You still seem to think that the media is a monolithic entity which makes decisions as a single body. “Media” is a plural noun, the singular of which is “medium.” There are some media which are liberal, some which are conservative and some which are other. One media outlet, a conservative newspaper, went after Jack Ryan’s divorce papers. The rest of the media had nothing to do with that action, no complicity in it and certainly no obligation to continue the trend against anyone else.
If I may draw a football analogy, it’s like a hooligan from the stands ran onto the field during the game and kicked his own team’s quarterback square in the nuts. The QB went down, incapacitated and had to be replaced by a backup who sucked.
Now, it is though you, a fan of that quarterback’s team, are angry that no fans of the opposing team are running onto the field to kick the other quarterback in the nuts.
Media pl. Medium. Thanks for the Latin intro. However, in the age of syndicates and FCC deregulation, one entity can make a massive decision regarding broadcasting for a large population of the country. And often, when one does something, the rest try to catch up by doing something else spectacularly stupid. Remember when the verdict came out for the Martha Stewart case? It wasn’t just one news channel running out with scarfs, red cards, and whatever else they were doing. However, they are showing restraint in this case. Rare for such a group. I like your analogy though, it’s good. However, to some of us, calling the Tribune the more conservative paper in Chicago is like saying Kerry is the more conservative Democrat compared to Hillary. I just haven’t experienced enough of their writing to make my assessment, but I will believe the Chicagoans on this board who say it is conservative, similar to the Washingtonians who say the Times is more conservative than the Post (that one I am aware of, generally). There is a reason I don’t read newspapers though, especially not the ones in this town.
Well, sir. I went back and read it. And if theR thinks that Drudge is credible as a source, then the two of you can giggle and stay up all night showing each other Drudge and that abysmal “source” that you used earlier that was a message board posting. Have a nice time, and don’t wake the neighbors or frighten the livestock.
AG? Assemblies of God? Asinine Goober? Awfully Good? Really, now. I thought that you wanted to get back to your OP.
And as I understand it, you are saying that since the Trib sued for access to Ryan’s records, then someone (most probably the Trib again) needs to sue for access to Kerry’s records to balance the universal karma? Is this what you are saying?
If so, you are not worth the effort expended in crafting a reply. If not, please enlighten.
Probably by whether or not they think there will be enough juice to make it worth the squeeze.
Ryan had never been through the wringer before and the prospect of his being foisted upon his own petard was too juicy for any good muckraker to pass by. “The liberals” had nothing to do with this one - he lied to his own leadership about the contents, stupidly enough even after it was clear that they’d be released - the consequent execution of his political career was called for and completed by his own.
Kerry has been through the wringer multiple times in the past. His wife already has been publically critical of their marriage. They just don’t think that there is much juice in that lemon. Plus, again, the lemon may be a harder squeeze in Mass. than in Illinois.
Finally, the Bush camp would be adverse to making this race focused on who was a more morally upstanding man in the early days. Hmmm. Kerry, ignored his wife and family to focus on service to his country, decorated war hero, no drugs or alcohol to speak of. Bush’s track record at that time of life? His track record as a father? Is this the comparison that Bushco wants to be made? Better for them that they avoid it.
GL, AG=Abu Ghraib. My fault for not being explicitly clear. Balancing the universal karma? Hardly. Using the same criterion for one news story versus another? More likely.
As for me and theR giggling through the night, I was disinclined to use his source. I actually responded negatively to it, but it was attributed to me anyway. My sources may have been shallow, but I do have a job, and I can’t just surf the web all day trying to glean only moderate sources, since some people dislike even the Times.
As for Kerry’s war record. No, I’m not getting into that. Suffice it to say we disagree, and I’m sure it’s been brought up on other threads anyway.
So adultery is a misdemeanor in North Carolina, but only in the sense that all habitual sexual relations between nonmarried couples are misdemeanors. And if you have sex with someone who’s not your wife once, it’s not a crime. But if you have sex with that same person habitually, you’re a criminal. Sounds like incentive to sleep with a bunch of different people, to me.
