Comments Posted By sknabt
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 37 Comments
Conservatives are so hypersensitive to news coverage outside their orthodoxy I'm not sure there's any way to appease them. The Reverend Wright flap got endless coverage in the media. Want proof? You bring it up yourself. Obama's been forced to abandon a church he's attended for many years to deflect media criticism.
Of course, the media - aside from reliable conservative sources like talk radio and Fox News - won't obsess over this issue enough to satiate your anti-Obama angst but that's no reliable gauge of media bias.
So what are we to suppose of your many guilt-by-association attacks on Obama? You try to tie him to supposed radicals. For what purpose? Is Obama a "racist" in your estimation? Or merely a "bigot"? Is he crooked like Tony Rezko? Do you suppose he's a bomb-throwing Weatherman sympathizer pining for death and destruction? If not, why mention Ayers?
We see two sides of the issue blowing away all the smoke. One, political contributions which, IMHO, mean little. McCain has similar problems with the likes of Hagee. Has he handled his stuff any better?
Then we have him crossing paths with Ayers on the board of an anti-poverty program. We see him crossing paths with Pfleger steering money to one of his good charitable works (even right-wing Bill O'Reilly admits Phelger has done much good charitable work). Wright, too, has done much good. But they also have their radical side which is all the far right wants to talk about because, frankly, their only interest is in discrediting Obama because what could be worse than a liberal in the White House?
BTW, I'm no huge Obama fan and didn't vote for him in the primaries. However, given two poor choices - I'll make the safe assumption Hillary is done, stick a fork in her - Obama emerges as the better of the two. McCain's phony "straight talk express" seems no more genuine than Obama's vague "change" agenda.
You really are an ignoramous aren't you?
"Crossing paths." ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? He has been friends with Pfleger since at least 1988. And the relationship with Ayers has yet to be fleshed out. We know that somehow, someway, Ayers took a totally unknown Obama and put him in charge of his Annenberg educational project. Obviously - so obvious it hurts - Obama and Ayers are much better acquainted than "crossing paths."
Moron.
Wake up idiot. The man we are about to elect president has so many radical associations and radical political alliances God knows what he will be capable of. One or two, yeah, ok. But the number and extent of his radical friends is astounding. The fact that you can't see it or worse, don't care, means you deserve whatever this guy comes up with over the next 4 years.
ed.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 1.06.2008 @ 14:12
THE 'MAN ON A WHITE HORSE' SYNDROME
"Wrong on all counts. So go away and to make sure you don’t come back, I’m banning your IP."
Gee, I was going to say something about your Obama post but, on second thought, better not.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 19.05.2008 @ 18:44
What's your blog post really about? I'm a Republican and I can't stand a Democratic presidential nominee. Look closely, I'm feigning shock.
The entire post in hypersensitivity to McCain's treatment combined with being tone deaf to criticism of Obama. You say the mainstream media is unfair in its treatment. Poppycock!
McCain, if anything, is getting little scrutiny while the press obsesses over Hillary-Barack divisions within the Democratic Party. What you ignore is both Hillary's and Barack's negative poll numbers have been increasing because of this press coverage.
Obama's Reverend Wright flap - which the press (especially right-wing Fox News) obsessed over for many weeks - is completely overlooked in your post. Meanwhile, the media conservatives conveniently use as a liberal whipping boy when it doesn't dance to their partisan tune, has given Reverend Hagee little notice by comparison. I know some conservatives (of course, they only watch Fox News) who didn't know who Hagee was until I brought him up.
You complain Obama is "whining," yet is the tone of your blog any different or, in fact, worse? Of course, the standard debate tactic spin is my complaints are valid; my opponent's are a pathetic little "whine."
If you can't stand the press do what my conservative buddies do: only watch Fox News. I watched it some this afternoon. Stuff on McCain was positive and defending him against criticism. Stuff on the "Dems" exposed their flaws, controversies, divisions, and weaknesses.
Cutting through all the bull about conservatives complaining about the liberal mainstream media and their standard is right-wing Fox News. Which is to say conservatives don't really give a hoot about fairness in media coverage. Quite the contrary.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 18.05.2008 @ 12:12
FOR THE LAST TIME - BARACK OBAMA IS GOING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT
"The bottom line is simple but lost on the mainstream press which... continues to treat the nomination process as a competitive enterprise rather than the flailing efforts of the Clinton campaign to overturn a result that for all practical and realistic purposes has been confirmed by the party."
A not too surprising conservative swipe at the so-called MSM and Hillary Clinton. But it's pretty thin.
