in light of selfrighteous, sanctamonious, bedwetting all the lefties have heaped upon this forum.........
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/
just who's being the thief, hmmmmmmm???????????? Who's wiping their asses with the constituion we so selfrighteuosly proclaim from up upon our highhorse????
pppfffttt....
This is fucking hilarious......tell us again how you're gonna change washington??????
I can't equate crashing a debate as being equal to wiping one's ass with the constitution. It might have been rude and unsportsmanlike, but that's all. I can't see why the questions and the answers given shouldn't be considered "fair game" in a debate no matter who generates them. Sorry, the weightiness just doesn't add up here.
If there was any humor here it's pretty much soured by Michele Malkin's usual pissed up disposition. For media antics, it doesn't come close to Fox News mislabeling disgraced Republicans like Mark Foley as democrats, mislabeling Obama as Osama, nor the ribaldry of Fox introducing an expose of porn with a couple in hard core action, with a black triangle over her tits while the dick an pussy were left totally visible.
Now that's comedy.
is in any way, shape or form undermining the people's ability to practice democracy????????????????????
Come, someone dust off those quotes about democracy depending upon an informed electorate for my friend Zin here okay????
I don't equate the long established power struggle between the Executive Branch and Congress to be "wiping your ass with the constsituion" either but the theme is hyperventalation....
just practicing my hyperventilation duder....
"""introducing an expose of porn with a couple in hard core action, with a black triangle over her tits while the dick an pussy were left totally visible"""
I missed this one but I'm sure it was hilarious. Fox is god at hyperventilation too...
That's what I mean by "crashing," coming in to ask reasonable questions. They were of things independents would be interested in. They weren't unreasonable questions. Do you think they asked inappropriate questions? That they restrained free speech?
As for an informed populace, it seems that people are being informed of this. That woman (girl? was she old enough to vote?) certainly didn't hide it afterward.
What happened for the first 6 years of Bush's presidency was hardly a "power struggle" between Congress and the Executive Branch. It was simply a power grab from a compliant Congress by an Presidency who only knew it had to grab more power. The question is, who is eventually going to get to use it.
Also, don't think that an age-old power struggle can't end with very dire implications for the rest of us.
Rectangle, I meant rectangle.
Frankly zin, I think this is more funny than anything else. It does however in my mind demonstrate what Doc Gonzo "Claims" to rail against and that is the "win at all cost" mentality. I think there are people on both sides of the aisle that are increasingly scary with fear about what will happen if "the other side" wins..
I just happen to parody leftwing pantscrappers....
Bush did not set out to "grab power". I think what guys on your side fail to consider is that maybe Bush isn't evil incarnate but rather a guy who's responsible for the safety of 300 million people.History will chronoicle some of his errors but it will also take into account the nature of the times...
http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2007/the-cnn-republican-debate-and-you-tube-botanical-garden/
NOW I’M NOT SAYING CNN DID ALL THIS ON PURPOSE…..WAIT….YES, I AM. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING. How is this for a vast LEFT WING CONSPIRACY. An international news organization with a liberal bias conducts a debate for Republican candidates. The debate format, which supposedly allows regular American’s a chance to ask real questions is rigged to allow Democratic operatives to craft specific questions and portray these questions as being legitimate concerns of average Americans. The questions and responses are then posted on on Democrat and liberal leaning websites within hours in an attempt to demonstrate how “out of touch” with mainstream America the Republicans really are. COME ON.
The plant this guy there, cloak him with an air of moral superiority, allow himn to ask a laoded question, then pontificate.....
show me where this is common practice anywhere else??
BTW, Hunter DID answer the question, he just did'nt like the answer, Romney did too,
and McCain matchs his moral superiorty and knocked the cover off the ball.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81jhxLtqmVM
-- Modified on 11/30/2007 8:34:13 AM
I'll have to catch the debate on youtube. My principle here is, it just doesn't seem to me that it matters who poses the questions or why some questions on the candidates' stands should be considered fair. As long as they are real questions. It doesn't matter if they are cloaked or what other attire the questioners wear.
if that were true, then why have all this bullshiut about "forums" and Utube, etc.
fact is, things like phraseology, physical mannerisms, facial expressions SHAPE OPINION!!!!!!
