Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And the sources are fine, it's HuffPo I have a problem with.
Boycott the Left!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
And the sources are fine, it's HuffPo I have a problem with.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Too funny! So now, if someone out there has an opinion on the right, that means we all share the same opinion? Does that apply to the LEFT as well, moron? Because I can think of some really wacko crazy shit that lefties have spewed, and I would love like hell to pin their views on your stupid ass! So you just let me know if that's now the standard we're using, okay?
Aww. you hurt my widdle feelings -you didn't post for me? After all the good times we've had??
You don't know shit about my politics, I guarantee you it isn't liberalism, if i had to characterize it, it would be a bias towards federalism (original intent/10th)
This is the 3rd time i'ver tried to talk to you, and you piss and moan and say "you libs" so buzz off.
HINT: I watch FOX News, even O'Reilly when he's not insane ( actually does have some good discussions).
But all us "libs" look alike to you. I ain't voting for Obama, i'm not too happy with his domestic, and abhor his foreign wars.
PPS. AP isn't "unbiased" either Bozo, thy're ALL biased.
Tough ID laws may block thousands of 2012 votes” (p. A9, sourced from the Associated Press, full story) gives token mention of reasons to support voter ID laws but mostly looks llike it was written from Eric Holder talking points.
The bias starts with the headline: “Tough ID laws.” It’s not like the laws require a DNA sample or even involve the poll taxes and literacy requirements of the Jim Crow laws favored by southern Democrats after the Civil War. No, all that is required is to show a photo ID. Here are some other situations where a photo ID is required (at least in some states):
AP Story on California High-Speed Rail Legislation's Passage Dodges State's Serious Deficit By Tom Blumer | July 07, 2012 | 12:44
It seems that Matt Drudge is a better headline writer than whoever at the Associated Press performed the same task at its story about California lawmakers' passage of "building the nation's first dedicated high-speed rail line, a multibillion dollar project that will eventually link Los Angeles and San Francisco" -- if sanity doesn't prevail in the meantime.
Since late yesterday, Drudge's home-page headline linking to the AP's story is "Broke California OKs funding for high-speed rail line..." That's a lot more complete than the wire service's "California high-speed rail gets green lightRead more: http://newsbusters.org/media-topics/wire-services/associated-press#ixzz20JyiVCir
AP described last night’s debate in November; its account began:
Mitt Romney brushed aside rivals’ criticism Saturday night in the opening round of a weekend debate doubleheader that left his Republican presidential campaign challengers squabbling among themselves far more than trying to knock the front-runner off stride.
Three days before the first in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, Romney largely ignored his fellow Republicans and turned instead on President Barack Obama. “His policies have made the recession deeper and his policies have made the recovery more tepid,” he said, despite a declining unemployment rate and the creation of 200,000 jobs last month.The AP’s gratuitous editorializing
Now these are smaller points, but still show a bias, there is no source that is not biased, some more egregious then others.
The bias starts with the headline: “Tough ID laws.” It’s not like the laws require a DNA sample or even involve the poll taxes and literacy requirements of the Jim Crow laws favored by southern Democrats after the Civil War. No, all that is required is to show a photo ID. Here are some other situations where a photo ID is required (at least in some states):
AP Story on California High-Speed Rail Legislation's Passage Dodges State's Serious Deficit By Tom Blumer | July 07, 2012 | 12:44
It seems that Matt Drudge is a better headline writer than whoever at the Associated Press performed the same task at its story about California lawmakers' passage of "building the nation's first dedicated high-speed rail line, a multibillion dollar project that will eventually link Los Angeles and San Francisco" -- if sanity doesn't prevail in the meantime.
Since late yesterday, Drudge's home-page headline linking to the AP's story is "Broke California OKs funding for high-speed rail line..." That's a lot more complete than the wire service's "California high-speed rail gets green lightRead more: http://newsbusters.org/media-topics/wire-services/associated-press#ixzz20JyiVCir
AP described last night’s debate in November; its account began:
Mitt Romney brushed aside rivals’ criticism Saturday night in the opening round of a weekend debate doubleheader that left his Republican presidential campaign challengers squabbling among themselves far more than trying to knock the front-runner off stride.
