Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on August 03, 2007, 04:27:25 PM
-
[meltdown] No matter what, it seems to be the standard. You have to have two cons for every lib. I see it over and over some shows it's standard daily procedure set in stone!!! Lou Goddamned Dobbs, fucking asshole... yea, I like him, but he's pissing me off to no end you will never see any form of balance when he goes to his "panel" for debate. none, never, has ever happened, it's two cons for one lib, no exceptions. Have caught other programs doing this over and over... LIBERAL MEDIA MY FUCKING ASS.... [/meltdown]
-
If anyone can justify this, please, don't let me stop you ::)
-
Explain to me why there are so many goddamned "commentaries", where a Limbaugh, an O'Reilly, an Olbermann has to "lay it all out".
Why not let political analysists be more objective, instead of these freak shows.
Do people really need to be told what to think? :-\
"Oh, a bridge fell in Minnesota, I gotta check out O'Reilly/Olbermann/Limbaugh to see what I should about that one..
-
hmmmm......
PHIL DONOHUE: ...Our producers were instructed to feature two conservatives for every liberal.
BILL MOYERS: You're kidding.
PHIL DONOHUE: No this is absolutely true-
BILL MOYERS: Instructed from above?
PHIL DONOHUE: Yes....
-
Explain to me why there are so many goddamned "commentaries", where a Limbaugh, an O'Reilly, an Olbermann has to "lay it all out".
Why not let political analysists be more objective, instead of these freak shows.
Do people really need to be told what to think? :-\
"Oh, a bridge fell in Minnesota, I gotta check out O'Reilly/Olbermann/Limbaugh to see what I should about that one..
Regardless, it is there and it is heavily stacked right. They are telling you what to think even during the regular news segments they do this and it's stacked, two cons for every lib. I'm just saying, balance the goddamned bullshit. or whatever, you know what I'm saying. Do I like that the news will immediately go to 4 assclowns to tell us what to think?, HELL FUCK NO I DON'T, I've been bitching about that for at least 15 years. Not my point to this thread, yes, I'd happily get rid of the pundits... It's not happening as far as I can see so the least I can demand right now is that they don't gangbang the lone lib on a daily basis... With all that said, there is a place for people like Lou Dobbs which is not advertised as news, but opinion... So I don't need to see people like Lou go away, he's doing exactly what he advertises he's doing. Now the regular news segments, I'm with you on that complaint 100%
-
It takes more people to defend and explain the incompetence of the current administration.
-
Because the conservatives did a great job of spreading the "liberal media" myth.
MSM attempted to counter it in the public's eyes.
Now unbiased news doesn't mean reporting an accurate story. It means reporting half of the truth and putting another half of conservatism in the mix.
-
maybee they get better ratings? look what happend when cnn put on glenn beck. look at bill o'reilly dominating the news. maybe people dont want to listen to a whinny liberal
-
bill o'reilly dominating the news ???
OMG BWHAHAHHAHAHHahhahahhaha hhahhahhahha..... ok ::)
-
How low (in the ratings) can Glenn Beck go?
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200707310005
-
the problem with liberals is they often come across as limper than overcooked pasta.
would the libs stand up to bush's nsa spying program before their month long vacation or cave in? that's too easy to answer......NO.
limp, limp, limp.........who needs their opinion anyway?
I agree with you... The weak, nobody needs their opinion. But... if they go, I think it's only fair that the psycho right wing extremist fucks like Ann Coulter and company get the boot too...
-
the problem with liberals is they often come across as limper than overcooked pasta.
limp, limp, limp.........who needs their opinion anyway?
Then how come it's only Republicans we see chomping down on Viagra... Dole, Limbaugh. :-[
-
[meltdown] No matter what, it seems to be the standard. You have to have two cons for every lib. I see it over and over some shows it's standard daily procedure set in stone!!! Lou Goddamned Dobbs, fucking asshole... yea, I like him, but he's pissing me off to no end you will never see any form of balance when he goes to his "panel" for debate. none, never, has ever happened, it's two cons for one lib, no exceptions. Have caught other programs doing this over and over... LIBERAL MEDIA MY FUCKING ASS.... [/meltdown]
I don't know what show (s) your talking about. Maybe you should be watching Olberman or Maher where they have 4 libs one Repub and a hand picked liberal audience!
