Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Chappaquiddic Ted Gets a Free Pass Yet Again

  1. #21
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,533
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 03:32 PM
    [b] Thanks for at least tackling it fairly. The Bill Frist hypothesis:

    The Democratic Party -- yes, and I'd find it opposition politics as usual. If the Republican Party isn't making a big deal about Kennedy right now, then they have more restraint than I give them credit for OR it's just not an inflammatory enough remark for them to risk looking like whiny jerks. The Bill Clinton affairs from Whitewhater thru the Impeachment don't exactly paint the party as the caricature of maturity and restraint, and to some degree it's productive to have an opposition party criticizing those in power.

    The NAACP -- not sure; I'd have to know what their history with Kennedy is better. I know he's not universally loved by minority activists groups by any means.

    The Media -- ONLY if either of the first two led the charge. The media hasn't said much about Bill Frist since he got nominated, and they've had plenty of opporutnity to slam the job he's done. He just has flown below the radar for the most part, unlike say Newt Gingrich who invited a lot of the high profile he had as Speaker. [/b][/quote]
    Fair enough. Thanks for the answer.

    Friday hours have me out the door in two minutes, I will answer the questions you posed later on.

  2. #22
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,533
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 03:36 PM
    [b] shakin to answer your question, i think if bill frist called a group of 5 individuals "neanderthals" and only 2 of the 5 were minority, no one would be making a racial deal out of it.
    [/b][/quote]
    bit, using that logic, Strom Thurmond had political beliefs on only one single issue: segregation. He would have addressed no other issues in office, therefore Lott's remarks that "we wouldn't have all these problems" were accurately interpreted as applying specifically and only to segregation.

    Otherwise, the NAACP, the media and the Democrats that ran him out of town would have given him the benefit of the doubt.

    Don't think so....

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 02:36 PM
    [b] shakin to answer your question, i think if bill frist called a group of 5 individuals "neanderthals" and only 2 of the 5 were minority, no one would be making a racial deal out of it.

    What makes me laugh is the idea that somehow the "liberal media" are controlling the thoughts of the country.

    Cmon guys there's a Republican President and Republican Majorities in congress. The Supreme Court is majority Republican nominees. Arnold is only the latest in a long line of GOP governors. there are a million right wing pundits that get fantasitc ratings. and the left has what, Al Franken? Fox news is gospel truth for a great majority of the country.

    You are officially the establishment. You won. Anything that gets f-ed up is officially the fault of the GOP. The dems are defeated. The days of Clinton are long past. Ted Kennedy and his ilk are marginalized. Fillibuster is all they have left. Yet the great GOP revolution marches on with an US vs THEM mentality.

    Wake up, There are no THEM anymore. [/b][/quote]
    Bit -

    Are the NY Times, Washinton Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NPR, Time magazine, Newsweek Magazine liberal or conservative?

    Jet Set -

    You make some interesting points. I think everyone in this country cries "racist!" way too often, so much so that people are afraid of being candid, and that's why we get these canned, bland talking points from publid officials.

    However, in addition to that, I feel that conservatives get targeted disporportionately. You mentioned the clear history of blacks being called monkeys. There is also a general perception about conservatives being bigots that the Democrats like to exploit by over-reacting to comments and the NAACP goes along because they already don't like the GOP anyway. So the Dems over-react, the NAACP over-reacts, people may ALREADY think the the GOP are bigots because they have been told so 1000 times, so it's a self-perpetuating double- standard.

    IMO, pettiness, opportunism and racism exists on BOTH sides. Robert Byrd is a former Klansmen who lectures Bush about ethics. Strom was a DEMOCRAT when he talked about segregation. The GOP, like the Dems, have their racist skeletons. But still, I think some perspective is needed.

    IMO, Kennedy was calling them that insult largely because they are pro-life.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 03:52 PM
    [b] Are the NY Times, Washinton Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NPR, Time magazine, Newsweek Magazine liberal or conservative?

    [/b][/quote]
    As far as their news reporting goes they're neither. They play it right down the middle.

    However to be fair, regarding the newspapers you listed I'd have to say that their editorials tend to be on the liberal side.

  5. #25
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Nov 21 2003, 03:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Nov 21 2003, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 03:52 PM
    [b] Are the NY Times, Washinton Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NPR, Time magazine, Newsweek Magazine liberal or conservative?

    [/b][/quote]
    As far as their news reporting goes they&#39;re neither. They play it right down the middle.

