Mormons Turn Out for Romney in Nevada

[_the road to hana]

Ann Coulter is smart as a whip

The words "Ann Coulter" and "whip" should never be used in the same sentence.

[_JAK]

If serious, let’s see objective, transparent evidence that all the news organizations you mention (and that I mentioned) are “media outlets (that) can essentially be understood as the journalistic or news disseminating wings of the Democratic Party.”

That's all been done, over and over again, over the last 20 years or more. A through perusal of MRC's website will help. They've been documenting it, on a day to day basis, since the eighties.

If your serious, what “media outlets” are wings of the Republican Party?

They're aren't any, at least as of yet. Keep in mind I said that they could "essentially be understood as". It is the systemic socio-economic and ideological monoculture of the mainstream media that allows it to be understood in this way, not any actual connection (although, with Dan Rather's disgusting attempt to unseat a sitting President with forged documents, there apparently was). I'm not sure I could show you any objective or transparent evidence, as a true blue leftist would not see most of what I and countless other conservatives see as bias. To them, it simply appears as "news" because it supports that which they already assume and accept. The longstanding leftist bias of the mainstream media is at this point so well established and pedestrian that arguing over it seems moot. Even a number of leading media personalities have admitted to it forthrightly (Rather is one notable exception), and the documentary evidence, going back well into the late sixties and early seventies, is mountainous.

The named television news media here compete for stories. Their credibility rests with getting most of the news correct most of the time. Certainly, any news organization which is attempting to be accurate and correct can have error.

However, if your claim here is serious, you are also seriously misinformed.

Uh huh...


Anyone who has any education or knowledge of this issue knows this JAK, including much the liberal cultural clique that controls most of it to this day, and some have admitted as much. Oh, if you'd like a good smattering of empirical evidence, you can start with anything by Lichter and Rothman, starting with the Media Elite. MRC's day by day, report by report corpus of evidence is just as good. The outrageous, gloves off bias, tendentiousness, and pack mentality of this cultural elitist frat clique is a wonder to behold when you really begin to study the numbers, the missing facts, the censored and buried stories that don't fit the left wing, urban northeastern/Malibu beach house template, the monotonous anti-Americanism, the groupie-like Castro worship and romantic infatuation with Third World revolutionaries, the hostility to the military, law enforcement, and religion, the imbecilic and tendentious economic reporting, the historical revisionism, the almost total invisibility of all but leftist explanations and interpretive paradigms for all controversial phenomena (which I grew up with), and the outright dishonesty.

You can’t even correctly identify who said what in your post mixing my comment in with yours.

It was I who said:

“The named television news media here compete for stories. Their credibility rests with getting most of the news correct most of the time. Certainly, any news organization which is attempting to be accurate and correct can have error.”

No refutation, not even an attempt at refutation by Coggins7.

Further, you substitute ad hominem for addressing issues. While characteristic of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as well as the right-wing bias of National Review and Fox News, you offer no substance.

JAK asked:
If your serious, what “media outlets” are wings of the Republican Party?

Coggins7 response:
They're aren't any, at least as of yet.

I just named two organizations and two individuals which are conservative, right-wing pundits.

So you’re wrong yet again in your statement here.

You also substitute pontificating for refutation.

Example Coggins7 stated:
I'm not sure I could show you any objective or transparent evidence, as a true blue leftist would not see most of what I and countless other conservatives see as bias. To them, it simply appears as "news" because it supports that which they already assume and accept. The longstanding leftist bias of the mainstream media is at this point so well established and pedestrian that arguing over it seems moot.

JAK:
Demagogy – An irrational, mindless rant, Coggins7.

So who is your pick for the next President of the US (since you’re not running)?

JAK

[_Mister Scratch]

Or that its editor, David Horowitz, is a former Marxist flip-flopper who once worked with the Black Panthers? (This website gets cited by Coggins more than any other source, so I have to believe that he peruses it on a more or less daily basis.)

This is such classic Scratch that I just cannot let this opportunity pass. You see, to Scratch, Horowitz's major sin is that he is no longer a communist.

No... Actually, I think his distortion of sources and failure to back up his claims are far worse. As is his flip-flopping and apparent zealotry.

Here's the entire essay, parts of which I am going to italicize to make clearer Scratch's immoral and disgusting prevarication on this issue. I'm sure JAK won't have any problems jumping into bed with this trick:


<SNIP!>

Crawl Scratch, crawl back to your den.

All I see here is the knighting of a couple of guys who screwed up during their efforts to dole out a form of vigilante justice.

[_Coggins7]

Quote JAK:
Never mind the ECONOMY.

Coggins7:
The economy's in pretty good shape. The numbers aren't telling us recession's around the corner, at least not yet.

JAK:
You must be reading October’s papers. I’ll presume you have yet to learn of the mortgage crisis, the lay off of tens of thousands of workers in the USA, the 2,000 point drop in the Dow. We are in a recession thanks to G.W. Bush policies and arrogance, ignorance and stupidity. A trillion dollar war against “weapons of mass destruction” (Bush ignorance) and a trade deficit in the hundreds of billions does not support your claim: “the economy’s in pretty good shape.”

You might begin your education by watching CNN and the other television networks along with reading the national news papers.

Quote JAK:
Never mind the trillion dollar war in Iraq.

Coggins7:
Interesting how leftists are so concerned about spending vast somes of money defending ourselves from our avowed enemies, but had no problem spending several times that destroying the inner city black family.

JAK:
Name-calling is not argument or evidence. You don’t even present an argument here.

Quote JAK:
Never mind the loss of jobs in the USA.

Coggins7:
Substantial tax cuts--income, corporate, double taxation on dividends, and the elimination of the death tax, the capital gains tax, and the AMT, will do wonders resolving that problem(which really isn't a problem, there have been no net job losses in America forever.

JAK:
Right. (Sarcasm) Continue to pass the G.W. Bush debt to generations further down the line. Not even any present Republicans would do as you suggest. Bush I said: “Read my lips, no new taxes.” Once in office, reality hit Bush I. He raised taxes.

More importantly, when Clinton left office, there was no deficit, unemployment was lower than today, we were not a war (on false claims by Bush II).

You, Coggins7, should run for President of the USA.

Coggins7 continues:
JAK doesn't know what he's talking about). Also a good idea would be significantly decreasing and streamlining the vast, oppressive regulatory federal web that strangles entrepreneurship and investment, degrades profitability and competitiveness, and bloats federal agencies at the expense of the economy.

JAK:
Again, Coggins7 evades the actual issues facing a 2008 US economy. The Republicans disagree on federal regulation. Virtually all the Republicans are presently running against Bush II.

Quote JAK:
America may have deserved 8 years of George Bush. They got it. Another term of the religious right, and the USA will be second to China or some other country which outperforms the USA.

Coggins7:
Knee slapping JAK. A real riot. The economic problems that afflict America are almost solely the effects of decades of liberal (socialist) economic policies, which have of late been picked up and imitated by the Republicans, and for which the "religious right" has not a kind word to say.

JAK:
What an ostrich! Bush II has been President for nearly 8 years, has taken the country from the black into the red (debit), has precipitated the loss of jobs, has taken the country to an endless war (passing it to the NEXT administration), subverted the Congress of the US, and has destroyed the economy of the country.

In addition, he has destroyed the influence, respect, and power of the US throughout the world.

Attempting to blame Democrats from eight years in the past is absurd. Not a single Republican running is quoting Bush II as having done good things for the US.

The “religious right” certainly had much more than a word to say when those fundamentalists voted for Bush II. The “religious right” was wrong and is wrong.

Coggins7:
Now, back to intellectual seriousness JAK...

Quote JAK:
It’s a dreadful prospect! (That of another four years of Republican domination)

Coggins7:
Yes, the idea of people like you being registered to vote certainly is.

JAK:
This is a very clear statement that you, Coggins7, oppose a democracy and oppose the right of people to vote who have views different from yours.

You make a good Republican as you would attempt to prevent a vote from those who would vote differently from you. Can you recall the Florida fiasco of 2000? Stop the voting, bring in the Supreme Court (which was stacked in favor of Bush).

Yes, Coggins7, if you were to have it your way, you would destroy the democracy even faster than the present administration has done.

Bush II is responsible for the past 8 years. The current economic mess, and most especially the deficit can be laid right at the feet of the Bush II administration.

JAK

One person has told me that you are smart JAK, and that I should seriously try to debate you. This, however, looks to be the passion based tirade of a high school drop out who suffers from a terrible problem. Part of that problem is a vast, impregnable, and incorrigible ignorance, but the worst of it is ignorance combined with a belief that he is not ignorant. That's intellectually lethal.

But its far worse than this, based on the above. Your words here paint you as a unreflective, ideological hysteric who's politics and views of the world are almost purely emotional in nature.

This performance (a mindless montage of MoveOn.org talking points that you should be ashamed, if you really conceive of yourself as an intellectually mature adult, of being seen with in public) indicates that you are not even worth my time conversing with. On to the JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories JAK, on to Area 54 and the grassy knoll! Into the breach!

It would take far too much time and effort to bring JAK into the real world from his CNN imposed frontal lobotomy, and it would probably be an exercise in futility with a mentality such as this in any. I could quickly dispose of some of his points, but it would do no good. JAK is suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, as well as being so flatly uneducated on so large a number of subjects, not limited to but including basic economics and recent social and political history, that the task is simply too daunting to contemplate.

[_beastie]

Your words here paint you as a unreflective, ideological hysteric who's politics and views of the world are almost purely emotional in nature.

ROFL!!

[_Mister Scratch]

Your words here paint you as a unreflective, ideological hysteric who's politics and views of the world are almost purely emotional in nature.

ROFL!!

Yeah, no kidding. Whew! And did you take the time to read that article he posted? No wonder he so seldom posts his sources... LOL!!!

[_Coggins7]

Further, you substitute ad hominem for addressing issues. While characteristic of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as well as the right-wing bias of National Review and Fox News, you offer no substance.

This is barely even grammatical. Put down your blunt and try to focus JAK. Neither Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or National Review are news agencies, nor do they claim to report news. Fox News is owned and managed by people (Fox) who are as ultraliberal as anybody in the media, and a number of their reporters and pundits are not conservative. Fox is a response to a huge demand in the cable news market for balanced reporting, and that is what they created. Balance, to a liberal, looks like bias, because their own bias has been so reinforced and so unquestioned over the previous decades, and other views so studiously avoided by the mainstream media gatekeepers, that it appeared to them to be not bias, but simply reality.

I just named two organizations and two individuals which are conservative, right-wing pundits.

Here is what you did Mr. Wizard: You named two individuals who are pundits, people who deal with opinion. You then named an intellectual review that deals with opinion. You named one news organization that maintains a roughly 50/50 split between its consertative and liberal pundits, commentators, and outside experts. This was unknown in America before Fox, where the presence of conservatives on the mainstream media approached invisibility, and most conservatives in debate or taking head round tables, like George Will, appeared as tokens soundly outnumbered by leftists.

JAK:
Demagogy – An irrational, mindless rant, Coggins7.

You clearly cannot be rationally dealt with JAK, nor do you even have the basic education, intellectual depth, or temperament to discuss these things with me. I like dabating politics, but not with alienated grungers who get there education on such issues from CNN and the Daly Kos.

So long.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here is what you did Mr. Wizard: You named two individuals who are pundits, people who deal with opinion. You then named an intellectual review that deals with opinion. You named one news organization that maintains a roughly 50/50 split between its consertative and liberal pundits, commentators, and outside experts. This was unknown in America before Fox, where the presence of conservatives on the mainstream media approached invisibility, and most conservatives in debate or taking head round tables, like George Will, appeared as tokens soundly outnumbered by leftists.

I'm curious: Why does Coggins continuously cite frontpagemag.com as if it is an "intellectually serious" source? I'm assuming that he views in the same "plausible deniability"/punditry vein as those other sources, right?

[_Coggins7]

No... Actually, I think his distortion of sources and failure to back up his claims are far worse. As is his flip-flopping and apparent zealotry.

Translation into Scratchese: "I have no idea what on earth I'm talking about, I've never read Horowitz or checked his sources, and I don't even know what Horowitz is talking about most of the time because I'm not particularly well read in history, politics, political history, or much of anthing."

All I see here is the knighting of a couple of guys who screwed up during their efforts to dole out a form of vigilante justice.

You sicken me to the point of violent regurgitation.

[_Mercury]

Apparently, a third of those had household incomes of over $100,000.

The point being (this ought to be good)?

The point being that the blind sheep are voting for romney because he is a Mormon, douche.