Some may be biased, others may be objective. The three you named are biased.
Bear's ghost is gone, so I guess it's up to me to stir the pot.
A few quotes to ponder:
"BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you've got a beautiful face and everything."
"Just two weeks ago, after some fraudulent economic policy rally, Bush looks at [a reporter with a major news weekly] and says, 'Look at this guy smiling. What a beautiful face.'"
"Well, you got a pretty face," [Bush] told the surprised Mr. Reid. He wasn't done. "You got a pretty face," he said again. "You're a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott anyway."
"THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'm ready. Tell us about how you started. I mean, here you are, a good looking guy, wondering what you're going to do with yourself."
Maybe there's a theme here?
gozmo wrote:Some may be biased, others may be objective. The three you named are biased.
And they don't deny it either. That being said, they aren't reporters either and have an agenda.
Have you listened to Air America? What is the difference between conservative radio and liberal radio? One of the major differences that I hear is that Air America radio doesn't have that many people on their programming that are true hosts. Most of them are people who were entertainers on the down slope who have become "radio hosts". During their programming they spew hate and name calling that only seems to rile their listeners. I don't see this same level of hate from people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Prager and Medvid.
Baldimo wrote: I don't see this same level of hate from people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Prager and Medvid.
you've got to be kidding baldi. hannity and limbaugh are full on haters.
did you know that hannity got his start by calling in all the time on rush's show to grouse about the dems, liberals, secularists etc. at least that's the "official" story i heard.
air america has a few kooks too. there's a couple i really can't listen to. but then i don't like talk radio much anyway, in any flavor.
how you doin' these days man ? didn't you ship out a while back, or are you still stateside ?
I fully support George Bush's write to have sex with any willing partner. So long as it doesn't involve coercion then his sex life is his own business.
What I find a more interesting question is, would those who supported Clinton attack George Bush for doing the same thing?
Edit, I mean... right. It's 1am, cut me some slack.
Baldimo wrote:If [..] none of the people who write for these blogs represent the dem party, then can we officially say that Coulter, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly don't represent the Rep party?
Yep. They support the Republican Party with a passion and represent its far-right (or just far-out) wing; but no, you wont hear me saying that they "represent" the Republican Party, period. Thought such stuff would be kinda obvious, either direction, but I suppose its easier to just equate the opponent with the vilest or most far out specimen it encompasses.
Then again, I wouldnt mind if mainstream Republicans here and elsewhere spoke up about Limbaugh's or Coulter's hateful bile a little more often. Just like I wouldnt mind a little more critical reflection on Michael Moore's agitprop on the left side either. (Not that I equate them - Moore is just as biased as Coulter, but he's much more sophisticated in his craft. Dont know if thats a good or a bad thing tho, in the end.)
theantibuddha wrote:I fully support George Bush's write to have sex with any willing partner. So long as it doesn't involve coercion then his sex life is his own business.
What I find a more interesting question is, would those who supported Clinton attack George Bush for doing the same thing?
Edit, I mean... right. It's 1am, cut me some slack.
Did you get in trouble for this post?....you asked for some slack...but, I don't see disagreement on the thread. Guess they sent a flurry of censuring PMs...?
Of course, your point is very obviously correct.
Or he could just have noticed his error and went back to edit and note, like, oops - cut me some slack eh it was late? I've done that often enough, without needing the push of a flurry of enemy PMs ...
Do you often get flurries of censuring PMs?
Lash wrote:theantibuddha wrote:I fully support George Bush's write to have sex with any willing partner. So long as it doesn't involve coercion then his sex life is his own business.
What I find a more interesting question is, would those who supported Clinton attack George Bush for doing the same thing?
Edit, I mean... right. It's 1am, cut me some slack.
Did you get in trouble for this post?....you asked for some slack...but, I don't see disagreement on the thread. Guess they sent a flurry of censuring PMs...?
Uh, no... I mispelled a word. Actually I correctly spelled a word but used a homonym of the word I actually wanted to use. No one commented against it, nor would they probably in the future. I said cut me some slack as a plea against future people judging me too harshly, even though I knew it wouldn't happen. It was exaggerated for comedic effect.
Quote:Of course, your point is very obviously correct.
Maybe... I mean it seems that way to me, but then I wrote it. I could be wrong.
nimh wrote:Or he could just have noticed his error and went back to edit and note, like, oops - cut me some slack eh it was late? I've done that often enough, without needing the push of a flurry of enemy PMs ...
Do you often get flurries of censuring PMs?
I asked him a question. He gave me an answer. Why so up in my stuff? He's capable of answering for himself.
Just grated by the paranoia I suppose ... but yeah you're right I shoulda just let it pass by, no point in remarking on it.
Well. I am afraid it is too late. You have earned a BusyBody pernt.
theantibuddha wrote:I fully support George Bush's write to have sex with any willing partner. So long as it doesn't involve coercion then his sex life is his own business.
What I find a more interesting question is, would those who supported Clinton attack George Bush for doing the same thing?
Edit, I mean... right. It's 1am, cut me some slack.
i supported clinton's right to privacy in his sex life and, yep, it's nobody else's business how dubya gets his cookies either. or mary cheney's for that matter.
but then it's generally not clinton's supporters that get all uptight about that stuff, is it?
That would prove pretty foolish to support Clinton's right to privacy and deny Bush. He wouldn't be called out for that so much but we could have alot of fun chastising him and his 'holier than thou' attitude towards Mr. Clinton.
