Lying liberal press use Lott to set up 2004 election

David Gould · #31 18th December 2002, 10:38 PM

Coulter made me think she was not to be trusted, because she parrots the same old conspiracy nonsense that keeps getting regurgitated again and again and again and again and again ...

Don't get me wrong - I attack left and right wing conspiracy lunatics. That sort of thinking is damaging.

As to the rebuplicans not being able to do anything for years due to being paralysed, read about the Reagan years and how many liberal policy turns were taken by him. And Bush went to war in the Gulf, surly something that was by its very nature something that liberals would have opposed ...

 

What you need to do is make predictions about the whole thing.

Let us assume that their is a liberal media conspiracy.

What would we expect to happen from now on? Anyone can build a conspiracy theory out of past events - what about the future? Does the theory have any predictive power at all or is it simply moonshine?

(As an example, surely if there was a liberal stranglehold on the media, Bush would not be so popular and be so supported in the press and the republicans would not have done so well at the election. But I suppose you have an explanation for that ... Let me see - the American public now are no longer influenced by the media and have broken the shackles of liberal oppression? How close am I? Do I get a biscuit)

Predict a few things that will happen - better, predict some things that cannot possibly happen if your theory is true. Then if they happen, your theory will have been falsified.

Come on! Let us turn conspiracy fun into a proper social analysis. 

Sauron · #32 18th December 2002, 10:54 PM

Does anyone know what is causing this extra HTML tag to be shown?

Sauron · #33 18th December 2002, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Randalll

if you blatantly dismiss all of my sources as nut-jobs, then we are at an impasse.

No, we aren't at an impasse.  You merely have to find some support for your positions from sources that aren't blatantly crackpot and biased.

Of course, if during your search, you discover that you're unable to find any such sources - well, guess what?  Then you should probably re-think your positions.  If the only place you can find support is on the lunatic fringe, then maybe you ought to take a hint.

You call me naïve, completely dismissing my earlier statements about having already been a liberal.

In order to inflate their own credentials, a lot of people will add that they used to hold the opposite position, but have since "learned better".

It's like when some creationist tells me that they used to be an "evolutionist", and then they stumble all over themselves when I ask them to explain evolution.  They try, and fail miserably.  The conclusion is that they never understood evolution in the first place, but only like to add that claim to their resume.

So no:  I do not dismiss your earlier statements at all.  However, if you are so poorly informed as to be suckered by sources such as worldnutdaily and drudge, then you were most likely a misinformed liberal as well.

Were you ever a committed, informed conservative?

Yep.  During my college years.  I was a Poli Sci major in a Navy ROTC program.  In fact, I was the ROTC liaison between the military and the College Republicans.  Fortunately, I had to read a lot, and do first-hand research for my classes.  I read way too much for my own good. Reading is deadly to ignorance and conservatism.

Ever wonder why there are so many former liberals in the ranks of conservatives today while almost zero former conservatives among the ranks of liberals?

Huh?

I don't have any proof that this is the case at all.  So the question you pose isn't even valid.

You, however, are an unusual case. The typical voter who chooses Democrat is hopelessly uninformed.

Actually, I've found the opposite to be true.  It takes more education to be liberal, because conservatism is sort of the psychological default position.

You have heard the evidence, yet believe the line that it is all garbage.

Actually, I have heard the evidence.  That's why I know that Ann Coulter, Hannity, Malkin, WorldNutDaily, etc. are bogus.

Don't get me wrong - I mean, they're probably sufficient as a form of political info-tainment, as long as you realize that their fact content is very low.  It's kind of like watching one of those infomercials for a Ronco product - lots of smiling idiots in the audience, clapping like plastic zombies because they don't know any better.

As for providing sources for all of my claims, I don’t have the time to act as your tutor.

Ah, gee.  I never would have guessed.  Wasn't it you who said that

“Facts to a toe-tag liberal are like kryptonite is to Superman.”

Seems to me like providing facts and sources is deadly to conservatives, not liberals.

