Quote:Spoken like a true, self-admitted, NPR listener.

Absolutely. And proud of it.

And that's why you think talk radio is boring.

And it's not because of the political slants NPR does or does not take.

It's because their announcers generally broadcast with total monotones.

Exceptions would be something like Click and Clack.

And if you think Click and Clack are boring, then nothing short of getting struck by lightning is going to get a rise out of you.

PittsburghBucs Wrote:

BucNut22 Wrote:Name any network in existence that equals the complete pandering to the right of Fox News.

MSNBC.

Keith Olbermann is as far left as Rush, Hannity, or anyone is right.

Chris Matthews- who I like a lot by the way- is nevertheless considering running as a Democrat for Senate in Pennsylvania in 2010.

Imus was very objective- neither too far left or right (he had his leanings but they generally balanced out). But when he was fired, MSNBC lost whatever "Middle of the Road" reputation it had (and I thought they had a lot).

Scarborough is essentially a token- the Alan Colmes of MSNBC.

I've also noticed that FOX does tend to have on guests with a right wing point of view, but CNN tends to have on guests with a left wing point of view.

Now, let me say this- BY DESIGN THE NEWS MEDIA WILL LEAN TO THE LEFT- ALWAYS.

One of my favorite jokes is from Unhappily Ever After- the old take-off of Married W/ Children.

There's one episode where the son is running for class president, but has no platform.

He asks his dad- "Isn't there an organization that thinks everything is right just the way it is now?"

"Yes there is son!"

"What is it?"

"THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!"

And there's a bit of truth to that. Obviously a conservative will not want change by and large because- by definition- HE IS CONSERVATIVE!

But the flip side would be that the liberals, the Democrats, etc.- want to CHANGE EVERYTHING!

Obviously both the ideas the GOP wants to keep everything the same and the Dems want everything to change is an extremist view- one said for humor in the sitcom.

But again, by design, the liberal will want change.

What the media wants to do is find the story that will be interesting.

What is interesting? The same old same old?

Of course not. What is interesting is change. Be it the elderly grandma whose life was changed by the thug that mugged her or the ballgame that changed the Bucs record from 18-36 to 19-36.

Therefore, by design, the media is generally going to be liberal.

Olbermann??????

Ok just because he hates Bill O'Riley's guts(something a lot of people on both sides do) and because he strong criticizes the Bush administration(also something people on both sides do) does not make him equivalent to Bill O'Riley on the left.

Nut, if that was all it was, I'd agree with you.

But the fact is even on Sportscenter he couldn't keep his liberal commentaries out of his reports.

Criticizing the Cleveland Indians for using Chief Wahoo as a logo, for instance. Even if you believe Chief Wahoo is offensive, such commentary is forced at best and inappropriate at worst when reporting "Tribe Sweeps A's."

Better to save that for a piece on, say, protesters outside of a game.

Now, on to Countdown. Once upon a time I very much enjoyed the program. I watched it as a Chicago bar blew up the "Bartman Ball," when Olbermann interviewed Mike Wallace following his wrongful arrest for "protecting meatloaf," etc.

But then I started noticing- the "Worst Person in the World" is never a liberal. Too much of the show was him criticizing O'Reilly- it was one thing to report that O'Reilly was suggesting a co-worker should use her vibrator, it was another to relish in the news.

That was unprofessional.

The final straw for me was in a show after the 2004 Presidential Election. You'll remember there was some inaccuracy in the exit polls- an overloading of interviewing women out of the polls and some undue influence by bloggers- that gave John Kerry more points.

Olbermann comes on and reports that a University of Pennsylvania professor said the odds of such innaccuracy- ASSUMING THE EXIT POLLS WERE DONE CORRECTLY- was 250 million to 1.

BUT THAT WAS JUST IT! OLBERMANN NEVER REPORTED WHAT ALL THE OTHER MEDIA SOURCES WERE- THAT SAID THE EXIT POLLS WERE INNACCURATE!!!!

And that was just it. I just lost all respect for the man. It was the very ESSENCE of liberal bias!

I just couldn't watch it anymore. I couldn't stand hearing him interview a reporter from The Village Voice at the end of the show make incredibly lame excuses for Courtney Love's behavior.

Again, it was the epitome of the liberal bias.

posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:

Quote:One of my friends calls me a liberal because I don't support the Iraq war. So apparently, opposing wars makes you a liberal now, even though my principles are mostly in line with conservatives.

This is a sad - very sad - legacy of ronnie and newt and those guys. "Liberal" has become a bad word. It was not always such, and it is not now such in reality. The Bible, if one reads it, has what one would call very "liberal" viewpoints: bringing the tithes in, taking care of one's brother, one's family, widows, etc.; charitable giving; forgiveness; love; on and on.

The American public at large allowed the neocons to paint "liberal" as something meaning someone who would eat small children and kick dogs. The term "family values" was also corrupted into their own little definition.

I consider myself a religious conservative - but that, to me, means a liberal social viewpoint (in general) because I believe that is what the Bible teaches.

A liberal religious person is great. All tithes, charities, helping others, etc. are voluntary and help people understand what true commitment to the teachings of the bible is all about.

These things are not to become laws, forcing people to be nice to certain groups, redistributing wealth, and putting them into involuntary servitude. That is the definition of a liberal in today's society - forcing others to fund their special interest whims. The government is only to have a few distinct purposes, but the liberals want it to babysit everybody from womb to tomb. I am a liberal christian, but am a political conservative which seems to track what the bible is all about.

For example, helping to feed and minister to an homosexual individual using charitable funds is exactly what the bible teaches. It does say let's pass laws that are against biblical teachings so sinners will feel better about themselves (liberal social agenda).

What compares to the one news outlet labeled as conservative -Fox? This was a serious question? It is CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, PBS, New York Times, Newsweek, Time, etc. The other 99.9 % of the media. Talk shows are not part of the media who claim to be reporting the news. There is a big difference. Rush Limbaugh never claims to be objective. All of the above media outlets try to claim they are objective.

Liberal elitists from the Ivy League live in an insulated world. They are out of touch with reality. The only worse group is those who look to Hollywood for political guidance. People paid to live in fantasy worlds shouldn't be looked to as role models for understanding the real world.

BucinBama, well said!

BucinBama Wrote:A liberal religious person is great. All tithes, charities, helping others, etc. are voluntary and help people understand what true commitment to the teachings of the bible is all about.

These things are not to become laws, forcing people to be nice to certain groups, redistributing wealth, and putting them into involuntary servitude. That is the definition of a liberal in today's society - forcing others to fund their special interest whims. The government is only to have a few distinct purposes, but the liberals want it to babysit everybody from womb to tomb. I am a liberal christian, but am a political conservative which seems to track what the bible is all about.

For example, helping to feed and minister to an homosexual individual using charitable funds is exactly what the bible teaches. It does say let's pass laws that are against biblical teachings so sinners will feel better about themselves (liberal social agenda).

Ok before we go any further in this discussion I have to ask, do you believe in the separation of church and state?

BucinBama Wrote:

posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:

Quote:One of my friends calls me a liberal because I don't support the Iraq war. So apparently, opposing wars makes you a liberal now, even though my principles are mostly in line with conservatives.

This is a sad - very sad - legacy of ronnie and newt and those guys. "Liberal" has become a bad word. It was not always such, and it is not now such in reality. The Bible, if one reads it, has what one would call very "liberal" viewpoints: bringing the tithes in, taking care of one's brother, one's family, widows, etc.; charitable giving; forgiveness; love; on and on.

The American public at large allowed the neocons to paint "liberal" as something meaning someone who would eat small children and kick dogs. The term "family values" was also corrupted into their own little definition.

I consider myself a religious conservative - but that, to me, means a liberal social viewpoint (in general) because I believe that is what the Bible teaches.

A liberal religious person is great. All tithes, charities, helping others, etc. are voluntary and help people understand what true commitment to the teachings of the bible is all about.

These things are not to become laws, forcing people to be nice to certain groups, redistributing wealth, and putting them into involuntary servitude. That is the definition of a liberal in today's society - forcing others to fund their special interest whims. The government is only to have a few distinct purposes, but the liberals want it to babysit everybody from womb to tomb. I am a liberal christian, but am a political conservative which seems to track what the bible is all about.

For example, helping to feed and minister to an homosexual individual using charitable funds is exactly what the bible teaches. It does say let's pass laws that are against biblical teachings so sinners will feel better about themselves (liberal social agenda).

Its interesting that you would mention the role of government because the role of government is not to set morality. Yet the 2004 election came down to “moral issues” and “family values”, just a nice way of buttering up that it came down to gay marriage and abortion. The “liberal” social agenda is not about passing laws at all, Roe V Wade and the most recent legislation in CA concerning marriage was not about passing laws, but about undoing existing laws that fall outside the role the government is suppose to play.

As far as forcing people to do things involuntarily, people may not like it or agree with it but it is a necessary function of government. Why pay taxes at all? I don’t support the current war we are fighting in Iraq, yet my tax dollars go toward military spending, by your logic I should be free to refrain from paying taxes correct? According to conservative theology by strict definition the U.S government was wrong to step in and force states to integrate schools during the 50’s and 60’s, wrong to repeal Jim Crow laws. That falls outside the role of government right? It forced people to do things they did not want to do for the greater good of the country. Liberal theology is not about forcing people to do things it does not want to do, its about the greater good of a society. The country as a whole profits with a highly educated population and providing jobs for them once they graduate, the country as a whole improves by reducing poverty, homelessness, and starvation, the country as a whole improves by reducing pollution and finding alternative sources of fuel.

You are a self proclaimed “liberal Christian, but a political conservative” how is it that you do not see the irreconcilable differences between the two. How can you agree with so many aspects of conservative theology that are in direct contradiction to basic tenets of the New Testament? Do you not see it as hypocrisies for people to call themselves pro-life while at the same time being pro war and supporting the death penalty? Are the tenets of the New Testament pro-war, do they fall in line with supporting the death penalty? Jesus told the rich young ruler in Matthew to sell all he had and give it to the poor, does that fall in line with conservative political theology?

Ahhhhhhh yes, the predictable point in the discussion where most of my conversations with conservatives end.

Nut- that's only because you have the misfortune of living in Johnson City, Tenn.

While saying "I'm right because the bible tells me so!" is not totally unique to the area, you're more willing to get that arguement here than you would in, say, a major metropolitan area outside the bible belt.

However, regarding the discussion of politics on this board, I would say the arguements on this thread, biblical or otherwise, made by both liberals and conservatives, make the following phrase-

posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:there are too few people on this board with the requisite knowledge base to make it a worthwhile endeavour.

Total and complete self-indulgent bullsh1t.

I stand by that statement. There clearly are those here who *are* competent to discuss deep and complex issues requiring significant non-sports knowledge. But by-and-large, there are not enough of them, and since this is *mostly* a sports-oriented board, one can get more intellectual bang for the buck on other issues elsewhere. There are also a good chunk of posters who I would describe as obtuse, perhaps. Filtering out those who would attempt to discuss climate science, just for one example, without the credentials to do so, is an inefficient way to exchange information and ideas. On the other hand, one wouldn't go to scientific discussion fora for the pros and cons of ETSU's athletics' woes, either. Would one go to an Arizona Diamondbacks discussion board to discuss the 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates season and that World Series? To discuss Martha Stewart's recipe for peach cobler?

Summary: nothing at all wrong with discussing other things here; but it's just inefficient, for the most part. If it's "self-indulgent" to want to discuss things with like-minded and like-informed others, then so be it. What's wrong with that?

For the record, I once got 10 great recipes for pot roast from the Cinderella message board.

And, yes, you would talk about the '60 Pirates season on the Diamondbacks message board. There would probably be plenty of historical comparisons one could make.

Two come right off the top of my head-

Was the 2001 World Series better than the 1960 Series?

Comparing Randy Johnson and Curt Schillings' season and competition for the 2001 Cy Young Award to Dick Groat and Roberto Clemente's competition for the '60 MVP.

The fact of the matter is that you have done NOTHING but identify yourself as a pompous schmuck with a degree of self-importance that doesn't wash and has been proven to be ineffective- hence the demise of the Deadboard.

This is a message board whose memberships include predominantly college students and graduates.

What better place in Johnson City, Tennessee to have discussion of a wide range of topics than here, political/sports/music?

This board is a reflection and outlet for the entire ETSU community.

I defy you to go to another message board with a Johnson City base- the JC Press board- the downtownjc.org board- wherever- that is supposedly BASED on discussing things like Bush v. Stanton- and read the comments.

Do you honestly think their threads are more intelligent? Do you think the ideas and points on their threads are any more thought out than the ones on this one?

In fact, they are LESS INTELLIGENT.

That's the thing. You always do it. People have different opinions than you? Then they must not know as much as you do!

And then let's not get into what happens if someone contests your point. OH, GOD- he's a liar, he doesn't know as much as you do, he gets called names, he is said not to have the life experience, he gets his character assailled behind your cloak of anonymity with heresay you've heard from others, he gets scolded for living his life in a manner that doesn't fit with your ideals, etc. etc. etc.

He also comes off as more mature. And you have to work HARD to come off as LESS mature than myself.

Why does this board get all the traffic, while those other boards that are supposedly based on this wide variety of topics you long for fail?

For one thing, they don't have a PittsburghBucs.

But for another, it's because the posters they get- their audience- are NOT as intelligent as ours.

This is a college board. We can talk politics. We can talk basketball. We're well rounded.

"Straight Outta Flag Pond," presumably the boards you want us to discuss this on, is not.

posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:If it's "self-indulgent" to want to discuss things with like-minded and like-informed others, then so be it. What's wrong with that?

Translation- I'm smarter than everyone here.

Right.

Just a note here...

Political discussion is really not supposed to be allowed in the non political forums, but I don't have a problem with it. I think it is constructive to discuss more than sports here. The only reason I would move or delete a political post, is if someone starts attacking another persons political views (i.e. it turns into a liberal vs conservative fight fest).

I would agree with Pitt that this has become THE forum for discussion in the Tri Cities Area, so a wide variety of discussion is welcomed.

Thank you Fan1.

And you know something, the fact that the powers that be that run talk radio, and I include your boy Hagy in this, cannot see that, and the reason for it, shows you that they are either clueless or scared to hire me.

Neither one is flattering to them.

Well, I know that one certainly could discuss the 1960 season on a Diamondbacks board, and I knew that when I posted my comment. The (valid) point was that one wouldn't go there first. Sure, there could be a great discussion, because most avid baseball fans would know their stuff anywhere. But the chances of a great discussion of that would be much more likely on a Pirates board. The posters there would be more likely to have deep knowledge of Harvey Haddix or Vinegar Bend (who was a friend of Joe Shipley's) than a Diamondbacks fan, most of whom are probably of more recent vintage. And sure, one can get pot roast recipes from almost anywhere, but one wouldn't first go to a Pirates board to find them.

Again, absolutely nothing wrong with discussing anything and everything here - it just may not be fulfilling once it strays away from where most posters have their areas of expertise. Can one find nuggets of wisdom outside of sports here? Of course; and the reading of BucNut22's recent political posts give me faith that at least some younger people never drank the neocon Kool-Aid.

The old board died not from any effect of myself, or yourself, or anything of the kind, and you know it. Had stanton not done what he did, the old board might still have been functioning, for all we know. And no, I'm not claiming that any Johnson City-based board is any better; not at all. (Although I certainly don't bother to look and see what's out there, either. {There was a short but intense flurry on that downtownjc board a few years ago about music and people that was kinda neat.}) (Didn't know there was an AM Authority board - but I can't imagine anything much worthwhile there.)
But to be brutally honest, virtually *any* board that is based here, based on things relevant to here, is going to have it's share of uninformed posters - ipso facto. I mean, come on, this area elected jimmy quillen over and over and over again, not to mention voting for bush and davis. I think those "stats" make my case pretty definitively.....

Perhaps you misunderstand a bit. I'm not knocking this board AT ALL. It serves a purpose. I've become (at least intermittently) a part of it. I'm just saying that there is a dearth of truly informed posters on lots of non-sports subjects. They're not absent - not at all; they're just aren't enough of them, and those that are seem sometimes crowded out by those who merely have an opinion without substaniation. *I* can't intelligently discuss Cinderella here, or NASCAR, or various other things that have come up. And that's totally fine. I *know* my knowledge gaps - others here don't seem to.

To belabor the point, I'm sure you remember the discussion on the old board of Nathan Vaughn and the proposed (since passed) Robbie Nottingham bill. Do you remember the inanity of a couple (or three) of posters who vehemently posted on that topic, and were shown to be completely, embarrassingly, uninformed? That "discussion" really soured me on discussing non-sports topics on that board, because I was doing this: What's the point in that?

Again, there are many intelligent posters here, many who know far more than I on any number of things. I don't try to hold myself to be more intelligent than others. But I *do* know that this is *not* the place to debate climate science (again just as one example) - unless a dozen or so of you all come clean and prove me wrong.........

posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:the reading of BucNut22's recent political posts give me faith that at least some younger people never drank the neocon Kool-Aid.

He championed the one poster who tried to debate me that Keith Olbermann was a liberal.

Pens win the Eastern Conference and this guy keeps proving my points by himself.

It's been a great day!

PittsburghBucs Wrote:

posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:the reading of BucNut22's recent political posts give me faith that at least some younger people never drank the neocon Kool-Aid.

He championed the one poster who tried to debate me that Keith Olbermann was a liberal.

Pens win the Eastern Conference and this guy keeps proving my points by himself.

It's been a great day!

I didn't debate you on whether Olbermann was a liberal or not, I debated whether he was equal to where Bill O'Reily is on the right

You may have a point.

Much like the Detroit Red Wings do not have the popularity of the Pittsburgh Penguins, hence I am able to buy tickets straight from their box office while the Pens are sold out, O'Reilly is much more of a relevant figure than Olbermann.