x

[WillyJ]

He's hitting .187 with 14 RVI's (Real Verifiable Information) and one home run (blue dress) over 7 years. . .

Not even the Devil Rays would keep him around. . .

 

[bsnyder]

Willy!

 

[Samsara]

Wow. Defensive. I just figured that someone who is so quick to attempt to defend the Sludge Report that one gets a large amount of their "news" and "facts" from it.

 

[WillyJ]

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by bsnyder
I am somewhat perplexed by the Drudge bashing.

Most of the stuff he has on his site are links to other news outlets that I'm sure everyone considers legitimate.

He only puts up stories that he likes and that cast liberals in a negative light. I've yet to see a "news" report on that site that is negative on Bush or the right.

In other words, he's not "fair and balanced". Which has to be the understatement of the century.

 

[Kendra17]

Just because one lets their political leanings be known, does not mean they aren't fair and balanced. . .this would mean that anyone with an opinion isn't fair and balanced. Poor argument.

 

[peachgirl]

Just because one lets their political leanings be known, does not mean they aren't fair and balanced. . .this would mean that anyone with an opinion isn't fair and balanced. Poor argument.

Well, if that's what I had said, yes it would be a poor argument. But since I said nothing of the kind, I'm not sure what your point is.

One can let their political leanings be known, but when you let those politcal leanings influence what you post on your site, then you are not a reliable source of information.

 

[Kendra17]

I would have to disagree with you. He is reporting stories, and one can be conservative and report accurate stories. He may not go out of his way to report stories that cast Democrats or liberals in a negative light, but that fact doesn't diminish that what he does choose to post or report, is accurate.

Also, Drudge actually DOES report a lot of negative stories regarding Republicans, as do most newsworthy (as opposed to more opinion-focused) news sources. The more "conservative" sites or articles or magazines I read are very critical of Bush (obviously a much different type of criticism than you would heap on him), because they really do try to be objective--they just are coming from a different perspective.

 

[WillyJ]

Here's a site I've found that's pretty much a liberal version of Drudge. . . Buzzflash.com

This might give my conservative friends an idea on how Drudge looks to my more liberal friends. . .

 

[peachgirl]

He is reporting stories, and one can be conservative and report accurate stories.

I guess you're just not reading what I post because this is the second time you've said this and again, I never said you couldn't.



Sludge is a ultra right wing conservative. He's nothing more than the Rush Limbaugh of print. Than again, I'm sure you think Rush is a fount of information as well.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
He only puts up stories that he likes and that cast liberals in a negative light.

And in my alternate reality, that's what the main stream media outlets do to the right.

Your point?

So do you think that the main stream media (CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, LAT, etc) present the "news" in a neutral manner?

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
And in my alternate reality, that's what the main stream media outlets do to the right.

I give....anyone who thinks sludge should be categorized with the likes of NBC, CBS or even Faux News is beyond arguing with.

It would be like equating the National Enquirer to Time Magazine...

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I guess you're just not reading what I post because this is the second time you've said this and again, I never said you couldn't.



Sludge is a ultra right wing conservative. He's nothing more than the Rush Limbaugh of print. Than again, I'm sure you think Rush is a fount of information as well.

Peachgirl,
You are so quick with stinging comments--whether directed at a conservative poster, the media, anything that has a differing opinion than you.

Let me ask you, please. . .and, I would very much appreciate it if you could attempt to answer me POLITELY. . .

What do the words "ultra right wing conservative" mean to you, REALLY? And, after you answer that, could you give me an example of just a right-wing conservative (not ultra). Then, maybe an example of conservative? Centrist? Moderate?

I know these answers may require some length on your part, but I'd be very interested to know what you mean.

To me, Pat Buchanan is ultra. Drudge certainly isn't. I certainly am not. How would you categorize William F. Buckley, for instance?

From what I read on these boards, most of the "right" seem to like Bush because of his foreign policy and his conviction with the War on Terror. Does that fact ALONE mean one is extreme?

What about your assertion on another thread that Republicans favor the rich? The way most conservatives--who definitely aren't in the "rich" category-- I know think is this: we prefer most companies and businesses conduct themselves with as little government intervention as possible. We WANT to trust (not always the best way, but we prefer to trust the businesses rather than the government bureaucrats) the businesses to do what's right. . .earn money, give jobs that pay liveable wages, make profits, give bonuses so that the employees can spend money, save money, etc.

Sure, we have greedy CEOs. . .we also have greedy government workers that find ways to use our money to fund projects from our tax dollars that have no business being funded.

We want personal responsibility. Why is this a negative? We aren't for more entitlement programs because we believe that anyone in America can succeed--and, they really can, with hard work and direction. Furthermore, anyone here can go to college--and money is rarely really an object with grants and loans from the governments and PACKAGES from the schools that make up the differences. We want welfare recipients to work if they can. We don't want homelessness, either. We don't want kids starving. And, they really aren't, no matter what you hear elsewhere. Where else, but in America, can you get a meal for under a dollar? With the high obesity rate--especially in lower income areas--how can you say people are starving?

Affirmative Action: we really do believe that all people are created equal, and that everyone should be treated that way. We believe that we should earn what we get, and that we should look at the content of our character rather than the color of our skin or religion, or gender. We are firmly against discrimination (new Memphis guy is FRINGE--should declare himself as an independent. . .no decent person would support him. . .most of the republicans here, I would venture to say, do NOT support this man), we believe anyone can succeed if they try. Furthermore, we abhor groups like the NAACP who call Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice traitors to their race. Can we all actually be colorblind and stay on issues? Why is being tough on terror, or supporting Bush have to mean such a horrible thing as this? The NAACP has changed. . .and they are milking their name to get their agenda across. Is Thomas Sowell a "traitor to his race", too? Both Harry Belafonte and the NAACP (and more) would then say yes. But, they aren't. They are just conservative thinkers. As is Bill Cosby.

Republicans generally believe that the government is in existence to protect us and serve us and act in our best interest with that in mind. It's not there to provide for us. . . we're here to provide for us. It's not there to take the money we earn and decide what to do with it. . .we're supposed to earn our money and decide what to do with it. Many, many of us contribute philanthropically. We WANT to do the right thing.

Let me give you an example. So many want free daycare. Well, I don't. I want to stay home with my children until they are school age. Thankfully, my husband is able to support us (I do some work from home; I'm an artist and designer--the avatar I have is a painting I've done). However, if he's taxed more to pay for free day care, for instance, then I, indeed, have to go out to work to make up for that loss in his income. Of course, now I have free day care, but this was a perk I don't believe in and don't want to pay for--I don't want to raise my child in a village-- I want to provide my own care, but with higher taxes, I can't.

I've tried to be honest in sharing my thoughts. If you refrain from using your zingers to put me in "my place", I'd be very grateful.

Edited to add: I don't remember the statistic (someone? please help me out), but something like 90% of the mainstream news anchors, reporter, etc. consider themselved "liberal". You don't think that MIGHT be reflected in the news they report? We do, and it's actually NOT like comparing the Enquirer to Time mag. Not at all. It comes across in their language. I think it's AP or something--I'll have to find out--that won't even use the word terrorist. . .they use the word militant. Well, they ARE terrorists. . .they target innocents. Also, remember all the newscasters that stated they felt if they wore the American flag, that was bad? That doesn't represent a liberal viewpoint?

Thankfully, people like Drudge--who is NOT accused of falsities, by the way--and FOX, and Clearchannel, etc., have opened outlets that can express the other perspective. That doesn't mean they are "ultra-right wing conservative". Even Rush was found my some independent research group to be 96 or 98% accurate. He surrounds his news with opinion, but it invites discussion. It doesn't make him a liar or anything of the sort. Even if you find his personality grating. Personally, although I haven't listened to him in a while, I find him funny and on target with opinions. What has he said that has really got your goat?

What opinion does he, or Fox share, that you particularly disagree with? What about Buckley--the consummate intellectual. . .he's literate, complex, and complete with his thoughts and discussions. You consider him radical?

 

[Geezer]

Originally posted by Rutt and Tuke
On various boards I visit I have learned I should vote for Pres Bush because:

1. Kerry's wife sleeps in a seperate hotel room
2. He doesn't have military medals and medals (as I learned in another thread) don't make a president (so therefore I shouldn't vote for someone who has medals)
3. Laura Bush is nicer looking, kinder looking, and prettier than Theresa Heinz Kerry.
4. Laura Bush suffered the tragedy of killing someone in a car accident.
5. George Bush is better looking than "Lurch".

