Thread: Anyone want to still blame Obama?

Originally Posted by AetheLove

You say that a lot.




I can't find this survey. Your link goes to NewsBusters. Their tagline is "Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias" - so at least they wear their editorial agenda out in the open. But since their very existence assumes up-front that media has a liberal bias, maybe they're not my go-to source on the matter.

Their link to the original article in Investor's Business Daily returns a 404.

There is another link to American Thinker (a "daily conservative online magazine"), who also have a column on the survey. They mention something I found interesting: most survey respondents are free-lancers, and report that they have no employer. A few respond that they are freelancers for a particular news service. Quoting from their article: "That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations."

So I wonder if the journalists in the survey are representative of news organizations.

I also wonder if any bias in a news organization is likely to come more from employees, or more from the owners and/or the editorial board.

There are other things to wonder about. For instance, many people here in these forums criticize media directly (mostly television news) as being pretty shitty no matter which side of any particular fence they live on.

I wonder how the survey decided who qualified as a news organization. There are a lot of places that use the news label but are almost completely opinion and analysis.





You seem to focus less on issues and more on dividing people into categories that you can put labels on. A wide variety of posters here have specifically denied that they fit neatly into these categories, but it hasn't kept you from continuing to apply them. You use these labels in exactly the same way as do so many tv "news" organizations - as proxies for "good" and "bad." This is the conclusion of your post: you find the evidence overwhelming that SmokenScion is A Liberal.

Is that really your purpose in posting here?

Who is it that's wasting everyone's time?

Cheers,


AetheLove

Bah. Someone who consistently defends the liberal progressive viewpoint and then claims not to be a liberal is someone who needs to be called out for that behavior. I suspect if I tried to tell you all that I was a moderate I'd get similar responses. The difference here is that I'm brave enough to state exactly who I am and to own it. I'm a constitutional conservative and proud of it. The funny thing is there are those of you here who label me as "Republican" and think that means conservative, which could not be further from the truth. No I'll usually try to avoid pinning party affiliation on someone, but as to ideology, hell no. I'm not afraid to call it what it is. If someone's a pomegranate, they can call themselves an apple all they want, but old Laz will call them a pomegranate until they start acting like an apple. Or people can just look in the mirror and say "you know what, I'm a fucking pomegranate", and own it. Not my problem if someone chooses not to do that, or whatever their motives for doing it are.

This strategy liberals use where they espouse or defend a specifically liberal ideology and then tell everyone they are moderate is right out of Saul Alinsky's playbook. I will continue to call a spade a spade here, thankyouverymuch. Why is this useful to do? Because it's important to remember just where people are in the political continuum when dealing with them. Otherwise Saul Alinsky style tactics will always work.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Well, ok then.

I suppose that if people need to be called out for exhibiting liberal behaviour, then you're the guy for the job. Brave in deed.




I wasn't aware that Saul Alinsky was a bad guy, or that his organization and rhetorical techniques were the sole province of Liberals. I guess he was pretty liberal about sharing his Rules for Radicals, hoping that it would help the disenfranchised of any sort. I just checked, and I don't see his playbook on my shelf. Maybe I can order it from Amazon. Maybe I'll send a copy to Doug Marrone and the Bills won't suck so much this year.

Saul will be happy to know that you're not afraid to call a spade a spade. He'll be less happy to know that rhetorical shenanigans know no master, and are now also the tool of the enfranchised.



...because we judge people based on the company you say they keep, not on their personal convictions or the ideas they bring.

Also, good luck with your list of enemies.

Cheers,


AetheLove

First, Saul Alinsky was most certainly a "bad guy". Brilliant, but absolutely evil. Everyone on the left is playing by his rules. Which makes it hard to be reasonable with them, because when dealing with these tactics if you try to play nice, you end up with your balls in a sling. So no. I'll call it every time I see it. Period. Your sarcasm and feigned confusion is noted, but has little bearing on the reality of what we are watching the left in this country do, every day.

Your reference to the "enfranchised" using Alinsky's playbook is a bit quizzical to me since the enfranchised are currently those who support those same liberal progressive values. Calling the behavior out where it lives is not the same as using those tactics.

As far as judging people and what we judge them by, you judge them however you like. I'll call them what they are, or at least treat them accordingly with my responses.

My only declared enemies are the enemies of our Republic. Those who would seek power and seek to use that power to destroy the foundation this country was built on. That is the threat that the Obama administration represents, along with the establishment in Washington which the Tea Party seeks to remove using peaceful political discourse. I'm sure you disagree with me but as I said before. I'll call it like it is.

And since this has jack all to do with blaming Obama at this point...