"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302F1C5.461C@spfd.com...

Clave wrote:

"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302EF5B.7475@spfd.com...

Clave wrote:

<...>

Liberals don't consider difference of opinion to be treason.

Perhaps not, but they do have a tendency to attack any belief which
they feel is not politically correct.

Some. Not most.

There is simply no way to deny this as
the evidence is enormous, unless you want to conclude that these
liberals who do this are not true liberals.

I'm not proud of the extreme left. But then they're not running all
three
branches of government and the mainstream media.

The Right, as a matter of political reality, is not running the Supreme
Court, at least not yet.

If Bush v. Gore wasn't a deciding factor for you, what would be? Roe isn't
going to be overturned by anyone, and the agenda is corporatist, not
social.

Up until O'Connor's retirement, the Right
never knew where the court was going to come down on the issues because
of the two swing votes, O'Connor and Kennedy. As for the mainstream
press, please explain why you think the Right controls the mainstream
media, FOX excluded.

Lemme quote a guy, written before 9/11, cite on request:

Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one.
I think it's so good, I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on George W. Bush?
It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal
of that idiot's qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich
man's boy - and that's all.

unflattering portrait of Bush?

I'll tell you what would happen:

The vulgar Pigboy would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't
true and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night,
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't
true and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it
wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Laura the ***** would spend at least an hour on her radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This *****
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

George (Judas Maximus) Steffi and George (dumb as a chimp) Will
would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.

Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the *****
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the *****
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Still with me? We're close to the end...

BSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Wolf the ***** would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN
(Clinton ***** Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.

John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?

Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking
if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.

Barbara Olson would write a book condemning Dateline.
Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline.
Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline.
Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline.
Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline.
William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.

OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."

Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on
Clinton.

My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"

When those 38 people attack Clinton and his *****, who does the rebuttal?

Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list
has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.

There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on
television.

The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there
is barely a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS
of right-wing, Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about
liberals.

I don't think you ditto-heads can offer an answer.

I'm not necessarily lumping you in with that lot, but can you deny that
anything has changed in any substantial way since this was written? Can you
deny that it's swung even *more* to the right?

Righties like to trot out that study that says a majority of reporters vote
Democratic, but none of them want to talk about the political leanings of
their editors and the owners of their publications, to whom they owe their
jobs.

Where's *that* study?

What do you consider "objective" media?

"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302F1C5.461C@spfd.com...

Clave wrote:

"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302EF5B.7475@spfd.com...

Clave wrote:

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:gPGdnYLlNYzffJ_eRVn-jQ@io.com...

"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302D6E5.70EB@spfd.com...

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Could someone explain to me why one mother is vilified by
righties,
and
the other was embraced?

You need to understand the politics of religious and political
conservatism to comprehend why sides have been taken here. As a
moderate conservative myself, I was duped by the fundies into
supporting
Terry Schiavo's cause, which also meant I was supporting her mother
as
well. Once the autopsy results were released and many of us,
including
Senator Mel Martinez, realized that the husband had been correct
all
along and that most of what the fundies had been telling us was
untrue,
I think alot of support for the religious conservatives was lost,
or
at
least I hope it was. Cindy Sheehan is another matter. This is
more
about political conservatism, and were Bush a Democrat and Sheehan
a
Republican, I have little doubt that the Democrats would be
villifying
her just as the Republicans are doing to her now. It's sad, but
it's
politics.

Except that there ARE mothers responding from the republican camp,
criticizing Sheehan, and the Democrats are NOT villifying them.

Liberals don't consider difference of opinion to be treason.

Perhaps not, but they do have a tendency to attack any belief which
they
feel is not politically correct.

Some. Not most.

There is simply no way to deny this as
the evidence is enormous, unless you want to conclude that these
liberals who do this are not true liberals.

I'm not proud of the extreme left. But then they're not running all
three
branches of government and the mainstream media.

Jim

The Right, as a matter of political reality, is not running the Supreme
Court, at least not yet. Up until O'Connor's retirement, the Right
never knew where the court was going to come down on the issues because
of the two swing votes, O'Connor and Kennedy. As for the mainstream
press, please explain why you think the Right controls the mainstream
media, FOX excluded.

Reread what he said. He said the EXTREME LEFT doesn't run the media. Are you
suggesting that, if someone isn't on the right, they're on the EXTREME LEFT?

Ian Chesterton's at

There is simply no way to deny this as
the evidence is enormous, unless you want to conclude that these
liberals who do this are not true liberals.

I'm not proud of the extreme left. But then they're not running all three
branches of government and the mainstream media.

The Right, as a matter of political reality, is not running the Supreme
Court, at least not yet. Up until O'Connor's retirement, the Right
never knew where the court was going to come down on the issues because
of the two swing votes, O'Connor and Kennedy. As for the mainstream
press, please explain why you think the Right controls the mainstream
media, FOX excluded.

Cite a reporter that asked any hard questions to Bush leading up to the
Iraq war.