From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jan 22 2005 - 15:53:18 GMT
Arlo:
Platt:
> >Barbara Boxer's attack on Condi Rice's integrity during the recent Senate
> >hearing on her confirmation as Secretary of State illustrates my point
> >better than a million postings on the internet from all sorts of kooks.
Arlo:
> If a million conservatives do it, you'll look the other way. If one liberal
> does it, it proves it is a "leftist argument" technique. Is that it?
Do you think a million nobodies on the Internet have as much influence as
the power structure represented by the mainstream media and members of the
U.S. senate? Let's get real.
The Condi Rice confirmation case illustrates leftist media bias because
the former KKK member senator Robert Byrd (known to his friends as
"Sheets") was one of three Democratic senators who used a parliamentary
maneuver to delay a full vote on the nomination of Rice. Not a peep out of
the press. Can you imagine what the same press would do if a black female
Democrat were blocked from taking a high cabinet post by say, Trent Lott?
Rather, Jennings, Blitzer, Woodruff and company would go berserk.
> >I know of no one jailed for speaking out against the liberation of Iraq.
> >In fact, protesters were allowed seats at the Inauguration. But, if you
> >engaged in so called "hate speech," especially in Europe, watch out. Or if
> >you violate campus speech codes, the P. C. police will be after your butt
> >in a New York minute. Even the President of Harvard can't speak out about
> >the difference between men and women without getting mercilessly attacked
> >by leftist feminists.
> It is those same PC police that villify dissent to the Bush Family as
> "treason". It works both ways. You see, it is the power structure that
> seeks control over language. Not "leftists" and not "rightists". One must
> be equally critical, as I have been, of this regardless of source.
I agree that the power structure is what we should be looking at when
considering bias.
> >Since I don't recall reading your list of "principles," I went by your
> >anti-conservative, pro-leftist views. Are you saying you would never vote
> >for Hillary for president?
> I would vote for her if the alternative was worse. If the alternative was
> better, I'd vote that. The trouble with this two party system is that both
> sides through up people I find personally repugnant. But, to be a good
> American, I vote for the lesser of two evils.
How about Ralph Nader? Or the Libertarian candidate? Or a write in vote?
> But, even if I did vote Hillary (given a worse alternative), I'd be just as
> active and vocal against things her administration would do even though you
> consider me a "leftist". In short, I do not believe either party is "all
> good". That you do is very "patriotic" of you.
That word "patriotic" really bugs you doesn't it? I wonder why you find it
so powerful. Could it be your subconscious is telling you that supporting
America's laws protecting intellectual value rights is a good thing?
> >Let me see if I have this right. When I believe something to be true, it's
> >because I've been brainwashed by propaganda. On the other hand, when you
> >believe something to be true, it's because you have made an objective
> >study of it. Translation: Platt's a stupid conservative; I Arlo am
> >intelligent person of principles. Where have I heard something like this
> >before? Oh yes, now I remember. It was in "Lila" from the mouth of Richard
> >Rigel.
> That you can't be honest about Fox NOT being "fair and balanced" shows your
> obedience to the propaganda of your party. It would be like me constantly
> espousing that only Guerrilla News is "objective and fair" reporting,
> because they tell me so.
Speaking of Fox News, it's primetime coverage in numbers of viewers is up
57% over 2001 while CNN dropped 14% and MSNBC went down 47%. I think you
should ask yourself, "Why?" (How large do you suppose is the audience for
the Guerrilla News?)
> Certainly, BECAUSE they were stopping the "jew bias". Goebbels speeches and
> writings against the german media are well documented on the web.
Where?
> > > As I've said, the conservatives are not unique in using talking points,
> > > but the sheer volume of it pushed out by the conservative media over
> > > the past several years has been very telling.
> >
> >What's your source for "sheer volume?" What measurement are you using?
>
> Well, you see, I have this organization called "Objective Media Analysis",
> and they've determined it to be true. If you dispute their objective
> findings, it is only because you are conservatively biased. Since I'm a
> "liberal", I accept everything they tell me as fact, because liberals don't
> lie, or would ever stretch the truth to serve political ends, only
> conservatives do these things.
Just as I thought. You have no source.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 22 2005 - 15:52:25 GMT