mr_genius

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 03:30 PM) Um, hmmmm. don't question it. obviously tazering an old lady in a wheel chair 10 times is exactly the same thing as what happened at the University of Florida. thats why the link is important. it's a perfectly logical direction for this thread to go. tazering the kid was sort of a cop-out (pun intended). they should have just dragged him out kicking and screaming like a spoiled little kid who's parents gave him timeout from his nintendo. oh the humanity!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 01:08 PM) Another example of the liberal media trying to make Thompson look bad. I guess he must really be scaring them. Sad they just won't let the American public decide and report on that. You fool. When will you realize the corporate fascist oppressor blood for oil lying people dying government that RUNS these networks. Viva EL CHE !!!! ahhhhh! Don't Taze me bro (bzzzzzzzzzz) ahhhhhhh !!!!!

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 05:51 AM) It is what it is. Like the study points out, it's not "liberals know more!," it's more "MSM (including Fox News) is a poor source of information." Fox News just happens to be at the bottom of the barrel. The study doesn't show a clear bias towards liberal or conservative views (again, Limbaugh and O'Reily are ranked high), but it shows that a lot of the MSM has little or no substance. Oh, of course, FOX news watchers are just the dumbest of all the morons. You're right, take it for what it is, and thats what I am doing. Everyone knows the "daily show" is the best source of news, ever. Well, that or the onion, maybe even newsgrouper.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 10:58 PM) Great, so fundraising scandals are big stories. So you should clearly know who Alan B Fabian is. Who is he? Let me guess, something to do with Romney. You seem to really be on a kick like that. Of course you brush over Clinton and change the subject. If they put any Mitt Romney fund raising scandal on the front page and go after him constantly thats fine with me. They should do the same thing with H.Clinton

