quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 'never trust a person who was literally on the board of directors for the National Organization for Marriage and calls liberals the real bigots for calling him a bigot'
posted
Listening to osc talk about the new yorker is like watching him get tantalizingly close to a breakthrough. "now i tell you what the new yorker is some fine stuff, they produce some really deep important information and they're credible. but ... they have all these articles about that conservatives are being horrible and undermining democracy! hmm. hmmmmmm.
hmmmmmmm
...
oh well, besides that part where they're obviously wrong and crazy, it's all good!"
he's soooooo clooooooooooose to figuring it outttttttttttttttttttt, it's right theeerrreeee
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Try the word "eructation" or "eructate" on your friends. "Oh dear, I'm afraid your new blouse has made me eructate." "Yes, let's eat at Olive Garden; I haven't eructated enough this month." "Disney can't do worse with Star Wars than the three eructations that Lucas called prequels."
It will make you popular. People are always impressed by those who know and use obscure but slightly dirty-sounding words.
OK but this is some pretty nicely executed sarcasm. (I mean, I really hope it is.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Listening to osc talk about the new yorker is like watching him get tantalizingly close to a breakthrough. "now i tell you what the new yorker is some fine stuff, they produce some really deep important information and they're credible. but ... they have all these articles about that conservatives are being horrible and undermining democracy! hmm. hmmmmmm.
hmmmmmmm
...
oh well, besides that part where they're obviously wrong and crazy, it's all good!"
he's soooooo clooooooooooose to figuring it outttttttttttttttttttt, it's right theeerrreeee
Did you see the part in today's paper where OSC advocates for a cap on the mortgage interest tax deduction because it's not fair the poor to subsidize the rich to have millions lopped off their taxes?
To be fair, it's nice to see some subversive liberal ideas slipped into the conservative rag.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
OSC has always been - and continues to be, afaik - pretty solidly progressive on fiscal issues and things like welfare, housing assistance, immigration, etc. He's just deeply opposed to socially liberal policies like legal protections for gay and transgender folks, gay marriage, abortion, and Environmentalism (the last one I've never really understood why). Oh, and in the past few years, if it's a progressive policy that helps black people then he's suddenly a conservative about it (see his defense of voter ID laws and voter suppression in North Carolina, his "Obama recruiting poor young black men for his national police", his articles amounting to "real racism ended in the 1960s, BLM folks are just thugs who just don't respect police officers", etc.). I'm not really sure where this animosity towards black people came from because, AFAIK, it wasn't there more than a few years back.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah the infamous "what if" rant purely hypothesizing about Obama's gangs of innercity negro thugs being used as a private police force to violently suppress conservatives was a bit out of left field but
quote:Obama is, by character and preference, a dictator. He hates the very idea of compromise; he demonizes his critics and despises even his own toadies in the liberal press. He circumvented Congress as soon as he got into office by appointing "czars" who didn't need Senate approval. His own party hasn't passed a budget ever in the Senate...
Having been anointed from the start of his career because he was that magical combination -- a black man who talks like a white man (that's what they mean by calling him "articulate" and a "great speaker") -- he has never had to work for a living, and he has never had to struggle to accomplish goals. He despises ordinary people, is hostile to any religion that doesn't have Obama as its deity, and his contempt for the military is complete.
You'd think that such a man could not possibly remain in office past the Constitutional limit of two terms -- but I think the plan is already in place.
Look at how Hillary Clinton is being set up as the fall guy on Benghazi. Her lies under oath will destroy her in the run-up to the 2016 election, while the press will never hold Obama's feet to the fire.
This is because Michelle Obama is going to be Barack's Lurleen Wallace. Remember how George Wallace got around Alabama's ban on governors serving two terms in a row? He ran his wife for the office. Everyone knew Wallace would actually be pulling the strings, even though they denied it.
Michelle Obama will be Obama's designated "successor," and any Democrat who seriously opposes her will be destroyed in the media the way everyone who contested Obama's run for the Democratic nomination in 2008 was destroyed.
But the plan goes deeper than this. Barack Obama, like Hitler and the Iranian dictators, announced his plan, though the media (as with Hitler) has "forgotten" it.
Barack Obama needs to have a source of military power that is under his direct control. Like Hitler, he needs a powerful domestic army to terrify any opposition that might arise.
Obama called for a "national police force" in 2008, though he never gave a clue about why such a thing would be necessary. We have the National Guard. We have the armed forces. The FBI. The Secret Service. And all the local and state police forces.
The trouble is that all of these groups have long independent histories and none of them is reliably under Barack Obama's personal control. He needs Brown Shirts -- thugs who will do his bidding without any reference to law.
Obama will claim we need a national police force in order to fight terrorism and crime. The Boston bombing is a useful start, especially when combined with random shootings by crazy people.
