RkFast Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 As if that makes it different from the rest of Fox News. Jack Cafferty and Keith Olbermann are really "fair and balanced", right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Jack Cafferty and Keith Olbermann are really "fair and balanced", right? Nope. It's just easier to take potshots at Fox because they're the only "Conservative" news station. Meanwhile, on the Liberal Left, they like to pretend that all the other news media isn't biased in their direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Jack Cafferty and Keith Olbermann are really "fair and balanced", right? Go Go Gadget Put-Words-In-Mouth. AD: I would argue that its not a political bias as much as an economic bias. Here's a quite persuasive model setup by a couple folks at Harvard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Go Go Gadget Put-Words-In-Mouth. AD: I would argue that its not a political bias as much as an economic bias. Here's a quite persuasive model setup by a couple folks at Harvard. I'm sure that plays to it, but it's not as black and white as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Nope. It's just easier to take potshots at Fox because they're the only "Conservative" news station. Meanwhile, on the Liberal Left, they like to pretend that all the other news media isn't biased in their direction. I admit that the other news media is biased towards the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prognastic Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I admit that the other news media is biased towards the truth. You mean like when CNN agrees to slant news to favorably cover Iraq under Saddam in order to remain on location in Baghdad? Or when Dan Rather went ahead with those forged documents claiming Bush was AWOL? Lets not even get into Cronkite's Tet Offensive reporting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I'm sure that plays to it, but it's not as black and white as that. I agree that it would be hard pressed for one model to take everything into account, but what do you think the other factors are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I admit that the other news media is biased towards the truth. You might want to read Bernard Goldberg's book Bias. Goldberg voted for McGovern twice--once in the primaries, and once in the general election. He worked at CBS for many years. But even to a liberal like him, the mainstream media has a strong leftist bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Hmmm. So I write a post - clearly over the line in many ways - that was filled with: false assumptions, inane babble, false choices, etc., and draw fire(and warranted fire, imo) BUT...ask yourself this question - how different is it from it what was in this thread early on? I merely responded in the EXACT SAME WAY to the EXACT SAME THINGS that were being said about me earlier in this thread. It is my simple response to ridiculous babble: even more ridiculous babble. Contrast my last with the quotes below and tell me you don't see a pattern. Please understand that my last was created by using the EXACT same logic as the quotes below, I just reversed the position: Dick Cheney and OCinPhilly must be disappointed that they're losing this opportunity to advocate military action against Iran. Negotiating a peaceful settlement is such an impediment to the neo-con agenda. So true! SO, it's ok for ridiculous assumptions to be made about me(why in the world would I not want our allies troops released - regardless of the conditions?), but, if I make them about you(never been in a bar fight, etc.) it's not OK. Right. No, you were just waving the appeasement flag as if getting these guys released was some sort of a defeat. That's all. Only a neocon idiot like yourself would find this as a bad thing. Can't blame some of us for thinking you were hoping they all got killed so you jack asses could use it as an excuse to kill more Right, so because of your assumption of Rkfast's association/shared position with Neo-Con IDIOTS(love the name calling - it always points out the intellectually challenged) you now think that you can apply an "all or nothing" argument to the British prisoners situation and say that he, or I, support wanton death and destruction - just like I applied the same thinking in my "they haven't grow up in the city" or "they haven't seen dead bodies, etc.". Both are examples of all or nothing thinking - just because I grew up in cities, doesn't mean I enjoy violence - nor does it mean that I want/don't want to use violence. If I had grown up in the suburbs, the same would be true. Each situation is different. Just because RK supports a strong military response when our soverignty is challenged, does not mean he wanted the prisoners used as a military pretext for war. He has every right to be upset by the patent stupidity of these comments, and it appears that you have now earned every right to be toy for this board's amusement Hey look! OCinnPhilly writes for the Washington Post! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1 No one has any idea if I agree with Krauthammer or not - why? Because you didn't ask me. Just like I didn't ask you about whether you, or the others, had ever been in a bar fight, to war, seen a guy killed, etc. Both posts are equally ridiculous(actually mine is even more ridiculous - as intended). Projecting expectations onto someone is an awful way of trying to prove something about them to others. Why? Because the guy you are projecting them on can behave UNEXPECTEDLY, at least in your mind, making you look like an even bigger fool than you already do. Exactly as I have, in this case. So, using the same logic in the quotes above, and others - I was able to construct a ridiculous post. (Thanks to Chicot for pointing out the obvious) Also, I heard the whole "barfight" argument from a guy - in a bar - the other day, I thought it was just ridiculous enough to be equivalent to the nonsense I have been hearing in this thread. The overall argument is not mine. It's based on the "guy in the bar" and the nonsense posts in this thread. However, all of the things that have "happened" to me are actually true. I simply used these facts in the same way and under the same logical???? rules that were applied, poorly, to me and others by posters in this thread. What's the point? I am trying, desperately, to point out to some posters here that using these kind of arguments will get them nowhere. Moreover, I wanted to see what would happen when the same stupidity that these guys fling at people on this board was flung at them. Finally, my main focus was to get some things across: stop with the namecalling, stop with the horrible attempts at distortion/lies/projections - I will catch you every time, cut the crap with the assumptions - or - at least prove you know how to make one properly - based on facts, not bs, and don't try to smear people on this board unless you like looking stupid. And, before anyone attempts to accuse me of "backtracking" please understand that I have done these types of posts many times before. I am not trying to act superior - I am trying to get others to look at/think about/feel differently about an issue. Essentially I am trying to de-program some folks, amuse other folks, but mostly provoke thought in general, since that is supposedly why we are here. Well, after 5-6 days, it appears that most of you were smart enough to see this one coming from a mile away - which makes me happy. The ones that didn't see it were it's targets anyway. Apologies to anyone that got caught in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Hmmm. So I write a post - I hope you've learned ur lesson this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I hope you've learned ur lesson this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Great post, OC. Bravo. Im still VERY upset by MG's assertion and assumption that I wished harm on those troops in order to move forward with some kind of agenda. We do a lot of name calling and what-not around PPP. A lot of it is done purely for sport. But MG's incessant assumptions about people and what they are saying gets downright personal and is really beyond the pale. He needs to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Im still VERY upset by MG's assertion and assumption that I wished harm on those troops in order to move forward with some kind of agenda. Then you probably deserve to be upset. It's the internet. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 We do a lot of name calling and what-not around PPP. A lot of it is done purely for sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Then you probably deserve to be upset. It's the internet. Get over it. "Its the Internet" is a cop out. Last I checked, there still a real person on the other end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Last I checked, there still a real person on the other end. Prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 "Its the Internet" is a cop out. Last I checked, there still a real person on the other end. Prove it. Ontology fight!!!! *grabs popcorn* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Prove it. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bravo, again! Thats great...and the not-so-subtle point between those two little words isnt lost on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bravo, again! Thats great...and the not-so-subtle point between those two little words isnt lost on me. Times like when I'm arguing with Holcomb's Arm, or Ed, or molson_goldfish, I always come back to something Johnny Coli once told njsue: "You only exist when I have nothing better to do." Plus...given time, I could probably write a computer program that imitated some of the posters here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Times like when I'm arguing with Holcomb's Arm, or Ed, or molson_goldfish, I always come back to something Johnny Coli once told njsue: "You only exist when I have nothing better to do." Plus...given time, I could probably write a computer program that imitated some of the posters here. How much time could you possibly need to create a program to mimic about 3.5 of the posters here? Start with a set of the same 4-6 asinine statements, and write a simple program that randonly picks a certain number and puts them in a random order, and then posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts