RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/7/2012 11:32:39 AM)

This guy was a windbag, just a Rush wannabe.  Of course I am sorry for his wife and kids, but sheesh, what did he ever really contribute?

On the other hand, James Q. Wilson, also a conservative, but more of the intellectual variety, also died last week.  He shared many of Brierbart's beliefs, but didn't present them in such a provocative manner.  He was the author of "Broken Windows", which was used as a model for community policing throughout the country.  He was a conservative that I think anyone, regardless of their political leanings, could respect.

My guess?  Most of the so called conservatives in this country have never heard of Wilson.  They much prefer the bluster of Brierbart and Rush.  What do you expect from people who seem to think an education is elitist?



slvemike4u -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/7/2012 11:33:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

Do you doubt I'm an angel ?


You're a dead guy?

Wow... you SEEM so life-like


Do you doubt that angels abound,walking side by side with heathens like yourself [:)] ?



slvemike4u -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/7/2012 11:35:10 AM)

Thompson please see above post.



thompsonx -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/7/2012 12:43:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Thompson please see above post.


I remain unconvinced



slvemike4u -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/7/2012 12:48:19 PM)

Dammit,I won't be able to sleep tonight [:)]



Anaxagoras -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/7/2012 3:34:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

quote:
The media repeatedly twists and strips comments of their context.

Just the liars.
Perhaps you could post for us the times that npr or pbs "repeatedly twist and strips the comments of their context.

Here you are again trying to get others to do your work for you.


Not at all just asking you to validate the moronic shit in your post.

Ah "moronic shit" eh? What a lovely turn of phrase. If it truly is moronic shit then it is impossible to validate. This is an axample of you not innocently enquiring but rather attacking personally those you disagree with. You made an unreasonable request as usual as if one could possibly count how many times NPR or PBS get it wrong.

quote:


I suppose I have to sit through thousands of hours of footage and write a detailed analysis.

So you admit you have no idea what you are posting about but continue to do so

No not at all. Once again you fail to engage with the arguments, and again expecting a person to spend an immense amount of time analysing both networks is completely absurd.

quote:


Neither channel is available in my part of the world so I cannot comment on either source but for your edification here are two articles that cite examples of bias on NPR and PBS: http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/02/01/nprs-bias-against-genetic-engineering/

This from the forbes cite.

The most recent example was the Jan. 3 program of syndicated talk show host Diane Rehm, a bash-fest dominated by her anti-genetic engineering chum who heads an organic yogurt company. Predictably, he advocated government-mandated labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients – never mind that such a (completely unnecessary) requirement would be costly, mislead consumers and violate the constitutional guarantee of commercial free speech.

Why are you against consumers knowing what is in the food they eat?
What constitutional free speech right is being violated...there is no right to lie about what is in the food one sells.

That was just one element of the argument. The particulars of the issue in question are totally off-topic and the constitutionality of the issue is explained in the link provided in the article. Anyone's stance on the issue is irrelevant. I actually favour the labelling of GM produce but the example is cited as a situation where unbalanced journalism took place.

quote:


and http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/04/public-broadcasting-biased/

This from one of the responders to th britannica cite

A few examples? I suggest that you take a different approach – take one issue and research how NPR reports on it compared to, say, Fox. Then repeat that about 100 times. After that, you might have enough data to make a bias statement with confidence.

Good and appropriate advice for those who think they can convince others with soundbites and bullshit.

It is a stupid suggestion to make by someone who didn't want to hear if left-wing journalism could be biased too. Fox being biased doesn't negate NPR being biased too.

"Soundbites and bullshit"? lol Who is the one on here who fires loads of single-sentence posts?



quote:

Its telling to list Breitbart amongst two genocidal tyrants,

Fitting dont you think? That a man who murdered peoples reputations without regard for the truth is listed between two men woh murdered peoples bodies...too kewel.

By the way do you really think Breitbart is as bad as genocidal tyrants like Mussolini and Gadaffi that Moon cited to which I was responding to?



mnottertail -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/7/2012 3:43:14 PM)

So, is the fatboy still cakked?  Jesus, lets not keep hauling this cadaver around until it stinks, let the boy go already.



thompsonx -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/7/2012 5:25:03 PM)

quote:

Ah "moronic shit" eh? What a lovely turn of phrase. If it truly is moronic shit then it is impossible to validate.

That was my point...glad you finally agree.

This is an axample of you not innocently enquiring but rather attacking personally those you disagree with.

If you had a decent command of the english language you would have recognized that I attacked your post and not you...now you know.

