Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

So much stupidity, so little time...

...Or at least I've spent very little time lately pointing it out and having some fun at the Right's expense.

I read an interesting piece the other day on "Accuracy In Media" - arguably the most Orwellian named web-site in existence, BTW -  about Media Matters. (Or does it?)  It was full of enough Right Wing talking points and Conspiracy Theories to fill a Bingo Card: George Soros, Democratic Run, Obama Campaign Coordinated... You name it. Of course... there was one thing that was conspicuously absent form this hatchet job: Even a single example of ANYTHING that Media matters has ever gotten wrong.  Not one! Not a single example! And of course, I defy ANYONE (William?) to find even a single piece on MediaMatters in which they call out something as inaccurate and have nothing more to say about it than "these people are Conservative" or "this is all coordinated by Ruppert Murdoch." And even when, in that case, the accusation would have the benefit of actually being TRUE. Because Liberals are smart enough to realize that this kind of ad hominen attack? IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Why would I even give a fuck if George Soros IS funding them, if what they are saying IS TRUE?!

It just goes back to what I always say:

A Liberal will prove that you're wrong and a Conservative will prove that you're Liberal.

(BTW... ANOTHER THING you will never find in MediaMatters is this kind of EXAMPLE FREE hack-level hatchet-job. Just sayin'.)

--------------------------------------------------

In related news, I heard earlier today that Rush Limbaugh now does not have so much as a single corporate advertiser left on his program.  I haven't been able to substantiate that claim as stated, but o March Eighth they were forced to broadcast over five minutes of DEAD AIR due to the corporate boycott that he's brought upon himself.  And that's great.  I say: Five down, One Hundred Seventy Five to go!  And while the dream of his broadcasting demise remains elusive, the fact of the matter is that TODAY, not a single ad was aired from a corporate sponsor. NOT ONE! And he's had the nerve to say that he "won't forgive them" and "doesn't want them back."   And that's funny... because the guy's been in radio for over 25 years now, so you'd think he have some fucking idea how that media actually FUNCTIONS.

That's fine though. In the meantime, I'm sure that the United Negro College Fund is enjoying all of the free advertising it's getting on his program. Because apparently IRONY is a terrible thing to waste.

Oh.. and did you hear? Today he claimed that Sandra Fluke's appearance before the Senate and the subsequent action but his sponsors to bankrupt his program are all part of a coordinated conspiracy by the Obama Administration to get rid of him.  I'm not sure where calling a woman's advocate a "slut" figured in to all that... the Batman Gambit , I guess.  But at what point will these morons stop trying to conjure up fantasy conspiracy theories and just face the fact that they might... JUST MIGHT... have actually been WRONG?!

Isn't that the simpler explanation?

Note to Rush: This isn't what an Obama orchestrated conspiracy looks like. Obama couldn't organize a barbecue, and neither can the Democrats.  This is what it looks like when you get your ass kicked by the FREE MARKET and the people's FREEDOM OF SPEECH after you piss of LITERALLY EVERYONE.

But by all means, keep digging. You've got all the money you need, so there's no point in turning back now. Keep showing everyone what the Republican Party, the Right Wing and the Conservative movement REALLY stand for. Keep exposing the Faustian Bargain they made with you back in 1992 (despite the fact that they LOST that year!) and see if you can't take down Hannity, Fox News, and the Republican Party with you while you're at it.

Do some GOOD for a change with your short-ass, miserable existence.

53 comments:

  1. " Even a single example of ANYTHING that Media matters has ever gotten wrong."

    I've tried using Mediamatters' search process and it doesn't work very well. However, if you've got plenty of time to look, a couple years ago there was a story about a rape that occured on the Duke campus by some Lacrosse team members. Mediamatters was completely in support for the conviction of the 3 men who were accused of that crime. When it came out that the woman had lied completely about virtually every aspect of the story Mediamatters never apologized for their inaccurate reporting and insistent argument that those 3 men were guilty. They led and followed the opinion of people like Jesse Jackson who claimed that if you didn't agree that those 3 men were guilty then you were a racist.
    Mediamatters is wrong often. I've said this before (here) and I'll say it again, if you think they are right all the time then you are blind to reality and closed-minded so much that you don't want to admit that possibility. And, in that case you are no different than any right-winger you demonize on a regular basis for being closed-minded.

    ReplyDelete
  2. William: Produce the link or I'm calling BULLSHIT.

    MMFA's serach feature is not so bad that you can't quickly find many articles about "Duke," "Lacrosse" or "Nifong" - as I did today. And sure enough, I saw many examples of MMFA pointing out Right Wing dishonesty and racism on the part of the RW Media at the time.

    But your insistance that they "insisted the players were guilty" is LIE. (Proove me wrong.) I know this becuase not only could I find no such story, but that sort of 'positive policy position' is simply not what MMFA DOES, nor is it comapatible with HOW THEY DO IT.

    OTOH... It IS pretty typical of the lies often told ABOUT THEM by the kinds of websites you've referenced that.. duh-da-daaaa... MMFA has proven to be unreliable sources of accurate infomration.

    And whether or not I believe MMFA is "always right" is irelevant. They don't MAKES POSITIVE CLAIMS of their own, so there's nothing to say whether they are right or not ABOUT.

    What they DO, very well, is REFUTE claims. And they do so by linking to OUTSIDE EVIDENCE. And what's more they air the FULL AUDIO or post the FULL TRANSCRIOPT of the statement for their readers to make their own judgements about. In the cases where they ONLY privde the audio or transcript? The absurdity of the statement is self-evident. (To everyone who's not like YOU anyway.)

    But I have never seen them state any position on any policy OTHER than that any issue should be debated openly, fairly and objectively, with deference paid to the people with he most knowlegde about. (WHO are routinely ignored by 99% of RW medi, who prefer instead to parrot easily debunked Republican talking points, typos and all.) Aside from linking to expert opinon and peer reviewed research that contradicts the claim being made, I defy you find even a single post that passes for an MMFA POLICY BRIEF. That's just not their deal. (read the mission statement.)

    You've repeatedly posted your opinion here about MMFA, and in reading it, it seems to me as if you've never actualy BEEN to the site. For my part? You'd know I've been there, seeing as how I regularly post as "Niceguy Eddie" and link to this blog in every post. But your description of them is closer to the lies that I've heard told about them than the truth I've seen with my own eyes.

    So... BULLSHIT. Find examples, or STFU about them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://mediamatters.org/research/200604140011
    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200604120013
    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200604030004
    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200604200004

    Not that you'd believe it anyway, but, here are some. Mediamatters claims to be an exposer of conservative "misinformation". Here are some articles they released with the inference that all of them are "misinformation". Misinformation means they think ALL those people are lying about that woman. That means they promoted the idea that she was NOT GUILTY and used their ability to damage careers of others as a result of that case. They supported the woman and the Jesse Jackson types, while decrying conservative blowhards as liars and bigots because ... ???

    You can idolize Mediamatters all you want. It only shows that you are as blind to reality as you whine conservatives are. Good luck with that.

    BTW, during your search, did you come across any apologies made by Mediamatters for lying about conservative opinions on that case? I didn't either ... as I said you wouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MMfA isn't exclusively about misinformation, it's also about the extremist rhetoric of the right. Your first link, for instance, features Savage making a point of this woman's race and talking about how the deck is stacked against white men. If you can explain what the hell race has to do with any accusation of rape, true or false, I'd like to hear it.

      Second link:"Now, everybody, apart from maybe you, knows the truth, which is, the testimony of an ordinary person is different from the testimony of someone who hires herself out to dance naked in front of and, yes, sometimes sleep with people, strangers, right? They're different. It's OK to have a bias against strippers in this case, isn't it?" Seriously? If anything, it's less likely that a stripper is going to lie, because it's bad for business. And whatever one thinks of the morals of strippers, there's no logical connection between promiscuity and dishonesty. If we're going to discount someone's testimony, then essentially that person is losing their rights.

      Third link:Limbaugh himself regarding the headline:" I'm just -- but it was, it was terrible slip of the tongue, and I am, I am terribly, I am terribly sorry." Read your own links.

      Fourth link:Did I mention you should read your own links? O'Reilly is making it sound as if she was raped, and is blaming her for it. Is that supposed to be acceptable?

      None of these examples make any comment about the truth of the matter. No matter what you believed at the time, and no matter what truth ultimately came out, the statements were still inappropriate.

      Delete
    2. "MMfA isn't exclusively about misinformation, it's also about the extremist rhetoric of the right. "

      You think so? Bring that proof. Where do they say that is one of their missions?
      What I don't understand is that the "extremist rhetoric of the right" (in that case) was the HONEST side of the story. The Mediamatters portion was the lies and mis-information side of the story. Perhaps, Brabantio, that's where you get your talent for lying/mis-representing and mis-quoting. You certainly ARE good at it.

      Delete
    3. You're a little late to the party here, aren't you?

      "You think so? Bring that proof. Where do they say that is one of their missions?"

      I know so. Look at the coverage of Derbyshire recently. There was no factual refutation of what he said, the point was that he's an unapologetic racist and needed to go away. They've always covered extremist rhetoric, regardless of their mission statement. If you don't know that, you don't know enough about MMfA to be commenting on them.

      "What I don't understand is that the "extremist rhetoric of the right" (in that case) was the HONEST side of the story."

      Oh, how so? You think the deck is stacked against white men in this country? You think strippers should essentially have no right to press charges against assailants, since they can't be believed? Do you think that if she was raped, that she had it coming? Where's the honesty here, exactly?

      "Perhaps, Brabantio, that's where you get your talent for lying/mis-representing and mis-quoting. You certainly ARE good at it."

      I must be very good, since you can't even express how I do it. That would be an impressive thing indeed.

      Delete
  4. William: your first link is to an article about Michael Wiener Savage and his comments regarding one of the alleged Duke victims. Your second link is about comments made by Tucker Carlson regarding an alleged victim. Your third link is about comments made by Rush Limbaugh regarding an alleged Duke victim. And your fourth link? Well, since your first three were bullshit, I didn't bother.

    Not one of those article you link to were direct comments on the story, but about the vile bile spewed by motherless whore commentators.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Sammy, you helped support my case. All 4 articles were about the "bile spewed by motherless whore commentators". Which means Mediamatters was calling each of them liars concerning that case. When it turned out that those "whore commentators" were actually telling the truth about the case and Mediamatters supported the liars (lying woman and lying liberal blo-hards). Mediamatters never came out with an apology for their behavior, did they? Well, I guess some would say they didn't need to since they didn't make "direct comments" on that case (which, BTW, was not my claim). The inference from them is there, that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Conservatives constantly pride themselves on being good Christians, but the statements made by those commentators regarding the Duke case were vile and did not add civil tones to the debate. I too was skeptical about that case, but never considered calling the women whores like your hero Rush. If Rush or Carlson or any of them had merely questioned the evidence, or lack thereof, there's no story on Media Matters. Media Matters called them out on their vilification of the women before the facts were made clear. Why should they have apologized for that?

      Delete
    2. No, your claim was that MMFA made statements to the effect that the Woman MUST have been telling the truth, since they were calling these man "liars."

      Were you dropped on your head as child? THIS is what you show to substantiate that?! Look: MMFA owes NO ONE any apology over this. In every case, MMFA referred to her as an "alledged rape victim" and showed how the RW Media were tying to influenc epublic opinion by attacking her wil vile, racist and, yes, FALSE statements (she was not in fact a "ho" or "hooker," etc... becuase she was not hired for sex.) Calling out these statements as false DOES NOT imply the "aleged" victim is an ACTUAL victim. Guess what: She could be lying? AND SO COULD THE RIGHT WING MEDIA! And that does in fact appear to be what has happened here. You show me the TRUE STATEMENT that MMFA has called out here as FALSE and that they owe an aopolgy for. There's nothign here Wil - and that's knowing what I know NOW! Were these BEOFRE all the fact scam eout? That makes the doubly-inappropriate! The evetual veracity of the charges is irrelevant! You know WHY?!

