Subject: Fox News most trusted
Date: Mon Jan 14 08:27:36 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:Poll: Fox Most Trusted News for Americans
Sunday, January 13, 2008 3:05 PM
Fox News has supplanted CNN as the 'most trusted' news source for Americans, a new nationwide poll finds.
The poll conducted by Sacred Heart University, found that the most trusted national TV news organizations, for accurate reporting, in declining order included: Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News (10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News (6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%).
In 2003, CNN led Fox News on “trust most for accurate reporting” 23.8% to 14.6%.
The Sacred Heart University Poll also found significantly declining percentages of Americans saying they believe all or most of media news reporting.
In the current national poll, just 19.6% of those surveyed could say they believe all or most news media reporting. This is down from 27.4% in 2003. Just under one-quarter, 23.9%, in 2007 said they believe little or none of reporting while 55.3% suggested they believe some media news reporting.
“The fact that an astonishing percentage of Americans see biases and partisanship in their mainstream news sources suggests an active and critical consumer of information in the U.S.” stated James Castonguay, Ph.D., associate professor and chair of SHU’s Department of Media Studies & Digital Culture. “The availability of alternative viewpoints and news sources through the Internet no doubt contributes to the increased skepticism about the objectivity of profit-driven news outlets owned by large conglomerates,” he continued.
The perception is growing among Americans that the news media attempts to influence public opinion – from 79.3% strongly or somewhat agreeing in 2003 to 87.6% in 2007.
And, 86.0% agreed (strongly or somewhat) that the news media attempts to influence public policies – up from 76.7% in 2003.
“Americans know bias and imbalance when they see it and they don’t like it. When most service organizations strive for consumer satisfaction ratings in the high eighties to low nineties, an overall positive rating of 40.7% is dismal,” said Jerry C. Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute. He added, “Americans know that it’s just not that hard to present both sides and keep personal bias at home.”
By four-to-one margins, Americans surveyed see The New York Times (41.9% to 11.8%) and National Public Radio (40.3% to 11.2%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
By a three-to-one margin, Americans see news media journalists and broadcasters (45.4% to 15.7%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
And, by a two-to-one margin, Americans see CNN (44.9% to 18.4%) and MSNBC (38.8% to 15.8%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
Just Fox News was seen as mostly and somewhat conservative (48.7%) over mostly or somewhat liberal (22.3%).
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute completed 800 interviews with residents nationwide between November 26 – December 5, 2007. The sample was generated proportional to population contribution in all 50 states. Statistically, a sample of 800 completed telephone interviews represents a margin for error of +/-3.5% at a 95% confidence level.
Date: Mon Jan 14 09:11:21 2008
User: Snowguy
Message:Well, my perception is that most Americans tend to be either conservative or moderate. And, most are not stupid or uninformed. It's just that the information they consider and then accept tends to mirror their own inherent views.
Conservatism tends to resist sudden change, and this can be a very good thing. Blowing on the winds of change is not exactly the way to build a solid society. Conservative people do accept change, as it is proven to them. They accept it on their own timetable and in their own terms, which basically means cautiously.
But in viewing change this way, a solid foundation is maintained. ("A house built on rock, not on sand.") Slow and considered acceptance of change might not fit the schedule of some, but it fits the concepts of strength, stability and longevity very nicely. You can extend the foundation, you can replace part of the foundation. But if we weaken or scrap the foundation, we do so at our own peril.
Liberal forces and ideas are good, but it's also a good thing that conservative and moderate forces are there to dampen them and to make them prove themselves before adoption by the society at large.
Or so it seems to me.
Date: Mon Jan 14 12:17:43 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:You know, that's pretty well said, SG, as observations. "They accept it on their own timetable and in their own terms, which basically means cautiously." I, of course would argue that change *could* (and *should*) be quicker as the evidence dictates, but because of our poorly informed population, that 'evidence', whatever it may be, takes a while to become inculcated into the overall general knowledge base.
I'd be interested to see a survery, or data, linking educational attainment level with trust of news sources. *That* would be interesting.....
Date: Mon Jan 14 12:30:37 2008
User: Snowguy
Message:Decisions can be made fast, though, and attitudes can change quickly. (Thinking now of Dec. 7, 1941.) But even then, some decisions made quickly were repented later at leisure. Think Japanese-Americans internment camps...
Date: Mon Jan 14 12:54:33 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:Just quickly, I found an interesting paper, which I'll link at the bottom, which has some data. It's a PDF file, and long, so I'll post some pertinent passages here, and I've tried to fix the formatting as best as I could. Anyone who cares about this should go to this link and look at Table 4. This table shows the number of misconceptions about some key topics of the war in Iraq, broken down into the respondent's primary news source. PBS/NPR people had by far the fewest, at 23%. Guess what group had the highest? Right, Fox, with an astonishing (even to me) 80%. There's lots of good stuff in this paper. Some other tidbits....
• Between 8% and 18% of Florida NPR listeners have a high school degree or less.
• Between 56% and 78% of Florida NPR listeners have a Bachelor’s Degree or higher.
National Public Radio
FAIR has produced two studies of NPR’s news and current events programming, in 1993 and in 2004. The studies examined three general areas of potential bias: partisan sources, think tank sources and NPR political commentators.
Partisan guest list. The studies looked at such partisan guests as government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants. From these lists Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than three to two in the 2004 study. In its 1993 survey when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Republican sources still outnumbered Democrats.
Partisans from outside the two major parties were extremely rare on public radio.
Think tank sources. Representatives of think tanks to the right of center outnumbered those to the left of center by more than four to one.
NPR commentators. Few NPR commentators deal primarily with political issues. FAIR identified only eight of 46 who might be legitimately called political commentators. Of these, three were conservative, two were liberal and the remaining three could not be categorized as either liberal or conservative.
Both the 1993 survey and the 2004 survey came to the same conclusion: that there was no evidence of political bias in either NPR’s guest list, its think tank sources or its political commentators.
Public Television
FAIR conducted two studies of public television programming, one in 1993 and one in 1999. The 1993 study worked from a composite ‘national’ public television schedule by combining programming information from 15 stations in 10 cities and focused on the sources featured in their
public affairs programming. The study reported that public television draws upon a “narrow range of sources, similar to those used by commercial television…” (FAIR, 1993). The study concluded that its findings cast “considerable doubt” on conservative claims of liberal bias in public television’s public affairs programming or in documentaries. In fact, the study found quite the reverse - that alternative or anti-establishment perspectives were rare on public television.
The 1999 study came to the same conclusions as the 1993 one and noted that, if anything, the exclusion of alternative perspectives had become even more pronounced since the last study.
Public Opinion Polls
In a poll recently commissioned by PBS, the international research company RoperASW surveyed
1,000 adults on various questions related to PBS television programming. The poll was conducted in
December 2003 through January 2004. Some highlights of the survey were:
• PBS was the most trusted of seven major national institutions asked about. Second was courts of law.
• PBS has the most trusted news and public affairs programs. Forty percent trust PBS “a great deal”. CNN was second at 33%.
• Americans are more satisfied with PBS programming (36%) than with programming on cable (24%) and commercial broadcast (16%).
• The majority of those polled (51%) believe federal funding for PBS is too little.
A second public opinion poll conducted by The Tarrance Group and Lake Snell Perry & Associates for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2004) attempted
to measure the extent to which the American public believes there is bias in the news and information programming of public television and radio. The survey concluded that a majority of American adults does not believe that public broadcast programs are biased. Roughly one-in-five
detected a liberal bias and approximately one-in-ten detected a conservative bias.
