TheBigHurt35

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ May 9, 2005 -> 01:42 PM) Hey all -- don't know why I'm sharing this here but I figure I should, haha. For all those who get the Herald News (Joliet, etc.) -- be sure to look for me as one of the new op ed columnists for this upcoming set of columnists. I got the phone call this afternoon that they want me to start writing for them this summer. I'm still in shock that they actually liked the two test columns that I sent in. See, I TOLD you there's liberal bias in the media!

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ May 9, 2005 -> 02:44 PM) f*** that. That's exactly what you said. No, it's not. I never said that they could only protest in Washington and that playing anywhere else makes them cowardly. You can argue otherwise, but you'd be putting words in my mouth. Funny how "freedom of speech" applies only to liberal rock bands and not conservatives who take issue with said bands when they play shows in Cuba on a stage used for anti-American rallies. It's just an opinion. If you don't like it, don't read my posts.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ May 9, 2005 -> 12:13 PM) Also while I'm not really a fan of the band the members have obviously been protesting through their music and other forms for years on American soil. Which is the way it should be done. Throwing bombs at America from a rogue nation like Cuba is about as un-American as it gets. QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ May 9, 2005 -> 12:24 PM) Apparently they have to play every concert in Washington DC right outside government buildings now. Playing in any other location makes them cowardly. Even if they're playing music that's not political. Nice try, but that's not what I said. So typical of lefties... :headshake

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ May 9, 2005 -> 11:26 AM) Good luck, I couldn't figure it out either. It's a simple concept: If you have a problem with someone, you confront them personally. You don't talk about them behind their backs like a coward. If Audioslave has a problem with U.S. policy, they should be protesting in Washington, not as guests of the anti-American government in Havana.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ May 8, 2005 -> 10:11 PM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155808,00.html Voilcker says 'lives are in jeapordy'. Who's, his own if the truth about Kofi gets out? Kojo's if the embarrassment is too great for daddy to handle? Kofi's is some of his fellow conspirators find out he was getting a bigger chuck of the booty that they thought? I love the part where Volcker asks Kofi to order the former investigator to NOT comply with the congressional subpeona. Why does this not surprise me? Of course, we could always shut down the UN building until they decide to play by the rules.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ May 9, 2005 -> 08:59 AM) I respect your opinion, but I thought you were implying that unless they protest inside the U.S, they're cowards ....and they have done plenty of that. I do think that protesting against the U.S. in a rogue state is somewhat cowardly. They have the RIGHT to do it, of course, but I think that it reflects poorly on them. That said, protesting inside the U.S. is a completely different story. IIRC, they're all citizens who pay taxes and vote, so that's fine with me.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ May 9, 2005 -> 08:36 AM) You obviosuly didn't follow Rage and don't follow AS that closely. Zach and Rage did a TON of protesting at their shows here in America. In fact, if I remember correctly they'd even hang the U.S. flag upside down on their drumkit sometimes. That's the beauty of America, it gives you the freedom to protest. Thanks for proving my point. Like I said, I have no problem with them protesting. But those who protest the U.S. in communist nations look like cowards to me. JMO.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ May 7, 2005 -> 01:11 AM) How are Cornell and Audioslave communist sympathizers for playing in Cuba? I am not seeing the connection. Perhaps the communist sympathizer part was a bit off base, but let's look at a few facts... (1) They're playing on the Anti-Imperialist Stage, which the Cuban government has used many times to protest against the U.S. (2) The U.S. is currently involved in a controversial war and is being accused by many of being "imperialist." (3) The former incarnation of Audioslave, Rage Against the Machine, was very political and very blatantly liberal. So, I'm to believe Chris Cornell when he says that this is only about music? Perhaps, but I'm not naive enough to believe that. Only a fool wouldn't at least be suspicious. FWIW, I have no problem with Audioslave protesting U.S. foreign policy. Acting like men and doing it on American soil would make them look better, though.

It's sad that the former frontman of a great band like Soundgarden is not only a Communist-sympathizer, but a hypocrite as well. :headshake

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ May 6, 2005 -> 01:34 PM) The problem, IMHO, is that when Teddy R. gobbled up that land back in the early 20th century, it was done in the interest of keeping the lands pristine and untouched by development. This makes it a good idea for the gov't to have all that land. Something tells me that Teddy Roosevelt didn't spend a crapload of taxpayer money for a wildlife refuge that's over twice the size of Texas. I'm not saying that it should be developed like Manhattan, but what the hell is the point of owning Alaska if it isn't used for something?

