Part of the problem here is you said I throw out false statements, then you state my statements are true, which they were. next your interesting source had how many different versions and that was from a long time ago. I used your source and you can not disagree that some stated he walked out with his hands up and no gun in his hands. those are the facts that seem to agree with the reasonable assumption of why the others could tackle him without shooting him. I can tell you absolutely your statement is false saying I have no interest in the facts, I have asked you to find and post the outcome, not the reports that are listed here the day after and shortly thereafter. If is kind of like the recent shooting Texas, we did not know he shot the criminals in the back till much later, we did not know it was daylight till later. We did not know the police were on the scene till later, we did not know the dispatcher told him he could harm a police officer till later. So contrary to your incorrect statement I would love you to get the actual details and post them.

Just another example of which side the media leans to: I don't know how many of you are following the Iowa Caucus, but as I sit here after caucusing watching the news, the majority of the talk is covering the democratic caucus, all the cameras are in the democratic caucuses. I have yet to see any media coverage of the republican caucuses. The anchors are mentioning the republicans, but the actual cameras and reporters are in the democratic caucuses. Just another example of the liberal media.

You're not kidding. We get the Armed Forces Network feed over here, which runs a mix of CNN, MSNBC and Fox for the news. You almost have to read the ticker at the bottom of the screen to remember that Republicans caucused today also. I wonder what the evil right wing media and their evil right wing corporate masters have up their sleeve giving the Democratic candidates so much face time.................

and gee we decide on the president right now don't we. This presently has nothing to do with the final part. IE when the head of GE sits in and makes sure the election is called for his horse. Same with Fox, they will not care to the degree until it is the right vs left of the primaries is determined. That is when they will be using the best they can. But right now the media is a bit worried, if things are as pathetic as it appears with record lows of a president, hints of hyper inflation because of his policies, a war that we will not be able to pay off for 20 years of payments and on and on and a energized democrat party as shown in the last election and even more energized now as shown by the primary interest. Well the writing is on the wall, they know the dems could beat them up and make them pay for the airwaves like countries like Japan do. Institute fairness doctrine and so forth. I hope the media is shaking in their pants... NO more corporate handouts to them, make them pay for our airwaves.

I'll say this for you, you let nothing deter you from your conspiracy theory. Consistancy is your watchword.

Had the MSM coverage been reversed, you would have touted it as proof of a right wing media. Since that is not the case, you would attempt to spin a tale of an evil right wing puppet master. Barring us believing that, you would tell us that the MSM is putting up a facade for self presrvation, should the Democrats win. Which of course negates your puppet master theory........

Well, you speak volumes about it, but it's got nothing to do with what I said. I quoted a bunch of liberals, and nobody on the "ultra right" or even the right. They don't trust David Brock because either: 1) they know the facts behind the stories he's telling, and that he's still got them all wrong (despite having "come clean"); or 2) in Nina Totenberg's case, she asked others to confirm Brock's stories, but they instead denied them.


You're incorrigible. Every time one of your theories gets demolished, you do this hand-waving and attempted distraction. The media is right-wing because they didn't show Bush's golf swing gaffe enough? Who here hasn't seen that clip fifty times? And a thousand other Bush malapropisms replayed over and over and over? "Mission Accomplished," anyone? "My Pet Goat"?

I think you have it all wrong and you are absolutely clueless. Read the thread title. when you profess conspiracy theories you are purposely making an insult. I believe those tin foil and personal insults are banned here on AD I would think you are aware of that. I am learning these insults are not banned but endorsed by the AD.

Please read the thread title it was Einstein who came up with the correct observation, no conspiracy here just simple understanding of basic human behavior. Just as the theory of relativity, you may not like his observations or have the ability to understand them but that does not make it a conspiracy....

No matter the pile of facts, you will never think that the Liberals can do any wrong and that the media is part of the vast right wing conspiracy and Clinton will be the greatest president in history. Any way you can spin the story helps you sleep at night, and I say God bless! You tell yourself whatever you need to. The rest of us will realize what facts are and actually see the truth.