      BECUASE IN NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE YOU PROVIDED WAS THE "FALSE STATEMENT" BVEING CALLE DOUT THAT THE ALEGED VICTIM WAS LYING!

      Not one. I guess it hadn;t occured to the RW media at the time that this was a possibility. So they went with nothing but racist and irrelevant ad hominen attacks on AN ALLEGED (there's that word again!) RAPE VICTIM.

      Nice.

      MMFA owes no one an apology over this.

      But thanks for playing.

      Oh, and hey Sammy! Welcome back! You're gonna REALLY LIKE William.

      Delete
  6. So, you know who is and who isn't Christian? Hmmm, quite a talent you've got there. Or are ALL conservatives automatically Christian? If that's the case, using your power of deduction, I guess all libearls would NOT be Christian.
    Rush ain't my hero.
    And, if they had "merely questioned the evidence"? What a crock of shit! Mediamatters is NOT interested in FACTS, they want to demonize ANYONE who is conservative or doesn't fall lock-step with their ideals. It shows in their articles and their statements.

    So, you're wrong on all three points you tried to make. Now, bring something that actually address's the concerns voiced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Rush ain't my hero."

      It's hard to tell, Will. You sound JUST LIKE HIM. And you seem to thynk JUST LIKE HIM. (That wasn't a typo, BTW.)

      And your examples didn't have one spec of evidence that supported your claim. YOUR the one here who's trying to vilify anoyone who doesn't tow YOUR line. Projection thy name is Conservatism.

      Delete
  7. Yes, my examples do show what I am claiming. Perhaps you should go back and read what my claim was. Deflection thy name is liberal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do not. They do nto show MMFA claiming that the woman was telling the truth, becuase they do not show your RW Hero's calling ehr a LIAR. Oh, they call her EVERYTHING ELSE, and THAR is what they were called out for, but it never occured to them to do anything but make racially motivated ad himonen attcks. they never questioned the veracity of the story either. In calling her a WHORE, they admit that they figure something DID happen that night, they're just BLAMING THE VICTIM.

      Show me where MMFA said teh woman's story was TRUE. Becuase I see a lot of the word "alleged" in their writngs.

      So you chose poor examples. Try again, on this issue or any other. We're all ears.

      Delete
  8. Ah, Willie me boyo, thanks a million for this thread. I've been traveling, and haven't had the time to go back and find all the times you've refused to recognize when you've been proven wrong, as you challenged me to do on a couple of other threads. Now it's not necessary. Eddie and Sammy wiped up the floor with you, showed you where you were wrong, and all you can come back with is a slightly more mature version of the childhood, "...am not!!" Brilliant. I'm so glad I read this thread before going back to those others.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "all the times you've refused to recognize when you've been proven wrong,"

    You're funny. You DO know that "stating" something and "proving" something are 2 different things, right? Wait, I'm talking to a liberal ... never mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should really try to make substantive replies to the posts that address your point before talking trash. To do otherwise is to merely "state" something instead of making the effort to "prove" it.

      Unless you believe you are held to a different standard, for some reason.

      Delete
    2. Uh, yes Willie, I do.
      And, as has been amply demonstrated on other threads, you don't. You don't even understand the difference between knowledge and belief. You're constantly telling me that you know something that, by its very nature, can't possibly be known.
      You've also asked, "What part of God can't be proven?" Setting aside the contradiction in terms there (a pure spirit has no 'parts'), nothing about God can be definitively proved or disproved, including his/her/its existence.

      Delete
    3. "What part of God can't be proven?" I will try to come around here more often. That is just precious.

      Delete
    4. Interesting, plenty of snide comments, but nothing to show I am wrong. Thanks for playing

      Delete
  10. Nah, Willie, you just can't admit it, especially in argument with a hated liberal, when you're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What "hated liberal" are you talking about? When was I wrong? Answer those two questions and you'll have all the answers you are looking for.

    Too bad I won't be hearing from you again. It was fun stringing you along. Ever hear the phrase "hook, line and sinker"? You may think you're good, but you're obviously not good enough. Must be why you stick to posting at Mediamatters. Like minds think alike.

    ReplyDelete
  12. For starters, William, go back and read through your posts. Find each sentence that starts with, "So what you're saying is..." In 99.9% of what follows that phrase, you're wrong, just as you're wrong in every assumption you make about me. But that's ok with you, because you'd rather be wrong than liberal. And you definitely are.
    Media Matters really gets under your skin, doesn't it? That gives me a chuckle.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So, what you're saying is (LOL) that you won't answer questions as I ask them and use that as an excuse to say I'm wrong? Hmmm.
    If I ask a question and the answer isn't what I thought, then how am I wrong for asking the question?
    Mega-fail on that point. Do you have any REAL instances?

    BTW, my assumptions about you are correct until you actually man-up and answer to any incorrect assumption.

    Mediamatters has ruined and attempted to ruin careers of people simply based on the fact that they hate anyone who doesn't toe the extreme-left-wing mindset. And the 25 (or so) people who post at that site are perfect examples of what Mediamatters stands for. If you ever want to use the word "sheeple" to describe any one group of people, to use it describing Mediamatters regular posters would be the correct usage. But, why am I telling you something you already know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What examples do you have of MMfA trying to ruin careers based on ideology alone? Notice that the links you provided earlier all contained inappropriate behavior, so please do not claim those support your contention here.

      Delete
    2. Did I say "ideology ALONE"?

      "Inappropriate behavior" based on WHOSE criteria?

      And then, do you have anything to say about the 25 (or so) sheeple who regularily post there? Wait ... you're one of them, aren't you?

      Delete
    3. "What examples do you have of MMfA trying to ruin careers based on ideology alone?"

      One good example is Michael Savage. Medaimatters was relentless in attacking him and calling him racist and telling advertisers to stop advertising on his show during (and after) the Duke Lacross Rape Case. It turns out he was absolutely correct in his assesment of the situation while Mediamatters never apologized to Savage for all the harmful damage done to his career.

      Tell me, what "inappropriate behavior" did Savage exhibit to deserve the treatment he got from Mediamatters during that case?

      Delete
    4. "Did I say "ideology ALONE"?"

