What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)

    1. Sen. Joni Ernst [R-Iowa]
    2. fresh-crazy-badge.jpg
    3. Just how crazy?
    4. Said Obama was "apathetic" despite previously claiming he had "become a dictator." She carries a gun—"a beautiful little Smith & Wesson nine-millimeter"—with her "virtually everywhere," just in case she needs to defend herself "from an intruder" or "from the government," of which she is now an elected member.
    5. Fun fact:
    6. Grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm; in her first campaign ad, complained that Washington is "full of big spenders" and urged voters to send her there so that she could "make 'em squeal."
    7. Think of her as:
    8. Michele Bachmann with a more sensible haircut.
 
Rep. Louie Gohmert [R-Tex.]

Just how crazy?As a judge, ordered a man with HIV to get written consent from any future sexual partners. Claimed that if an oil pipeline in Alaska were shut down, it would diminish the caribou population because "when they want to go on a date, they invite each other to head over to the pipeline."

Actual thing he said:Speaking against federal funds to protect endangered species, including some rare breeds of dogs and cats in China: "There's no assurance that if we did that, we wouldn't end up with moo goo dog pan or moo goo cat pan."

 
Rep. Steve King [R-Iowa]

Just how crazy?Voted against federal penalties for attending animal fights, under the theory that since it's legal to watch humans fight, it would be wrong to forbid watching animals fight. Suggested the U.S. electrify the border fence, because "we do that with livestock all the time."

Actual thing he said:"For every [undocumented immigrant] who's a valedictorian, there's another one hundred out there who weigh 130 pounds—and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes, because they're hauling seventy-five pounds of marijuana across the desert."

 
Governor Paul LePage [R-Me.]

crazy-hall-of-fame.jpg

Just how crazy?Refused to attend Martin Luther King Day activities, saying the NAACP is a "special interest." Then added, "Tell 'em to kiss my butt." Said that a Democratic state leader "claims to be for the people, but he's the first one to give it to the people without providing Vaseline." Urged a repeal of Maine's ban on the plastics chemical component BPA, claiming it wasn't dangerous and saying, "Put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen. So the worst case is some women may have little beards."

Fun fact:Was re-elected in 2014.

Think of him as:If Don Rickles mated with poutine.

 
According to this article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/27/gq-made-a-list-of-craziest-politicians-republicans-revolted/

a lot of conservatives are upset because that GQ list had 17 Republicans on it and only 3 liberals. That proves, according to them, that GC is engaging in "liberal bias" like so many other mainstream news outlets.

I disagree. I think the percentage, at the present time, is completely accurate. If we took a time machine to around 1975, it would be reversed: probably 17-18 of he craziest politicians would be Democrats. But right now, most of them belong to the Republican party, and primarily in the House of Representatives.

 
timschochet said:
According to this article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/27/gq-made-a-list-of-craziest-politicians-republicans-revolted/

a lot of conservatives are upset because that GQ list had 17 Republicans on it and only 3 liberals. That proves, according to them, that GC is engaging in "liberal bias" like so many other mainstream news outlets.

I disagree. I think the percentage, at the present time, is completely accurate. If we took a time machine to around 1975, it would be reversed: probably 17-18 of he craziest politicians would be Democrats. But right now, most of them belong to the Republican party, and primarily in the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...
WaPo:

GQ might have been biased against Republicans, but it was just playing to its base; 46 percent of GQ print readers and 43 percent of GQ.com readers are Democrats...
Click to expand...
Where does that leave you?

 
These are Stephen Sherrill's other pieces for GQ:

  • My 9 Most Amazing, Most Decisive Decisions Stephen Sherrill imagines what a book proposal by the greatest forty-third president in history—George W. Bush—might look like - this features a cartoon of George Bush which looks like a chimp, which if this was about Mohammed would result in a death fatwa.
  • Welcome to Congress! A complete guide to the "Take America Back" class of 2010 - looks like the prequel to '20 craziest'
  • Can Anyone Beat Barack Obama? The race for the GOP nomination promises to be a street fight. So to make things a little less gory, here's some advice for Mr. President's would-be challenger - pretty much in this one Sherrill lies prostrate.
  • The Nutty Professor We all know that Newt Gingrich is a gifted teacher of history. But here is GQ's exclusive look at the curriculum for the correspondence class The Newtitor plans to teach from the Oval Office once he makes his inevitable return to power (it's predicted by history!) - oh yes I'm sure this was fair & balanced...
Click to expand...
I don't mind people with a partisan point of view, and unlike some I think partisanship and partisan argument from both ends is necessary and even good sometimes, what I find fascinating is how Tim so completely falls in line with this guy and fails to self-reflect on his own partisanship, which is determinedly on the left.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ilov80s said:
I've seen and heard tons of anti-Arab/Muslim stuff, but it's almost always been behind their back comments, not overt stuff. I'm sure the Muslims notice more than a bystander like myself would. They likely get the impression that some people avoid them, are my cold to them, treat them different, etc.
Click to expand...
Well you definitely live in an area with a more substantial Arab or muslim population.

I know of two mosques in NO, one in a suburb down I10, the other in NO East. That's not much, but I've never heard anyone say or do anything negative about an Arab or muslim person in my life. There was a beautiful girl who was Lebanese who worked in my office a few years back, she was well loved. I think another girl (jealous) said something about muslims one time in regards to the 9/11/01 attacks and everyone rushed to the other girl's defense. Office politics, the girl saying things was Suthuhn and was not particularly well liked. That's really all I can recall.
Click to expand...
Not sure whether this is the case, but a lot of the Lebanese that left during the civil war were actually Christian.