Now we are saying that Einstein is telling us that today, the media is not liberally biased. Way to go getting around the facts once again. Watching the coverage last night simply was yet another example of the mass coverage of democratic and liberal news. The democratic caucuses had multiple cameras from the media covering their activities. There was no coverage of the republican caucuses. The only coverage was the ticker at the bottom of the screen until the top two made their end of the night speeches. Even on that note, I saw three of the democrats speeches to the two Republican speeches. You seem to try to avoid facts and replace them with conspiracy theories. How can you spin this now?

your first guy the so called liberal you claim without foundation is (wiki source)Steve Kettmann His so called liberal appearances to the media were about baseball, hardly qualifies him to be a liberal. But his quote he basically admits they were democrats at the time but were also turned off by seems they were not liberals if these people were not close to in step with what was going on at the time. this guy speaks with forked tongue.

Note your next one in slate basically thinks he exaggerated his roles. This is hogwash, you just do not get the point.... a person is not paid a million a book and paid $300k by the spectator ultra right rags for not being central to the propaganda machine. Please show me other people on the right that are paid this much that are not central to the hate propaganda machine. Here is the quote from your reference

as far as Hitchens attack on the book there are many responses to it, here is just one. http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy0510.html

not sure of Hitchings positions... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1528607/posts


I have never seen the bush swing on the main stream media myself. Would you like to list specifically how many times it was played. then do me a favor and compare it to the lie made by the right wing media that Gore said he invented the Internet.

Seriously? Someone who writes about sports can't be a liberal? That doesn't even make sense, but if you're not bothered by that, you might as well use that argument to "prove" that Keith Olbermann isn't a liberal.

Steve Kettmann says "everyone on the paper except Brock was a Democrat," and that the paper was "nonideological in style and left/liberal in focus." You call him a liar because... they didn't like the Berkeley leftists who shouted down, thew fake blood on, and drove away conservative speakers. Can't be a liberal if you're put off by that sort of thing, right?

Actually, I'd say you're not much of a liberal if you approve of that sort of thing.


No. Feel free to do it yourself, though.

Sorry I was not clear but when it cited this guy as a liberal source, within the source cited he is been published in liberal political sources. Thus it was inferring he was some kind of credentialed liberal. Which he was only in the liberal sources because of his sports writing not having to do with partisan issues.. Thus it does not show and is improperly credited to him as some source of liberal leaning which is not accurate.

And his being in the media at a college paper when the status quo of the time was to reject the anti-war movement shows he is no true liberal. He admits he was writing against the protesters. Any other conclusion is questionable and illogical and for him to make other assertion does bring up a credibility question on his part of objectiveness.

Hey if you want to post your generalizations that to me appear to be a BIG LIE that the media played the Bush golf swing over and over to the degree that they have repeated a BIG LIE that Gore stated he invented the "Internet". If you can not back up that golf swing playing you claim was in the MSM palyed as many times as the Dean yess where they pulled out his isolation mike which is a complete distortion. which was a truth Bush's golf swing vs. the Big Lie that was made up by ultra partisan right wingers ie Gores was not the truth. Also which is worse stating something that is a un-truth as fact or playing something that is a truth many times.

The thread has clearly moved from strictly the premise of the thread title. That move has been aided and abetted by you. Calling your premises 'conspiracy theories' is not a personal insult. If I call your oft posted pedigree into question, that would be a personal insult. Surely you know the difference.

The problem with your premises is that they are constantly [and conveniently] shifting. Anytime a member brings up a point, you move the parameters, as was the case in your post that I recently responded to.

inventor, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on a couple of things. You apparently have a "no enemies on the left" attitude: no matter how offensive some left-wing protesters are, criticizing them makes you an eeevil right-winger. Steve Kettmann said he was a Democrat, editing a newspaper with a "left/liberal focus," but his criticism of radical leftists means that he's a liar ("speaks with forked tongue").