      You said:"Mediamatters has ruined and attempted to ruin careers of people simply based on the fact that they hate anyone who doesn't toe the extreme-left-wing mindset." "Simply based" would be ideology alone, since you explicitly deny any other possible factors. If you didn't mean that, you're free to rephrase it, of course.

      ""Inappropriate behavior" based on WHOSE criteria?"

      Your argument is very old. Standards of behavior are subjective, yes. That doesn't make them inherently worthless. If you want to question specifics, that's fine, but determining what's appropriate and what is not has to be done somehow.

      "And then, do you have anything to say about the 25 (or so) sheeple who regularily post there? Wait ... you're one of them, aren't you?"

      Do you believe your ad hominem attack merits a response?

      "Tell me, what "inappropriate behavior" did Savage exhibit to deserve the treatment he got from Mediamatters during that case?"

      From my post above:" Your first link, for instance, features Savage making a point of this woman's race and talking about how the deck is stacked against white men. If you can explain what the hell race has to do with any accusation of rape, true or false, I'd like to hear it." As I implied at the time, whether she turned out to be a liar or not doesn't change the nature of his behavior. It doesn't retroactively make it acceptable.

      Delete
    5. I guess you are right. They attempted to ruin his career based on "hate". Which is exactly what I said. Why do I need to rephrase it? I didn't realize hatred was THE ideology of the extreme-left-wing Mediamatters and their 25 (or so) regular posters, but their behavior certainly does confirm that. Thanks for that.
      But if you're going to say they have another ideology, you're free to show what that ideology is. So, I don't think I need to rephrase something that is true.


      "your argument is very old"

      Wow that was a deflection if I ever saw one. Then you admit that my argument is correct. Why did you even include that in your response?


      "Do you believe your ad hominem attack merits a response?"

      ARE you a regular poster at Mediamatters? Was the question. You can answer or choose to not answer. Do the 25 (or so) regular posters at Mediamatters continually post comments of hatred towards anyone who posts a conservative comment? (You included?) What part of the "terms of use" laws are you adhering to while you post hateful comments about conservatives at Mediamatters? That would make my comment correct and you not answering it puts you in agreement with that statement. Because I'm sure you read the first statement I made about those people and how their hatred is part of the hatefulness coming from Mediamatters.
      Are you on of the 25 (or so) regular posters at Mediamatters? Have you ever posted a hateful comment? If so, then it is not an "ad hominem attack". Do you even know what that means? I think you do not, because of the way you used it. I am not saying you are hateful because you associate with Mediamatters. I am implying you are hateful because you are one of the 25 (or so) regular posters there. Do you think that would be difficult to confirm?


      "If you can explain what the hell race has to do with any accusation of rape, true or false, "

      Race has nothing to do with it. That's why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Mediamatters MADE it part of the story in their rage against Savage. They MADE it racial.
      But, that's good that you are able to distinguish what "inappropriate behavior" is. Perhaps you can explain all the "inappropriate behavior" happening at Mediamatters by the 25 (or so) hateful posters who will post hateful comments on a daily (hourly) basis. Is it hateful when you use "inapropriate behavior" towards conservatives? Or is it only hateful when it is directed at left-wingers? Does "true or false" bear any weight in the determination of "inappropriate behavior" by left-wingers directed at right-wingers? You're not fooling anyone with this victim act. I suspect you'll ignore those important questions. Hate to expose yet another liberal as being hypocritical.

      So, you are correct in one thing, whether those 25 (or so) regular posters at Mediamatters are lying or not, it doesn't change the nature of their behavior. Which is hateful ... just like the "ideals" of Mediamatters: hateful.
      Again, thanks for helping me show that fact as what it is ... a fact.

      Delete
    6. "I guess you are right. They attempted to ruin his career based on "hate". Which is exactly what I said. Why do I need to rephrase it? I didn't realize hatred was THE ideology of the extreme-left-wing Mediamatters and their 25 (or so) regular posters, but their behavior certainly does confirm that."

      "Ideology" meaning liberal, conservative, etc. I'm not sure what your rant here is about, but you asked if you said "ideology alone" and I showed how you meant exactly that when you talked about how they tried to ruin anyone who didn't conform to their political views. Those were your words, so changing it to "hate" now makes no sense.

      "Wow that was a deflection if I ever saw one. Then you admit that my argument is correct. Why did you even include that in your response?"

      If you know it was "included" then you admit you're ignoring this part:"Standards of behavior are subjective, yes. That doesn't make them inherently worthless. If you want to question specifics, that's fine, but determining what's appropriate and what is not has to be done somehow." That obviously does not suggest you were correct.

      "Are you on of the 25 (or so) regular posters at Mediamatters? Have you ever posted a hateful comment? If so, then it is not an "ad hominem attack". Do you even know what that means? I think you do not, because of the way you used it. I am not saying you are hateful because you associate with Mediamatters. I am implying you are hateful because you are one of the 25 (or so) regular posters there. Do you think that would be difficult to confirm?"

      If you're attacking people and not arguments, then you're engaging in an ad hominem attack. Saying I'm hateful if I'm one of the posters there would qualify, obviously, as would the term "sheeple". You're not addressing arguments, you're just making accusations. What would be the difference between "associating" with MMfA and being a regular poster, by the way?

      "Race has nothing to do with it. That's why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Mediamatters MADE it part of the story in their rage against Savage."

      If race has nothing to do with it, then Savage shouldn't be saying the deck is stacked against white men in this country. How would anything Sharpton or Jackson said about Savage change the dynamics for the general population of white men in the country? If you can't rationalize what he said, then you understand why he would be criticized, therefore it wouldn't be about "hate".

      Here's what people like you never seem to want to explain (and feel free to break the trend);if you can stretch your mind to imagine a right-winger saying something inappropriate or offensive, how would anyone criticize it? I mean regarding style, tone, etc. Once you've formulated that, how does that differ from how MMfA presents its articles? Your point was about the site, remember. How they try to ruin people. Your bizarre rant about posters is a goalpost shift that I'm not going to fall for, sorry.

      Delete
    7. "Those were your words, so changing it to "hate" now makes no sense."

