It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kerry Wails at Loss to 'This Idiot' Nov 5th

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Big O

Ed, although I find your idea about this whole thing amusing, I think you need to find better people to associate your ideas with. I'm certain you are not a racist, and I would advise that you not back the writings or people who defend racism and those who write about it in a positve manner. It reflects poorly on someone who obviously has more intelligence than these folks do.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by The Big O]



Well I see your source as the New york Times. Well my source was probably Drudge in this case I cant remember, maybe Newsmax.

Two different ends of the spectrum I agree.

No I am not a racist, but I hold the New York Times in about as much as you would hold Newsmax.

I guess we are both in a quandry....Is Bush stupid? I say no.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Actually, the NYTIMEs article supported the one that you posted.

It was MediaMatters.org that had the section that exposed the racist stuff.

Just for clarification.

David Brock is behind MediaMatters.org. You may know him as the architect of the TrooperGate scandal that the right tried to nail Clinton on.

His most famous book is Blinded by the Right, where he discusses his movement in life from the left, to the extreme right, and then back to the left.

It's actually an interesting read, however since he is gay there is a lot of homosexual stuff in there and it may make some people feel uncomfortable as at times he can be quite explicit.

If you want an interesting viewpoint from when the march to nail Clinton on something began and to when it ended, his book privides that.

It is a biased book, so know that going in when reading it.



Oh, and perhaps Stupid is not the correct term to describe Bush. However, I don't think there is anything substantial here to be able to say who is smarter than who.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by The Big O]



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   
big O,

And right on time for ya....in comes one of the leading liberal attack dogs.....bout time he got here. Launching into the, oh so stinging republican rebukes. just in time to lecture us about how successful and non-c like executives are�obviously either ignoring or not even knowing about a number of studies that correlate A and B�s to failure in the business world, and c�s to success.

Well I think I�m going to go lay down I�m still reeling from that clever gopitarian line. One more thing bout time, now that you layed out your oh so successful past that puts you in such a unique position to judge the president, I have one question? How many times have you addressed congress?



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   
keholmes,

I'm not sure from your posts if the issue you are talking about is me or David Brock. It sounds like it is Brock you are calling the liberal attack dog, and I can see the "attack dog" title being okay to use.

MediaMatters.org is an organization that points out "errors" or what they consider "slants" in journalism or media.

With my follow up post to Ed I was attempting to say that the article I found on MediaMatters.org was not without a political slant, and listed a book by Brock that would explain why he thinks the way he does.

Obviously David Brock has an agenda, as does Drudge and NewsMax, like Ed hinted at.

I just wanted to know.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Well when you expose mainstream media as biased and agenda laden, I might give some credit....



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The book, "What Liberal Media" by Eric Alterman is an interesting read.

www.whatliberalmedia.com/

There was a PBS special on media, and just what sort of affiliation the people in big media calling the big shots (CEO's, top level execs, ect) actually have, but I can't remember what the title was.

It was interesting nonetheless. They did a good job trying to explain why the make up in various parts of various sections of media as populated by certain types of people.

However, anyone who tries to argue that no one has a bias in media is wrong. By human nature, everyone has some form of bais towards everything. It is the very mechanism in our thought that allows for emotions.

Whether one actually presents a significant portion of that bais in their work is another questions. It is impossible to rule out all bais. It is quite another thing toi limit it as much as possible, thus appropriating fair reporting.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by keholmes
big O,

And right on time for ya....in comes one of the leading liberal attack dogs.....bout time he got here. Launching into the

Sorry big o got a little too cute with the veiled reference.....it should be clearer with this highlighting.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Got it keyholmes.

I totally overlooked that someone named bouttime was a poster.

Man, when I was reading your post I had no idea what you were talking about since I thought it was in refrence to me.

Now it makes a lot more sense.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Big O
Got it keyholmes.

again sorry, I have a bad habit of making some very veiled references.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Does anyone have the quote from NBC when Brokaw asked about the military scores and Kerry slipped and said that they couldnt know that because he hasnt released all his records?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join