I think that's a lousy attitude, but it explains why you think the media is right-wing. You're starting from so far left, everything looks right wing.

Your examples of the "Dean scream" and the "Al Gore invented the Internet" memes are distractions and goalpost-shifting. I really don't have much interest in arguing them, so you'll probably have the last word if you want it. I'll just point out the obvious explanation:

The media are lazy. Once they get a narrative "hook," they'll run with it. There's usually some kernel of truth to the hook, at least in the beginning, or it wouldn't catch on. But once it's caught on, it's used for everything, regardless of whether the facts fit. Consider:

* George W. Bush is lazy and stupid. This has been the universal frame for 90% of Bush jokes from late-night talk show monologues for the last 8 years. Lazy pushers of this meme have recently claimed that Bush thinks Saddam Hussein killed Nelson Mandela.

* Howard Dean is a hothead. This started before the Iowa "scream," in a town-hall confrontation between Dean and an elderly voter, but when the "scream" audio came out, it was too good not to use. It might not be fair, but it was funny! Radio stations did remixes and put it on sound-effects buttons. (I bet most of the 2,000 plays were goofy DJs who had "yeeeagh!" on their soundboards.)

* Al Gore is a nerd and a stiff (and possibly a robot). This explains the Internet thing: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet," was the actual quote.

* John Kerry is a patrician stiff. (Come up with your own examples, it isn't hard.)

It's not bias, it's just lazy conventional framing. Of all of those, I think "lazy and stupid" are the worst, and those two are generally reserved for Republicans. (Fred Thompson = lazy; GWB = lazy and stupid; Reagan = lazy and stupid; etc.)

QUOTE

Thus... they must be right wing. Why do they run with a hook?? Cause they are lazy?? that's ridiculous, they run with a hook for the same reason a musician does... it sells!! Even Jay-Z has a rap song entitled "I don't need no hook for this Sh__", but funny as I bang beebop my head listening I can 't wait for him to say it. Why?? Because it's the HOOK.

The media first priority is to entertain, not to inform. That is right wing corporatist attitude at it's core. The problem with calling the media right-wing, is people may start thinking "right wing" moral/social issues, rather than "right wing" it's all about ME and ME getting wealthy.

The media is not right in terms of social issues, that's bad business, better to stay neutral. But it's very nature, like any business is consumption. Thus it's first priority is profit.

So it's purpose is to inform is second to it's purpose to entertain. To give us a hook. As a business it won't do things that hurt itself. It won't do things to hurt it sponsors, else the sponsors will pull out.

What was it only 3 or 4 years ago when Disney refused to distribute F911 by Michael Moore?? And Disney who wouldn't distribute F911 owns ABC.

There is no doubt that there are liberal journalist, and news anchors. BUt they understand regardless of their politics they need their job. So they report with in a frame that is already right of center. Even if they seem left, within that frame they are still on a more conservative side of the political spectrum.

ScubaTim

I don't get why you think your example is even a liberal bias. 1 there is a conflict in whether he came out with the gun. Even if he did you don't know if it was loaded. Even if it was how does having guns save anything. Have you EVER been in a fist fight?? Do you understand the term "escalation." Why did they call it the wild wild west, if everyone carrying a gun... made it so peaceful???

Here is a really interesting list of media members' contributions to political candidates and causes. Let's just say that they tend to lean Democrat.

inventor, I have to say that just because you believe and repeat things, does not make them true.



Yes, Mr. Moore's edited video was comical and disturbing. He won awards for that movie. But how could Bush be "on vacation before 9/11" on August 4, 2004, the date when he actually said those words? That's not possible. But, as Winston Churchill noted, a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on. Gullible, naive folks who see it in a movie believe it's true, and in your case, demand that it be shown on the news.

He was talking about a terrorist bombing in Israel, when the Palestinians tried to bomb an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah, and ended up killing a dozen innocent bystanders, including a few journalists. That's why reporters were asking Bush for comment.

The comments had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Nada. Zip. He made a comment for the cameras, while playing golf, and then those comments ran on the nightly news "President responds to terror bombing in Israel." Then, he hit a golf ball. You know, since he was playing golf. Michael Moore cut out all of the words about the suicide bomber in Israel to give you the impression that Bush was talking about Al Qaeda.

I not sure why the liberal would show two clips out of order just because that's what Michael Moore did. I assume you mean that the "news" would show those clips, but I think that "news" is supposed to show things that actually happened. If I make a movie, and juxtaposed Hillary Clinton voting for the Iraq war, then stating the she opposed the war, should the news show that "20,000 times" as well?

edited for clarity

Do you read what you write, or do you kind of space out as your fingers continue typing? What difference does it make if his gun was loaded? Can you tell if a gun is loaded from 30 feet away? Can you tell if he has more clips in his pockets, or tucked under his shirt? I can't remember the stories that said that he had put the gun down before leaving the building. I do remember a lot of stories that said that he had the gun in his hand when the armed students ordered him to drop his weapon. I will go back and copy and paste each one, but I think that might be viewed as spamming since there would be dozens, so I don't think the mods would appreciate that.

The students having the guns had equal force to be used against the gunman. Why do you think he didn't shoot them if they didn't have guns? If he was not out of rounds, do you think he would have let them stop him? Honestly, do you think that? (That would be a yes or no question, by the way.) The point is, and you can try to spin it anyway you want to help you sleep at night, but if someone with a gun is killing people, and no one else has a gun, who is going to stop the gunman? Do you wait until the gunman is out of bullets after he puts them into innocent people, or do you try to talk about his feelings? You can't stop someone that is crazy enough to go on a killing spree without equal force. Wait until the police to show up? A crazed gunman can kill a lot of people in four minutes. The other students using their firearms is very relevant, and those actions are the basis for the gun rights advocates. The fact that the media didn't report these facts shows a liberal bias. It isn't my fault that you might be so far left that everything seems right, but the facts are the facts. This gunman (he was a gunman, he shot people) was stopped by law abiding citizens using their own firearms. Those facts were not mentioned in the news. The news is liberally biased. Spin all you want, it is all irrelevant. Now you want to compare two completely different societies to draw conclusions? Really? The Wild Wild West vs. today? Are you that desperate for arguments? Really?

Both!!! O.K. what difference does it make you ask.

maybe I'm misunderstanding you... I thought your premise was that the media is liberal because they reported a story where they students confronted a man on a shooting spree, without mentioning the students who confronted the guman is armed. Correct??

Well, I think the premise that he stopped because of other students having guns, unlikely, if the gunman ran out of bullets. I also think it irrelevent due to the fact they tackled him and did not shoot him.

Do reporters often write the exact method some one is apprehended by police?? I've seen plenty of stories of people caught, rarely do i see the methods, i.e. gun drawn, pistol whipped, baton, pepper spray, ran over with the police vehicle, mentioned. If he was shot, they say he was shot, but this guy wasn't shot was he.

You call a news report liberally biased, because they didn't add what you as a right winger find pertinent. But you don't even know how pertinent it is, cause you don't know why, he gunman, gave himself up.



You need to read all the stories... In one story it mentions....

The shooting is done... you want to believe that it was the guns that stopped him, but even that isn't known. And , i guess you love fox, cause you want them to tell us that this was resolved by using guns, when to many facts are missing to show this. In fact, the nigerian man punches one of the men with a gun in the face. At which time the tackle him.

It is just as likely, in fact more so that the guy simply realized wht the hell he just did. As reports say he was "confused looking" and babbling about how "he had no where to go" But you NEED to believe it was the guns that resolved the issue. I'[m not saying that they didn't, but what I am saying is that seeing the shooter wasn't shot, and that he was detained by being tackled, and that he seems crazy, how important is it to the story that the students who stopped him possessed guns. It would be as important to know say.. one of the people who got shot... owned a gun.

Is this spin to you??

I said it was solely the guns that stopped him? I doubt I would have said that, especially since I don't believe guns can do anything by themselves. Just like guns don't kill people, they don't stop people from killing others, but I guess that is irrelavent to you. Just because the shooter was not shot, does not mean that the use of guns did not help defuse the situation. What it does show is that those that used their weapons did so in a responsible way. They could have just put a couple of rounds in him and probably would have been exonerated for it. The facts still remain: These students were armed, confronted someone who just shot and killed innocent people. During this time, it is unclear if the shooter was going to continue shooting. By showing the ability to use equal force, they brought themselves into a better position to stop the shooter. The media in general did not report this. Now, would a conservative leaning media omit the fact that law abiding citizens can be trusted to carry weapons to use for the purpose of self defence? I don't think so.

Just curious, do you throw the "And , i guess you love fox" comment in because you really don't have an argument? What relavence does that have with the debate?

here is what you say earlier



Hello... by not having a conservative slant... it has a liberal slant?!?!?!



because your own statemet sput you in the same category as FOX news in my opinion. Fox has taken an right wing agenda to heart, and stations that have not have been labeled liberal.

Look at your example. The story is ABOUT a guy on a shooting. The other students participation is only relevant in the fact that they detained him. But since most media out lets didn't give a pro gun responsibility message, which is irrelevant to the story of "student kills professor and others" You see this as a left wing slant.....

You don't see the insanity of that?

No one said anything anti-gun in the story yet, you are saying the story is left wing cause they didn't give a pro-gun responsibility excerpt in there. You sound like you enjoy Fox news, that's all.

And you opinion means what to anyone else here?


It is very relevant to this debate. The claim of the debate thread is that the media is right wing leaning. I am pointing out that it is very possible that this shooter would have continued his rampage if other armed students had not stopped him. Why are you so afraid to admit that?


No, but in your world, everything seems to be against the left, and in so, must be associated with Fox, something that you seem to fear greatly.


Ok, again, you have this facination with Fox News. Get over it. You assume you know anything about me. You are dead wrong. Just because I am a supporter of gun rights makes me a Fox News junkie? What sense does that make? Just curious, since you brought it up, how much Fox News do you watch?

The lack of evidence given to the public through the media is why I view it as left wing biased. Because the media edited the details and facts excluding the fact that there were students who armed themselves to stop the shooter shows that there is a liberal bias. If it was a conservative bias, they would have pointed out that armed students stopped the shooter. Fox News has nothing to do with it. You are obsessed with Fox News. Almost to the point that it creeps me out.

must mean something... you are replying aren't you??



Because it is not very possible... it is possible. I can admit it is possible, see I said it again. It is possible the student would have continued his rampage if not confronted with armed citizens. See not so hard... you try!!

Is it possible he ran out of bullets?? Is it possible he came to his sense after a moment of rage? Is it possible he killed only the people he wanted dead? Is it possible that the students being armed had nothing to do with his surrender?



Sort of...but not actually.

Here is an interesting peice with polls and facts... oh my. It show how the media... even the "liberal" media were unable to dispel myths... in fact in many cases the more people watched the more they drank the kool-aid
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...02&lb=brusc

What's your take??

Fear... a little. I mean if the media doesn't do it's part... which they aren't. Our populace is all that will suffer. But my greatest fear... is that liberal has become a label with a negative connotation, and that as we see in the charts, the stations that produce the least amount of misconceptions(NPR and PBS) in something as serious as WAR, is labelled by many of our populace as VERY liberal.

So yeah it's a little scary that the station that produced the most misconceptions are one of the, if not the most popular news channels in our nation.



Ok... I'm over it, maybe you can do the same. I made a comment, you asked me a question regarding the comment, I answered your question, now in your head I am fascinated and obsessed. Doesn't take you long to go from 0 to 100 does it?? Here's some advice... Slow down turbo, your moving to fast.

