Christ on a crutch.
You’re one to speak about “going on the attack”.
Interesting that this whole discussion is about “misrepresent[ing] things”. Like the fact that Kerry’s no more “well out of the mainstream” than Bush. And if you didn’t want to reconfigure, why didn’t you acknowledge your computer was configured incorrectly, and do a Google right off? It is you who is the :wally, my friend.
That’s who, and it’s Me.
Need a cite?
Go back and very carefully read the sentances that have ASS in them.
In fact read the HOLE article again.
Do you understand why it was brought up yet?
No, it’s called “going on the defense.” I was attacked.
What on Earth do you have to complain to me about? You came up with a bunch of excuses not to read the link, mostly (it seems to me) because you just didn’t want to make the effort. Then when you finally managed to read it, you still ignored the point. So I think my comment was justified. You either didn’t want to read anything that demonstrated the Washington Times is a worthless source, or you knew it in advance and were just being an extremely rude pain.
Nobody attacked you. Marley23 and minty green both attacked your source, claiming it was biased. Then, instead of saying “I couldn’t read the article, the website required registration or watching a commercial”, you implied the article was biased. Marley23 and myself called you on it. You went on to call Marley23’s opinions worthless and called him an asshole. (Using passive-aggressive BS.) This was the first attack made on an individual in the thread.
You were no such thing. I even provided a link to the story you said you couldn’t read. What kind of an attack is that?
I did. Go read post # 19, where I said:
The same post you quoted from to put me down.
What is wrong with you and marley23? Are you overreacting to some imagined slight? I make a derogatory comment about a news source and you two go into spasms!
Well forget it. I’m just gonna write you two off as a couple of creeps with a hidden agenda. Go ahead, call me names, show everyone how “mainstream” and “elite” you are.
Reveal yourselves for what you are. I will do the same.
I thought the whole point of this thread was that ‘mainstream’ and ‘elite’ were opposites?
What are you talking about, and how am I supposed to do it? 
No, I didn’t feel insulted until you insulted me. :smack:
You weren’t just making derogatory comments about the news source, you were implying things about the people using it.
Moderator’s Note: Snakespirit, don’t call people “assholes” in this forum. Also (and this goes for you as well, factorial) don’t call people “putzes” either.
Mea culpa.
Just to remind folks, I was asking about issues… It’s pretty clear that if Kerry is out of the mainstream because of his wealth, then Bush ain’t even IN the stream.
Sounds like some people need to go to the pit.
Anyway, regarding the issue the OP brought up…
I think the media is calling Kerry “out of the mainstream” in a political sense, not an economic one. It would be odd for them to mean in a economic one since the Bush family is probably as wealthy, if not more than the Heinz family - which really should not be considered anyway when you’re talking about Kerry and his life.
Kerry has been called “the most liberal of the senate” (and Edwards the fourth most liberal) -whatever the f**k that means. Regardless of what it means, they are considered the most left, the most liberal, and therefore out of the “mainstream” - the mainstream being not left or right, but in the middle.
Although I hope the media is not being silly and trying to call them (Kerry/Edwards) economically out of the mainstream, the fact is the media is often silly, especially when reporting some of the ridiculousness the republican party is spouting. For instance, I hear Scarborough and his kind berating Kerry for choosing Edwards as a running mate because he is another “rich, white guy”. Scarborough (among others) have slammed Kerry for not choosing a black, hispanic, or woman. It baffles me that Scarborough can say seriously spout this while not acknowledging the double standard with regards to the Bush/Cheney ticket.
Not true. Just wait a few seconds through the ad, click, and poof! You’re reading it.
I answered before I finished reading, sorry.
And the media is calling Kerry out of the mainstream because Bush as fed them the line to barf up. HELLO. It was in their “talking points” almost instantaneously.
For the record, I linked to the Salon article because they were the ones that broke the story shortly after it happened. It took the rest of the press several months to pay any attention. And the point was indeed, as someone noted above, to demonstrate that the Rev. Moon (and, by extension, his “newspaper”) is one seriously delusional s.o.b.
Lacks the entertainment value of Tucker “Baby Face” Carlson, born-again feminist, writhing in high dudgeon that The Hilary was brutally denied a speaking opportunity that she never asked for in the first place.
It means that Kerry ranked first in the National Journal’s liberal rankings for 2003, and Edwards the 4th. Of course, claiming that the two are the first and fourth most liberal senators based on these rankings is just plain dishonest. Both men missed numerous votes while working for the nomination, so their rankings are not based on the same number of votes as senators who may have made more votes. Then, you have to look at the votes NJ chose to examine; there really is no truly objective method of determining who is the “most liberal” senator.
The most dishonest part of this attack, though, is that it completely ignores historical rankings. When Kerry and Edwards’ historical NJ rankings are averaged together, between, say, 1999 and 2003, neither Senator is even in the top 10 most liberal. Ignoring their historical rankings is particularly dishonest in light of the fact that Republicans so often attack Kerry with his historical votes.
You made my point exactly. It’s really rather arbitrary and depends on how one wants to look at it and what one considers a qualification for what is liberal.
This is obviously another spout from the Bush administration/campaign that the media has latched onto for lack of their ability to think for themselves and deliver honest journalism.
'scuze the little ranty.
No, the simpler answer is that the media is calling Kerry “out of the mainstream” because they’re simply repeating what the Republicans are saying. No journalist with a shred of integrity is going to write, “Today George W. Bush denounced John Kerry as ‘out of the mainstream,’ even though that statement is entirely incorrect,” for instance.
Damn that liberal media! 
Of course it’s a GOP “talking point”, but I was hoping that a hard-core Bush defender might still be able find a core of debatable claim(s) from it. Sounds like this one turned out to be pretty empty, even more than usual.