Sheesh. "I don't have time to provide sources."  Of course you don't.  Your only dog-and-pony show is to throw dozens of assertions on the screen, and hope that some of them stick. :rolleyes:

Beyond that, you would dismiss everything I offered anyway

Not if you could substantiate it without relying on half-baked conspiracy sources.

Suffice it to say that I did not make them up, and that I am an honest person, and really not at all naïve. Possibly wrong, it happens, but neither gullible or naïve.

I didn't say you were dishonest.  But you are gullible, naive and wrong.  If this were the 1980s, you'd be a Limbaugh ditto-head, in spite of the multitude of factual errors that he put out.

But since it's two decades later, you quote Ann Coulter instead of Limbaugh.  Same tune, different decade, still factually wrong.

Sauron, when you go to a place like mrc dot org, and read the actual words of the liberal reporters you claim are not liberal, how do you explain the things they say, the imbalance in their treatment of conservatives? Have you been there to see yet?

Because I realize that these sites are excellent at quoting people out of context - which is aptly illustrated by the two Ann Coulter sites that I provided you.  Have you been there to see yet?
http://slannder.homestead.com/files/slanndermain.html
http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticou...ute111302.html

You’re going to have difficulty calling mrc dot org a nut job when mostly what you will find are the words of our national political reporters.

Out of context quotes have been fun toys for a long time.  Creationists use them as well.  The fact that you cannot see that only reinforces my claim that:

a. you were too naive to have been a well-informed liberal; and
b.  you are gullible and naive now (not dishonest);

You call Disney conservative? And MY analysis is faulty, just like that, while yours was evidently carried down the mountain by Moses?

Yep.  Disney is conservative. 

My analysis - I provided some good reasons why my analysis was solid - all you provided was a string of allegations.  Here; read what I wrote again:

Ceterus parebus, any given mega-corporation has a much higher chance of being run by a social/fiscal conservative than by a social/fiscal liberal.   That's simply the business world, whether you like it or not.

Specifically for media conglomerates, you can derive their political/social leanings just by looking at the ownership of these mega-corporations, and then examine which issues they have spoken out on (Telecommunications Freedom Act, etc.)

Six global corporations control more than half of all mass media in our country: newspapers, magazines, books, radio and television. These Big Six are AOL Time Warner (the largest media firm in the world), Disney (which absorbed ABC/Cap Cities), Viacom (which includes the former Westinghouse and CBS), Bertelsmann (the German firm that controls 10 percent of all adult trade books in the world), General Electric (which owns NBC and all of its subsidiary media outlets), and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp (the Australian-based firm that controls a large American media empire that includes the Fox radio and television stations and network).

This is a conservative group of corporations.

Sauron · #34 18th December 2002, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Randalll
"My mother....was pretty anti-American. And so I was, in some respects, raised with anti-Americanism in my blood, or in my mother’s milk at least." – [b]Peter Jennings, who was raised in Canada, on the September 6, 2002 Late Show on CBS.

I saw this interview.  The quote is out of context.

"Obviously this is something he is feeling shame about and should, but I do not want to have his voice silenced in public debate. I think he’s an important voice in public debate, and I think that having it now lose some authority is too bad." – ABC’s Cokie Roberts on This Week, January 21, 2001. Speaking about Jesse Jackson.

I fail to see the problem here. 

"I'm nominating you for President of the United States and I'm going to quit my job and go to work for you." -- Sam Donaldson to Mario Cuomo on the floor of the Democratic convention, quoted by the New York Daily News, July 13, 1992.

In the first place, Sam Donaldson can't nominate anyone for the Presidency.  He wasn't a delegate to the convention.

In the 2nd place, it's obvious from context that he's joking.

Phil Donahue: "How about Mrs. Kennedy, will she win in Maryland? Bobby’s oldest child."
Chris Matthews: "Well, I voted for her, but I don’t think that’s going to help. I think she’s going to lose." – Exchange on MSNBC’s Donahue, November 4, 2002.

