germany election

[gardenweasel]

schroeder figured out a way to turn a sure loss into a dead heat.......lord...

will it ever end in europe?....they must be happy with monumental taxation,lagging economies and the islamofication of there homelands....

not to mention a lack of air conditioning for their seniors while they`re on vacation...lol

you reap what you sow...

 

[MrChristo]

AP News



Struggling? WTF is that?

Our resident communist from abroad, Mr. Christ, with all the rights given for free speech, will say that this is perfectly normal verbiage to define a challenger who is ahead in the polls. Knock yourself out and direct your frustration at DTB.

Man, where have the '60's gone :mj03:

I'm sorry, was that directed at me? (like, seriously?).
I've been called a lot of things in my time, but resident communist is probably the most, er, interesting?!

But anyway...as smurphy said, one mans "stuggling to hold on", is always going to be someone else's "Opposition sweeping to power.".

I'd suggest that 80% of the time it's totally innoculous...just the first word/phrase that pops into their head.

How about the NO example? A white family was "looking for food to feed their family", the black family was "looting"??

How much responsibilty lands on the editor for going with the caption/story/whatever, or is it more some wanky journo a) just going with his first thought; or, b) intentionaly trying to stir up some controversy?

Right, back to the community spud farm for me then...

 

[smurphy]

friggin commie bastard

 

[MrChristo]

Wasn't Sinatra a ....oh, no, hang on, that was the Mafia.

 

[MrChristo]

So, I was watching some show tonight (Entertainment tonight or something like that...The GF was watching, not me specifically...but anyway....)....

...the was a story about a certain Animal Welfare Agency (they were named, but I don't remember exactly), who were going around abondoned houses in New Orleans and rescuing animals that were left behind.
It went for a minute or two, then they rescued a dog and reunited it with it's emotional owner.
Then the cross back to the desk, where the host said something along the lines of, "All this hard work comes at a price, so please donate [to aforementioned charity] if you can.".

Was it; a) A genuine 'feel good' story about the animals surviving in terrible conditions, and there owners who were forced to leave them behind?

b) A pointless story, that was nothing more than a vehicle to show yet another crying/emotional human being to play at the rest of us?

or, c) Nothing more than a 2 minute advertisement?

My guess, Nosigar, is that if you saw it on Fox News it would be a, if you saw it on CBS or the BBC it wouldn't

 

[Nosigar]

So, I was watching some show tonight (Entertainment tonight or something like that...The GF was watching, not me specifically...but anyway....)....

...the was a story about a certain Animal Welfare Agency (they were named, but I don't remember exactly), who were going around abondoned houses in New Orleans and rescuing animals that were left behind.
It went for a minute or two, then they rescued a dog and reunited it with it's emotional owner.
Then the cross back to the desk, where the host said something along the lines of, "All this hard work comes at a price, so please donate [to aforementioned charity] if you can.".

Was it; a) A genuine 'feel good' story about the animals surviving in terrible conditions, and there owners who were forced to leave them behind?

b) A pointless story, that was nothing more than a vehicle to show yet another crying/emotional human being to play at the rest of us?

or, c) Nothing more than a 2 minute advertisement?

My guess, Nosigar, is that if you saw it on Fox News it would be a, if you saw it on CBS or the BBC it wouldn't

Nope, I'm not much of a TV viewer.
And I don't watch much O'Reilly. If i did I wouldn't have to defend myself like some who call out the "biased right-winger" station.
But don't think I'm offended. Please feel free to call me resident neo-con or Nazi (although the Nazi's were of course leftist to Kosar's dismay).
Your point of view is that of typical tolerance towads everything strange and out of the "real" mainstream, similar to StevieD(elusional) et al. I differ and apply my right to at least personal intolerance to certain ideas and activities I see as negative or harmful.

DTB posts articles from Fox's Humes and O'Reilly here which seem appropriate. It's not the whole silliness of the shows, but just some main points. A percentage of the time it is common sense commentary, as opposed to other media outlets which will never discuss the same topic.
So, honestly, I would never watch the BBC, news or other spots. I've had to watch it many times when traveling and its programming is as bad as that here. But the news is heinous and ridiculously biased. It seems they would have no intent of selling commercial airtime given how boring and predictable they are in their reporting.

Finally, for those who do watch the "mainstream" media it would be nice to think through each story, but everyone does as they want.
The leftists always worn us about Big Brother and the powerful elites thinking for us while in reality (as usually occurs with the left) they are fiercely entrenched doing in exactly what they publicly denounce - attempting to sway public opinion and thinking to their own view.

Oh, and the story about the pets is simply a shameless attempt to snooker in those pet-loving viewers. I have several birds so I can understand how some would feel bad... "at a price"

 

[smurphy]

I saw the pet thing too. I liked the dog that was up a tree surrounded by water. How'd he manage to do that and how long had he been there? He looked in OK shape. I wonder if the crazy media planted him there just so they could get a good pic.