===========================
=================================
I don't want to take the time to make this a big discussion, but the myth of "liberal media bias" is now just that, a myth. There was a time, during the Vietnam War, and even through Watergate, in which that could have been legitimately argued. (Although one could also argue that really it was *forced* to become that to combat the obfuscatory practices of the administrations during that era.) And the conservatives made it a big rallying cry, and some of it stuck, and has remained stuck these last couple of decades when it ceased to become truth. I did a (non-published) study on this a few years ago, but didn't save it. I wish I could easily find the same information quickly, but I can't. And I know those who trust Fox probably won't be swayed by whatever I post. So be it, but that is a sad state of affairs. And I'd wager a hugely disproportionate number of Fox trusters also voted for, and still trust (hard as that may be to imagine) bush.
Link: Public Radio and Television data
Date: Mon Jan 14 16:29:23 2008
User: Songcutter
Message:Mountain,
I took a poll. The poll found that 100% of my clients are very satisfied. 100% think I am the best music composer, arranger and producer. 100% think I should get paid far more than I currently do...Yeah...This taking a poll on yourself thing really works great!
By four-to-one margins, Americans surveyed see The New York Times (41.9% to 11.8%) and National Public Radio (40.3% to 11.2%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
By a three-to-one margin, Americans see news media journalists and broadcasters (45.4% to 15.7%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
And, by a two-to-one margin, Americans see CNN (44.9% to 18.4%) and MSNBC (38.8% to 15.8%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
Those are huge margins. Liberal bias in the media is not a myth. Not even close.
Often times, bias is in the small words ie: Senator Joe Blow "Claimed" this...vs. Senator Joe Blow "Said" this. Those seemingly minor differences are designed to spin opinion. If you were a conservative, you'd consistently notice plenty of that type of blatant bias in reporting on CNN, MSNBC, etc. Those minor slants probably sound correct and fair to you, 'cause you share their bias. Until Fox News came along, there wasn't any national media being fair to the conservatives in government or to the conservative perspective. I don't want it to be favored...just fair. Same story placement, amount of time, opposing views, adjectives.
The way I see it is sort of like this:
Up until recently, we've only received news from the union perspective. Suddenly, there's a new source that still delivers the union perspective, but also includes the management perspective. The union boys are crying unfair...right-wing bias, etc. Really, it's about time we heard both sides of the stories.
Take your last sentence: And I'd wager a hugely disproportionate number of Fox trusters also voted for, and still trust (hard as that may be to imagine) bush.
You could have written: And I'd wager a hugely disproportionate number of New York Times trusters also voted for, and still trust (hard as that may be to imagine) gore.
Date: Mon Jan 14 17:02:38 2008
User: leftist.proefs.kan.tu.speal
Message:their ar peeple whoe theenk we cullage proefessers faver lyburals tu. thet is uh ly. i touk uh pooll uf mi studants. 99.9 purcent saed i teech da korect stuf. sea!
Date: Mon Jan 14 17:27:28 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:I didn't claim to have done a full search, and of course when one samples those of like minds, one will get a skewed result. I wouldn't argue otherwise (although I'm glad you have a 100% satisfaction rating, nonetheless).
The point is not what people THINK is the case -- the point should be what IS the case. This "liberal media bias" is a term which has been bandied about for so long that many non-critical-thinkers believe it only because they've heard it so much. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), a respected monitor of such things, is more "trustworthy" concerning the accuracy of such things than any opinion poll, and this is what they've said, in an article (link at the bottom) entitled: "The Most Biased Name in News -- Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt":
"Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy."
.......and.......
"When it comes to Fox News Channel, conservatives don't feel the need to "work the ref." The ref is already on their side. Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified. Fox knows how to play this game better than anyone."
.....and.........
"The abundance of conservatives and Republicans at Fox News Channel does not seem to be a coincidence. In 1996, Andrew Kirtzman, a respected New York City cable news reporter, was interviewed for a job with Fox and says that management wanted to know what his political affiliation was. "They were afraid I was a Democrat," he told the Village Voice (10/15/96). When Kirtzman refused to tell Fox his party ID, "all employment discussion ended," according to the Voice."
