 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Bush's understanding seemed to be limited to right wing Bible, war
> heroes from old movie plots, and big business. Everything else, he was
> clueless about.
I still have not seen anything like unto real evidence that Bush was
either stupider or more ignorant than anyone alleging either stupidity
or ignorance on his part. I do, however, see a boatload of
Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:24:46 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com>
wrote:
>Another good one from the same channel:
>
>http://www.colbertnation.com/home
Thanks.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-7-2009 16:04, Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:12:40 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e.
>> almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make
>> sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly
>> americans', and what is the news value of that?
>
> I've recently found Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" on British TV.
> Very funny and it gives me a lot more respect for Americans. (Well some of them,
> anyway :) )
Over the last few years the daily show seems to have gotten a reputation
of being the only unbiased source of information during elections. All
other general broadcast companies are either too tightly bound to one
political party or too busy avoiding law suits and/or loss of audience
to have an political opinion. One of the reasons for the sharp divide in
the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels.
Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching
a channel with a different opinion impossible. In a way some channels
are using politics to bind the audience.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-7-2009 23:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I like how someone points out that McCain was born in
> Panama.
[]
> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we *do*
> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
On which continent was he then?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-8-2009 5:31, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired
>> of people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the
>> post.
>
> You should understand that it really distracts from your point. It
> actually makes it difficult to understand, like if you consistently used
> the wrong tense for verbs or used "he" when you meant "she".
>
> (I know when my wife gets talking fast and forgets that "he" and "she"
> are different words in English, it becomes really hard to follow who
> she's talking about.)
My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations
(i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is
still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get
confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-8-2009 8:23, John VanSickle wrote:
> I do, however, see a boatload of
> Monday-morning quarterbacking.
What on earth is that? Could you explain for us geographically
challenged people?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 07:58, andrel wrote:
> to have an political opinion. One of the reasons for the sharp divide in
> the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels.
> Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching
> a channel with a different opinion impossible. In a way some channels
> are using politics to bind the audience.
That's essentially the free market ideology at work. You end up with
lots of "specialized" channels - each presenting a certain point of
view, and most presenting things that are not true mixed in. Sure, if
you go through almost all of them, no doubt you can figure out what's
going on. But most people don't have the time, and when given a
"choice", they'll go for the station that is showing _their_ truth.
And if that's bad, the Internet as a source is even worse. When you
have disgustingly partisan sites like the Huffington Post and
FrontPageMag that make the schisms even more pronounced. People will
naturally choose the sites that give them the news they want to hear,
and those sites generally don't display news that goes against their
point of view.
A few years ago, a veteran journalist lamented this whole problem. He
said that at the very least the benefit of newspapers is that a headline
on the other page may catch your eye, and it takes less effort to read
that article than to click on it. Unfortunately, newspapers are being
abandoned for more partisan sources.
As for The Daily Show, while it _is_ good that it often highlights the
general inaneness of the main media companies, I don't see it being any
better as a _sole_ source of news.
--
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it
a bit."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I hate to be a grammar nazi
Btw, does that count as Godwin's law in action?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:58:21 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>Over the last few years the daily show seems to have gotten a reputation
>of being the only unbiased source of information during elections. All
>other general broadcast companies are either too tightly bound to one
>political party or too busy avoiding law suits and/or loss of audience
>to have an political opinion.
I've only been watching for a few weeks. I can detect a little bias, I think,
but as it is similar to my own political views I heartily approve. :)
>One of the reasons for the sharp divide in
>the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels.
>Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching
>a channel with a different opinion impossible.
I thought it was more because there was a fear of being thought Un-American.
Although I think that most people tend to stick with what they are comfortable
with.
>In a way some channels are using politics to bind the audience.
Do tell ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations
>(i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is
>still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get
>confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
