Bytor and politics

[bytor2112]

Actually, your plethora of posts does the opposite. I'll just speak for myself.

I DO rebutt your threads. I DO do defend my positions--over and over and over again. Unfortunately, almost each time I do, my rebuttals and opinions rarely get serious, point-by-point responses, and the thread dies. What they get are insults, along the lines of "How can you really think that," or "Stop drinking the Kool aid."

In my experience, after I've written a rebuttal to one of your threads, you've already gone on and posted new ones, the previous threads end, and my rebuttals are not seen, or if they are, they are only given a cursory response because, like I said, everyone is on to your newest thread. I believes this repeats over and over again, to the point that there is perceptive cycle to the Current Events forum now.

Obviously there are many exceptions to this, yet, in my opinion, this is accurate more often than not, and I think my cyclical example is valid.

At that point it is my choice to write yet another rebuttal with basically the same information, tweaking it for your new thread, or ignore it. I've come to the point where I ignore it. Why should I bother when my responses are lost to new threads?

So I'm not going to respond anymore, or if I do, it will be rare, and it is directly because I feel like you bombard us with threads that say the same thing over and over again, and my belief that it prevents substantive discussions. It's not worth my time. (I realize you may think that's a good thing. )

Elphaba

Ok. I have responded point by point to your rebutts in the past and you didn't reply.....maybe the thread had died and you moved on...dunno. But, either way I am done. I understand your deeply flawed political opinions and you understand my deeply flawed political opinions.

[DigitalShadow]

I am glad you said that....because you just summed up my feelings for the Democrats and their Liberal agenda.....I don't get it...:)

Are you doing anything about it or are you content to blindly disagree without even understanding the other side? I admit the I don't get the conservative viewpoint, but I would like to learn more about it because a large portion of the country feels very strongly about it.

My biggest beef with Democrats is Tax increases......they always want to raise them.....it also cost Daddy Bush his second term....I won't start on the next guy after Daddy Bush...

I would consider myself fairly liberal, but I've never thought to myself "Hey, we should increase taxes!" I think the biggest problem in US politics is the misconceptions about the other side.

[Moksha]

What they get are insults, along the lines of "How can you really think that," or "Stop drinking the Kool aid."

This is especially annoying when you can see the telltale line of red Kool-Aid on their own upper lip.

I feel like you bombard us with threads that say the same thing over and over again, ... )

Elphaba

Relatively speaking, is obsessing over Obama worse than washing one's hands over and over and over again?

Edited June 10, 2009 by Moksha

[bytor2112]

I will post this at another thread as well. Much has been said regarding Bytor's threads....some of it not very kind. Such is life.

Since May 6th 2009, I have started 53 threads. ( based on a quick count) 49 of these threads included links to news stories. Of the 49 links, 13 mentioned Obama in the title and not all of the titles were negative. I posted links on various topics from the following news sources:

Wall Street Journal: 13 times

News Max: 9 times

Associated Press: 5 times

New York Times: 2 times

Los Angelos Times: 2 times

Telegraph.co. 2 times

USA Today 1 time

Washington Times 1 time

Mormon Zone 1 time

Bloomberg 1 time

San Francisco Chronicle 1 time

LDS Curch News 1 time

Jerusalem Post 1 time

Life Magazine 1 time

Pravda 1 time

Washington Post 1 time

Reuters 1 time

CBS news 1 time

New York Post 1 time

Breitbart 1 time

Economist 1 time

I have highlighted the links that are widely considered to be liberal or definitely not conservative. Nearly half the links, (9). Threads with Obama's name in the title must stick out more than the others.

Edited June 10, 2009 by bytor2112

[Elphaba]

IWashington Post

The Washington Post is a conservative publication.

[bytor2112]

The Washington Post is a conservative publication.

No....it is a liberal publication and they endorsed Obama.