--- Fox's failed attempt to quash Al Franken's book "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" is a good example of how silly their claims are. Remember, their chairman, Roger Ailes, is a former Nixon-Reagan-Bush strategist.
That same FAIR article also states:
"Described by fellow Bush aide Lee Atwater as having "two speeds--attack and destroy," Ailes once jocularly told a Time reporter (8/22/88): "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it." Later, as a producer for Rush Limbaugh's short-lived TV show, he was fond of calling Bill Clinton the "hippie president" and lashing out at "liberal bigots" (Washington Times, 5/11/93). It is these two sensibilities above all--right-wing talk radio and below-the-belt political campaigning--that Ailes brought with him to Fox, and his stamp is evident in all aspects of the network's programming."
--- Now remember, that's not me saying those things - it's FAIR. Further, from SourceWatch.org:
"In 2001, media watch group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting studied the guestlist of FNC's flagship news program, Special Report, it found that Republicans made up 89 percent of Fox News' partisan guests, outnumbering Democrats 50 to 6. Avowed conservatives made up 71 percent of guests."
......and.......
"An email sent to Jim Romenesko's for posting on the message board of the journalism training center, The Poynter Institute, by former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, described the Fox newsroom as being permeated by bias:
"The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.
The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on FNC...."
---- I'm not going to spend a bunch of time bouncing this stuff back and forth. The record is very clear. (Dis)believe as you wish......
Link: The myth of liberal media bias
Date: Mon Jan 14 20:26:57 2008
User: julia
Message:I watch Fox News a lot. I listen to NPR a lot. Fox is definitely pro-conservatist. That's why I like it, and they don't try to hide it either. But, they do have differing views on the show all the time (even though they sometimes take a beating.) From my point of view, obviously conservative leaning, NPR has a bit of a left wing slant, but not enough to make me stop listening. Daniel Shore however, gets all over my nerves, and I wish he would retire.
Oh, Tn, first thing I thought of when you said "poorly informed population." People need more maps. .grin
Date: Mon Jan 14 20:36:40 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:Well, there are plenty of maps around. If they would just look at and absorb them more..... But of course I agree that geographical ignorance is extreme in this country.
Date: Mon Jan 14 23:26:30 2008
User: julia
Message:hee hee
I should clear that up. I actually thought the world knew. It sure embarrassed us to death.
When Miss SC (my state) was asked her interview question, she came up with some off the wall answer about people needing more maps. I died. It was horrible. Bless her heart.
Date: Tue Jan 15 08:24:39 2008
User: Noceto
Message:I have always found Sean Hannity to be fair and balanced.
Date: Tue Jan 15 09:08:59 2008
User: chrissie8madrid
Message:My biggest problem with US news channels is that they don't give anyone enough time to talk about anything and it is a miracle if the host actually lets his/her guests reply to the questions.
Sometimes I wonder why they even bother to invite them on the programme, as they don't seem to want to hear their point of view. They spend more time telling people to hurry up and answer quickly than actually letting them answer.
I am used to programmes dedicating 30 minutes to discussing a topic, not 30 seconds. And, the programme that I think is called "Around the World in 80 Seconds" (or less!) is, I fear, rather symptomatic of the interest that US viewers have in the rest of the world.
By the way,I am a bit of a news freak and regularly watch Fox, CNBCi, BBC World, Euronews (a Europe wide channel) and Spanish (as in Spain, Europe) news channels!!
Date: Tue Jan 15 10:20:06 2008
User: TNmountainman
Message:Of course we all remember the Miss S.C. fiasco, and I'm pretty sure it was linked on this site at the time. And we all loved the way she referred to "the Iraq".
