Originally Posted By: ClassyBlackWomanPlease, get over yourself. Whenever you decide to discuss things in an intelligent manner, then you will get my attention. I'm afraid I don't have much faith in your ability to judge my intelligence. I think it's more of a "when you see things my way, then you will get my attention" thing.
-
Vick and dog fighting
-
Yeah, abusing animals and children are the two places that, I feel emotionally anyway, that torcher should be allowed.
-
Originally Posted By: Java_AddictYou're an idiot.
-
Originally Posted By: IneligibleI'm not accusing you - it's thor's argument that is a classical example of Poisoning the Well. Sometimes the well is already poisoned and somebody just wanting to point it out takes the hit for it. That's a classic example of "shooting the messenger".
-
No, its a classic example of you lying out your hole.
-
Originally Posted By: OldFolks
Yeah, abusing animals and children are the two places that, I feel emotionally anyway, that torcher should be allowed.
You and me both hun.
-
Originally Posted By: bobaliciousNo, its a classic example of you lying out your hole. Since you're in a completely different country, you can be sure I'll give your estimate of our education system all the attention it's worth.
-
Almost as if on qeue..._________________________________________________________________Morning News Shows 'Promoting' Democrats, Study Finds By Nathan Burchfiel CNSNews.com Staff Writer August 29, 2007 (CNSNews.com) - In covering the 2008 presidential campaign, the network morning news shows are "overwhelmingly focused on Democrats, [and] they are actively promoting the Democrats' liberal agenda," according to a study released today by the conservative Media Research Center (MRC). The study examined 517 campaign segments on the morning news shows broadcast on ABC, CBS and NBC in the first seven months of 2007. It found that the shows covered Democrats "nearly twice as much" as Republicans and framed interview questions from a liberal perspective most of the time. The study was produced by the MRC's News Analysis Division. The MRC is the parent organization of Cybercast News Service. The study found that 55 percent of campaign stories on ABC's "Good Morning America," CBS's "The Early Show" and NBC's "Today" focused on Democratic candidates while only 29 percent focused on Republicans. The remaining 16 percent were classified as "mixed/independent." The morning shows aired 61 stories focused exclusively on Sen. Hillary Clinton, 44 stories on former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, and 41 stories on Sen. Barack Obama, all of whom are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Former Vice President Al Gore, who is not officially running, was the subject of 29 stories. Republican candidates received less attention, according to the study. Sen. John McCain was the focus of 31 stories. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was the focus of 26 stories and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney was the focus of 19 stories. Interviews with Democratic candidates or their representatives accounted for more than four-and-a-half hours of airtime in the first seven months of 2007. Interviews with Republicans candidates or their representatives accounted for less than two hours, according to the study. In addition to the time disparity, the report alleges that "the top Democratic candidates received much more favorable coverage than their GOP counterparts, with Sen. Clinton cast as 'unbeatable' and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama tagged as a 'rock star.'" In contrast, the most-featured Republican candidate, McCain, "was portrayed as a loser because of his support for staying the course in Iraq," the report says. "[M]uch of McCain's coverage has emphasized the sinking nature of his campaign - declining poll ratings, and fundraising that has failed to meet expectations." MRC Director of Research Rich Noyes told Cybercast News Service that the organization is not calling for government imposed standards of fairness like those that could be established under a Fairness Doctrine. "The remedy," he said, "is for the networks to cover the campaign in a fair and balanced manner." He said that while it is "theoretically possible that the Democrats have made 80 percent more 'news' this year ... I would argue that the media have helped make all three Democratic frontrunners into something akin to celebrities, and then use their quasi-celebrity status to justify more coverage." Noyes acknowledged that it is legitimate for news programs to cover the stumbles of Republican candidates like McCain, but added that "the Democrats have had their share of stumbles and gaffes. Some of those have been reported, and some have been downplayed, but the network storyline on all the Democratic frontrunners is mainly positive." He said that former Sen. John Edwards "could be getting the same 'deathwatch' coverage that McCain's been getting, but instead he got a huge gift of a town hall meeting on ABC (something no Republican has received)." "That doesn't mean McCain's problems should be buried. But it does show the networks seem to have a different approach for candidates of different parties," Noyes said. "It's like the networks tried to throw Edwards a life preserver, but dropped an anvil on McCain." Spokesmen for ABC, CBS and NBC did not respond to requests for comment._________________________________________________________________http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200708/CUL20070829b.html
-
Consider it a third party review, free from bias.
-
and Jon Stewart makes more fun of republicans than democrats... so what?and how does news coverage translate into writing all the text books?what's your point? (other than the one on the top of your head)
-
Originally Posted By: unsupervisedwhat's your point? (other than the one on the top of your head) I think you're old enough to play "connect the dots".Hint: Start from the beginning of the thread and work your way through it.Enjoy!
-
Are you old enough to stop playing games? Having your opponent to go back and discover what your argument may be is a ridiculous ploy to disguise that you have nothing to back up your arguments. Its an attempt to discredit someone instead of actually having to answer them.Enjoy!
-
Originally Posted By: bobalicious
Are you old enough to stop playing games? Having your opponent to go back and discover what your argument may be is a ridiculous ploy to disguise that you have nothing to back up your arguments. Its an attempt to discredit someone instead of actually having to answer them.
Enjoy! :grin:
Sounds like a lazy excuse not to go back and examine the train of thought in the thread, to me. If somebody doesn't want to read what's already posted, why should I waste my time posting anything more?
Anyway, relax bob...I wasn't expecting you to play "connect the dots". :wink:
-
Haha!! You just did it again! Seriously, no insult intended, but you're fucking hilarious!!
-
I'm having a hard time connecting the dots from dog fighting to the liberal text book consperacyI must have a dull crayon
-
Please. You don't think I'm going to take anything from CNS News seriously? Sorry, I'm not that stupid. You do know you're talking to a journalist, right?
-
This is the website that owns CNS News.
Now, Thor. Do you really think we're going to believe anything this "news" outlet has to say?
-
Random Thoughts From Damien...take em or leave em(not directed at KrIstal specifically. Her's was just the last post.- regarding DxLISH's response to my post in which she states that hunters don't breed animals in order to kill them. Good point. Good point indeed. That makes hunting nowhere near the offense that Vick committed...at least to me. Although I still find most hunting offensive on a lesser level.- Thor did indeed engage in ad hominem argument. However, most of you here have done the same at times. Can we at least be honest about that?- I tend to believe that all media and a lot of textbooks have agendas. I don't think Thor's pointing that out really deserves the castigation he received. I find it interesting that folks who question his way of arguing and want to jump down his little right-wing throat for ad hominem and all that never seem to engage what he is actually saying. And I'm not defending what he's saying. I'm just saying that every response to him was an attack on him and his method and his sources. No one bothered to actually counter his arguments. And I would imagine they would be not too difficult to counter. What does that say about you guys? As for the article he posted? Those who jumped in with their "you can't trust that news source" remarks...that, ironically enough, is an ad hominem attack...poisoning the well, if you well. Really. The hypocrisy on this board amazes me.- I certainly agree with Helms that Republicans have done their part in screwing things up as of late. However, 1. they've had plenty of help from the other side of the aisle (which doesn't excuse Republican screw-ups) and 2. the Republican F-ups have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Nice attempt by Helms to tie the two together and attack them both with the same sword. And he almost got by with it! He's a smart feller.- What the crap does all this have to do with Michael Vick and dog fighting?
-
Quote:- What the crap does all this have to do with Michael Vick and dog fighting? I see you also have a dull crayon
-
Yep.Must be the case.What color's yours?