      Actually, if you read my post, I started out saying "hate" was the driving force behind the attacks on conservatives. I haven't changed it to "hate".


      "What would be the difference between "associating" with MMfA and being a regular poster, by the way?"

      Do you regularly post at Mediamatters? Simple question. Apparently difficult for one of the 25 (or so) regulars to answer. You were posting years ago, and you still post now. You can play the semantics game if you want. But, reality over-rules any of your lame excuses for NOT answering the question.


      You are wrong concerning Savage. Your hatred of right-wingers shows through. And you try to rationalize it by deflecting to the "tone", "style", "ect" of a person's writing ability. Exposing the left-wing hypocrisy on this subject is getting easier and easier.

      Delete
    8. I've read your post, and it said:"Mediamatters has ruined and attempted to ruin careers of people simply based on the fact that they hate anyone who doesn't toe the extreme-left-wing mindset."

      That "extreme-left-wing mindset" is what "ideology" refers to. Your point is that is what causes them to criticize people like Savage, whether you classify it as "hate" or not. When you said "hate" was an "ideology", you changed what you originally said. Does anything you're saying change the fact that you implied that I was misrepresenting you, and I showed how I wasn't? Please move past it, instead of engaging in further deflection.

      "But, reality over-rules any of your lame excuses for NOT answering the question."

      I don't know what your excuse is for not answering my question as to what that difference would be. What's the relevance of whether I post there or not, unless you're trying to discredit me through association instead of addressing what I say to you? Your point was about the site. I can easily copy and paste your words to show that if you need me to.

      "You are wrong concerning Savage. Your hatred of right-wingers shows through."

      How am I wrong? I don't see you making an argument to that effect. I'm also not sure what indicates "hate", especially when my tone is compared to yours. You clearly seem to think that certain posters behave inappropriately, so if you're able to say that, then other people should be able to criticize Savage for what he says as well. Do you disagree?

      "And you try to rationalize it by deflecting to the "tone", "style", "ect" of a person's writing ability. Exposing the left-wing hypocrisy on this subject is getting easier and easier."

      How else do you determine "hate" if not by "tone" and "style" of writing? If you want to talk about "hate", then those elements are central to the charge you're making, obviously. How you can possibly say otherwise is a mystery.

      Delete
    9. "You clearly seem to think that certain posters behave inappropriately, so if you're able to say that, then other people should be able to criticize Savage for what he says as well."

      Saying things is one thing, actions are another. The difference being that Mediamatters is calling for ACTIONS against someone using hate, lies and innuendo as the reasoning for those actions. Savage did not make it a case of "race relations", Mediamatters and the Jesse Jackson types did. Yet they (and you) blame Savage for mentioning her race and call him a racist for mentioning her race. Facts show she was all the names he called her (which doesn't make it right) but that is no reason to attack him using the methods that Mediamatters uses. BTW, I've noticed left-wingers seem to think calling someone vial names is OK-DOKEY if it is true. So, in effect, you're calling for his demise and creating actions to achieve that based on methods you deem acceptable for left-wingers but un-acceptable for right-wingers. That, I believe, would be called hypocrisy. Which is not unexpected from liberals. You can do it all you want, but that method has a name.


      "What's the relevance of whether I post there or not"

      The relevance is that I need to get a proper idea of your prospective of anyone who posts non-left-wing-agreeing statements. You, like the other Mediamatters 25 (or so) regular posters, will automatically have an opinion made about a persons statements based solely on their political leanings. You have (I've seen some of your posts, there) made derogatory statements about right-wing posters and discounted their statements only because they are not in agreement with the given article. If that's your discussion method so be it. I just want to get an idea of who I'm talking with and your mental capability of rational thought/conversation.

      Delete
    10. "Saying things is one thing, actions are another. The difference being that Mediamatters is calling for ACTIONS against someone using hate, lies and innuendo as the reasoning for those actions."

      At what point do you believe speech has consequences? If someone behaves irresponsibly in the public dialogue, what gives them the right to continue doing so?

      "Savage did not make it a case of "race relations", Mediamatters and the Jesse Jackson types did. Yet they (and you) blame Savage for mentioning her race and call him a racist for mentioning her race."

      Utter nonsense, he went beyond the race of individuals and made a commentary about the system. Saying that the system has white men at a disadvantage is not merely mentioning her race. If that's your evidence of lies and innuendo, it is lacking.

      "BTW, I've noticed left-wingers seem to think calling someone vial names is OK-DOKEY if it is true. So, in effect, you're calling for his demise and creating actions to achieve that based on methods you deem acceptable for left-wingers but un-acceptable for right-wingers."

      I find it interesting how your perception of "left-wingers" is supposed to be something I'm responsible for. What I deem acceptable is your assumption, which has no merit.

      "You, like the other Mediamatters 25 (or so) regular posters, will automatically have an opinion made about a persons statements based solely on their political leanings."

      Please look up the definition of "prejudice".

      "You have (I've seen some of your posts, there) made derogatory statements about right-wing posters and discounted their statements only because they are not in agreement with the given article."

      Really? I find that hard to believe, for one thing because you seem vested in categorizing me in order to determine my character. If you were familiar with my posts, why would you need to do that? I also doubt that because I don't follow anything blindly. If I disagree with anyone, I say so. I have no allegiances, and have often defended those that I personally dislike when I think they're being misrepresented. So it's not exactly my nature to "discount" what anyone says simply because they disagree with the article. If the article has merit, I make it very clear why that's the case.

      "I just want to get an idea of who I'm talking with and your mental capability of rational thought/conversation."

      Of course, because up until this point, my temper and logic have been questionable, right? Now, let's be fair. I'd also like to gauge your rationality, so please provide some evidence of my "derogatory statements" and biased behavior which you supposedly witnessed. Thank you in advance.

      Delete
    11. Incidentally, don't you think it's awfully strange that you:

      1)Feel the need to categorize me with supposedly biased people in order to understand me, instead of judging me based on what I actually write, and;

      2)Criticize me for allegedly judging right-wingers based on their disagreement with MMfA, instead of what they actually write.

