For that matter, why does it matter WHO disagrees with you? Why is that so important to you?
It doesn't matter who disagrees only that they have the pride and conviction in what they post to attach their 'name' to it and stand by what they said. Debating with someone who doesn't have the conviction to 'lay it on the table' so to speak and take credit for what they say isn't worth my time other than to lampoon and poke and prod like the snake (non-poisonous Doc!) they are.
I doubt 'Ozymandous' is on yer birth certificate. If you weren't so intent on being a "victim" here, you'd see that there was no intent of mine to be anonymous, just to use an old Ex-communicator as a prop. Your self-righteous indignation is just hot air. Blow it somewhere else.
Self-righteous? Me? Yeah, I am the one who called someone else blind and lazy in the title of my post because they didn't recognize one of the handful of posts I had made on the board. Heh, yeah right. Oh, and regarding my 'name', see the little " ' " symbol I used there? I fully realized that "Ozymandous" is not my real name, hence the quotation. You DO
understand what you read, other than what you read INTO posts, correct? Reading comprehension is a good thing.
Why the name-calling?? Do tell. You've called me "coward", undeservedly. I've called you: "politico dude". I've referred to this thread as "Looney Bin" and your contention that it is not political **smirk** as, well, a load. Which it is. I haven't called YOU a load. Not yet anyway. So your slanderous "coward" seems to be the only "name-calling". Are you just cutting and pasting from other discussions, is that just your stock footage?
Undeservedly? To my view, anyone who doesn't state right out who they are when posting an opinion IS
a coward. Your post authored by "Ronald Reagan" did not list YOU as the author but one of the better presidents in US history. Hence my labelling of the author of that post as a coward who didn't overtly sign their name to the post for all to see without trying to hunt for who said what.
Oh, and imferring that someone is "blind and lazy" because they couldn't decipher the clues to figure out the name of someone who has posted here less than a dozen times was name calling as wel, since you're apparently keeping track. Well you are keeping track of the insults that you imagine are aimed at you but not that you've aimed which is pretty amusing and typical for someone who paints a political slant to most things apparently.
Oh, and by the way, unless you see someone in italics, it's not a "cut N paste" at all, but if what I say is pretty much the same over and over maybe it's because I stand by what I say until convinced otherwise, so yeah I guess all my posts would sound similar. Sorry if the people you normally talk to post different stances on things depending on how the wind blows, but some of us actually believe what we say and thus sound repetitive.
Now, politico dude, (heh) when you post a post that in the first 3 lines says the issue is in this Fox News article
So evrything Fox News posts is political? If I had quoted something from CNN or MSNBC and said the same would it still be political? Or has your bias so pervaded your world view that anything said by certain groups will always
have a political slant TO YOU, even if there is no slant i.e. "the evil Republicians/Democrats" mentioned?
AND the article is about a Democratic candidate and his affiliation, AND they quote a "critic" saying "Imagine if a Republican made that statement",
And your point is? Other than to show that some candidates don't get as much digging into their past or it isn't proclaimed as much as other candidates? MY POINT was exactly what I said, why is it that some candidates get every little thing they have done posted for the world to see and others get esentially a free pass? I could care less if it was the Republician being glossed over and the Democrat being lambasted, it's still wrong for the media to focus on one person to the exclusion of other candidates when others have just as much, if not more or worse dirt in their closet.
AND the article ends with "critics say Bustamante's membership in MEChA is certainly more relevant than Arnold Schwarzenegger's father being a Nazi", AND then you say How come Arnold is being bashed and a big deal being made because his father was affiliated with the Nazi party, but this guy Bustamante hasn't hardly been asked at all about MEChA?
Isn't this a double standard or sorts? Trent Lott had to resign as Speaker when people inferred that he might like someone who supported segregation, yet when Bustamante is asked about MEChA he refuses to renounce the group?
I posted the article so people could read and make their own implications of what was written. I didn't say I believed it other than it seemed to point out a bias in the media. You don't agree with my statement on Trent Lott? How come Robert Byrd, who actually WAS in the KKK and called certain folks "white niggers" wasn't blasted as much as Lott in the news?
THEN it is a POLITICAL post. QED.
Bzzt. Wrong. It's a post questioning how the media portrays some candidates and glosses over others. If I wanted to make it a political post I would have mentioned parties, and affiliations, etc in MY POST about the topic, but instead I pointed out how one candidate was being grilled for what his FATHER did while the other wasn't being reported at all for the "hate-group" he joined and then refused to renounce. The only "politics" implied and stated in my post was directed at how the news media in general, including Fox News (happy now?), hasn't spent NEARLY as much time covering all of the other candidates and digging into their past. Is the news biased? I don't know the editors for sure, but books and articles from people who worked inside the news industry, including Walter Cronkite, have esentially said the news did slant toward the liberal side.
LOOK at this statement of YOURS:
While MEChA doesn't overtly proclaim they believe that a person of 'Chicano' background is better it can be easily implied
and then you have the NERVE to lambast me for "inferring" things about your post, like that the "double standard" you mention is just a form of the persistent Republican whine about the "liberal media bias" in this country. That's not a jump, it's not even a step.
Well I was wrong in what I said initially. After reading what Doc said, and then then reading more about the group myself there is no implying that they think a person of Chicano background is better, IT'S A KNOWN FACT. I got the impression the group felt that way but hadn't read enough to state it as much, so added a condition to my statement that no one, other than you until someone gave you more information, refuted.
Oh, and the "persistent Republican whine about the "liberal media bias" in this country" has nothing to do with being Republician or not, but everything to do with reporting only part of the "news". You want "Democratic confirmation" that the news is slanted to the liberals? If so go dig up one of Walter Cronkite's articles detailing why he, and he lumps himself into the liberal group, thinks the news media DOES have a slant. It's not just Republicians who say there is a bias, the slant is so pervasive that even people inside the news organizations know it's there, most just won't admit it.
LOL! you are insannnnnnnnnneeeee ... feel free to add that to the name-calling list! ... and don't worry, politico dude, I do not desire any validation regarding you at all. And this thread has certainly reinforced my opinion of you from that other thread. But don't worry, my negative opinions usually don't last long, unless they're constantly reinforced. I give each thread its own shot, regardless of who wrote it-- which is why I'm not overly concerned, like some people seem to be, who wrote what.
That little blurb you wrote has made my day ("unless you...") -- I swear you really do cut and paste from old discussions, and not just your own words.
Well I am sure you'll twist this post to say what you want it to say, just to validate your earlier opinions, but it's interesting to see that you are the only person who said the initial post was political in origin. Everyone else understood and posted along with the idea I presented where I tried to poke at the "news" groups because their lack of coverage on MEChA seemed to support the groups cause, or at least not make it out as bad as the KKK, and I didn't think that was the right stance they should have taken.
If you want a "political post" then go engage Sirian about something or other becausde I am sure he'll be happy to blow holes in all of your arguments.
Me, I'll be happy to continue to ask questions that show a weakness in philosophies and expectations of the news organizations, people's expectations of the government, government policies, etc.