And many Lebanese women are hawt. (I thought I should get that off my chest....)
Click to expand...
Yeah, this girl was nice and beautiful and classy and she was not only well loved everyone was in love with her.

I realize the point about the Lebanese. There is a sizable Lebanese culture in LA and some towns, like Carville, actually have some very wealthy families that have become very influential, I am guessing they are Christian (I know someone from such a family, he and they are indeed Christian). This girl I'm speaking of was from Houston and it was never clear whether she was Christian or what, which is fine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
According to this article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/27/gq-made-a-list-of-craziest-politicians-republicans-revolted/

a lot of conservatives are upset because that GQ list had 17 Republicans on it and only 3 liberals. That proves, according to them, that GC is engaging in "liberal bias" like so many other mainstream news outlets.

I disagree. I think the percentage, at the present time, is completely accurate. If we took a time machine to around 1975, it would be reversed: probably 17-18 of he craziest politicians would be Democrats. But right now, most of them belong to the Republican party, and primarily in the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...
Of course you agree with it. You are never able to take your biases out and look at something objectively. You are in the small minority who are unable to admit there is a liberal bias in the media. Even a lot of liberals (dare I even say a majority of liberals) admit the media is liberally biased. Many also see a corporate bias, which also has some merit. But that bias is more out of fear of losing specific sponsorships or being sued.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
These are Stephen Sherrill's other pieces for GQ:

  • My 9 Most Amazing, Most Decisive Decisions Stephen Sherrill imagines what a book proposal by the greatest forty-third president in history—George W. Bush—might look like - this features a cartoon of George Bush which looks like a chimp, which if this was about Mohammed would result in a death fatwa.
  • Welcome to Congress! A complete guide to the "Take America Back" class of 2010 - looks like the prequel to '20 craziest'
  • Can Anyone Beat Barack Obama? The race for the GOP nomination promises to be a street fight. So to make things a little less gory, here's some advice for Mr. President's would-be challenger - pretty much in this one Sherrill lies prostrate.
  • The Nutty Professor We all know that Newt Gingrich is a gifted teacher of history. But here is GQ's exclusive look at the curriculum for the correspondence class The Newtitor plans to teach from the Oval Office once he makes his inevitable return to power (it's predicted by history!) - oh yes I'm sure this was fair & balanced...
Click to expand...
I don't mind people with a partisan point of view, and unlike some I think partisanship and partisan argument from both ends is necessary and even good sometimes, what I find fascinating is how Tim so completely falls in line with this guy and fails to self-reflect on his own partisanship, which is determinedly on the left.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: They need an emoticon for outstanding post. But I am certain this will not get through the thick skull.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
These are Stephen Sherrill's other pieces for GQ:

  • My 9 Most Amazing, Most Decisive Decisions Stephen Sherrill imagines what a book proposal by the greatest forty-third president in history—George W. Bush—might look like - this features a cartoon of George Bush which looks like a chimp, which if this was about Mohammed would result in a death fatwa.
  • Welcome to Congress! A complete guide to the "Take America Back" class of 2010 - looks like the prequel to '20 craziest'
  • Can Anyone Beat Barack Obama? The race for the GOP nomination promises to be a street fight. So to make things a little less gory, here's some advice for Mr. President's would-be challenger - pretty much in this one Sherrill lies prostrate.
  • The Nutty Professor We all know that Newt Gingrich is a gifted teacher of history. But here is GQ's exclusive look at the curriculum for the correspondence class The Newtitor plans to teach from the Oval Office once he makes his inevitable return to power (it's predicted by history!) - oh yes I'm sure this was fair & balanced...
Click to expand...
I don't mind people with a partisan point of view, and unlike some I think partisanship and partisan argument from both ends is necessary and even good sometimes, what I find fascinating is how Tim so completely falls in line with this guy and fails to self-reflect on his own partisanship, which is determinedly on the left.
Click to expand...
Have you self-reflected on your own rightwing partisanship?

 
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
These are Stephen Sherrill's other pieces for GQ:

  • My 9 Most Amazing, Most Decisive Decisions Stephen Sherrill imagines what a book proposal by the greatest forty-third president in history—George W. Bush—might look like - this features a cartoon of George Bush which looks like a chimp, which if this was about Mohammed would result in a death fatwa.
  • Welcome to Congress! A complete guide to the "Take America Back" class of 2010 - looks like the prequel to '20 craziest'
  • Can Anyone Beat Barack Obama? The race for the GOP nomination promises to be a street fight. So to make things a little less gory, here's some advice for Mr. President's would-be challenger - pretty much in this one Sherrill lies prostrate.
  • The Nutty Professor We all know that Newt Gingrich is a gifted teacher of history. But here is GQ's exclusive look at the curriculum for the correspondence class The Newtitor plans to teach from the Oval Office once he makes his inevitable return to power (it's predicted by history!) - oh yes I'm sure this was fair & balanced...
Click to expand...
I don't mind people with a partisan point of view, and unlike some I think partisanship and partisan argument from both ends is necessary and even good sometimes, what I find fascinating is how Tim so completely falls in line with this guy and fails to self-reflect on his own partisanship, which is determinedly on the left.
Click to expand...
Have you self-reflected on your own rightwing partisanship?
Click to expand...
I have, glad to talk about it, but I can tell you that if I posted an article from a Breitbart writer I'd be pretty up front about it rather than pretend it reflects some centrist, purely objective viewpoint. I must say I try awfully hard not to post such articles here though, not only for that reason but also because they would be immediately dismissed out of hand.

 
timschochet said:
Governor Paul LePage [R-Me.]

crazy-hall-of-fame.jpg

Just how crazy?Refused to attend Martin Luther King Day activities, saying the NAACP is a "special interest." Then added, "Tell 'em to kiss my butt." Said that a Democratic state leader "claims to be for the people, but he's the first one to give it to the people without providing Vaseline." Urged a repeal of Maine's ban on the plastics chemical component BPA, claiming it wasn't dangerous and saying, "Put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen. So the worst case is some women may have little beards."