Where will he get his "national police"? The NaPo will be recruited from "young out-of-work urban men" and it will be hailed as a cure for the economic malaise of the inner cities.
In other words, Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs, and send them out to channel their violence against Obama's enemies.
Instead of doing drive-by shootings in their own neighborhoods, these young thugs will do beatings and murders of people "trying to escape" -- people who all seem to be leaders and members of groups that oppose Obama.
Already the thugs who serve the far left agenda of Obama's team do systematic character assassination as a means of intimidating their opponents into silence. But physical beatings and "legal" disappearances will be even more effective -- as Hitler and Putin and many other dictators have demonstrated over and over.
i have to say in retrospect this is my favorite stormfront article. perfect 5 out of 7
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it's been a few years since he wrote that, and in the intervening time I've sort of willed myself into believing it wasn't really that bad.
I wonder if anyone who he listens to anymore has asked him how things are going for him under the Michelle Obama administration.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the bit how he destroyed all rivals by, say, inviting them into his administration at top cabinet positions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, compared to what's published today on Breitbart, Infowars, GatewayPundit, etc... that's even pretty tame.
Still lunatic-fringy, but that fringe has crept more and more into the mainstream of the conservative movement.
I wonder if he can look back on that now with any perspective at all, or if he's still completely in the tank for the Obama-conspiracy-of-the-week.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
OSC has always been - and continues to be, afaik - pretty solidly progressive on fiscal issues and things like welfare, housing assistance, immigration, etc. He's just deeply opposed to socially liberal policies like legal protections for gay and transgender folks, gay marriage, abortion, and Environmentalism (the last one I've never really understood why). Oh, and in the past few years, if it's a progressive policy that helps black people then he's suddenly a conservative about it (see his defense of voter ID laws and voter suppression in North Carolina, his "Obama recruiting poor young black men for his national police", his articles amounting to "real racism ended in the 1960s, BLM folks are just thugs who just don't respect police officers", etc.). I'm not really sure where this animosity towards black people came from because, AFAIK, it wasn't there more than a few years back.
What do they call people who are the complete opposites of libertarians?
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
as a member of the 'anti-defense left' i don't give a shit about defense. like if another country invaded us i would be all like 'eh whatever' and just roll over. maybe take a nap that's how it works
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a member of the 'Freedom-hating Left' I don't understand why we don't talk more about how much we hate freedom. I mean, I get it, we ALL hate freedom SO MUCH, but we never talk about it.
I think it's time to come out of the shadows.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are talking about the one over in IGMS, I don't actually moderate that board. I can't find any posts by him in Books, Film, Food, Culture or OSC.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
see the best part about it is that the left is simultaneously anti-freedom and anti-security, like this apparently actually isn't any sort of a thing that might maybe make less sense if you think about it
it's like good ol' ben franklin said, "those who would give up essential liberty to remove all safety, uh, and .. i guess that, uh, .. they deserve .. uh, .. this makes sense to someone i guess. wait is orson scott card trying to describe liberals again"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
More than a dozen paragraphs about the (very real) problem of novel/unexpected research getting more funding and attention than research that takes longer or attempts to repeat/confirm preexisting work...
...and the moral of the story is that there's a science conspiracy to make sure nobody says anything novel or unexpected about global warming.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fun! Can we trade out facade for fa-sod? Because I never liked that one. It's not a real word, but sod is. Other possibilities: sheik (Or is that pronounced shake?) foe coo And let's do rhyming ones! crokay, bokay (okay) kallone (Stallone)
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I lived in England for a few months, my flatmates told me that "filet" is pronounced with a hard "t" sound at the end... like "fill-it", not "fill-ay". So, the McDonald's menu item was a "fill-it o' fish".
When I asked why, they said because they speak English, not French.
Of course, this didn't apply to an eggplant or a zucchini... which they called an aubergine and a courgette, respectively. Or to snow peas... which they called mange-tout (and pronounced "mahnj-too").
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just think this whole laptop thing began in Europe, where officious authorities really hate it when you have a device that you can use for many different purposes that are not under their control.
Is he really so out of the loop on what was a major US presidential scandal (bragging about our laptop-bomb intelligence to Russia)? I mean, I know there are like too many scandals to keep track of these days, but that was a pretty big one.
I can only assume Fox News never mentioned it.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just think this whole laptop thing began in Europe, where officious authorities really hate it when you have a device that you can use for many different purposes that are not under their control. If you've ever been given a "suggestion" by a policeman or a flight attendant anywhere in Europe, you know how arrogant and unyielding the authorities can be.
I'd love to hear some examples of these suggestions that he's talking about.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's particularly funny given that we've had passengers beaten on planes in the USA-not Europe, so far as I know.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead, because of their naked attacks on President Trump and their obvious leftwing bias, along with several instances of outright lies and stories based on nothing, CNN is a distant third place and Fox remains in first.