Chrissie, you're absolutely right, of course. NPR (National Public Radio), and PBS (Public Broadcasting System) do by far the best job of exploring issues, time-wise, in this country. A short attention span, to go along with poor math and geography knowledge, are unfortunately hallmarks of many here. I think ethno- and geo-centricity account for a lot of the problem the U.S. has in terms of "playing nice" with the rest of the world.
Miss S.C. linked below. As of this posting, youtube.com seems to be down, but I got this link to work briefly.
Link: Miss South Carolina in all her glory
Date: Tue Jan 15 11:06:41 2008
User: Snowguy
Message:We do have a few more-in-depth programs, such as "Meet the Press." -Usually Sunday morning programs. One problem with Americans, is that the distances we travel are pretty much all-USA and all-English-speaking. We could vacation at the beach and cross territory that would equal 6 or more European countries, for example. Europeans might vacation at the Black Sea!(And, they speak a diversity of languages in those countries.) People from Toronto, canada often vacation in the American south, passing through only English-speaking areas.
North America has a vast preponderance of English-speakers. We have the USA and Canada, which are predominantly English, with some French (e.g. Quebec.) People from Toronto, canada often vacation in the American south, passing through only English-speaking areas. Then, there is Mexico, which speaks Spanish as its principal language. One issue with American students is they can learn French or German in elementary and high school and afterward have little chance to use it unless they are college-bound.)
Somebody in Germany or Sweden could be exposed to several languages during a 400-mile Eurorail trip. Issues in other countries can also hit closer to home. A northern European heading to the Riviera could pass through some remarkable places, languages and customs!
Or so it seems to me.
Date: Tue Jan 15 12:22:10 2008
User: Snowguy
Message:Just a note; I copy-and-pasted that one sentence about Toronto folks, instead of cut-and-pasted it. I just thought moving it from the second para. to the first one made more sense. But, I never deleted it in this original place...
Not that I repeat myself.
Not that I repeat myself.
Date: Tue Jan 15 13:00:12 2008
User: chrissie8madrid
Message:I can't bear to watch poor Miss S.C. again!! As one who, aged about 13, had a giggling fit in class and promptly announced to the whole class + teacher that "I was just having an orgasm" (At that time, I thought it meant a giggling fit!) I refuse to throw stones!!
I do agree about the short attention span being a big problem nowadays. I was told by a speaker that she was having to cut short her classes or give mor break time since people couldn't concentrate for too long and she was lecturing to graduate students!!
Date: Tue Jan 15 15:52:51 2008
User: EddieHighHorse
Message:chrissie, your "orgasm" kind of reminds me of my adulterous ways as a 9 year old.
I was raised in both the United Methodist and Roman Catholic churches, the result of parents having different religious affiliations. In my early days I figured out that "coveting thy neighbor's wife" and "adultry" were probably the same thing; this wording for the same commandment being one of many mysteries between my two relgions.
My main problem with the commandment was I didn't have a clue what it meant. When I was 9 years old I asked my father, whom I figured was in the know, just what adultry was? After much stammering, hemming and hawing, he told me it was when you hung around with bad people.
Shucks, Robby Stileson was a "bad" person. He used words we were not supposed to say and did other things that seemed to upset adults. Didn't mothers say all the time, "Robby Stileson is a bad boy". The problem was Robby was fun and I secretly hung out with him from time to time.
So I went to my next confession and told the priest I had commited adultry about 20 times. The priest gave me a good leture and a bunch of prayers to recite, then sent me on my way. I apparently didn't take the priest's lecture serious because I kept hanging out with Robby. And I kept confessing my adulterous ways to the priest in the darkness of the confessional.
The priest started to recognize my voice and began saying, "Oh, it's you again," when I showed up. He thought my undeveloped male voice was that of a female. Finally, figuring more serious counseling was in order, he told me to be at the parish center at 4 p.m.