Fun fact:Was re-elected in 2014.

Think of him as:If Don Rickles mated with poutine.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the NAACP is about 99.9% Democrat. And the data on BPA is limited to a few animal studies and is far from conclusive. It might very well be dangerous, and could be banned by the FDA when conclusive evidence happens, but it is far from being crazy to want to appeal the ban at this point. Let the FDA do it at the appropriate time. Personally, I don't microwave packaging which might contain it. I don't know this guy, but the reasoning for being crazy is pretty shallow.

 
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
These are Stephen Sherrill's other pieces for GQ:

  • My 9 Most Amazing, Most Decisive Decisions Stephen Sherrill imagines what a book proposal by the greatest forty-third president in history—George W. Bush—might look like - this features a cartoon of George Bush which looks like a chimp, which if this was about Mohammed would result in a death fatwa.
  • Welcome to Congress! A complete guide to the "Take America Back" class of 2010 - looks like the prequel to '20 craziest'
  • Can Anyone Beat Barack Obama? The race for the GOP nomination promises to be a street fight. So to make things a little less gory, here's some advice for Mr. President's would-be challenger - pretty much in this one Sherrill lies prostrate.
  • The Nutty Professor We all know that Newt Gingrich is a gifted teacher of history. But here is GQ's exclusive look at the curriculum for the correspondence class The Newtitor plans to teach from the Oval Office once he makes his inevitable return to power (it's predicted by history!) - oh yes I'm sure this was fair & balanced...
Click to expand...
I don't mind people with a partisan point of view, and unlike some I think partisanship and partisan argument from both ends is necessary and even good sometimes, what I find fascinating is how Tim so completely falls in line with this guy and fails to self-reflect on his own partisanship, which is determinedly on the left.
Click to expand...
Have you self-reflected on your own rightwing partisanship?
Click to expand...
I would say if there is one person who is more in denial than Tim on his political bias, it would be Todd "I am an independent" Andrews. Saints is more than capable of looking at things objectively, and readily admits his personal bias.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
These are Stephen Sherrill's other pieces for GQ:

  • My 9 Most Amazing, Most Decisive Decisions Stephen Sherrill imagines what a book proposal by the greatest forty-third president in history—George W. Bush—might look like - this features a cartoon of George Bush which looks like a chimp, which if this was about Mohammed would result in a death fatwa.
  • Welcome to Congress! A complete guide to the "Take America Back" class of 2010 - looks like the prequel to '20 craziest'
  • Can Anyone Beat Barack Obama? The race for the GOP nomination promises to be a street fight. So to make things a little less gory, here's some advice for Mr. President's would-be challenger - pretty much in this one Sherrill lies prostrate.
  • The Nutty Professor We all know that Newt Gingrich is a gifted teacher of history. But here is GQ's exclusive look at the curriculum for the correspondence class The Newtitor plans to teach from the Oval Office once he makes his inevitable return to power (it's predicted by history!) - oh yes I'm sure this was fair & balanced...
Click to expand...
I don't mind people with a partisan point of view, and unlike some I think partisanship and partisan argument from both ends is necessary and even good sometimes, what I find fascinating is how Tim so completely falls in line with this guy and fails to self-reflect on his own partisanship, which is determinedly on the left.
Click to expand...
Have you self-reflected on your own rightwing partisanship?
Click to expand...
I have, glad to talk about it, but I can tell you that if I posted an article from a Breitbart writer I'd be pretty up front about it rather than pretend it reflects some centrist, purely objective viewpoint. I must say I try awfully hard not to post such articles here though, not only for that reason but also because they would be immediately dismissed out of hand.
Click to expand...
I am not Tim's biggest fan, but you arent being fair here. He posted an article from GQ (not really the equivalent of Breitbart, and the author is really a political humorist, something all Breitbart writers are unintentionally), and never claimed it was centrist, purely objective viewpoint. Anyone with half a brain who looked at it would see it was political humor, but you are here mischaracterizing the context of Tim presenting it. And then Tim clearly explained his own position on the subject of GOP KooK craziness, which is the exact opposite of not self-reflecting, it seems.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
These are Stephen Sherrill's other pieces for GQ:

  • My 9 Most Amazing, Most Decisive Decisions Stephen Sherrill imagines what a book proposal by the greatest forty-third president in history—George W. Bush—might look like - this features a cartoon of George Bush which looks like a chimp, which if this was about Mohammed would result in a death fatwa.
  • Welcome to Congress! A complete guide to the "Take America Back" class of 2010 - looks like the prequel to '20 craziest'
  • Can Anyone Beat Barack Obama? The race for the GOP nomination promises to be a street fight. So to make things a little less gory, here's some advice for Mr. President's would-be challenger - pretty much in this one Sherrill lies prostrate.
  • The Nutty Professor We all know that Newt Gingrich is a gifted teacher of history. But here is GQ's exclusive look at the curriculum for the correspondence class The Newtitor plans to teach from the Oval Office once he makes his inevitable return to power (it's predicted by history!) - oh yes I'm sure this was fair & balanced...
Click to expand...
I don't mind people with a partisan point of view, and unlike some I think partisanship and partisan argument from both ends is necessary and even good sometimes, what I find fascinating is how Tim so completely falls in line with this guy and fails to self-reflect on his own partisanship, which is determinedly on the left.
Click to expand...
Have you self-reflected on your own rightwing partisanship?
Click to expand...
I would say if there is one person who is more in denial than Tim on his political bias, it would be Todd "I am an independent" Andrews. Saints is more than capable of looking at things objectively, and readily admits his personal bias.
Click to expand...
KooK says what?

