<!--QuoteBegin--AU-Scorpion+Nov 21 2003, 10:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AU-Scorpion @ Nov 21 2003, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 21 2003, 03:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 21 2003, 03:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But most people on the conservative side of the spectrum completely ignore that American isn't innocent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then again most of those on the liberal side do not understand that isolationism will not make us innocent again. We are in this mess, and will have to actively get out of it.
Past experience shows that the UN is about as active as some species of plant. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I understand that and went over it one some ways already.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 21 2003, 03:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 21 2003, 03:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>His*</b> view is a bit too strong because any victim can be seen as being at fault for their abuse....I believe that America has a right to the justice it is seeking through warfare....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As <b>*Noam Chomsky</b> is supposed to represent the liberal side in some way.
And KMO, Kucinich is just a more extreme version of Howard Dean. And I find your description of him as "coherent" really funny. The guy is anything but that. He just isn't presidential material. You have to be able to look and act the part in order to get the role.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 21 2003, 06:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 21 2003, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I understand that and went over it one some ways already. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Avoiding political one-sidedness is like avoiding AIDs. You can never be too sure. ;P
I don't think any of the candidates have bothered to have a policy on games as part of their central platform <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
According to his website, Kucinich is in favour of decriminalising marijuana (in his words <a href='http://www.kucinich.us/issues/marijuana_decrim.php' target='_blank'>"a drug policy that sets reasonable boundaries for marijuana use by establishing guidelines similar to those already in place for alcohol"</a>).
As for gun control, I know this is a loaded topic in the US, but what do you mean by "against gun control"? Against any controls at all, and in favour of primary school children having the right to bear AK47s? <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> If so, you'd be best off with Bush, who's got lots of NRA backers. I don't think he's likely to legalise weed though. Kucinich wants to <a href='http://www.kucinich.us/issues/guns.php' target='_blank'>strengthen the ban on assault weapons, close loopholes on background checks</a>, but he doesn't appear to be interested in more general bans, European style.
There is a major "assault weapons" BS bill sunsetting, if Mr. Bushxors decides to **** us all in the arse and reinstate it or create a new stupid bill... i guess i might as well vote for the grass guy <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Thnx for the info though, i didn't really expect someone to take it seriously, even though i was serious when i posted it <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--KMO+Nov 25 2003, 10:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KMO @ Nov 25 2003, 10:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> According to his website, Kucinich is in favour of decriminalising marijuana (in his words <a href='http://www.kucinich.us/issues/marijuana_decrim.php' target='_blank'>"a drug policy that sets reasonable boundaries for marijuana use by establishing guidelines similar to those already in place for alcohol"</a>). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Although not just for that reason, I now have somebody I actually care enough to vote for even if Bush didn't run (so I didn't need to use my vote more for ejecting a ninny than electing a real president)! Woohoo!
Bah, none of the choices are good to vote for anymore, but I'll find someone to waste my vote on anyhow. Both the democrats and the republicans spout rhetorical arguements that contradict each other and in reality neither side knows what is good for our country. What we really need is a direct democracy without the figure heads then we won't have these power hungry mongrols running our country. They don't accomplish anything anymore except getting us hated by the rest of the world.
Presenting Dean as a "communist" compared to Bush is odd, considering the Bush method involves tax cuts + spending increases. Bad combination. If you're going to cut taxes, you need to trim spending to make it work. Bush is one of the biggest spenders ever, showing that his fiscal conservatism is limited to giving handouts to business and the rich.
Lots of people want Bush + Rice for 2004. Has Rice done anything but sat pretty? It seems that she's only used as a gimmick by the Republicans.
The economy is in a not-so-sure state of recovery. Official unemployment figures are down, but true unemployment is likely to be far higher. Even though the gov't has cooked the unemployment books for years by not counting discouraged unemployed and uninsured (which amounted to at least 9.1% unemployment in August), discouraged/uninsured unemployed are probably a far greater number than before. This is because they looked for jobs for months, eventually giving up or losing unemployment insurance, therefore not being counted. Trade deficits and retail sales that aren't meeting expectations are another sign that the storm isn't over yet.
I'm voting Dean because I like his gun views. He's actually kind of a moderate, but anything to the left of Pinochet or Thatcher is considered communist these days.
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 18 2003, 05:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 18 2003, 05:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Forlorn, watch your comments. Assuming Vermont liberals = communist russia is like assuming all Republicans = pompous arseholes who think they have the only correct view. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree, therefore Vermont liberals are indeed Russian communists on the idealogical line.
They may be pompous arseholes who think they are correct, but the thing is, they will happily admit to that.
And what's more, at the very least conservatives are not like the liberal elite. They do exist, and more so than just act like they think you are wrong, they will hate you.
