Bill Bill's Comments (member since Feb 19, 2011)

(showing 1-20 of 605)
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30 31

Jul 25, 2011 02:23PM

37567 Lynnm wrote: "@Bill, we'll have to agree to disagree. ...

And for the record, no, it doesn't paint a different picture. lol!

Right. We can certainly agree to disagree that its ok to pick out some people in a crowd and make them representative of a the whole crowd as the article you link to so shamefully does.

By that logic the people who cheered on a man who pulled down his pants in front of women and children and defecated on a burning U.S. flag at this event, represented all the peace protesters at that event.
Jul 25, 2011 01:50PM

37567 Lynnm wrote: "I take back my apology.

Seems that the Governor made those comments in front of a crowd yelling, "Secede! Secede!," according to Time magazine.

He might not have really meant it, but he knew exactly what he was saying and the affect it would have on the crowd. ..."

Might not have really meant what? He might not have really meant it when he said, as I have repeatedly quoted in this thread, "We've got a great union and there is absolutely no reason to dissolve it?"

But your article left that out didn't it? It just cherry picked the quote about how Texas doesn't submit to oppression. Hmmm.

This article you link to reads like an opinion piece.

Notice how this article in a local newspaper reports it.

Your article says "Crowds yelled 'secede, secede'" while this article says " some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!""

Each paints a different picture doesn't it?
Jul 25, 2011 01:28PM

37567 MadgeUK wrote: "Even when I deliberately link to the Daily Telegraph, one of the most right wing papers in the UK, often called the Tory Party at play? (The Church of England is called the Tory Party at rest:).) And linking to the Daily Mail, the most right wing paper, makes me cringe but I do it. When did you last link to a left wing paper? ..."

Madge, I acknowledge that you make considerable effort to be objective, and these actions you mention here prove it.

Keep in mind, that when I post something, it is usually to disagree. This is the way I am. Maybe I'll learn something and have my own biases shown to me, or maybe I'll have my opinions reconfirmed in the weakness of the opposition.

Also, I'm really not the chatty type who likes to tell people how wonderful their opinions are and how much I agree with them, and really don't look for people tell me how wonderfully correct my opinions are, so you won't be seeing me posting in discussions like that very often.

But I am sincere in that I want to have friendly disagreements. I'm not trying to make anyone look bad, or feel angry or feel bad in any way.
Jul 25, 2011 01:14PM

37567 MadgeUK wrote: "Then don't continually point it out either in people's posts here or in links which are made. If it goes without saying then it goes without saying!

It may go without saying, in that we all know we're biased.
But it doesn't go without reminding, in that we all forget it sometimes.

I fully expect others to notify or remind me when my bias is showing and to encourage me in my efforts to be more objective. I don't get offended at it and don't, normally, expect others to.
Jul 25, 2011 12:52PM

37567 MadgeUK wrote: "I get rather fed up of you accusing me of left wing bias Bill. I always try to be as objective as possible in these discussions about American politics and I asked a genuine question about Perry's ability to become President because I do not know anything about him, except that he is a Republican.

A person can try to be as objective as possible and still be biased. It is impossible for me to judge the amount of effort you put into being objective; I honestly do take your word that it is considerable.
However, your bias still shows.

I have no doubt my bias shows as well, although I try to be objective also. Now, I don't get offended if someone points out my bias, so I don't expect others to get offended when I point out their bias. I think honest opinionated people know they are biased, no matter how hard they try to be objective, and I don't see this as being a human fault or failure.

However, since you say you get fed up with me pointing out your bias, I'll try to refrain from that.
Jul 25, 2011 12:34PM

37567 MadgeUK wrote: "Again, you are interpreting what he said and you have a perfect right to do that, just as others interpret it differently.

This is not dishonesty .."

Sure, we all interpret, it's the human condition. But there is a point where 'interpretation' becomes 'misrepresenting'.

There is no way to honestly interpret that Perry was endorsing secession.

If you are saying that a person could honestly interpret that Perry believes Texas has the legal right to secession...then I would agree with you there, (although that's not the way I interpret him).
However, I don't see the position that Texas has this right as a particularly controversial position in itself and don't think a significant number of Americans would.

If you are saying that it was foolish of him to be ambiguous in his position on whether Texas has a right to secede or not, because some people can use this dishonestly to misrepresent him as actually endorsing that Texas secede; I won't argue with you on this.
Jul 25, 2011 11:54AM

37567 MadgeUK wrote: "It is perfectly possible to endorse the Union whilst at the same time hint that Texas could secede and this seems to me what he has done. If as you say he is placating those who want to secede, then he was playing both sides to the middle. ..."

Politicians to do this all the time. I agree that this is exactly what happened. But to turn this into an endorsement, by Perry, of secession from the union, is deliberate dishonesty.

I would modify your statement a little. I don't think Perry said he personally thinks Texas could secede if it wanted to, he was acknowledging that some people think it could. I.E. "there are a lot of scenarios".
In this case it is understandable if someone misunderstood him to say he thinks Texas has that legal right, but I don't think he was saying even that.
Jul 25, 2011 11:46AM

37567 MadgeUK wrote: "Why would I want it to sound any way - I'm not an American and couldn't care less whether Texas secedes or not!! Since you criticised the MBNC reporting I just Googled for the Fox News report and quoted his own words from that (and Time), whereas you are interpreting what he said, which as Time remarks, is open to misunderstanding. Why are you right and others wrong in their interpretation? ..."

You want it to sound that way because you don't like Republicans. Which is fine Madge, no big deal. Lots of people don't like Republicans for really sound reasons; i.e. Republicans don't represent their political views.

Finding quotes in the media perpetrating this lie shouldn't be hard Madge, and your finding them simply supports what I am saying; that people in the media lie about this.
Jul 25, 2011 11:40AM

37567 MadgeUK wrote: "It sounds like a veiled threat to secede to me and as Time magazine reported:-

'Governor Rick Perry didn't actually endorse secession when he spoke at an antitax tea party at Austin city hall. But you could forgive people for misunderstanding, since he's been railing against an overreaching Federal Government, rejected stimulus spending and quoted Sam Houston's declaration that "Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression." ..."

This is another example of dishonesty in the media. It isn't a is deliberate dishonesty. this quote says he 'did not actually endorse secession' as an implication that perhaps he almost did. When the facts are he endorsed the union. "We have a great union, and there is absolutely no reason to dissolve it".

It is 'understandable' that people would misunderstand an endorsement of the Union as an endorsement of secession only if they are helped along by dishonest people such as the one you quote here.
Jul 25, 2011 11:31AM

37567 MadgeUK wrote: ""There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot.'

It sounds like a veiled threat to secede to me. ..."

That's because you want it to sound that way to everyone else and don't want to admit that those in the entertainment/media (I'm not talking about Lynm here; she just heard it in the news) who keep saying he endorsed secession are not deliberately lying.

What it is apparent that he was doing was unequivocally stating his specific position on the issue, which is that this is a great union, and there is absolutely no reason to dissolve it, while at the same time attempting to appease that small percent of Texans who disagree with him on the issue. This is what politicians do to get every percentage point they can.
Jul 25, 2011 11:09AM

37567 Lynnm wrote: "Another Texan governor running for the White House won't fly.

And he actually at one point endorsed a Texas secession from the U.S. ;) That's not going to go over big outside of Texas. ..."

The idea that Americans wouldn't vote for someone simply because they are from a particular state shows a rather low opinion of Americans.

Perry didn't endorse seceding from the Union. In fact, he did just the opposite and said he wasn't endorsing it.
This isn't the first time propagandists have successfully sold the exact opposite of the facts to their audiences, and I see this particular example repeated time and again over at MSNBC.
The fact is, in response to a reporters question regarding the right of Texas to secede, he said that some people say Texas retained that right at the time it joined the union , however, the US is a great union and there is absolutely no reason to dissolve it.

Regarding his chances, the odds makers over at intrade are putting their money on Perry to be the nominee more then any of the others. So he is where the money is at this point.
Jul 21, 2011 09:32AM

37567 BunWat wrote: "But violence? What violence, for what purpose, in what circumstances, and ... Its a different discussion. I think there are justifiable reasons for violence. I also think there are justifiable reasons for the fictional portrayal of violence (two different matters). ..."

Right, and I think movie producers should be conscious of how they portray it. I think they have done a very good job, for example, in cop movies where, realistically, there is going to have to be ghetto violence in the stories. I think the inclusion of black officers, detectives, under cover agents, etc. is very important and to not do so would be irresponsible.

Because I do believe television influences the way people think. For years, Hollywood gave more free advertising to cigarette smoking then the cigarette companies could have ever paid for themselves. Very irresponsible and caused a lot of early deaths.

I think they are currently doing the same thing with drug experimentation. They often portray it as somewhat harmless fun, when it actually destroys lives like nothing else in this country. Very irresponsible of them and I wish they would stop.
Jul 21, 2011 07:32AM

37567 Gail wrote: "For many years, the good people in the movie industry and the entertainment industry in general have assured us that young (or adult) people are not influenced to, for example, violence, by seeing violence portrayed on the screen or in video games or what have you. Now, however, the movie industry is going to eliminate images of smoking on screen, as such images may possibly play a role in influencing youngsters to smoke. ..."

This is good news.
Regarding violence, look at who is committing the violence in the movies, and why, and you'll see the difference. Violence is only cool if its used to put down the bad guys. Otherwise, it's not cool at all and is usually an important part of what makes the bad guy the bad guy.

However, cigarettes are often used by the protagonists we care about to either look cool or relieve stress or some such.