QUOTE(Nokona @ May 5, 2005 -> 03:51 PM) $*%@%*#(%*#(%*@(#%*@(%@#&!$^!. God f***ign damnit. Why? What is the f***ing idea behind this? Absurd. Most likely to create jobs in a stagnant economy. Not that that's a good excuse, though. If people would either start using birth control or simply keep their pants on, we would have less need to wipe out forests to accomodate our ever-expanding population.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ May 5, 2005 -> 12:06 PM) Bono originally endorsed Paul Martin and I'm happy Bono is trying to hold Martin to the standards he endorsed him on. Unfortunately, Bono's "let's give all of the world's poor countries a ton of free stuff" standards are completely unrealistic. Bono has a great heart, but he has absolutely no idea how the real world functions.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2005 -> 12:11 PM) Isn't that Guadalupe Day? IIRC. And FYI, Cinco De Mayo is the victory over the French, and the last time that a forgein power invaded this continent. Well, that would explain it. It IS interesting how many people (including myself) have no idea of what Cinco de Mayo actually celebrates. Admittedly, I'm only in it for the fine Mexican cuisine and margaritas.

QUOTE(sec159row2 @ May 5, 2005 -> 09:01 AM) Mexican independence from Spain... ??? I seem to recall that although it's celebrated today, the actual date of Mexican Independence is not May 5th. Not sure of that, though...

I like Bono as both a person and an artist, but I agree that his political grandstanding is obnoxious at times. I wonder how much of U2's profits are donated to the poor?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 06:05 PM) Take it as its a wonderfully warm evening and approximately 15 minutes before a Sox game but since you insist -- ther word media appears within seven words of 'liberal bias' 469 times and withing seven words of 'conservative bias' just 17 times. The media gives much more play to "liberal bias" even though there is nothing backing up their claims. Back in 1995, Bill Kristol even stated to the New Yorker: "The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Rich Bond, former chair of the RNC explained that the claims of liberal bias was just maneuvers in a cynical game: "There is some strategy to it. I'm a coach of kids' basketball and Little League teams. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is work the refs." If liberals run the media why do they spend so much time and effort publicizing their ruthless suppression of their adversaries? Then there is the huge monetary advantage of the conservative cause over the liberal cause to be covered in the media. Whether is was Richard Mellon Scaife's million dollar "Arkansas Project" to find anything about Bill Clinton (read David Brock's firsthand experience with him -- no time to post it here) L. Brent Bozell III's Media Research Center, the money is amazing to get the claims of bias across. And saying that journalists and anchors are liberal just because they voted a certain way in an election -- what would that prove about the political bias of a TV show/newspaper. After all those who decide what airs are the editors, not the reporters. These editors serve the publisher and most publishers are conservative and Republican. I definitely have more for you, unfortunately its "Have a couple beers and relax during the Sox game with a friend" time for me right now. I'll have the rest of my argument for you in a little bit, Hurt. Don't go responding yet until I finish! Sorry, but I'm forced to respond now, as I'm moving in about 36 hours. It's "pack up the computer time" for me... The publishers/editors at the New York Times certainly have the final say as to what goes in their paper. And, interestingly, the Times was caught reporting faudulent polling data a couple years ago. Not surprisingly, the falsified numbers consistently favored Democrats over Republicans. (See Chapter 1 of Dick Morris' "Off with their Heads!" for details of this and their other anti-Republican propaganda.) Regardless of who controls the content at the Times and regardless of their political affiliation, what's ultimately published certainly does have a liberal bias. Anyone who can't see that is either blind or lying. Dan Rather let Mapes' story go on the air without investigating it (knowing full well that she's very anti-Republican). No Republican producer (or ANY producer) intervened, despite the gravity of the accusations. CBS flat-out fabricated a story to bring down Bush right before the election. And there's NO liberal bias at CBS? Baloney! What happened to Rather and Mapes? The Republicans who run Viacom fired Mapes and "reassigned" Rather (only his reputation and tenure prevented him from being fired as well). Again, it doesn't matter who's at the top. The liberal anchors/journalists are allowed to put out whatever they want... until they're caught lying. Hell, this bias has been going on at CBS since at least the late '60s. Walter Cronkite flat-out lied to Americans on national TV about their country's "loss" during the Tet Offensive. This was obviously a pathetic attempt to energize the anti-war movement. Why would Republicans, who supposedly own the majority of media outlets, allow this to happen? To make money, of course! Do you think that conservative reporting/commentary is going to sell in, say, Harlem, Brooklyn, D.C., South Boston, or East LA? Of course not! These major newspapers slant their print to increase circulation in these areas... period. Bias in the media isn't relagated to the left. Despite their "Fair And Balanced" claim, Fox News is most definitely a conservative media outlet. Again, the owners/producers are exploiting a niche to make money: Conservative Christians who feel disenfrancised by the abundance of liberal bias on TV and the glaring lack of a conservative voice. Bias is everywhere in the media. That's it for a while. I'll check back in a week or so...