Three days before the first in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, Romney largely ignored his fellow Republicans and turned instead on President Barack Obama. “His policies have made the recession deeper and his policies have made the recovery more tepid,” he said, despite a declining unemployment rate and the creation of 200,000 jobs last month.The AP’s gratuitous editorializing
Now these are smaller points, but still show a bias, there is no source that is not biased, some more egregious then others.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Aww. you hurt my widdle feelings -you didn't post for me? After all the good times we've had??
You don't know shit about my politics, I guarantee you it isn't liberalism, if i had to characterize it, it would be a bias towards federalism (original intent/10th)
This is the 3rd time i'ver tried to talk to you, and you piss and moan and say "you libs" so buzz off.
HINT: I watch FOX News, even O'Reilly when he's not insane ( actually does have some good discussions).
But all us "libs" look alike to you. I ain't voting for Obama, i'm not too happy with his domestic, and abhor his foreign wars.
PPS. AP isn't "unbiased" either Bozo, thy're ALL biased.
Your politics are, you are a clueless idiot who doesn't know enough about politics to make an informed decision. Your "I watch Fox" line reminds me of "I have black friends!" It really doesn't PROVE any damn thing, it's just what you feel you need to say at the moment.
As for talking to me, you haven't tried that yet... you've tried lobbing insults at me, and making smarmy snide remarks about me, but talk? Nope... no indication of that from this side of the screen. I don't piss or moan, but I do say "you libs" because you all seem to march in lockstep with whatever the 'mantra' of the day is. You can't admit when your points have been refuted, or when you've lost the debate, because you HAVE to remain true to your "SIDE" and not let the evil righties win! This is a fucking GAME to you people, and whenever someone shines the light on you, we see this lame attempt to run hide behind another label, like you are some kind of new-age libertarian federalist, or anything BUT a Liberal punk.
You will sit here and crucify a Conservative politician over the slightest hint of impropriety, but when it's a Liberal, we get the "all politicians are scum" line. It's Ali's "rope a dope" strategy applied to political discourse. You criticize Conservatives and conservative policies all day long, but when Liberal policies fail miserably and don't do a thing that was promised... suddenly, you aren't liberal... you a "federalist-libertarian!" LMFAO... RIGHT!
If you can't handle it here, go back to from where you came.
How many libs even look at Fox? it's part of the way I multisource. I try to look at all sides.
As for "talking" we did discuss Nixon, you said the 18 minutes was what got him out of office, I said the criminal investigation would have done it anyhow.
We disagreed, but we DID talk.
I haven't insulted you, I've tried to carry on a conversation, but you invaraibly blow a fuse. There are posters more worth my time, you're so fucking dumb you "agree AP isn't biased" when I just showed you.
I just told you I am not voting for Obama, i find his brand of governing ( more politicing then actual governing), and his projection of US "hard power" to be the same as Bush.
I don't hold a rigid ideology, which is why you'll see me agreeing one day with the anti war crowrd, and vehemently disagreeing with another posters characterization that "Romeny is a Mormon" which disqulaifies him as POTUS" I called that poster out for using a religious test for office.
I do watch FOX REPORT -it's a decent newscast,and I want to hear what the conservative panel says. It's called an open mind, something you clearly have no use for.
You can't characterize my politics, so you lay on "my side" I have no dog in this election, i'm going with Gary Johnson.
You fail to understand the duopoly are 2 sides of the same coin -rigidly clinging to your "Dixie brand" of neoconservatism.
Forget it, think of me what you will, i gotta little space to fill. You aren't worth the vitrol that accompanies every fucking post.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
This was in the thread where you defended Obama's obstruction of Congress in not turning over documents on Fast & Furious. You made the distinction that a criminal investigation had not yet happened, as it had with Nixon. The thing that hung Nixon was the tapes. They could have never convicted or impeached the man without that physical evidence, and on testimony alone, and I don't care what you think or believe, that is a fact.
I have not said that AP isn't biased. Where and when did you read that comment from me? Not here, because that's not what was said. Her's what I said, since you apparently misinterpreted: "As for news outlets, most any AP source is credible, as well as Reuters and the BBC...even NPR. They might have some bias, but for the most part, the information presented is reliable and accurate." Did you read "the AP isn't biased" in there? I didn't! I can accept a standard with an AP story, that it has been vetted and meets certain journalistic standards for honest reporting of the news. It may very well be BIASED from the perspective of the reporter, or the news agency itself, or even in the very IDEA for the story... I never said that wasn't the case.