After explaining my adultrous acts to the priest I found I was not an adulterer, but my transgressions fell more along the line of "not honoring" my mother and father. The priest, however, also failed to explain
the meaning of adultry to me when I asked him.
Once I did comprehend the meaning, I figured I had a whole bunch of freebies coming to me for my earlier confessions. But I have never been able to collect on those chits.
Sorry for the hijack, Songcutter, but I couldn't resist. Btw, Robby Stileson is not the dude's real name.
--EZ-Ed
Date: Tue Jan 15 18:05:26 2008
User: needles.to.say
Message:Ed, that is totally hysterical, needles to say. Thank you for that. Chrissie, that is also too hysterical. Keep em coming all.
ps: ed, didn't you think to look in a dictionary? (i think that's what i did)
.hug ez
Date: Tue Jan 15 18:06:41 2008
User: chrissie8madrid
Message:That's so funny and you still didn't get an explanation!
Date: Tue Jan 15 20:04:12 2008
User: julia
Message:Alan Colmes is pretty fair and balanced too??? (hee)
To further the hijack, one of my classmates hosed up the word "organism" while reading aloud in class. Noo, we didn't laugh too much. (sorry Song)
Date: Wed Jan 16 09:23:25 2008
User: ThereIsNoGravityTheEarthSucks
Message:You can post all of the "surveys" you want, but they can be manipulated just like statistics. Fox news is definantly a neocon organization. I just can't understand how so many people (still) think bush is doing a good job, and hasn't done anything wrong. Amazing and scary too.
Date: Wed Jan 16 15:06:07 2008
User: CrappyCrappyCrappy
Message:Bush is God's President. Even he did something "bad" it would just be your fault for not recognizing why it was really good.
Date: Wed Jan 16 16:31:01 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:I just watched PBS Frontline's "Cheney's Law." if anyone wants real fear, please watch this program on PBS on-line and see what this man has done to our country and our constitution. See who is really running the executive branch from leaning on a hospitalized Ashcroft to OK illegal wire tapes, to santioning torture to constructing the signing statements that accompany Bush's signiture on Bills. Bush is a puppet to Cheney's ambition. I'm not going to field any challenges from julia or snowguy until they can prove to me they watched this episode of Frontline.
Date: Wed Jan 16 16:39:10 2008
User: tbirdie98TNmtn.man
Message:I saw it, too. We knew almost all of that stuff, but this laid out *how* they did it all, from behind the scenes. Truly unbelievable that all that could happen in this country. I've said this before, and I don't say it lightly, but Cheney is truly evil, imo. They actually set out to construct a situation that was by the rule of men, rather than the rule of law. That's not me saying it - THEY said it! A lot of the decision-making in these acts that have subjugated the Constitution occurred not in bush's office, nor in his counsel's office, but in *Cheney's* counsel's office.
Date: Wed Jan 16 16:47:13 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:I'm so glad you saw it too. When I was watching, my jaw just dropped as to how completely weak congress was and still, under the democrats, can't seem to recover any of the powers of checks and balances. I had this overwhelming feeling of hopelessness as there is no way people like julia, songcutter, AreWeThereYet, snowguy, Luke_Duke would spend their evening watching and learning from a show like Frontline. AreWeThereYet would call PBS a left-leaning hate channel. I still feel hopeless as it was just confirming what we've been saying all along, TN, but to closed minds on this site. pity.
Date: Wed Jan 16 17:35:44 2008
User: AreWeThereYet
Message:So nice to have you back, birdhaus. Reason runs out the window when you arrive. You are the most closed-minded person in Netcell, not us. You won't respond to us because we keep proving you a big-mouthed fool who is constantly wrong. Keep watching PBS, further proof of how you leftist kooks waste our hard-earned tax dollars. Continue slurping at the public trough with PBS while lying about and insulting everyone to the right of Karl Marx. You neo-coms are good at that. Remember one thing, I am not a fan of Bush. And my opinion of Cheney is even lower. But I don't live in fantasy land like you and TNmountainman. This writing ought to be good for 20-some rapid-fire imbecilic posts from you, birdhaus. And I am sure your court jester, the mountainman, will join you. Go to it. I'm out of here.
