Rightwing Liars Falsely Claim 2,000 NO School Buses Sat Idle

answer.com

Quote:

attering nabobs of negativism

"Nattering nabobs of negativism" is one of the most popular turns of phrase associated with U.S. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, who served under Richard Nixon until resigning in October 1974, after pleading no contest to charges of tax fraud. Agnew, who had a particularly acrimonious relationship with the press, used this term to refer to the members of the media, whom he also deemed "an effete corps of impudent snobs."

According to the Congressional Record, this term was first used during Agnew's address to the California Republican state convention in San Diego on September 11, 1970. In context, it was used together with another well-known Agnew alliteration: "In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club -- the "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history."

Although this phrase is often credited to Agnew himself, it was actually written by William Safire, the legendary columnist for The New York Times, who was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. Some of Agnew's other pearls were actually written by Patrick Buchanan, another White House speechwriter at the time.

0 Replies

Is Stephanopoulos considered a lying right winger now? Or is he just stupid for not doing his own research?

0 Replies

If you scream something long and loud enough, no matter how false, some people in the middle or even on the opposing side will find it "the reasonable choice" to concede it to you.

It is unfortunate, but the reason some people become very good at hollering is the fact that this process takes place.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

If you scream something long and loud enough, no matter how false, some people in the middle or even on the opposing side will find it "the reasonable choice" to concede it to you.

It is unfortunate, but the reason some people become very good at hollering is the fact that this process takes place.

How does this equate to my post? The guys a lawyer for God sakes. Did you also know he worked for the Clinton admin? So the right wingers are liars? Seems the left did the same thing.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

How does this equate to my post?

Oh, good grief. You can't figure that out?

Baldimo wrote:

Did you also know he worked for the Clinton admin?

I am well aware of that. He not only worked for Clinton, he was Clinton's main political advisor in the early years.

Read my post again. Don't tell me the meaning isn't clear.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
How does this equate to my post?

Oh, good grief. You can't figure that out?

Baldimo wrote:
Did you also know he worked for the Clinton admin?
I am well aware of that. He not only worked for Clinton, he was Clinton's main political advisor in the early years.

Read my post again. Don't tell me the meaning isn't clear.

Your saying Stephanopoulos is an idiot? I think I read that is was said by about 3 people and now a lying left winger. Who's next

0 Replies

This is not the first time that Stephanopoulos has gone way overboard "reaching out" to the other side.

Some years ago, the comedian Jackie Mason, who first favored Clinton, turned against him. He actually wrote and performed a one-man Broadway show in which he did nothing but run down Clinton.

After one of the performances, Stephanopoulos, who either still worked for Clinton or had just recently left, went backstage and congratulated Mason on a great show, even hugging him at one point.

This was too much even for Mason. After the incident, Mason told a newspaper interviewer, (as near as I can remember the quote), "This was incredible. I just spent over two hours on stage running down the guy Stephanopoulos is supposed to support, and after it is all over he comes backstage, hugs me and tells me what a great show it was!"

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

This is not the first time that Stephanopoulos has gone way overboard "reaching out" to the other side.

Some years ago, the comedian Jackie Mason, who first favored Clinton, turned against him. He actually wrote and performed a one-man Broadway show in which he did nothing but run down Clinton.

After one of the performances, Stephanopoulos, who either still worked for Clinton or had just recently left, went backstage and congratulated Mason on a great show, even hugging him at one point.

This was too much even for Mason. After the incident, Mason told a newspaper interviewer, (as near as I can remember the quote), "This was incredible. I just spent over two hours on stage running down the guy Stephanopoulos is supposed to support, and after it is all over he comes backstage, hugs me and tells me what a great show it was!"

He went and saw a show said it was a good show and that makes hm reaching over to the other side? I think your stretching a little far to make a left winger look like a non-left winger.

0 Replies

It is good to be able to laugh along with a few jibes. It is another when the entire evening is devoted to ripping your boss apart and you turn around and hug the guy backstage.