[MarginOfError]

Wall Street Journal: 13 times

News Max: 9 times

Associated Press: 5 times

• Once with lamentation that Maine passed same-sex marriage law
• “Obama repackages stimulus plans with old promises”

New York Times: 2 times

• One about Obama being pressed on gay issues
• Quoted Sotomayor in order to criticize her

Los Angelos Times: 2 times

• Report on New Hampshire legalizing same sex marriage
• Face Transplant

Telegraph.co. 2 times

USA Today 1 time

• “Benefit Spending Soars to New High”

Washington Times 1 time

Mormon Zone 1 time

Bloomberg 1 time

San Francisco Chronicle 1 time

• Love or lust, Obama and the fawning press need to get a room

LDS Curch News 1 time

Jerusalem Post 1 time

Life Magazine 1 time

Pravda 1 time

• Russian tabloid

Washington Post 1 time

• Opinion piece criticizing Obama’s economic policies.

Reuters 1 time

• Rare praise of Obama

CBS news 1 time

• article about soda tax. Bytor: “Oh brother” with criticisms of government taxation plans

New York Post 1 time

Breitbart 1 time

Economist 1 time

Your proportions are not weighted very well. While 9 of your 21 sources might have liberal leanings, you only used them for 14 out of 48 posts (31%). That’s hardly half. What’s more, if we look at the content of the articles you used in the “liberal leaning” media, you see that a lot of them were actually editorials critical of Obama and/or liberals, or they were news reports of events that you would lament or criticize, usually attaching them to a liberal agenda. The reality doesn’t match up well with the picture your statistics try to paint.

[DigitalShadow]

The Washington Post is a conservative publication.

No....it is a liberal publication and they endorsed Obama.

Hmmm... it sounds like neither side wants them.

[Elphaba]

No....it is a liberal publication and they endorsed Obama.

You wrote:

I have highlighted the links that are widely considered to be liberal or definitely not conservative.

While The Washington Post used to be considered a liberal newspaper, that is no longer the case, and it is neither "liberal," or "definitely not conservative." It has moved to the right to the point I call it conservative. Perhaps moderate is a better descriptor. But it is not liberal.

From Wikipedia

:The Washington Posts’ Political stance

(I've highlighted pertinent passages showing The Post is now more conservative than liberal.)

Beginning with Richard Nixon, conservatives have often cited the Post, along with The New York Times as exemplars of “liberal media bias.“

As Katharine Graham (the former publisher of the Post) noted in her memoirs Personal History, the paper long had a policy of not making endorsements for presidential candidates.

However, since at least 2000, The Washington Post has endorsed presidential candidates. It also has endorsed Republican politicians, such as Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich. In 2006, it repeated its historic endorsements of every Republican incumbent for Congress in Northern Virginia. There have also been times when the Post has specifically chosen not to endorse any candidate, such as in 1988 when it refused to endorse then Governor Michael Dukakis or then Vice President George H. W. Bush. On October 17, 2008, the Post endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Despite its liberal reputation, the Post's editorial positions on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative bent: it has steadfastly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warmed to President George W. Bush’s to partially privatize Social Security, opposed a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq War, and advocated free trade agreements, including CAFTA.

In “Buying the War” on PBS, Bill Moyers noted 27 editorials supporting George W. Bush’s ambitions to invade Iraq. National security correspondent Walter Pincus reported that he had been ordered to cease his reports that were critical of Republican administrations.

. . . .

On March 26, 2007, Chris Matthews said on his television program, "Well, The Washington Post is not the liberal newspaper it was, Congressman, let me tell you. I have been reading it for years and it is a neocon newspaper". It has regularly published an ideological mixture of op-ed columnists, some of them on the left (including E.J. Dionne, Richard Cohen, and Eugene Robinson, and some on the right (including George Will, Michael Gerson and Charles Krauthammer.

In a November 19, 2008 column, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell stated: "I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo". Responding to criticism of the newspaper's coverage during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, Howell wrote: "The opinion pages have strong conservative voices; the editorial board includes centrists and conservatives; and there were editorials critical of Obama. Yet opinion was still weighted toward Obama. It's not hard to see why conservatives feel disrespected".

In November 2007, the Post was criticized by independent journalist Robert Parry for reporting on anti-Obama chain e-mails without sufficiently emphasizing to its readers the false nature of the anonymous claims. In 2009, Parry criticized the Post for its allegedly unfair reporting on liberal politicians, including Vice President Al Gore and President Barack Obama. Parry has previously written that there has existed a "right-leaning media imbalance" in the U.S. ever since 1977 and that "the progressive side of American politics must invest much more in media and do so immediately".