And what do you think this proves, exactly?

"Do you think the American people are not ready for someone who is as accomplished and career-oriented as Hillary Clinton?" -- Today co-host Katie Couric interviewing Hillary Clinton, August 24, 1992.

There is some truth to this, and the question is entirely appropriate.  Hillary Clinton wasn't like previous first ladies in her career choices.

"I never intended to go to Vietnam. I was hitchhiking illegally on the interstate and I was picked up by a doctor and we fell in love, and two months after graduating from college we went to Vietnam. I had been very much involved with the anti-war movement. I never expected to go to Vietnam. I protested the war. I went to every anti-war march in Washington. I chanted, ‘Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win!’ And two months later there I was." – Former NBC reporter Laura Palmer on Today, Sept 18, 2002 recalling the anti-war views she brought to Vietnam where she covered the war for NBC for about a year.

So?  The Vietnam War *was* a bad idea. 

Andy Rooney – "I wish they had left God out of it because I just think it would be more neutral." Said in reference to the song, America the Beautiful. And: "It’s ridiculous to say there is no God; just as it’s ridiculous to say there is." Speaking with Don Imus, 02/18/02

Again, what's your problem?

Andy Rooney: "Most news people I know tend towards the liberal direction, yes. You don’t think that’s true?"
Phil Donahue: "I think that most of the media think that homosexuals are people entitled to all the rights and the privileges in the Constitution. I believe that liberals, most liberals, are for choice in the matter of a woman’s reproductive capacity. If that’s liberal, yeah, I think we’re liberal."
Rooney: "It is liberal. Yes, it is liberal."
– Exchange on MSNBC’s Donahue, November 19, 2002.

So you have Donahue and Rooney discussing their views on the media. 

"Dan himself has said that it’s a serious mistake, that he regrets it. But I don’t believe for an instant it will affect Dan’s constant pursuit of objectivity." – Former CBS News reporter Bernard Kalb, on Dan Rather headlining a Democratic fund-raiser in Texas, April 7, 2001 Reliable Sources on CNN.

Another one of your isolated facts devoid of the context:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...34557-2001Apr3

Acknowledging that he didn't want to sound like Al Gore at a Buddhist temple, Rather said: "When I got there, I was very aware that it was a fundraising event. I'm not going to say I had no idea what was going on. . . . If someone wants to fault me for that, I wouldn't blame them."

Rather said he agreed to discuss election coverage at the invitation of an old friend, Austin City Council member Will Wynn, who drew 150 people to the event in his back yard. He was not paid for his appearance. Other hosts included Scott Ozmun, the county Democratic chairman, and Robin Rather, the anchor's daughter and a Texas environmentalist and marketing executive.

The Austin American-Statesman said Robin Rather is considering a run for mayor and has been consulting with another host of the event, David Butts, a campaign adviser to Mayor Kirk Watson. The CBS veteran said he didn't know that his daughter was an official host.

Asked for comment last night, CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said: "Obviously our standards don't allow correspondents to participate in political party fundraisers. No one believes in this and upholds it more fervently than Dan Rather. This was an honest oversight on his part."

Rather has long disputed suggestions that he is a Democratic Party sympathizer. But he consistently draws the most flak of the major anchors from viewers who see him as less than objective, even spawning a Web site called RatherBiased.com.

"I think the stereotype of Rather is occasionally unfair, but this feeds the stereotype," said Republican consultant Mike Murphy. "Generally, television anchors should not be in the business of helping political parties raise money. He ought to make it real clear that it was a huge mistake and he should never do that sort of thing."

"On Capitol Hill, the Republican-controlled House voted mostly along party lines tonight to pass President Bush’s federal budget blueprint. This includes his big tax cut plan, partly bankrolled, critics say, through cuts in many federal aid programs for children and education." – Dan Rather on the March 28, 2001 CBS Evening News.

So?  Rather is just reporting the news here.  He accurately reports the events on Capitol Hill, and he accurately what Bush's critics had to say about the federal budget.  I don't see anything wrong here.

