This is very non-politically correct...

The sky is blue should read the sky is non-white.
Water runs downhill should read water runs in the appropriate direction.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
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