Please give a cite about the majority of liberals wishing to ban guns. I’ll buy that the majority of liberals think that selling a gun to a person with possible emotional problems is not a good idea.
I understand they don’t. They appear to think that a free flow of weapons to Mexico is a small price to pay to protect gun stores. This has nothing to do with how guns are viewed, and nothing to do with the ability of law abiding citizens to purchase guns. It is actually all about how the slightest delay in gun purchase so we can be sure that the purchaser is a law-abiding citizen is the first step of a slippery slope to an outright ban. That is where the paranoid part comes in.
Apparently you didn’t read my response very well. That link was an equivalent to Michelle Malkin’s. I don’t feel like going through the site and pointing out the problems. As you said they are just links, so you could post them and accept responsibility for any inaccuracies they contain. But you won’t. What am I to assume from that. Others were willing to post the links they contend proved their point. Why aren’t you? I will assume the content is not there. Here is a cite for my contention. I’m still waiting for yours.
Bricker and** Magellan01** why don’t you just post a link to the violent imagery from Democrats that you claim exists? It will be easier for you to continue your game, and more fruitful because I am already bored, but you have made no points. Do you have examples of violent imagery by Democrats or by groups supported by Democrats? If so, please post a link.
Would you agree that before someone could make that assessment that they’d need to know not just the number of threats, but the number of people making those threats? For instance, let’s say that Dems receive 100 threats and the Reps receive 50, but that that all the threats to the Reps came from 50 different people and all the threats to the Dems came from, say, just ten different people. If that was the case, side would you say was the more violent?
That’s some pretty interestin’ spin you got there.
Death threats have gone up as the mid-term populist rhetoric heated up and Obama has had several fold more death threats than did Bush. Correlation does not prove causation. The angry rhetoric and the threats can both be the result of an ongoing recession. Suggestive it is; proof it is not. But it is pretty dang suggestive.
Ah. “I know you are, but what am I?” Always a fine debating tactic.
Nope, it doesn’t bug me at all. Neither would a book in which Obama is threatened with trained scorpions. Feel free to write or commission one, if you think it’s so damning.
As for purpose, I suspect it was to entertain. I saw the movie Moonraker, but I didn’t think it was advocating that someone should kill off the Earth’s population and colonize the moon with a select group of survivors. Was that the message you took away from that classic?
Oh, come now. You brought up the movie and the book, you should at least know what the hell they were actually about. Surely you didn’t just hear someone talking about it on some other message board and didn’t bother verifying the violence inherent in the medium, did you?
Catching up…tried to render this so as to be as comprehensible as possible (yes, I admit…I am not familiar with the method for citing multiple posts and responding to them in one post :o)
Perhaps you could cite the incidents you speak of…with the exception of Al Franken’s book, *Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot *(EXCELLENT book, btw, as was Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them…I cited it in my paper, in fact, after having verified the veracity of the facts I wanted to include, and got a HUGE kick out of being able to write up an MLA citation of such an awesome title……ALMOST as much of a kick as I got of citing the equally awesome article entitled, *Whoopie Goldberg Calls Glenn Beck a Lying Sack of Dog Mess *:D) I am unfamiliar with any of them.
Were these politicians, entertainers, or left-wing media commentators? Maybe I am just out of the liberal loop on these, being pretty far left but also pretty far towards the tradition of civil disobedience and non-violence as opposed to violent revolt.
FTR, my research project/paper examined the Right-wing Media in the U.S. and the general meme of a “liberal media” promoted therein, so it was necessarily limited in focus. I can state that personally, I would not find productive or engage in the sort of personal attacks you detail (satire/humor aside, e.g. Franken, Cobert, Stewart). In the tradition of Twain and others, such satire allows us to mock both ourselves, one another and our leaders, generating laughter and discussion, not homicidal rage.
The thing about Al Franken is, he cites his FACTS as he uses what is clearly identifiable as HUMOR in making his points…his calling Rush a big, fat idiot (poor baby, Rush…he’s called many a LOT worse in his day, and with a straight face and angry tone :mad:) or tossing in the obviously fabricated jibe that Hannity’s latest book was entitled Living with Herpes in the Age of Bush ( snort…coming on the heels of his factual reporting of Hannity‘s growing ever angrier and ever redder in the face during their debate at the publishing convention AND making a comment later on his show that, and this is a great one for this thread, if he were in the Old West, he would “shoot Franken between the head!” :D) is not anywhere near being on a par with the completely serious attacks made on a regular basis by the Right-Wing pundits and talking heads he lampoons (AND handily exposes as the liars and/or poor fact-checkers they are).