 
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
These are Stephen Sherrill's other pieces for GQ:

  • My 9 Most Amazing, Most Decisive Decisions Stephen Sherrill imagines what a book proposal by the greatest forty-third president in history—George W. Bush—might look like - this features a cartoon of George Bush which looks like a chimp, which if this was about Mohammed would result in a death fatwa.
  • Welcome to Congress! A complete guide to the "Take America Back" class of 2010 - looks like the prequel to '20 craziest'
  • Can Anyone Beat Barack Obama? The race for the GOP nomination promises to be a street fight. So to make things a little less gory, here's some advice for Mr. President's would-be challenger - pretty much in this one Sherrill lies prostrate.
  • The Nutty Professor We all know that Newt Gingrich is a gifted teacher of history. But here is GQ's exclusive look at the curriculum for the correspondence class The Newtitor plans to teach from the Oval Office once he makes his inevitable return to power (it's predicted by history!) - oh yes I'm sure this was fair & balanced...
Click to expand...
I don't mind people with a partisan point of view, and unlike some I think partisanship and partisan argument from both ends is necessary and even good sometimes, what I find fascinating is how Tim so completely falls in line with this guy and fails to self-reflect on his own partisanship, which is determinedly on the left.
Click to expand...
Have you self-reflected on your own rightwing partisanship?
Click to expand...
I have, glad to talk about it, but I can tell you that if I posted an article from a Breitbart writer I'd be pretty up front about it rather than pretend it reflects some centrist, purely objective viewpoint. I must say I try awfully hard not to post such articles here though, not only for that reason but also because they would be immediately dismissed out of hand.
Click to expand...
I am not Tim's biggest fan, but you arent being fair here. He posted an article from GQ (not really the equivalent of Breitbart, and the author is really a political humorist, something all Breitbart writers are unintentionally), and never claimed it was centrist, purely objective viewpoint. Anyone with half a brain who looked at it would see it was political humor, but you are here mischaracterizing the context of Tim presenting it. And then Tim clearly explained his own position on the subject of GOP KooK craziness, which is the exact opposite of self-reflection, it seems.
Click to expand...
I think the articles posted could easily be posted in any liberal/progressive counterpart of Breitbart. The fact that they appear in a mainstream mag as GQ just shows how things are perceived.

There is a whole other thread on this magazine article, I could delve into it but I won't (glad to pick it up in that thread, which I don't think I commented in).

I think when Tim and the author cross the line from "those crazy politicians!" (let's face it, lots of fodder out there) to "it so true, 17/20th's of them really are gopper!" it gets partisan, which is ok, like I said, but admit it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd Andrews said:
I am not Tim's biggest fan, but you arent being fair here. He posted an article from GQ (not really the equivalent of Breitbart, and the author is really a political humorist, something all Breitbart writers are unintentionally), and never claimed it was centrist, purely objective viewpoint. Anyone with half a brain who looked at it would see it was political humor, but you are here mischaracterizing the context of Tim presenting it. And then Tim clearly explained his own position on the subject of GOP KooK craziness, which is the exact opposite of not self-reflecting, it seems.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the part where Tim agreed with the assessment and did not find the article showed biased?

 
Todd Andrews said:
jon_mx said:
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
These are Stephen Sherrill's other pieces for GQ:

  • My 9 Most Amazing, Most Decisive Decisions Stephen Sherrill imagines what a book proposal by the greatest forty-third president in history—George W. Bush—might look like - this features a cartoon of George Bush which looks like a chimp, which if this was about Mohammed would result in a death fatwa.
  • Welcome to Congress! A complete guide to the "Take America Back" class of 2010 - looks like the prequel to '20 craziest'
  • Can Anyone Beat Barack Obama? The race for the GOP nomination promises to be a street fight. So to make things a little less gory, here's some advice for Mr. President's would-be challenger - pretty much in this one Sherrill lies prostrate.
  • The Nutty Professor We all know that Newt Gingrich is a gifted teacher of history. But here is GQ's exclusive look at the curriculum for the correspondence class The Newtitor plans to teach from the Oval Office once he makes his inevitable return to power (it's predicted by history!) - oh yes I'm sure this was fair & balanced...
Click to expand...
I don't mind people with a partisan point of view, and unlike some I think partisanship and partisan argument from both ends is necessary and even good sometimes, what I find fascinating is how Tim so completely falls in line with this guy and fails to self-reflect on his own partisanship, which is determinedly on the left.
Click to expand...
Have you self-reflected on your own rightwing partisanship?
Click to expand...
I would say if there is one person who is more in denial than Tim on his political bias, it would be Todd "I am an independent" Andrews. Saints is more than capable of looking at things objectively, and readily admits his personal bias.
Click to expand...
KooK says what?
Click to expand...
The KooK just said, "KooK says what?". I am not sure why you asked.

 
jon_mx said:
Todd Andrews said:
I am not Tim's biggest fan, but you arent being fair here. He posted an article from GQ (not really the equivalent of Breitbart, and the author is really a political humorist, something all Breitbart writers are unintentionally), and never claimed it was centrist, purely objective viewpoint. Anyone with half a brain who looked at it would see it was political humor, but you are here mischaracterizing the context of Tim presenting it. And then Tim clearly explained his own position on the subject of GOP KooK craziness, which is the exact opposite of not self-reflecting, it seems.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the part where Tim agreed with the assessment and did not find the article showed biased?
Click to expand...
Which shows Tim does self-reflect on his partisanship.