You know, it just occurred to me that it might be better if they left the smoking in the movies but only had those standard template bad guys smoking. You know, the christian right winger, military general, or businessman.
Jul 17, 2011 01:02PM

37567 Lynnm wrote: "I guess it comes down to a person's definition of news. Some people say they get their "news" from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, but I watch them to laugh...not get my news. ..."

This is because they are laughing at people you disagree with and reinforcing your belief that those people are not quite reasonable (to put it nicely). People watch Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity for pretty much the same reason; it's the reinforcement of one's own beliefs--without the laughs. In all these cases, Stewart/Colbert included, much of their audience understand perfectly well that they are watching news commentary from an ideologically skewed perspective. I think most people are smart enough to know when they are doing this.

As BunWat showed, this has been the norm for most of US history in the News business. I think Magazines like the Nation, The New Republic, National Review, and Weekly Standard, are all news magazines. But they all have an admitted ideological perspective. I would not say this makes them NOT news magazines.
In fact, I much more trust those ideological outlets which admit up front what they are then those, such as the New York Times, which pretend to be otherwise. I would include Fox News with their 'fair and balanced' motto. But I think no one, even Fox News watchers, believe it.
Jul 17, 2011 12:41PM

37567 MadgeUK wrote: "Are you suggesting that it is OK for these serious matters to be 'under-covered'?.....I do not see how there can be a right-left bias when all three major political parties (and Leaders) in the UK, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, have condemned these matters equally, as have both sides in the press and broadcasting media, including the Murdoch press. ..."

To under cover something would mean giving less time then the importance of a matter warranted. I don't think that is ever ok. On the other hand, over covering would mean that more import matters are given less time..that's not ok either. Maybe you think the fact that tabloid journalists hacked phones is the most important news happening in the world at the moment. I really don't see it that way.

I haven't accused any news media of ideological bias in this matter. I have suggested a lot of people's interest in this matter may come from an ideological bias.
Jul 16, 2011 11:34PM

37567 MadgeUK wrote: "It would seem that those watching the Fox news channel in the US will not be very well informed about the Murdoch crisis:-

They've covered it. I've seen it myself. Of course they haven't covered at as many times as their competitors have.

Are they under covering it because it's about their parent company or are their competitors over covering it because they are their competitors?

Probably a little of both.
Jul 16, 2011 05:56PM

37567 BunWat wrote: "When I was at university one of my professors was doing a research project on the newspapers of the late 1800's particularly in the mining towns of Colorado and Montana. I helped her read through some of the archives. Yes, very sensational, full of advertising for quack medicines, and very very political - with sides clearly taken and lots of exaggerated rhetoric.

You're right of course. From 1949 to 1987 we had the Fairness Doctrine which mandated equitable representation of a diversity of views. This, I think, is what some people are used to and so they are upset at the clear slant when they tune into commentary shows on Fox News or MSNBC.

I think news is still news as long as the facts are reported. Interpretation of the facts is inevitable, and will inevitably come from a left or right POV. More importantly is the selection of which facts or events to report as news and how much time is spent on which particular event; this will always be a clear representation of a point of view. It's inevitable.
Jul 16, 2011 05:47PM

37567 Lynnm wrote: " Murdoch is slimy, but what about all the people who read the News of the World? Or the people who watch Fox News (which really isn't news)? ..."

I watch Fox News quite a bit. They actually do have a couple hours of prime time news coverage. Anyone who thinks Shepherd Smith or Brett Baeir are not doing news has simply not watched the programming.

Of course Bill Orielly, Sean Hannity, or Greta Van Sustren, or the folks in the morning, are clearly news commentary from the right, but they are no different then what is done on CNN with the Eliot Spitzer show, or with Piers Morgan, on the left.

I watch MSNBC as much as I do Fox News, and they don't dedicate any hours to straight news progamming. It is all news commentary from the left. I can understand someone saying they aren't a news organization since they actually don't do anything but news commentary, but they do call themselves a news organization. I would agree that they are a news organization. I think they do news from a mainstream leftist point of view. Which is fine.
Jul 13, 2011 10:46PM

37567 BunWat wrote: "What are you talking about Bill? The article most certainly does talk about other news outlets. ..."

BunWat, boycotts of Murdochs news outlets is nothing new, but nevertheless, 'calls for boycotts', and the fact that some obscure website doesn't allow sky to advertise on it anymore hardly qualifies as news that the scandal has spread to other news outlets or that other news outlets are losing advertisers.

Maybe that will happen, but I can't find it in that article, and your quote certainly doesn't say anything about it.
Jul 13, 2011 10:31PM

37567 Kim wrote: "I am not a fan of Murdoch. However, I am something of a fan of his mother. Dame Elisabeth Murdoch is 102, a noted philanthropist and now a climate change campaigner. ..."

Rupert himself is a is a climate change crusader as well.

Bill Orielly host of the flagship show on Fox News is also a big believer in global warming and calls Global warming deniers idiots.
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30 31


The Readers Review: Literature from 1800 to 1910

topics created by Bill