PALIN, The Master Debater

[AAARGH!]

Originally Posted by MTBMaven

I would not go so far as to say "whacked out beliefs." But I would go so far as to say narrow minded.

If one does not want to honor the marriage of homosexuals within their church or religion then fine. But for any portion of the US government to prevent them the same rights to a gay couple as any other couple, then yes I have an issue with that.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

Originally Posted by schleppp

I'm in...

As long as I get to pray before hand, quote the Bible, and at the end we all hold hands and sing Kumbya!!

Look guys, for me. Yes, I am the typical right wing conservative Christian. However, I am not blinded by the short comings of the Republican party as it is today. They do not practice fiscal responsibilty, they have not reduced the amount of gov't and this administration has made egregious errors in domestic, economic and foreign policy. However, I would rather vote for someone that might make decisions I agree with as opposed to one that most likely will not.

One last note, I will say this, if/when Obama becomes the president, he is my man! I will pull for him just as much as anyone else to make the best decision he can make. Sometimes he will be right and sometimes he will be wrong. He won't be perfect, but I just hope he is not as bad as the current admin.

God Bless who ever gets "stuck" trying to fix the mess we are in!

Very well put. I don't believe either of the candidates admins will have the ability or resources to get the country on track the first go round. I sincerely hope I'm wrong though. Too many current financial drains. It would be encouraging to see them drastically cut spending and get Iraq in check to manage their own country so we can GET OUT. As so many have already said, the next admin will inherit a big steaming bucket of.....you know.

[davidB]

Originally Posted by art23rockpile

Any news station that does not have the usual blatant liberal bias in it's "reporting" will come across as "right wing" to liberals. In reality, Fox News is considerably more objective than other news stations, as they are willing to present a more balanced view. This is why they have the highest rating of any cable news station, by far (check the numbers if you don't believe me).

try to tell me that any station that employs Karl Rove is objective? Heck, they treat Ann Coulter seriously.

how do ratings correlate with lack of bias?

is this where we start listing Fox News examples?

[art23rockpile]

Originally Posted by davidB

try to tell me that any station that employs Karl Rove is objective? Heck, they treat Ann Coulter seriously.

Absolutely. Rove -whether you like him or not- has been very influential in US politics. Just as James Carville has been very influential on the Dem side. The difference is that Fox will present both of them (often in the same broadcast). The Fox show "Hannity & Colmes" is a conservative and a liberal... sitting side by side, presenting both sides of an issue. This is true "open mindedness" "fair and balanced"... or, if one is a dyed-in-the-woool lefty "right wing".

[qoute/]
how do ratings correlate with lack of bias?
[/quote]

Ratings correlate with lack of bias because it shows that people are getting sick and tired of liberally biased reporting in the news. When I watch the news, I want hard information, not the station's political slant (whether right or left). People are neither stupid nor ignorant, just because they don't live on either coast. CBS, ABC, and NBC ratings are declining, while Fox's are increasing. Try making an attempt at true objectivity and ask yourself why this is.

Let me repeat:

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views,
but then are shocked and offended to discover that there ARE other views." William F. Buckley

I'm perfectly willing and capable of questioning my own views, how about you?

[dirtvert]

fox news= (comedy central) + (better haircuts) - (50 IQ points)

[davidB]

Originally Posted by art23rockpile

Absolutely. Rove -whether you like him or not- has been very influential in US politics. Just as James Carville has been very influential on the Dem side. The difference is that Fox will present both of them (often in the same broadcast). The Fox show "Hannity & Colmes" is a conservative and a liberal... sitting side by side, presenting both sides of an issue. This is true "open mindedness" "fair and balanced"... or, if one is a dyed-in-the-woool lefty "right wing".

Ratings corerelate with lack of bias because it shows that people are getting sick and tired of liberally biased reporting in the news. When I watch the news, I want hard information, not the station's political slant (whether right or left). People are neither stupid nor ignorant, just because they don't live on either coast. CBS, ABC, and NBC ratings are declining, while Fox's are increasing. Try making an attempt at true objectivity and ask yourself why this is.

Let me repeat:

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views,
but then are shocked and offended to discover that there ARE other views." William F. Buckley

I'm perfectly willing and capable of questioning my own views, how about you?

i do nothing but question my own views lol see this post

Focusing on Fox News here, not my beliefs, because well, you don't know them and would probably assume i'm voting for obama, you're still claiming Fox is "fair and balanced"?