Good for you! But for the record, the "hard US power" thing... I don't really fault Obama for as much as some other things, because until you are sitting in the Oval Office, and have the intelligence information in front of you, and KNOW what the hell is going on, you can't make informed comments about what you will or won't do, with regard to "US power." Us common citizens do not have all the facts and details of what is going on, we can't have those, because of national security. A very small few in Washington, have this information, and can act on it. The president being one. It's a tremendous responsibility, and to think you can have some Ron Paul type philosophy, is INSANITY... which is why the goober LOST in the primaries.
Again.. good for you! So you are like Yurt and Superfreak... you're all over the board? Your brain is too intelligent to be confined to one ideology? What's the story? Because for me, I have principles and convictions that I am passionate about, and that is the basis for my political viewpoint. I am fiscal conservative, but believe in a limited degree of social services for essential needs. I am socially conservative, but only in the sense of policy, because I believe society is better off with values and morals as a cornerstone, but personally, I am socially libertarian. I smoke pot, but I don't support legalization of pot, I do favor decriminalizing it. I don't support abortion, but I can accept that society doesn't need to ban it entirely, and there can be a debate on when abortion is acceptable. We all have degrees and variations, nuanced differences, in what we believe and think. You are not special in that regard.
I don't see Fox as being any more biased than MSNBC. In fact, for the most part, they live up to the "Fair and Balanced" credo, with the exception of some personalities and their opinions. I have wanted to slap Shepard Smith's liberal ass through the TV more times than I can remember. And I can't listen to the cross-eyed goob they have on in the mid-day slot... it's amazing he has sense enough to get to work. The news babes are hot... I'll give em that! But honestly, aside from watching the Sunday news shows, I don't really watch much television. I don't have cable or satellite, and I listen to a lot of music. I usually listen to NPR at least once a day, and catch whoever is doing the national news on the radio... CBS or ABC usually, sometimes FOX... and I follow news online at a number of reputable news sources, known for accuracy and reliability... not some fucking lunatic's blog!
I can only go by what you post... If you are a constantly spinning pinwheel, who never really takes a position or has a clear foundation, how do I know?
The Dixie Brand is something none of you want to get into here. It's not neocon, that's for sure. I am of the belief that we live in a society of different voices, and all voices should be heard, but our governing should be done according to the standards set by the majority. This means, what Dixie would ultimately like, is NOT what should or could be the law of the land. I accept that my philosophy is MY philosophy, and I shouldn't expect YOU to live by it. That said, I do have a right to speak my mind, and to shape policies toward my ideas, just like everyone else.
If you believe I have treated you with disregard, I apologize. Perhaps you came here at a really unfortunate time... (with Bijou, Althea, and Howie) and since you seemed to find disagreement with me immediately, I assumed you were as pinheaded and liberal as they are... if that's not the case, I am sorry I misread you. I will avoid such attacks in the future, and hope that we can have some lively debates.
^ just forget it, if you don't understand "hard power" is a losing proposition for the US, and their victims, i can't help you. See China's use of "soft power", and tell me which country is making more gains? we are even going to leave bases in Afg - everyone says "we're leaving" we're not ( until we get kicked out like Iraq did to Obama, when he wanted to keep bases).
As to the AP - it's subtle bias, and not all articles have it, my initial point was "don't trust any source" I imagine most of us agree.
just read the post, and agree or refute, i take plenty of policy positions, i have no use for the electoral games call US elections, since we have a duopoly, I expect better of the Dem's -not "perpetual war". not Obama's war on medical marijuana. Not droning the damn planet.
The Repubs, are back asswards on social issues, as well as foreign wars, they claim they want defict reduction, but NOT DoD, nor do the Dem's.
Neither party has embraced tax reform, instead we go thru this Kabuki dance of "debt ceilings" "Bush tax cuts", not a freaking word about the upcoming unfunded mandates that threaten to swallow the Fed budget.
