For general comment and discussion...
|
|
|
home blogs about forum contact donate search account 
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Open Thread
Read commentsFree bias alerts
Related StoriesMost Emailed Stories
Related Topics | |
Comments Policy
Have a helping of blatant C
June 21, 2007 - 10:07 ET by sarcasmoHave a helping of blatant CNN-bias, the kind we're unlikely to see here except from me.
JMR "Singlehandedly busting antilibertarian bias on NB since 2005"
libertarian???
June 21, 2007 - 10:22 ET by LionKing"Singlehandedly busting antilibertarian bias on NB since 2005"
Tell me, do you support the concept of being a libertarian for everyone or do they have to be a certain age?
btw, what kind of antilibertarian bias has there been on NB? If having a differing opinion is bias, then this site is worthless.
Adults only, but even that
June 21, 2007 - 10:28 ET by sarcasmoAdults only, but even that leads to issues as governments can't seem to find a definition of adult. But that's a side issue compared to the blatant antilibertarian bias I keep singlehandedly-busting here. And the antilibertarian bias here has been subtle, but you had to see the CNN thing or ANY OTHER anti Ron Paul thing from sarcasmo, every time, not the masthead. Is that just a massive coincidence, or might there be an agenda on NB too? And if there's NOT an agenda, how come the "editor's picks" have already gotten busted for direct anti-Ron-Paul bias twice, again by me singlehandedly. This annoys Noel and others, but sorry dudes, I call 'em like I see 'em, and NB's as busted as CNN in my book. Has there really been 0 media bias that's masthead worthy against Ron Paul since I've started busting various instances of it in Jan. of this year? Make the case, please!! I mean, I know "The View" and Keith Olbermann are earthshatteringly important, but how the media tends to treat libertarians, large or small "L," is a matter of blatant, singlehandedly-busted media bias. I've made the case repeatedly, and I'm not sure what more to say.
JMR
agenda
June 21, 2007 - 10:38 ET by LionKingSarc...I really do notknow you that well, so, I am totally shooting from limited experience with you.
First, it is my understanding that Noel and other contributors do the blogging here for free...hence, they have other responsibilities.
Second, there are a limited number of resources to begin with.
Third, and you may not like this, but Ron Paul is not a serious player right now. He is far behind in the polls and does not have huge name recognition. (Again, this is not casting dispersion on his ideas or qualifications. ) With the limited resources, they probably have to focus on the major media darlings.
Fourth, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Ron Paul excluded from the debates in Iowa? Can you tell me the official reason he was excluded? .. and, of course, I welcome your opinion on why he was excluded.
Lastly, obviously you are in favor of Ron Paul. Do you have an agenda to get him exposure on NewsBusters?
What you see is what you ge
June 21, 2007 - 10:54 ET by sarcasmoWhat you see is what you get with me, I'm pretty obvious.
Other responsibilities and resources are irrelevant to the bias I've busted (for example, the "editor's picks" has a RESPONSE to an article, not the article, too! I had to add that to yesterday's open thread -- remedial antibias work again!). I don't get any salary for this, either.
Third, and you're guaranteed not to like this, Ron Paul repeatedly kicked ass, over & over, in various polls, including polls like Fox's text message from cellphones poll, which would have been extremely difficult to "hack" or fake. We have heard 0, goose-egg, about these repeated asskickings from the masthead. It's all ascribed to technical hackers if it's Ron Paul, but it was all grass roots for Howard Dean?? Yeah, sure...And media-run polls are totally-accurate. Riiiight...
Fourth, you're right, and ABC News was less biased than a Christian or Taxpayer group put-together. But this isn't bias-news?? Get real.
Finally, yes, and it appears my agenda is at odds with at least some of the masthead, just like it's at odds with CNN. Nothin' new, I'll keep forging on...
JMR
Ron Paul exclusion
June 21, 2007 - 11:01 ET by LionKingRon Paul's exclusion is certainly very ominous. I hate this crap. A group of individuals deciding who should be heard and who should not. So much for the sharing of ALL ideas and opinions. I guess I will never understand why some people would rather censor instead letting people decide for themseleves.
