Lennie the Lurker wrote:

Offbreed wrote in message ...

Nope. What I'm seeing on the tube is an attempt to support one style
of statism, one that is compatible with what calls it's self "left" or
"liberal".


You are seeing what you want to see, nothing more or less.

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#how

81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic
presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.

In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed
voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).

In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator
Hubert Humphrey.

In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard
Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic
Senator George McGovern.

In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance
of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere
19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.

Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less
than 20 percent of the media’s vote.
/quote


Google on ' reporters +"89 percent" +democrats '

If you did that Google search, you'd find that 89% of the reporters
polled voted for Gore.

You going to say that the news media is "right wing"? That's saying
the Democrats are "right wing".

You also
follow in the normal right wing line, if one is not right wing, he
must be left wing, there is no middle of the road.

Nope. I think most people are not any kind of wing.

You might get that idea from what I've said, but usually when I say
"left wing", I mean people mostly like the "BT Baby", potty mouth
radicals. That's about 1%, at most, of the population.

Sometimes, when I say "Right wing", I'm quoting that 1% (the BT Baby
potty mouth radicals) and THEY mean anyone they disagree with (about
99% of the population, about half of which run from being a little
left of center, to far left of Karl Marx).

You say "normal right wing line", how much of the population do YOU
consider right or left wing?

I'm sorry, but I
vote for the party that will do me the LEAST harm, and that is never
the right wing. I don't worry about the whims and wheedles of the
people with six or more figure incomes, or about the corporations,
they pay people to do the worrying for them.

Take a look at this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...asp?cycle=2002

(Damned chart is made for a super wide screen.)

Notice that more of the bigger donations go to the Democrats. That's
not money coming from blue collars.


I think he is doing wrong things, but what I think he is doing wrong
is not what the "liberals" say he is doing wrong. As a result, I often
appear to be a supporter of his.


And again, "Disagree with the GWeeB and you're a liberal." Either
suck his ass daily or be called liberal.

READ WHAT I WROTE, DUMBASS.

What especially irks me is people criticising Bush for things that
Clinton did more of,


It doesn't bother you that the GWeeB has taken a huge budget surplus
and turned it into a debt that will take many generations to pay off?

Did I address that? Might this be one of the things I do not regard as
slanted criticism?

the president should never be
off the hotseat, doesn't matter which party he belongs to.

This is the only part I agree fully with. The press goes easy on
Democrats, though.

Laws are supposed to be made by congress, not the president,

Does "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool." ring any
bells? Did you object when that asshole Clinton went crazy with his
Executive Orders?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/col...ings012500.asp

and especially one that is not legally in the office.

And, of the many recounts that the press did after the election was
called, how many had Gore winning?

ONE. The conditions we anything that *might* have been in favor of
Gore was counted, and anything in Bush's favor that could be
questioned was tossed.


IF he's lying, and the GWeeB has no other way of life,

As opposed to Clinton and Gore? Did you criticise either when they got
caught in their lies?

If your did not, you are biased.

Offbreed wrote in message ...

You say "normal right wing line", how much of the population do YOU
consider right or left wing?

Living in a town that's so far right wing that they pray to raygun, I
have no real idea.

Notice that more of the bigger donations go to the Democrats. That's
not money coming from blue collars.

Donations prove nothing, and your reasoning fails to consider that
most blue collars are not in a position to donate money to anyone,
thanks to raygun, bush the first and bush the stupid. CHeck the
downturns of the economy, always during a rightwing administration,
always only broken when a democrat takes the white house. People
losing homes, jobs, careers, is not good for the people, but the right
wing sure hates a low unemployment figure.


I think he is doing wrong things, but what I think he is doing wrong
is not what the "liberals" say he is doing wrong. As a result, I often
appear to be a supporter of his.


It doesn't bother you that the GWeeB has taken a huge budget surplus
and turned it into a debt that will take many generations to pay off?

Did I address that? Might this be one of the things I do not regard as
slanted criticism?

No, but it points out that you're awful good at ignoring things that
are important, and clinging to things that are not important.

the president should never be
off the hotseat, doesn't matter which party he belongs to.

This is the only part I agree fully with. The press goes easy on
Democrats, though.

You're in a different world than I am, around here, mostly bush can't
do anything wrong if one believes the press. Neither could his
secretary of hew, toxic tommy, that has no business in that office,
dog catcher would be more appropriate, but only where there are no
dogs. He couldn't tell them from kids.


As opposed to Clinton and Gore? Did you criticise either when they got
caught in their lies?

If your did not, you are biased.

I did not criticize him, but that doesn't mean I agreed with him
either. His game of stinky pinky cost me nothing, bush is going to
cost a lot of people something really important, their freedom. and I
mean the whole country, unless that asshole can be dumped in the
garbage a quickly as possible. There was once a time when not
discussing a personal affair was considered honorable, the "sign of a
gentleman". Sure rules the right wing out. The Clinton affair is
pretty well over, it's ****ing dead, except to those few that feel it
shows their "superior" intelect, morals, whatever you want to call
their fat ego. Bush met his drug laden past with "I won't discuss
that". Brilliant. the sign of the guilty. his suckout buddy rush
the druggy proves it.