In sum, you’re right, qcomdrj, that adultery is still prohibited by code in at least one state. But I’m not sure, given the specifics above, that it’s the strongest rhetorical point you could make.
I checked, and the sarcasm sending unit on this computer is working just fine. So I think that the problem may be in your receiver. Smack it a couple of times. If that doesn’t work, hold it under cool running water.
Hokay, here we go, and this is the crux of this whole thread, so it’s important: What is your feeling about what happened to Jack Ryan? Do you think that anyone should have sued for access to his divorce records? Do you think that it is anyone’s business whatsoever what he may or may not have done in his divorce proceedings?
Again, SSU working fine. And I went back and slogged through this trainwreck of a thread, and I never once encountered you responding negatively to using Drudge. What I did find was you trying to use a message board post and WorldNetDaily as sources. Bad form for someone who desires to be taken seriously. Oh, and this little gem:
Which is just precious. My hat is off to you, sir. Oh, and your feeble attempt at a jab:
No, Ace. Your sources were patently ridiculous. Perhaps WND is just ducky at other places you may frequent, but that don’t mean jack here. And I would have thought that you would have grokked to the whole, “Hang out, smoke dope, and live off the welfare state” thing. Maybe not. Also, for future reference, you can use the New York Times, but should refuse the Washington Times. “N” comes before “W” in the alphabet, if that makes it any easier for you.
What happened to Jack Ryan was shameful media, er, medium reporting. Do I think that anyone should have sued for the records? That’s a tough call. If someone had something heinous in their divorce records, I think it is the public’s right to know (bestiality, pedophilia, rampant crack use, etc). However, how could you find only the bad guys? My argument is that your average ordinary person doesn’t have his records sealed, so anybody can go look at them and decide without having to sue. Politicians like to seal things to make their lives all secret (or at least more private). What it comes down to is that if a medium feels that it is for the common good to sue for one person’s records, why not sue for the other. I realize Ryan was running for Illinois Senate, but Kerry is running for President, which does encompass Illinois, except maybe on leap years. To say it isn’t relevant isn’t known. Nobody knows what is in them, but nobody knew what was in Ryan’s either, just hearsay from his ex-wife.
I guess my response to theR’s drudge reference wasn’t negative, but more indifferent. I wasn’t using it to promote my viewpoint certainly. Actually I don’t frequent other places, except Tabletpcbuzz.com, and we don’t really get into political or philosophical arguments. I chose this because if I’m going to lose an argument, by God it will be to people smarter or at least more articulate than me, rather than the “my dad can beat up your dad” boards.
It seems that we will disagree, with the world against me and my apparent “the media leans liberal” slant. Maybe if I argued on Foxnews it would work better, but where would that get me.
Oh, and stop patronizing me, Dad.
Sorry, but I couldn’t resist commenting on this one. I have noticed the volume you have posted in this one thread. No shortage of your having the time to post up opinion pieces and allegations. But no time to do decent research to back up your POV? Better you should post fewer but more researched offerings perhaps?
This isn’t a question of intelligence or of being articulate. It is being willing to provide a solid basis for believing what you do and being open to admitting when you cannot. Cites of quality are just one part of that process but it is true that if the gist for your logical mill is garbage in, well, you know how the rest goes. And if you have a conclusion in mind before you get the facts, then you have not been intellectually honest with yourself.
Once again, I am not trying to prove to you all that Clinton raped someone. That is not the point of this thread. I am sure with enough time I could find reputable sources that say the allegations happened, but then your response would be “no conviction occurred”, which wouldn’t get me anywhere. Any citations to that matter are irrelevant to the John Kerry Jack Ryan part of this thread anyway. I’ve yet to see anyone say that Gallup or Pew are obviously crap sites. I wonder why that is. Because they would rather try to belittle me for something else I said. I don’t have a conclusion about the media, just a strong belief that apparently a majority of Americans hold, if not the majority of dopers (about the media).
