| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2004 03:22:26 PM |
| Object: |
Another Senator Calls Out ***** Cheney's Cowaradnce |
"When I hear this coming from ***** Cheney, who was a coward, who would
not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," Harkin
said. "Those of us who served and those of us who went in the military
don't like it when someone like a ***** Cheney comes out and he wants
to be tough. Yeah, he'll be tough. He'll be tough with somebody else's
blood, somebody else's kids. But not when it was his turn to go."
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -937 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Middleton" |
|
| Title: Media bias -- liberal! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA! |
15 Aug 2004 06:47:38 PM |
|
|
Media bias -- liberal! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!
Getting some buzz. Simple method in the study. What critiques of the
study have been made? Report from a journalist follows; the study's
URL is embedded in the article.
________________
http://snipurl.com/7jlu
People trying to persuade others to adopt their views are very likely
to cite think-tank experts who agree with them. And the liberal
lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action (their description of
themselves) regularly grades politicians from 0 to 100 based on their
votes on selected issues, with the most liberal members of Congress
earning 100.
Two researchers have combined these two disparate ideas to come up
with a measure of media bias that doesn't depend on journalists' own
perceptions of where they fit on the political spectrum, or on
subjective judgments about the philosophical orientation of think
tanks. Tim Groseclose, of UCLA and Stanford, and Jeff Milyo of the
University of Chicago used data comparing which think tanks various
politicians liked to quote and which think tanks various media outlets
liked to quote in their news stories to estimate two ADA scores for
each media outlet in the study, one based on the number of times a
think tank was cited, and the other on the length of the citation.
The media outlets were The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA
Today, the three network news shows, Fox News' Special Report and The
Drudge Report (the paper is online at [ http://snipurl.com/7ol5 (1M
PDF) ]).
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias," they write. "One
of our measures found that The Drudge Report is the most centrist of
all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox
News' Special Report is the most centrist." And all three papers, plus
NBC and CBS, "were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to
the median member of the House of Representatives." Fair and balanced,
anyone? To use a simplified example, they say, suppose there were only
two think tanks, and The New
York Times cited the liberal one twice as often as the conservative
one. Then the newspaper's ADA score would be the same as that of a
member of Congress who did the same.
The estimated ADA score for Fox, based on citations, was 35.6. That
puts it in the company of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and a few
points below the House median, 39.0. The two highest were The New York
Times, at 67.6, and CBS Evening News, at 70.0. The average Republican
in Congress has an ADA
score of 11.2, and the average Democrat 74.1.
The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned
to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree." So when people
say, for example, that The New York Times may be tilted left, but
people can compensate for that by watching Fox News, they don't take
into account that the Times is much further from the center than Fox.
"To gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much
time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading The New York
Times."
Turning the research around also allows the authors to answer the
question of which think tanks are liberal or conservative - in most
cases everyone knows, but there are some questions. Rand, for
instance, comes out pretty much in the middle until they look at it
more closely and discover there are, in effect, two Rands; one that
does social and political stuff, which is mostly quoted by liberal
politicians, and another that does military stuff and is seldom quoted
by anybody.
Another anomaly is the American Civil Liberties Union, which turned
out much more conservative than anybody really thinks it is; but that
proved to be primarily because of its opposition to the
McCain-Feingold
campaign-finance bill, frequently cited by conservatives.
The predominance of liberals (however identified) in major media is
well-documented, but there remains a great deal of controversy over
how much that fact influences news reporting (this analysis looks only
at news reports, not editorials, reviews or letters to the editor).
Most journalists I know say they work hard to keep their personal
views out of their news reporting (again, excepting people like me who
are supposed to
be expressing opinions). And most of them, I'm sure, sincerely believe
they succeed. This is evidence that what they succeed best at is
sounding like Democrats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "reaano" |
|
| Title: Re: Media bias -- liberal! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA! |
15 Aug 2004 06:58:38 PM |
|
|
You know Dave, you really need to find another word than the word HATE,
which lives so much in your HEART and not in the heart of others.