CNN knows that.
Besides, what your really saying is you don't mind furtive efforts on the part of the press to influence Presidential elections.....Chavez would love to have you work for himmmm
No what he is saying, is that he doesn't mind furtive efforts on the part of the press as long as it is the left perpetrating it. If FOX did this to a liberal candidate he would be up in arms over it.
None. This is a total non-issue. This entire complaint is nothing-- less than vacuum. In the introduction, CNN made NO STATEMENT or assurance on how these questions were selected. As far as I could tell, they might have considered it totally fair to hear from the other side. With all your fear about body language, you should be more worried about the freak who caught and cocked the shotgun.
This is just dumb to me. No, it would have to gain a few hundred IQ points to be dumb. It's sub-dumb, or micro-dumb.
Or will they lie through their teeth as usual?
Your the man Bill. You can see in this picture that she has the "L" disease. It is so easy to spot. So nice to meet you here on the board. Did you watch Bill tonight and see Scott hiding behind his front door?. Now that Scott lied to his publisher about the "lies" he no where to be found. As I said B4 in an earlier post about this "better fill up the Kool Aid jug Gonzo"
i'm part man, part a-hole. i do'nt watch the tv guys much and rush gives me a headache i don't know who scott is either
glad you like to laugh at libs like me, i'll have more stuff for ya later!!!
go easy on gonzo, he's a koolaid drinker but he's got a big heart and that means more than anything
Wish you could make the M&G BK, its gonna be legendary.
It’s all about the long standing traditions of a free, honest and fair press. We all know that every newsperson and news organization have their biases. We could argue about how left of center CNN is or how right of center FOX is, but that’s NOT the point. The point is about HONESTY.
This was CLEARLY intentional on CNN’s part. They didn’t KNOW about General Kerr’s affiliation with Clinton and the Democrats? Please. He appeared on CNN in the same hat 4 years ago as a gay, retired General Officer. They flew him from California to Florida for the debate. They had to know.
It’s not just him either. There was the abortion question by “Journey the Edwards supporter”. There was the lead paint question by another Edwards supporter. Another Gay question was from an Obama supporter. In the after debate discussion with an “independent” focus group, one person admitted they were going to vote for Obama.
There was absolutely NO disclosure, on the part of CNN, of any of this until AFTER they were caught. Absolutely no outrage from other left leaning news organizations.
Then there were the “gotcha” questions, for example, the Confederate flag draped question, the “what would Jesus do about capital punishment” question. Yes, they are legitimate questions, but NOT in this forum. This was supposed to be a Republican PRIMARY debate, for REPUBLICANS to select THEIR candidate. These questions belong in the GENERAL elections. It also shows how the left doesn’t even understand the right and how their stereotype attitudes are burned into their foreheads. The ONLY REASON these questions were picked was in an ATTEMPT (which failed) to make any or all of the Republicans look bad to the GENERAL voting population.
On the other hand, the Republicans are also to blame for:
1) showing up in the first place (unlike the Dems who are afraid of FOX)
2) not walking off the stage when the circus started.
of Republicans and "gotcha" questions in the Democratic Youtube debate. They just didn't throw a hissy fit over it. It just goes to show you what pussies Republicans are.
point out a single Republican PLANT. The gotcha ones are just CNN being partisain, the PLANTS are the main issue here. I forgot to not make more than one point per thread when your here. I need to remember to keep it simple for you.
about health care for illegal aliens and the guy taking shots at Al Gore were probably Republicans. Since the Dems did not blow a hissy fit, though, there was no investigation. The funny thing is that the most embarrassing questions that the Repugs had to answer were from the true believers like the gun nut and the bible freak. I am not sure why you have a problem with the gay soldier anyway. He's gay. You guys hate guys and he gave them an opportunity to bash gays so what's the problem?