-
Then how come it's only Republicans we see chomping down on Viagra... Dole, Limbaugh. :-[
Limbaugh's taking Viagra too?! Hoooly shit, how many drugs is that lardass taking?
-
By the by, it is a deliverate strategy to have 2 repugnants for every faggit. It has always been that way. I just saw a debate on the Sundance channel... must've been from the 80's.
The show had two invitees: A linguist names Norm Chasky or something like that, and the other was a retired general who supposedly was representing the US army. The subject was about American foreign policy.
The first guy debated that the US army had commited attrocities of war in all these places and that it was currently intervening actively in the internal affairs of all these central American countries, via the CIA.
The guy was interrupted at least 20 times by the retired general, while all responses from the general were "you're lying", not kidding, at least 20 times in a 5 minute span.
At one point the linguist stopped debating the general and focused his debating on the moderator and the camera because this guy's complete illogical ranting was becoming obviouly anoying.
Norm eventually backed what he said with documents that, we now know were real and correct, showed statements, what looked like pictures and I guess proof that backed what he was saying. The general? Nothing. Just kept saying "you're lying" and an occasional "show me proof", which when given (the proof) prompted him to kept saying "you're lying". I mean, if I were the US army I'd be pretty pissed off that that jerkoff was representing me.
Needless to say, the same tactics are being used nowadays: Difuse and repeat. The shows make no secret of this, they call them the 20-second-people, the short-liners. Repugnants are really good at this because they think/operate in that black/white mode: They hit us? We invade their country. Nicaraguan workers go on strike? We send in the CIA. You're either our ally or our enemy.
There is no real debate in the USA right now. The media has become such an intricate part of the policy that one-liners are all you get. Even when Bush made the comment about the "brown people", you had all White House correspondents writing it down as though he was saying something important, when logic should've prompted all these people to get up and say " whaaaaat the fuck!".
Don't get me wrong, there is some debate... in the fringes, but it's mostly on cable and "obscure" channels like channel 13 World, BBC World or the Sundance channel. Sometimes you get a really good debate, but they're few and far between. And we all know that the broadcast channels will never get someone who "deviates" from the official rhetoric.
This is the state of affairs right now. Sad ain't it? I mean, even when they bring in full of shit individuals like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"-Cheney (you know, the real president), someone who is out and officially so full of shit he stinks up any place place he goes to, the interviewers still ask them important questions when he has lost all "face". Same with Rumsfeld et al. And Ruppert, King or Scarborough still bring them in for interviews about Iraq, when it is every day more apparent they have no fucking clue.
In the mean time we, the American public, have been relegated to the one-liners and boring speeches that will put you to sleep in a minute or two. But this is intentional, and so is inviting 2 repugnants for every faggit. It is deliverate by nature however: Repugnants have twice fewer brain cells than faggits, and it takes two of them to diggest all the information the liberal is giving them.
Either that or the interviewer wants the liberal to have surround sound rhetoric from the republicans.
-
By the by, it is a deliverate strategy to have 2 repugnants for every faggit. It has always been that way. I just saw a debate on the Sundance channel... must've been from the 80's.
The show had two invitees: A linguist names Norm Chasky or something like that, and the other was a retired general who supposedly was representing the US army. The subject was about American foreign policy.
The first guy debated that the US army had commited attrocities of war in all these places and that it was currently intervening actively in the internal affairs of all these central American countries, via the CIA.
The guy was interrupted at least 20 times by the retired general, while all responses from the general were "you're lying", not kidding, at least 20 times in a 5 minute span.
At one point the linguist stopped debating the general and focused his debating on the moderator and the camera because this guy's complete illogical ranting was becoming obviouly anoying.
Norm eventually backed what he said with documents that, we now know were real and correct, showed statements, what looked like pictures and I guess proof that backed what he was saying. The general? Nothing. Just kept saying "you're lying" and an occasional "show me proof", which when given (the proof) prompted him to kept saying "you're lying". I mean, if I were the US army I'd be pretty pissed off that that jerkoff was representing me.
Needless to say, the same tactics are being used nowadays: Difuse and repeat. The shows make no secret of this, they call them the 20-second-people, the short-liners. Repugnants are really good at this because they think/operate in that black/white mode: They hit us? We invade their country. Nicaraguan workers go on strike? We send in the CIA. You're either our ally or our enemy.