What's really happening? Senator Obama was a great unknown entering the race. It's both his greatest strength and greatest weakness. An attractive candidate, it's obviously easier to buy his soaring rhetoric he's head and shoulders better than the rest of the pack when you don't know anything about him.
Reverend Wright. Over-promising. Endless contradictions. His wife mouth off. Etc. Gee, he's a typical politician too.
The problem for the Democrats is Obama built a huge delegate lead before his dirt started to surface. We know Clinton's dirt. We know McCain's dirt. The worry for Democrats is has Obama peaked? Is it all downhill from here?
The "wake of Hillary’s Kamikaze attack" quip completely misses what's going on. Hillary's campaign is only one part of the equation. Have you watched Fox News obsess over Reverend Wright? Right-wing talk radio? The rest of the so-called "liberal media" isn't far behind.
That's obviously where the super delegates come in. While it's doubtful they'll overturn the pledged delegate results, if Obama continues to self-destruct they may be forced to.
That's why these final primaries are more than pointless bean counting, as you suggest. Hillary is showing far more strength in the end than Obama and in critical races that'll be important to the Democrats come the real election. If - I admit it's unlikely - Hillary were to take North Carolina plus the next couple of states she's expected to win it makes a pretty strong case Obama's done, put a fork in him.
"This idea of Black anger is more than just Democrats whistling past the graveyard."
Will African-Americans forever bolt from the Democratic party if the unlikely scenario unfolds that super delegates coronate Hillary? Doubtful. The alternative is a less than friendly Republican Party. They may stay home in '08 but come '12 it's a new ball game, especially if McCain ends up in the White House.
And sticking with Obama to the bitter end, should he become damaged political goods, in an attempt to appease Democrats who think this way is a losing proposition in any case. If he were to get blown out in the general election, there'd still be a backlash. The argument would be the Democrats didn't support him enough. They'd, like you, blame Hillary and the Democratic establishment.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 3.05.2008 @ 10:05
Steve,
Did you catch what you said? "Fair and balanced" gets under liberals skins because Fox News "attack(s)" liberals. ;)
How can Fox News be "fair and balanced" and "attack" one side of the political spectrum? By definition that's conservative bias. Thanks for making my case!
Comment Posted By sknabt On 30.08.2007 @ 22:40
Rick,
One thing you failed to mention in telling your half the story is the fact that the networks have had some trouble getting Republican candidates to appear. A similar, if less organized, problem as Fox News is having with scheduling Democratic candidates who are pretty much boycotting the network.
Of course, who can blame the Democrats?
The last Democratic presidential candidate I saw on Fox News was Senator Chris Dodd on O'Reilly's show. Did you see this farce? O'Reilly didn't like what Dodd had to say so he literally shouted him down refusing to let Dodd speak uninterrupted.
I dare you to find any example of an ABC, CBS, or NBC morning program treating a Republican thusly.
It isn't an isolated instance. Fox News has continually trashed John Edwards. Hannity ran a long segment Sunday on Hannity's America trashing Edwards. Brit Hume's "Political Grapevine" segment yesterday singled out Edwards for abuse. John Gibson, headliner for The Big Story, sat by idly on his radio show while his sidekick "Angry Rich" spewed about Edwards "whoring" his wife's cancer. Gibby fantasized out loud about interviewing Edwards so he could beat him up with loaded questions.
Fox News isn't news. It's conservative talk radio in a cable news format. It's designed by Roger Ailes, the executive producer of Rush's old tv show, who's an expert at such things.
Can I find liberal bias in the so-called "mainstream media"? Absolutely. I can find conservative bias as well. If you visit liberal Media Matters' web site you'll see they spend far more time outing the conservative spin in the "mainstream media" than they do Fox News and conservative talk radio.
Conservatives who often blather on about wanting balance in the media are full of manure because the media they popularize like the vast sewer of right-wing hate radio is pure, unadulterated propaganda where they're lucky to get even half the truth.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 30.08.2007 @ 21:53
"Mindboggling stupidity."
It's hard to follow your rant. Does this refer to "whoring" family values Republicans or Democrats making the argument Republicans' behavior should match their political rhetoric?
But this is clearly stated: "The publisher of a magazine that promotes gratuitous and consequence-free sex is now sitting in judgment of people who have simply followed his formulaic lifestyle and engaged in a little slap and tickle with a willing partner."
How could you miss by a country mile Flint's obvious point in his expensive little exercise in exposing Republican Congressmen? Larry Flint is more than happy to have them whore to their libido's content. What bothers him is these are the same pack of adulterers who went after Bill Clinton over Monica (oh, it wasn't about the sex ;) ). These are the same wear-it-on-your-sleeve moralists who endlessly grouse over Hollywood morals. They chase homosexuals back into the closet to save the sanctity of marriage. The pretend to be protectors of Christian values.
