Some of the **** I make up is pretty well confirmed by numerous studies over the last several years. Admittedly ABC isn't as extreme left as Salon.org or the Huffington Post or several others. If it was, it would never have done a pretty objective analysis of Obama and Jeremiah Wright as shown in the clip I posted awhile ago. But it is decidedly left of center in its ideological perspective.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
Your idiotic comment was to the effect that, and i quote: "And I'm guessing that the most radical leftwing extremist would not presume to suggest that ABC is a wing of the GOP nor is it a racist or ideologically conservative group." As i pointed out, that was a bad guess. Media Matters in America is a "left-wing" group, and they consider ABC News to be ideologically conservative. So, as usual . . .
. . . you lose.
Oh yeah, the Soros funded MediaMatters created specifically to discredit any conservative source is a far better choice for objectivity than is a UCLA (et al) study group. I lose? I don't think so.
I'm sure you don't think, nor do you think so. But i have no evidence that you ever think.
You wrote: "And I'm guessing that the most radical leftwing extremist would not presume to suggest that ABC is a wing of the GOP nor is it a racist or ideologically conservative group."
You guessed wrong.
Your own criterion was "the most radical leftwing [sic] extremist," so your comment now simply underlines just how wrong you were. Attempting to smear Media Matters in America does not alter that this group has condemned ABC News as ideologically conservative, which is a direct and blatant contradiction of your silly surmise.
Okay, I'll concede that MediaMatters is a radical, extreme, leftwing Soros (among other right-wing activist) funded group specifically organized to discredit anything conservative and, according to Setanta, they consider ABC to be a rightwing organization. That works for me. I'll happily admit my error and take my lashing. I'll amend my previous statement to stated that MOST radical, extreme leftwing yadda yadda . . . . .
Most?
Are you sure you want to go down that road?
No, not to the extent that I want to waste time hunting up data on each one or further derail the thread doing it. I'll revert to the study posted a little while ago as evidence for my point of view and will leave specific percentages flexible; admit my metaphor used for illustration is subject to scrutiny, and let it go at that.
The problem is that you always attempt to suggest not that you prefer your partisan view, but that your partisan view is the "mainstream" view of Americans, and that it is the only correct view. I go back to your comments when you first arrived here when you said that we should take your word for things because you are well-educated and well-informed--as though the rest of us are not. The problem is that it is not enough for you to state your opinion and your basis for it, you always seem to have this obsessional need to claim that it is not just your opinion, but that it is the truth.
As far as i can see, there is almost no left-wing media in the United States, and there is not any part of the "mainstream media" which is even left of center. Your mileage may vary.
Yeah, the problem is with me and there is absolutely no support of any kind for my point of view contained in that study I posted and your opinion is 100% verified as you have so meticulously provided links to credible information as proof. I make **** up and you don't. My bad. I get your point.
Setanta wrote:The problem is that you always attempt to suggest not that you prefer your partisan view, but that your partisan view is the "mainstream" view of Americans, and that it is the only correct view. I go back to your comments when you first arrived here when you said that we should take your word for things because you are well-educated and well-informed--as though the rest of us are not. The problem is that it is not enough for you to state your opinion and your basis for it, you always seem to have this obsessional need to claim that it is not just your opinion, but that it is the truth.
As far as i can see, there is almost no left-wing media in the United States, and there is not any part of the "mainstream media" which is even left of center. Your mileage may vary.
Left of center in whose opinion? Yours? Mine? The public's? Some secret board of intellectuals?
I assume yours as you say "As far as i can see,". I disagree with you. CNN is left of center in it's presentation of news as are many of the large Newspaper organizations despite who the owners may be. The New York Times, for example. Quite left of center in my opinion. Don't even get me started on NPR.
From the article McG posted
Quote:Does Obama think it improves matters when black leaders tell blacks that they're poor, sick, jailed or hooked on drugs because of a government plot? Does it help to fix things if the choir is singing "The devil made me do it," the white devil?
This is the PR problem Obama has, the subtle perception of his own making that has been created, and which he has not yet dispelled if he in fact can. I think a lot of people, even a lot of Democrats, will not vote for him if their perception is that he might view the world this way.
McGentrix wrote:Left of center in whose opinion? Yours? Mine? The public's? Some secret board of intellectuals?