"I am not sure why you have a problem with the gay soldier anyway. He's gay. You guys hate guys and he gave them an opportunity to bash gays so what's the problem?"
I have to admit I don't like guys but I certainly do not hate gays..Matter of fact the more gay guys out there puts more ladies available.. so the gays are no threat to me.. Another reason I would like to see Guliani elected is too spite the Christian right..I just don't think they are as big of a base as the media portrays.
Or would have if it all hasn't been obscured by this blow up.
The questions WERE pertinent to the party membership! To illustrate with an example, looking at Edward's list of statements and stands, democrats will find out that he is consistently against gay marriage, citing "religious reasons." Now that could be a very important point in the Democratic primary if it comes out in a debate. It does break the "stereotype" Republicans have for Democrats, BTW.
It's important those questions be asked, even if Republicans feel that they are being "stereotyped." The answer to the abortion question in this debate, for example: pro-life Republicans might realize the candidates are advocating making murder a state's rights decision, and they might think twice about voting for those candidates, or at least demand that the candidates take a real stand.
I contend this served a function. If we are going to select better candidates, we'd better ask questions like those in the primary. If Republicans were trusting that the questioners were independent and undecided, you must see it contradicts your point that this is was just for Republicans and that only bona fide Republican questions should be asked. Besides, it lets people know that Republicans vary in their opinions and don't fit that "stereotype." Nothing does that like asking the stereotypical questions.
-- Modified on 12/1/2007 9:38:04 AM
Re-read my post. Even "I" said they were legitimate questions. It's the guise under which they were asked (i.e. selected).
That those were questions for the national election. I thought you should reconsider.
There you go again, thinking you are my Mother.
There is an appropriate place for certain questions. By placing them in the primary process it simply shows that CNN is trying to affect the general election voters. You can't see it because you believe the stereotypes or enjoy the idea. They had no hopes that one or another candiate would best answer, thus bringing to the top the best candidate. They hoped that all the Republicans came off with egg on their faces. They are trying to re-enforce the stereotypes among non Republicans, period.
Address the honesty issue. You didn't miss it. You chose to ignore it.
The way you had answered, I thought you had missed my most important point, so that's what I meant by reconsidering. I should have been specific.
All I'm saying is the questions were valuable to the primary, too, no matter what the questioner's motivations. On what basis do you say there was no hope that one candidate or the other would best answer? You know that despite any hopes, a competent candidate could have handled it.
Unless you actually think conservatism and Republicanism are actually unsupportable when asked important questions.
You talk about the stereotype, don't you think the comparison/contrast to the stereotypes here might have shown them to be inaccurate? I think protecting the debate from these questions is actually ways to protect the stereotype.
And sorry, I am a little too jaded to think that this "honesty" issue here is worth anything, not when I believe we were lied to in order to go to war. Not when somebody wrote up false service records for Bush to ensnare Dan Rather and discredit calls by democrats to see the missing pages. I could go into a whole list of world-shaking lies in these last six years. This one is not worth a drop of piss in a thunderstorm.
Also, I'm evenhanded about this. I was going to post about Republican tactics in gathering signatures for the proposition that will split California's electoral vote. I stopped when I realized the "dishonesty" there was so minor, and Republicans here would sneer at it as nitpicking.
The issue is honesty in the MEDIA, not politics. A jaded person can easily say that all politicians lie (you didn't say that; I'm just taking it to an extreme). Any citizen is also free to lie. But when the press starts lying and acting in bad faith, we are in very dangerous waters.
You also need to pay attention to the subject of sentences. “I” never said there was no hope for a good answer. I said “they” (i.e. CNN) hoped there would be no good or best answer. CNN was hoping to paint ALL the candidates with a smear, regardless of their answers. In reality, they all had good answers for my threshold.