Gadarene, I was merely asked for a cite for whether cheating on your wife is illegal. So now is there a continuum of what illegal acts a politician can do without disclosing them and what ones he or she can’t?
Well, I dunno; do you think an unmarried male politician (especially, but not necessarily, one from North Carolina) ought to name every woman with whom he’s had habitual sexual relations with, just because it’s nominally a criminal act?
You have no basis to say that. There is none. (Hint: We just may have discussed that topic before here). You need, then, to either withdraw your slander and admit you swallowed a smear campaign wholely and thoughtlessly - or else, stop weaseling about your “lack of time” and go *find * that “reputable source” you’re sure exists somewhere. But you’ve already shown us that you do not find *any * source disreputable, not as long as it tells you what you want to hear, so it shouldn’t be that hard, right?
With just a little thought, you might be able to recognize that they only report other people’s compiled opinions, not facts.
Whaddaya know, we just might have discussed that before, too. Same principle holds, in the ignorance-fighting biz: You *start * with the facts, *then * draw your conclusions. You’re simply complaining that your dishonesty in doing the reverse has been pointed out to you so clearly.
Now, as they say back in the old country, put up or shut up.
[quote]
Do I think that anyone should have sued for the records? That’s a tough call. If someone had something heinous in their divorce records, I think it is the public’s right to know (bestiality, pedophilia, rampant crack use, etc). However, how could you find only the bad guys? My argument is that your average ordinary person doesn’t have his records sealed, so anybody can go look at them and decide without having to sue. Politicians like to seal things to make their lives all secret (or at least more private).
[quote]
So, as best I can tell, your answer is, “No,” with the caveat that if they were screwing livestock and/or children, or using drugs, then all bets are off. What seems to get your knickers in a twist is that some people are allowed to seal records, which you find offensive for some reason or another. However, when a newspaper (in this instance) sues for access to sealed records, you think that was shameful. Do you see how circular you’re making this?
So, basically, you think that since a shameful thing happened to a Republican, then why not sue to make that same thing happen to a Democrat? Have you any idea how ridiculous this sounds?
Um, newsflash, Sunshine. This is a leap year.
Yeah, we’ll disagree. And you’re full of crap with your “media leans liberal” slant. So I am disagreeing with someone who is wrong, which kinda takes the fun out of it. And if you go to FoxNews, you would be looked upon as a living god. Great for the ego, but there’s always some other god out there, waiting in the wings, looking to make his bones. So watch yer back.
Not a chance, boychik.
Okay, I will bet you $100, payable in either money order to you, or a contribution to the organization of your choice, that you cannot find a reputable source that says that the allegations happened. And as an added sweetener, I will kiss your ass. And apologize. And wear a “Clinton is a Rapist!!!” sign around my neck for one full year. So, go to it.
Because neither Gallup nor Pew are necessarily crap. They are polls. You are aware that just because a majority of people believe something doesn’t necessarily make it so, right? Hell, a majority of people thought that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Does that automatically make it so? Surely you don’t want to start arguing that. Or do you?
Here is an example of a reputable source saying that allegations had occurred. Not that rape occurred, but allegations that rape occurred. No source outside of court documents is reputable to prove that rape occurred. I’m just trying to get across that Newsmax, WND, and Drudge aren’t the only people who wrote about this story once.
Granted, but the Pew poll asked the media what they thought of themselves. If you asked me if I was a Republican or Democrat, and I answered, would you say, “that’s not a fact, just an opinion”?
Swallowed what smear campaign? This wasn’t an isolated allegation of sexual misconduct. There was one that was proven, and one that was settled. There was also Gennifer Flowers, who I haven’t brought up yet. Isolated events are one thing, there appears to be a pattern here.
Gadarene, it depends, do you think that a politician should have to disclose previous pot-smoking, draft-dodging, or being AWOL, since those are nominally illegal too? I’m sure most voters in NC would like to know if they have a swinging candidate for Senate.