Meanwhile, about halfway between them, MSNBC, the perpetual also-ran, is now the dominant leftwing slanted news source for liberals who need better comfort than CNN's ham-handed efforts have provided.
Yet the liberal news media still speak of Fox News as if it ran false stories all the time, as if Fox were the biased network. Yet every independent evaluator of news networks consistently rates Fox as the least biased, the most even-handed of all the networks, including ABC, NBC and CBS.
Does anyone know what he's talking about here? I was sort of curious to find the source of these claims and literally couldn't find even one independent evaluator that found Fox to be the least biased network. The two evaluations I found right off the bat, Pew and Politifact, actually said the opposite is true.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Does anyone know what he's talking about here? I was sort of curious to find the source of these claims and literally couldn't find even one independent evaluator that found Fox to be the least biased network. The two evaluations I found right off the bat, Pew and Politifact, actually said the opposite is true.
Independent evaluators, Dogbreath. Obviously Pew and Politifact have been bought and paid for by the liberal media. Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. Politifact is run by Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute. I suppose that might count as a bastion of liberal elitism, so you've got me there. But if you read up on Joseph Pew and his descendants, I sincerely doubt the Pew Memorial Trust is in any way an agent of the liberal media/gay agenda/what have you. You can never be too careful, though.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead, because of their naked attacks on President Trump and their obvious leftwing bias, along with several instances of outright lies and stories based on nothing, CNN is a distant third place and Fox remains in first.
Meanwhile, about halfway between them, MSNBC, the perpetual also-ran, is now the dominant leftwing slanted news source for liberals who need better comfort than CNN's ham-handed efforts have provided.
Yet the liberal news media still speak of Fox News as if it ran false stories all the time, as if Fox were the biased network. Yet every independent evaluator of news networks consistently rates Fox as the least biased, the most even-handed of all the networks, including ABC, NBC and CBS.
Does anyone know what he's talking about here? I was sort of curious to find the source of these claims and literally couldn't find even one independent evaluator that found Fox to be the least biased network. The two evaluations I found right off the bat, Pew and Politifact, actually said the opposite is true.
I don't have a linked source for this, but my understanding is that this is based on a survey of the programming during "news hours", where someone just reads the news, which take place during very limited times of the day. The rest of the air time is "commentary", which yeah, is about as biased as you can possibly get and doesn't count in the survey.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it might be something like that as well, but I searched for a while and couldn't find it. I figured if it was the consensus of every independent evaluator of news networks, it might be easier to find?
I'll have to use my school's virtual library later to see if I can find any published studies.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
...That was faster than I thought. Anyway, one of the results I found is publicly available from Stanford University: Bias In Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization. Their results are pretty fascinating (the study as a whole concludes that watching Fox News actually causes viewers to become more likely to vote Republican), but on page 10 they specifically go into their methodology:
quote:To quantify the slant of each news channel in each year, we follow Groseclose and Milyo (2005) and Gentzkow and Shapiro (2010) in comparing the language that the channels use to language that Congresspeople use. This procedure is designed to capture the connotations that a politician or media outlet can imply by using differences in language to describe the same program or policy, e.g., “personal accounts” versus “private accounts” or “war in Iraq” versus “global war on terror.” It cannot, however, pick up all forms of slant present in television news - for instance, the use of quotations or clips from an opponent’s speech in order to satirize or mock the opponent’s views - and thus likely underestimates the dispersion in slant among the slanted outlets. We obtained broadcast transcripts for CNN, FNC, and MSNBC from the Lexis-Nexis database for the sample period 1998-2012 by downloading all transcripts in each year for each identifiable cable news program from each of the three channels... our estimates for this scale factor put FNC very close to the median Republican member of Congress.
Note that this study is from April of 2017 (three months ago), so this is most likely the most recent - or one of the most recent - analyses of the political bias in reporting for the three networks. This is the visualization of the results of the aforementioned transcript analysis:
It would appear that, up until 2012 at least, CNN has consistently been the least politically skewed in their reporting. For most of the time period studied the baseline (no ideological bias at all) is within the 95% confidence interval, and while they did take a sharp turn to the left around 2008, it appears they have since mostly regressed to the mean. (As opposed to Fox and MSNBC which have continued to become more ideologically skewed)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Hmmm. Politifact is run by Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute. I suppose that might count as a bastion of liberal elitism, so you've got me there. But if you read up on Joseph Pew and his descendants, I sincerely doubt the Pew Memorial Trust is in any way an agent of the liberal media/gay agenda/what have you. You can never be too careful, though.
Jonathon was kidding, if that wasn't clear.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Yeah, no clue on my end. I might actually ask because I'm curious.
By any chance did you get a response? If not that's fine, I'm mostly just curious to find out what his source was.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still waiting for a response on a previous query so I haven't asked this one yet, unfortunately.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