Don't worry, we have the in
June 21, 2007 - 13:19 ET by sarcasmoDon't worry, we have the internet, and their bias is already backfiring...MP3 File (interview starts at 1:01:16)
JMR
I'm all in favor of Ron Paul's anti-war stand being broadcast.
June 21, 2007 - 11:18 ET by acaiguanaI'm all in favor of Ron Paul's anti-war stand being broadcast.
Maybe Moveon.org will adopt him.
That'll work, huh?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Membership? Already happeni
June 21, 2007 - 13:16 ET by sarcasmoMembership? Already happenin' -- from what I hear, but I don't know first hand. Leadership/Kos/etc.? Scared to death of the membership's positive reaction to him, and especially scared of Ron's #1 issue, which is spending, but also scared of the war issue with the left if he's any part of a ticket against Hillary. And various biased media outlets have indeed NOT mentioned his anti-war stance. I busted Chris Matthews right here for letting a celebrity paint all Republicans as pro-Iraq-war about a week ago, if you'll all recall. Why am I the only one here to bust 'em on that kind of media bias? Join in. If it's bias against a libertarian leaning candidate -- like I predicted and then singlehandedly busted for months -- it should be admitted here even by those who disagree with his stance on other issues. This site is ostensibly about media bias, not intraRepublican party politics, right??
JMR
The coming War on Dissent has arrived
June 21, 2007 - 10:17 ET by Dave RWell, it appears the long-threatened effort on the part of the "Champions of Free Speech" to once again make this country safe for the un-challenged promotion of Euro-social... err, "progressive" pollitical ideas is getting serious.
Neal Boortz forwards his thoughts on this effort at stifling dissent as well.
Oh, and if you think the republicans are going to rally to the side of freedom-of-expression in this fight, think again, as many are no-doubt fuming over the resistance talk-radio has helped generate for the scamnesty bill.
Remember, George W. Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law, then said he didn't think it would withstand SCOTUS scrutiny.
Fool me once, George......
What I love about the state
June 21, 2007 - 10:21 ET by sarcasmoWhat I love about the state of free speech lately is that Carlos Mencia can say a word (which in English would mean A--hole, there's no alternate translation) over and over all day without issues, but any comic trying the same joke in English would get bleeped. No wonder, with rules so fair and wise, people like me respect 'em so-much.
JMR
Progressives see the reason w
June 21, 2007 - 10:23 ET by Airforce_5_OProgressives see the reason why talk radio is so conservative is lack of diversity in ownership.
Can you say "Affirmative Action" and "Fairness Doctrine".
To Hell with Capitalism
June 21, 2007 - 10:28 ET by LionKingThese media outlets couldn't possibly be interested in MAKING money !!! To Hell with Capitalism !!!
[Air America failed because of ownership...right!]
What gets me Lion is that the
June 21, 2007 - 10:32 ET by Airforce_5_OWhat gets me Lion is that they can't believe that there are people out there who don't believe the way they do.
Read the comments. They are just crazy.
AF_50 - thanks for the link,
June 21, 2007 - 10:44 ET by FastEd%&#% double &^$@(& post!!
AF_50 - thanks for the link,
June 21, 2007 - 10:44 ET by FastEdAF_50 - thanks for the link, warning next time. Those boneheads have NO idea about free markets, regulation or common sense. "Rid us of the FCC" - again, the left has no concept of history, nor the chaos that would occur if that were to happen. Actually, thinking it through a little further, they might be on to something, for them. Since they seem to be the shrillest and loudest, having no regulation would be to their advantage - out-shouting, non-reporting of facts, agenda driven editolizing, etc., the right would be driven from the airwaves by the din of obnoxious airhead-amerika types, who have nothing better to do then spew terrorist hate messages and drive america down, black helicopter, conspiracy nonsense.
Then, once all of their money was spent on these bad investments, the truth would emerge.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Hey fast, I agree. I am sup
June 21, 2007 - 11:40 ET by Airforce_5_OHey fast, I agree. I am suprised Sarc hasn't jumped on your statement yet.