"Dave Middleton" <dmiddleton@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote in message
news:kftvh0l5e9eg25odbb9l1khsencks96m2m@4ax.com...
Media bias -- liberal! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!
Getting some buzz. Simple method in the study. What critiques of the
study have been made? Report from a journalist follows; the study's
URL is embedded in the article.
________________
http://snipurl.com/7jlu
People trying to persuade others to adopt their views are very likely
to cite think-tank experts who agree with them. And the liberal
lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action (their description of
themselves) regularly grades politicians from 0 to 100 based on their
votes on selected issues, with the most liberal members of Congress
earning 100.
Two researchers have combined these two disparate ideas to come up
with a measure of media bias that doesn't depend on journalists' own
perceptions of where they fit on the political spectrum, or on
subjective judgments about the philosophical orientation of think
tanks. Tim Groseclose, of UCLA and Stanford, and Jeff Milyo of the
University of Chicago used data comparing which think tanks various
politicians liked to quote and which think tanks various media outlets
liked to quote in their news stories to estimate two ADA scores for
each media outlet in the study, one based on the number of times a
think tank was cited, and the other on the length of the citation.
The media outlets were The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA
Today, the three network news shows, Fox News' Special Report and The
Drudge Report (the paper is online at [ http://snipurl.com/7ol5 (1M
PDF) ]).
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias," they write. "One
of our measures found that The Drudge Report is the most centrist of
all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox
News' Special Report is the most centrist." And all three papers, plus
NBC and CBS, "were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to
the median member of the House of Representatives." Fair and balanced,
anyone? To use a simplified example, they say, suppose there were only
two think tanks, and The New
York Times cited the liberal one twice as often as the conservative
one. Then the newspaper's ADA score would be the same as that of a
member of Congress who did the same.
The estimated ADA score for Fox, based on citations, was 35.6. That
puts it in the company of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and a few
points below the House median, 39.0. The two highest were The New York
Times, at 67.6, and CBS Evening News, at 70.0. The average Republican
in Congress has an ADA
score of 11.2, and the average Democrat 74.1.
The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned
to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree." So when people
say, for example, that The New York Times may be tilted left, but
people can compensate for that by watching Fox News, they don't take
into account that the Times is much further from the center than Fox.
"To gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much
time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading The New York
Times."
Turning the research around also allows the authors to answer the
question of which think tanks are liberal or conservative - in most
cases everyone knows, but there are some questions. Rand, for
instance, comes out pretty much in the middle until they look at it
more closely and discover there are, in effect, two Rands; one that
does social and political stuff, which is mostly quoted by liberal
politicians, and another that does military stuff and is seldom quoted
by anybody.
Another anomaly is the American Civil Liberties Union, which turned
out much more conservative than anybody really thinks it is; but that
proved to be primarily because of its opposition to the
McCain-Feingold
campaign-finance bill, frequently cited by conservatives.
The predominance of liberals (however identified) in major media is
well-documented, but there remains a great deal of controversy over
how much that fact influences news reporting (this analysis looks only
at news reports, not editorials, reviews or letters to the editor).
Most journalists I know say they work hard to keep their personal
views out of their news reporting (again, excepting people like me who
are supposed to
be expressing opinions). And most of them, I'm sure, sincerely believe
they succeed. This is evidence that what they succeed best at is
sounding like Democrats.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Middleton" |
|
| Title: THE BIG LIBERAL LIE! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA! |
15 Aug 2004 06:50:15 PM |
|
|
THE BIG LIBERAL LIE! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!
DemocRATs, and particularly Ted Kennedy, are becoming well practiced
in the technique of the Big Lie that was perfected by their Nazi
brethren several decades ago. The Big Lie in this case is that George
Bush lied to the American people in order to get them to go along with
deposing Saddam Hussein. Remembering that a lie is a statement that
is known to be untrue at the time it is made, can anyone point out
just what Bush's lies were?