I think the conservatism is 1000% percent more supportable than liberalism. Again, that’s not the issue (other than we will never agree on that). Honesty in government is not the issue. Or do you think the media lied to you about Iraq as well as Bush?
Turn things around for a second. I’m sure you can think of a few questions that, if Fox allowed to be asked of Democrats in a FOX/Youtube debate that would cause the NY Times and every other liberal media outlet to pound on Fox for days.
You can’t or won’t see the damage done by the unfaithful media because it serves your agenda.
-- Modified on 12/2/2007 9:43:24 AM
that Dan Rather and CBS were DUPED? I suppose you also think that they were duped by none other than Karl Rove.
were actually the victims of yet another right wing conspiracy!!!??? WTF
Only in the twisted mind of a partisan.
Zin, whatever credibility you ever had, you are losing rapidly.
Yes, I think Rove was behind it-- or some other conservative operative. No, I don't think it's the least bit unlikely given Rove's previous campaign maneuvers. Especially when the news of Rather's error (or lying) was discovered by every conservative in a mere two hours-- with the inconsistency in the typeface determined immediately, as though every conservative blogger had a vintage 1970s typewriter lying around and knew with a glance at the typeface that they should check. That information was strategically released to some bloggers or brought to some chat rooms.
It happened so fast, within hours, that I actually thought a conservative on this board had to be an actual Bush campaign insider. I know things travel fast on the internet, but I thought it should take at least 4 hours. Some people were just set up to spread the news.
Rather went for the bait. As soon as he took it, the trap was sprung. Republicans knew their prey, though. It wouldn't have happened if Rather had been merely inquisitive.
Again, I'm surprised you're not the least bit suspicious. Why? Suspicion doesn't apply to your side. Being partisan (conservative or liberal) requires being willfully deceived.
-- Modified on 12/2/2007 3:34:29 PM
"Being partisan (conservative or liberal) requires being willfully deceived."
Truer words have never been spoken, especially from an admitted partisan.
You think partisanship is bad. I admit I'm a partisan. So, you have expectations on how a partisan must limit his thinking. When I don't fit that, you call me dishonest on another level.
What is it with you? You think a partisan is damaged? Given this discussion, you're evidently partisan but you're too full of yourself to admit it. You flatter yourself that you're some kind of independent thinker, but recoil from complexity out of fear of deception. That's what I think of you.
Stop pretending you're in heaven passing moral judgment. Unless you think you should replace God, at least concerning me? It's what theists think atheists do, and in some cases they are probably right. But not in my case. I think we're still equals.
You admit to being a partisan, then ten minutes later, these are your words.
"Again, I'm surprised you're not the least bit suspicious. Why? Suspicion doesn't apply to your side. Being partisan (conservative or liberal) requires being willfully deceived"
I'm not passing moral judgement. How do you reconcile being a partisan with your later post. I'd say, if the shoe fits, wear it. Do you enjoy being "willfully deceived"?
I did try. A hint: parties like nations only exist in the minds of humankind. They have no other existence.
Your opinion that it would take to much parsing for my patience only proves you have no answer. After all, I'm only repeating your own words uttered just a few minutes apart.
Either you don't mind being "willfully deceived" or you're not really a partisan, or you're a liar. There are no other options. Which one is it?
that he is simply being condescending and that he believes that only he is smart enough to understand the nuances.
Academics do tend to think they are so much smarter than everryone else.
It's the same logic that we use when we talk to small children, "never mind the contradictary nature of my statements, you're just not smart enough to understand"
Then of course after we are done discussing the definition of the word "hypocrisy" ad nauseum, we can debate the definition of the word "partisan" until we forget about the original hypocritical statement. I guess JackO isn't the only two bit lawyer around here.
There isn't just those three alternatives. Also, it isn't that simple. I used the word "parse" facetiously. Since you've rejected my means of answering, I can't answer. Conclude all three of them if you want. I don't care.
-- Modified on 12/2/2007 10:38:43 PM
I have rejected your means of "not answering". You may have a future in politics after all.