You basically just threw a bunch of quotations up on the screen, and didn't realize that most of them are either totally harmless or out of context.

See why I suspect that you weren't a well-informed liberal?

 

Randalll · #35 18th December 2002, 11:21 PM

David,

Well, we now have teenage girls experimenting more and more with lesbian relationships. That will increase for a while, until the private school movement gains more steam.

More calls for communist style medicine will be coming. Though the fight is intense, given the joining of people who know better with conservative talk radio AND medical institutes when they try.

Closer ties with the UN and or NATO, slicing away pieces of the Constitution based on agreement to treaties. The UN Rights on the Child, if ever adopted here, will drastically change our way of life. Hillary and many others sharply criticize anyone who dares oppose that system.

Illegal aliens will continue pouring over our border, other peoples over European borders, so that within 50 years the white race will not be a majority in any country on Earth. That is intentional.

Ummm, just because liberals were and the press IS massively powerful does not mean they can't be outmaneuvered on occasion. The vote for the 1991 Gulf War included 47 Democrats opposed.

Here's where the press power comes into play. While popular opinion was behind Clinton launching a war on a Christian nation to help Muslims take Kosovo, we now find great resistance to fighting Iraq. That is because Dan Rather and the other fellows set up camp in Kosovo to beam back images in an excellent campaign to rally support for the Clinton war, and have been doing just the opposite these days.

The whole 911 thing threw them out of whack, however. For a few weeks, instead of interpreting what Bush said, they actually allowed the American people to hear his every word. That was a fatal mistake. The public grew to trust the president during those precious few days. Within 12 weeks the assault on his character was resumed, and has taken its toll, his popularity dropping from more than 90 percent to now around 60, about what it was for Clinton when he left office. Were the press to adore Bush in the same way they did Clinton the approval would still be above 80. To take Bush down, they even pulled a Lott style media blitz for a few weeks, hoping to convince America that 911 could've been prevented were it not for poor leadership. They had been using Enron before then. While evidence was surfacing all around to draw a link between CLINTON and Enron, between Clinton and security failures, between Democrats and massive spending cuts in the intelligence community, you could not find a national reporter focusing on any of those angles.

Predictions get weird because we do actually have a God, making things change no one would've expected. And other things we can't explain. For instance Rush Limbaugh, out of nowhere to become the most popular radio host in the modern era, and 911, and Lewinski holding onto the blue dress.

Oh, here's one. The blacks, those who continue listening to their current leaders, will continue down the road of self-destruction, killing themselves, rioting when they don't get their way, more drug use, more prison terms. It's hard to imagine they will increase an 80 percent illegitimacy rate though. That figure is already astounding.

Music will keep getting more boring. Ha ha ha ha ha.

At some point (not that far away) it will probably become illegal to quote certain sections of the Bible anywhere in public, such as the admonitions against homosexuality.

Guns, more laws, and more lies, even though more children are killed choking on things laying around the house, killed while driving with parents in their cars, killed while tripping over something.

The difficult part is we are actually the last battle ground. Canada, Australia and Britain have already caved in to the desires of the liberal media elite, giving up their guns and other rights. Yet the resistance in this country has been fierce. It is fascinating to observe. Still, all things considered, these people have already won probably 70 percent of their long-term goals.

 

Sauron, one can not have a debate with you. Your style of arguing reminds me of James Carville and Paul Begala. Do you perhaps work within the Democratic Party? Everything anyone says is twisted and rejected using any means necessary. I have listed plenty of support for my positions. To say otherwise indicates that you are not bothering to listen or, like a good Democrat operative, choosing to simply spin the response. And you have way too much time on your hands. You keep saying how awful Worldnetdaily and Drudge are. I have provided ample evidence where the liberal news networks have been lying, which you have not explained. Now it's your turn to demonstrate where you have found the "lunatic fringe" to be deceptive. I will wait. You know too much to still be such a devoted liberal if honestly examining both sides, which makes me very suspicious. I do not trust Democrats. They engage in voter fraud, rip down yard signs, vandalize cars that have critical bumber stickers and lie all the time in order to institute their long-term goals of creating a socialist pagan nation.