    However to be fair, regarding the newspapers you listed I&#39;d have to say that their editorials tend to be on the liberal side. [/b][/quote]
    NPR isn&#39;t liberal? Hmm....

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Nov 21 2003, 04:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Nov 21 2003, 04:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -tailgators@Nov 21 2003, 03:08 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 03:52 PM
    [b] Are the NY Times, Washinton Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NPR, Time magazine, Newsweek Magazine liberal or conservative?

    [/b][/quote]
    As far as their news reporting goes they&#39;re neither. They play it right down the middle.

    However to be fair, regarding the newspapers you listed I&#39;d have to say that their editorials tend to be on the liberal side. [/b][/quote]
    NPR isn&#39;t liberal? Hmm.... [/b][/quote]
    No, not really. I listen to my local station all the time, and both they and NPR have a good mix of views aired.

    And certainly their news reporting is straight down the middle.

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Nov 21 2003, 03:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Nov 21 2003, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -jets5ever@Nov 21 2003, 04:20 PM
    [b] [quote]Originally posted by -tailgators@Nov 21 2003, 03:08 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 03:52 PM
    [b] Are the NY Times, Washinton Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NPR, Time magazine, Newsweek Magazine liberal or conservative?

    [/b][/quote]
    As far as their news reporting goes they&#39;re neither. They play it right down the middle.

    However to be fair, regarding the newspapers you listed I&#39;d have to say that their editorials tend to be on the liberal side. [/b][/quote]
    NPR isn&#39;t liberal? Hmm.... [/b][/quote]
    No, not really. I listen to my local station all the time, and both they and NPR have a good mix of views aired.

    And certainly their news reporting is straight down the middle. [/b][/quote]
    That is the funniest thing I have ever read.

    I can admit fully that Foxnews is conservative, why it is so difficult to admit that the organizations I mentioned also slant their coverage??

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Because they don&#39;t.

    If anything CNN, Time and Newsweek slant to the right.

  9. #29
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 03:31 PM
    [b] Because they don&#39;t.

    If anything CNN, Time and Newsweek slant to the right. [/b][/quote]
    Yeah, sure they do. (Insert Twilight Zone theme here)

  10. #30
    Since we both agree on what Kennedy "meant" in his babbling, then we really have no disagreement on that 5ever.

    As to the larger question of the "liberal media", I think this has become a cliche and stale talking point as much as crying "racist" (on which I agree with the points you made; hypersensitivity and PC double standards are things I loathe and have never defended on this board). 10 years ago during the twilight of Bush I and Tip O&#39;Neill, you may have had a point.

    Nowadays, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are MUCH more mainstream than NPR. The various pundit websites on both sides (townhall, moveon.org, etc) cancel each other out.

    That leaves the major papers and the few remaining TV outlets. I do not think the TV networks are remotely "liberal". They are pro-business, pro-war, and pro-scandal no matter what side&#39;s sympathies it feeds. And thanks to Fox&#39;s barnstorming ratings, every single one of these networks has intentionally moved more to the &#39;right&#39; cosmetically than they were 10 years ago by putting more conservative personalities on talk shows.

    As for the papers, NY Times and Washington Post have liberal editorials. Washington Times and NY Post have some right wing pundits. The sheer size of the W Post and NY Times allows them to cover more indepth stories, much like the Wall Street Journal. Which is why you often find news in there that no other outlet touches.

    The Economist (not an American magazine, to be fair) dwarfs Time and Newsweek in overall coverage depth and quality, and I find it pretty damn conservative economically and foreign-policy wise, but in a sensible enough way to where I happily read it for news and opinions. They&#39;ve been kissing Bush&#39;s ass ever since he got elected. Time HAS also upped its conservative columnists since the early 90&#39;s vis-a-vis guys like Lance Morrow, FWIW.

    One of the great things about America is that we always love an underdog and like feeling just rebellious enough to be smarter than the average sheep -- and you&#39;re delusional if you think the Right doesn&#39;t milk this sentiment just as much as the Left, especially with the rise in shticks like Rush and Ann and their caricatures of "liberal tyranny". I just sometimes question what "freedoms" people on the right are really fighting for other than freeing up some tax money -- the &#39;freedom&#39; to be salt-of-earth, self-righteous, in love with SUVs, smug, a devout Christian, leary of immigrants, opposed to abortion for yourslef or your children, drug-free (hi Rush&#33;), disgusted by gays, and in awe of Bush&#39;s leadership has NEVER been remotely threatened or in danger of illegalization in America, especially on your own time in your house, with your buddies, at tailgates, or n these message boards.

