Feo2: Can man go to Mars

Posted by Feo Amante on Feb 20, 2004 at 17:37

Re: Feo: Can man go to Mars (damorgan@x.washington.edu)

Ah. Finally from the non-stop Bush bashing “I'm no liberal” DA comes the first support of a politician and he just happens to be... A LIBERAL!

I know, I know, don’t accuse you of being a liberal because I don’t know you and you aren’t.

It’s just that you OFTEN grab the opportunity to turn scientific discourse (in this case about the merits of sending humans to Mars) into left wing political caterwauling – and you are the only one in this room who does.

And you always attack the right wing.


So addressing this current post:
First off, if you read what nut case fringe groups are blithering about (“Even nut case fringe groups are right some of the time.”), and feel you can strain the truth out of all their babble, then your faith borders on the supernatural. Do you have ESP?

Oh well, if you want to glean truth from David Icke, John Edwards, or Jack Van Imp, be my guest! But if you choose to lay with that group, then you will be associated with them.

Secondly, ever since Kerry won the Iowa primary, he's been getting that fringe group freak show, moveon.org's “JFK” treatment. Very original.

When CBS interviewed Bush, they left in whatever they wanted to leave in and didn't concern themselves over whether or not he came across well or good enough for a soundbite. They were being professional journalists after all, right?

Yet, when CBS interviewed John Kerry, they asked for another take, told Kerry what they wanted to hear from him, and he gave it to them. This second piece is what America heard: Not a rambling, confused, wandering 3 minute non-answer, but a succinct 10 second attack on Bush. Because left to his own devices and unedited, Kerry sounds like a confused arrogant snob.


See the above link? Boston.com is liberal too. That is why there is no outrage that CBS coached Kerry so he would sound good to the American public. They don’t see anything wrong with it. Now if they heard Fox News do that with GWB, the shit would hit the fan until election day (if George lost) and never stop (if George won) and you would be in here raving about it.

Why? Because the American press slants everything toward a liberal bias.

Why? Because they feel that the liberal bias is the norm and anything conservative is "the other side". That is how they see it - that is how they report it. If a Republican is accused of something, the American liberal press will hammer at it as if it were fact. And they will never back down in the face of any or all denials. If there are witnesses that can refute the accusation, then they are accused of being pawns, being bought off or playing along.

On the other hand, if Kerry has an affair with an intern, then abruptly whisks her away to Africa, all he has to say is "No, I didn't.” and that is good enough for the press. The liberal press will then trash her, call her parents that hated “R” word (Republican – and they aren’t, they are Democrats), and say that the attack was fomented by the Republican right (it wasn’t, it was announced by Clarke while he thought he was off the record) If Kerry didn't say anything about it, then the press would have continued to just sit on the story and ignore it. The American Press that is, the press world wide will report it. Even the BBC will report it – but only on the UK section of the website.

With the exception of FoxNews, which is reviled for its conservative (and therefore evil, unprofessional journalistic stance), all other major news outlets slant to the left as hard as they possibly can.

And they don't mind admitting it – but only in the back pages of their websites.

"Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions." "


So now, if you want to go into deep past history on JFK Part 2 and Bush, let's go for it. But that said, I'm not a Bush supporter. I didn’t vote for him, so I could care less about his warts and B.S. In fact, on my website I've wrote about a number of things that Bush/Cheny have done that makes my skin crawl. So don’t expect me to lift up Bush, I’ll only reveal issues with J.F. Kerry – and when I do, I’ll substantiate it.

So what I take issue with here is not your liberal bias.

What bothers me is the same thing that bothers me about anyman or any other religious kook that comes prancing in here with their faith based nutso unsupportable B.S.

And that is your constant, unsubstantiated, unsupportable, unreasonable, irrational, uber liberal hate of Bush. This is your religion, and it is a religion of hate. And like all religions, you cannot defend it. You’ve had ample opportunity to do so, but when questioned, you consistently attack the questioner.

How dare I disbelieve! How dare I question!

Of course, you are not the only high-strung character to come in here with highly opinionated posts. Uncle Al comes in here as bucolic as hell, flame everywhere, and sometimes it rubs me raw - but he ALSO provides links or references for us to read and judge for ourselves. His manner is abrasive – but his statements have SUBSTANCE. Sometimes his opinions are clearly wrong-headed – but he can support his Point Of View. He Has Demonstrable Reason. In fact, whenever anybody in here wants to make a statement, they often provide reference links to sites that support their posts. On Bush, you never do. On Republicans, you never do. I suspect (but it is just a suspicion) that you are aware that your references are fringe-case screwballs.

So, do you really want to really have this discussion?


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]