Quoted from Bill O'Riley (who is conservative):
"When you do not agree with a conservative, they simply say something is wrong with you. When you do not agree with a liberal, they don't just not like you... they hate you. There is a much larger difference between hating and disagreeing."
And, Bathroom Monkey, I would not say www.mrc.org is baised for conservatives, all it does is take quotes out of the media that carry slants to them. Both conservative and liberal slants.
Whomever put pro-gun, legalization of marijuana, and pro-games as their top issues will probably do best voting for a Libertarian.
The candidates: At this point, Dean is the de facto nomination for the Democrats so all serious discussion on the other candidates is moot. Did anyone seriously think Sharpton had a chance?
Apparently there is confusion as to what a communist is and what a socialist is. The only major difference is method. Socialists favor gradual policies, and they don't want a completely command economy. Capitalism still holds some weight with most socialists. Communism also favors violent overthrow of the current government while socialism remains democractic.
A real world example is Europe. Most western European countries have socialist majorities in their parliaments. Other parties are still a part of the political system in those countries, but socialism tends to dominate, especially in France and Germany. If a country is considered communist, other parties are outlawed because communism can not fundamentally work with other idealogies. Modern communism tends to be a little different than Stalin style communism, so it is not fair to judge communism by its tyranical history.
Edit: Bill O'Riley is independent. I have seen time and time again libertarian or liberal views held by Bill. Sure he is socially conservative on some things, but he is also pro-****, anti-death penalty, and neutral on abortion. He grills Republicans quite frequently on many issues. He is perhaps right of center as a generalization.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 12 2003, 03:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 12 2003, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And, Bathroom Monkey, I would not say www.mrc.org is baised for conservatives, all it does is take quotes out of the media that carry slants to them. Both conservative and liberal slants. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Forlorn, Are you <i>joking</i>? I direct you to the mrc.org homepage. Please join me in reading the text at the center:
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias </span>
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Must be something wrong with my eyes. Let me put on my glasses and look at that again:
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias </span>
Well, maybe there's another title, somewhere, and I just can't see it. Let's ctrl-f for 'conservative media bias'.
Ok, let's just try 'conservative'. Maybe they're using an alternate term for bias, like 'leaning'. Or something like that.
<i>Finished <b>again</b></i>?!?!?!?!
Just for fun, let's search the main page for 'liberal'.
6 results.
Ok, this must be an off-update. I'm <i>sure</i> there was one that favored the libs a few weeks ago.
So we'll chalk the giant, enemy-of-liberal-bias-with-no-reference-to-conservative-bias-huge-frigging-front-and-center-headline up as a typo. We'll enlist their search engine to provide us with examples of 'conservative bias'. Surely, based on your assertion, there will be links-o-plenty.
Top results: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->NPR’s $200 Million Benefactor Saw It as “Objective,” Not Liberal
Most unintentionally ludicrous claim of the year: In a Washington Post story on Friday about Joan Kroc, the widow of McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc, leaving $200 million in her will to National Public Radio (NPR), the spokesman for Kroc’s estate maintained: "'She was a bit of a news nut,’ said **** Starmann, Kroc's longtime friend and spokesman. 'She loved NPR and its unfiltered presentation of the news....It wasn't liberal and it wasn't conservative. It was as objective as you're going to find.’"
Neither he or she looked very hard. And I bet she saw all kinds of terrible <b>conservative bias</b> on FNC. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, that's not a good example-- let's try the next:
Headline: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Gumbel Denies Liberal Bias, Yet Sees Conservative Bias on FNC <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmph. Must be a coincidence.
Hmmm-- the next incidence is within an Al Franken quote where he is talking about a 'conservative bias', and getting slammed by mrc.
Ah, I'm too tired, and I'm assuming you guys have picked up on the sarcasm by now. You can search the rest yourselves, if you're so inclined, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these guys aren't so 'fair and balanced'.
And I've found so many hysterical examples of these guys pulling quotes <i>well</i> out of context, or inserting ellipses and brackets into quotes (kind of the way movie studios turn a reviewer's "It's terrible that anyone would think that this comedy is funny' into "terribl[y] . . . funny!") that they have zero credibility, as far as I'm concerned.
Wait, again: Side by side-- Forlorn vs. mrc.org:
Forlorn: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would not say www.mrc.org is baised for conservatives, all it does is take quotes out of the media that carry slants to them. Both conservative and liberal slants.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
mrc.org: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this (Bill O'Reilly): <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"When you do not agree with a conservative, they simply say something is wrong with you. When you do not agree with a liberal, they don't just not like you... they hate you. There is a much larger difference between hating and disagreeing."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
is utter nonsense. I'm not even going to take the time to list poisonous conservatives; I think we all know at least a few. People can be bad on both sides, and any sort of generalization is naive at best. <b>Please</b>.