      That seems awfully inconsistent. If you feel comfortable with judging me based on something that I have nothing to do with, why would I not be allowed to generalize about right-wingers as well? Please explain.

      Delete
    12. "At what point do you believe speech has consequences?"

      When someone yells "fire" in a movie theatre would be one example. Calling someone a "dirt-bag" would not be.


      " If someone behaves irresponsibly in the public dialogue, what gives them the right to continue doing so?"

      That's what I asked you concerning your ability to do just that while posting at Mediamatters.


      "Really? I find that hard to believe, for one thing because you seem vested in categorizing me in order to determine my character. If you were familiar with my posts, why would you need to do that?"

      "Flaming jackasses." by Brabantio (March 25, 2012 8:38 am ET)
      Is this you? Who are you talking about? From the rest of that post it indicates you are blindly calling all right-wingers that. Tell me if I'm wrong. BTW, you notice that is dated TODAY. Do you really expect me to believe you don't do that on a regular basis?

      Maybe you recognize this regular poster who uses hateful/derogatory posts at Mediamatters basing his opinion on nothing more than generalized hatred of the right-wingers:
      "(BTW... Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck? HS Diploma's. Nothing more.) And they wonder why we percieve the Right as stupid."

      Guess who that's by .... by NiceguyEddie (March 17, 2012 11:27 am ET)

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. "When someone yells "fire" in a movie theatre would be one example. Calling someone a "dirt-bag" would not be."

      Promoting racial tension and paranoia is just fine, though?

      "That's what I asked you concerning your ability to do just that while posting at Mediamatters."

      That's not exactly the "public dialogue". Nobody's sanctioning any poster's opinion there, putting it out by megaphone to imply that it has value. The difference is enormous. You didn't answer the question, by the way.

      "From the rest of that post it indicates you are blindly calling all right-wingers that. Tell me if I'm wrong."

      No, that wasn't my intent, and people familiar with my posts should know that. The context is the article, of course, regarding specific people and their behavior. I don't apply that to large groups of people, I am just appalled by the amount of garbage coming from conservative media on this issue. Perhaps I'm getting lax from being around people who know my meaning better than you as well. In any event, I would amend my wording there to make it more clear.

      That being said, your contention was that I "discounted" other poster's opinions for the sole reason that they disagreed with an article. Your example clearly does not apply to that at all.

      "(BTW... Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck? HS Diploma's. Nothing more.) And they wonder why we percieve the Right as stupid."

      First off, I never claimed that there were no derogatory posts there at all, so I'm not sure what you intend to prove here. Secondly, he doesn't say the right IS stupid, simply that is the perception. Finally, and most importantly, he points to two prominent voices of the right-wing media specifically to demonstrate why that is the case. It would seem his point is that the right isn't putting their most intelligent, accomplished people out in front, which makes them more difficult to take seriously. That makes sense, doesn't it? Or are you more concerned with the tone and style of the comment?

      I look forward to your response of my other post, regarding your double-standard of generalizing opponents.

      Delete
    15. "Promoting racial tension and paranoia is just fine, though?"

      No. And, that's why I whine about Mediamatters and it's 25 (or so) regular posters. That's is exactly what they do. And, they are proud of it and defend their actions and ability to do that to no ends.


      "That's not exactly the "public dialogue". "

      What are you standards for public dialogue? World wide accessible content isn't "public" enough? Or are you saying Rush (ect..) can do and say whatever they want as long as they do it on-line?


      "No, that wasn't my intent, "

      And how many other posts are you going to make that claim on? All of them? Your "intent" and your "actions" are completely different. In fact, many of the right-wing blo-hards could make the same claim as you are in your excuse for calling all right-wingers "flaming jackasses". But, you have NO problem whining about them doing it, huh? I'll bet you went ballistic during Rush's latest problems calling people names. If he used the same lame excuse as you just did, would you let him slide for saying what he said?


      "Perhaps I'm getting lax from being around people who know my meaning better than you as well."

      Sure ... what you meant was "kind folk" instead of "flaming jackasses", right? LOL


      "Secondly, he doesn't say the right IS stupid, simply that is the perception."

      Yes, he does. And I perceive the left as mentally incompetent. Your defense of someone calling others names is a very good way of furthering my perception.


      "Finally, and most importantly, he points to two prominent voices of the right-wing media specifically to demonstrate why that is the case."

      Yes, he uses 2 examples to show why anyone (especially right wingers) who ONLY get a HS diploma is stupid. That's a fine example of liberal self-perceived superiority over others who don't agree with their messages.


      "I look forward to your response of my other post, regarding your double-standard of generalizing opponents."

      And which post is that? Do you mean this one: "Incidentally, don't you think it's awfully strange that you:"

      (#1) I AM judging you on what you actually write.
      (#2) You ARE criticizing and judging the right even when they wrote nothing.
      Where is the post you are responding to that was written by a right-winger? Perhaps I missed that one and I owe you an apology. But, I doubt it. The inconsistencies are yours, not mine.

      Delete
    16. "No. And, that's why I whine about Mediamatters and it's 25 (or so) regular posters. That's is exactly what they do. And, they are proud of it and defend their actions and ability to do that to no ends."

      Then how do you classify it as "hate, lies and innuendo" for anyone to criticize Savage for claiming white men are at a systemic disadvantage?

      "What are you standards for public dialogue? World wide accessible content isn't "public" enough?"

      This might be news to you, but when you consistently downplay the number of posters at MediaMatters, it doesn't lend a lot of credence to the idea that anything in the comments there has a national impact. Think about it.

      "In fact, many of the right-wing blo-hards could make the same claim as you are in your excuse for calling all right-wingers "flaming jackasses"."

      I'm not calling all right-wingers "flaming jackasses". The context was behavior-specific. As I said, I would rephrase it, but I would politely ask that you don't call me a liar without good cause for it. Now, right-wing blowhards could make excuses, but the language they use and their history have to be taken into account when evaluating that. My history backs me up.

      "Sure ... what you meant was "kind folk" instead of "flaming jackasses", right? LOL"

      Actually, no. There are conservative posters that I've defended in the past, and who respect me. I would bet good money that they would not believe your charges of generalizing.