Are you curious about how you should see me or how I see myself? If it's the former, you have your answer already. Stop, no other discussion needed.
If it's the latter, you have to accept my reasoning and description.
If you're not curious at all, but you're trying to persuade me of my wrong, then your job is impossible. I'm quite at peace secure about who I am and why.
If you really think you have accomplished something here, you are sorely mistaken. You, just like JackO think that by wearing someone down, you have actually proven your point. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The only thing you have proven, is that rational debate with you is a waste of time. Every time I ask an honest question, I get double talk in return. I don't have to accept your reasoning or your "description"(whatever the fuck that is).
You, as a self admitted partisan are so blinded by your own "truth" that further discussion is pointless. I am so glad that you are at peace with your own hypocrisy, but anyone with an open mind can see through your "definitions" as the bullshit that they really are.
Once you turned the subject personal, it was a waste of your time, and nothing makes me happier now. And if anybody was trying to wear anybody down it was you.
You're not in the least open minded but practicing yet another version of hypocrisy. (Of course, then, you could say I'm a hypocrite for pointing that out when I don't accept a meaning for hypocrisy. See how hypocrisy eats its tail?). You are neither open-minded and neutral. In actuality, you are a partisan as well, a self-deceived one (and I've always thought so). Non-partisanship is the deception you've willingly accepted. I believe your claim of Atheism is also bullshit. It's all nominal, shallow and for show. In three years tops you'll discover jay-sus, because otherwise your moral system is built on self-deception, some might say hypocrisy.
You are self deceived about open-mindedness. Open minded neither means that you will land in the political middle, nor stay there. How can somebody who is open minded (like yourself, presumably) come to any conclusion?
Why, by either being a liar, being a hypocrite, or being self-deceived.
Deception: human social behavior requires deception. It also requires people to be deceived. The latter entails that people be poor at detecting deception. Why? Because we don't have much tolerance of our fellow human beings. Putting our interests out there will not result in goodwill. It will result in massive bloodshed.
I mean, look at the membership on this board. Lying to wives (who are sometimes willfully deceived), lying to clients (who are 'willfully deceived), writing "fictional" reviews, going by false names . . .
Learn this: politics being a highly social activity, of course people are deceived a matter of course, and accept deception without thinking about it-- that's what I call willingly. Sad but true.
If I were willfully deceived, could I really know it?
I'm not open minded because I recognize your hypocrisy, and refuse to give you a pass???
Zin, fuckoff yourself, arguing with you is like arguing with JackO, once you're boxed in a corner by your own words, here you come with the personal attacks and name calling.
"I mean, look at the membership on this board. Lying to wives (who are sometimes willfully deceived), lying to clients (who are 'willfully deceived), writing "fictional" reviews, going by false names . . ."
This might apply to you, but exept for the fact that I use a handle, which is all but mandatory here, I don't lie. I don't write reviews (fictional or otherwise), I have no wife or boss to lie to and my business ethics are beyond reproach.
Believe it or not, some of us are actually out there in the real world, contributing to society, not trying to be some kind of third rate writer. So let me repeat...You go fuckoff!!!
Yes, he had some aggravating traits and was abrasive as hell, but it was well worth reading him, and he exposed a lot of conservative foolishness and self-deception.
Put me in that category, please.
BTW-- I'm only cornered because I was the least bit decent to you and tried to answer your questions. Boy was I wrong.
-- Modified on 12/4/2007 9:14:33 AM
You might keep yourself honest, I said nothing abut you personally, but would the hobby even exist for you without even a slight level of deceit? Second, you keep yourself honest the way I do, by keeping your life abnormal. I'm certain your business ethics are beyond reproach, but what might happen if your life approached average joe status?
What I'm saying about deception is true of ANY social species. It's kept in line by evolution only by the chance of being caught and the penalty for being caught, and that's how moral systems evolved. I tend to believe that if people turned flawlessly honest, the results wouldn't be trust, it would be a bloodbath.