I got no time for political games( partisian politics), not when the US is in serious danger of becoming an entitlement society, with everyone getting a check, and "American Exceptionism" is a permanent fixture.
PS. thanks for the apology, not needed, but accepted in good will.
Althea
Althea told me...........
Which you use for an excuse when someone offers a link from Huffpo to support a position.
You aren't interested in facts, unless they come from Wiki.
That's pretty much all that we have to know about you.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well I suppose this is where 'The Dixie Brand' tends to make me more hawkish. You see, if things were completely up to me, and we could just do whatever the hell I wanted to do and screw everyone else... We'd pick a pissant country over there, like Syria, who has been nothing but trouble and is essentially comprised of thugs and terrorists, and we'd create the world's largest fishbowl from the sands. Then I believe those people would sit down and rational talk with us about their future, or we could suggest maybe creating another fishbowl out of their country? In any event, under my regime, the US would be the dominate power in the world, and no one would question it. We suffer from a weak western ideology, where we think we have to be compassionate and humane when it comes to our enemies, and that world doesn't think this way at all... it's a sign of weakness to them, and we appear weak. The Dixie Brand would have none of it.
You make a very valid point about Obama, and the promises he made to end the wars. But again, there are all kinds of American interests in play, and all kinds of commitments and tie-ins with allies to consider. Not to mention the strategic advantage of having a military presence close enough to Iran to take action should they follow through on their threats to nuke Israel. I'm not saying that's why we're there, just that there are a LOT of things to consider, many of which we simply don't know due to national security. As long as we depend on foreign oil from the middle east, the US is going to have some presence in the region... that's a fact you need to embrace, whether you are democrat, republican, or other assorted nut.
Well, no I don't agree. When it gets to that point, we can only have ANARCHY!
We've had a two party system for a long long time. In fact, most always, we've had two primary parties. Occasionally, a "third" party emerges, but this is most always a splinter from one of the two main parties. This is probably not ever going to change, it has worked pretty well for us as a nation the past 200 years or so.
Well I am sensing you are anti-military. Again, our particular views are going to clash. I am very pro-military. Cutting defense spending is not going to make a difference with the size of the deficits this president (and the last) is running up. The entire military budget is $600 billion. That's Obama's deficit spending for Jan-Apr 2012! So tell me... what are you going to cut? Which American cities or towns are going to see their base closed, and the local economy go to shit? Do we have the solution for what to do for all these displaced people, who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a place with no source of revenue? Or will we see doe-eyed Nancy and the goofball VeeP, gazing into the cameras telling us they "had no idea this would happen?" And WHY are we going to impose this problem upon ourselves? So paranoid souls like you can sleep better at night knowing that we're Switzerland when it comes to national defense? So Obama and Liberals can fritter away MORE money on their failed Keynesian policies? OR perhaps it's so we can pay more interest to China on the money we are borrowing to 'stimulate' and economy that isn't growing because of the anti-business idiot in the white house?
That's because every time a republican dares to mention "reforms" they are hooted down by the left, who LIE and DISTORT that into: Republicans want to kick old folks to the curb and steal their Medicare! OR... Republicans want people to die from lack of health care! OR... Republicans want to starve school children! Steve Forbes and Herman Cain are two Republicans I know of, who have advocated radical reform of our taxes. The "TEA Party" literally STANDS for Taxed Enough Already! Yet, you don't see how Republicans are fighting for tax reform?
I cut you off there because I need to make a point here. If you are this passionate, you should pick a party and support them. Because one of the two are going to be running the country and controlling the political power and making the policies going forward. That is a reality. This is a reality check. It's fine to disagree with your party, that is what you're supposed to do at times, it's how your party develops and forms its foundations and platforms. To simply 'check out' of the process, and reject the system we have, is a futile exercise in stupidity. The world isn't going to change because you took your marbles and went home.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I've found that "FACTS" don't generally come from HuffPo.
Wiki is not always a reliable source of facts, and I never said they were. You are distorting, in order to ridicule. It's childish.
And you would know this how, if you refuse to click on the Huffpo link?
Imbeciles always stupidly assume everyone's as dumb as they are.