Just for fun, I've decided to give Forlorn the mrc treatment-- <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what's more, at the very least conservatives are not like the liberal elite. They do exist, and more so than just act like they think you are wrong, they will hate you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just so you guys know, I have it on good authority that Forlorn said 'What's more, conservatives are . . . elite. They do exist . . . they will hate you.
To those of you who are considering voting for one of the "naive nine", especially a "moderate" like Dean, I strongly suggest you read <u>A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat</u> by democratic senator Zell Miller. Even though he has voted for democrats his entire life, this election he will vote for bush. You may find it interesting to find out why.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then again most of those on the liberal side do not understand that isolationism will not make us innocent again. We are in this mess, and will have to actively get out of it.
Past experience shows that the UN is about as active as some species of plant. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand that and went over it one some ways already.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 21 2003, 03:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 21 2003, 03:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>His*</b> view is a bit too strong because any victim can be seen as being at fault for their abuse....I believe that America has a right to the justice it is seeking through warfare....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As <b>*Noam Chomsky</b> is supposed to represent the liberal side in some way.
And KMO, Kucinich is just a more extreme version of Howard Dean. And I find your description of him as "coherent" really funny. The guy is anything but that. He just isn't presidential material. You have to be able to look and act the part in order to get the role.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Avoiding political one-sidedness is like avoiding AIDs. You can never be too sure. ;P
The first person to prove their fav canidate is pro-games, against gun control, and supports the legalisation of marijuana will win my vote...
GO!
According to his website, Kucinich is in favour of decriminalising marijuana (in his words <a href='http://www.kucinich.us/issues/marijuana_decrim.php' target='_blank'>"a drug policy that sets reasonable boundaries for marijuana use by establishing guidelines similar to those already in place for alcohol"</a>).
As for gun control, I know this is a loaded topic in the US, but what do you mean by "against gun control"? Against any controls at all, and in favour of primary school children having the right to bear AK47s? <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> If so, you'd be best off with Bush, who's got lots of NRA backers. I don't think he's likely to legalise weed though. Kucinich wants to <a href='http://www.kucinich.us/issues/guns.php' target='_blank'>strengthen the ban on assault weapons, close loopholes on background checks</a>, but he doesn't appear to be interested in more general bans, European style.
Is that close enough?
Gun rights > Weed For now...
There is a major "assault weapons" BS bill sunsetting, if Mr. Bushxors decides to **** us all in the arse and reinstate it or create a new stupid bill... i guess i might as well vote for the grass guy <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Thnx for the info though, i didn't really expect someone to take it seriously, even though i was serious when i posted it <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The Democrats may tend to have fools but the Republicans tend to have evildoers.
Nothing scarier than a clique of greedy, power hungry men who are all on the same page.
Although not just for that reason, I now have somebody I actually care enough to vote for even if Bush didn't run (so I didn't need to use my vote more for ejecting a ninny than electing a real president)! Woohoo!
Lots of people want Bush + Rice for 2004. Has Rice done anything but sat pretty? It seems that she's only used as a gimmick by the Republicans.
The economy is in a not-so-sure state of recovery. Official unemployment figures are down, but true unemployment is likely to be far higher. Even though the gov't has cooked the unemployment books for years by not counting discouraged unemployed and uninsured (which amounted to at least 9.1% unemployment in August), discouraged/uninsured unemployed are probably a far greater number than before. This is because they looked for jobs for months, eventually giving up or losing unemployment insurance, therefore not being counted. Trade deficits and retail sales that aren't meeting expectations are another sign that the storm isn't over yet.
I'm voting Dean because I like his gun views. He's actually kind of a moderate, but anything to the left of Pinochet or Thatcher is considered communist these days.
I agree, therefore Vermont liberals are indeed Russian communists on the idealogical line.
They may be pompous arseholes who think they are correct, but the thing is, they will happily admit to that.
And what's more, at the very least conservatives are not like the liberal elite. They do exist, and more so than just act like they think you are wrong, they will hate you.
Quoted from Bill O'Riley (who is conservative):
"When you do not agree with a conservative, they simply say something is wrong with you. When you do not agree with a liberal, they don't just not like you... they hate you. There is a much larger difference between hating and disagreeing."
And, Bathroom Monkey, I would not say www.mrc.org is baised for conservatives, all it does is take quotes out of the media that carry slants to them. Both conservative and liberal slants.
The candidates: At this point, Dean is the de facto nomination for the Democrats so all serious discussion on the other candidates is moot. Did anyone seriously think Sharpton had a chance?