When you initially said you could prove that the “allegations occurred” it sounded like you meant you could find a cite that said they were true. (i.e. that you could find a cite showing that the alleged act had occurred). Nobody denies that allegations were made, but allegations in and of themselves are worthless. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Your protestations about court papers are rather specious since there is a large coninuum of plausibility in between a simple accusation and a criminal conviction. The Broaddrick thing never rose above an allegation. No other evidence was ever offered t support it. There weren’t any criminal charges or a trial or even an investigation.
All sitting presidents are the targets of all kinds of wild accusations. In Clinton’s case, there is nothing which makes the rape accusations any more plausible than allegations that GWB was behind Paul Wellstone’s plane crash ( that’s a real conspiracy theory that was bandied about up here in the Land-o-Lakes).
The fact that the Broaddrick allegations got as much play in the press as it did is testament to how hostile the media was to Bill Clinton.
Uh, I posted the link to Drudge because it disagrees with the claim that the Tribune is not going to sue to release Kerry’s divorce records. I don’t count Drudge as credible at all, but some people may.
As far as Kerry’s records, I don’t think they should be public, which is identical to my position on Ryan. I also think that, if they do become public, they will not hurt Kerry and could conceivably even help him if they help show that he wanted to keep them private to help protect his exwife’s privacy, in addition to wanting them private for more selfish reasons, of course. I think they’ll show some information about his exwife that would normally only be in private medical records (history of depression and related treatments are the rumors I’ve read in mainstream newspapers).
I agree that it could be assumed that I was trying to find places that marked the allegations as true, but once the awkward wording started, I was just trying to find a source that mentioned that they even occurred. It’s actually quite hard to find a reputable one in all of the other ones out there. I was using random strings to find one that didn’t include Newsmax. I said that nothing will prove them true, and while they weren’t investigated in the sense of a trial for that action, she was questioned by the Senate pertaining to Clinton’s impeachment. She ended up not being used because she said she lied about an affidavit, which she has since retracted, I think. Regardless, she (Juanita) kind of hems and haws about it, but I still see a pattern. She was named as Jane Doe number 5 in the Paula Jones case, which implies at least 4 more were involved. Media, hostile to Bill Clinton? Isn’t he getting more press than John Kerry right now?
You consider having a committed sexual relationship in which neither of the parties are married to be “swinging”? You’re . . . odd.
Again, per North Carolina law (this is a fun hijack; I’d be happy to examine the laws of other states as well), it appears that I could have sex with a different woman every week and not be committing a crime, even if one of us was married. But if I have a live-in girlfriend and we’re romantically involved, I’m fornicating illegally.
Would you care to retract the word “swinging”?
And the answer to your questions above are no, no, and no. Of course, that’s probably not going to stop the media from trying to dig up dirt on those things or others, as dirt is the lifeblood of 24 hour news cycles. I don’t think that pot-smoking, draft-dodging, or being AWOL are any indication, necessarily, of someone’s fitness for office; others may (and do) disagree. I will say that evident hypocrisy does, to me, have some bearing on whether I’ll vote for or otherwise support a politician. That is, if they condemn someone else for illegal drug use, it’s interesting to know that they’ve done the same themselves. But I don’t think anyone should be forced to disclose anything that happens to violate some state statute somewhere. Past violations of federal law might be a different story; I’d have to think about it.
Whoops, allegations just occurred. Perhaps you don’t really eat babies for breakfast, but I think your silence on the issue so far is pretty damning.
Uh, so is drunk driving (which Dubya did, and lied about.) So is using cocaine (there seems to be evidence. He’ll only claim he hasn’t used it in the past 25 years.) And while getting your daddy’s friends to give you a plum assignment in the Air National Guard (in contrast to, you know, being a war hero) isn’t illegal, skipping out on your duty is. And Bush can’t seem to find anyone who actually remembers his being there.
Just sayin’, is all. You know, pot, kettle, and so on?