Apos, please allow me one post in my defense and then I’ll bow back out.
Lanny Davis, former White House counsel under Bill Clinton, is appearing as a guest on Bill O’Reilly’s show. Davis favors keeping Terri Schiavo alive and I just heard him say the following: "Here we have a husband who claims that his wife said she wouldn’t want to be kept alive artificially, but we don’t know that to be the case. (Emphasis his, by the way.)
This is the kind of thing I’ve heard anytime I’ve heard reference to this issue. Now, what with such a comment coming from someone with undeniable left-wing credentials (and perhaps not the only one I’ve heard but certainly one I can now point to) perhaps I can be excused from the many accusations I’ve received in this thread accusing me of promoting false right-wing propaganda.
This is the same Pat Buchanan who once appeared at an RNC convention and proclaimed that liberals were forcing young women to become pagan lesbians hellbent on getting pregnant so that they can have abortions, yes? Because we saw how well that worked at ending his political career and the GOP’s march towards the White House and taking over control of both houses of Congress. Shit, Watergate didn’t even permanently manage to exile Nixon let alone the GOP from the American political scene. Hell, people thought Bill was done after the blow job scandal, and yet he wasn’t.
I hope that the OP is wrong, but I suspect it’s dead-on.
And yet, the courts have already heard the evidence on M’s claims and decided that there was convincing reasons to believe he was telling the truth about his wife’s issues. I would hope, but not expect, the Reilly show’s staff to give that information to its viewers (and host, and guests).
What? You don’t think you’re going to be seeing some mudflinging TV ads that the dems voted for killing a helpless perfectly healthy young little white girl?
Did you just get to this planet?
If anything they did all this with the sole purpose of dragging it into the next election.
As far as I’ve heard, a majority of people don’t think the government should be involved in this mess at all. Some republicans are less than thrilled with what their party is doing right now.
No sir this was a move to energize a part of the base. They would lose more then they have gained if they reminded people of this. When the election comes, I’d be real surprised to see Terry Schiavo mentioned.
Would you accept the revised statement “some people arguing for Terri are propagandists trying to use her, and some are speaking loudly from ignorance?”
Actually, all it supports is the idea of a right wing media. Point two against you in your argument for the idea of a left wing media. How many more stones shall you throw at your own assertions.
Quit taking the word of political pundits from television programs. Bill O’Reilly is a Republican pundit, so when you get your “news” from him, and other sources like him, and don’t bother to verify any claims you hear on his program, you are, in fact, guilty of ignorantly promoting their Right-wing propoganda. If you hear anyone make claims as to issues of fact, it is incumbent upon you to at least attempt to verify their accuracy before spouting it off as if you somehow have all the answers after a few soundbites of blabbing by politicos (if ANY stripe).
Perhaps these arrogant, lying assholes would buck up and start reporting with more honesty and integrity if their audience would stop drooling every time they ring a bell and start demanding that they get their facts straight before airing bullshit.
Ha! As if that would ever happen.
Which is EXACTLY why Apos’s OP is so right on the money. These guys are brilliant. They know exactly what buttons to push to get the masses to buy their manipulative lies.
Why should you be excused when all this anecdote demonstrates is that you do not expose yourself to a variety of news sources? It demonstrates that you simply regurgitate what you have heard, without taking any time or trouble to learn about an issue, or to think about an issue. You seem bright, but you are a lazy thinker. Exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints will improve your critical thinking abilities, which are sadly lacking at the moment.
Apos, you are right to be cautious, and these things generally haven’t come back to bite the Republicans in the ass, but look at these polling results from CBS News. As you do, keep in mind that the poll over-sampled Republicans to Democrats 44% to 29%.
Perhaps there’s something different about this one? Maybe the convergeance of several factors. Yes, it’s too early to pass clear judgment, but I can’t see this really turning out well for the fuckers.
Sorry, Apos. I know I said I would bow back out, but I feel compelled to answer Lissa and Shayna, and since you haven’t voiced objection to their posts I’m going on the assumption that it’s okay to post mine, at least for now.
Lissa, I don’t know if you caught it in my post, but the person saying the same thing I did was Lanny Davis! Are you familiar with him? As intelligent, personable and presumably plugged-in as anyone might expect, and a staunch Democrat as well as former White House counsel to Bill Clinton. How is information from him indicative of right-wing media?
Shayna, first let me thank you for the polite tone of your post. Secondly, I would propose that listening to someone with the credibility of a Lanny Davis would seem to be, in and of itself, getting the facts. I’m speaking of the population at large here. It simply isn’t going to occur to most people to investigate further when they hear someone like Lanny Davis, or any other credible source, make such comments. One assumes they know what they’re talking about, especially since no one contests them. It doesn’t occur to many of us that there is anything further to investigate when one hears these things and no one challenges them. (And frankly, it may be that those in a position to challenge them are just as ignorant of the facts as the speaker and are therefore unaware that there is anything to challenge.)
Perhaps rather than automatically assuming people are disgustingly ignorant or willfully spreading right-wing propaganda, you might want to take into account that it just might be the case that the person in question feels he has already “gotten the facts” by reason of the scenario I just described.
It does nothing of the sort, my friend! FYI, I listen to O’Reilly very rarely, and, as a matter of fact, I didn’t have it on tonight. Someone else in the house was flipping channels and just happened to land on O’Reilly’s show at the time Lanny Davis was being introduced. She left it there to see what he had to say.
I’m afraid you’re jumping to conclusions here, but don’t feel badly, you’re far from the only one on these boards who mistakenly thinks they know where I get my information.
Please see my post to Shayna above, as well as my post to you just above.
The very fact that he is supporting the right wing ideology. How can you claim a left wing conspiracy, when the media is carrying the opinions of “left wing” people who support right wing mentality. That is my point.
If you cannot see this then I am done. I have pointed out your hypocrisy, but I believe no more will come of further debate with you on this matter.
I’ll go first. I get mine from (print) the Denver Post (moderate verging on liberal) and the Rocky Mountain News (conservative verging on reactionary), my boss gets the Wall Street Journal which I’ll scan a couple of times a week, (tv) local channel 4, CBS news, and BBC news - for breaking news I’ll flip between CNN and FOX, (online) CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, BBC, Christian Science Monitor - occasionally MSNBC, FOX, and finally from right here on the SDMB.
Your statement that “This is the kind of thing I’ve heard anytime I’ve heard reference to this issue.” makes no sense. You know there is controversy about it. Why would there be a controversy if everyone felt the only way you’d heard? You should do what I do. I’ll follow up and make sure I understand both sides of an issue regardless of which my instinct is to support. Then I can argue better. If it doesn’t interest me enough to learn about it, then I just keep my big yap shut instead of displaying my ignorance.
He isn’t supporting right-wing ideology! He feels a certain way about the issue due to his own conscience and sense of right and wrong. The fact that his feelings on the matter happen to coincide with the right-wing position doesn’t mean he is supporting the right-wing ideology.
I have never…I repeat, never…claimed a left-wing media “conspiracy.” What I’ve asserted is a left-wing media bias. One is the product of intent; the other a product of ideology.
You have got a bad case of superioritis, don’t you? Your entire post has contained one erroneous assertion after another clothed in intellectual superiorty. I strongly suggest you try to get over yourself. You sound close-minded…and worse, immature.
He’s a politician. He doesn’t have crdibility. The only reason to watch any of those talking head pundit shows is to learn what the Lie of the Day is. Don’t ever listen to them and expect to get anything resembling the truth.
You said earlier that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives can laugh at themselves. I submit that the difference between us is y’all actually believe what your candidates tell you. Liberals, at least, know better than that.
