/dev/null Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 pBills....please provide your opinion on Media Matters and their stated mission. Thank you. Since he hasn't responded yet, I'll provide a brief outline of what we would have missed A: Try to sound like a non-shill by saying there is bias at any media outlet B: Divert attention to Fox News, Drudge, and Breitbart C: Not really answer the question D: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
RkFast Posted June 9, 2011 Author Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) Sorry KD, but Weiners offenses, so far, have nothing to do with fiscal irresponsibility. You picked this argument. To say that the occaisional Republican hypocracy on social issues isn't all that big a deal to you, in comparison is pretty silly in my book. Republicans have been using social issues as red herrings for years, in political campaigns. To play on voter emotions on wedge issues, and then turn around and not live up to the same standards that you espouse for everyone else is pretty low... Lets talk about Charlie Rangel, shall we? Edited June 9, 2011 by RkFast
GG Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) As for Brietbart, he is becoming a bit of a folk hero to the neo-cons. I would never lump you in with RK, but look at some of the posts concerning how "great" he is. At least get the insults right. Neocons are so 2003. Which precisely illustrates your prejudice. Breitbart's only stated mission, and a successful one at that, is to expose the hypocrisy of the left. Just because he's picked a different medium than the old fashioned accepted mass media does not detract frpm his message. As far as his tactics, they are no different than the way traditional media does it. In fcat, he's more honest about it, because with traditional media, you do not see the segment producers, the writers, the editors - just the talking head, and you take them at their word. Just like, 60 Minutes will never show you the unedited footage of their 10 minute on-air segment. So please stop pontificating about journalism. Edited June 9, 2011 by GG
RkFast Posted June 9, 2011 Author Posted June 9, 2011 At least get the insults right. Neocons are so 2003. Which precisely illustrates your prejudice. Breitbart's only stated mission, and a successful one at that, is to expose the hypocrisy of the left. Just because he's picked a different medium than the old fashioned accepted mass media does not detract frpm his message. As far as his tactics, they are no different than the way traditional media does it. In fcat, he's more honest about it, because with traditional media, you do not see the segment producers, the writers, the editors - just the talking head, and you take them at their word. Just like, 60 Minutes will never show you the unedited footage of their 10 minute on-air segment. So please stop pontificating about journalism. LOL...I thought the same thing about the Neo-Con thing. Nice. And I like your write up about Breitbart. I finished his book recently and youre correct about his mission and how hes going into the fight. Its funny...his detractors call him a weasel, a liar and dishonest when in fact hes brutally honest about who he is, what motivates him and his imperfections. Thats not to say I approve or like how he handles everything. I dont. He better be careful, or his sloppiness is going to kill him.
....lybob Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 At least get the insults right. Neocons are so 2003. Which precisely illustrates your prejudice. Breitbart's only stated mission, and a successful one at that, is to expose the hypocrisy of the left. Just because he's picked a different medium than the old fashioned accepted mass media does not detract frpm his message. As far as his tactics, they are no different than the way traditional media does it. In fcat, he's more honest about it, because with traditional media, you do not see the segment producers, the writers, the editors - just the talking head, and you take them at their word. Just like, 60 Minutes will never show you the unedited footage of their 10 minute on-air segment. So please stop pontificating about journalism. Wow what a sloppy writer you are, Sloppy writing is a sign of sloppy lazy thinking or maybe just the normal neoconservative thinking.
Buftex Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) At least get the insults right. Neocons are so 2003. Which precisely illustrates your prejudice. Breitbart's only stated mission, and a successful one at that, is to expose the hypocrisy of the left. Just because he's picked a different medium than the old fashioned accepted mass media does not detract frpm his message. As far as his tactics, they are no different than the way traditional media does it. In fcat, he's more honest about it, because with traditional media, you do not see the segment producers, the writers, the editors - just the talking head, and you take them at their word. Just like, 60 Minutes will never show you the unedited footage of their 10 minute on-air segment. So please stop pontificating about journalism. Me, pontificating about journalism? Read your own post. "Neo-con" was a reference to one of KD's posts, earlier in the thread about people who watch FOX or MSNBC...I don't think I have ever used that term before this... I get everything you are saying about Brietbart. But what you are missing, is the guy is going around defending himself as if he is being noble. If he was just exposing the left, and keeping his smarmy mug out of it, that would be one thing...but christ, did you see the Weiner press conference? He actually stepped up to the mic and claimed he was only doing this to "help" Weieners' marriage. Then he basically says, "if I was truly a scumbag, I could show you much worse photos than the ones you have seen"... then he goes on "Opie & Anthony" (a true gold standard for journalistic integrity) to show the frat boys his naughty pictures. Congrats Brietbart, you got someone...but don't insult everyones intelligence by pretending you have anyones' best interest at heart. You are kidding yourself GG... the guy is the fat kid who couldn't get a date to the prom, and is now taking his revenge out on the popular kids. Finding dishonest politicians is not that hard, and for you, or Brietbart to act as though corruption is exclusive to one party is incredibly ludicrous. Edited June 9, 2011 by Buftex
RkFast Posted June 9, 2011 Author Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) Me, pontificating about journalism? Read your own post. "Neo-con" was a reference to one of KD's posts, earlier in the thread about people who watch FOX or MSNBC...I don't think I have ever used that term before this... I get everything you are saying about Brietbart. But what you are missing, is the guy is going around defending himself as if he is being noble. If he was just exposing the left, and keeping his smarmy mug out of it, that would be one thing...but christ, did you see the Weiner press conference? He actually stepped up to the mic and claimed he was only doing this to "help" Weieners' marriage. Then he basically says, "if I was truly a scumbag, I could show you much worse photos than the ones you have seen"... then he goes on "Opie & Anthony" (a true gold standard for journalistic integrity) to show the frat boys his naughty pictures. Congrats Brietbart, you got someone...but don't insult everyones intelligence by pretending you have anyones' best interest at heart. You are kidding yourself GG... the guy is the fat kid who couldn't get a date to the prom, and is now taking his revenge out on the popular kids. Finding dishonest politicians is not that hard, and for you, or Brietbart to act as though corruption is exclusive to one party is incredibly ludicrous. You tried to insult me for heaping praise on Breitbart to support your arugment, but then go on to say hes OK if he just didnt do certain things like be a media hog, which are the same things I ALSO said I dont like, nor approve of. So essentially you agree with my position on him. .And you wound up insulting YOURSELF becuase how can you try to insult someone for a postion they have.... if its the same one YOU have??!!?? Whoopsee. Edited June 9, 2011 by RkFast
erynthered Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 the guy is the fat kid who couldn't get a date to the prom, and is now taking his revenge out on the popular kids. Weiner reminds me of the kid when we all were little that never got picked to play baseball. The biggest reason was that sucked at the game. And all's he ever wanted to do was play kickball. Probably had his ass kicked quite often too.........
GG Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Wow what a sloppy writer you are, Sloppy writing is a sign of sloppy lazy thinking or maybe just the normal neoconservative thinking. bla bla bla I'm sure there's a Youtube link that transcribes your thoughts
Buftex Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 You tried to insult me for heaping praise on Breitbart to support your arugment, but then go on to say hes OK if he just didnt do certain things like be a media hog, which are the same things I ALSO said I dont like, nor approve of. So essentially you agree with my position on him. .And you wound up insulting YOURSELF becuase how can you try to insult someone for a postion they have.... if its the same one YOU have??!!?? Whoopsee. I guess the difference is, you seem that what he does is great...I accept what he does, but I don't necessarily see anything that lends greatness to him.
....lybob Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Weiner reminds me of the kid when we all were little that never got picked to play baseball. The biggest reason was that he sucked at the game. And all's all he ever wanted to do was play kickball. Probably had his ass kicked quite often too.........