Actually while I know Sarc *i
June 21, 2007 - 13:47 ET by BinxlyActually while I know Sarc *is* probably for abolishment of the FCC, his heart is in the right place. While some regulatory institutions can protect people from the shrill, one-sided, shout fest that is liberal journalism, it is admirable to, in an ideological sense, believe that its is no right of any man to restrict or police the opinions and voice of another.
Since the FCC was created in
June 21, 2007 - 14:58 ET by FastEdSince the FCC was created in 1932, mostly to regulate the radio spectrum, I think that some of their more recent rulings, specifically since the '50's, regarding content, is and should be out of their control. Their sole position or job should be to guarantee that a license holder broadcasts within the specific frequency assigned - no more no less. There are some other areas, again concerning the radio spectrum, that they should be regulating, but not content.
In this regard I'd have to agree with others that this particular arm of the govt. has gone beyond it's core mission, and has taken on, or has been granted powers that should be handled by another bureau.
In other words, the FCC should be regulating or policing the assigned frequencies, making sure that stations or broadcasters don't creep into anothers "territory", insuring everyone has an equal voice, so to speak. Content, however, should be left to the providers - the maketplace will ultimately decide if it stays on the "air". Example: FOX news has viewers, oberperson doesn't - Talk radio has listeners, airhead amerika is gone, yet trying to make a comeback, based on the wrong assumption that people want to listen to that . .
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Why can't the federal court
June 21, 2007 - 15:06 ET by sarcasmoWhy can't the federal courts, which do it with real estate, do this job instead of the FCC, and at a fraction of the costs? I'm NOT proposing "anarchy," either, I'm proposing a small federal government without an unConstitutional agency protecting private property rights, and letting spectrum (minus police/national-security needs, which could simply remain in current hands and never be sold) go to the highest bidder in a capitalist-looking free market, just like land does right now (cheaply for taxpayers!). I know that spectrum is different from real estate, but that's really the best way I have to look at it. CATO has done much more research on this subject, which congress and the moron-filled news media alike dutifully ignore as they spend money like drunken sailors but worse. I'm just the mouthpiece for the idea of free market spectrum here because I dislike the FCC's existence, but that doesn't really do much to distinguish the FCC from a wide variety of other big government agencies.
JMR
You simply refuse to consider
June 21, 2007 - 15:10 ET by UnsaneYou simply refuse to consider the costs of there being more federal courts, as you refuse to take into consideration ANY consequences of your ideas being implemented. Instead of funding the FCC, you'll have to fund these additional magistrates, courthouses (or courtrooms), and the expenses that go along with them.
MAKE WAY FOR THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS!!! THE 1999, 2003, 2005, AND 2007 NBA CHAMPIONS!!!!
You simply refuse to compar
June 21, 2007 - 15:19 ET by sarcasmoYou simply refuse to compare said costs to the cost of the FCC to taxpayers (this argument is a rerun, Unsane, and I don't have time if I didn't convince you the first time that this big government agency is an unConstitutional waste of money). Also please reconsider the vast growth in cost to taxpayers of the FCC over the course of its life vs the (too big, I'll instantly stipulate) cost of having the US federal court system, which is an entire Constitutionally-mandated branch of government instead of a big government bureaucracy! What conservatives really seem to object-to is the idea of a dude with a lifetime appointment tossing a busybody with whiny-assed complaints about Howard Stern's (or anybody's -- Democrats considering the "fairness" doctrine right now are just as morally-questionable as Brent Bozell was back when he spoke to the FCC IMO!) speech out on his whiny ass, but that's exactly what I like to imagine happening. Instead I'm seeing higher taxes and crappier media content due to the control-freaks droning on at a hearing on C-Span. Let the market decide what's popular and who can best use spectrum. Let courts protect property rights for owners with the minimum force and interference possible. It's called capitalism.
JMR
}}----> FOX news
June 21, 2007 - 10:28 ET by Cool ArrowFOX news again reports that Illegal Aliens are committing DUI's and causing deaths.
Sheesh. If we weren't on our streets, those Illegals couldn't kill us.
Can't we just lock ourselves into our homes until these Illegals burn us out?
And shame on FOX. the other networks aren't covering this so it must not be news.
