The top ten reasons to vote for BUSH. (mudslinging)

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 29 Apr 2004 09:39

Jeremy said:
-------------------------------------
(...) I'm not saying you are stupid - I think probably you are not stupid. But when talking about politics - there are lots of people who are really into politics - especially on this board - if you don't think through what yo"u write - you will be taken apart.
-------------------------------------
I don't know if you "took me apart" on this one, I bet more than half of this forum agrees that:

"The media has bias, and it is predominately left"

I'm not saying it is WAY left, just some left.

Just for comparisons sake, I'll give 2 examples of bias that don't need me to dig for the stories (because you all have recently seen headlines like this.

Headline:

"Bush administration denies that it was lax in pre-9-11 enforcement."

The headline could have said:

"Failed intelligence flunkie(Clarke) accuses admin. of weakness."

See the subtle bias?

Then there is MiddleEast bias, even worse. After someone gets on a bus in Israel and blows 20 people to pieces:

headline says: "20 die on bus" (with a picture of the bus, no bodies,no blood, no mention that they were Jews, just "20")

But when a rocket kills a Hamas leader who surrounds himself with as many women and children as he can, the headline reads:

"6 Palestinian children murdered by rocket attack" (with a picture of tons of bloody body parts, as many personal photos of the dead that can be found, and many weeping mourners)

Of course, mideast bias is different than regular political bias, but you see where I'm coming from..

-n

p.s. Netscape sucks.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 29 Apr 2004 18:26

HighDemonslayer wrote: Jeremy said:
-------------------------------------
(...) I'm not saying you are stupid - I think probably you are not stupid. But when talking about politics - there are lots of people who are really into politics - especially on this board - if you don't think through what yo"u write - you will be taken apart.
-------------------------------------
I don't know if you "took me apart" on this one,

.

Actually, I think he is referring to when I ripped you a new asshole in this thread. Hit the `previous` button in the upper right of this thread. Yep, there it is. And seeing how you don`t bother to respond to my previous post with any arguments of merit, it looks like you know you lost the argument too.

HighDemonslayer wrote: I bet more than half of this forum agrees that:

"The media has bias, and it is predominately left"

I think there is a study online, that says that 85% of this forum disagrees with this statement. Or maybe it`s 90%. Or actually, maybe the survey I am referring to actually is about whether most Americans think Miller is less filling or tastes great.

Rather than making dumbass assumptions, or dumbass bets, post a poll and come back with something approaching real numbers. Your `bets` are unconvincing and aren`t based on any reflection of reality.

HighDemonslayer wrote:
Just for comparisons sake, I'll give 2 examples of bias that don't need me to dig for the stories (because you all have recently seen headlines like this.

Headline:

"Bush administration denies that it was lax in pre-9-11 enforcement."

The headline could have said:

"Failed intelligence flunkie(Clarke) accuses admin. of weakness."

See the subtle bias?

Let`s distill your argument.

1. The media doesnt have a radically right bias.
therefore:
-The media is liberal!!!!

Do you understand how stupid this argument is? That`s like saying `if you don`t rape women, you must be gay.`

There`s a reason why the first headline you proposed appears in the media. Because it is reporting an actual fact in an unbiased manner. Your second headline calls Clarke `failed intelligence flunkie.` You are aware that that is ridiculously biased and unfair, right? So by your argument, if a newspaper runs a headline that isnt ridiculously biased towards the right, it must be left. This is patently false.

HighDemonslayer wrote:

Then there is MiddleEast bias, even worse. After someone gets on a bus in Israel and blows 20 people to pieces:

headline says: "20 die on bus" (with a picture of the bus, no bodies,no blood, no mention that they were Jews, just "20").

So you claim.

HighDemonslayer wrote:
But when a rocket kills a Hamas leader who surrounds himself with as many women and children as he can, the headline reads:

"6 Palestinian children murdered by rocket attack" (with a picture of tons of bloody body parts, as many personal photos of the dead that can be found, and many weeping mourners)

.

I can`t imagine there is still anybody who takes your word at face value for anything. Myself? I`m skeptical. Please provide links to stories in MAINSTREAM media that reflects these views.

Do stories like the ones you quote appear in the fringe media? No doubt. But when you claim `the media has a left bias` you are talking about the mainstream media. The mainstream media may even reflect the bias you claim it does, but it doesnt do it in such a blatant, propagandhistic manner. You insult the intelligence of the people on this forum by inventing such emotionally manipulative reporting, and then passing it off on the mainstream media.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 29 Apr 2004 18:40

HighDemonslayer wrote:
Do you think I want to take the time to find the friggin study again? i'd rather insult your intelligence, if that's all it takes.

How did I know this would be the case?
Translation: I made up this study. And yes, we know you love to insult our intelligence. Seriously, if any of your arguments had any merit, you would be able to back them up. But you cant. Why do you bother posting anymore? I`ve called your bluff several times, and you never have any substance.

HighDemonslayer wrote: if it wasn't for the emotion and obvious mad hatred of me.

This is the main point I want to address. Don`t flatter yourself. Al Qaeda flew a plane into the building where I had my prom. Al Qaeda bombed a train line in my hometown that my family sometimes rides. I hate Al Qaeda because I take them seriously.

You? You are annoying, and I sometimes half-worry some careless modified person will read your lies and adopt a more ignorant attitude towards the world. But hate? I have to take you seriously first, and if you aren`t even able to back up your arguments (i don`t count imaginary surveys), I can`t even take you seriously. So don`t flatter yourself, because I definitely don`t hate you.

HighDemonslayer wrote: Maybe I write these short posts just so you get mad and write 10-page rebuttals.

Keep up the beautifully composed AND researched posts,

Now this is actually interesting. If you were a true Republican idealogue, you would back up your arguments with evidence. Slanted evidence maybe, faulty arguments maybe, but at least you would try. Instead, you come here and make ignorant, false claims, and let me refute you completely, with compelling arguments and evidence. This lopsidedness is a great way to promote liberal views over conservative views. An outside observer would maybe even suspect that our screennames have the same ISP, and are the work of a liberal idealogue trying to promote his ideas while making conservatives look like morons.

I have no comment.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 30 Apr 2004 14:50

I thought this was reasons to vote for Bush, not be sarcastic and post reasons not to vote for him

TrueBalance · Post by **TrueBalance** » 30 Apr 2004 23:56

jesus.. nafta...

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 01 May 2004 10:34

Ok, I accept that you don't hate me.

I don't hate you either, I just think you're a prick for calling me a moron all the time.

I tell you if I don't like your views, but I don't attack you personally.

Why should I address your intellectual "arguments" now? every paragraph contains a vicious personal insult on me.

I was going to make a comment about Al Qaeda(maybe later), but I don't want to insult any personal losses you may have sustained because of them.

And as a personal favor, I will attempt to locate the study about the editors or anchors voting records(when I have time).

-n

p.s.

Matt:

Bush doen't give us reasons to vote for him anymore,it's like he wants to lose.
Although with John Kerry showing us what a terrible and un-electable candidate he is, Bush can probably coast to a landslide victory.

He doesn't need my Arizona vote though, he thinks the illegals will vote for him(they wont).

"Why vote for a phony liberal, when you can vote for the real thing"
-Unknown

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 01 May 2004 15:44

That may be, but you could post them in the other thread that was created for bashing Bush

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 May 2004 18:31

I think Matt's point is that this is the "Why vote for Bush" thread and there is a "why vote against Bush" thread somewhere else!

Perhaps some chill pills are in order!

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 10 May 2004 15:59

Matt has a good point, we are off topic. I just get furious with Bush last few months, and can't think of any positives right now.

I did think up a backhanded reason but it doesnt belong.

edit: I am actually registered Independent, and am not a "true believer".

-n

mattkain · Post by **mattkain** » 10 May 2004 21:34

I might be a little late here (sorry), but I only have time to check out the forum once in a great moon. Anyway, the "Media Elite" study (that I will assume Nathan was alluding to earlier) is a rather seminal piece of comm theory and often cited in "intro to journalism" curriculum. Anyway, since everyone involved in this thread is too busy cussing to do any research, I thought I could take the 19 seconds to get on Google and dredge up some sources (bear in mind that this study is a bit dated):

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

For all interested, I hope this helps. Or at least adds fodder to further foment the argument.

Matt Kain

P.S. As an outsider looking in (this is my first time seeing this thread) I'm a bit nonplused at the amount of argumentum ad hominem and back-slapping from Nathan's more virulent critics. Come on you bunch of glad-handing, decadent philistines, I expect more from you (note: since I have no side in the argument I feel it is my duty to call names at will. Ken, you're a jack-a-napes).