Quote:
Originally Posted by **Bricker:**And what data did you find on the personal views of journalists? Were they pretty balanced between Democrats and Republican?
Quoth me:
The surveys and studies did not typically define views based on party, but on self-identification AND examination of particular positions which could be objectively ranked as “left” or “right” based on generally understood definitions (such as being in favor of universal health care, say, or opposed to higher corporate tax rates)
The findings were that even though most self-identified as “moderates” or “liberals”, their responses on the particulars placed a majority firmly to the right of center (and to the right of even a majority of Americans as determined in similar surveys and polls). One conclusion was that their above average income level might have had something to do with their views. Also, many cited the limitations placed on them by their corporate employers wrt the angle/bias evident in coverage.
I don’t have the time right now to pull up the links…gotta get out the door and to class! But I will try to come back later and do so.
Last edited by InterestedObserver; Today at 12:50 PM.
And here I am.
My Works Cited page:
FAIR, What’s FAIR? May 25, 2010. Web.
FAIR, Right Ebbs, Left Gains as Media ‘Experts’, Think tank balance still skews right, Michael Dolny, 9/3/09. May 25, 2010. Web.
FAIR, Examining the “Liberal Media” Claim Journalists’ Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage, Press Release, 6/1/98. May 24, 2010. Web.
Franken, Al, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them, 2003, Dutton Publishing. Print.
Huffington Post, Whoopie Goldberg Calls Glenn Beck a Lying Sack of Dog Mess, 5/20/09, May 24, 2010. Web.
MediaMatters, Beck’s Misinformer of the Year defense rests on falsehoods, January 04, 2010, May 24, 2010. Web.
Media Research Center, Documenting the Media’s Lopsided Liberal Slant, Rich Noyes, Feb. 18, 2010. May 25, 2010. Web.
Pew Research Center, Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists, Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel and Amy Mitchell, May 23, 2004. May 25, 2010. Web.
SourceWatch, Fox News, April 19, 2010, May 25, 2010. Web.
Wikipedia, Fox News Channel Controversies, May 17, 2010. Web.
Now, you might look at that and say, well, a preponderance of “left-wing” or “moderate/centrist/not right-wing” sources, and you’d be right. You know why? It was not because I did not consult a great many clearly right-wing sources (and cited a few), it was that almost to a one, they lacked any verifiable evidence of their position (things like “a poll we, a declared far right organization, did, shows MOST Americans BELIEVE there IS a liberal bias in the media!” Um…which proves? Absolutely Jack Shit. AND constitutes a pretty blatant conflict of interest and poor methodology) and/or they were simply, upon further research, WRONG in their facts (I was able to use some of their “facts” as examples of untruths, as it turned out).
But I consulted dozens of such sources, read and followed up on the citations of several of books written by those with a self-proclaimed right-wing bias (often fast work, as most don’t INCLUDE many cites in support of their claims, and most of those they do are biased/subjective in their own right :rolleyes:), and listened to enough right-wing talk radio and “news” to almost make my head explode. :smack:
A few excerpts from my paper (all supported by the cites above):
“…The bulk of (FAIR’s) citations are studies, as opposed to surveys or opinion polls, however, which lends more credibility to their conclusions. Studies like the one which analyzed the media citations of the top 25 think tanks in 2008 and found that “…conservative or right-leaning think tanks” garnered 31% of quotes, “progressive or left-leaning think tanks” 21% and “Centrist think tanks” were quoted as sources in the “corporate media” the most, with 48% of citations…” (note that only 21% out of 100% of such citations can be classified as “left” or “liberal”…strike one for the “liberal bias” theory)
“…They (FAIR) also cite a large 1998 survey of journalists’ views on social and economic issues, which found that the vast majority self-identified as “centrists”, not “leftists” when it came to social issues (57% “center“, 30% “left). The gap was even more pronounced when it came to economic issues, with only 11% choosing “left” and 64% describing themselves as “center.”…When their views regarding the state of the economy and the priority they placed on various economic issues were compared with those of the general public, the disparity was pronounced, with public sentiment tending much further to the so-called “left” (not surprising, since the income levels of the general public tend to be much lower than those of the journalists surveyed.) …”
"… The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, a respected mainstream source originating in the Columbia School of Journalism, has conducted and compiled numerous studies on the state of journalism in the U.S. Senator Al Franken cites one in his book, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them (a title I just had to work into this presentation). The center conducted an, in Franken’s words, “comprehensive study examining 1, 149 stories from 17 leading news sources” to determine if the media coverage of the 2000 presidential election was liberally biased. The results reveal that positive coverage of Bush was almost twice as prevalent as it was for Gore (24% vs. 13%), negative coverage of Gore exceeded that of Bush (56% vs. 49%) and neutral coverage of both candidates was similar (31% of Gore vs. 27% of Bush). (Franken, Al, pg. 38-9.)