There is no real debate in the USA right now. The media has become such an intricate part of the policy that one-liners are all you get. Even when Bush made the comment about the "brown people", you had all White House correspondents writing it down as though he was saying something important, when logic should've prompted all these people to get up and say " whaaaaat the fuck!".
Don't get me wrong, there is some debate... in the fringes, but it's mostly on cable and "obscure" channels like channel 13 World, BBC World or the Sundance channel. Sometimes you get a really good debate, but they're few and far between. And we all know that the broadcast channels will never get someone who "deviates" from the official rhetoric.
This is the state of affairs right now. Sad ain't it? I mean, even when they bring in full of shit individuals like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"-Cheney (you know, the real president), someone who is out and officially so full of shit he stinks up any place place he goes to, the interviewers still ask them important questions when he has lost all "face". Same with Rumsfeld et al. And Ruppert, King or Scarborough still bring them in for interviews about Iraq, when it is every day more apparent they have no fucking clue.
In the mean time we, the American public, have been relegated to the one-liners and boring speeches that will put you to sleep in a minute or two. But this is intentional, and so is inviting 2 repugnants for every faggit. It is deliverate by nature however: Repugnants have twice fewer brain cells than faggits, and it takes two of them to diggest all the information the liberal is giving them.
Either that or the interviewer wants the liberal to have surround sound rhetoric from the republicans.
AHAHAHHAahhahahhahahhahhahaha
-
I don't know what show (s) your talking about. Maybe you should be watching Olberman or Maher where they have 4 libs one Repub and a hand picked liberal audience!
I'm watching that network you call liberal, CNN... and Lou Dobbs is the only reason I tune in. He's about the only person on CNN that that can be accused of giving a rats ass about America.
-
ratings
-
ratings
are terrible, over the last several years people bailed from the mainstream media in droves. No secret there.
-
Majority always wins, even over logic and good reasoning.
-
When is the last time, if ever, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, or Thom Hartmann was on a national Sunday pundit show?
Rush was on meet the press several times.
A sidenote. The popular pundits out there almost never discuss policy. They discuss trivia and minutia. They discuss who might run for president, what is that candidate/office holder thinking or feeling, what are the politicians wearing etc.
Fox is a rightwing station. The sunday show has all rightwingers and one token moderate. Same panel composition for all the other commercial stations.
When is the last time you saw someone on one of these shows discussing in earnest that attacking Afghanistan was a mistake?
When is the last time a rep. of labor was on one of these shows?
-
Attacking Afghanistan was a mistake? Where is the entertainment value in any of the things u said. Rush is first and foremost an entertainer. He also has a vast audience that is for him as well as vast one against. U get both if u put him on. Besides there aren't very many popular articulate leftists that don't come off as nutcases. Chomsky is an idiot of the highest order but i'm sure he can defend his point of view much better then Garrafalo or Al franken, but he wouldn't be alot of fun.
-
Attacking Afghanistan was a mistake? Where is the entertainment value in any of the things u said. Rush is first and foremost an entertainer. He also has a vast audience that is for him as well as vast one against. U get both if u put him on. Besides there aren't very many popular articulate leftists that don't come off as nutcases. Chomsky is an idiot of the highest order but i'm sure he can defend his point of view much better then Garrafalo or Al franken, but he wouldn't be alot of fun.
I'm not offering the "attack of Afghanistan was a mistake" point to prove that it was. I'm just pointing out a putative liberal argument that gets no air time.
Chomsky is not an idiot. I find that his detractors have very little to say about the substance of the man's arguments. I would match his intellectual heft against that of any right wing blowhard.
The Sunday 'news' shows are supposed to offer critical assessments of the day's news. They don't. They exclude any left of center pundit.
Rush wasn't particularly entertaining on any of his Meet the Press/Press the Meat appearances b/c he toned down his hard-right batshit style of speaking during his interview.
This isn't about fun so to speak. IT's about information. And we only get one or two sides of the story on Sundays and it ain't the liberal viewpoint that's expressed. Never.
-
Chomsky....American hater.