What a bunch of superficial poop!

Boy are you ever right! What the heck does any of this have to do with the ablility to serve as a president?

Kerry is the only one I have heard actually address WHAT he WILL do if elected. Bush only can advertise what he "thinks" Kerry wont do. He hasn't said a word about what he will change! These smear tactics are disgusting.

 

[peachgirl]

You are so quick with stinging comments--whether directed at a conservative poster, the media, anything that has a differing opinion than you.

It's really rather difficult to discuss anything with you seriously since nearly every time you direct a post at me you want to critique my posting "style".

I've read your posts and you seem to have a penchant for not only telling them how wrong they are, but with a condescending attitude tell them "how" they should post.

If you don't like the way I post, don't respond. But don't expect me to post in the way you want me to.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Geezer
Boy are you ever right! What the heck does any of this have to do with the ablility to serve as a president?

Kerry is the only one I have heard actually address WHAT he WILL do if elected. Bush only can advertise what he "thinks" Kerry wont do. He hasn't said a word about what he will change! These smear tactics are disgusting.

Not true! In between telling us what he thinks Kerry won't do, he manages to toss in that tired old tirade about how dangerous the world is, how lucky we are that he is keeping us safe and how we'll all die if we don't vote for him. He has a 2 pronged campaign strategy...scare 'em and smear 'em.

Seriously, it is one think I like about Kerry the most. He addresses the issues. It's a rare speech in which you hear Bush say anything about anything but the war on terror.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by peachgirl
It's really rather difficult to discuss anything with you seriously since nearly every time you direct a post at me you want to critique my posting "style".

I've read your posts and you seem to have a penchant for not only telling them how wrong they are, but with a condescending attitude tell them "how" they should post.

If you don't like the way I post, don't respond. But don't expect me to post in the way you want me to.

My response to you is not to let you know that I like your posting "Style". There was nothing condescending in my post. And, I'm only asking if you could refrain from insulting, as I have done. You obviously think fast and have a dry sense of humor.

I had some honest questions for you. I still am hoping you'll take the time to answer some of them.

I mentioned my hope about "how" you might post to let you know that I was NOT interested in trading barbs with you. I really don't want to trade fast insults, that's not my thing and never has been. You have a talent for this, and I was hoping that you'd refrain from letting them loose with me.

There was nothing in my previous post that mentioned how wrong you or yours are. I was stating what I, and possibly others, think and believe to be true. I questioned what you disagreed with and why you'd come to certain conclusions based on the information I presented.

I would appreciate a response from SOMEONE regarding that post, if you can do it without the zingers.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
And in my alternate reality, that's what the main stream media outlets do to the right.

Your point?

So do you think that the main stream media (CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, LAT, etc) present the "news" in a neutral manner?

Really ? So where were all the special reports about Cheney testifying and Halliburton admitting to fraud while Cheney was in charge ?



If this had been John Edwards, Sludge and the maggots like him would have had it tacked to the top of their pages for the past week.

(See link below...but here are two important *snips*)

"Halliburton agreed on Tuesday to pay $7.5 million to settle SEC charges that it misled investors by not disclosing an accounting change that boosted profit in 1998 and 1999.

*snip*

"The allegations in the 101-page filing and the SEC action cover two years when U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s chief executive officer, though he was not named as a defendant in either proceeding."

I'll bet half the people on this board didn't even know about this it was so ignored by most media. Here's the full article:

Suit Filed Against Halliburton for Fraud

 

[bsears]

Who owns CNN? MSNBC? ABC?


Who owns CNN? MSNBC? ABC?

Original article is at http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php Print comments.

So ya think we have a "free press" eh? Check out who owns who, and who owns what you think.......

GENERAL ELECTRIC --(donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign)

Television Holdings:
* NBC: includes 13 stations, 28% of US households.
* NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.
* CNBC business television; MSNBC 24-hour cable and Internet news service (co-owned by NBC and Microsoft); Court TV (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%).
The "MS" in MSNBC
means microsoft
The same Microsoft that donated 2.4 million to get GW bush elected.