Date: Wed Jan 16 17:40:27 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:I don't feel I need to say more.
Date: Wed Jan 16 17:52:32 2008
User: tbirdie98TNmtn.man
Message:AWTY:
"...you leftist kooks waste our hard-earned tax dollars."
--- Uh, isn't bush the one spending 100's of billions in Iraq? Compare federal PBS funding to that. Go ahead - do it.
The federal PBS budget is in the neighborhood of $400 million/year. The war in Iraq costs about $275 million a DAY! (Total cost approaching $500 BILLION dollars.) So that's about 3 orders of magnitude difference. How's that for the first one?
Date: Wed Jan 16 17:59:05 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:The hairs on my neck raised a bit when I read AWTY's post. My most primative instict, fear, came through, I'm just glad this person doesn't know where I live.
Date: Wed Jan 16 18:19:55 2008
User: +Dandy+
Message:AWTY-
"You neo-coms are good at that"
You need to find out what a neocon is. I don't think you understand.
Date: Wed Jan 16 18:23:18 2008
User: tbirdie98TNmtn.man
Message:I think he knows........and is proud to support the losing of our country to their interests.
Date: Wed Jan 16 19:18:24 2008
User: Snowguy
Message:Don't put words in my mouth, bird. And, don't ascribe to me whatever you think I think. And, don't make assumptions about what I watch and don't watch, read and don't read, listen to and don't listen to. And, don't make assumptions about my philosophies and political bent. All you need to know about me is that you and I often disagree. And, that's enough for me.
Date: Wed Jan 16 19:42:05 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:TNmountainman, the other thing I wanted to relate to you is that the Congressional Record crosses my desk daily, that seedy bill Bush signed in Crawford a few days after Christmas with the signing statement conserning illegal wire taps on Americans was real creepy...how is that not pure evil?
Date: Wed Jan 16 20:23:10 2008
User: julia
Message:>>I'm not going to field any challenges from julia or snowguy until they can prove to me they watched this episode of Frontline.<<
LOL!!!!!!!
>>I had this overwhelming feeling of hopelessness as there is no way people like julia, songcutter, AreWeThereYet, snowguy, Luke_Duke would spend their evening watching and learning from a show like Frontline.<<
ROFL!!!!!
Truly amazing statements. Just amazing.
Date: Wed Jan 16 22:39:20 2008
User: CrappyCrappyCrappy
Message:God needs to get a new spokesman, like Mr. Huckabee, who actually knows more than the rest of us about what God is thinking.
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
Full article linked, so get educated people, and we can replace the Constitution with one version of the Bible (Huckabee's version).
Link: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/73946/
Date: Wed Jan 16 23:16:57 2008
User: AreWeThereYet
Message:Did I use "new-con". No, I used "neo-com". Duh. Personally, I can't stand either. I used neo-com right after mentioning Karl Marx. Does that give you any clues Dandy and mountainman? And, yep, I would be proud if I could prevent neo-coms from ruining this country. But I don't ascribe that much power to myself.
julia: Rofl with you!
Date: Thu Jan 17 07:21:49 2008
User: Snowguy
Message:bird:
"I'm not going to field any challenges from julia or snowguy until they can prove to me they watched this episode of Frontline."
Julia, are you having as much trouble getting the affidavirs prepared as I am? I think I can get three, if bird is willing to trust my wife. But finding a Notary Public to put a seal on the documents is time-consuming. Every one I talk to says "are you kidding me? I won't do it."
I think this is too much work. Maybe I don't have to prove anything to bird's satisfaction, after all.
Maybe she can just go pound salt.