Sauron · #36 18th December 2002, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Randalll

Daniel Shore, NPR senior news analyst and former CBS reporter – The more people are deluged with information, the more they need help in making sense of it. After sixty years in journalism, I conceive it as my task to bring perspective, especially historical perspective, to onrushing events. I try, as best I can, to walk the line between analysis and advocacy. "Analysis" when I say, "This is how things are." "Advocacy" if I were to say, "This is how I want them to be."
-- Daniel Schorr … as appears on the NPR website

So?  I still fail to see what has your knickers all in a twist.

Daniel Schorr is describing what his job is, and what he considers to be a boundary that he shouldn't cross. He wants to provide analysis, but not advocacy.  I would think that you'd be happy about that, not complaining.

Do us all a favor:  avoid the use of these colors.  Evidently the BBS system doesn't handle all the HTML tags correctly every time.

From the May 15, 2001 O’Reilly Factor, appearing to plug his new book, The American Dream: Stories from the Heart of Our Nation. After Rather claimed that CBS "did do quite a bit on campaign finance," O’Reilly recalled that the anchorman had refused to bring it up when he interviewed the President: "When you interviewed Clinton himself in 1999, we have a transcript of the interview, you didn’t ask him anything about the campaign finance stuff." Instead of defending his glaring omission, Rather shrugged, "Look, I’m not a perfect interviewer."

Irrelevant.  Dan Rather did not say that he personally did a segment on campaign finance.  He said that CBS did.  That could have been "60 Minutes", or the CBS Morning show, or something else.  Your complaint here is baseless, regardless of what does or doesn't appear in a transcript.

Phantom transcripts: Rather also wrongly insisted that the CBS Evening News had reported the corruption allegations swirling around the Reverend Jesse Jackson’s misuse of donations to his non-profit organization, a story aggressively pursued by FNC. "We nailed Jesse Jackson to the wall because of his abuse of non- profit money. You guys haven’t touched him," O’Reilly confronted Rather. "You didn’t do anything!"

"Oh, we have. Bill, that’s just simply not true and I’ll be happy to send the transcript over to you," Rather scolded.

That would be some trick. An MRC review shows that, of all of the major evening news shows, only the CBS Evening News entirely refused to report any allegations of financial misconduct against the two-time Democratic presidential candidate. (Even ABC and NBC covered a Jackson press conference held on March 8 in which the liberal activist denied using his charities to enrich himself.) Rather’s CBS Evening News limited itself to a single January 18 report about Jackson’s confession of an illegitimate daughter.

So your complaint cannot be that the media is liberal, since you freely admit that ABC and NBC reported on this.  Your solitary complaint, then, is that CBS was scooped by the other networks.

"I’m not liberal. First of all, I finally decided to get rid of those two words, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative.’ I don’t know what they mean anymore. I mean, I’ve come down to ‘sense’ and ‘nonsense.’ It makes sense to me, it’s got nothing to do with conservative or liberal, it makes sense to me that hunters be allowed to have rifles. It makes no sense to me that there are 200 million handguns in American cities. I have always believed that if you get the NRA out of the way, decent reasonable Americans would figure out a way to respect the Second Amendment and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them." – Don Hewitt, Executive Producer of 60 Minutes, on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 11, 2001.

Again, I see no problem here.  Polls show substantial support for gun control, as well as support for hunting rifles.  Don Hewitt's position mirrors what the general public thinks.

"Fred [Barnes], you've said time and again that character is an important issue in the campaign. Clearly, that red-baiting junk didn't work for the President last night. What's he going to try next?" -- CBS This Morning co-host Harry Smith, October 12, 1992.

What's your complaint here?  That the term "red-baiting" was used to refer to the character issue?  Or that the media wasn't backing George Bush, Sr, against Bill Clinton in the first election?