Last: "willful deceit" is an oxymoron. If I know I'm being deceived, how can I be deceived? It really means trust, specifically keeping yourself in a position to be deceived, restraining suspicion, not checking on signs of deceit.
I wouldn't have expected you to think about that. All of us do it, and obviously, it's a social adaptation. If you don't do it in politics, you must do it elsewhere, otherwise social interaction becomes impossible.
I can sense more revulsion from your side. We are apparently just meant to lock horns with each other.
This is probably your most honest post, and the one the one I disagree with least.
I am not at all dishonest about the hobby, except to the extent that it is against the law I feel no guilt whatsoever for comitting victimless crimes, the hobby, smoking a joint, not wearing a helmet, etc. I doubt that I could ever approach average joe status, not in terms of money, I could(and may) go broke tomorrow, but in attitude.
We all lie, I'll concede that point, but we need to be honest with ourselves, and on that subject I find you and JackO to be very quick to point out contradictions by others, but you both seem to think that you are very clever by arguing minutia instead the real point when you are called on it yourself. Do you really think that the other side has forgottened their original pointwhen you do this,
In case you have forgotten, this whole two day dialogue started by me calling you a hypocrite, and you, rather then adrressing the hypocrisy chose to debate the definition of the word. Doesn't that make you the clever one. NOT. Your statement is just as hypocritical as it was yesterday. I may tire of arguing about it, but that doesn't make your statement any less hypocritical
I really don't see any of this as being about me. My thinking is to try to bring it back to the "issues."
Partisanship and hypocrisy. Partisanship is a game that you try to win. Now: even though a certain foul is equally wrong in the game, your instinct in the game is to feel angrier about your opponent's foul against you. You try to point it out to the ref, who here would be independent voters.
I do step out of the role of being a partisan sometimes. I have to because if I didn't, I wouldn't really be liberal by my thinking.
To say that the fouls should stop on both sides is as futile as demanding it in a football game. To stop unilaterally will assure defeat. Especially when in this time the game is being decided by grit rather than grace.
You are a partisan, you don't really want to "debate" the issues, you simply want to advocate for your side.
That's the difference between you and me. I don't have a side. The religious right, and the socialist left scare me almost equally. I have no party affiliation, because no party represents my views. The Libertarians are the closest, but most of their members(actually their leaders) are fucking wacko and completely unelectable.
Till one side offended me much more than the other. I was not partisan till the time I began to post here, shortly after joining the hobby.
There's a word for how you describe yourself: isolated. If you're going to be neutral about partisanship in your country, why not be neutral completely? The US is partisan against other countries. You might describe the politics amongst them as being quite dirty . . .
So, be consistent with your neutrality.
as an American, and as a business man, I am very concerned with issues that affect this country, and not to be a hypocrite myself, I am much more concerned with whats good for America, than what's good for other countries, even at the risk of losing the moral high ground.
While I am far from nuetral, I am also not a partisan as it applies to Dem/Rep, I loathe and distrust both parties. Every election I have to make the same decision as you, my decision usually is based on who will do the least damage to me personally and to the country as a whole.
I can't think of the last candidate that I actually wholeheartedly supported, the last election where I felt we weren't choosing between a turd sandwich and a douche(thank you Matt and Trey) was Clinton's reelection in 96. I believe that Dole and Clinton were basically the same, "Moderates that wouldn't fuck things up", and I only wish that one or both of them could run again.
and so he doesn't fall for those tricks. Haven't you learned that yet?
I don't know if I would substitute the word "smart" for slippery or evasive, I think either of those words are much more appropriate, don't you?
It's still much easier to see when other people are falling for them.
If I actually had the misfortune to become important as one, then I would have to become disciplined about it and be "willfully deceived."
Of course, it could also be that I don't like and I'm not good at deceiving. Though I could see that it's a necessary social skill.
and others I don't. I'm filling myself in on the debate right now.
CNN-- at least on the show itself, made absolutely no assurances about the questions they picked.
