Listening to the words that the man speaks is "left-wing"?


Maxprop wrote:
Are you implying that your brain does not process anything you hear?

Not at all.

.... Here's
a newsflash: how one perceives what he hears has everything to do with what
he believes has been said.


I guess if you are so incredibly biased that you cannot hear
any communication, no matter how clear & simple, without
perceiving some bias, then you're probably right. But for
most people, that's not the case.

When you hear the words "The sky is blue" or "water runs
downhill" do you percieve those words to be liberal or
conservative?

How about "the insurgency is on it's last legs" or "censured
for conflict of interest" or "arrested for possession of
illegal narcotics" ... ???

Seems pretty clear to me, no slant one way or the other.
They are simple declaratives.



.... right-wingers think he's truthful.

Considering that he says himself that his fans are morons and that he
makes stuff up on the spot, that's a pretty stupid thing to think.


You've said this before. How about a reference. It sounds completely
illogical--his listener base would disappear overnight if he'd actually said
that, or worse if he says it repeatedly.

Well, he said it in the same interview in which he said
"Freedom of speech gives me the right to demand anybody that
disagrees with me must shut the hell up." If you heard that,
then you heard the other. Perhaps your right-bias listening
device filtered it out.

In any event, when a public figure has been arrested for
drugs multiple times, after nmaking public statements about
the despicableness of drug addicts, one suspects that
nothing could damage his credibility with those who are
biased towards believing him.



Your example of an aging, redneck senator is hardly any different. Most
people take Alec Baldwin more seriously than Jesse Helms.


When was Alec Baldwing the chairman of several Senate committees?


When was Jesse Helms a world-famous movie personality, starring in many
top-rated movies, appearing on TV talk shows? Visibility is everything in
politics. Take William Jefferson (please!)--did you know who he was prior
to all the media attention?


AFAIK William Jefferson was on a 70s sitcom and is a
fictional character. I never heard of Alec Baldwin, so he
can't be all that famous.



Are you willing to admit that the left-wing does not represent mainstream
American values, therefore failing to have enough appeal to sustain its talk
shows and channels?


Are you willing to admit that you've made several
self-contradictory statements on the matter?


1- There is just as much hate speech from the left as from
the right

1a- so therefor the right's hate speech is OK and the left's
is terrible

1b-(even though two wrongs don't make a right).


I've said repeatedly that I condemn both political poles.

No, you haven't. You have only condemned hate speech from
the left.



2-There is not as much hate speech from the left because it's not as
profitable (maybe because it's not hateful enough).


The hate-speech comes from different venues, depending upon the politics.
Left-wing blogs and websites are far more numerous than their right-wing
equivalents.

Really? You mean, there aren't numerous right-wing blogs?

... And right-wing talk shows (Rush, Mike Gallagher, Tony Snow
before he got his current job, and others outnumber the left-wing
varieties. And a lot of left-wing hate-speech emanates from the Hollywood
glitterazzi. In the final analysis, it's probably a wash.


Except that the Bush/Cheney administration has used federal
departments budgets to produce pro-administration
infomercials and faked news releases. That alone accounts
for a couple hundred million worth of de-facto campaign
advertising.

In the final analysis, "it's a wash" is a highly biased
statement.



That's what I love about you, Doug. You simply can't debate an issue,
rather you have to attack the debater

In other words, you have no way of reconciling the *fact*
that you've made some illogical & false statements, and you
cannot seem to produce any actual evidence (other than you
own repeated assertions) that I'm biased.



This is boring and you're a jerk.


If I had in fact been calling you names ... and point out
how illogical and self-contradictory (therefor stupid) your
statement are is not really an attack... then 2 wrongs don't
make a right.

DSK