Next you're going to tell me MSNBC isn't liberal.

There are no tv stations that are "fair and balanced", but to claim Fox News comes closest to that.

I'm going to need more than just one example of a liberal on Fox besides Holmes.

I wonder if I type in Fox News conservative bias if anything will show up in google. hell, those are the same guys that doctored a couple photos and for some reason left out Ron Paul in their Nevada results. It's like the dude never existed. I think i'm going to go google those two topics and see if I can find an explanation on either.

[dirtvert]

faux news "reporters" write more books than actual news. it's little more than a thnly-veiled propaganda machine for rupert murdoch.

drugie rush has great ratings, too. but it's not because he's "fair and balanced".


A new study by the Pew Research Study shows that viewers of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have the highest knowledge of national and international affairs, while Fox News viewers rank nearly dead last:

[chadster]

Originally Posted by art23rockpile

In reality, Fox News is considerably more objective than other news stations, as they are willing to present a more balanced view.

Ah, there's the rub, when you say "In Reality" what you really mean is "your reality" (and that's okay, it's a free country).

In my reality, all I ever hear is the constant drum beat by conservatives about the liberal media. I think that might have been true a couple decades ago but now most mainstream media (especially television) are controlled by very few mega-corporations and we all should be able to agree that they are not exactly bastions of liberalism. In my reality, it seems the conservatives just continue repeating the same things over and over again because there's a certain segment of the population that will buy it hook line and sinker. Things like:

* There is no reccession (remember that on Fox recently?)
* They'll great us as liberators
* Mission Accomplished
* Obama is a muslim, or elitist, hates America, etc.
* They hate us for our freedom
* <insert any other number of examples here>

So along these lines, I am going to start ending my all my posts from now on with this closing statement:

"I am a champion DH mountain biker".

And soon I will have many people convinced of this BS!

[Nagaredama]

I don't think anyone would consider Fox News to have resemblance to a true News organization.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...17,print.story

From the Los Angeles Times
ON THE MEDIA

Fox News' faux documentary sets new low

Sean Hannity's Sunday report, 'Obama and Friends: The History of Radicalism,' relied on innuendo and guilt by association to label the Illinois senator a dupe of the shadowy forces of the left.
By James Rainey
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

October 10, 2008

Now and then, Fox News makes a stab at living up to its "fair and balanced" tag line.

At other times, the cable network's operatives throw off all pretense, let their neatly trimmed hair down and do what they seem to love best -- blame all of the world's evils on those pointy-headed, America-hating liberals. Like, say, Barack Obama!

Fox host Sean Hannity and his producers served up a heaping portion of just such red meat Sunday night on "Hannity's America." And they've since been making lame defenses of the faux documentary, which bore the subtle title: "Obama and Friends: The History of Radicalism."

Fox's hourlong screed is just the kind of media coverage that has contributed to the increasingly angry and irrational tone on the campaign trail. Even by the low standards of this election's advocacy journalism, the program plumbed new depths -- relying on innuendo and guilt by association to paint the Illinois senator as a dupe of the shadowy forces of the left.

Much of Hannity's report was based on interviews with half a dozen partisan commentators, whose main qualification seems to have been a previously expressed disdain for Obama.

Near the top of the program, the host introduced one of them, Andy Martin, as an "author and journalist." But reporters in his Chicago hometown know Martin better as a perennial political candidate and serial litigant.

The Chicago Tribune has spent some time examining Martin's past. He was refused entry to the Illinois bar in the 1970s, in part because his Selective Service records showed his thoughts exhibited "a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character."

In a 1983 personal bankruptcy case, he referred to a judge as a "crooked, slimy Jew." And a federal judge noted his history of "vexatious, frivolous and scandalous" lawsuits.

When he ran for Illinois governor two years ago, Martin quoted a nearly 30-year-old Tribune editorial that called him "an absolutely brilliant campaigner" when he was running for a Senate seat. He didn't mention that the same editorial said he "has no more business in the U.S. Senate than an elk has in a phone booth."

The producer of the Hannity program declined to be interviewed, so it's impossible to determine whether Fox didn't know about Martin's history or just didn't care.

Perhaps the producers relied on the gadfly's own website, which assures us he is "a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk-show host, broadcaster and media critic." And expert in all things Barack Obama.