Tumbler stops by
June 21, 2007 - 10:32 ET by florida_chadIts because they are evil racists against the poor innocent mexicans.
}}----> Keep going Tumbler
June 21, 2007 - 10:48 ET by Cool ArrowHas nothing to do with Legal residents wanting to govern their own country.
I believe the this week's phr
June 21, 2007 - 10:52 ET by Roger the ShrubberI believe the this week's phrase du jour is "evil hatemongering nativist"
Rog - you forgot "white
June 21, 2007 - 11:24 ET by FastEdRog - you forgot "white guy" as part of the phrase.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Rog,And we're ugly, too.
June 21, 2007 - 11:25 ET by Dave RRog,
And we're ugly, too.
But we love y'all :o)"Cr
June 21, 2007 - 11:40 ET by HelenSBut we love y'all :o)
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Hi Helen!!!! Please post some
June 21, 2007 - 14:50 ET by TruthMongerHi Helen!!!! Please post something...about...anything...
Gosh yer swell:)...!
Could this be HelenS?There is
June 21, 2007 - 15:03 ET by FastEdCould this be HelenS?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
}}----> Dang HelenS
June 21, 2007 - 15:07 ET by Cool ArrowYou really do support the right to bare arms.
Welcome to www.HelenS_admirers.org
June 21, 2007 - 15:13 ET by TruthMongerThat's her or I'll eat my autographed photo of William F. Buckley.
Photo of Leon, too...upside down of course...just the way he likes to see everything!
}}----> Leon's view
June 21, 2007 - 15:15 ET by Cool ArrowNot a bad view from there eh, Leon?
CA,What did I miss, whats w
June 21, 2007 - 15:17 ET by MightyMouthCA,
What did I miss, whats with the HelenS bashing?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
}}----> MightyMouth Scroll up
June 21, 2007 - 15:24 ET by Cool ArrowClick on FastEd's link about 4 posts up
Ok, I did. Nice outfit and
June 21, 2007 - 15:33 ET by MightyMouthOk, I did. Nice outfit and sword... and....?? MM is not getting it... :-/
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM - walk towards the light...
June 21, 2007 - 15:47 ET by TruthMongerWe're not bashing HelenS MM - she is the bomb, brother - are you down with me now, homes:)? Peace out...
I hear ya 'o Monger of trut
June 21, 2007 - 15:52 ET by MightyMouthI hear ya 'o Monger of truth..*checks ebonics dicktionamary*.. ya! da bomb!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
And the oscar goes to...
June 21, 2007 - 16:06 ET by TruthMongerShe hasn't posted in a while now...consequently my heart rate is slowing, trouble breathing, eyelids...getting...heavy......
...if she would........just.........post something..................again....................
_,,/\_____,,/\_______________________________
(beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep........)
I envy him for a change...it'
June 21, 2007 - 15:18 ET by TruthMongerI envy him for a change...it's cool and refreshing...!
Now I'm jealous...
...(heavy sigh) where's my Bible and back whip:(...?
The DUI Illegals, are NOT kil
June 21, 2007 - 11:25 ET by JayTeeThe DUI Illegals, are NOT killing anyone in DC....or if they are, the Wash Post hole digger would not report it. We need to get one of those guys to pick off a Senator Rushing across Pennsylvania Ave., maybe just clip him a little on the left Front Bumper of the un-insured 200 $ junker that the Illegal is drivng, using a MD State Driver's license.
Wait a minute ? Didn't that happen on 911, except the Ilegals were driving a Plane ? Yea.....well, NEVERMIND, it didn't work with a Airplane, they won't change their mind about Illegals if it's just a Car.
DON"T RE-ELECT ANYONE !!
Media Myth Update:Last night,
June 21, 2007 - 10:31 ET by KC MulvilleMedia Myth Update:
Last night, on my way to the baseball game, I clicked on MSNBC. Olbermann was interviewing Wesley Clark. I usually pass through that, but I landed just long enough to hear Olbermann’s question, and it struck me that Olbermann was building straw men again. Trying to inoculate himself and the rest of the media, Olbermann asked Clark about whether the media was wrong to report on the violence in Iraq. Clark answered predictably, that war reporting is part of a free democracy … zzzzzzz … sorry, I dozed off there …
Olbermann just doesn’t get it. He can’t see the difference between reporting on the fact of violence versus the meaning of the violence. The media reports every explosion as if it means the mission is impossible. Instead, when you’re in the process of imposing order, it stands to reason that there will be disorder until you succeed. It takes time to impose order.
