Uhh, aren't you the same bunker dweller who refers to it as the "Imperial Federal Government" and lectured about the evils of government at length yesterday?
I don't live in a bunker and no....I'm not paranoid. I just have a healthy suspicion of the Federal Govt, that's all. Anyone who trusts every motive and action of theirs has some serious problems. And Maynard, that website is definitely not what I'd call moderate, centrist or anything else except way looney left.
yet again instead of just declaring it "way looney left" why dont you defend that argument? you said something before about being in sports broadcasting? you dont go on the radio and just say "Falcons suck" and leave it at that? you says "falcons suck because of A, B, and C"
Let's see here......"neocons" that want to take over the world and you say that is not "looney left?" Cue Dr. Evil laugh here.....huuuuaaaaaah....huuuuuuaaaah....... Give me a break. I occasionally have callers on my show who have taken a break with reality and I often have to jolt them back into sanity, but unfortunately, it doesn't work too often. You've not defended your ridiculous argument except with stuff from the little leftist fan club websites you and your lefty buddies visit. But when I mention anything from some reputable page....no, that's just some conservative website, blah, blah, blah. I'm tired of arguing with you, so I'm dropping the atomic bomb of proof of a liberal bias. They did a survey of the Washington press corps and found that over 90 percent of them voted Democratic. 90 percent! That's outrageous. And don't try to tell me that they are able to remove their internal beliefs from their reporting of the news, because you can't b.s. a bull****ter. I know that I'm biased against certain schools (Auburn, Tennessee) and favor others (Alabama, Georgia, LSU) and trust me, it leaks through. That's not so bad for me, local schmo with a radio show and I am merely sharing my OPINION. But for a national journalist to habitually let their bias just shine for all to see through NEWS stories like most of the media do is unconscienable and sickening.
you obviously didnt read the source and you obviously werent conscience fron 1992-2000 when the Washington press hounded Clinton day and night
Sigh, anybody want to point out to BS the critical chasms of logic that he has leapt over (or probe his anectdote for truth)....or should we just call it a night. It's hard to argue with a fictional character.
AM......so? You act like the media was so hard on Clinton, but who was it that broke the story and forced their hand? Matt Drudge of course, God bless him. Otherwise, they were going to sit on it, as NBC sat on the Anita Broderick rape allegations, how the major networks ignored the quid pro quo connection between China and Clinton's fund raising and how the Clintons were directly responsible for the total incompetence of security at our nuclear laboratories, happily pilfered by our buddies at the PRC, allowing them to leapfrog decades of nuclear R & D. The media's favorite tactic is to quote some Democrat, who says "Republicans are going to take away kids school lunches." They then find a poor Republican and ask him "So why are you going to take away lunches from kids" without analyzing what the Democrat said. This plays itself out every night on every network except for Fox. You people have not shown any evidence, just a bunch of left wing propaganda that attempts to use this so-called "conservative" media to gloss over why people are rejecting your foolish and illogical ideology. You reject what I've said as being inadmissible because it comes from conservatives, but by that rationale, shouldn't your evidence be rejected as well? You can't tell me with a straight face that any site that has an "untold story" conspiracy theory that the Bush admin seeks to dominate the world in a great empire is not liberal. If you think that site is not liberal, you seriously need help....now. Put the crack pipe away and put your thinking cap on.
uhm, why would the media ask Republicans hard questions? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE THAT THEY ARE TAKING AWAY MONEY FROM THOSE PROGRAMS!!!!!!!! that doesnt make that media source "liberal" to point out, bring up, ask questions about why Republicans want to cut school lunch programs, because it is the TRUTH and the truth shall set you free
OK.....aren't we a bit slavish to the liberal Democrat form. Those evil Republicans who want to destroy the environment, starve children, kill homosexuals, clog our highways with SUVs, actually defend this country rather just taking a pass on those duties (like Clinton) and making old people eat dog food so they can afford their prescription drugs are the boogey men in your nightmares. Do you even know how the budgeting system in Congress works? Do you really? Nothing ever gets cut. The federal budget is figured on something called "baseline" budgeting, which simply means that this year's approtiation is based on last year's as a base line and either stays the same, or more usually, increases. It's funny that your liberal buddies in the Congress call not funding an increase a cut, even though the appropriation was the SAME as last year's! See why we have a deficit? See why we can't cut any spending? If you believe what you said is the truth....you are a seriously deranged person who needs help....immediately.
