I didn't say it was JUST about sex. I know the right wing line. It was about perjury, a felony, oh my! Somebody call the cops! What you leave out is that the Republican 'witch hunt' (to use your words) put him in that position. And I guess you believe Reagan really, truly "didn't recall" anything at all about Iran Contra, one of his pet projects and one of the most significant chapters of his presidency. I guess it's your take that it's not okay to lie under oath when you're a Democrat talking about sex, but it is okay to lie under oath about arming the Contras. You know, in the interest of patriotism. Ollie North for president, right? Larry Flynt was only the loudest of many people who believed that the hypocrisy of adulterers crying foul about adultery deserved to be outed. I can't for the life of me figure out why you find that 'analysis' to be 'mindnumbing.' By the way, whatever happened to the war on drugs? Oh right, George W's coke habit. Family values? Right, Gingrich and the rest. Corporate welfare, free enterprise, supply side economics? Enron (not to mention Bush and Cheney). And there's no Clinton to demonize or Gore to make fun of. Lucky for you guys there's a 'war' on.
Also, saying a "Clintonphile" is merely a fan of Clinton is like saying a "pedophile" is merely a fan of sex with children. You know what you were doing. Just like when you use words like witch hunt and mindnumbing. In lieu of a thoughtful argument, you resort to hyperbolic language. After all, it worked on the playground, right?
No, it just means you love England and things of England. Problem here is the attack and retreat strategy. tbagain wants to intimate that people are biased in favor of defending Clinton against logic, since they're 'Clintonphiles' or Clinton-lovers. Someone takes issue with his tone and he says, "What? I was just saying you were a fan..."
In the papers I have worked at, been to, etc. the editorial pages were in a completely separate part of the building from the newsroom and the opinion page editor didn't answer to the editor-in-chief or any of the newsroom staff. The editorial page staff never attended budget meetings and never ventured onto the newsroom floor. It was far different than simply the different sections being separate as they still answered to the editor-in-chief, still had offices in or around the newsroom and section heads still went to budget meetings, etc. Of course, that wouldn't hold true for some smaller papers. But it's true of the papers I worked at, and nearly all that I have seen, etc. Certainly the Amarillo Globe-News, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Dallas Morning News and New York Times do it that way (with their own variations in the staff structure). The Denton Record-Chronicle also did when I worked there, though I can't vouch for the way they do things now. The only daily paper I've been to that didn't was the McKinney Courier-Gazette. But whatever. I'm just relaying my personal experience. Choose to believe it or don't. Doesn't make any difference to me. Your own experience may vary.
I am not sure if that website is philosophical or not, but I am ROTFLOL when tbagain said “I really don't want to argue this point with you Clintonphiles“ after he quoted the website.
Thank you for posting that. I'm surprised that Batman never addressed that post. I work with engineers all day long and if someone told them that they leaned toward the "liberal" side, I would get my ass kicked and be drawn and quartered. I also work with accountants and I don't know any of them to be "liberal". That leads to my next point: why can't we just be known as democrats, republicans, or independents?? I mean it makes me sick that most people automatically think of democrats as being liberal and republicans as conservative. Aren't there democrats out there that aren't liberal and republicans that aren't conservative ?
mrpaige -- We've clearly had different experiences on newspapers. That's okay. I didn't mean to make it seem as if I was questioning your truthfulness -- you're one of the most thoughtful and even-handed posters on this BBS. I pretty much take your word as gospel. I think my main point was that, since the opinion page is often supervised by the editorial board, it is a reliable barometer of the paper's true philosophical leanings.
I am so glad that I am not using my Journalism degree, I would be a lone conservative in a sea of Liberals. Though I am not sure that it would have made much difference in sportscasting. DaDakota
This is an excellent argument for making all children take Latin in school. Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993. -phile, -phobe (suffixes) The suffix -phile means “someone who likes, desires, or loves (someone or something)”: An Anglophile delights in all things English. The suffix -phobe is an antonym of -phile; it means “someone who dislikes, fears, or hates (someone or something)”: An Anglophobe hates all things English. You and "rblh" are hereby commanded to take 9th grade English over again. Let's agree to never discuss Bill Clinton again- you are getting hysterical (in more ways than one).