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 10:07 PM) Quite a few more Democrats in both houses voted against the war than for it. Incorrect. 8 more in the Senate voted for it than against. with major Dems like Kerry and Clinton in favor http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:13 PM) You're wasting your time. Yea, I know.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 08:19 PM) Remember how no one in the media bothered to question any of the administration's rhetoric on the march to war in Iraq? they were the rah-rah cheerleaders for the whole thing. Of course, in their minds, war = $$$, so I'd say it was greed and complete lack of journalist integrity and not a political bent. BTW, with Fox's "alternative view," viewers are the least informed. I don't think the study is biased as Limbaugh and O'Reily listeners rank pretty high. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319 A majority of Fox's programming are opinion shows and not news shows, anyway. The media was cheerleaders as long as the Democrat party supported the war, once the Dems turn so does the MSM. As far as FOX viewers are "least informed", I will point out that many surveys show Republicans are more educated, successful and smarter than Democrats on average. Also, I'm sure I could conduct a poll that shows people who watch CNN are least informed, it's easy to do. I wouldn't take these things as ultimate proof as there are lurking variables that lead to the implied conclusion. Not to say that all polls are bad, just be weary when they seem to be out to prove a certain political objective.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 07:56 PM) So you're saying that covering a Presidential candidate's plan by listing the details of the plan and quoting the candidate explaining why she thinks its a good plan is considered biased coverage? Not at all. Please read the other posts in the thread, it was being used as an example of a negative article against a Dem. I am merely pointing out that it is hardly negative. Of course it is important, if I was in charge of a MSM newsroom it would be a big story. They may be a little gun shy to cover it because they know that Dems are also involved in fund raising scandals, so they probably consider it best to ignore. We'll see, I wouldn't be suprised if this becomes the new huge story and proof of the "GOP culture of corruption" if Romney wins a few primaries.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 07:24 PM) Your comparison to Clinton/Hsu and Larry Craig isn't a valid one. Story One: A Clinton fundraiser turned out to be a crook, there was weirdness around his actions and he tried to run from the law. Clinton returns the money raised by Hsu. Clinton shuts up about it, the story dies. Story Two: Larry Craig gets arrested for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, keeps it under wraps for two months, and when it leaks out - goes out of his way to proclaim his innocence after pleading guilty in court, resigns and then publicly floats the idea of rescinding his resignation, goes to court to fight his guilty plea and does more to keep this story in the news than anyone else involved. The story initially floats longer than it should because the man in question actively votes and encourages intolerance towards the team he bats for, at least part of the time. Then it keeps floating because the good Senator doesn't know how to keep a low profile after. BTW: Larry Craig was also the co-chair for the Romney campaign. I certainly think it is valid. Hillary Clinton is likely to be the next president of the United States and is involved in a major fund raising scandal. She got a total pass, of course she would keep her mouth shut. Graig is an idiot who pleaded guilty to lewd conduct and got destroyed in the media. He should have shut up, but decided to "clear his name" because of all the attention the MSM hit him with. Not as important as what happened with Clinton. IMO, dirty money is a bigger deal in Washington than a dirty old Senator from Idaho looking for gay sex. And there is no way that the news ratio should have been like 300 to 1 in the MSM on this. Edit: I read the article, and it's in no way a bad article for Clinton. There is a little information that "critics don't like the plan" and then the rest of the article explains why Clinton likes the plan or how the plan is actually good. There is no real criticism in the article, just the fact that 'some GOP guy criticized it'. THAT is what you guys are considering a negative article? That article was not negative at all, it gave much more print to the pro of the plan over the con. Actually, the entire article as basically her pro-health care stance, basically no information against.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 06:54 PM) OK, two things. One, I said almost the same or the same. And I'd agree the MSM tends a bit left - even showed a graph. But I really do mean a little bit. Your claim that the magic D gets them off 90% of the time seems ludicrous to me. Two, I asked what you were talking about because you leapt from criticism of candidates to unfair political attacks on them, which wasn't what I was talking about. Clinton getting grilled isn't an attack. And let's look at the two stories we discussed today... Clinton's health plan gets articles on the front page of CNN.com where numerous people cite their criticisms, and she responds. Thompson is quoted for not knowing about the Everglades, which gets a much smaller mention and if you read the text (not the post), its just matter of fact statements. Seems about right, yes? Clinton is the bigger target right now, so she gets more follow. And I can't tell you how many times we've read in the MSM about the mistakes of Edwards, Obama, etc. Probably even more so than the GOP candidates, in fact. Please post a link to this article that criticizes Clinton's health plan. Also, there is no way a mistake by a Dem gets the same coverage. Hillary Clinton takes 800k in contributions (and is pals with) some guy forcing people to give donations, and is a blatant rip off artist. Half a day news. Some gay Republican is charged with a misdemeanor lewd conduct, BOOM! top news for atleast a month. Republican says "maccaca" or whatever the hell that is and it's news for months, top news. Hillary Clinton makes racist jokes about Indians and Ghandi. Nothing. There's a billion more examples. News rooms are 90% Democrat, and they support Democrats and attack Republicans. It fits there world view. Yes, they think they are objective, but they are not even close. You know what? Thats fine, but you also need to realize that a right wing news station was eventually going to come along and counter balance. FOX has tons of viewers sick of only pro-Democrat news, they are very successful because they offer an alternative view. Deal with it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 06:42 PM) Of course it should, and of course its not an unfair attack. What are you talking about? They attack ALL the candidates, and as far as I see most of the time, they give equal B.S. to both parties or very close to it. What am I talking about...?? I've replied to atleast 30 posts from you about media bias, you should know "what I'm talking about". I know you aren't this dense. And no, the MSM does not attack ALL candidates equally, not even close. The magic (D) will get you off 90% of the time. Only the most spectacular or grievous of offenses are covered. Also, your posts contradict themselves. In another thread you admit to a left bias in the media, but when you post here you claim no bias.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 05:50 PM) ^^ ^^ Just look at CNN's political page Picture of Obama, Clinton Dismisses Critics Why Washington Doesn't Get Thompson and of courese another Craig story. Disgusting. I think the government may have transferred NUKE to the counter cyber-terrorism department and he is practicing by hacking Texsox account