The entire purpose of the show was to run down Clinton for two and half hours. Mason admitted this. That is why even Mason thought it was laughable when the president's close advisor came backstage and tried to act buddy-buddy.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

dragon49 wrote:
Chrissee wrote:
D49, you think the Wall Street Journal, for instance, tries to sensationalize the news?

yup, i do.

here's the definition i found for sensationalize: To cast and present in a manner intended to arouse strong interest, especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details

when i read the article on Carly Fiorina getting replaced at HPQ, they sure did make her out to be a loser (if she is or isn't is not the point, they cast a certain light on her to arouse strong interest).

Oh please, you are grasping at straws. You present no evidence except a rather distorted POV.

well, i am entitled to that point of view however distorted it may seem to you. as well as i respect yours yet don't agree.

0 Replies

dragon49 wrote:

Chrissee wrote:
dragon49 wrote:
Chrissee wrote:
D49, you think the Wall Street Journal, for instance, tries to sensationalize the news?

yup, i do.

here's the definition i found for sensationalize: To cast and present in a manner intended to arouse strong interest, especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details

when i read the article on Carly Fiorina getting replaced at HPQ, they sure did make her out to be a loser (if she is or isn't is not the point, they cast a certain light on her to arouse strong interest).

Oh please, you are grasping at straws. You present no evidence except a rather distorted POV.

well, i am entitled to that point of view however distorted it may seem to you. as well as i respect yours yet don't agree.

When you make absurd claims such as stating that the WSJ tries to be sensational in their news reporting that displays a distorted view. In reality, the WSJ tries very hard NOT TO BE the NY Post.

I don't agree with the editorial board but the news reporting is nearly beyond reproach. WSJ readers do not want sensationalism and the WSJ provides that.

0 Replies

that's where we differ. to you its absurd, to me it isn't. these are our opinions and we are both entitled to them. and i am sure we can argue for the next 8 million years about it, and we will still be left with our own opinions.

its in every media source's best interest to sensationalize it. that's how they sell more copies, get more hits, etc. some are worse than others.

0 Replies

Well, I could say the moon is made of bleu cheese, that wouldn't make it so. There are an awful lot of people who won't buy newspapers that "try to be sensational" and the WSJ and NYT caters to those people. No matter how hard you try, you can't make an outright falsehood true.

I have subscribed to the WSJ at times and been a subcriber from time to time. I have never picked up a copy of the WSJ because I saw a sensational headline. And I can't ever remember seeing one. The WSJ doesn't depend on "hits.". They know there are enough intelligent, educated people out there who will gladly pay a fee to read their non-sensationalistic coverage.

To continue to attempt to say the WSJ "tries to be sensational" defies logic.

0 Replies

i wouldn't say that each and every article they write is sensationalistic.

here may be where we differ...if you are seeing sensationalism as casting a partisan spin and i am seeing it as choosing certain articles because they are more shocking, not necessarily more important.

you are right, most of what i was referring to before as to what irritates me about the media is that they generally cast their partisan view on their stories. however you asked if i thought the WSJ was sensationalistic and from the definition i am operating off of, i believe it fits.

the pure definition of sensationalism i gave above is the one i am follwing. it has come to more often than not now represent political bias. that is what irritates me most, but i do not like it when certain stories are made to seem more controversial and important than they truly are (much like the natalee holloway case IMO).

yes most media outlets cast partisan views on their articles thus constituting sensationalism, and maybe the WSJ doesn't do that (except in their editorial section for obvious reasons).

however they do use some stories to arouse interest. yesterday on page B1, the headline was "Separate but Equal? Schooling of Evacuees Provokes Debate" the story went on to discuess whether or not the evacuee children should be allowed to go to the public schools around their shelter or if the shelter should provide schooling for them-argument being that if the shelter did it since most are black, they would be segregated. the title is racially charged- (whether right or wrong is not the point) it is that way for the purpose of arousing strong interest in the subject (thus sensationalizing it in the pure definition of the word).

again, i admit when we started this, we were discussing political views on articles and maybe the WSJ doesn't do that, that i will concede. but yes, i do believe they sensationalize the news, but maybe not from a partisan point of view.

