G.O.P. Succumbs To Rare Outbreak Of Sanity

My dumb assumptions? Please indicate where I referred to you in any of the comments I made aside from word #2. I was speaking in first person for every other sentence.

Oh hey, this got funny again.

Ohai. Come on in, the water's fine.

I don't buy that for a second.

So you're saying that in a paragraph where you're directly addressing me by name, you decided to go on a tangent and talk about something that does not refer to me, even though your sentence structure indicts that you're making a contrast between you and some other thing.

Please. Don't think as lowly as me as I do of you.

Echoing this question (or repeating myself, whichever).

I'm a moderate, a title that strikes me as worrying since it nominally means "centrist" but more literally means "not extremist." I was actually tempted to stump for the conservative side when you brought up propaganda and point out the poor track record that Obama's administration has had with regards to LGBT issues, but then I remembered that quite a lot has been done but it gets swept quickly under the rug. Suspiciously.

So, seriously, if you're going to argue that liberal propaganda is as bad or worse than conservative propaganda, especially the kind that is too subtle to notice, then please cite an example or three. The statistician in you should be aware that the liberal side doesn't get fact-checked as critically around here in part because they don't make outrageous claims that can be immediately refuted.

I wonder actually by what criteria you are judging that. Looking at Obama as the nation's Executive and looking at him in the context of what his job actually is, he's been decisive, effective, and successful. His personal political goals, however, have been hamstrung by partisan politics in the legislative branch, which comprises the overwhelming majority of press about any President's incumbency. Logically that makes about as much sense as judging the success of a football team by how well their turf is maintained by the grounds crew, but logic has never been a key part of politics and political reporting (and I'm not claiming this is new, either; it goes back to ancient Greece and before).

My, my. Taking this personally now?

That's exactly what I did. But you assumed otherwise.


Oh, I agree with you. There is a lot of conservative propaganda that is outrageous. Not going to argue that point at all. Also, I'm a tad concerned about voicing particular liberal propaganda because I don't want to open a can of worms on other issues. I will say, however, that the habit of over-reporting conservative scandals and/or stupid things politicians have said vs. under-reporting on the other side is one method that I find particularly sleazy.

Agreed. Though, when it comes to what gets reported, the news media tends to love its sex. Anthony Weiner has failed to learn that lesson on a couple occasions, it's true, but I don't think any Democrats have been caught sucking *** in airport bathrooms, chatting up 14-year-old Congressional aides, or doing other really disgusting stuff. The fact that Weiner's bulge even made the news frankly surprised me, much less that it cost him his job.

Just name something already.

Let's see how it compares to the right-wing's tirade against Obama's "spending problem"

Yeah, I found that particularly interesting. But if you want other related scandals that made less news, see Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards, and David Wu. I think Weinergate was more of an irony thing. Poor guy didn't have the best last name to not make the news with a story like that.

Maybe it would have made more news if they right-wing wasn't covering stories like how Obama threw a "hip-hop" BBQ that didn't create any jobs, or how he once put his feet on his desk.

There is the potential correlation that one side is more inclined to say stupid ***.

Haha, that may be true. But here's a recent one you probably didn't hear in the news:
"That's the good thing about being President. I can do whatever I want."
- Barack Obama, to the French President

That has no potential to be taken out of context at all.


Anyways, since I have your attention, I was wonder. Who exactly is the liberal media? I could never figure it out since I don't partake in the mass media.

Lame jokes aren't particularly newsworthy.

You're baiting me. I know you try to be subtle, but come on now.

Provided it isn't a chubby intern that rates a 4 out of 10 at most, is he wrong? I know some Saudi emirs and African warlords have life pretty good, too, but not "remote unmanned drones that can precisely bomb your worst enemy's brand new Lexus" capability. The Simpsons once joked that the President gets 3 free assassinations and I seriously wonder how far from reality that is. He is the leader of the world's strongest military.

You seem to say that a lot, I've noticed it in past threads too. Is that always what you say when you're asked a difficult question you don't want to/can't answer?

I agree. Out-of-context quotes, even when distasteful given the President's record of pushing the boundaries of his power, shouldn't be front-page news.

Uh... MSNBC would be at the forefront. They don't say things that are quite as outrageous as Fox News, but they do almost exactly as much rabble-rousing.

No, because I know you know the answer and you're trying to get me to say something specific that you can jump on.

I actually don't know the answer, since I don't watch any network news. I'd call you out for making assumptions again, but you'll probably retroactively decide that you meant something else - again.

Onorgul stated MSNBC. Has MSNBC reported on this?
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/silicon-valley-attempts-to-slow-new-global-tax-avoidance-reform-proposals/

Uh, I don't know? I'm pretty sure that I'm not your typical MSNBC viewer.

basically, when someone uses this term they mean ALL media that isnt FOX-esque. the media outlets that dont ask the "hard hitting" questions like "is Obamas birth certificate real?" or "BENGHAZI!?!?!" after they are no longer relevant or proven to not be relevant.

What are you talking about, practically every week a commentator on MSNBC has to step down or apologize for saying something outrageous. Didn't they just overhaul all of their management because they are so absurd?

I was asking Onorgul.

Has MSNBC reported on this?
http://pando.com/2014/02/12/the-wolf-of-sesame-street-revealing-the-secret-corruption-inside-pbss-news-division/

Yeah, there are those that view all non-FOX news channels as being liberal media. I don't subscribe to that notion, but MSNBC is a pretty good example of liberal media.

They don't ask questions. Period. They supply the answers for the White House.

And that's one of the reasons why I don't watch MSNBC.

Oh noes, a guest compared Romney's one black adopted child to among his all-white family as a representative for the diversity in the republican party (which is accurate btw).

That's clearly as bad as saying Wendy Davis is a *** because her husband paid for her education.




And that's another reason why I don't watch MSNBC.

To contrast; when Bush was in office, Fox news tells the white house what to tell the rest of the media to report on.

And if they don't, they're unAmerican!

Lol. We can't even hate on MSNBC without saying that Fox News is also bad in the same post. Don't worry, we wouldn't confuse you with a conservative!