You made an unreasonable request as usual as if one could possibly count how many times NPR or PBS get it wrong.

So far you have yet to find one



thompsonx -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/7/2012 5:27:10 PM)

quote:

By the way do you really think Breitbart is as bad as genocidal tyrants like Mussolini and Gadaffi that Moon cited to which I was responding to?


Do please try to keep up.
Moon referenced hitler and musssolini.
Until you acquaint yourself with gadaffi history perhaps you should refrain from commenting on him.



thompsonx -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/7/2012 5:30:28 PM)

quote:

That was just one element of the argument. The particulars of the issue in question are totally off-topic and the constitutionality of the issue is explained in the link provided in the article.

Yes the constitutional right to lie to the public about what is in the food they produce.

Anyone's stance on the issue is irrelevant.

Then why did you post it?



I actually favour the labelling of GM produce but the example is cited as a situation where unbalanced journalism took place.

You have failed so far in producing such an example. Both that you cited have been debunked.



Anaxagoras -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/7/2012 7:23:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

That was just one element of the argument. The particulars of the issue in question are totally off-topic and the constitutionality of the issue is explained in the link provided in the article.

Yes the constitutional right to lie to the public about what is in the food they produce.

Anyone's stance on the issue is irrelevant.

Then why did you post it?

It would seem you can't get your mind around the idea that journalistic balance is not about anyone's opinion! The issue is about fairness - presenting both sides to allow the listener to decide for themselves. Clearly you have no understanding of the most basic precepts of journalistic ethics... [:D]

quote:


I actually favour the labelling of GM produce but the example is cited as a situation where unbalanced journalism took place.

You have failed so far in producing such an example. Both that you cited have been debunked.


I did cite to examples which you comically claim to have "debunked". You just don't like them as I suspect you wouldn't like any, since you quoted some commenter who said the author should be writing about Fox instead. The second link by an author who agreed with some stances of the broadcaster but still pointed out their journalism was unbalanced.



kalikshama -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/8/2012 6:36:44 AM)

Here's an NPR correction of a mistake:

March 7, 2012
Songs We Love: Disney Songwriters The Sherman Brothers
Morning Edition, March 7, 2012

The audio of this story, as did a previous Web version, incorrectly states the day of composer Robert Sherman's death. He died on Monday.

Possibly inspired by multiple incidents like Fox News Made Moscow Riots Look Riotier with Athens Footage, Faux News "fact checking" has spawned SNL spoofs. Funniest part is the scroll at 4:20.

http://www.cinemablend.com/television/SNL-Parodies-Fox-Friends-Video-Fact-Checkers-Corrections-List-31234.html




SternSkipper -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/8/2012 11:18:19 AM)

quote:

So, is the fatboy still cakked? Jesus, lets not keep hauling this cadaver around until it stinks, let the boy go already.


I just wanna know what the toxicology report said and I'm good with the whole "lord works in mysterious ways... listening Rush?" kinda thing.



thompsonx -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/8/2012 11:21:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

Had Breitbart decided he hated a politician whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower, Breitbart would have been just as delighted to attack that politician with a different set of codes. The attack was everything, the details nothing.



This will be something to remember when Dan Rather goes to meet his maker.



What was it exactly that dan rather lied about?
Please be specific.




SternSkipper -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/8/2012 11:33:56 AM)

This is to no one in particular, but can we wind this fucking thread back around to the topic of Andrew Beitbart's surprise Dirt Nap?
Cause this played out reenactment of the "You talkin to me?" scene from "Taxi Driver" is getting sorta old.
And if there's no more Faux outrage and comparisons to REAL JOURNALISTS like Dan Rather (????) are over, we might as well know that and let the thread like Andrew and his karma, rest in peace.



Moonhead -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/8/2012 11:35:11 AM)

A nice idea Skip, but fat bloody chance...



mnottertail -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/8/2012 1:08:50 PM)

so the question, was it a heart attack or poppers with the old fatboy? any news?



thompsonx -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/8/2012 3:11:30 PM)

quote:

Let me ask you again, do you think Gadaffi was a better man than Breitbart from an ethical standpoint?


Yes



SternSkipper -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/8/2012 6:27:03 PM)

quote:

A nice idea Skip, but fat bloody chance...


Have another shrimp then



SternSkipper -> RE: Brierbart dies of a heart attack ? (3/8/2012 6:30:55 PM)

quote:

so the question, was it a heart attack or poppers with the old fatboy? any news?


If he got his stash from rush he could just spontaneously arrested.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.492188E-02