      "Yes, he does. And I perceive the left as mentally incompetent. Your defense of someone calling others names is a very good way of furthering my perception."

      Ad hominem, not addressing the point.

      "Yes, he uses 2 examples to show why anyone (especially right wingers) who ONLY get a HS diploma is stupid."

      No, why they're perceived as stupid. To put two people like that at the forefront of your political media doesn't reflect well on modern conservatism in general (which doesn't mean every single conservative, to make it clear). Personally, I would throw Limbaugh in there and make it more of a comment about credibility, but I understand the point he's making.

      "(#1) I AM judging you on what you actually write."

      Really?:"The relevance is that I need to get a proper idea of your prospective of anyone who posts non-left-wing-agreeing statements. You, like the other Mediamatters 25 (or so) regular posters, will automatically have an opinion made about a persons statements based solely on their political leanings" This was not your first demand for this information, either. You can't have it both ways. If you are judging my argument on its merits, then you don't need to know anything else.

      "(#2) You ARE criticizing and judging the right even when they wrote nothing."

      This was in reference to your charge that I discounted people's opinions when they disagreed with an MMfA article ("(2)Criticize me for allegedly judging right-wingers based on their disagreement with MMfA, instead of what they actually write."). Your original quote:"You have (I've seen some of your posts, there) made derogatory statements about right-wing posters and discounted their statements only because they are not in agreement with the given article." I await evidence of this, still.

      "Where is the post you are responding to that was written by a right-winger? Perhaps I missed that one and I owe you an apology."

      What are you referring to? That is cryptic.

      Delete
    17. "No. And, that's why I whine about Mediamatters and it's 25 (or so) regular posters. That's is exactly what they do. And, they are proud of it and defend their actions and ability to do that to no ends."

      Then how do you classify it as "hate, lies and innuendo" for anyone to criticize Savage for claiming white men are at a systemic disadvantage?

      "What are you standards for public dialogue? World wide accessible content isn't "public" enough?"

      This might be news to you, but when you consistently downplay the number of posters at MediaMatters, it doesn't lend a lot of credence to the idea that anything said there has a national impact. Think about it.

      "In fact, many of the right-wing blo-hards could make the same claim as you are in your excuse for calling all right-wingers "flaming jackasses"."

      I'm not calling all right-wingers "flaming jackasses". The context was behavior-specific. As I said, I would rephrase it, but I would politely ask that you don't call me a liar without good cause for it. Now, right-wing blowhards could make excuses, but the language they use and their history have to be taken into account when evaluating that. My history backs me up.

      "Sure ... what you meant was "kind folk" instead of "flaming jackasses", right? LOL"

      Actually, no. There are conservative posters that I've defended in the past, and who respect me. I would bet good money that they would not believe your interpretation.

      "Yes, he does. And I perceive the left as mentally incompetent. Your defense of someone calling others names is a very good way of furthering my perception."

      Ad hominem, not addressing the point.

      "Yes, he uses 2 examples to show why anyone (especially right wingers) who ONLY get a HS diploma is stupid."

      No, why they're perceived as stupid. To put two people like that at the forefront of your political media doesn't reflect well on modern conservatism in general (which doesn't mean every single conservative, to make it clear). Personally, I would throw Limbaugh in there and make it more of a point about credibility, but I understand the point he's making.

      "(#1) I AM judging you on what you actually write."

      Really?:"The relevance is that I need to get a proper idea of your prospective of anyone who posts non-left-wing-agreeing statements. You, like the other Mediamatters 25 (or so) regular posters, will automatically have an opinion made about a persons statements based solely on their political leanings" This was not your first demand for this information, either. You can't have it both ways. If you are judging my argument on its merits, then you don't need to know anything else.

      "(#2) You ARE criticizing and judging the right even when they wrote nothing."

      This was in reference to your charge that I discounted people's opinions when they disagreed with an MMfA article ("(2)Criticize me for allegedly judging right-wingers based on their disagreement with MMfA, instead of what they actually write."). Your original quote:"You have (I've seen some of your posts, there) made derogatory statements about right-wing posters and discounted their statements only because they are not in agreement with the given article." I still await your evidence to back up the accusation you made. Is that asking too much?

      "Where is the post you are responding to that was written by a right-winger? Perhaps I missed that one and I owe you an apology."

      What are you referring to? That is cryptic.

      Delete
    18. It occured to me, William, that you might want to check out the "Bill O'Reilly Dismisses Racist Chant" thread. It's remarkable that someone can criticize MMfA, defend a right-wing blowhard like O'Reilly, and have those posts remain there uncensored. And with mostly "thumbs-up" responses, I might add. "Sheeple", you say?

      You can always pick on one or two posts from essentially anyone and try to discredit them. It's not meaningful. You clearly don't have any sense of my general attitudes and principles, or you wouldn't be acting a rabid hyena over the discovery of one thing that could possibly be taken a certain way. In this very thread you claimed that hate is an ideology, which was idiotic. I didn't use that to try to discredit you altogether, or bring it up in every post afterwards. I addressed your argument on its merits.

      It also occurred to me that NiceGuyEddie himself recognizes that people can make valid points regardless of their history. He made an entire blog post regarding it, remember? So apparently the person you cited as an example of "hateful/derogatory" speech based on generalizations of right-wingers is more open-minded than YOU.

      Just some food for thought before you pick up your shovel again.

      Delete
    19. " So apparently the person you cited as an example of "hateful/derogatory" speech based on generalizations of right-wingers is more open-minded than YOU."

      And, maybe, that person is complaining about right-wingers being "hateful/derogatory" while being that way himself. I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm saying if you're going to whine about righties being that way perhaps you shouldn't be that way yourself.

      What it seems to be is that left-wingers will call others all kinds of vial/hurtful names and defend their right to do that, yet when a right-winger does it they act as if the end of the world is about to happen and if that right-winger isn't fired from his/her job immediately then society will end.
      What's the old saying: people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
      Or, a better one: Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?


      BTW, you must have eaten just before posting.

      Delete
    20. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

      That's pretty funny, considering how you talk about "hate" while making vile generalizations about people who disagree with you.