Date: Thu Jan 17 07:27:11 2008
User: Snowguy
Message:Hey, ED. I don't think I'll field any more challenges from you until you can prove to me that you have actually watched the "Dewey, Cheatum and Howe" episode of the Stooges.
But, as a concession, I will accept your wife's assurance. (Plus one other sober, non-related acquaintance.)
Date: Thu Jan 17 11:06:11 2008
User: tbirdie98TNmtn.man
Message:AreWeThereYet -
I knew (and read correctly) *exactly* what you wrote and meant. That's why I wrote:
"I think he knows........and is proud to support the losing of our country to their interests."
....referring to Dandy's statement about finding out what a NEOCON is. I suspected Dandy missed the distinction; I did not.
The NEOCOM was initiated by another poster (Songcutter?) in the other thread about "Left Wing Creed".
What I typed clearly showed I recognized the distinction, giving credit to AWTY for knowing what a NEOCON is. I of course cannot speak for Dandy.
Date: Thu Jan 17 11:43:37 2008
User: mrbuck
Message:Snowguy,
before you are allowed to post again, you must find the mightiest tree in the forest and cut it down with a herring.
mrbuck
Date: Thu Jan 17 11:51:01 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:I'd like to see him cut it down with the roof of his mouth, don't you all have anything to say about the topic at hand instead of shooting the messenger of information?
Date: Thu Jan 17 11:56:11 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:gee, even when I inform you conservatives in an effort to give you a base of information to work from, you still can't digest it. You're just plain lazy. Come on, get on topic! If you won't challenge me respectfully, then educate yourselves, prove me wrong in a informational gathering, point delivering, respectable debate. Any of you able to do that?
Date: Thu Jan 17 12:01:16 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:and is AWTY ED? No wonder he gave me the creeps, makes me want to lock my doors at night. He is very scary to me and I work with pornographers and criminals on a daily basis. If he talked to me in person with the anger/hatred and hostility he does on this site, I would call security and have him banned from the library.
Date: Thu Jan 17 12:16:08 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:CCC, what you posted is amazing that an American says that but I'm not surprised that a Christian zealot said it, which is what Huckabee is. I think he is a good person, means well, but he can't see beyond his church community. Hopefully this trip around America will inform him that there are more Americans here than Christian Evangelical zealots. I actually hope he gets the republican nomination, he's the easiest to beat by any democratic standards.
Date: Thu Jan 17 12:18:30 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:If CCC is Ed, then I apologize to ED. He actually is very fun and informational, I like CCC.
Date: Thu Jan 17 13:04:31 2008
User: Snowguy
Message:I plucked ED's name "from the air." He is just somebody I might enjoy talking Stooges with. As fas as I know he has no connection with this thread beyond EddieHighHorse. Also, I used his name because I know he can take a joke.
And, my posts above *were logical followups, because: 1) my name was dragged into it (disparagingly) along with some others, so I responded, and 2) I did the Stooges thing as a parody of a similar, prior comment made by another.
My sense of humor might not be "my best trait" but most people I know seem to appreciate it.
BTW, I had no intentions to "challenge" bird. This was not my topic (except for a couple early, neutral posts) and such discussions, I have found, tend to be both wearing and less-than fruitful.
Date: Thu Jan 17 14:00:03 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:julia, you mentioned listening to NPR, can you draw anything from what you hear/think about and post it? "LOL" and "just amazing" just don't cut it as worthy responses in rebuttle, as well as AWTY's "ROLF" in response to julia's lol. Julia, instead of summing up what I say, or c/pasting my very statements followed by a "lol", say something fresh, enlightening, something that will make ME think and consider. Are you able to do that or not?
Date: Thu Jan 17 14:06:43 2008
User: birdhaus
Message:Since I don't watch FOX, does this network have a show like PBS's Frontline? Could someone tell me what FOX says about Cheney's ability to change our constitution? Does it say anything about Cheney's amazing powers as VP, a VP like no other...?
Post follow-up