Other Holdings:
* GE Consumer Electronics.
* GE Power Systems: produces turbines for nuclear reactors and power plants.
* GE Plastics: produces military hardware and nuclear power equipment.
* GE Transportation Systems: runs diesel and electric trains.
==================================================

WESTINGHOUSE / CBS INC.
Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)
whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than:
Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group)

Television Holdings:
* CBS: includes 14 stations and over 200 affiliates in the US.
* CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute.
* Country Music Television, The Nashville Network, 2 regional sports networks.
* Group W Satellite Communications.
Other Holdings:
* Westinghouse Electric Company: provides services to the nuclear power industry.
* Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company: disposes of nuclear and hazardous wastes. Also operates 4 government-owned nuclear power plants in the US.
* Energy Systems: provides nuclear power plant design and maintenance.
================================================================
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC.
Television Holdings:
* Paramount Television, Spelling Television, MTV, VH-1, Showtime, The Movie Channel, UPN (joint owner), Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Sundance Channel (joint owner), Flix.
* 20 major market US stations.
Media Holdings:
* Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Video, Blockbuster Video, Famous Players Theatres, Paramount Parks.
* Simon & Schuster Publishing.
=============================================
DISNEY / ABC / CAP (donated 640 thousand to GW's 2000 campaign)
Television Holdings:
* ABC: includes 10 stations, 24% of US households.
* ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America.
* ESPN, Lifetime Television (50%), as well as minority holdings in A&E, History Channel and E!
* Disney Channel/Disney Television, Touchtone Television.
Media Holdings:
* Miramax, Touchtone Pictures.
* Magazines: Jane, Los Angeles Magazine, W, Discover.
* 3 music labels, 11 major local newspapers.
* Hyperion book publishers.
* Infoseek Internet search engine (43%).
Other Holdings:
* Sid R. Bass (major shares) crude oil and gas.
* All Disney Theme Parks, Walt Disney Cruise Lines.
======================================================

TIME-WARNER TBS - AOL (donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign)
America Online (AOL) acquired Time Warner–the largest merger in corporate history.
Television Holdings:
* CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%).
* Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
Media Holdings:
* HBO Independent Productions, Warner Home Video, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera.
* Music: Atlantic, Elektra, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros. Records, EMI, WEA, Sub Pop (distribution) = the world’s largest music company.
* 33 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, People, In Style, Fortune, Book of the Month Club, Entertainment Weekly, Life, DC Comics (50%), and MAD Magazine.
Other Holdings:
* Sports: The Atlanta Braves, The Atlanta Hawks, World Championship Wrestling.
=======================================================
NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch) (donations see bottom note)
Television Holdings:
* Fox Television: includes 22 stations, 50% of US households.
* Fox International: extensive worldwide cable and satellite networks include British Sky Broadcasting (40%); VOX, Germany (49.9%); Canal Fox, Latin America; FOXTEL, Australia (50%); STAR TV, Asia; IskyB, India; Bahasa Programming Ltd., Indonesia (50%); and News Broadcasting, Japan (80%).
* The Golf Channel (33%).
MEDIA HOLDINGS:
* Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight.
* 132 newspapers (113 in Australia alone) including the New York Post, the London Times and The Australian.
* 25 magazines including TV Guide and The Weekly Standard.
* HarperCollins books.
OTHER HOLDINGS:
* Sports: LA Dodgers, LA Kings, LA Lakers, National Rugby League.
* Ansett Australia airlines, Ansett New Zealand airlines.
* Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA).

*(Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000)*

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php

 

[Kendra17]

This list is irrelevant because we don't know how much each company donated to the Democrats. Many corporations donate to both parties during a campaign, since they would like favor with whoever actually wins.

But, individually: where's Ted Turner's personal donation, for instance? He donated lots of money to the Dems. Or the Weinsteins, from Mirimax? Or Michael Eisner?

Also, since most of the liberals complain about FOX, but not about CNN, for instance, does this list PROVE anything? Even if the corporations themselves donate, do they mandate what is actually reported or how it is reported? I'm not certain this is a useful argument.