By the same logic, in the middle of a surgery, Olbermann would describe it as a failure because the patient is still bleeding.
This is what Michael Bloomber
June 21, 2007 - 10:39 ET by GothampcThis is how Michael Bloomberg will economically rape the U.S. if he runs for POTUS.
"The city workers, members of District Council 37, Local 376, who hold a variety of jobs in the departments of Environmental Protection, Sanitation and Education, had argued that their wages were significantly lower than those of workers performing similar jobs in the private sector."
So the city raises their pay and pays them back wages!!
http://www.1010wins.com/pages/603491.php?contentType=4&contentId=629034
Boortz dunks Fairness Doctrine
June 21, 2007 - 10:42 ET by reelman46BOORTZ JUNE 21: If
the public owns the airways (as libs are trying hard to say)… thus
radio can be controlled by government THEN since the newspapers must be
delivered using public roads… the newspapers can also be controlled by
the government. No such thing as radio was mentioned in the
constitution or even envisioned back then.
Since liberal talk radio failed over and over… they will use government
to destroy their opponent… hence the absurd “Structural Imbalance In
Talk Radio” by demolibs recently. He then mentioned the MSNBC research
of 144 journalists where only 19 gave any $$$ to Repubs… guess where
the vast majority sent their $$$?
CRAWFISH NOTE: The modern liberals are the sorest
losers and biggest crybabies you will ever meet. Its never their ideas
that are wrong or inferior… its unfairness or victimhood… booo hoo.
They always turn to the government or wacko judges when they fail. Its
never their fault. They detest the free flow of information. Its their
way.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D.
(theconservativecrawfish)
Umm...if you are working in a
June 21, 2007 - 10:51 ET by MikeBUmm...if you are working in a government job, and your wages are significantly lower than the same job in the private sector, and this bothers you ...GET A JOB IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, FOOL!
It's a shame Bloomberg didn't tell these employees, "I'm sorry you feel underpaid working for the city. I hope you are happier in your next job. No, no, no, I wouldn't DREAM of making you suffer as you are. We'll miss you around here. We'll give your job to an illegal alien, after all, they're just aching to do jobs Americans like you don't want to do."
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
And these are people that bel
June 21, 2007 - 11:41 ET by GothampcAnd these are people that belong to a union. What do they pay dues for if their union won't get them a decent wage?
Missing Pregnant Woman
June 21, 2007 - 10:41 ET by QueenMumAnyone care to comment on this editorial from one of my local newspapers?
I'm glad that that we have the help of the media in solving this case. But prior to reading this article, I had commented to my husband that I wonder if the media chooses which of these sort of stories to pounce on based on where they may need to boost some ratings. I mean, surely there are any number of this sort of story in any given week. I guess Canton, Ohio was lagging behind.
Has NewsBusters and MRC made me too cynical?
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
}}----> Yes, QM
June 21, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Cool ArrowI'm sick of this local story gone global. How many hours of Laci Peterson did we endure. Once and for all, Hey Canton, I'm sorry it's your turn in the barrel this month(s), but If the National Media were really doing their jobs, they wouldn't be bringing "Days of our Lives" across the News channels.
As long as it's a pretty White woman and, preferably pregnant, throw in the Jerry Springer stud humping every slut in town, and you have riveting drama.
They could be tracking the hundreds missing from LA and New York, but who would watch?
I hate to cite MSNBC, but here goes. Journalist Donations. Oop
June 21, 2007 - 10:43 ET by acaiguana<Edit> I didn't read further down the page. Oh well. <edit>
I hate to cite MSNBC, but here goes. Journalist Donations.
According to Drudge this morning, an interesting cite for political donations made by journalists.