The democRATs say that Bush lied when he said that British
intelligence had learned that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium
from Niger. It wasn't a lie. British intelligence had indeed made
just such a finding. It doesn't matter whether or not Saddam had
actually tried to buy that uranium, it only matters whether or not
British intelligence thought that he had. Deal with it, Bush haters.
There's no lie there.
The democRATs are also fond of saying that Bush lied when he said that
there was an "Imminent danger" from Saddam Hussein. The problem is
that Bush never made that statement. That doesn't matter to democRATs
though. They know that the more they pull their "imminent danger"
ploy the more people
will believe it. The democRATs don't care about what the truth is.
They only care about what they can make the Americans believe.
Another lie? The democRATs endlessly repeat their assertion that Bush
tied Saddam Hussein to the attacks of 9/11. Not so. George Bush has
never said that Saddam Hussein was directly connected or had advance
knowledge of the Al Qaeda attack. When you press democRATs on this
particular lie they back down, but just a little, and use the word
"infer" instead of "lie." Bottom line --- Bush never made the
connection.
This conduct is not only outrageous, it's dangers to the safety and
security of every American. The democRATs haven't forgotten that we
are at war with Islamic terrorists. They know that as well as the
rest of us do. They're just choosing to ignore the fact. democRATs
have made a conscious decision that sabotaging the war on terror is an
acceptable tactic if the long-term goal is to return democRATs to
power in Washington. Their visceral hatred of George Bush is so
intense that it has overridden any concerns they may have for the
safety of the American people.
Here's a comparison for you. Consider a divorced husband. He didn't
want the divorce and he just can't believe that his wife kicked him to
the curb for another man. He's angry. It's a red-hot anger that
voids reason and common sense. He wants to get back, he wants to get
even. Finally his anger gains complete control and the next day's
newspaper contains a story of a triple murder-suicide. The irrational
spurned husband has murdered his wife and his two children, and has
then turned the gun on himself. His hatred for his wife was so strong
that he had no concerns for the lives of the children he had brought
into this world. If everybody had to die to assuage his anger, so be
it. His dignity and honor must be avenged, no matter who is harmed in
the process.
Do you think that's a bit over the top? Perhaps not. There has been
no change in the desires and the goals of Islamic terrorists. They
still want to kill as many Americans, men women and children, as they
possibly can. They want to kill Americans wherever they can find them,
and especially on American soil. There is one and only one reason why
these Islamogoons haven't succeeded with another bloody attack on
American soil. That reason is George Bush. The terrorist made a
mistake. They failed to see the difference between George Bush and
Bill Clinton. They thought Americans didn't have the heart for a
fight. They felt that they could attack, suffer a limited response,
regroup, and attack again. Each attack would represent three steps
forward in the drive to rid the Earth of the infidels. Each mousy
response from the weak Americans would represent one step back.
Uh oh. A bit of a miscalculation there. George Bush was not Bill
Clinton. The fight was taken to the terrorists where they live. The
Taliban was routed in Afghanistan. A huge hunk of the Al Qaeda
leadership was captured or killed. Osama bin Laden, in all
likelihood, was killed. George Bush also saw the danger of further
carnage against Americans with the help of Saddam Hussein. He knew
that if the United Nations continued to allow Hussein to ignore
resolution after resolution it would only be a matter of time before
Hussein allowed WMD technology, or the weapons themselves, to fall
into the hands of Al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization.
There was already ample evidence of Saddam's support for Al Qaeda, and
much publicized news stories of Saddam writing checks to the families
of Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam hated George Bush, possibly as
much as democRATs do, and the rational mind would realize that it was
only a matter of time before Saddam offered the aid and support to
some terrorist group that would lead to thousands more American lives
being lost on American soil.
Thanks to the resolve of George Bush we are fighting Islamic terrorism
over there instead of here. Yes, sadly, American troops are dying.
That happens in a war, and we are damned sure in a war. It is a war
we are winning, and it is a war the democRATs will gladly sabotage
with their lies and demagoguery if it means they get to unseat George
Bush and return to power.
boortz.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