And of course I watch Fox, how else am I going to knowwhat's going to come out of most conseratives mouths.... I can't count the number of times I see something on Bill Oreilly or some other show, that some conservative makes a debate here on



What evidence?!?! That two of the men had guns drawn? ahhh again 0 to 100. The right corporatist own the media, but every reporter isn't conservative and neither is every editor. I kind of agree that many journalist would be liberal, and maybe majority of editors. But in a almighty dollar system we have in America, who truly controls the paper? Inventor gave you a perfect example of what happens to reporters who step too far out of line, they get fired.

But in your example, the story isn't about gun totting civilians, but you want them to make it about them. Or rather you want them to mention they had guns, and I can't figure out how this adds substance to a story about a shooter going crazy, enlighten me??

Possible, but it is also possible that aliens will come to earth and take over the world.

I can play too. Is it possible that he was on his way to his car to get more bullets? Is it possible he intended to continue until he was killed by police if he got those rounds? Is it possible that he stopped because he was out of rounds and was confronted by armed resistance? Possible, but it is also possible that aliens will come to earth and take over the world. What is relavent is what is likely. It is likely that he stopped after being confronted by armed resistance.


My take on your "article" shows nothing relavent to the discussion. It rambles on about some list of supposed misperceptions that are not listed and I see no relation between the misperceptions and anything about the media.
Edited to add:Thanks for adding your source as an after thought, but I still don't see how media is right leaning just because of the article you provided.

So since you added the link after or while I was responding, I will evaluate your source. Let's look at the questionaire.

So as of 01/03, what evidence to the contrary did we actually have? We had not invaded had we? All we had to go on was what our government (including Congress and the likes of the Democrats that stood up in support) was telling us.


Frist, the wording of the question is very important. By limiting the information used to make a decision, the scope of the answers are limited. Secondly, 61% disagreed. How does this show right leaning bias in the media?


Before the invasion, 78% of those polled stated that they were paying attention to the situation in Iraq. After the invasion, only 56%. Of the rest, how is it that you can make a determined judgement of the bias of the media, as your report seems to claim.


Looks like most everyone got this one wrong. Not much of a consensus, so this too just shows that very few media outlets gave both the right and the same information out.


This shows me that the majority of the people agree. The majority of the people polled, according to your source get their news from multiple news agencies, and second in line is Fox.


So what if they are? Are you embarrassed to have these two organizations represent your point of view? I don't see the relavence.


Which station are you referring to, NPR or PBS? How do you suggest that either of them are the most popular?


I am not about to join you in your little rehashing of who said what, so if that is the game you are looking for, bother someone else.
I will let you in on a little secret. I don't watch Fox News. I think O'Reilly and Hannity are blow hards. I like to read things for myself, so when you assume that someone has any relation to Fox News because he declares himself as a conservative, realize that you are probably wrong. I know more dems that watch Fox News than I do Republicans.


Actually, you assume wrong yet again! I have never said that the story needs to be about "gun totting civilians". I have simply pointed out, and you simply have refused to pay attention to the point, that it was not mentioned. It was excluded. No where, and I beg you to come up with a quote from me, did I say that the story should have been about "gun totting civilians".

There you go again, 0 to 100... if it ain't right, it's left to you. My possibility is no less possible than yours. If the gun carrying students scared the crazed man so much in to giving up, why did he walk forward and punch one of the guys who had a gun? Why was the gunmen babbling?



Wrong, what is relevent is what happened. Because what is "likely" differs from me to you. I don't think it was people with guns that caused him to give up, because I think he snapped. I think this because he was babbling. I think this because he still confronts men armed with guns while he had no gun.

You WANT the fact armed students be part of the story because it fits your ideology, and when you did not see you ideology promoted... you call it "liberal" or "left"



Well what do you think the misconception shows??



No, but it is amazing that the furthest left NPR and PBS is likely to be the least watched or listened to, yet had the lowest misconceptions.



Look at the charts and you tell me who had the highest percentage of watchers with misconceptions... I'd say the name, but then you'd call me obseesed.