Tim should just identify as anti-KooK, like me and all other patriotic Americans.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
These are Stephen Sherrill's other pieces for GQ:

  • My 9 Most Amazing, Most Decisive Decisions Stephen Sherrill imagines what a book proposal by the greatest forty-third president in history—George W. Bush—might look like - this features a cartoon of George Bush which looks like a chimp, which if this was about Mohammed would result in a death fatwa.
  • Welcome to Congress! A complete guide to the "Take America Back" class of 2010 - looks like the prequel to '20 craziest'
  • Can Anyone Beat Barack Obama? The race for the GOP nomination promises to be a street fight. So to make things a little less gory, here's some advice for Mr. President's would-be challenger - pretty much in this one Sherrill lies prostrate.
  • The Nutty Professor We all know that Newt Gingrich is a gifted teacher of history. But here is GQ's exclusive look at the curriculum for the correspondence class The Newtitor plans to teach from the Oval Office once he makes his inevitable return to power (it's predicted by history!) - oh yes I'm sure this was fair & balanced...
Click to expand...
I don't mind people with a partisan point of view, and unlike some I think partisanship and partisan argument from both ends is necessary and even good sometimes, what I find fascinating is how Tim so completely falls in line with this guy and fails to self-reflect on his own partisanship, which is determinedly on the left.
Click to expand...
Have you self-reflected on your own rightwing partisanship?
Click to expand...
I have, glad to talk about it, but I can tell you that if I posted an article from a Breitbart writer I'd be pretty up front about it rather than pretend it reflects some centrist, purely objective viewpoint. I must say I try awfully hard not to post such articles here though, not only for that reason but also because they would be immediately dismissed out of hand.
Click to expand...
I am not Tim's biggest fan, but you arent being fair here. He posted an article from GQ (not really the equivalent of Breitbart, and the author is really a political humorist, something all Breitbart writers are unintentionally), and never claimed it was centrist, purely objective viewpoint. Anyone with half a brain who looked at it would see it was political humor, but you are here mischaracterizing the context of Tim presenting it. And then Tim clearly explained his own position on the subject of GOP KooK craziness, which is the exact opposite of self-reflection, it seems.
Click to expand...
I think the articles posted could easily be posted in any liberal/progressive counterpart of Breitbart. The fact that they appear in a mainstream mag as GQ just shows how things are perceived.

There is a whole other thread on this magazine article, I could delve into it but I won't (glad to pick it up in that thread, which I don't think I commented in).

I think when Tim and the author cross the line from "those crazy politicians!" (let's face it, lots of fodder out there) to "it so true, 17/20th's of them really are gopper!" it gets partisan, which is ok, like I said, but admit it.
Click to expand...
Is it partisan to point out the KooKs? And is it partisan if there are more KooKs in one political party than the other?

If you yourself are a KooK, can you hear if a KooK tree falls in the woods?

 
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Todd Andrews said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
These are Stephen Sherrill's other pieces for GQ:

  • My 9 Most Amazing, Most Decisive Decisions Stephen Sherrill imagines what a book proposal by the greatest forty-third president in history—George W. Bush—might look like - this features a cartoon of George Bush which looks like a chimp, which if this was about Mohammed would result in a death fatwa.
  • Welcome to Congress! A complete guide to the "Take America Back" class of 2010 - looks like the prequel to '20 craziest'
  • Can Anyone Beat Barack Obama? The race for the GOP nomination promises to be a street fight. So to make things a little less gory, here's some advice for Mr. President's would-be challenger - pretty much in this one Sherrill lies prostrate.
  • The Nutty Professor We all know that Newt Gingrich is a gifted teacher of history. But here is GQ's exclusive look at the curriculum for the correspondence class The Newtitor plans to teach from the Oval Office once he makes his inevitable return to power (it's predicted by history!) - oh yes I'm sure this was fair & balanced...
Click to expand...
I don't mind people with a partisan point of view, and unlike some I think partisanship and partisan argument from both ends is necessary and even good sometimes, what I find fascinating is how Tim so completely falls in line with this guy and fails to self-reflect on his own partisanship, which is determinedly on the left.
Click to expand...
Have you self-reflected on your own rightwing partisanship?
Click to expand...
I have, glad to talk about it, but I can tell you that if I posted an article from a Breitbart writer I'd be pretty up front about it rather than pretend it reflects some centrist, purely objective viewpoint. I must say I try awfully hard not to post such articles here though, not only for that reason but also because they would be immediately dismissed out of hand.
Click to expand...
I am not Tim's biggest fan, but you arent being fair here. He posted an article from GQ (not really the equivalent of Breitbart, and the author is really a political humorist, something all Breitbart writers are unintentionally), and never claimed it was centrist, purely objective viewpoint. Anyone with half a brain who looked at it would see it was political humor, but you are here mischaracterizing the context of Tim presenting it. And then Tim clearly explained his own position on the subject of GOP KooK craziness, which is the exact opposite of self-reflection, it seems.
Click to expand...
I think the articles posted could easily be posted in any liberal/progressive counterpart of Breitbart. The fact that they appear in a mainstream mag as GQ just shows how things are perceived.

There is a whole other thread on this magazine article, I could delve into it but I won't (glad to pick it up in that thread, which I don't think I commented in).

