Zog's Blog

To Mars? Now that I can get behind.

A lot of the american media is owned by liberal corporations/people. It only makes sense that they slander their opposition, as fox does with their opposition. Only difference is there is 1 FOX against several big name liberal channels. Naturally people assume that because FOX says the opposite of what MSNBC/CNN says that FOX is wrong for being in the minority, when in reality ALMOST ALL media is biased.

It's been a political axiom for a long time that the safest districts produce the craziest people...either the ideological purges and gradual move to the extreme of a district that one's party is seemingly never going to lose (Helen Chenoweth and Bill Sali in ID-1), or the emergence of no-hopers in low-information/low-turnout constituencies, where crazy gets through because the moderating influences don't bother with the primaries and the wacky insurgents win (Christine O'Donnell in 2008, Rogers here) or for reasons that are impossible to comprehend (Alvin Greene).

I don't know a tonne about the race (also not American), but if I remember correctly a large part of her appeal was that she cut sharply against the Democratic mainstream, such that they haven't given her a cent...heh, they'd scrub LaRouche and his cult from the party if they could. Exactly why she wasn't in favour with the party -- namely, because she's as crazy as a sack of ferrets -- wasn't as important, because actually winning the election is a non-starter. Olson beat the Democratic incumbent handily in 2008 despite the fact that it was wave election everywhere else, and as it's DeLay's old district, there are few in the nation as carefully gerrymandered as TX-22.

I don't mind the sort of crazies, Democrat or Republican, who'll never see the inside of the Capitol unless they're on tour. It's the ones that actually have a shot in hell of getting elected that scare me.

How very fortuitous that you've included that graphic. Allow me to direct all the liberal CN loonies to this study: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303634.html?hpid=topnews

And this article is interesting, too: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/26/how_the_world_sees_the_tea_party

Read an article the other week from a British guy who took issue with the Beeb's coverage of American conservatives as backwater hicks, don't feel like digging it up. Frankly if anyone wants to know how conservatives are protrayed by American and international media, go to fark.com and search tea party, conservative, or republican and you'll learn everything you need to know. As soon as the TV at my house gets turned to the news station, I come to Planet Bob and do my own politicking, there is no reason to watch the crap they're peddling. I listen to NPR in the car and that's about all the news I can handle. Watching Anderson Cooper's recent forays into muckraking on CNN is like watching two scared 14-yr-olds try to figure out sex for the first time, it's terrible and funny.

Every country has nut jobs running for office but voters in most countries can see they are wackos and dont vote for them. Politicians wont act like wacos if people see them as wacos and only give them the tiny waco vote. If wacos get no vote parties will have nothing to do with them. People need look no further than the voter to see where the problem is in American politics. If your voters want to vote for wacos then politicians, who are what people want them to be, will act like wacos. They are a product of voters desires.

I avoid the political scene altogether. I'm all-too conscious of what kind of people I'd be voting alongside, what a majority of their opinions are based upon, what kind of people go into politics in the first place, etc. I'm aware of the media and its influence over people. It's hard to say what percentage of voters actually make decisions based solely upon the facts rather than who puts out a better commercial.

...is like watching two scared 14-yr-olds try to figure out sex for the first time, it's terrible and funny.

What an unfortunate metaphor. Either you're comparing Anderson Cooper to something you have no experience with, or you've actually participated in watching 14 yr. olds have sex.

What an unfortunate metaphor. Either you're comparing Anderson Cooper to something you have no experience with, or you've actually participated in watching 14 yr. olds have sex.

Actually, a lot of metaphors and similes are comparisons to something that one has not experienced. That said, watching my then 13 year old brother have his first girl friend was hysterical to the point you can't even believe.

Oh yeah, I support any crazy candidate.

A lot of the american media is owned by liberal corporations/people. It only makes sense that they slander their opposition, as fox does with their opposition. Only difference is there is 1 FOX against several big name liberal channels.