Some of their explanations (at the bottom of the list) are funny.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ACA - see the other thread ab
June 21, 2007 - 11:03 ET by FastEdACA - see the other thread about the donations - and their comments and snobbery is VERY telling! "Don't you dare question me, I'm the 'reporter', and I'll do the questioning" or "I don't know what my company's policy is" - 'ya gotta luv 'em - they report, but they don't know what they're reporting.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Yep, I heard and read about t
June 21, 2007 - 16:48 ET by bigtimerYep, I heard and read about this too...
Nothing new here is there..except for their constant denial that they are biased.
ROFL!
As predicted by Leon, the ant
June 21, 2007 - 10:53 ET by LeonAs predicted by Leon, the anti-mormonism from the Right is heating up.
Romney doesn't stand a chance with these Christian voters. They can't see past his religion.
Here's an interesting little example
link
Well, let the ignorance begin
June 21, 2007 - 11:03 ET by Airforce_5_OWell, let the ignorance begin.
Oh and it shall. i have no
June 21, 2007 - 11:08 ET by LeonOh and it shall.
i have no problem with Mormonism, in fact, I don't even really know that much about it.
But I just want to remind certain people (RJ) that when the Mormon hate from the right kicks into high gear, don't get angry when I say I told you so.
This Mormon issue will expose many Christians as the intolerant hypocrites they truly are.
I left the Mormon Church 40 y
June 21, 2007 - 11:25 ET by MikeBI left the Mormon Church 40 years ago, so I am somewhat familiar with their teachings. They have some very good teachings, and this has resulted in Mormons, as a general rule, having a superior work ethic. Again, as a general rule, they are honest and upstanding. The church abandoned polygamy in the late 1800s so that Utah would be admitted as a state. I personally think that some of their teachings are hogwash. I think that the Book of Mormon is, generally, a plagiarism of the King James Version of the Bible. However, none of their controversial teachings will have any affect on Romney's ability to govern. He will not impose a Mormon theocratic government on the United States any more than John Kennedy imposed a Roman Catholic theocracy on the United States. Even if he tried, which possibility is doubtful, he couldn't get it past the Senate, the House of Representatives, or the Supreme Court. All you anti-Mormons need to go back and review your Junior High (or Middle school) Civics. Then, read or listen to Romney's positions on the issues. What is/has been his position on the War on Terror? On Immigration reform? Social Security reform? Healthcare? Economic Policy? Foreign Policy?
Now, considering the above, I will vote for Fred Thompson in the Primary and hope for a Thompson/Tancredo ticket for the general election. If Fred does not get the nomination, Mitt would make an acceptable candidate, no matter who the Democrats candidate happens to be.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Leon, AF5 was obviously refer
June 21, 2007 - 11:25 ET by Dan The Man 2Leon, AF5 was obviously refering to your ignorance. Christains following what it says in teh Bible are just puting what they believe into action. As a Southern Baptist Bible Thumper I would rather see Romney in there than Shillary or any of the Dims. As you are obviously ignorant of how a true believer thinks and must be told by liberal media how to think you believe we all are in lockstep.
Mormonism has some big theological problems as do a lot of religions but that may not stop me from voting for Romney.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Sorry Dan but you don't know
June 21, 2007 - 11:32 ET by Airforce_5_OSorry Dan but you don't know me.
1. I am a Mormon and have seen a lot of ignorant statements made about the religion.
2. I am not a liberal and do not think all "true believers" are in lock step for or against Romney.
My statement was about the ignorance people will or do have for the LDS faith.
Try again.
Dan,Does it hurt to write an
June 21, 2007 - 11:51 ET by LeonDan,
Does it hurt to write an entire post based on an incorrect comprehension of a previous post?
Doesn't change the fact you a
June 21, 2007 - 11:58 ET by Dan The Man 2Doesn't change the fact you are ignorant of who a true Christian is and will vote for. I comprehended well just hijacked the ignorant part to apply it to you.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
I'll be the one to say it I g
June 21, 2007 - 14:58 ET by TruthMongerI'll be the one to say it I guess - Leon just between you and me, we fundies actually love Romney - but the Karl Rove fax old us to just make it look like we hate em...
That lulls the opposition into another false sense of security of course, they don't go vote, and then we win yet another presidency...