"Cronkite, Mr. Middle American Everyman, even advocates a new sociopolitical system. `We may have to find some marvelous middle ground between capitalism and communism,' he says....`While each nation has distinctive problems, for the United States the first priority of the new order must be a revision of the educational system to...guarantee that each of our citizens will have equal resources to share in the decisions of the democracy, and a fair share of the economic pie.'" -- Former CBS anchorman Cronkite quoted in a January 21, 1996 Los Angeles Times Magazine profile by Newsday TV writer Verne Gay.

No problems here.  We do have such a system right now, as does every nation of Western Europe and Japan.  All Cronkite is doing is admitting that it exists, and defining what it looks like (or, should look like) if properly implemented. 

Adios, surplus. When retired boomers dine on dog food, will they say thanks for that $600?" – Newsweek’s "Conventional Wisdom" box, assigning President Bush a "down" arrow, Sept. 3, 2001 issue.

Yep, and Newsweek's "Conventional Wisdom" column is 110% correct about this one.  Dubya has eradicated the surplus, and the $300 so-called 'tax refund' failed to stimulate the economy at all.  But the ramifications of deficit spending will be felt for years.

I'm skipping to the end - this is like shooting fish in a barrel - but I did want to comment on the last one:

"I must say I was struck by the expanse of their chests. They may have to put out their stats." – Newsweek reporter Eleanor Clift on Clinton and Gore, CNN's Inside Politics, July 10, 1992.

Randall, what in the world is your complaint here?  If you've ever watched Inside Politics, it's obvious that this was a point of banter and witty repartee among the participants.  

Is this what you consider to be an example of faulty media analysis or liberal bias?  Because if it is, your analytical skills are utterly deficient.

David Gould · #37 18th December 2002, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Randalll
David,

Well, we now have teenage girls experimenting more and more with lesbian relationships. That will increase for a while, until the private school movement gains more steam.

More calls for communist style medicine will be coming. Though the fight is intense, given the joining of people who know better with conservative talk radio AND medical institutes when they try.

Closer ties with the UN and or NATO, slicing away pieces of the Constitution based on agreement to treaties. The UN Rights on the Child, if ever adopted here, will drastically change our way of life. Hillary and many others sharply criticize anyone who dares oppose that system.

Illegal aliens will continue pouring over our border, other peoples over European borders, so that within 50 years the white race will not be a majority in any country on Earth. That is intentional.

Oh, here's one. The blacks, those who continue listening to their current leaders, will continue down the road of self-destruction, killing themselves, rioting when they don't get their way, more drug use, more prison terms. It's hard to imagine they will increase an 80 percent illegitimacy rate though. That figure is already astounding.

Music will keep getting more boring. Ha ha ha ha ha.

At some point (not that far away) it will probably become illegal to quote certain sections of the Bible anywhere in public, such as the admonitions against homosexuality.

Guns, more laws, and more lies, even though more children are killed choking on things laying around the house, killed while driving with parents in their cars, killed while tripping over something.

The difficult part is we are actually the last battle ground. Canada, Australia and Britain have already caved in to the desires of the liberal media elite, giving up their guns and other rights. Yet the resistance in this country has been fierce. It is fascinating to observe. Still, all things considered, these people have already won probably 70 percent of their long-term goals. 

 

Have you thought that maybe they are winning their long term goals because people honestly think they are right?

For example, I have no idea what you have against the idea of lesbianism. Nor do I have any idea of what exactly you have against the idea of the US no longer having a white majority.

To me, both these things have no moral context that I can see.

I do not know what you mean by communist style medicine, unless you are talking about the great work that the Russians did with phages - viruses that prey on bacteria, such as staff and meinga cochal. Great substitutes for strained anti biotics.

In what ways will adopting the Rights of the Child change the US way of life, by the way?

Closer ties with NATO and the UN. I would have predicted closer ties with NATO under a conservative governed media, but anyway.