Apparently there is confusion as to what a communist is and what a socialist is.
The only major difference is method. Socialists favor gradual policies, and they don't want a completely command economy. Capitalism still holds some weight with most socialists. Communism also favors violent overthrow of the current government while socialism remains democractic.
A real world example is Europe. Most western European countries have socialist majorities in their parliaments. Other parties are still a part of the political system in those countries, but socialism tends to dominate, especially in France and Germany.
If a country is considered communist, other parties are outlawed because communism can not fundamentally work with other idealogies. Modern communism tends to be a little different than Stalin style communism, so it is not fair to judge communism by its tyranical history.
Edit: Bill O'Riley is independent. I have seen time and time again libertarian or liberal views held by Bill. Sure he is socially conservative on some things, but he is also pro-****, anti-death penalty, and neutral on abortion. He grills Republicans quite frequently on many issues. He is perhaps right of center as a generalization.
Forlorn, Are you <i>joking</i>? I direct you to the mrc.org homepage. Please join me in reading the text at the center:
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and
Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias
</span>
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Must be something wrong with my eyes. Let me put on my glasses and look at that again:
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and
Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias
</span>
Well, maybe there's another title, somewhere, and I just can't see it. Let's ctrl-f for 'conservative media bias'.
Oh . . . . IE, you're finished searching the document, <i>already</i>?
Ok, let's just try 'conservative'. Maybe they're using an alternate term for bias, like 'leaning'. Or something like that.
<i>Finished <b>again</b></i>?!?!?!?!
Just for fun, let's search the main page for 'liberal'.
6 results.
Ok, this must be an off-update. I'm <i>sure</i> there was one that favored the libs a few weeks ago.
So we'll chalk the giant, enemy-of-liberal-bias-with-no-reference-to-conservative-bias-huge-frigging-front-and-center-headline up as a typo. We'll enlist their search engine to provide us with examples of 'conservative bias'. Surely, based on your assertion, there will be links-o-plenty.
Top results:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->NPR’s $200 Million Benefactor Saw It
as “Objective,” Not Liberal
Most unintentionally ludicrous claim of the year: In a Washington Post story on Friday about Joan Kroc, the widow of McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc, leaving $200 million in her will to National Public Radio (NPR), the spokesman for Kroc’s estate maintained: "'She was a bit of a news nut,’ said **** Starmann, Kroc's longtime friend and spokesman. 'She loved NPR and its unfiltered presentation of the news....It wasn't liberal and it wasn't conservative. It was as objective as you're going to find.’"
Neither he or she looked very hard. And I bet she saw all kinds of terrible <b>conservative bias</b> on FNC.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, that's not a good example-- let's try the next:
Headline:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Gumbel Denies Liberal Bias, Yet Sees Conservative Bias on FNC <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmph. Must be a coincidence.
Hmmm-- the next incidence is within an Al Franken quote where he is talking about a 'conservative bias', and getting slammed by mrc.
Ah, I'm too tired, and I'm assuming you guys have picked up on the sarcasm by now. You can search the rest yourselves, if you're so inclined, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these guys aren't so 'fair and balanced'.
And I've found so many hysterical examples of these guys pulling quotes <i>well</i> out of context, or inserting ellipses and brackets into quotes (kind of the way movie studios turn a reviewer's "It's terrible that anyone would think that this comedy is funny' into "terribl[y] . . . funny!") that they have zero credibility, as far as I'm concerned.
Wait, again: Side by side-- Forlorn vs. mrc.org:
Forlorn:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would not say www.mrc.org is baised for conservatives, all it does is take quotes out of the media that carry slants to them. Both conservative and liberal slants.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
mrc.org:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and
Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And this (Bill O'Reilly):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"When you do not agree with a conservative, they simply say something is wrong with you. When you do not agree with a liberal, they don't just not like you... they hate you. There is a much larger difference between hating and disagreeing."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
is utter nonsense. I'm not even going to take the time to list poisonous conservatives; I think we all know at least a few. People can be bad on both sides, and any sort of generalization is naive at best. <b>Please</b>.
Just for fun, I've decided to give Forlorn the mrc treatment--
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what's more, at the very least conservatives are not like the liberal elite. They do exist, and more so than just act like they think you are wrong, they will hate you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just so you guys know, I have it on good authority that Forlorn said 'What's more, conservatives are . . . elite. They do exist . . . they will hate you.
I make the cutoff to vote in the 2004 elections by two months, and I'm going to voice my oppinion with my vote
GG young delusions and teenangst, although I will do my *own* research on the candidates.
The only person who's tempted em at all is Lieberman.
A Jewish US President? Never gonna happen.