quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec trolls? You dont have a brain to debate anything....Look above my post and refute that. Then we talk.. Gnite

LOL

"Your mind is like a parachute, it only works if it's open."

Tchau!

___________________

quote:

"Learn, child, to catch a hint through whatever agency it may be given. 'Sermons may be preached through stones." - Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Letters from the Masters of Wisdom, first series, p. 74, letter 31

Those that call the media "liberal" are just hurtful to hear the truth.. whenever the media goes a way the conservative dont like, or, don't like listening or hearing .. they just call it, LIBERAl.. give me a breaaaaaak!!!!!.. The media sparked ( thanks to the republicans ofcourse ) the lewinsky scandal to extreme proportions... the media has not questioned BUSH as much in so many forms.. in the beginning of the war, they were all for it, and proping it like it was the most brilliant thing.. COME ON man.. give me a freacking brake here. It's just, rediculous, it's news, it's the truth, something that the media is done for, so what's the deal?!?!.. The veterans for truh spewed so much crap, thanks to the republicans that founded, now.. you guys just chew what you started!

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

I stopped listening to the media long ago.

It's much easier for me to do what i love best - hug trees, smoke weed, and play the bongos to a tune that is only makes sense in my head.

Aside of that, what else is really all that important in the world?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I stopped listening to the media long ago. It's much easier for me to do what i love best - hug trees, smoke weed, and play the bongos to a tune that is only makes sense in my head. Aside of that, what else is really all that important in the world?

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&ci..._Administration
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...d.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/


WOW I wAS right, these documents are now being questioned...posssibly forged...if this holds true; you can say goodbye to the KERRY Campaign.

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&ci..._Administration http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...d.ap/index.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/ WOW I wAS right, these documents are now being questioned...posssibly forged...if this holds true; you can say goodbye to the KERRY Campaign.

You mean the same way we could have said goodbye to the Bush campaign after it was demonstrated over and over the myriad of contradictions from the Smear Boaters?

Hmmm, methinks there's a little more to the campaign than the questions being raised by these 527's on both sides.....

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You mean the same way we could have said goodbye to the Bush campaign after it was demonstrated over and over the myriad of contradictions from the Smear Boaters? Hmmm, methinks there's a little more to the campaign than the questions being raised by these 527's on both sides.....

You're not alone, brother.

___________________

quote:

"Learn, child, to catch a hint through whatever agency it may be given. 'Sermons may be preached through stones." - Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Letters from the Masters of Wisdom, first series, p. 74, letter 31

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You mean the same way we could have said goodbye to the Bush campaign after it was demonstrated over and over the myriad of contradictions from the Smear Boaters? Hmmm, methinks there's a little more to the campaign than the questions being raised by these 527's on both sides.....

Point made.. Is funny how everytime theres a question raised, its said.. IT"S OVER FOR KERRY!!!.. Like speedracer once mentioned something along the lines.. " I can't wait to see the videos and evidence of Kerry and he's fals arguments in Vietname in the RNC and the end of his days"... and look at what happened hehe.. This does not mean the end for Kerry, as he HAS NOT!!! .. BIG AND CLEAR>. HAS NOT SAID ANY COMMENTS REGARDING BUSH AND THE RELEASE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS!! NOR WAS HE BEHIND THE RELEASE OF THOSE PAPERS!!! .. with that said, all he said was " The White House Should Answer THose Questions" ..

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

Apologies for the late response, I had a biiiiig weekend.

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec Ok so you post a bias site Let me use the same argument you used: Please read this page (and as many of the links provided as possible) and then try to tell my the the US media has a "liberal bias": Link1

The Media vs Swift Boat veterans?

Please explain to me, speedracer, why the media should allow these Swift Boat veterans - whose claims have either been delegitimised or proven to be completely unsupported by any solid evidence - air-time to spread their lies, borne purely from an irrational hatred for Senator Kerry? The role of the media is to present facts, not to allow the opportunity for every fringe-group dwelling lunatic to present their ideas free of charge to the entire world. If there were any substance or relevence to what the Swift Boat vets were saying, then I'd agree that they should be given more air-time, but as it stands they're just bitter old men with a grudge whose sole aim is to ruin the candidacy of senator Kerry. The media should not legitimise this muckraking by giving them equal time to air their views: if we were to legitimise this tactic, for instance, by allowing the Swift Boat vets to propogate mischeivous, politically charged nonsense, then perhaps every time we discuss the holocaust, in the interest of "fairness" we should invite a holocaust denier on to present his views too? Perhaps every time we discuss man landing on the moon, we should invite on the consperacy nuts who believe that it was actually filmed in Area 51? Can you begin to see why we shouldn't give people a run in the media unless they have solid facts to support what they're saying?