    It might not always be in fashion at cocktail parties, but if you don&#39;t have the balls to go against the grain in social circles then you should question your own courage and integrity :D

  11. #31
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    I disagree about the networks, most specifically about ABC. They are liberal, IMO. I don&#39;t think the "liberal media" is an pervasive as it used to be, but it still exists. However, I just disagree a lot here with you in terms of degree. Sure, it&#39;s over-used as a talking point, but you also think judicial activism doens&#39;t exist and I passiontaely disagree there as well.

    You make some interesting points, as always. I have never said the Right doesn&#39;t milk things. Look, I know I have stated this in the past, but it bears repeating. The GOP pisses me off immensely in a lot of ways. It does and when I cast my ballot for Bush it will be the first time in over 7 years that vote GOP. It&#39;s just that the Democrats piss me off more, a hellofalot more, frankly.

    I LOATHE the two-party system...more to your point it creates a perpetual underdog and top dog which is not a very efficient form of debate - one side always defends a position of strength, the other always seeks it.

    Your last paragraph is a little "all over the place" though. What "freedoms" are you fighting for, exactly? I don;t understand the &#39;smug&#39; pot-shot, especially if you are implying that smugness is not a characteristic of the left and the right. Michael Moore and Franken aren&#39;t smug?? "Leery of immigrants" - you can do better than that. Wanting people to go through the process legally does not = leery. Funny, Arnold and Miguel Estrada are immigrants - which side is leery of them? Also - where are you going with "in love with SUVs" - you seriously aren&#39;t a "cars are evil" guy, are you?

    You SHOULD fight for the freedom to be disgusted by gays. THAT is the same freedom you are ostensibly fighting for when you "fight" for gay marriage. As you say, to be able to live your life as you please without intrusion. It is NOT illegal to be disgusted by gay people, just as it is not illegal to support them. People who are disgusted by them are loopy IMO, but they have a right to be. Just as we have a rght to think they are idiots.

    You appear to be preaching the virtue of nonconformity for its own sake, which is just as conventional as being a dittohead, it&#39;s just inverted. What does "going against the grain" have to do with integrity? Not everyone secretly loves gay people but just doens&#39;t have the courage to say so in public. Some people are against it for what they think are legitimate reasons. I am not one of them. However, for example, it is unfathomable to me that you can be pro-abortion and couch your support in terms of women&#39;s rights, etc. It is likely JUST AS unfathomable to you that I do not see it as you do. We are both smart, intelligent guys who view something completely differently and BOTH of our rights to do so should be defended. If you are in a room full of pro-choice people, agreeing with them is not a commentary on your "integrity." It matters little which side of this particular debate the majority falls...

    I swear, you are getting a little preachy on this one. ;) Hey, we all do from time to time, no biggie - I was a storm of emotion and anger when I posted yesterday - guilty as charged&#33;&#33;

    You last paragraph reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons when Lisa says, "Oh - did you get an earring?&#33; How rebellious...in a conformist sort of way."

    Being against the establishment for itsown sake is just as shallow as being for it for it&#39;s own sake. It is possible people are true to themselves AND in the majority.

    I get your general point, though, and respect the amount of time and thought you give to current events, social issues and the fact that you are determined to be an informed guy. I really do respect you as a thinker and as a moral voice - you&#39;re as sharp as a tack and actually listen to other people, which, in this climate, is easy to avoid. (Corny, but after all these months I feel like I almost know you, or, at least, how you&#39;ll react to stuff)

    I have never really been a "fight the power" type of guy, even on small scales like dealing with parental tyranny growing up. I don&#39;t have much of the 60&#39;s in me, I suppose. You were born in the wrong decade dude. :D

    Anyway - I hope you can make it to the Jets-Pats. I am down with hanging and burning with you and Bit. No politics though&#33;

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 04:31 PM
    [b] If anything CNN, Time and Newsweek slant to the right. [/b][/quote]

    ...to the right of Karl Marx.


    For all you "fair and balanced" liberals, see my thread labelled [i]Hillary Gives &#39;KKK&#39; Byrd Freedom Award [/i]

  13. #33
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,533
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 03:08 PM
    [b] 5ever, there is a clear legacy and history of "monkey" being used as a slander for black people; that is not the case with the word "neanderthal".

    I&#39;ve called people neanderthals several times in jest, for having simplistic views or being bloodthirsty for killing any and all arabs after 9/11 no matter whether or not they were responsible.