I hate this guy and all he stands for. But my point was that it would be pretty boring to have William F. Buckley and Noam Choamsky going at it on TV. Now having Savage and Franken going at it would be very entertaining. Its all about entertainment now....Ok anyway Chomsky ::)
Noam Chomsky served as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, imagined a post-WWII conspiracy between Nazis and the US State Department, and conjured up the idea of millions of deaths resulting from America's military campaign against the Taliban. Chomsky's errors always seem to cast America in a more negative light, which makes them more self-delusion than error. The MIT professor's penchant for falling for ridiculous conspiracy theories and parroting anti-American propaganda......Take 9/11. As the nation reacted with saddness, grief, and anger over the attacks, there were those, like Chomsky who used it as platform for their own political grand standing. People of good faith can disagree on an issue. People of good faith can disagree on the war on terrorism, whether they are peace activitsts, or anti-war activists, or what have you. But if you start justifying the attacks on America, or middle east terrorism, as something that America is to be blamed for then that's a far more serious game of moral equivalency that is wrong. For all of Chomsky's "complexities" and "nuances" we've seen his "complex" and "nuanced" look at Spetember 11. That's Chomsky. He lies and distorts to suit his needs, and what he writes should not be trusted.
Not all my stuff...but I'm busy and this is an interesting debate.
-
Chomsky....American hater.
I hate this guy and all he stands for. But my point was that it would be pretty boring to have William F. Buckley and Noam Choamsky going at it on TV. Now having Savage and Franken going at it would be very entertaining. Its all about entertainment now....Ok anyway Chomsky ::)
Noam Chomsky served as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, imagined a post-WWII conspiracy between Nazis and the US State Department, and conjured up the idea of millions of deaths resulting from America's military campaign against the Taliban. Chomsky's errors always seem to cast America in a more negative light, which makes them more self-delusion than error. The MIT professor's penchant for falling for ridiculous conspiracy theories and parroting anti-American propaganda......Take 9/11. As the nation reacted with saddness, grief, and anger over the attacks, there were those, like Chomsky who used it as platform for their own political grand standing. People of good faith can disagree on an issue. People of good faith can disagree on the war on terrorism, whether they are peace activitsts, or anti-war activists, or what have you. But if you start justifying the attacks on America, or middle east terrorism, as something that America is to be blamed for then that's a far more serious game of moral equivalency that is wrong. For all of Chomsky's "complexities" and "nuances" we've seen his "complex" and "nuanced" look at Spetember 11. That's Chomsky. He lies and distorts to suit his needs, and what he writes should not be trusted.
Not all my stuff...but I'm busy and this is an interesting debate.
I don't find substantive policy arguments boring. I think most adults would find it stimulating and thought provoking.
You obviously haven't seen the 'debate' btn Vidal and Buckley where "nazi" and "fag" filled the air.
As for Chomsky, typical right wing nonsense. I've read practically every publication of Chomsky including the interviews and he is brilliant.
"...conspiracy theories..."?
If you or the person that wrote what you posted about Chomsky ever read his work, you'd realize what a ridiculous statement that is. Chomsky discounts conspiracy theorists regularly.
I've gone to these "Chomsky is a liar" websites and the only thing these losers can pin their arguments on is usually something semantical or just an outright misstatement...like with the Khmer criticism or the taliban criticism.
Rightwing hacks usually do and say anything to destroy people with whom they disagree politically. Big deal. We see that shit all the time from Ann Coulter and the like.
As for the 9/11 criticism, I believe that Chomsky is articulating the blowback theory (i.e. consequences of imperialism) of why the US is so hated in the world and why we were attacked. Our own government has entertained that theory.
And in my opinion it is fairly spot-on.
-
He hates America while enjoying the benefits of it. I am going to watch that debate...i found it after i posted. Your a lib..he's a lib..ur in heaven. He would rather have us sit back and do nothing.
-
He hates America while enjoying the benefits of it. I am going to watch that debate...i found it after i posted. Your a lib..he's a lib..ur in heaven. He would rather have us sit back and do nothing.
Chomsky's style of anaylsis is to point out the facts as he finds them, by and large leaving the conclusions to the reader.
For instance he might point out that the US constitution, which is generally held as THE best political document espousing democratic ideals, was drafted in part by elitest slave owners wishing to insulate their wealth and interests from the unwashed masses. Does Chomsky hate the constitution or the US b/c of that analysis?
Or is life a little bit more complex than rightwing nonsense of "shining city on a hill" or "they hate us b/c of our freedoms"?
How do you know that Chomsky would rather have us sit back and do nothing re terrorism?