I think when Tim and the author cross the line from "those crazy politicians!" (let's face it, lots of fodder out there) to "it so true, 17/20th's of them really are gopper!" it gets partisan, which is ok, like I said, but admit it.
Click to expand...
Is it partisan to point out the KooKs? And is it partisan if there are more KooKs in one political party than the other?

If you yourself are a KooK, can you hear if a KooK tree falls in the woods?
Click to expand...
I feel a circular discussion forthcoming. I'm not going to get into personal stuff or even discuss k00kiness here. I said what I said about Tim because part of the reason for this thread is that all other threads become about.... Tim. So here we have a thread about Tim. Tim posts partisan hand grenades in threads and pretends how they are completely neutral and objective observations, and then circular arguments ensue, then people get aggravated. This is probably an example. Sorry but pretending that author is anything but 100% partisan is absurd.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good morning.

I can see how it would be perceived as partisan for me (or for the writer of that article) to make the claim that the strong majority of crazies in politics at the present time reside on the Right. But the implication of this perception is that in order to "prove" objectivity, one would have to find that there's an equal amount of craziness on both sides. And I don't think that's true.

I can't speak for the author of the article I posted. Maybe he really is attempting a liberal hit piece here. But for me, this is an argument I have been making for a long time with honest intent. Most of the people on that list are Tea Party members, and there is no equivalent to the Tea Party on the Left in this country at the current time. I posted the article first because I thought it was funny and second because I thought the ratio of crazy to conservative at the current time was accurate. I stand by that. If anyone wants to dispute my analysis of this ratio, please do so by arguing the facts of the matter. Focusing on the bias of the author, or my bias, is irrelevant.

 
And jon, while you are correct in stating that I don't believe that the mainstream media has a liberal bias (I never have), I think you are incorrect in your assertion that most liberals and independents would acknowledge such a bias. IMO you would be hard pressed to find any non-conservative to agree that such a bias exists. As always I'm happy to debate the issue with you. Neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to come up with any concrete evidence of a liberal bias in the media beyond anecdotes of a limited nature which prove nothing about the whole.

 
Saints, interesting article on Wasserman-Shultz. Not really a fan though I don't detest her either. She's always struck me as a very partisan liberal somewhat like Chuck Schumer. I can't recall a thoughtful or independent proposal she has made.

 
timschochet said:
And jon, while you are correct in stating that I don't believe that the mainstream media has a liberal bias (I never have), I think you are incorrect in your assertion that most liberals and independents would acknowledge such a bias. IMO you would be hard pressed to find any non-conservative to agree that such a bias exists. As always I'm happy to debate the issue with you. Neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to come up with any concrete evidence of a liberal bias in the media beyond anecdotes of a limited nature which prove nothing about the whole.
Click to expand...
Your own poll you conducted here showed nearly 80% of the people think the media is at lease somewhat biased to the left. If that is anywhere near reflective of the population, clearly even most independents see the bias and, unless every one of those who do not see the bias is liberal, it is probably also a majority of liberals who admit it also. Even studies conducted by liberals have objectively demonstrated such a bias exist in the coverage of political campaigns. I know how you feel about it, but the objective evidence that exists conflicts with your feelings.

 
As I anticipated, both sides are trying to defuse the tension caused by Netanyahu arriving today and speaking tomorrow. Yesterday Bibi reaffirmed his "personal respect and close relationship" with President Obama, while John Kerry stated that the USA is "more deeply committed to the security of Israel than we have ever been." However much of this is true, both sides had to say it and I'm glad they did.

Which leads us to the debate that is causing this visit. Bibi believes we should renew our sanctions against Iran. He thinks that lifting the sanctions wil help Iran gain nuclear weapons. The Obama administration believes we can negotiate with Iran and establish new relations with them, and that lifting the sanctions will convince the Iranians NOT to pursue nukes. Which position is the correct one?

 
The other question I have this morning: Gary Kasparov wrote a piece yesterday in which he strongly urges us, in response to the Nemtsov murder, to stop dealing with "Putin's criminal regime" and to arm Ukraine. He argues that such a move is the ONLY way to force Putin to make any concessions and/or to ultimately help the Rusdian people get rid of Putin. Should we do as the chess master asks?

 
jon_mx said:
timschochet said:
And jon, while you are correct in stating that I don't believe that the mainstream media has a liberal bias (I never have), I think you are incorrect in your assertion that most liberals and independents would acknowledge such a bias. IMO you would be hard pressed to find any non-conservative to agree that such a bias exists. As always I'm happy to debate the issue with you. Neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to come up with any concrete evidence of a liberal bias in the media beyond anecdotes of a limited nature which prove nothing about the whole.
Click to expand...
Your own poll you conducted here showed nearly 80% of the people think the media is at lease somewhat biased to the left. If that is anywhere near reflective of the population, clearly even most independents see the bias and, unless every one of those who do not see the bias is liberal, it is probably also a majority of liberals who admit it also. Even studies conducted by liberals have objectively demonstrated such a bias exist in the coverage of political campaigns. I know how you feel about it, but the objective evidence that exists conflicts with your feelings.
Click to expand...
do you have a link to any of these studies?
 
timschochet said:
Good morning.

I can see how it would be perceived as partisan for me (or for the writer of that article) to make the claim that the strong majority of crazies in politics at the present time reside on the Right. But the implication of this perception is that in order to "prove" objectivity, one would have to find that there's an equal amount of craziness on both sides. And I don't think that's true.