In an June 2009 Newsmax.com article, journalist Ronald Kessler reported that "... recent developments at the Washington Post demonstrate that a return to fair coverage attracts readers," and that, "Since Katharine Weymouth became publisher more than a year ago, and she named Marcus Brauchli, a former Wall Street Journal editor, executive editor in September, the paper has been making an honest effort to be fair. Hit jobs against Bush administration programs and Republicans in general have virtually vanished. Instead, the paper presents issues fairly. No longer is the other side suppressed or relegated to the last paragraph." Kessler's report goes on to adduce several recent articles in the periodical that were critical of the Obama administration, and the reporter notes that "... conservatives such as Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the Republican Study Committee; Dave Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund have noticed the change and applaud it." (emphases mine)

This hardly fit’s the descriptors “liberal,” and especially not “definitely not conservative.”

Additionally, a number of conservative/definitely not liberal newspapers also endorsed Obama; therefore, The Washington Post's Obama endorsement was not an anomaly. A few other examples:

The Houston Chronicle

New Mexico Independent

Austin American Statesman

Chicago Tribune (first time it ever backed a Democratic candidate)

The New York Post

The Seattle Times

Elphaba

Edited June 10, 2009 by Elphaba

[bytor2112]

While The Washington Post used to be considered a liberal newspaper, that is no longer the case, and it is neither "liberal," or "definitely not conservative." It has moved to the right to the point I call it conservative. Perhaps moderate is a better descriptor. But it is not liberal.

So...you admit you were wrong then. Good. (ok, maybe I was wrong too, but I won't admit it)

[Elphaba]

(ok, maybe I was wrong too, but I won't admit it)

Well, at least you admit you won't admit it.

Elph

[Palerider]

Are you doing anything about it or are you content to blindly disagree without even understanding the other side? I admit the I don't get the conservative viewpoint, but I would like to learn more about it because a large portion of the country feels very strongly about it.

I would consider myself fairly liberal, but I've never thought to myself "Hey, we should increase taxes!" I think the biggest problem in US politics is the misconceptions about the other side.

not doing anything about it.....I was raised in Teamster Truck Drivers family....all I heard about growing up was how great the Dem party is and was......I have no use for it

Name the last Democrat President that did not raise taxes....

The last 2 raised taxes and this one will too....just sit back...its coming....then you can listen to the ...The Tax Man

[DigitalShadow]

not doing anything about it.....I was raised in Teamster Truck Drivers family....all I heard about growing up was how great the Dem party is and was......I have no use for it

Name the last Democrat President that did not raise taxes....

The last 2 raised taxes and this one will too....just sit back...its coming....then you can listen to the ...The Tax Man

I definitely have a liberal bias, but I would not consider myself a democrat, nor do I vote straight democrat (though I often find them a better choice than the republican candidate). Liberal is not necessarily the same as democrat, just like conservative is not necessarily the same as republican.

[Moksha]

Do you guys have phenomenal memories for all these posts or is there a way to search for specific content written by yourself or another with the site's search engine?

[FunkyTown]

So...you admit you were wrong then. Good. (ok, maybe I was wrong too, but I won't admit it)

Centrists definitely don't claim the Washington Post. I'd claim the Tribune over that.

EDIT: I should explain that. The Washington Post creates news and uses sensational editorials to try to sell newspapers. The editorials section tends to attract rabid conservatives, though they grant noted liberal biases some speech on it. The paper itself leans Republican in a neo-con way rather than an actual conservative viewpoint. This is why they don't make very many friends.

Its pro-Obama endorsement was similar to what many 'endorsements' were, in my opinion: It was designed not to promote Obama, but to degrade McCain. "If this Country is going to Hell in a Handbasket, I'd rather a Democrat be in power." seemed to be the opinion of many.

Edited June 11, 2009 by FunkyTown

[Churchmouse]

The way I read the rules were that you can post anything here as long as it follows the talk guidlines. Bytor can post whatever opinion he wants and quote whatever sources he wants. Anyone out there ever heard of free speech?

I'll sum up my opinion of Obama. I just ordered a bumper sticker. "Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing it's idiot".

He is the biggest enemy of capitalism ever to sit in the White House.

[Palerider]

I have my bumper sticker already and it says.....

I didn't Vote For Him, but, Elphaba Did....