Is what's making the bile come up your throat on this one, Rick, the knowledge that Larry's right? Republicans want to claim exclusive claim to family values in America. Look at a right-wing demagogue like Bill O'Reilly, the "no spin" "cultural warrior." He constantly rants about the left being nothing but immoral "secular progressives" who "hate America" or are "un-American." Of course, there's no one into self-love more than Bill O'Reilly who has his own sex scandal problem but that doesn't keep right-wing hypocrites like him from sanctimonious displays of moral purity. Former Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson for many years ranted against the left being a bunch of immoral "secular humanists" who hate God and religion.
That's Larry's point. Like your love of "classic porn," the Republican Party should admit they're human and quit the sanctimonious liberal-bashing citing moral superiority. Few Congressmen, liberal or conservative, are shining examples of Christian piety or morality. Republicans need to dump the thin, self-serving illusion.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 14.07.2007 @ 09:08
I realize, Rick, you're tickled pink Scooter got his sentence commuted hence all the fun you're having mocking the left. But considering all your sanctimonious rants of the past, telling anyone to hide sharp objects is laughable. I often worry you'll stroke out.
As a liberal, I'm hardly bouncing off the walls over Bush commuting Scooter's sentence. Considering all the casualties because of his incompetence in Iraq, this bit of political corruption is small potatoes. I am disgusted though.
Unlike your typical rants, this isn't a partisan disgust. Clinton abused his right to pardon. Daddy Bush did too. I'm sure most presidents do. Still, it's a highly corrupt act.
Naturally, Bush didn't go through the typical motions of passing Scooter's commutation through the Justice Department. Why? It has nothing to do with justice. Is it Bush the political coward caving into pressure from his party? Is it bare naked cronyism? Considering Plame-gate potentially touches the White House it's clearly a conflict of interest.
There are around 3,000 people on the list seeking presidential pardons. Bush runs his pal Scooter to the top of the list. You, of course, are gleeful he did. Obviously, right-wing partisans think Scooter should get special privileges on the grounds he's a loyal Republican. Democrats to the back of the bus?
I can't wait for your next rant lambasting the Democrats for being soft on crime where you pound your chest about the "rule of law." It's all about political gamesmanship. Principle be damned.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 4.07.2007 @ 09:03
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND SELF DEFENSE: SUICIDE IS PAINLESS
I hate to stop you in mid rant. I know it feels good to act sanctimonious and pound your chest. I know you're so wed to right-wing ideology it feels good to 'prove' those you consider political opponents are immoral so-and-so's without a single shred of human decency.
But there's a major flaw in your hogwash. You're running around at the speed of the Internet visiting blogs so you can run back here all outraged to post what others you agree with are saying about some story.
Take Amnesty International, an organization I could really care less about. But when a argument is too outrageous and pat, it's usually thickly sliced baloney. If you bothered to actually read the report I believe you're outraged over they cover the point:
"The briefing does not cover in any detail the broader implications of the bombing campaign. It does not evaluate the extent of the human rights impact, including violations of the rights to life or economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to food, health and housing, and does not address longer-term economic impact and the massive internal and cross-border displacement. Nor does it address the attacks by Hizbullah into Israel and their impact on civilians – these are being addressed elsewhere. This briefing highlights one aspect of the conflict, but underlines the need for an urgent and comprehensive international inquiry into the conduct of the hostilities by both parties." - http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE180072006
(emphasis added)
I'm not defending the report. AI should cover all aspects in this situation. But they made it clear the focus of the report and to read a lot of other stuff into it is convenient spin.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 2.09.2006 @ 13:32
I'll trade you the Houston Chronicle for my hometown paper, the Richmond-Times Disgrace, a right-wing rag whose editorial page should be printed on a roll. It makes RWNH here look absolutely liberal as Hades by comparison. ;)
But ain't that the problem? We're always looking for sources to tell us what we want to hear?
What I find dangerous isn't the much whined about msm. NewsBusters' site whines they're liberal and data mines some examples. MediaMatter's site whines they're conservative and data mines some examples. Both only pick on a small fraction of the news released on a daily basis.
What really bothers me is the growing trend of people seeking out biased sources. Political/news blogs are an outlet for personal outrage and opinion. It's people imitating the talk radio phenomena which is pure spin.
I believe in freedom speech. I hail blogs. I run one with a buddy. But anyone who looks to them as a key source of information needs a brain scan.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 29.08.2006 @ 18:02