I assume yours as you say "As far as i can see,". I disagree with you. CNN is left of center in it's presentation of news as are many of the large Newspaper organizations despite who the owners may be. The New York Times, for example. Quite left of center in my opinion. Don't even get me started on NPR.
Well duh . . . that's my point in reference to Fox's "proof" about whether or not ABC News is a conservative organization. Her "study" only demonstrates what definitions the people behind it apply to the terms--it proves nothing about what constitutes "conservative" or "liberal" news media.
For many, and perhaps most, people in the world, all Americans are conservative. I would only amend that far enough to say "almost all" . . .
Foxfyre wrote:From the article McG posted
Quote:Does Obama think it improves matters when black leaders tell blacks that they're poor, sick, jailed or hooked on drugs because of a government plot? Does it help to fix things if the choir is singing "The devil made me do it," the white devil?
This is the PR problem Obama has, the subtle perception of his own making that has been created, and which he has not yet dispelled if he in fact can. I think a lot of people, even a lot of Democrats, will not vote for him if their perception is that he might view the world this way.
But nothing the man has ever said, implied or voted for would lead to this perception. He has left a trail of accomplishments, activities, speeches, legislation, etc. and the only things that bring up the concerns you voice are a few snippets from sermons that his pastor gave. Even Huckabee when asked about this said that this is a non-issue and pastors get into their sermons and sometimes the rhetoric is thick. This feels like the way people used Billy Carter against his brother, guilt by association. If you don't like Obama, by all means, vote for McCain, but at least come up with real reasons. There are enough real differences between the candidates that it shouldn't be that hard.
Butrflynet wrote:http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/819177,CST-NWS-sweet29.article
Quote:FORT WORTH, Texas -- On the campaign trail, Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama talks about how he would use the bully pulpit if president, and he offered a demonstration Thursday when he drew wild cheers as he told a mostly African-American crowd that parents need to shape up, turn off the TV, help their kids with their homework and stop letting them grow fat eating Popeyes chicken for breakfast.
"It's not good enough for you to say to your child, 'Do good in school,' and then when that child comes home, you got the TV set on, you got the radio on, you don't check their homework, there is not a book in the house, you've got the video game playing," said Obama while in Beaumont, in southeast Texas.
"So turn off the TV set, put the video game away. Buy a little desk or put that child by the kitchen table. Watch them do their homework. If they don't know how to do it, give them help. If you don't know how to do it, call the teacher. Make them go to bed at a reasonable time. Keep them off the streets. Give ' em some breakfast. Come on. ... You know I am right."
'I've got to talk about us'
Can change happen with words? That's a core question being raised about the Obama candidacy.
"I've got to talk about us a little bit," said Obama. "We can't keep on feeding our children junk all day long, giving them no exercise. They are overweight by the time they are 4 or 5 years old, and then we are surprised when they get sick."
Obama -- who exercises and is careful about what he eats -- said obese children need to improve their nutrition habits, invoking the name of a chain that makes delicious fried chicken.
"I know how hard it is to get kids to eat properly," Obama said. "But I also know that if folks letting our children drink eight sodas a day, which some parents do, or, you know, eat a bag of potato chips for lunch, or Popeyes for breakfast.
"Y'all have Popeyes out in Beaumont? I know some of y'all you got that cold Popeyes out for breakfast. I know. That's why y'all laughing. ... You can't do that. Children have to have proper nutrition. That affects also how they study, how they learn in school."
Obama has delivered "tough love'' messages before about personal responsibility, but he seemed to revel in his "truth-telling" while campaigning in Beaumont, on a day that also took him to Austin and Fort Worth in advance of Tuesday's crucial primaries.
Bill Cosby recently said much the same thing, but he was attacked, booed, and called names by much of the black community.
I wonder why the different treatment.
"With the major difference being, I have done the research, I have listened to many of the sermons and read much of the material. So I am in fact qualified, whereas you are not. And you don't even make any sort of claim to be, or provide any indication that you wish to be. You are happy in your ignorance, and unwilling to admit that it robs your diatribes against Obama of any possible legitimacy."
Well, you ASSERT that you've done some research, have listened to "many" of the sermons and read much of the material. You ASSERT that you are more qualified to judge just how racist Rev. Wright and his church is.