    Kennedy made a dumb remark, but it was not a racist remark. Trent Lott&#39;s remarks were far more sinister with regard to "all those problems"; do you or shakin feel he got a raw deal? And in the end, it was his own party who hung him out to dry, not the "liberal media". The affair didn&#39;t become front page news until prominent NAACP people started raising hell over it.

    If they aren&#39;t touching Kennedy&#39;s remarks, and you really believe that the comment is racist because less than half of the nominees were "minority" (and not even the same minority at that), blame THEM and not the media or the Democratic Party. Especially since we all know shakin would have never posted this thread at all if it weren&#39;t for SOME media out there making it a talking point for Angry conservatives and their persecution complex.

    And if we really want to take this beyond partisan lines, where DO each of you stand on cases of these remarks? What should be the &#39;punishment&#39;? Should they be fired from their seats, or just complained about in enough "media" and message boards for the appropriate amount of time? Because in theory if you think Kennedy was out of line you aren&#39;t sad about what happened to Lott? [/b][/quote]

    Regardless of the intentionally inflammatory title of my thread, I don&#39;t think Kennedy meant it as a racist remark. But that was not at all my point; I simply think he is the benficiary of a benefit of the doubt (from the media, Dems and NAACP) that would NEVER be afforded a conservative Republican in the same situation.

    The mainstream media and the NAACP will almost invariably apply the most positive, benign interpretation and look the other way when the speaker is a liberal Democrat, and conversely will apply the worst possible interpretation and beat the issue into the ground when the speaker is a conservative Republican.

    As for where I stand on cases of these remarks, I think this country has gone insane with the PC BS. It is absolutely ridiculous. "Freedom of Speech" applies to a twisted "artist" smearing elephant s**t on a picture of the Virgin Mary or burning the flag (neither of which have anything to do with speech), yet the opinions and words of a man -- not stated in a threatening or attacking or even a malicious way -- can cost him his job and his reputation. ESPECIALLY if the sap is foolish enough ot even remotely veer toward ANYTHING that may in any way -- even the most tangential way -- be construed as "racist."

    Trent Lott said something that could be interpreted at its worst as "Strom would have supressed the black man, and with the black man supressed, society today would be wonderful." Do you think that&#39;s what he meant? Even if you do though, is that what he SAID? Personally, I think he said something he shouldn&#39;t have. I also think he didn&#39;t deserve to lose his job over it. Democrats and Republicans alike (after the fact, mostly) admitted that they do not believe Lott is a racist. But the horse was out of the barn -- and the worst possible interpretation to his comment was applied; his multiple, heartfelt apologies and clarifications of his intention were ignored and even scorned; his Republican brethren pussied out big time (racism is such a radioactive hot potato that NO one wants to be perceived as throwing a life preserver to the scarlet-letter-branded cad in the pickle), and he was OUT.

    My contention that there&#39;s a double standard has its ammo. Why does Democrat Congressman Pete Stark still have his job? Two years ago, during a Ways and Means sub-committe hearing on the correlation between marriage and welfare, he claimed the topic was ironic because of a "current House Republican Conference Chairman whose children were all born out of wedlock." The person he was speaking of was Republican Chairman J.C. Watts -- a black Republican.

    Let&#39;s forget the fact that what Stark said was a lie -- Watts&#39; first child was born out of wedlock, his next five were with his wife -- how can this comment not be construed as a racist remark? What was the point of making the remark? And even if you try to tell me it wasn&#39;t a racist remark, you can&#39;t tell me that it couldn&#39;t EASILY be construed as a racist remark. Yet where was the NAACP to protect one of their own CP&#39;s -- one that had achieved and made it to one of the highest levels of our country&#39;s government? You&#39;d think they would be tripping all over themselves to stand up for this highly successful person of color. Not a peep. But yet when some windbag radio personality/novice sportsguy (who also just happens to be an outspoken conservative) does his job and states an opinion about a football player -- well holy hell -- PRESS CONFERENCE and calls for his HEAD. What&#39;s up with that?

    You can&#39;t sit here and tell me there&#39;s no validity to my point, can you?

  14. #34
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    That&#39;s a pretty good post Shake & Bake. Hey, dude, are you going to be at the Jets-Pats game on Dec 20th?

  15. #35
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,533
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 07:15 PM
    [b] That&#39;s a pretty good post Shake & Bake. Hey, dude, are you going to be at the Jets-Pats game on Dec 20th? [/b][/quote]
    I think so, although my crew doesn&#39;t always do the 16H thing.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us