Leon, I haven't seen RJ be cr
June 21, 2007 - 11:34 ET by florida_chadLeon, I haven't seen RJ be critical of mormans on this site. If anything, he has battled those on this site that bash mormans. Certainly, there will be some on the right, and on the left (probably more on the right) that won't vote for a morman. But you talk like this will be the majority of christians. It will be a small fraction, just like the fraction of americans that wouldn't vote for Kennedy because he was catholic.
You seem excited at the prospect of some on the right displaying bogotry toward Romy. Why is this?
Chad,I wasn't saying RJ was c
June 21, 2007 - 11:50 ET by LeonChad,
I wasn't saying RJ was critical of Mormons. What RJ has done is staunchly deny that Christians are intolerant of Mormonism. He has repeatedly claimed that Romney's Mormonism doesn't matter.
However, I argue that it does. People use the JFK comparison. Catholicism is not akin to Mormonism. Catholocisim still considered to be Christianity by most people. Mormonism is not.
I'm not excited about the bigotry, I just find it humorous. The hatred many evangelical christians have for other religions is funny to me and, contrary to the opinions on this site, they will have a major impact on Romney
RJ is right. By and large, mo
June 21, 2007 - 11:58 ET by florida_chadRJ is right. By and large, most Christians are not intolerant of Mormons. I'm not, are you? As I said before, there will be a fractions that will not vote for a morman(like Debra), but most won't see that as a problem. Just like there will always be a fraction of racists in the world. I really don't agree with you assessment that it will be a big problem.
Are you sure about JFK and catholism? Go back and read some of the news accounts from that time frame. You will see that there was real fear that Kennedy would follow the Popes orders.
Why does it "excite" you to see some anti Mormon views? Is it because it is bad for the right? And you like that, don't you?
More misrepresentaon from Leon
June 21, 2007 - 14:13 ET by RJHi Leon
You just can't help yourself can you? I don't "staunchly deny" that Christians are intolerant of Mormons. Some are, obviously, but I don't know how many, and neither do you.
My fight has been focused on those who are intolerant.....of Mormons, and more broadly, of Christians.
RJ - he left when I challenge
June 21, 2007 - 14:24 ET by florida_chadRJ - he left when I challenged him. I think you were right about Leon. I thought you were a little rough on him, but I see that he deserved it. I apologize to you for that.
Hi chad
June 21, 2007 - 14:28 ET by RJHi chad. No problem. I felt yesterday that we buried the hatchet with no hard feelings. ;^>
agreed
June 21, 2007 - 14:33 ET by florida_chadagreed
Leon - I can take care of mys
June 21, 2007 - 14:54 ET by florida_chadLeon - I can take care of myself. Thanks
Leon this rift between Christ
June 21, 2007 - 15:01 ET by TruthMongerLeon this rift between Christians and Mormons you mention - we have heard ot it somewhere before...before you were born I think...yes that was it...
Why don't you post here when you actually have some information to offer...
And yes we already know about 2+2=4, thanks...
tm, I'm pretty close to toss
June 21, 2007 - 15:04 ET by MightyMouthtm,
I'm pretty close to tossing my lunch...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Why don't you post here when
June 21, 2007 - 15:06 ET by bigtimerWhy don't you post here when you actually have some information to offer...
Thats not Leons agenda TM...thats not what he does.
Just had to throw that in..been watching this thread since I logged in ...been amusing.
I know BT...Leon's in a prett
June 21, 2007 - 15:23 ET by TruthMongerI know BT...Leon's in a pretty good mood today actually - and I've been tweakin' his nose as usual but I'm going to stop now...I've been crabby lately...nice relaxing summer weather does that to me apparently...
...but the laughs will still continue! BTW have you seen HelenS anywhere...we have a link to her picture up yonder way (spits tobaccy)...
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
Chad,What gives my man? I d
June 21, 2007 - 14:38 ET by LeonChad,
What gives my man? I didn't leave when you challenged me.
I responded to your original post and then I had to go out of my office for the day.
My apologies for not responding, I've had a busy day.
Tough crowd.
