Wacka Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Quoted for truth. And the thing is .. to succeed in broadcasting you have to have an intellect, so naturally all media would lean left. The only time a smart person in media doesn't lean left is when they are paid $10 million a year like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. At that point a man is willing to say whatever needs to be said to keep getting paid, who cares about dignity or telling the truth? .. and I'll put Olbermann in that bucket also. The dude is clearly biased and clearly distorts data from time to time. I've said before that the guy might as well be a republican. Even so, his salary is less half of Bill O'Reilly's. Leave the comedy to Crayonz, he's a lot better at it.
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 .. and I'll put Olbermann in that bucket also. Olbermann is like a liberal Ann Coulter without the penis.
KD in CA Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 to succeed in broadcasting you have to have an intellect Don't watch much TV, do you? Your posts are really climbing the ranks. Not quite at molson/eliot level yet, but I have hopes for you to get there.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Presenting both sides IS NOT unbiased. Absolutely stupid By today's media standards... Who wants to see it side-by-side when you can just change the channel.
drnykterstein Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Don't watch much TV, do you? Your posts are really climbing the ranks. Not quite at molson/eliot level yet, but I have hopes for you to get there. Since leaving the church I've really grown a disdain for "conservatives" and Christians and such. Especially since I now know that the book they base most of their political beliefs on (the bible) is not divine as they think it is.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Quoted for truth. And the thing is .. to succeed in broadcasting you have to have an intellect, so naturally all media would lean left. The only time a smart person in media doesn't lean left is when they are paid $10 million a year like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. At that point a man is willing to say whatever needs to be said to keep getting paid, who cares about dignity or telling the truth? ... and I'll put Olbermann in that bucket also. The dude is clearly biased and clearly distorts data from time to time. I've said before that the guy might as well be a republican. Even so, his salary is less half of Bill O'Reilly's. I agree... But those types are knee-jerk reactions to what Murdoch (the one who jumped on the looney right populus bandwagon first with the opening up of modern media outlets) started with Fox. What I am saying, is the liberals still have to play the game or they go broke. Intellect is ALWAYS brought down by the lowest common denominator... And the advent of modern right wing media represents that lowest common denominator. It is unfortunate that the liberal side has had take their own populus side. IE: Grace, Olbermann, etc... etc...) Don't get me wrong, there is a populus left... It was just surpressed when there were three news outlets the last 50-80 years (ink, radio, tv). Dudes/gals... Freaking Walter Cronkite was a flaming lib!
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Does your club serve cherry or grape Kool-Aid®? Today's selection is fruit punch Mr. Pure...
/dev/null Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Today's selection is fruit punch Mr. Pure... Oh Yeah!!!
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Oh Yeah!!! Stock tip: Mr. Pure= National Beverage Corp trades on the NASDAQ as FIZZ
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 What I am saying, is the liberals still have to play the game or they go broke. I disagree. In typical liberal fashion, they don't need to play or go broke. They can simply introduce legislation which makes the other side poorer, and in doing so, they actually create the perception that they are somehow richer. And in relative terms, they actually are. They're doing it with the economy by flooding the world with freshly printed money, and they're doing it by floating around the concepts of the Fairness Doctrine. "We can't compete with right-wing radio, so let's do away with it by making stations change their formats." Sorry, but that's how the libs operate. They have no means to elevate themselves, so they instead seek to devalue their competition. And to be successful, they must first keep their masses happy, so they make everyone look at some obscure issue that makes the masses angry (like giving people permission to hand out large bonuses, and then yelling that the bonuses are wrong, and then sending people to the homes of the bonus recipients) all while legislating through the very anger and hatred they incited in the first place. I'd consider it genius is if wasn't so freakin' stupid.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 I disagree. In typical liberal fashion, they don't need to play or go broke. They can simply introduce legislation which makes the other side poorer, and in doing so, they actually create the perception that they are somehow richer. And in relative terms, they actually are. They're doing it with the economy by flooding the world with freshly printed money, and they're doing it by floating around the concepts of the Fairness Doctrine. "We can't compete with right-wing radio, so let's do away with it by making stations change their formats." Sorry, but that's how the libs operate. They have no means to elevate themselves, so they instead seek to devalue their competition. And to be successful, they must first keep their masses happy, so they make everyone look at some obscure issue that makes the masses angry (like giving people permission to hand out large bonuses, and then yelling that the bonuses are wrong, and then sending people to the homes of the bonus recipients) all while legislating through the very anger and hatred they incited in the first place. I'd consider it genius is if wasn't so freakin' stupid.
drnykterstein Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 LA, If it means anything, I feel that the (ironically named) "Fairness Doctine" is an affront to civil liberties and to the First Amendment. Anyone supporting that crap has put them self on serious rocky ground as far as getting a vote out of me. Obviously Obama opposes it also, I might turn on him right there and then if he ever supported that terrible idea.
Chilly Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 CNN's one of the more even-handed American news outlets...but they definitely lean a bit to the left. Define "news outlet"
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 LA, If it means anything, I feel that the (ironically named) "Fairness Doctine" is an affront to civil liberties and to the First Amendment. Anyone supporting that crap has put them self on serious rocky ground as far as getting a vote out of me. Obviously Obama opposes it also, I might turn on him right there and then if he ever supported that terrible idea. And I a no longer agree with Dennis Kucinich because of it.
Wacka Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 And I a no longer agree with Dennis Kucinich because of it. He does make good cookies though.
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 Since leaving the church I've really grown a disdain for "conservatives" and Christians and such. Especially since I now know that the book they base most of their political beliefs on (the bible) is not divine as they think it is.You have inside information on the bible? Please share.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 You have inside information on the bible? Please share. God is my favorite fictitious character.
drnykterstein Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 You have inside information on the bible? Please share. It's not inside info, its all well documented and published and info that we've known for hundreds of years. Church goers just don't like to believe it because if they do it means there is no magical place called heaven. Even founding father Thomas Jefferson 200 years ago knew enough to know that that Bible was not divine and he tried to fix it.
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2009 Posted March 22, 2009 You have inside information on the bible? Please share. Of course not. Only people who believe in the Bible have that.
Recommended Posts