For the last time - Fox is part of the "mainstream media" too. I swear, you people sound like paranoid neurotic pseudo "off the grid" survivalist freaks with all this "enemy within" and "mainstream liberal media" garbage. Let it go.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Stevie Sheehan you are back? I thought you were in New York calling for an end to the "occupation of troops in New Orleans"?

 

[StevieD]

No Manson I was right h ere wondering why Bush couldn't get the troops there. Any idea, cause I am quessing you thought Brownie did a great job.

 

[spibble spab]

did you here the reports of the troops being fired upon by the locals while they were dropping food and water? liberal will never mention that while a republican is in office. i am growing impatient with your cockiness and obnoxiousness stevie. all you do is bitch and complain about the President of this country. we get the point. he is a gutless piece of shit to you. we get the point.
now dry up and blow away. er. i forgot, youre addicted to mad jacks political porn. youre in here too much. get help.

 

[StevieD]

Again Spabs you didn't answer my question but you attacked me personally. Funny thing though my feelings aren't hurt.

 

[spibble spab]

again reread post. first sentence.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

No matter what you type, he will ignore it then he'll try and force you to answer questions.

 

[StevieD]

Babs, Manson, are you two sisters? Anyway,So you think that Brownie did a good job and that the response was adequate? Then what is Bush doing firing poor ol' Brownie and saying the response was too slow? Sorry to try to make you answer questions Manson. I know how much you like to just spew the same old lies.

 

[MrChristo]

Nope, I'm not much of a TV viewer.
And I don't watch much O'Reilly. If i did I wouldn't have to defend myself like some who call out the "biased right-winger" station.
But don't think I'm offended. Please feel free to call me resident neo-con or Nazi (although the Nazi's were of course leftist to Kosar's dismay).
Your point of view is that of typical tolerance towads everything strange and out of the "real" mainstream, similar to StevieD(elusional) et al. I differ and apply my right to at least personal intolerance to certain ideas and activities I see as negative or harmful.

DTB posts articles from Fox's Humes and O'Reilly here which seem appropriate. It's not the whole silliness of the shows, but just some main points. A percentage of the time it is common sense commentary, as opposed to other media outlets which will never discuss the same topic.
So, honestly, I would never watch the BBC, news or other spots. I've had to watch it many times when traveling and its programming is as bad as that here. But the news is heinous and ridiculously biased. It seems they would have no intent of selling commercial airtime given how boring and predictable they are in their reporting.

Finally, for those who do watch the "mainstream" media it would be nice to think through each story, but everyone does as they want.
The leftists always worn us about Big Brother and the powerful elites thinking for us while in reality (as usually occurs with the left) they are fiercely entrenched doing in exactly what they publicly denounce - attempting to sway public opinion and thinking to their own view.

Oh, and the story about the pets is simply a shameless attempt to snooker in those pet-loving viewers. I have several birds so I can understand how some would feel bad... "at a price"

You see, the funny thing here is that I agree with what you say, that we should all be thinking for ourselves...At no stage have I ever said/implied that "Big Brother" is trying to pollute our miinds!...

It just seems to me that the difference isn't so much the left/right stuff that thrown about here so much, it is, in fact, the 'willingness' to believe. (If that makes sense?).
I'd think that a lot of people here like to believe what 'trusted' people are telling them, from their friendly, law abiding news reader, right up to those in power.
Some of us, however, accept that there is ALWAYS two sides to a story, and don't mind seeking out other sources to find out what it is!

Now, that certainly doesn't mean that I naturally gravitate to any kind of anti-establishment or 'radical' standpoint...It simply means that unlike the majority of the middle class Western world, I don't sit back, nodding and agreeing with everything that a news caster is telling me to.

Your point of view is that of typical tolerance towads everything strange and out of the "real" mainstream,

But this is the bit that I don't understand.
I remember gw telling us 'liberals' once that we agree with everything unagreeable just to cause a stir...just to be different/stand out (which is what I assume you're impling here also?)....but I can't agree.
Hey, maybe I'm just an overly trusting person!...But I for the life of me, can't see how having tolerance to a whole range of things can be a bad thing.
Where's the "mainstream" line anyway? Gays are evil, blacks are evil, Muslim's...off the scale!!...extreme examples, but are they? You see it every day. Is that the "mainstream" tolerance you speak of?

It seems they would have no intent of selling commercial airtime given how boring and predictable they are in their reporting.

Are you then suggesting, the more sensationalised, the more 'entertaining' news stories are the better?

Oh, and the story about the pets is simply a shameless attempt to snooker in those pet-loving viewers. I have several birds so I can understand how some would feel bad... "at a price"

See! My first thought exactly! :mj14: (I'm way too cynical to be a Communist! :mj07: )