I now regret trying to even understand conservative complaints. This is nothing. It's not an honesty issue. It isn't anything else except a conservative whine. Boo hoo. Yes, you're the victims again.
I feel like I've wasted my time.
Your blind partisanship is showing again. The Democrats moved the ball further down the field at a Republican debate no less! Why WOULD you see anything wrong with this picture?
You MUST be in the 40% minority that trusts the media in this Presidential race.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003678478
Study: More Than 60% Don't Trust Campaign Coverage
By Joe Strupp
Published: November 28, 2007 2:10 PM ET
NEW YORK Nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust press coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign, according to a new Harvard University survey, which also revealed four out of five people believe coverage focuses too much on the trivial -- and more than 60% believe coverage is politically biased.
.
.
.
Full Report
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/images/CPLpdf/cpl_index%202007%20%283%29.pdf
It's true that 60 percent believe that coverage is politically biased, but also 21 percent thought that bias was conservative, not liberal.
Doing a little math, it means that you're the one in the 40 percent minority (actually, 39 percent) that believes its conservative biased, whereas I'm in the majority who think otherwise.
Meaning: you didn't report the facts accurately. I know you're honest, but if I were a little suspicious, I could get the idea that you're a little biased in your reporting . . .
I wonder if there's a lesson here somewhere?
So, isn't that just like you? Blinded by your partisanship again. You take a non-issue like CNN selecting a three questions of a dozen out of the pool of 1500 and make it sound like it's the major press scandal of the eon. I see no ethical problem here. None.
This is just whining. This is just conservative victim mentality. Help! The press is trying to make us look like idiots again.
I expect it from the likes of Michele Malkin, but really I expected better from you.
You should stick to language, because you suck at math. So you put me in the 40% thinking it’s too liberal. What gives you the right to claim all for yourself, the portions that remain? Nice try, but you deserve ZERO points for that attempt.
My point (and the larger point) is NOT what is the direction of the skew, but that 60% consider there to be a skew. The perception of skew direction will depend greatly on which media outlet a person watches or more appropriately, has in mind when they contemplate the question.
Looks like there is plenty of skew to go around on both sides, except, oh wait, there is twice as much on YOUR side (40% vs 21%) than on mine.
If you are going to further parse the numbers you need to be reminded that among Independents, the number that thought the coverage skewed too liberal was 50% greater than the too conservative number.
An among liberals, the direction of skew was about 50-50 which takes us back to MY point that did not make any distinction of the direction. What’s important is that it is skewed.
The CNN flap is only the most recent and most egregious of late.
LMAO! I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your indignity, but my, you sound like . . . somebody just stole your piece of pie!!! Where's the mathematical mistake? Your only possible complaint is my choice of set.
It's impossible proving that I'm not in the 61 percent who don't think there's a conservative bias. You're having a conservative bias though, I know you have to try. However, shock and outrage don't matter when you've lost in logic. Really, you've made yourself an example, here. I try not to say gotcha here, but this is too blatant.
What makes you think that more than the conservative-bias people think that CNN's selections were politically biased? There is no reason to think it from this study.
Moreover, this "coverage" wasn't even coverage. They were "questions." There was no "write up"; no story checking, no suspect "investigative" work. These weren't "softball" questions to make a candidate look good. Your contention that they make the party look bad is-- strange. This were bedrock Republican social issues. The helped distinguish candidates from each other.
You're attempts to find the real truth in further parsings of your figures just shows what's happening in the macrocosm. The same set of figures, but you parse them one way and anything else is blatantly liberal-biased. I parse them differently noting a conservative bias in your interpretation. Our bias really depends on what we bring into it, and is possibly not totally conscious. What an experiment! Thank you for bringing this in.
Besides, that piece of the pie doesn't belong to you any more than it belongs to me.
Try again, but keep reminding yourself that it is NOT about whether YOU think it's conservative or not (or how much).
It's about how many trust it PERIOD, regardless of the slant direction.
-- Modified on 12/5/2007 7:11:20 PM