One last post. The US military is fine -we need a Defense Dept. We don't need to project hard power, it didn't work in Iraq/is a clusterfuck in AfPak, and Libya was destroyed by the US led assassination of Gaddafi, bombing the NTC every inch of the way to Tripoli. It was war for oil.
They had no popular support. Karazi has no popular support -we're trying to nationbuild ( counter-insurgency) instead of just whacking AQ, like we did with the training camps(counter-terorism).
We just had to escalate under Obama, and now we're leaving so --WTF was that all about?
Do you seriously think Afg. is going to be governed from Kabul? History shows Afg. is a feudal society ( war lords, etc.) and not amendable to a national identity, muchless an army we've spent so much money on. The Taliban will be greatful for a ready made army though.
We've completely managed to take Paki out of the western sphere, they are now ( i think) full partners in China's SCO (Shanghai Co-operation Org.)
To your point about "turning Syria into sands" or whatever....no comment. it's ludicrous.
To "having troops near Iran" - why the double standard? Every other country has nukes, Iran has a right to national identity, and nukes.
Israel is pushing for us to stay there -since when does Israel control US policy?
To a 3rd party -life long Dem here -they lost me when they followed the same policy as Bush -"American Exceptionalism".
China is busily pumping oil off Cuba's coast with a Spanish subsidiary supplying the rigs, because of the embargo. Florida gets all the risks, but no benefits, and Cuba is a natural trading partner.
Look I gotta go, we are not going to agree on foreign policy, and perpetual war, with AQ.
I vote the man - even when I was a Dem, and I am not gong to vote for Obama , nor Romney. The only candidate that" gets it" is Johnson.
Yes the 2 party system is the norm, because we coalese against the "other side". It is the curse of American politics.
I'm at the age when I no longer care to play "us v them", when they are both corporately owned, and show little daylight.
Maybe it's my religion maybe just tired of the same old silly partisian games that inhibit our ability to govern.
I can't change the system, i can only control my thought/ votes.
Thanks for the detailed answers, not to be impolite, but i've heard it all before, and i reject such distinctions, the same as I reject the duopoly.
For personal liberation as much as politics, i'm not going to buy into the same old same old hyperpartisianship.
It's killing the country, we can't even talk without the mud slinging. We've managed to survive with this craziness, because we wern't into a global world till this century
If we can't even co-operate under the partisanship -how are we going to unite to make decisions for the future?
You blame the Dems, I blame the stupidity of Americans whom buy into this crap, most ppl just blindly vote their party ( there are exceptions).
No-one looks to problem solve, without political motivations paramount.
I'm done with it, NoSelf (annata) no party, no ideology. If that is not partaking of the game -so be it. I can live without clinging to an affiliation.
Been a good convo, i'm too tired to talk anymore, another day. I gotta go to work.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And you would know this how, if you refuse to click on the Huffpo link?
Imbeciles always stupidly assume everyone's as dumb as they are.
That's correct... I am not going to support the Huffington Post with my clicks. There is nothing at their site, that shouldn't also be at a host of other more reliable and credible sites, if it is legitimate, and not left-wing propaganda. Imbeciles are those who flock to HuffPo for their daily intake of information, and tune out everything else. It bothers you that I am declaring a boycott on them, which makes it even more enjoyable for me.
Goody for you, rube. Remain an ignorant, classless turd. Your boycott has no effect on Huffpo at all. They'll do just fine without clicks from inbred white trash scumbags.
Just don't stupidly expect anyone to believe you *know* what's posted there since you've never read the site. Even a third grader could see how asinine that is.
Wiki! Wiki-Wiki-Wiki! That's the rube's 'source' on everything.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, first off... I never plagiarize. (I assume that was what you meant to spell) I've never criticized anyone for backing up an argument with a legitimate source. And I don't generally provide links to sources because I am not a hypocrite about this, I believe you are fully capable of your own research. I don't need to promote my buddy's blog site, or help get hits for my trendy liberal hang-out site. Fox News certainly doesn't need my help advertising, nor does Rush, Hannity, or Glenn Beck, all of whom appear to be setting records and winning awards hand over fist, while they make bank, so helping those guys out is not a real priority for me. But I can certainly understand, with AirAmerica going into nosedive, you guys have to do what you can do... I just don't have to participate.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Good... then make like a tree and FUCK OFF!