Lash wrote:JTT wrote:Notice how pointedly Lash and Chic are avoiding the issue. When cons, [how apropos] don't like the facts they use tangents, throw the facts out or studiously avoid them.
Notice how JTT, closely followed by his alter ego Atkins, go about belching forth personal comments about posters, but never says anything of value toward any issue any time.
My arguments seem to have convinced Chic, [twice, wasn't it?], just in the last several postings.
Lash wrote: PBS thread page 11
Bill Moyers is a red-faced, spittle spewing rabid Marxist-Leninist lefty.
He is openly anti-Republican and has no business masquerading as a journalist.
NPR has finally been called on the carpet BY DEMOCRATS who admit NPR is too one-sided in their reportage.
A Jew never did anything good per NPR.
NPR=National Palestinian Radio.
They should have to present a balanced view.
I nearly split a gut when they said they may have to call in.....Fox News....to learn how to report in a balanced manner.
Guf------FAW!
Lash wrote: page 12
Daniel Shorr---ALWAYS ANTI-BUSH.
I really hate that old geezer.
Lash wrote: page 14
I'm sure I'm not the only conservative who is seriously concerned that many young adults think Jon Stewart is a news anchor.
Lash wrote: page 14
I'd be satisfied that what is actually news is regarded as news, and that people knew the difference between news and entertainment.
But, that's just me.
Lash wrote: page 14
Dan Rather would be one interesting case in point.
One of three major (or 4) coveted and historically respected iconic positions; men who are charged with straight dissemination of the news.
He was a major Democrat fundraiser, constantly attacked Republicans, and I think he massaged himself to orgasm whenever he interviewed Bill or Hill. He fell all over himself lauding them.
He ran with a story he had no credible source for--because he wanted to cause Bush to lose the election.
Could we start be saying he tried to influence voters?
+++++++++++++
Blatham had to mildly admonish Lash for trying to take the discussion so far off point.
Blatham: "Hold off for a bit lash. Let's try and get some basics in on this one."
++++++++++++++
Lash wrote: page 16
OK, let me try to be serious for a second.
I would deeply love to witness, or take part in a thoughtful, ordered examination of this issue wherein we all check our preconceived biases at the door.
I will make a concerted effort not to buzz in with quips.
Could someone start a convo on the parameters, or method of the discussion?
So after all this diversion, Lash tries to get involved in the discussion and promptly shoots herself in the foot.
Lash wrote: page 16
It seems that blatham measures the level of influence, rather than the job description--and seeks to apply a parallel level of responsibility to adhere to the Journalistic Code.
It may seem unfair that one can say whatever he pleases--and another is censured heavily--but that is the nature of Journalism contrasted to a Commentator.
I think it is just irritating to those on the end of the political spectrum opposite the heavy hitters--O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity... The heroes of the opposing group are unfortunately people who ARE bound by the Journalistic Code. They are not Commentators, but reporters and anchors.
chiczaira wrote:I have read this entire thread and have learned something. I have learned that if I am wise and balanced and thoughful and eager to find the truth as Blatham sees it, I will be blessed. However, if I am bigoted and close minded and filled with error like McGentrix, I will be damned.
Since I want to be saved I must ask Blatham how he found the truth. What is the way to enlightenment,O great one?
To which, in the very next posting, Lash responded,
Lash wrote:That's what I was thinking....<LOL>
Caught up as they were in deep and reasoned thinking, in order to better advance the discussion, neither Chic nor Lash noticed that Blatham wasn't arguing with McGentrix, he was arguing with Rayban. But any old diversion will do.
Freeduck could no longer contain duckself, so ...
FreeDuck wrote:I have never seen someone contort themselves so much to avoid seeing a point.
I think this was pointed at Rayban, but it could have easily applied to every far right conservative in this thread, or at least the usual suspects.
Lash then continued with her usual inane distractions but we're coming to the best one of all.
Lash wrote:
McG--
If Coulter wrote that, it was one of the best things she's ever written. Thanks for bringing it!!
And, GOOD FOR YOU for pointing out blaring hypocrisy of others who have the nerve to accuse you of trying on what they do. (!!!!!)
This little celebration was for an article written by A Coulter, posted by McG. You'll have to search for yourself to find Lash's extensive discussions re Ms Coulter's arguments.
I think I've probably gathered Lash's best of the best for this thread.
I am constantly amazed at the depth of her thinking, of the reasoned and well thought out argument she offers, of the things she brings to these threads.
In closing, let me just requote two of Lash's quotes from early in the thread.
ONE:
Lash wrote: page 14
I'd be satisfied that what is actually news is regarded as news, and that people knew the difference between news and entertainment.
But, that's just me.
TWO:
Quote:Lash: I would deeply love to witness, or take part in a thoughtful, ordered examination of this issue wherein we all check our preconceived biases at the door.
I will make a concerted effort not to buzz in with quips.
Measure these against her gushing over Ms Coulter's article. I think that we can all agree that without Lash this thread would have been a complete waste of time.
I must also point up how careful Lash is in following her own "promises", and I'm suitably impressed by her "deep desire" for "a thoughtful, ordered examination of [any] issue".