I agree that engineers tend to be conservative. I didn't see that post before. Manny: There are certainly Democrats who aren't liberal and Republicans who aren't conservative. That's actually why I find the ideological id's to be more descriptive than party affiliation. Also, I don't ascribe negative connotations to either word. The party to which I don't belong spent some serious time trying to turn 'liberal' into a bad word, but I wear it with pride. And I don't think any self-respecting conservative would mind being called one. tbagain: I've said about everything I have to say on the subject. I'm as bored talking about Clinton as you are. I actually wouldn't have brought him up. I think this started with you comparing lawsuits against Cheney and Clinton, which naturally led to a debate on the merits of those suits. I think it was around then that we both became equally 'hysterical.' Then after you characterized Clinton's perjury as an 'extreme national security issue' and Cheney's alleged deceptive business practices 'felony theft', I brought up Iran Contra, which you repeatedly ignored (I can understand why) in favor of arguing semantics. I concede I overreacted to the 'Clintonphile' thing. If you want to talk Iran Contra, I'm game. If not, that's fine too. We're both Rockets fans and we're both passionate about our politics. So we have some things in common. No hard feelings.
ooh ooh since everybody's talking past one another, I want to join in too... Intelligence doesn't have anything to do with political leanings, of course. Most med school students that I know are *suprise* little frat daddy-esque types who play golf and are *suprise* typically conservative. The ecologist types are *suprise* typically liberal. Whoa! Variability exists, but people tend to be a sum of their experiences and influences... not of some little iq thing that makes everyone comfortable (as if we all are running around with different abilities, com'on there's not that much genetic variation, sheez).
Batman, I would never hold a grudge from a debate about religion or politics. In fact, I enjoy a harsh debate. It is good for our circulation.
Sorry to jump on the debate late folks, but I've been away. I would like to add my vote to those that agree with Jeff in saying that the media has a corporate bias, and not really a liberal bias. I'm about as liberal as one can get, and the news doesn't come anywhere close to broadcasting from a starting position of my politics. I'd also like to take this time to dispel a couple of myths about liberals, at least what I consider to be liberalism. 1. I'm very Anti-PC. PC culture often leads to horrible censorship, which any liberal should be against. I'm in favor of sensitivity, but when plays like '12 Angry Men' have their titles changed to '12 Angry Jurors' I think it's ridiculous. Also recently a production of 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' had it's title changed so as not to offend people with spinal disorders. If anyone really cares ask me later and I'll explain why these types of things are so horrible and wrong. 2.Liberals DO love the U.S. And true to the country's founding ideals, they seek to protect the freedoms, and civil liberties that make the country special. In fact the more the U.S. finds itself under attack from terrorism, the tighter we should cling to civil liberties, the rights and freedoms and things that this country is supposed to be all about.
The definition of Clintonphiles has nothing to do with what you quoted. The method you used to deflect arguments is what I am laughing at. Were you debating the merit of your opponents’ arguments when you call them fans of Clinton and avoid further discussion? Would you explain to me the different between the following tactics: Calling Rush Limbaugh a fat loudmouth instead of addressing the argument. and Calling someone a fan of Clinton instead of addressing the argument. It appeared to me that the bottom line of both tactics is to avoid the issue.
I'm glad you guys liked the "backslapping cadre" remark. Even more glad to see you vindicate it in this thread.
If you would have read my posts, you would have clearly seen that I did not want to discuss the Clinton saga AGAIN because anybody remotely interested in politics that has been alive during the last ten years has participated in this SAME FREAKING ARGUMENT A THOUSAND FREAKING TIMES!!!!!!!!!! I asked Batman to just walk away because we would never agree, but he wanted to throw a few jabs. Did you enjoy the exchange? I didn't, because most people have made up their mind about Clinton and his lawlessness. Nobody here will change my mind because I have heard ALL the evidence and ALL the arguments.
Is a cadre like a posse? If I have one, do I have to pop a cop for not giving me my props in Oak-town? No? I heard that somewhere.