So when Hannity wanted to know what Obama did as a young community organizer, Martin was ready with a pithy answer: "I think a community organizer, in Barack Obama's case, was somebody that was in training for a radical overthrow of the government."

Martin offered no evidence. None. But, when I called him, he helped me understand why this was not a problem.

"I do involve with the facts," he began, "but when the facts aren't all there, and the perpetrator has concealed all the facts and is basically refusing to testify, you are allowed to draw an adverse inference."

It sounds to me as if he's saying: When you can't prove something, you're allowed to make stuff up. And does that also mean you might as well assume the worst? I asked.

"The proof of the pudding," Martin responded, "is that they are on the verge of taking over the government."

So, if Obama is elected, that would constitute a "radical overthrow"?

Well, Martin conceded, "maybe I should have changed my words around to say there would be a change of the government that would put a radical in charge."

During the program, Martin floated other wild theories, including one based on Obama's association with 1960s radical William Ayres.

He noted that Ayres had spoken fondly of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who, in turn, "learned from Fidel Castro of the Cuban revolution."

That led Martin to share this conclusion with Fox viewers: "If you love the Cuban revolution and Castro, and if you love what's happening in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez, you'll love Barry Obama -- Barack Obama, as he calls himself -- in the White House."

Helpful. Now I'm starting to get it. Take opinions and present them as facts. Stitch them into patterns. Then pretend to your viewers -- as many as 2 million typically watch Hannity's Sunday show -- that those patterns reveal the truth.

But that was merely mortar for the program's building blocks: Obama's relationships. And if Obama knew them -- Ayres, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Palestinian scholar Rashid Khalidi -- it's pretty obvious (darn right!) he must subscribe to their most controversial ideas.

I take Hannity at his word -- when confronted on-air this week by Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs over Martin's past comments -- that he and his Fox colleagues do not condone anti-Semitism. Martin has denied he ever made anti-Semitic remarks.

The Fox host seemed to excuse the lack of balance by arguing that he had interviewed liberals, such as Malik Shabazz and Al Sharpton, on other programs.

How that even remotely exonerates the Obama program, which made no pretense of presenting even a single defense of the Democrat, is beyond me.

Of course, there was no time in the Hannity hour to, for instance, interview the conservatives who helped elect Obama president of the Harvard Law Review.

Hannity was too busy probing deep into Obamaworld's shadowy corridors, like the one that leads to Saul Alinsky, the founder of community organizing.

No one denies that the young Obama, like thousands of others before and since, was inspired by Alinsky, who preached that society's have-nots should expand their power by working aggressively within the government.

As a young reporter here in Los Angeles, I learned firsthand the impact of such teachings, when Alinsky-inspired community organizations first shook the halls of power.

What did they do? They lowered auto insurance premiums on the Eastside. They drove liquor stores out of South Central. They organized an anti-gang program.

Hannity and his confederates ought to take a close look at that last one. It had the backing of another wild-eyed fanatic -- Richard Riordan, the city's Republican mayor.

james.rainey@latimes.com

[dirtvert]

it looks like caribou barbi's 15 minutes are just about up, because character counts:

Alaska panel finds Palin abused power in firing

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 42 minutes ago

Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday. The politically charged inquiry imperiled her reputation as a reformer on John McCain's Republican ticket.
Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report by a bipartisan panel that investigated the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain.
The inquiry looked into her dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.
The report found that Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making even if it was not the sole reason Monegan was dismissed. "I feel vindicated," Monegan said. "It sounds like they've validated my belief and opinions. And that tells me I'm not totally out in left field."
Branchflower said Palin violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
"I disagree," said Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein. "In order to violate the ethics law, there has to be some personal gain, usually financial. Mr. Branchflower has failed to identify any financial gain."
The statute says "any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that (public) trust."
Palin and McCain's supporters had hoped the inquiry's finding would be delayed until after the presidential election to spare her any embarrassment and to put aside an enduring distraction as she campaigns as McCain's running mate in an uphill contest against Democrat Barack Obama.
But the panel of lawmakers voted to release the report, although not without dissension. There was no immediate vote on whether to endorse its findings.
"I think there are some problems in this report," said Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens, a member of the panel. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."
The nearly 300-page report does not recommend sanctions or a criminal investigation.
The investigation revealed that Palin's husband, Todd, has extraordinary access to the governor's office and her closest advisers. He used that access to try to get trooper Mike Wooten fired, the report found.
Branchflower faulted Sarah Palin for taking no action to stop that. He also noted there is evidence the governor herself participated in the effort.
Wooten had been in hot water before Palin became governor over allegations that he illegally shot a moose, drank beer in a patrol car and used a Taser on his stepson.
In proceedings revealed by the report, former Alaska State Trooper Col. Julia Grimes told investigators that Sarah Palin called her in late 2005 to discuss why Wooten hadn't been fired, and Grimes told her the inquiry was confidential by law.
"Her questions were how can a trooper who behaves this way still be working," Grimes said. "I asked her to please trust me, that because I can't tell her details I would ask her to please trust me that I would take the appropriate action if and when I knew what the findings were. ... I couldn't have another conversation with her about it because, again, it's protected by law."
Grimes said Todd Palin also contacted her by telephone in late 2005 to discuss the confidential investigation of Wooten.
Wooten's disciplinary case was settled in September 2006 — months before Palin was elected governor — and he was allowed to continue working as a trooper.
After Palin's election, her new public safety commissioner, Monegan, said he was summoned to the governor's office to meet Todd Palin, who said Wooten's punishment had been merely a "slap on the wrist." Monegan said he understood the Palins wanted Wooten fired. "I had this kind of ominous feeling that I may not be long for this job if I didn't somehow respond accordingly," Monegan told the investigator.
For months afterward, Todd Palin filed complaints about Wooten, saying he was seen riding a snowmobile after he had filed a worker's compensation claim and was seen dropping off his children at school in his patrol car. Monegan said Wooten's doctor had authorized the snowmobile trip and his supervisor had approved his use of the patrol car. Monegan said Alaska's attorney general later called him to inquire about Wooten, and Monegan told him they shouldn't be discussing the subject.
"This was an issue that apparently wasn't going to go away, that there were certainly frustrations," Monegan said. "To say that (Sarah Palin) was focused on this I think would be accurate."

[jeffj]

Originally Posted by dirtvert

it looks like caribou barbi's 15 minutes are just about up, because character counts:

Absolute pantload.

If that's true, why was Ted Kennedy trotted out to receive an ovation at the DNC?

[dirtvert]

nice. kick a guy when he has cancer. i was making a little joke about the phrase the moral majority (specifically the tool known as michael josephson) throws around. unless one of their own falls from grace. hypocrites.

then again, which alaska republican isn't going down on ethics charges.

palin isn't fit to hold ted kennedy's puke bag.

[jeffj]

Originally Posted by dirtvert

nice. kick a guy when he has cancer. i was making a little joke about the phrase the moral majority (specifically the tool known as michael josephson) throws around. unless one of their own falls from grace. hypocrites.

then again, which alaska republican isn't going down on ethics charges.

palin isn't fit to hold ted kennedy's puke bag.

I've been kicking him for a long time before his current condition surfaced. I'm sorry any human has to go through what he's going through.

However, all of his benevolent service doesn't excuse him from answering for the results of his felonious philandering. What he did at Chappaquiddick was majorly wrong in every sense of the word and yet for the sake of political expediency, his party (indeed, my own party as well) continues to hold him in incredibly high regard and (as I said before) trots him out as an icon at their latest convention.

If it turns out that Palin did what is being alleged, then that is obvioulsy wrong and she should answer for it just like anyone else should...... even a Kennedy

Your selective and one-sided outrage (again, for the sake of political expediency) comes across to me as hypocritical and disingenuine and IMHO harms your credibility. The only other option would be if you were politically naive, but I know that's far from the case. I actually believe you're pretty sharp and informed which is why you are an enigma to me.
-----------------------------------------
Until we demand accountability from both sides of the aisle, we'll continue to let the two party system polarize and divide us, effectively fiddling while Rome burns.

It may surprise you to know I will be voting for Obama come November, but if/when he wins, I won't be soiling myself with my own DNA and hollering about a mandate.

[dirtvert]

it's been a long eight years, jeff. if the worst thing that i become is enigmatic, i'll consider it a success. and i can pretty much guarantee that i'll be soiling myself in 4 weeks.

[1nFocus]

[dirtvert]

nice spoonerism.

my favorite is brad pitt's daughter, shiloh. wait for it...