Saw this and wanted to post it somewhere. Since this thread has declined (due in a little part to me), I chose to put it here. "She is a fabulous First Lady. I was a lucky man when she said, yes, I agree to marry you. I love her dearly, and I'm proud of the job she's doing on behalf of all Americans. Just like I love my brother." -- Dubya, Sep. 9, 2003
OK, last time BS, just for my own amusement, maybe this will get through to your bunker: Village Voice, the Nation, Mother Jones = left wing media New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly = moderate left wing media New York Times, Washington Post= moderate newspapers whose editorial pages lean left Time, Newsweek, US News = pretty middle of the road Chicago Tribune, LA Times = moderate newspapers whose editorial pages lean right Wall Street Journal = moderate right wing media, American Spectator, Weekly Standard, Nat' Review = right wing media Matt Drudge = chumpy gossip monger. BTW, I wonder how much of his fanbase he would retain if he ever came out of the closet?
You would call the LA Times and NY Times moderate? Moderate as compared to what.....Stalin? Read their news stories and it as if they directly took their marching orders on stories from the Democratic party. Geez...... I can name a slight few conservative papers: The Washington Times New York Post Wall Street Journal But for everyone of those, I can name even more liberal ones. Notice a trend? SF Chronicle Houston Chronicle Atlanta Journal Constitution USA Today NY Daily News Chicago Sun Times New Orleans Times Picayune Memphis Commercial Appeal Sacramento Bee Seattle Times Boston Globe Philadelphia Enquirer Miami Herald Detroit Free Press Most are liberal, both in the AP stories they decide to run (gatekeeper function of media, especially editors) and especially on their op-ed pages. Get over it, the media is mostly liberal. I should know, I'm part of that media.
The LA TImes is and always has been a conservative newspaper. Look it up. USA today is liberal? What, did they have some left wing factoids or pie graphs once? The fact that you think the Chronicle is liberal strains your own credibility. Btw, this survey indicated that slightly more newspapers endorsed Bush than Gore: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/natendorse5.html Maybe you can spend up all night adding up the circulations to prove your point.
bama, just wanted to point out something; You keep using extreme examples to illustrate the left...'Stalin, Communists, etc.' You often insist that these are the extremes immediately beyond the politics of publications, etc. which you see as leaning to the left. Here's something for you to consider; The left-right political scale, for all of it's imperfections, is not an evaluation of where things stand in relation to other American political systems, it is a global evaluation, originally European, which establishes certain parameters for qualification. It can and has been used within isolated political spheres, for example within the US compared to other US political leanings, but your examples tend to indicate that you are not limiting this to a merely American left-right scale, as your mention of Stalin indicates. As such, something you should know. On the actual left-right scale, ie the global one, the US falls well to the right of center. We are not moderate, we are very right leaning. As such our 'moderates' are actually right of center, our lefts, unless extreme, are closer to actual center, and our rights are actually extreme right on the right-left scale. This being true, the ones in the US actually close to the extreme examples of left-right that you like to throw around with abandon are the right-wingers, for the most part, again short of extremes. Something to consider when throwing out Stalins at left-leaners. It's likely that you're closer to Hitlers and Pinochets than they are to the examples you give. Edit: Oh, and your ability to objectively evaluate where media outlets fall on the scale is extremely warped even if you limit the scale to the US.
If you really wanted to be correct, Hitler would be a lefty, since Nazi was a SOCIALIST party. I see the political spectrum as a donught rather than a line, with the whacko extremes of right and left eventually meeting.
Lol! The National Socialist Party was not socialist. Hitler was fascist, which is graded as extreme right. Do you put this much weight in all titles, like the People's Republic of China, for example? Was this a serious argument? And it is a donught only in terms of the means to achieve the end, the designated ends are still opposed, and in any respect we are to the right.
When the black-shirts start knocking on our doors, at least we know that bamaslammer will be safe. If not the one knocking on our door.