Actually, there isn't any/very little liberal representation in the major American media outlets. Who are these so called liberal media pundits? What news service highlights political activists who espouse, say, Marxists or anarchists agendas? There is centralist and right wing, as are the majority of American voters with a few fringe extremes. Corporations are inherently conservative and won't back a political message that supports limiting the liberties of corporate influence.

Naturally people assume that because FOX says the opposite of what MSNBC/CNN says that FOX is wrong for being in the minority, when in reality ALMOST ALL media is biased.

All media is biased, that is true. But that conservatives are in the minority? That is an oft repeated, yet incorrect, maxim that is designed to create an "us-versus-them" mentality, where-in the members of the smaller membership are held together by stronger bonds by virtue of a larger opposition. Fear based propaganda is particularly effective on conservatives. Republicans are only very slightly behind Democrats, but if you add in Tea Party members and independents who consider themselves conservative, I would be willing to bet they actually make the majority. As opposed to socialists and other leftist ilk who are really in the minority.

The Tea Party gets more coverage than LaRoucheists because they're big enough for people to take seriously. Lyndon LaRouche supporters are more on the level of, say, the Constitution Party (who support, for example, the abolition of the Department of Education and the repeal of the Voting Rights Act).

The more I hear about people who are apparently real contenders for congress, the more I become absolutely convinced that I could get elected. I think I'm going to run once I move back to my hometown next year.

If you had told me earlier, I might have written you in for US Senate.

There's something you need to know.

Americans are !@#$@#$ insane.

Now that you know that, you can understand our politics.

Actually, a lot of metaphors and similes are comparisons to something that one has not experienced. That said, watching my then 13 year old brother have his first girl friend was hysterical to the point you can't even believe.

Yeah, I have never literally been between a rock and hard place; in like Flynn; insulted an injured person; actually stood shoulder-to-shoulder with someone I agreed with; ground an axe--you get the idea.

What an unfortunate metaphor. Either you're comparing Anderson Cooper to something you have no experience with, or you've actually participated in watching 14 yr. olds have sex.

Nor have I actually seen two 14 yr olds have sex. Anyway, I know it was fun for you to imply I'm a pedophile, but if you honest-to-God didn't get the metaphor, Google "Scott Baio, Erin Moran, corduroy." Watching Anderson Cooper trying to muckrake is like watching that.

LaRouchers are not part of the democratic party but in districts which republicans are almost certain to win, sometimes they sneak in past the primary. They are not a new thing in American politics, and are never supported by the Democratic leadership. In regards to Byrd, he repudiated the error of his ways in his youth. Contrast this with Sharon Angle who does obvious race baiting today.

I know it was fun for you to imply I'm a pedophile

Yeah, I could definitely picture the monumental eyeroll.

but if you honest-to-God didn't get the metaphor, Google "Scott Baio, Erin Moran, corduroy."

Based upon the names, you're attempting to get me to watch an episode of Joanie Loves Chachi. That's just not right, man.

I don't think this is quite what you're getting at, but I know that I find that over here in the UK - and I see myself as pretty centrist (so probably quite left-wing by American standards), therefore hopefully unbiased - it seems to be deemed much more acceptable in society in general to criticise the right-wing parties, whether extreme or moderate, than those who are equally far from the centre-ground on the other side of the spectrum.

When you bring up Byrd's obituaries, you're comparing apples and oranges. The mainstream press is notorious for their apologetics when a politician dies. One only needs to look at Nixon's death to understand that. They bent over backwards to rehabilitate his name and make him seem respectable.

Also, I think we all see the world through the prism of our own biases. I seem to recall that Alan Grayson got seriously ripped up in the press for his "Taliban Dan" ad. Perhaps you aren't sensitive to attacks on liberals because they don't trigger your defensive reflexes.

At any rate, the LaRouche supporters are universally despised by the Democratic Party establishment, and it's not something that they're faking. He's a fascist and a thug, and each time that LaRouche ran as a democrat, the party refused to even seat his delegates.

-Craig