I can't speak for the author of the article I posted. Maybe he really is attempting a liberal hit piece here. But for me, this is an argument I have been making for a long time with honest intent. Most of the people on that list are Tea Party members, and there is no equivalent to the Tea Party on the Left in this country at the current time. I posted the article first because I thought it was funny and second because I thought the ratio of crazy to conservative at the current time was accurate. I stand by that. If anyone wants to dispute my analysis of this ratio, please do so by arguing the facts of the matter. Focusing on the bias of the author, or my bias, is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
  • Kshama Sawant, Seattle councilwoman, who advocates the seizure and nationalization of the nation's 500 biggest corporations.
  • Maxine Waters - proposed seizing banks.
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz - among other things threatened Pres. Obama with accusations he was antisemitic and mysogynistic if he fired her as head of the DNC.
  • Hillary Clinton - who showed up at her first meeting with Russia's foreign minister with a red button which she thought meant reset but actually meant "overload" in Russian. Was crazy enough to think this would help things vs Putin, who has since invaded a European country and killed political rivals and journalists.
  • Alan Grayson - take your pick on him.
  • Nancy Pelosi - hey let's vote on bills to see what's in them!
  • Barbara Lee - check
  • Shirley Jackson Lee - check
  • Bernie Sanders - Socialist who has proposed a wealth tax and also amending the 1st Amendment
  • Jonathan Gruber - claims that it is right and proper to lie to the American people for the greater good
  • Wendy Davis - actually ran an ad of a man in a wheelchair mocking her own handicapped opponent
  • Samantha Power, UN Ambassador - "Daniel Pearl’s story is reminder that individual accountability & reconciliation are required to break cycles of violence.” Wow, just wow.
  • Jen Psaki, State Dept. spokeswoman - as to why Bengladeshi-American writer Avihit Roy was hacked to death with machetes in the middle of the street with machetes, "We don’t have more information at this point. We, of course, will provide consular assistance as is appropriate. We’re also – stand ready to assist in the investigation if asked. Clearly, we know his background, which was why I outlined it, but don’t have anything to ascribe in terms of a motive in this case."
  • Harry Reid - claimed Obama would make a great presidential candidate because he was "light skinned" with no discernible "negro dialect"
  • KY Senate candidate Alison Grimes - wouldn't even admit she voted for Pres. Obama
  • Joe Biden - lessee, divide Iraq into three, touches underage girls and wives uncomfortably, does cringe worthy imitations of Indians and other minorities, called Obama "clean and articulate", check, check, check
  • Jon Edwards - US Senator, very close to being VP, certified freak
That's 17.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're stretching Saints. Several of the examples you gave are pretty weak IMO. Very few of them are related to a political philosophy (which was my point earlier). Of course I agree with you on Alan Grayson, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Maxine Waters. But very few of the others. Reid and Pelosi, for example, don't belong anywhere near this conversation.

 
Yeah, I think Saint's post just reinforces that there are more crazy politicians on the right. Most of his nationally known choices don't seem crazy at all. And the list gets filled out by people like Gruber, who isn't a politician, Edwards, who isn't a politician anymore, and some Seattle councilwoman, who is a nobody. If those people get included we should be able to include people like Donald Trump or Michelle Bachmann on the right, who are supercrazy but didn't even make the GQ list because they don't hold offices.

 
I mean, Senator Inhofe brought a freaking snowball into the Senate to disprove global warming last week and he couldn't even make the cut. If we made a list of the next 20 craziest politicians left off the list, the new list would also be mostly Republicans.

 
timschochet said:
do you have a link to any of these studies?
Click to expand...
Let's start with one from Harvard souce, but quotes a study from UCLA and U of Chicago. A little dated, 2004, but I assume you consider that a respectable source.

By Robert J. Barro

The Liberal Media: It's No Myth



Many people think the mainstream media have a liberal bias. Media spokesmen,

however, usually deny such claims. So who's right? Is there a left-wing bias, or has the

right wing conspired not only to influence the media but also to create a false image of

unfairness? Some scientific evidence is available in a continuing study, A Measure of

Media Bias, by Tim Groseclose of the University of California at Los Angeles and Jeff

Milyo of the University of Chicago, presented last March at Stanford University's Workshop on the Media &

Economic Performance. These researchers set up an objective measure of bias in U.S. television networks,

newspapers, and magazines. The main finding is that the liberal inclination is pronounced. Although Fox News

emerges as conservative, it is not nearly as far to the right as many outlets are to the left.

Groseclose and Milyo began with the well-known ratings of the voting records of U.S. senators and

representatives by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a self-described liberal lobbying group. The

researchers used data for the 1990s and adjusted the ADA scores to make them comparable over time and

across the two chambers. On a 0-100 scale, with 100 the most liberal, the median member of the U.S. House

had an ADA score of 39. Thus, 39 is a reasonable measure of a centrist position. Among well-known senators,

Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) had a highly conservative score of 4, whereas Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) had a

strikingly liberal score of 80.

THE NEXT STEP MEASURED the tendency of Senate and House members in their speeches to cite 200

prominent think tanks. The citations considered were those that referred favorably to a view or fact presented by

a think tank. Not counted were negative citations or those purely descriptive of a think tank's actions. As an

example, the Heritage Foundation was cited by legislators whose average ADA ratings were 6 -- that is, very

conservative. Also highly conservative were the Family Research Council (rating of 6) and the National Right

to Life Committee (7). Left-wing think tanks included the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities (80), the

Children's Defense Fund (77), and the Economic Policy Institute (72). Surprisingly, the American Civil

Liberties Union was centrist (35), an outcome driven by the ACLU's opposition to campaign-finance reform.

The last step measured the tendency of various media outlets to cite the same 200 think tanks. The researchers

considered only "news stories" -- not editorials, letters to the editor, and so on. The periods covered ranged from

1990 to 2003. Again, the citations were those that referred favorably to a view or fact provided by a think tank.