Now he is babbling? That is a very widely reported fact, I am sure. I remember reading that he was mumbling. That he said something that couldn't be heard, but now he is babbling and that is evidence enough for you that he gave up because he snapped. Right. Sounds good. To answer your question about the punch, it was reported that he tried to hit the guy that was tackling him. It is called a natural reaction. If someone was running at you to tackle you, would you just stand there? I doubt it.


So what you are saying is that after going on a shooting rampage, he intended to walk out on the campus lawn and wait for the police to show up? Any thing reported that you can use to support that? It is likely that since we know there were students with their own firearms there, that they had more of an affect on the outcome than him just snapping.


Well, since the right to bear arms is a conservative ideology, and the media didn't report the benefit of those that practiced that right in a responsible manner, then yes, I would call it liberal or left. Exactly.


A misconception, but of course I wrote the above before you chose to provide a link to your article.


Let's see, the fewest people watch them, the fewest people had misperceptions. Makes sense to me.


Again, you are quoting my response that I made before you chose to add the article. Again, they had the most people watching, so they would have the most misperceptions. Besides, when you have 44% of those polled admittedly not paying attention to the situation, wouldn't you expect them to have misperceptions?

If you want to define right-wing that way, fine (though I think it pretty well describes the left-wing "soak the rich and give ME their money" attitude at least as well), but that's not how inventor has been defining it throughout this discussion that he's started. He's been defining specifically in regard to an alleged news media bias in favor of the Republican Party, which I personally think is preposterous. Yes, they're a business, and businesses are forced to follow market forces if they're to survive. That proves nothing in terms of political bias.



You hit the nail on the head when you said it might not be fair. It doesn't have to be fair in order to be unbiased. Sometimes that's just the way the market works. And it's not like the Democrats have some kind of monopoly on unfair treatment. Look at all the flak Dan Quayle caught for his Murphy Brown comments in what was actually quite a good speech. The media went after him for that with a ferocity far exceeding anything Al Gore ever had to contend with. And for what? Raising concerns about the way the entertainment industry affects people's attitudes? Hell, inventor's been doing the same thing on this thread with his comments about Letterman and Leno. Apparently only liberals are allowed to do that.

By the way, if the media really wanted to hit Howard Dean, instead of constantly treating us to "yeeeagh!", they'd be replaying this statement of his: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for". We'd certainly never hear the end of it if the head of the RNC had said the same thing about the Democrats.

It took 25 months, but I finally found a quote that encapsulates my views on the situation.

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.

— Richard Feynman, US educator & physicist

yep I suppose you would have views like that. Thanks for putting them on the record.

Here is my perspective back at ya that it would seem this would lead to...

the best way to solve problems is have a bunch of lawyers who in general could not fix a flat tire much less reason their way out of any problem. Yes have people who can not fix anything, fix complicated societal problems. thus his thesis can not be valid for this basic example..

as far as the person you quoted he was known for some interesting tidbits and was very diverse from what I see entering the arts.. from wiki

I knew Dr Feynman, he was a personal friend and he could be quite the character at times. Not sure quite what your wiki citation has to do with the topic at hand. If your purpose is to somehow impugn his reputation, I assure you that is a losing effort. I realize his Nobel Prize in Physics hardly stands up to your chess prowess in the 6th grade, but I sure thought he was a pretty good guy. Smart guy too. Really smart. As a matter of fact, he was so smart he never needed to tell anyone about it. They just knew.


Aquilla

too funny... I shot his quoted saying apart in one simple sentence... I guess you forgot in my chess playing it was against a national lab where I did tie the best of a national lab, me at 16 years old. Yes I grew up with knowing people like him that did head national labs.

But as you noticed I only brought out the lighter side of what was said about him, if I was going to quote the ones that nailed him I could have. I enjoyed seeing he was a scientist who was in the arts... again a contradiction to his statement as well. and again I was plenty on target with lawyers who can not fix a flat tire even a simple car engine who are in charge of so called fixing americas problems. and yes it is a generalization, I do have out of maybe about 20 lawyer friends one who is capable of turning a wrench, for some reason lawyers are also about the most clueless to computers too. IE the ability to figure out tech things on their own.