I didn't see your reply - sor
June 21, 2007 - 14:44 ET by florida_chadI didn't see your reply - sorry
No worries. I wasn't runnin
June 21, 2007 - 14:46 ET by LeonNo worries. I wasn't running away from you, I simply had to go back to work.
Some days I can mess around on here for a while, other days I can't . Just depends on how my works going. Seems to be either feast or famine, tons of work or no work. It strange how it ebbs and flows.
But come on man, I thought we had a good conversation yesterday, no need for the next day hate.
Oh and the post below, I just
June 21, 2007 - 14:47 ET by LeonOh and the post below, I just put that up. Literally, I responded to you as soon as I got back to my desk.
FC,I know most Christians are
June 21, 2007 - 14:42 ET by LeonFC,
I know most Christians aren't intolerant of Mormons, but every election we hear how powerful of a voting bloc the evangelicals are.
So far the overriding theme I've seen from the evangelicals is that Mormonism is not Christianity.
I'm sure Kennedy got heat for his Catholicism but it was for an entirely different reason than Romney (which you noted with your pope comment). The fears of the anti-catholic then were of the Pope taking over the White House. The fears of the anti-mormons so far as I can tell revolve more around whether or not Mormonism can be considered Christianity.
Finally, it doesn't excite me to see anti-Mormon views. It excites me to watch presidential candidates get attacked about anything. Especially when they're Repbulican. I do like it! Yes you are correct!
Probably the same way you all love to see HIllary attacked.
I just don't see what you do.
June 21, 2007 - 14:49 ET by florida_chadI just don't see what you do. I don't see where the overriding theme is that mormans aren't christians. I see a few that say that.
Actually, I don't care to see Hillary attacked. I care to see her postions attacked.
Chad,I agree with you. I'm
June 21, 2007 - 14:53 ET by LeonChad,
I agree with you. I'm hypothesizing. My original argument a couple of months ago was that THEN there were a few speaking out, but I predicted that more and more would speak out as the election drew closer.
Today's article is an example of what I had predicted. An increased level of outspokeness about his Mormonism.
It's still a small group, but I believe it's growing.
That's all I'm saying. Here's a good article that started my whole line of thinking a little while back. Take a look at it. I'd be interested to hear what you think about it.
Link
Ok - I'll read it tonight and
June 21, 2007 - 14:58 ET by florida_chadOk - I'll read it tonight and get back to you.
Sounds good. Let me know wh
June 21, 2007 - 14:59 ET by LeonSounds good. Let me know what you think.
Leon, I think you don't quite
June 21, 2007 - 15:06 ET by TruthMongerLeon, I think you don't quite realize that protestant fundies probably have more vitriol for the Roman Catholic church then they do for Mormons - at least Mormon's don't bow to the "Satanic anti-Christ Pope" of Pentacostal tract lore...
And this was probably much more widespread when Kennedy was elected. But you can continue to cling to this notion as part of the denial and grief you're probably facing again after the next national election...
I'd send a Mormon down south before I send a catholic anyday...
TM,You could be right, but I
June 21, 2007 - 15:13 ET by LeonTM,
You could be right, but I think they probably have enough vitriol to go around.
TM concurs, Leon...
June 21, 2007 - 15:15 ET by TruthMongerWon't argue with that...
Leon - I read the link. I und
June 21, 2007 - 15:13 ET by florida_chadLeon - I read the link. I understand how her opinion might excite you. I think it excite Mrs. Sullivan also. She says "This is how someone like Romney gets elected in a blue state like Massachusetts, where even Republicans are generally tolerant. "
Even republicans?? I think I understand which side of the debate she is on.
I just disagree. Time will tell. BTW - I don't think Romney will win the nomination.
CHad,Thanks for reading the l
June 21, 2007 - 15:17 ET by LeonCHad,
Thanks for reading the link. That sure is a rare occurence round here!
Sullivan is definitely biased but I think you can still take away some interesting information from the article.
Time will tell. I'm not saying that I'm definitely correct, it's just my prediction. And I'll stand by it for now. If (when) I'm proven wrong and his mormonism becomes a nonissue, I'll gladly admit my prediction was inaccurate.