Van Jones

[i_like_lectric_motors]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
"Meaningless validation", LOL, you're definitely a kook. Yeah, why resort to facts or data when you can just assure people that your opinion is really, really good? Motors idea of objective truth is to break out the Ouija Board.
[/quote]

Facts? Data? When have you ever posted any of that? All I've ever seen you post is link after link of drivel written by people whose job it is to sway the opinion of those who are easily swayed. Think for yourself, Sally ... not for the people who are paid to decide things for you.

[SallyLightfoot]

Wrong. I can back any political/economic assertion I make with data and analysis. The people who are paid to decide things for you reside primarily on the right side of the political spectrum. The left has a far greater % of free and independent thinkers-- anti-authoritarians, secularists, academics, scientists and artists, where that kind of crap you hear about on the right doesn't survive scrutiny.

[ghosty]

Not to beat up on you, Sally, but it's clear that you harbor and outright hatred for the right, which seems to be based on TV programs and the political entertainment machine who's job is to rile up the lunatic fringe on both sides and reduce people to stereotypes. I know that whatever you post here, however well-intentioned, has to be taken with a grain of salt because of this. I mean, what is it with you and Glenn Beck? Clearly not many people on this board have heard about him or even care. I think you place way too much importance on what these TV personalities have to say. I don't think they quite hold the world in the palms of their hands. Keith Olbermann would be the left-wing version of Glenn Beck, reporting from the "newsdesk" like he's sitting in the trenches of Germany during the first World War. While this kind of presentation may be unintentionally hilarious, it's just sensationalist garbage aimed at getting viewers to tune in again...and again...and again. You're not going to get an accurate reflection of the news of the day from these clowns on FoxNews and MSNBC.

I'm actually surprised that you're so gung ho for Democrats considering you're in the northeast where your former Governor, a Democrat, appointed his secret boyfriend to a homeland security position and then resigned in disgrace, and across the river the former New York Governor, a Democrat, had a parade of prostitutes at his disposal and also resigned in disgrace. I would think you'd be soured on both political parties after 8 years of Bush idiocy.

[NuWaveRx]

I should listen to my impulses and stay out of the middle of this free-for-all, but for some reason...


FWIW I've posted here about Glenn Beck and his idiocy on several occasions. To me, his insipid, "I'm a faux-libertarian--except when it comes to social issues" pose makes him worse than than Hannity, Limbaugh, et al. combined [Look at me, folks, I'm hanging out with Penn Jillette! Talk about Libertarian Cred! {/sarcasm}] and while I'm no fan of Obermann either, it certainly seems to me that reactionary windbags far outnumber their left-wing counterparts by a large margin.

Given the current state of investigative journalism--such as it is--in this country, I'm not sure its a good idea to listen to any of these nitwits, without taking a grain of salt large enough to give a medium-sized town heart failure.


Sally and I have disagreed on several issues in the past--usually economic in nature. That being said, if I remember my college debate courses correctly, how can one contend any sort of rational debate without using facts and references to back them up? Certainly things like Death and Taxes, Newton's Third Law and the resemblance of Celine Dion to a Roan Mare [Kidding, for God's sake[:o)]] need no such references but if one is trying to prove one's point in any sort of social arena aren't such foci of data necessary? Otherwise we are left with arguments like, "God told me to do this", which, unless I miss my guess, is one of the few areas you two are in agreement[:D]

Is the Huffington Post any better or worse in the actual "facts" portion of this compared to, say, Michael Savage's website? I dunno--I guess that's up for the viewer to determine. One of the sayings Reagan got right was "Trust, but verify" and I believe that is the onus of those receving and using facts from any secondary or archiving source.

[ghosty]

True, regardless of who outnumbers who the phrase "reactionary windbag" sums up the whole lot of them. I remember one day hearing Sean Hannity spend 10 minutes on a quote from Robert Kennedy Jr. that he never made and then I flipped over to Air America to hear Rhandi Rhodes spend 10 minutes claiming George W. Bush was addicted to pills because she could "see it in his eyes".
At some point you just have to shut this garbage off. It's meaningless.

[SallyLightfoot]

ghosty-- My dislike of republicans is not met by equal love of democrats. I think I've mentioned before (using the Robert Kennedy quote) that I think 95% of the right is corrupt, and about 75% of the left. I think I also mentioned that I was a republican until around 2002 when I discovered the lies leading up to and during the Iraq war.

In terms of media, the top 3 news programs on cable are O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck, and then you've got MSNBC morning joe, CNN's Lou Dobbs, all of the Sunday morning political shows, the Wall St Journal opinion pages, Investors Business Daily, the Washington Post and the Washington Times, half of the NY Times, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved (all of whom visited the Bush White House for off-the-record briefings) and 90% of AM radio. On the left, there's a smaller group: Olberman, Maddow, Moyer, Maher, Schultz and then a handful of Air America hosts. As for NPR, most people on the left refer to it as "Nice Polite Republicans."

If you read an editorial in a newspaper, hear a program on AM radio, or watch a talking head on a cable program, chances are it's right wing media, and yes, I think that makes a big difference in the way people form opinions. I don't think we would have had an Iraq war if not for right wing media support. And this health-care debate would not have gone so far astray-- with fabricated stories of death panels, death books, rationing, coverage for non-citizens, etc.-- if not for the right wing media (and useless network news which won't fact-check anything).

[ghosty]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>ghosty-- My dislike of republicans is not met by equal love of democrats. I think I've mentioned before (using the Robert Kennedy quote) that I think 95% of the right is corrupt, and about 75% of the left. I think I also mentioned that I was a republican until around 2002 when I discovered the lies leading up to and during the Iraq war.

In terms of media, the top 3 news programs on cable are O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck, and then you've got MSNBC morning joe, CNN's Lou Dobbs, all of the Sunday morning political shows, the Wall St Journal opinion pages, Investors Business Daily, the Washington Post and the Washington Times, half of the NY Times, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved (all of whom visited the Bush White House for off-the-record briefings) and 90% of AM radio. On the left, there's a smaller group: Olberman, Maddow, Moyer, Maher, Schultz and then a handful of Air America hosts. As for NPR, most people on the left refer to it as "Nice Polite Republicans."

If you read an editorial in a newspaper, hear a program on AM radio, or watch a talking head on a cable program, chances are it's right wing media, and yes, I think that makes a big difference in the way people form opinions. I don't think we would have had an Iraq war if not for right wing media support. And this health-care debate would not have gone so far astray-- with fabricated stories of death panels, death books, rationing, coverage for non-citizens, etc.-- if not for the right wing media (and useless network news which won't fact-check anything).
[/quote]

I agree that there are more Republican talking heads in media than Democrats however if the right were so persuasive wouldn't the Iraq war be incredibly popular? John McCain our current President? Everyone convinced that Sarah Palin is brilliant?


I'll give you the outright blanket of conservative thought on AM radio. Listeners of AM radio tend to skew older (50 +) so the majority of them are going to be conservatives hence they have all that programming created for them. It wouldn't be on if a station didn't bill particularly well.

[SallyLightfoot]

Here I go again, with my crazy link citin':

<a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/57977/when-is-a-czar-not-a-czar" target="_boo">When Is a Czar Not a Czar?</a>

"Conservatives are arguing that the Obama White House is abusing its power by appointing so many advisers without Senate approval... Here's the problem: Some of the people whom conservatives and mainstream media voices alike have labeled "czars" have been confirmed by the Senate. Some of them, and others, hold jobs that were created by previous presidents...so far this "czars" debate seems like a witch hunt egged on by sloppy reporting."