too.
quote:You have been told, by Kindred Spirit, that she was aware of the conversation I reported. I said it happened, she confirmed that she had been told it had happened by a respected relative. You continue to call the report a lie. You know better. I know you know better. Kindred Spirit knows you know better.
Kindred has trouble understanding things. She went back and forth with several people on the boards refusing to believe that Clinton was impeached. She's also said that a politician's' voting record is not a valid way to determine where they stand on issues. I can tell she's a nice person, but easily confused. She does not really collaborate your claim, she probably didn't understand just how absurd and implausible it is to speak with Greek Parliament about Iraq in a internet chat room. Sorry Ed, either you are delusional, a liar, or both. I'm thinking both.
Sorry Kindred, no offense intended, I'm just speaking honestly.
Ed wrote:
I don't have to. I didn't make the allegation that the election was rigged. Certain leftists did. It is up to them to come up with concrete evidence, or shut up, or be relegated to the rubbish bin of intellectual progress.
To allege the election was fraudulent without evidence is truly evil, and dangerous to the integrity of the election process, without which our democracy would not exist. I suspect this is the ulterior motive of the Socialists who understand Marx's admonition that to build a Socialist Utopia, the corrupt capitalist system must first be destroyed.
As far as I am concerned, the issue is closed. The election was fair and was run, audited, and certified according to the rules established before the election by the bipartisan Election Commission of Ohio.
One other point, and I'll look elsewhere for conversation: If Rove's emails are really supposed to be available to Congress by law, any communication toward any illegal end would not be by email. They would be by payphone, courier, direct conversation, one-time pad encryption, or several other ways, but not by non-private email. I can imagine the missing emails are something like:
From: Karl Rove
To: Darby Rove
Buttercup:
I've been called to Ohio. Don't forget to pick up some cat food for Buster tonight. Love.
DF
quote:Help us look, or at least help us insist that they be found.
I don't have to. I didn't make the allegation that the election was rigged. Certain leftists did. It is up to them to come up with concrete evidence, or shut up, or be relegated to the rubbish bin of intellectual progress.
To allege the election was fraudulent without evidence is truly evil, and dangerous to the integrity of the election process, without which our democracy would not exist. I suspect this is the ulterior motive of the Socialists who understand Marx's admonition that to build a Socialist Utopia, the corrupt capitalist system must first be destroyed.
As far as I am concerned, the issue is closed. The election was fair and was run, audited, and certified according to the rules established before the election by the bipartisan Election Commission of Ohio.
One other point, and I'll look elsewhere for conversation: If Rove's emails are really supposed to be available to Congress by law, any communication toward any illegal end would not be by email. They would be by payphone, courier, direct conversation, one-time pad encryption, or several other ways, but not by non-private email. I can imagine the missing emails are something like:
From: Karl Rove
To: Darby Rove
Buttercup:
I've been called to Ohio. Don't forget to pick up some cat food for Buster tonight. Love.
DF
They have sworn affidavits that technicians opened the machines after the voting stopped as well as poll workers being told how to adjust the computer so the counts matched.
In one district Bush got more votes then registered voters and the exit polls did not match the actual vote.
In 2004 there was also an election in one of the former Republicans of the Soviet Union where the exit polls did not match the count and Bush and the corporate media immediately declared it a fraud. Here they ignored it.
I gave a site and a book that goes into the evidence. I can't read them myself right now because my computer is down again and I have to use the one at work, when I can.
In a few days I can go back and give better details but they are there.
In one district Bush got more votes then registered voters and the exit polls did not match the actual vote.
In 2004 there was also an election in one of the former Republicans of the Soviet Union where the exit polls did not match the count and Bush and the corporate media immediately declared it a fraud. Here they ignored it.
I gave a site and a book that goes into the evidence. I can't read them myself right now because my computer is down again and I have to use the one at work, when I can.
In a few days I can go back and give better details but they are there.