So far you haven't demonstrated any of the assertions. What research have you done that I haven't? You've read the materials at the Obama and Trinity church sites, but both are going to vehemently deny that they are anything less than angelic. Wright has delivered over 1,000 sermons, how many have you read? My guess is that you've watched a few selected video clips on You-Tube. If you have research that objectively demonstrates that: (1) Wright is not a racial bigot who blames the United States for all the evil he sees in the world, or (2) that the Black Theology movement isn't based on Black Supremacy and a bigoted view of Whites, then give us those citations and we'll take a look. The fact is, you are no more qualified to judge than I am. Your research is as "flawed" as mine is. You are happy in your ignorance, and unwilling to admit that it robs your diatribes in support of Obama are utterly without legitimacy.
Your right, I don't claim to have detailed knowledge of stuff that isn't available, and I suspect self-serving statements by politicians and preachers. I have no trouble admitting that my opinions are based on what is widely reported in the media. My trouble with Obama isn't his race, but his lack of judgment and choice of a mentor and adviser. Given his unwillingness to see the contradiction between his public image and the image that is suggested by a 20 year intimate relationship with a racial bigot. Wright has a reputation for inflatable rhetoric replete with racial slurs, and cock-eyed conspiracy theories. Obama and his campaign staff knew that it was dangerous for Wright to play a visible role in the campaign because of his views.
Political careers and lofty ambitions have often been sunk for far less reason than Obama's association with racists.
Setanta wrote:McGentrix wrote:Left of center in whose opinion? Yours? Mine? The public's? Some secret board of intellectuals?
I assume yours as you say "As far as i can see,". I disagree with you. CNN is left of center in it's presentation of news as are many of the large Newspaper organizations despite who the owners may be. The New York Times, for example. Quite left of center in my opinion. Don't even get me started on NPR.
Well duh . . . that's my point in reference to Fox's "proof" about whether or not ABC News is a conservative organization. Her "study" only demonstrates what definitions the people behind it apply to the terms--it proves nothing about what constitutes "conservative" or "liberal" news media.
For many, and perhaps most, people in the world, all Americans are conservative. I would only amend that far enough to say "almost all" . . .
So are you applying your "world view" to the topic? Frankly, whether most Europeans view ABC as a conservative organization is hardly relevant.
engineer wrote:Foxfyre wrote:From the article McG posted
Quote:Does Obama think it improves matters when black leaders tell blacks that they're poor, sick, jailed or hooked on drugs because of a government plot? Does it help to fix things if the choir is singing "The devil made me do it," the white devil?
This is the PR problem Obama has, the subtle perception of his own making that has been created, and which he has not yet dispelled if he in fact can. I think a lot of people, even a lot of Democrats, will not vote for him if their perception is that he might view the world this way.
But nothing the man has ever said, implied or voted for would lead to this perception. He has left a trail of accomplishments, activities, speeches, legislation, etc. and the only things that bring up the concerns you voice are a few snippets from sermons that his pastor gave. Even Huckabee when asked about this said that this is a non-issue and pastors get into their sermons and sometimes the rhetoric is thick. This feels like the way people used Billy Carter against his brother, guilt by association. If you don't like Obama, by all means, vote for McCain, but at least come up with real reasons. There are enough real differences between the candidates that it shouldn't be that hard.
If a logical argument falls in the Obama thread, and nobody hears it, was it made?
Like your "contributions" here . . . hardly relevant. I did not specify Europe. My remarks to Fox were conditioned by her attempted insistence to the effect that: "And I'm guessing that the most radical leftwing extremist would not presume to suggest that ABC is a wing of the GOP nor is it a racist or ideologically conservative group."
It was a bad guess.
"The New York Times, for example. Quite left of center in my opinion." How convenient that is for the powers that be in America. When Bushie lied us into war in Iraq it was the New York Times and Judith Miller that spread his lies for him. The New York Times is much more guilty than Bushie in that regard and therefore more powerful. They could easily have proven Bushie's "evidence" just as fake, forged and fabricated as as did Hans Blix, ElBaradei and Scott Ritter. Instead Judith Miller worked with Scooter Libbey and Cheney to spread lies. When Powell gave his evidence at the UN the New York Times called his report a, "powerful" and "sober, factual case." Powell now calls his testimony a "lasting blot on his record". The "leftie" American mainstream media followed in Judith Miller's footsteps. Bushie lied us into war but it was the "liberal" press that allowed that and they had the power to tell truth and prevent a needless and bloody war. God damn that for sure. Bill Moyers put it all in perspective in a great show "Buying the War"
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