There is an inherent subjectivity to truth, but that does not mean that we should legitimise the views of shit-stirrers by giving them an open forum to spew out their vitriolic crap to the entire world. The Swift Boat vets are liars, are presenting a doctrine completely devoid of substance, completely irrelevent to the campaign and they have a demonstrable, vested political interest in promoting a certain candidate - why should the media give them the time of day? They should be blocked from the news and completely ignored by any medium interested in presenting the truth. There is no fucking way that they deserve more press.

Besides, I can't help but laugh at the suggestion that these Swift Boat vets have somehow been hard done by the media. For months their claims dominated the agenda and were presented (until recently) without ever seriously being challenged or questioned by many in the media. It was fiction presented as fact and even though they've now largely been demonstrated to be fraudulent, they've already served their purpose - they've unfairly undermined the character of John Kerry for political gain and the media were willing partners in this sham. The Swift Boat vets were given far more coverage than they ever deserved (far more coverage, say, than whoever the equivelent anti-Bush character assassins might be) so you cannot honestly tell me with a straight face that there is a global, media conspiracy to shut these guys out, becuase if anything the opposite is true. They've been given a free ride and the media need to be rebuked for allowing them the opportunity to do so.

quote:

LINK2

Wow, a Dick Cheney quote was "taken out of context" on September the 8th (even though I'm not sure how it's possible to take the unambiguous statement "if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again" out of context) so gee, there must be a vast liberal conspiracy to undermine the Bush administration.

By presenting one or two instances (out of all the newspapers, radio stations, TV stations and internet sites in the US) of "misrepresentation" a day (without providing any evidence that the mistakes were intentional or malicious, much less that they're somehow tied in with some vast, ill-defined liberal conspiracy) do they seriously expect me to believe that:

1) This is solid evidence of intentional bias?
2) These misrepresentations are common enough to point to an intentional, institutional bias running through all the media in the country?
3) That these few specific examples (provided out of any meaningful context) cancel out the general, all-pervasive bias claimed (and supported by evidence) in the website I provided earlier?

If there were an institutional liberal bias to the media, then there would have been more to discuss on September 8th than Cheney and Rice misquotes in just two of the nations thousands of media outlets. Do you understand the disparity between the claim (there is an inherent liberal bias in all media) and the evidence presented (2 instances of things that could be construed as instances of bias a day)? Can you see how incommensurable these two realities are? For god's sake, think it through.

quote:

Fact of the matter is, most journalists in the industry have been surveyed and overwhelmingly support Kerry/Democrats.

Source please. Then, when you've posted the source, point out why a reporters political persuasion necessitates an inclination towards bias, providing specific examples.

quote:

Its obvious by the coverage the swiftboat for vets got on most channels.

You mean far more than they should have? See above.

quote:

Explain to me why NBC is dedicating 3 days to this woman with no evidence whatsoever....yet they didnt interview not one swiftboat vet. You do realize that the lady in question is an EX-Bush and went through a contentious divorce from Jeff Bush...she hardly has any love for the Bushes. Even her attorney said she NEVER gave permission to be quoted in any book....much less said anything of the sort. This book is pure unadulterated lies...by another known liar. But yet the media wants to dedicate 3 days to this woman who is obviously going to have a very loppsided story.

I'm not familiar with the story (or the "Ben Barnes" one below for that matter - which should be indicitive of how much air-time is being given to these people), but explain to me:

1) How this would be any different from giving the Swift Boat vets air-time?

and

2) How the decision undertaken by one station is indicitive of intentional, liberal bias in the media globally?

As I said earlier, the "liberal bias" is just a myth concocted by conservatives as a defence mechanism to protect those of their views that don't actually correspond to reality in any way. If the media is presenting things that you don't like hearing, perhaps it's your political alliances that you should be questioning rather than wasting all this time trying to delegitimise an institution that deals, whether you like or not, in the presentation of fact and truth. If Bush's gross inadequacies as a president are being presented in the media, then perhaps, at some point, you'll have to bite the bullet and acknowledge their legitimacy (addressing the so-called "elephant in the room" - apt metaphor for the GOP I guess) rather than pretending that they were invented out fo thin air (for some reason) by the media as a whole, which (again, for some reason) is hell-bent on lying to propogate a liberal agenda.

Can you begin to see the stupidity in what you're saying now?

(Edited to fix VB error I just noticed.)

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Sep-13-2004 at 14:02

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec WOW I wAS right, these documents are now being questioned...posssibly forged...if this holds true; you can say goodbye to the KERRY Campaign.

Irrespective of who you support, declaring Bush the winner at this stage when the polls are relativley close is nothing short of idiotic. There's no way to know for sure who's going to win the election until the election has actually been held.