GG Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Me, pontificating about journalism? Read your own post. "Neo-con" was a reference to one of KD's posts, earlier in the thread about people who watch FOX or MSNBC...I don't think I have ever used that term before this... I get everything you are saying about Brietbart. But what you are missing, is the guy is going around defending himself as if he is being noble. If he was just exposing the left, and keeping his smarmy mug out of it, that would be one thing...but christ, did you see the Weiner press conference? He actually stepped up to the mic and claimed he was only doing this to "help" Weieners' marriage. Then he basically says, "if I was truly a scumbag, I could show you much worse photos than the ones you have seen"... then he goes on "Opie & Anthony" (a true gold standard for journalistic integrity) to show the frat boys his naughty pictures. Congrats Brietbart, you got someone...but don't insult everyones intelligence by pretending you have anyones' best interest at heart. You are kidding yourself GG... the guy is the fat kid who couldn't get a date to the prom, and is now taking his revenge out on the popular kids. Finding dishonest politicians is not that hard, and for you, or Brietbart to act as though corruption is exclusive to one party is incredibly ludicrous. Seems to me that Breitbart is being effective. Why should he go after the right, when that's not what he wants to do. He's a classic case of growing up as a left leaning zombie (liberally borrowed from Mamet) who has an awakening at some point in his life. In his case, he's dedicating that conversion to laugh at the left. For him, there's no reason to take on the right, because there's an existing cottage industry that's doing it. So, sorry that your sensibilities are ruffled that he uncovers that a well-meaning liberal is really a self-centered fraud and that modern liberalism suffers from a degenerative case of groupthink about false prophets of communal moires.
....lybob Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 bla bla bla I'm sure there's a Youtube link that transcribes your thoughts as a matter of fact
KD in CA Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 The only people not questioning/protecting Breitbart are the far righties. So what. By the way, I am not far left. No, just far idiot. And why would anyone bother 'questioning' someone for reporting facts? The questions are correctly going to the subject of the case.
IDBillzFan Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 He actually stepped up to the mic and claimed he was only doing this to "help" Weieners' marriage. Then he basically says, "if I was truly a scumbag, I could show you much worse photos than the ones you have seen"... then he goes on "Opie & Anthony" (a true gold standard for journalistic integrity) to show the frat boys his naughty pictures. Congrats Brietbart, you got someone...but don't insult everyones intelligence by pretending you have anyones' best interest at heart. If you're going to trash Breitbart, it would help if you were accurate in your statements. He didn't take the mic to help Weiner's marriage and he didn't go on O&A to show the picture. You even posted a freaking link that refutes your blather. I was thinking conner got your password, but now I'm starting to think you and he are just one and the same.
3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Wow what a sloppy writer you are, Sloppy writing is a sign of sloppy lazy thinking or maybe just the normal neoconservative thinking. Always capitalize after a comma. It makes you look smart.
KD in CA Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Sorry KD, but Weiners offenses, so far, have nothing to do with fiscal irresponsibility. You picked this argument. Way to jumble the micro and macro issues. As discussed, Weiner's issue is putting himself in a position to be blackmailed (which you have yet to comment on). My complaint with Democrats -- simplified to a single sentence as that was not the point of this thread -- is another (larger) matter. To say that the occasional Republican hypocracy on social issues isn't all that big a deal to you, in comparison is pretty silly in my book. Republicans have been using social issues as red herrings for years, in political campaigns. To play on voter emotions on wedge issues, and then turn around and not live up to the same standards that you espouse for everyone else is pretty low... And Democrats haven't been using the red herrings of blaming "the rich" for all of society's ills for the last 40 years? Sorry, but I don't consider whether or not some gay guy can call himself 'married' or a 16 year old needs parental permission for an abortion to be equal in importance to the US going so far in debt it threatens our entire economic structure. I guess I haven't seen or heard anything that makes me think or believe that Democrats are somehow more fiscally corrupt in fiscal matters than Republicans. Government employee unions? Please articulate why these are necessary and why the endless abuses they permit should be tolerated. Elliott Spitzer, who was pretty good at his job in NYS prosecuter, was taken down for, essentially, the same charges that Vitter is guilty of...but he never used any sort of "integrity of marriage" bs as part of his election campaign. So that makes Vitter's actions worse than Spitzer's? That's ridiculous logic. And Spitzer was brought down because of the long list of enemies he cultivated. As for Brietbart, he is becoming a bit of a folk hero to the neo-cons. I would never lump you in with RK, but look at some of the posts concerning how "great" he is. You guys keep harping on this, but if the only example you can provide is an RK post, I think we've found another red herring. This is classic 'attack the messenger' deflection tactics.
Wacka Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 The only people not questioning/protecting Breitbart are the far righties. So what. By the way, I am not far left. :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:
Recommended Posts