      It seems to me that you're comparing anonymous posters on websites to people who have thousands upon thousands of listeners. That's ridiculous, of course, for reasons which really shouldn't have to be spelled out to anyone over the age of five.

      Remember, your point was that MMfA was wrong to criticize Savage. Where did that argument go? You charged me with discounting the words of right-wing posters because they disagreed with MMfA articles. Still no evidence?

      Keep looking.

      Delete
    21. "Remember, your point was that MMfA was wrong to criticize Savage."

      No, that wasn't my point. But, from your writings and style I can tell you really don't care.


      "That's pretty funny, considering how you talk about "hate" while making vile generalizations about people who disagree with you."

      Yes, I make "vile generalizations". However, I'm not the one denying that I say them while saying them. I'm not the one who is in full support of removing individuals from their work BECAUSE they do that WHILE YOU actively do the same thing you complain about them doing.

      Delete
    22. "No, that wasn't my point. But, from your writings and style I can tell you really don't care."

      You:"Mediamatters has ruined and attempted to ruin careers of people simply based on the fact that they hate anyone who doesn't toe the extreme-left-wing mindset."

      Your next post:"One good example is Michael Savage. Medaimatters was relentless in attacking him and calling him racist and telling advertisers to stop advertising on his show during (and after) the Duke Lacross Rape Case. It turns out he was absolutely correct in his assesment of the situation while Mediamatters never apologized to Savage for all the harmful damage done to his career."

      Then:"They attempted to ruin his career based on "hate"."

      Then:"The difference being that Mediamatters is calling for ACTIONS against someone using hate, lies and innuendo as the reasoning for those actions. Savage did not make it a case of "race relations", Mediamatters and the Jesse Jackson types did. Yet they (and you) blame Savage for mentioning her race and call him a racist for mentioning her race. Facts show she was all the names he called her (which doesn't make it right) but that is no reason to attack him using the methods that Mediamatters uses."

      As to my "writings", I guess I COULD say:"Your hatred of left-wingers shows through. And you try to rationalize it by deflecting to the "style" of a person's writing ability." Check and mate.

      "I'm not the one who is in full support of removing individuals from their work BECAUSE they do that WHILE YOU actively do the same thing you complain about them doing."

      Well, look at that wording. "From their work". So professionals, people who are under supervision of the FCC, who have standards to uphold, who have a responsibility to their listeners are exactly the same as people who post anonymously on the internet. Ridiculous, as I said.

      I haven't said anything within three time zones of Savage's bile. Until you produce the evidence to back up the charges you made against me, you have no credibility to make any further comments on my character. Happy hunting.

      Delete
    23. Dude, I don't know what kind of drugs you take, but the use of quotations you used in the last posting is remarkable. Did you even attempt to answer any concern made towards your comments? I don't think so, but from your style of writing it is difficult to say.

      Actually, since I've seen you post, you haven't been able to address any concern directed towards you. Are you for real? Good luck with that attitude.

      Delete
    24. What concern have I left unanswered? Do you really have one left, or did you just feel the need to fit in one more ad hominem attack?

      Delete
    25. I also have to say I like how the use of quotes is indicative of drug use. Not forgetting that you've made multiple comments on how MMfA was wrong to criticize Savage. That glaring mental lapse is perfectly normal.

      Delete
  14. Ah, Willie, you tried to make a funny! Keep trying.

    "BTW, my assumptions about you are correct until you actually man-up and answer to any incorrect assumption."

    That's absurd on its face, and is a perfect example of why you are incapable of arguing with adults. Facts are not subject to your awareness, acceptance or approval. They just ARE.
    If I were to assume from your posts, for instance, that you are an overweight, wheel-chairbound teabagger, that assumption would be objectively false (or true), period, no matter how long or why I held on to it. You showing me that I was right or wrong wouldn't affect reality at all.

    And quite honestly, I don't think you have the moral and intellectual courage to accept that your assumptions and prejudices could be wrong, (you have stated, or implied at least, that assumptions gleaned from prejudice aren't bad things) so I'm not wasting my time on a fruitless endeavor.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "That's absurd on its face"

    You're right. It is absurd for me to expect you to answer direct questions.


    "And quite honestly, I don't think you have the moral and intellectual courage to accept that your assumptions and prejudices could be wrong"

    I can admit they can be wrong. But, what do I have to work with when making that decision? Do I have my "assumptions" and the "facts" you give me? Or just my "assumptions"?
    If I ask you 'what color is the sky in your world' and you answer "I don't want to tell you", then I will make an assumption about the color of the sky in your world. That assumption will be correct until I have more facts (the ones I am asking from you) to work with. Of course you must have the nads to actually discuss things as opposed to saying "I don't want to tell you" when asked a question. But, obviously, your left-wing style of conversation is waaay different than mine. At least I have the nads to answer questions when asked. You may not like the answer, but I'm not afraid (or embarrassed) to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "That's absurd on its face"

    'You're right. It is absurd for me to expect you to answer direct questions.'

    And you accuse me of picking and choosing what I want to answer. Rich. Ignore substance for a sophomoric swipe. Typical, and maybe all you're capable of.

    Once again, you don't get it. You really need to break this addiction to magical thinking. "Facts are stubborn things," and objective facts don't change because your awareness of them does. If your assumptions are wrong, as all of them about me are, they're wrong. You may choose to hold on to those assumptions if I don't choose to play your game, but that will not make them correct. This is introductory logic, but you don't seem able to process it.


    As far as nads, go play your little "mine-is-bigger than-yours" games with some of your right-wing cohorts.

    But just what questions that I've refused to answer are you referring to, and what relevance do they have to any of our socio-political discussions here?

    By the way, I see in your argument with Brab that you're asking irrelevant questions about him, so that you can categorize him, too. He's stated, accurately, that you shouldn't need that information. What you have to deal with are the views expressed, the manner in which they're expressed, and their factual, logical and ethical bases. Nothing else is relevant, and your constant need to widen the conversation into generalities so that you can bring your prejudices into play violates the very essence of honorable debate.

    ReplyDelete