 

I think that some of the things you have predicted will come about. I cannot see the logical connection between liberal control of the media and these things, though. As I said, it could be that people have simple decided that conservative values in these areas are not for them - for example, your pro-white stance and anti-lesbian stance. Ever thought that people might honestly have chosen this direction over the last 50 years? I mean, the liberal media barons must have chosen this direction without being influenced by a liberal dominated media, right? Thus, other people may well be able to make such a decision also, true?

I think it is time for you to make a prediction of what could not possibly happen assuming that media was controlled by the liberals.

And it would have to be something plausible (ie, something that could happen realistically)

Sauron · #38 18th December 2002, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Randalll
Sauron, one can not have a debate with you. Your style of arguing reminds me of James Carville and Paul Begala. Do you perhaps work within the Democratic Party?

No.  I simply stay informed.  Evidently that's all it takes to refute you.

Everything anyone says is twisted and rejected using any means necessary. I have listed plenty of support for my positions.

Actually, you haven't.  In fact, you've told me that you don't have time to find sources for your claims.

As for your list of quotes, the majority of them are either totally harmless, or out of context, as I've shown.

You're a man with an opinion, desperately searching for facts to anchor it upon.  I started the other way around:  facts first, opinions second. 

To say otherwise indicates that you are not bothering to listen or, like a good Democrat operative, choosing to simply spin the response. And you have way too much time on your hands.

No, I just type quickly.  And having been debating this material for years, it's pretty close at hand.   

You keep saying how awful Worldnetdaily and Drudge are. I have provided ample evidence where the liberal news networks have been lying, which you have not explained.

Huh?  I think you're dreaming, Randall.  You've provided no such evidence - but you're very skilled at typing allegations. 

As for your long list of quotations, you'll find two of my posts ready for you, showing what poor examples of "liberal media bias" you've chosen.

Now it's your turn to demonstrate where you have found the "lunatic fringe" to be deceptive. I will wait.

Nice try, Randall.  Unfortunately, you're the one who made the first set of assertions here.  So I'm still waiting on you to prove them.  He who asserts first, must prove first.  Get busy.  I'll wait.

You know too much to still be such a devoted liberal if honestly examining both sides, which makes me very suspicious.

Knowledge is what *made* me a liberal, Randall.  It is lack of knowledge that *keeps* you a conservative.

I do not trust Democrats. They engage in voter fraud, rip down yard signs, vandalize cars that have critical bumber stickers and lie all the time in order to institute their long-term goals of creating a socialist pagan nation.

Right.  Did you take your meds today, Randall?

:rolleyes:

David Gould · #39 18th December 2002, 11:42 PM

I do not trust Democrats. They engage in voter fraud, rip down yard signs, vandalize cars that have critical bumber stickers and lie all the time in order to institute their long-term goals of creating a socialist pagan nation.

Randall has to be a liberal troll trying to make conservatives look bad. No-one could possibly really believe this.

Busted, Randall.

Starscream · #40 19th December 2002, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by David Gould
Randall has to be a liberal troll trying to make conservatives look bad. No-one could possibly really believe this.

Busted, Randall.

Agreed.  This thread is so obviously heading towards closure so I'll simply say that Randall is an troll at best or an absolute liberal bashing reactionists at worst.

So much hatred and emotion in his threads - but I'm afraid they are void of much value.

One can't help but notice the tell-tale signs of someone in over their head though:

1)  When asked for references he tells Sauron that he won't do his homework for him (um...okay)

2)  When challenged by Sauron further he simply pulls the "you are impossible to agrue with" card.

Although I appreciate the time and effort that Sauron is putting into this thread I fear it may for nothing more then simple entertainment.  People who think there is some huge liberal conspiracy in this conservative run country make for funny reading.

Now, I know I'm going out on a huge limb here, but maybe, just maybe Lott managed to say something completely unexcusably racist and stupid.  It is his fellow conservatives that will vote him out of his position - not a bunch of liberals.

Randalll sure does hate liberals though, I don't understand why he feels he needs to post attack after attack to drive that message home though.
 