Juan · Post by **Juan** » 11 May 2004 08:46

MattK - i enhance my vocab so much from reading your posts--I had to look up 3 words this time!

I looked at that 'Media Elite' study and I think its definition of 'elite' is deceiving. It describes the journalists, reporters, and correspondents that reach a nation-wide audience as the 'Media Elite'. I perceive the 'media elite' as the owners of the media (Rupert Murdock, Michael Eisner et al.) I believe that the interests of these individuals, rather than those of the journalists, play a greater role in deciding what and how stories are played. Decision making in major media is top-down (i cant back this up right now).

So that study shows that journalists are overwhelmingly 'liberal', but I would like to see a study on the political orientation of the owners; it wouldnt take much work theres jus 3 of 'em

if we wanna get back to the topic. I LOVED Cam's post.

Tsiangkun wrote:Government opperating without the checks and balances in place is moving us towards the revolution much faster than we could get there with a reasonable man in office.

BUSH -Owell 2004 !!!

[/b]

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 24 May 2004 13:06

Kerry suggested Senator Levin as a possible Secretary of Defense for his administration.

Great idea, have a former civil-rights attorney elected from an Islamic stronghold in Michigan to be in charge of defending the nation.

-n

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 26 May 2004 13:41

marxist/lenin philosophy - john kerry's handbook

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 28 May 2004 08:48

Matt wrote:marxist/lenin philosophy - john kerry's handbook

That statement = uneducated retardation

I'll place good money that you actually have no idea what you just said. I'll even wager you've never read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, or even a full length of any of Marx's writings...even the shorter ones. I'll also wager that you don't even understand the motivation or impact of Lenin's bastardization of Marxist ideals on Russian society. I'd almost go so far as to bet that you couldn't give Marx's and Lenin's first names without having to go and look them up first.
You are just regurgitating the tiniest tidbits of unprocessed information that your parents, teachers or other adult influences have said in some offhanded and equally uneducated remark in some discussion of "barstool politics".
You know for the time that I lived in Iowa City I always considered it to have one of the best educational systems in the country... I'm seriously rethinking that, though I won't judge it based soley on you Matt.
It might surprise you to know that Communism in action was absolutely nothing like what Marx described in his work, but he still took the brunt of the assault against communism because of the way it has been executed in real life.

Ken, I agree with most of what you've said...except that had I seen this all sooner I probably would have recanted the nomination for "nicest poster"

As for reason's to vote for Bush....ummmmm...ummmmm....ummmmm... oh wait..ah, no....ummmm.....ummmmm.....ooo ooo, no wait, uh no....ummmm ummmm....I GOT ONE... If you vote for Bush you are guaranteed to stay in a recession, remain unemployed, stay at war, and remain in fear of terrorism. Now you may ask why anyone would want this...well think of it this way. After another 4 years when he can't possibly run again the whole country will be so tired of Bush'isms and Republican idiocy they will guarantee a landslide victory for a following 8 years of anything but a Republican in the White House.... THERE.. it was difficult, but I got one.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 28 May 2004 20:53

Thank you Brad, I was going to make a reply like your first paragraph yesterday but realised I couldn't be bothered.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 04 Jun 2004 18:17

George Bush has done a lot for Australian Politics. First he called our Prime Minister "A Man of Steel" - the same name Stalin had. Then, when it was mentioned that a number (probably the majority) of Australians thought this was funny, and ridiculed our PM about it Bush said what he meant was that Howard was "Fair Dinkum" - contary to popular belief Australians use that phrase as much as people from any other country and this hardly helped Howard in any way. Now Bush has mentioned that he thinks the opposition leader's policy of removing troops from Iraq would have "disastrous" consequences.
This has caused a stir in Australia - firstly because it is in direct contravention of the UN constitution, but also because the average Australian has a great deal of dislike for Bush and don't really like him commenting on our politics. Why is this good - well in supporting our current PM, Bush is inadvertaintly pushing more people towards voting for the opposition! Horray for Bush.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 15 Jun 2004 08:00

Reason #????

We have no idea what Kerry's plan is to fix the recession, get us jobs, end the war, ease our fears of terrorism.

I'd like to know .

What I imagine his plan is....he plans to raise taxes alot and try to BUY his way out those problems.

Good luck

-n