The researchers used this information to calculate a right- vs. left-wing indicator for each media outlet --

effectively, an ADA rating. The assumption is that media outlets that refer favorably to conservative think tanks

are reasonably characterized as conservative, whereas those that refer positively to liberal think tanks are

plausibly labeled as liberal. The final product (in a preliminary table provided by the authors) was a list of

computed ADA ratings for the media outlets.

On the conservative end, Fox News Special Report came out with a rating of 27; that is, 12 points more

conservative than the 39 of the median member of the House. The only other right-of-center outlet was The

Washington Times, at 34.

On the liberal end, Newsweek had an astonishing rating of 72 -- that's 33 points more liberal than the House

median. Other highly liberal outlets included The New York Times, Time magazine, the CBS Evening News,

USA Today, and NBC Nightly News. These scores ranged from 62 to 64, about 25 points above the House

median. For viewers seeking truly "fair and balanced" reporting, the best outlets were ABC Good Morning

America and NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The ADA scores for these programs were 39 and 41, respectively.

Places moderately left of center were CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown (49), The Washington Post (53),

NPR's Morning Edition (55) and ABC WorldNews Tonight (55).

Because of problems in data collection, the list excluded The Wall Street Journal, but it will be added soon.

Also excluded is talk radio, which seems to have a conservative bent. Bottom line: The Groseclose-Milyo study

shows the media are skewed substantially to the left of the typical member of Congress. Thus, if the opinions of

viewers and readers are similar to those of their representatives, the media slant is far to the left of that of most

of their customers.

Robert J. Barro is a professor of economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution

 
Putting aside Barro's own bias and his perhaps questionable interpretation of that study, exactly how did they determine how to measure bias? That's always been the main source of my skepticism.

 
So what's going to happen with King vs Burwell? The New York Times is warning that If the SC throws out the subsidies, insurance costs could go up around 47% for most consumers. Fear-mongering?

 
timschochet said:
So what's going to happen with King vs Burwell? The New York Times is warning that If the SC throws out the subsidies, insurance costs could go up around 47% for most consumers. Fear-mongering?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. That is, IF subsidies are ruled out, costs would go up significantly. This isn't fear mongering, but simply stating facts. How likely it is that SCOTUS tosses them is up for debate. If NYT is claiming it's likely at this point, that could be construed as fear mongering, perhaps.

 
timschochet said:
Putting aside Barro's own bias and his perhaps questionable interpretation of that study, exactly how did they determine how to measure bias? That's always been the main source of my skepticism.
Click to expand...
Here are some quotes from the authors themselves, which back up Barro's 'questionable' interpretation. Barro's write up explains the methodology.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
Click to expand...
But let's move on to the next study, by PEW (which maybe you like better than UCLA):

Media coverage favored Obama at end of campaign, study reportsBy Erik Wemple
(Andrew Harrer - Bloomberg)

Now for something that will surprise not one bit of the mass of mainstream media critics out there. A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism has found that President Obama enjoyed a “surge” in positive coverage over the last week of his campaign against Mitt Romney.

From the study:

During this final week, from October 29 to November 5, positive stories about Obama (29%) outnumbered negative ones (19%) by 10 points. A week earlier, negative coverage of Obama had exceeded positive by 13 points. The final week of the campaign marked only the second time in which positive stories about Obama outnumbered negative dating back to late August.
So how did Romney fare during this period? Negative stories drubbed positive ones, according to the researchers, by a margin of 33 percent to 16 percent.

------------------

So in the most critical time in the election, the week prior, news coverage was overwhelmingly favorable for Obama and unfavorable for Romney. You like Obama, so in your mind that is probably 'fair'.

 
No, I don't regard that as fair. I also don't regard it as overwhelming evidence either, but at least it points in the direction you're arguing and makes me wonder about it more than I have.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Oh please I did that off the top of my head, if you use Sherrill's methodology pretty much anyone is fair game.
Click to expand...
i don't think so. Sorry but your list really doesn't compare to his.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much a self-fulfilling argument from you, Tim, you don't think they're crazy so therefore they aren't crazy.
Click to expand...
Nobody is without biases and certainly im not. But I am trying to be fair and I reject the notion that I haven't been. I wrote earlier that if we were living in 1970-75, I would argue that most of the crazies in politics were on the left. That was the period when the New Left and anti-Vietnam radicals had infiltrated the Democratic Party. Their ideas and statements were as crazy as anything the Tea Party spouts today. In fact I would submit that there has never been as extremist or wacko a Presidential candidate as George McGovern in modern American history. If I were as truly biased as you claim, I never would have made this argument.
 
timschochet said:
No, I don't regard that as fair. I also don't regard it as overwhelming evidence either, but at least it points in the direction you're arguing and makes me wonder about it more than I have.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't. Here is a look at campaign contributions:

From the Washington Examiner, a study of the political contributions made by the mainstream media.

Excerpt:

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by
The Examiner
of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.
By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.
Click to expand...
 
jon_mx said:
timschochet said:
No, I don't regard that as fair. I also don't regard it as overwhelming evidence either, but at least it points in the direction you're arguing and makes me wonder about it more than I have.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't. Here is a look at campaign contributions:

From the Washington Examiner, a study of the political contributions made by the mainstream media.

Excerpt:

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
when I wrote I don't regard it as fair I was agreeing with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pip's Invitation
The THIRD 100 from 1971. #1: Echoes
5 6 7
Replies
310
Views
10K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
Pip's Invitation
The Next 100 Songs from 1975, aka Sanbornpalooza. #1: Black Friday
9 10 11
Replies
527
Views
21K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
192K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top