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 06:10 PM) Are you serious? Look at the main page for the news sources. Clinton announced her health plan, and today its criticisms of it. That's what happens. What and where? Examples please. You think a legitimate look at a major change to health care shouldn't be looked at? How is talking about Clinton's health care program some example of a unfair political attack?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) They aren't biased... they're lazy and incompetent. "Ohhh, this report wasn't biased, I'm just lazy." I call BS on that. How come they are always "lazy" when it comes to a hit job on the GOP. You rarely, if ever, see a "lazy" report trashing a Democrat.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 09:46 PM) I mean, you just don't see the main outlets do stuff like this article I was pointing out - not in the news section. Kinda like a news program going on air with forged documents to attempt to sway an election... ooops Yes, I understand and have made improvements. NY Times--ABC/CBS/NBC/------------------------------CNN------------------------MIDDLE--------------------------------------------------------------------------FOX Getting news from a Democrat point of view and Republican point of view doesn't hurt IMO. It would be great if all the major news rooms were totally unbiased but I don't think that is really possible. It is up to the viewer/reader to distinguish what is important and recognize agendas when they are being pursued in the name of news.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 08:37 AM) In case anyone wondered why Faux News isn't taken seriously as a news source, there is yet another example. I know, the only real news sources are the New York Times (Jason Blair) and CBS (Dan Rather). Woo hoo, goooooo news! Seriously though, if someone thinks that the O'reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes is news, they are fooling themselves. Those are opinion shows, nothing more or less. As far as the other FOX news shows or outlets, they are no worse than most of the news you consider accurate.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) Similar, though worsened. That is what I have been saying. I think it might be slightly worse, but just about the same. They already hated the Jew loving Great Satan (united states) before. Who really cares if the guy suicide bombing you super duper hates you or just simply hates you. You're dead either way

Giuliani raised 100 million for the new wing. It's hardly an unusual practice to name a building after people who have financially supported an institution.

QUOTE(ChWRoCk2 @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) Anyone else see his quote on ESPN its ridiculous, "I thought what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas." What a moron. yea i saw that . maybe he's just setting up a insanity plea

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 11:48 PM) New patriots logo:

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 10:49 PM) No. If you REALLY want to be like the "Goracle" then you'll go everywhere in a private jet that swallows more fuel in a 2 or 3 trips than my Cherokee does in a full year. pfft, mere details and facts. the Goracle raises awareness of global warming and tells the rest of us what to do. he is a great man.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 10:01 PM) As another former ESPN boarder, this place is so much better. More sox posters, and less Boog. lol, i remember boog or the blue jays fan, smirnoffkid or something, who used to always post on the White Sox board because he was pissed about Mike Sirotka trade

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 03:31 PM) What do you expect from a Cubs fan? Good point BigSqwert

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 04:51 PM) Taking Al Gore's message to heart I've Taken a position where I work from home 80% of the time. Purchased wind energy for my home. Moved close to school so I can walk or ride my bike Set my thermostat at 80 So can I talk about environmental issues without being a hypocrit? yes

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 02:42 PM) And on top of that...there's still the other issue...that even in what we'd consider a large sample, like 2000 people, Iraq has to be unbelievably difficult to poll accurately...because you don't want your pollsters to wind up dead. It has to be unbelievably difficult to get an unbiased sample, and even 2000 people might not be enough For an example...the first Lancet study of casualties in Iraq, talked to 988 households, and thus sampled 7868 people. The 2nd Lancet study, which produced the most recent 655,000 casualties due to the war estimate, was over 2x as large. ah yes, the abuses of applied statistics. how random was selection of the people polled? did the person setting out to gather data report credible data or data that they wanted to hear? were areas of heavy insurgence violence polled more often than those without? has the poll been fabricated for political uses (which is easy to do in a place like Iraq)? did the people doing the poll include non-violent death? the number of actual reported deaths due to violence in Iraq is around 75,000 civilian deaths.