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 05:46 PM) Read "The Media Monopoly" by Ben Bagdikian or any of the books by Robert McChesney. These two experts in the field of media studies lay out the arguments much more eloquently than I. I'll take that as a "no."

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 05:38 PM) Actually you said I made no mention of it which I proved wrong -- even a person who doesn't read posts and just cherry picks for his debate without actually hitting major points can agree with that. So, are you still going to argue that the media output in this country is as conservative as its corporate ownership, or are you going to deflect my question again? Talk about cherry-picking. :rolly

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 05:31 PM) Actually I did say something about ownership -- Thanks for proving my point.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 04:22 PM) I said owners, Hurt, not anchors. There's a big difference there. No, you said nothing about owners OR anchors... QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 03:32 PM) The media is only as liberal as its conservative corporate interests that own it. The political affiliations of the managers of CBS News mean nothing when the messages they deliver on air (via Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, and other journalists with strong liberal slants) clearly and consitently support one side of the political spectrum. I don't see any correlation between the "conservative corporate interests" and the liberal anchors/television producers that they employ. Fox is known for owning the most conservative cable news channel in America, yet also spews out liberal programming like The Simple Life and The OC (and, going back many years, the then-controversial Married... With Children). Do you really think that the wealthy, conservative, Republican big-wigs that run GE are "down" with the homosexuality in Will & Grace? I'll bet that the vast majority are not.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 03:32 PM) The media is only as liberal as its conservative corporate interests that own it. So, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were as conservative as Viacom and PBS is as conservative as the Republican-dominated Congress that funds it? You crack me up. BTW, I'm sorry to hear about your family's run-ins with those misguided Priests. It's unfortunate that people like that represent the Catholic Church.

QUOTE(whitesoxin' @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 03:23 PM) The Hitler Youth was equal to the Boy Scouts here in America. The Media is just trying to stir the pot. Not that the liberal media has an agenda against the Catholic Church or anything.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 03:15 PM) Would you feel that way if it was your child molested...??? I'm not trying to start an argument here.. but I thought that way prior to knowing someone who has been abused. I've read so many articles that show time and time and time again that these sicko's are NEVER cured of their "desire" for children. Perhaps not, and I can appreciate where you're coming from. But the reality is that, like it or not, this guy does have Constitutional rights now that he's out of prison. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong... but it's the law. As much as he may deserve it, forming a lynch mob and chasing him out of town isn't the solution. This is a particularly unfortunate scenario because, as you mentioned before, sexual predators most often DO NOT change their ways. I wish that we had a legal solution.

I'm sorry to hear about that. What I'd do is pretty much what you're doing: Educating the others in the neighborhood. Keep an eye on him and tell your kids to stay the hell away from him. What I wouldn't do is harass him. He may be a sicko, but he's done his time.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 01:56 PM) The church is hurtin for members in the US. They look the other way on many things as long as you attend and give. IMO. Not to mention Canada, Europe, and pretty much everywhere outside of Central/South America. My experience with Catholic Priests has been very positive. All of the ones I've met have been incredibly nice, reasonable men. We flat-out told the Priest that did our Pre-Canna (different than the one that married us) that we were co-habitating, engaging in pre-marital sex, and using birth control and he didn't think it was a big deal. He didn't even seem to mind me arguing with him over the merits of Natural Family Planning. If the younger Priests that I've dealt with are any indication of the direction that the Catholic Church is headed in, I'd expect future Popes to be somewhat more tolerant towards pre-marital sex and birth control. IIRC, something like 85% of Catholics are using birth control. They can't afford to alienate intelligent, responsible Catholics for much longer.