0 Replies

Quote:

however they do use some stories to arouse interest

No ****! I hope when I pick up any newspaper, it contains content that is interesting. No matter how much you are willing to dance your semantic argument on a head of a pin. 1 +1 still equals 2 and up doesn't mean down.

Why don't you just admit that you erred when you took my bait? Or are you going to go on for ten more pages trying to prove that black is white?

The fact is that the WSJ is the epitome of non-sensational news. They obviously try very hard NOT TO BE sensational.

0 Replies

Easy now, dragon's been pretty polite about it. It's not that important of a point is it? Whether or not the WSJ is sensationalistic?

Now what about those buses. 600 buses, 100,000 people. How much time would it take to get them all to higher ground?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Easy now, dragon's been pretty polite about it. It's not that important of a point is it? Whether or not the WSJ is sensationalistic?

Now what about those buses. 600 buses, 100,000 people. How much time would it take to get them all to higher ground?

OK back to the topic. This would have taken planning and organization almost beyond the scope of what even the most efficient governments could be expected to do.

0 Replies

Somebody mentioned earlier where the city had warned people that "they were on their own". I read and article about that -- posted by a righter to bolster the case that the city was negligent -- and what it said was that the city was warning the residentst that there weren't enough buses to get them all out. The would have had to start evacuating on Friday in order to get everyone out, most of whom had nowhere to go. Thew would have needed three or four superdomes to house them. No mayor, governor, or president would order an evacuation three days before a storm because they know that there's a chance it will change course and they'll catch holy hell for it.

But I'll also say this, they could have/should have come up with a better plan. They knew the risks. But none of that changes the fact that the cavalary didn't show up for several days, almost a week in fact. And that's just atrocious. Maybe the locals failed to prevent, but the feds failed to help, and I have my own opinion about which is worse.

0 Replies

dragon49 wrote:

so you would say CNN is ... reporting purely news? i definitely wouldn't call it right leaning

On an aside (and with respect to Dragon's politeness and patience), I would.

Even CNN "International" is hyper-Amerocentric, and its idea of balance in debate is inviting a Fox News type conservative (Pat Buchanan, at one point) and y'r average Democrat-favouring commentator. To any European viewer, thats the equivalent of seeing a rabid rightwinger argue a wishy-washy centrist. Theres few non-American analysts who would go beyond the narrow pro-business, 'the West is the best' US perspective, the questions asked of (almost always American) officials are of mindnumbing timidity, there's hardly any critical reportage.

Well, I could go on forever (and have). Compared to BBC or the German, French or Dutch newscasters, CNN is one big rah-rah-rah of bland, sensationalist, ADD pro-American propaganda.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Why don't you just admit that you erred when you took my bait? Or are you going to go on for ten more pages trying to prove that black is white?

i said i admit that when we started this we were talking about media sources casting partisan views and i deviated to your "semantics" did you miss that part of my last post? does that not appease your need to be right on everything or do you just feel the need to drive it home so you can feel better about yourself?

1. i knew you were trying to drag me into some drawn out argument that we are having because you bait everyone on every thread that you don't agree with so you can rant and rave at them and run around and scream, "i am right, i am right" i guess it makes you feel better about yourself so i will oblige as my self esteem is intact.

2. as i said, all media sources sensationalize the news to sell copies-it is in their best interest to do so. did you not read my example of how the WSJ did just that yesterday? they racially charged their headline so that more people would want to read it-sensationalism.

3. why shouldn't i argue the pure definition of the word-that is what the word means is it not? i gave it to you above : sensationalism is to cast and present in a manner intended to arouse strong interest, especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details. semantics-maybe, but according to this definition i still believe the WSJ sensationalizes their news (maybe not especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details). and i already conceded to you that they may not cast a partisan view on their news which was in fact where we began. go feed your sad little ego.

4. and since we will never see eye to eye on this no matter how many pages we fill, i am done. move on.

0 Replies

Rightwing Liars Falsely Claim 2,000 NO School Buses Sat Idle

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know