Another Pew survey from 2004 of journalists’ attitudes and concerns found that:
“…More journalists said they think it is more important for people to be free to pursue their goals without government interference than it is for government to ensure that no one is in need….” and questioned whether they mean the same thing by the term “liberal”, when they identify themselves as such, as critics or the general public, noting their actual views tend to be more “libertarian” than anything. “On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
The minority of journalists who do not identify with the “center” are more likely to identify with the “right” when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the “left” when it comes to social issues.”…"
“…“The (Pew Center’s) Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent.” …”
I could go on and on but already have/won’t. OK, I will, but just one more snippet, in honor of just one “Liar and the Lying Lies he Tells”:D:
"…Mr. Beck received the dubious honor of being named 2009‘s“Misinformer of the Year” by MediaWatch. He challenged the title on his radio show, stating “…some liberal blogs named me the Misinformer of the Year. But what I loved about it was, they didn’t back it up with any facts…” (Beck, Glenn,1/4/10). True to form, however, he was misinforming his listeners. MediaMatters provided numerous factual rebuttals to Beck’s claims throughout 2009…in fact, they provide 18 such examples of blatant falsehoods on their page devoted to the story alone, including one which got him nominated for “Lie of the Year” by PolitiFact:
“… Throughout 2009, Beck repeatedly advanced the false claim that White House science and technology adviser John Holdren – whom Beck called “our science czar” – supported forced abortions and putting sterilants in drinking water. PolitiFact.com declared his claim “pants on fire” false and nominated it for “Lie of the Year,” stating that Holdren and his co-authors “make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control.” ( MediaMatters)… "
In response to my post:
Originally Posted by InterestedObserver:
Nope…anyone who speaks of "2nd amendment “solutions” to political or other civic disputes or, imo, goes to a political rally packing weapons in plain sight and/or combat gear is clearly expressing “hate”. They can bullshit all they want; packing blatent heat to a political rally is nothing more than a THREAT. They are thugs and punks, not supporters of the Constitution.
I agree with that. You said it better than I did as my time before I missed my train counted down. “Hate” was not the ideal word, to be sure. It gets tossed around way too much nowadays. But advocacy of violence as a “solution”, a viable back-up plan should the legal, Constitutional methods of political or social action fail to produce the desired results? (If a sort of liberal Black man wins the election, say, or Health Insurance Reform passes).
As a threat to those who might not vote/govern the way you like?
I maintain that it is FAR more common today (and always HAS been, the examples of 1960’s left-wing radicalism aside, as a relative blip in the historical context of right-wing terrorism/violence and violent rhetoric in the U.S.) for such a position to prevail on the right.
Once again, I’ve said nothing whatsoever about the gun-related imagery put forth by Palin. If you want to know my opinion on Palin’s map, however, all you have to do is ask. Oh, wait, you specifically said you didn’t want my opinion on that. Guess we’ll never know, then.
No, I can’t imagine that a speculative film, made in the UK for a UK audience, concerning the potential effects of a presidential assassination, would automatically result in someone in the US trying to bump off Mr. Bush. I seem to have at least some supporting evidence for this view, given that, apparently, no one who has seen the film tried to bump off Mr. Bush.
I haven’t said anything about any harm caused by a map with gunsights on them. Your repeated attempts to put words in my mouth are becoming tiresome and I’m asking you politely to stop it.
I suppose you missed that I was quoting the thread title?
There is no need to do the busy-work you request because the compendium of links is already available on the Malkin page. (booga-booga). As far as frutitfullness, I’m quite content with two things:
the compendium supplied on Malkin’s page
you being revealed for being the type of poster you are
Close down those blinders and turn up the volume on the lalalalalalalalalas.
snort…coming on the heels of his factual reporting of Hannity‘s growing ever angrier and ever redder in the face during their debate at the publishing convention AND making a comment later on his show that, and this is a great one for this thread, if he were in the Old West, he would “shoot Franken between the head!” :D) is not anywhere near being on a par with the completely serious attacks made on a regular basis by the Right-Wing pundits and talking heads he lampoons (AND handily exposes as the liars and/or poor fact-checkers they are).
OK, I will, but just one more snippet, in honor of just one “Liar and the Lying Lies he Tells”:D: