Live and Learn

Sally...welcome back. Were you on vacation? We missed you. Really!

Sally, I would not be a good candidate. H&C is not conservative or liberal. I would leave them out since their show is as balanced as it gets. Each one has equal time with their own guests for the that days show. Watching or listening (or not watching or listening) to either would be a better way to approach this.

I was once a very hard liberal, so I’m still in tune with these publications. It’s where I get my liberal news from. I use it to teach my children as to how bias our media truly is.

So, what should I do?

Hi -- I missed you guys too -- got caught up in the end-of-the-school-year frenzy of STUFF! Jim, yes you are right about Hannity/Colmes -- I watched for the first time the other day and it was pretty balanced and civil. I am not usually a TV watcher. (See? That was my bias -- it was on Fox, so I assumed it was a "let's beat up the liberals" kind of show).

I think the rest of those examples hold true though, don't they?

I just think it would be a great exercise in de-fusing/diffusing some of the aggression out there. If we try to understand where the "other" is coming from, we are all better off. And our arguments will make more sense. Otherwise, I see this tendency to demonize and distort the opponent. This is not healthy for our society!

Jim, I am wondering what event or epiphany took place, that so transformed you from far left to far right. As a scaredy-cat centrist that just wants everyone to understand each other and get along better, this really intrigues me about you. What was it?

Sally...if you do get this up and running, I would like to critique the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel. I did a 3 year study after the Chairman of the Board, Steve Smith, made a comment that the Milw. JS was losing subscriptions. They also had a law suit that made the JS pay back money to those that advertised due to some wrong reporting with their subscriptions or demographics in general. I tried to show Mr. Smith, along with Marty Kaiser and Betsy Brenner, both on the Editorial board, as to why they keep losing subscriptions and why their stock price has fallen to lows not seen in many years (the NY Times lost 2/3 of its stock price due to falling subscriptions too).

I had many email conversations with Kaiser and Brenner and we even met for lunch. I showed them, using empirical evidence from their OWN paper, as to how liberal bias the JS truly is. I even tried to let them know of the many people I know that have dropped the paper due to their bias journalism. Including past JS employees!

The bottom line was the fact that my three year study came up with liberal bias in the Milw. JS with a daily avg. running 3-1 to 5-0. Not much was said or done to improve their lost subscriptions or stock value even though I gave them a great idea to help bolster their falling subscriptions. I was told they will not balance out this paper because they think the JS is already balanced. Even though my evidence, that was right in front of them when we met for lunch, proved otherwise. That’s why I no longer read the Milw. JS except for the sports and business.

Sally:  Sorry, I already read and reference liberal publications and news.  That's where I get some of my best stuff.  I don't think the exercise would prove anything.  Also, why in your blog post do you describe liberals as :  "fascinating and odd", yet conservatives - in your words - are "so angry"?  Actually, in all my dealings with liberals I have found them to be the most hate-filled and spiteful.  Witness Jeff Blackwell's latest comment to me:  "with NO respect, Amy, who the hell do you think you are?" - just because I asked him for a few facts to back up his usual baseless claims....  Most liberals seems to have little sense of humor and a huge chip on their shoulder - but there have been studies written in the papers about how much happier conservatives are....wonder why that is?www.huffingtonpost.com/.../research-conservatives-ha_n_100664.html

And it has been shown that conservatives are also more generous when it comes to giving to charity.  From the Washington Post:  Liberal families average 6% more income than conservative families, yet conservative families were found to give 30% more of their income to charity...

Interesting, especially since conservatives are so "cold-hearted"....

To me, liberals just seem fascinating and odd, and conservatives just seem plain angry. Sorry, that's just a generalization of how I see it.  There is real righteous anger behind many liberal positions, of course, and there are conservatives who have excellent senses of humor.

So if, as you say above, "in all my dealings with liberals I have found them to be the most hate-filled and spiteful," I am wondering if you might care to be the bigger person, and give them another chance. To open your mind a little and try to understand the mindset behind where they are coming from. I'm sure there are some liberals (and conservatives)  out there who are not hate-filled and spiteful. Just disappointed with the state of how things are. WOuld you be willing to try and seek them out and understand their point of view?

So your generalization is that conservatives "just seem plain angry".  I am wondering if you are going to be a "bigger person" and give conservatives a chance?

And I should have clarified my earlier comment regarding liberals to mean "liberals I have conversed with and/or read on the livinglakecountry.com blog sites seem hate-filled and spiteful".  I know many liberals - especially since I work in the school system - and many are very nice and likeable.  We just steer clear of politics.  I have a few relatives who could be considered on a par with some of the most liberal bloggers on the livinglakecountry site - and we get along just fine and have a few good laughs.  And again, we never discuss politics.

And no, Sally, I can honestly say that I cannot understand a point of view that promotes hatred towards the President of the country - in the most vile, unrelenting way Democrats and liberals have behaved towards George Bush during the past eight years.  I cannot understand a viewpoint that doesn't champion the United States and continues to cheer our failings while ignoring successes.  I will never understand a point of view like that, nor do I want to.

Sally, I bet the reason you see conservatives as plain angry is because that is the way they are depicted in the media.  The media doesn't want you to see the majority of conservatives who are happy, smart, contributing people who are chuck full of common sense :)

I'm in! This should be fun lets do it people!

You are the greatest, Shoe Guy. I think the only way to truly understand another's point of view is to try and crawl into their skin and see the world through their eyes, openly and honestly, for a bit. It's hard. Let's try! I actually went on the Rush Limbaugh site for the first time yesterday. It was an eye opener. I didn't agree with anything. But I started to glean some sense of the mindset where his supporters are coming from.  

I will be happy to read National Review, or continue my enjoyment of Kevin Philips' work.  However, I won't listen to Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.  I watched Rush's TV show for giggles in the early 90s, but then it just stayed stupid.  I don't follow liberal buffons, and I won't follow conservative ones, either.  If someone makes an intelligent observation, they get a fair hearing from me.  Remember, as per my intro, the only reason I call my blog liberal is because others placed that moniker on me.  That said, neither liberal nor conservative should convey a positive nor negative connotation.  In fact, the words today are almost meaningless, except as epithets thrown by one group against another.  However, I am reading the Bible right now...does that count as conservative?  I have a Dixiecrat aunt who would say no...

Hmmm, I just posted, but now I have to go to the store, and I think it didn't go, so I will summarize:  Rush and Ann, no.  Buckley and Philips, yes.

Sally...what about me? I did my homework?

I would be willing to further immerse myself in the world of media, though I try to get it from all sources.

Oh Jim, what homework did you do? Tell us. Re: your post about the Milw. J-S, interesting. However I think all local newspapers around the country are hurting these days... By the way Jim I still haven't read "Bias," but it's on my list. How about if you try "What's the Matter with Kansas" by THomas Frank?

Jacob: I think a book you might find interesting is "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" by Chris Hedges. Also you make me think of a highly intelligent and insightful book by a young  man hardly out of his teens: "Being America: Liberty, Commerce, and Violence in an AMerican World" by Jedediah Purdy (Knopf, 2003). I think you would relate to his style of writing.

I recently did my share of checking out liberal publications - specifically Barack Obama's "Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from my Father".   Reason being, I have been sent many e-mails saying that there are specific quotes in each book that reflect very poorly on Mr. Obama.  In some cases, I found the actual quotes that had been referenced, in others, words had been changed to make a quote sound worse than it actually was.  However - at least I read both books - and believe me it was painful.  I did my part.  I will continue to tune in to CNN/MSNBC for a good laugh, as well as check out the New York Times, Newsweek and Time, as well as the good ole Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel.  All liberal publications that provide lots of material for a conservative blogger like me to use...  

Teacher...please, my homework was a three year study of bias in the Milw. JS. Who you know from these blogs that did their homework as well as me? Are you making fun of me because the data shows just how liberal our only paper is? That's not the liberal way, is it? What do you want me to do going forward and what should I report when I find lies, etc., in one of these publications? I’m serious. You should be too.

Before I started my blog, I resolved to not comment on the other blogs here. However, since I am now apart of the family and your post specifically address me - here I am.

Sure, I am willing to read anything Conservative, but I think we should center around one issue and one issue only and then discuss it. Amy, or the "centrist" Jim can pick the issue and the article they like the most and they think is the most appropriate. What is not appropriate is too accuse one of being a terrorist when one criticizes the president or the current administration. This is my only beef with Amy. I would not have got aggressive with her otherwise, and neither would have Jeff Blackwell.

Anyway, I get all my news online. Mostly from RSS feeds. To me, I don't care if the organization is "liberal" or "conservative," but what the article is saying. Is there any merit to what is being said and what is being reported? Is there gross hyperbole? If one tends to see witches and demons everywhere, one tends to find them.

Jim, I'm interested in your study. Could you please explain to me your methodology in uncovering this bias? I assume you did some type of meta-study. Also, how did you define liberal? How do you define conservative? Centrist? What is a centrist? Is a Centrist anything that is not the two? Do Centrist have no political opinions or social or conservative values? You can email and email me these answers and the study, if you so choose too.

Otherwise, Sally, I could not think of a better mod. I suggest we use the forum features that LCL now has.

MC Pickard and Jeff Blackwell:  When have I ever called either one of you a terrorist?  I stand by my claim that your rhetoric and anti-American statements side with the enemy we now are fighting.  I also stand by my claim that liberalism is as dangerous to this country as is terrorism.  Both seek to destroy America as we know it.  And can either of you answer me why Hamas, a known terrorist organization, supports Barack Obama in his quest to become President?  Isn't that kind of disturbing?  (Or his other radical, hate-America friends, pastors, wife? for that matter.) Maybe not, if you feel that Obama will tear down the America we know and make it a socialist state, ...isn't that what you wish?  Obama is marketing Marxism...

 "Getting aggressive" in MC's own words,  means, to MC and Mr. Blackwell, resorting to foul language and name-calling when confronted with questions they cannot answer.  Why are the non-judgemental and open-minded liberals always the first to resort to such tactics?  Maybe to draw attention away from the fact that their arguments for a liberal way of looking at things usually are senseless and solve nothing.  Feel-good politics doesn't do one thing to help improve this country.  This has been proven time and time again.

 Sorry Sally, I was actually once a clueless liberal for four long years during my college days, then I wised up.  I have seen the other side and I wouldn't want to go back to it.  Liberalism seems to portray everything that is normal as bad, while everything that is abnormal is to be celebrated.  While many problems are black and white, liberals cannot get out of the grey area in which they exist.  Facts and the truth do matter in solving problems.  Too bad liberals don't see it that way.

MC...if you don't know by now the difference between a liberal, conservative and or a centrist, there’s not much hope for you or not much I can do.

In regards to my study and how I came up with the data? I read the paper from front to back and gave one point for each letter or article in the main section, editorial, and opinions section to the liberal side or the conservative side depending on the theme. Pretty simple.

Victor...let's not forget this unarguable fact: “Had the mainstream media done its job with fair and honest reporting, people like Rush and Ann would never have started. Who said that? Pres. of ABC to Bernard Goldberg after he wrote his book “Bias.”

For the record, I object to the tone of the last three messages by Jim and Amy. Come on you guys! You are intelligent enough to be able to disagree with others without having to resort to nastiness. Just because liberal bias paved the way for folks like Rush and Ann -- that is no reason to follow a bad example. Such a turn-off. I'd be much more likely to consider your ideas if you presented them without all the personal slurs and meanspiritedness. I don't think you guys must really be like that in real life. Harness your political passion for the positive! Show us your integrity! Respectfully stated.    

Sally:  Object to the tone?  Who started off her blog saying that conservatives are "so angry" while liberals are "odd yet fascinating".  You seem biased from the start.

I did not have a tone in mind while writing my comment.  Guess the truth hurts.

Sally…really, you must be kidding? Do you read your liberal friends comments too?

Explain these comments from you and point out my “nastiness” please.

“Jim, I am wondering what event or epiphany (epiphany? My word) took place, that so transformed you from far left to far right. As a scaredy-cat centrist.”

“Oh Jim, what homework did you do? Tell us”

Show me, don’t tell me, the difference from my last comment that you referenced to and the comments from you. I won’t even touch the ones from the liberals. Just you and me.

Sally...Ok, we do our homework, which isn't such a bad idea by the way, than what? I can easily go back and read the Milw. JS but I also watch the top three liberal TV news broadcast as much as possible. What would you like me to do? I'm truly all ears.

Sorry, JIm, I was referring to myself as the scaredy cat centrist, not you. And I honestly was (and am) curious as to what event or epiphany (meaning sudden insight) changed you? No disrespect intended.

I am trying to understand where you and Amy are coming from. Openly.

As for the homework, I thought you were joking with me so I joked back to you.

Amy, my observing that conservatives seem so angry is just that: a personal observation. Therefore by nature biased. When you say to me things like "guess the truth hurts," there is an underlying aggression behind your words. YOu guys are so passionate about the positions you care about (which is fine), that you let poison seep in (which is a bad thing). I know you will vehemently disagree. Oh well.

The point of what this blog was suggesting was openmindedness. Turning to the "other side" in a genuine effort to understand -- not a search for "material" to attack, or a counting-up of instances of bias, of which there are plenty everywhere.

I was hoping we could try to look for understanding of why "the enemy" holds dear the positions tht they do. Really open or ur minds and examine: where are our fellow Americans coming from? What are the basic underlying thoughts, fears, assumptions, values, that drive the "liberal and "conservative" mindset?  

It is an impossible exercise unless one can clear one's mind and open one's heart enough to be neutral, like an observing scientist. That was what I was after in this blog.

@Jim: My interpretation of what a liberal, conservative and a centrist is not at issue. Yours are. You are the one, after all, that did a 3 year study of liberal bias. Therefore, in order to for me to understand how you reached the conclusion of liberal bias at JS, I need to understand your terms. This helps to qualify the data you've collected. (You know that "empirical" part you mentioned.)

Now I read that your study consisted of reading and adding points. Wow. I see why the JS editorial staff was unconvinced. One problem with your method, Jeff, is the awarding of points is completely arbitrary and based upon your own credulity. Another problem that I see is that people are not as neatly categorized as you think, and neither are newspapers. Take for instance my parents, who normally vote democractic, strong on unions, yet voted to amended the state constitution to take away the right of marriage to gays. Here,they sided with a social conservative side.

What does that mean in terms of your study? Again, its completely arbitrary as to what you define as liberal, conservative, or centrist. You also ignore any degree of nuance.

However, this does not mean that there is no liberal bias at JS. It just means your study is of little value in proving that it is so. Sorry. I don't mean to be mean on this. I work with metrics quite a bit.

Anyway, my two cents.

______________________

Sally,

I apologize for hijacking your thread. I was hoping that JH would email me the info.

I agree, I don't think AH and JH are this strident in real life.

Sally:  Your words "you guys are so passionate about the positions you care about, that you let poison seep in."  Now, I find that that statement can be applied without question to Jeff Blackwell, MC Pickard and Victor Ponelis just as easily as you can apply it to me.  However, I have never resorted to foul language and name-calling like all 3 people I just mentioned.  Yet conservatives are "nasty"???  Where is the objectivity in your comments and blog?  I see you bristle at the "tone" of comments from Jim Hayett and myself.  Where is the same dismay at liberals who say even worse - with personal attacks, rather than discussing the facts?  Liberalism at it's best - when you cannot make a clear, concise argument against a conservative viewpoint, attack the messenger and avoid the message.  

Sally...I'm ready. But the poison and venom is not coming from Amy or me. It’s coming from our mainstream media, Hollywood, college professors (please don’t make me name them. We all know who in Hollywood and what professors I’m talking about.) and those that push their liberal agenda on everyone. This is why my blog is titled, “Fighting Liberal Lies.” The anger, at least for the past 7 years, is coming from the far anti-war left.

MC...the study was in such detail that the JS had not much to say. In one instance the JS put on the front page a story about WI strip clubs recruiting customers to vote democrat (front page story??) while a story from the FBI that found John Kerry giving a speech at a terrorist group, which was formed to kill US Senators, near the back page and a very small article, says it all. The response from those at the JS during the three year study proves my point as does this example. Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman are the top liberal, Bush haters that permeate the paper but never a Clolter, Hannity or Limbaugh editorial or opinion to respond. Why not?

Don’t forget that the media is polled quite often and those results show the media to be 80-90% liberal. Do you think their news isn’t bias? Especially when it comes to politics, Bush, Republicans and or the war?

Sally...point well taken. Sorry, my mistake on your comment.

@Amy, you state "When have I ever called either one of you a terrorist?"</i>

Unbelievable. In one breath you deny that you call us a terrorist, yet accuse us that our "rhetoric and anti-American statements side with the enemy." And then continue to add that  "liberalism is as dangerous to this country as is terrorism." You then come onto my blog and state "If only liberals would champion the "rights" of the US fighting men and women instead of always looking out for the enemy, the world may be a safer place." So, who else is this directed at Amy? Who?

Heck I could argue, that, in fact, terrorism has been very good to you. Gives you something to demonize your perceived enemy - liberals.

Well, here's the proof, right in your own words with references:

<b>It's Hemmer Time</b>

01. "Our military sure doesn't seem to want to lose, why do the Democrats?" (Comment: <a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../obama-s-math-problem.aspx">Obama's math problem. Wednesday, Feb 20 2008, 01:45 PM</a>

02. Comment:  "We've got to protect this country at all costs - from the terrorists that want to kill us to the liberals who want to destroy it." <a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../barack-obama-is-a-dangerous-man.aspx">Barack Obama is a dangerous man. Monday, Mar 3 2008, 05:22 PM</a>

03. Comment:  I do not go along with their hatred of our President nor their bordering-on-treason rhetoric about the war in Iraq and lack of true support for our troops.<a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../silence-the-conservatives.aspx">Silence the Conservatives!!! April 10, 2008 9:03 AM</a>

04. "Comment: Democrats...wanting to lose the war - in other words, supporting terrorists." <a href=" ">Bush, Cheney rebuked (gasp!) June 8, 2008 1:08 PM</a>

05. Comment:  "Today, our country must not only fight against terrorists - there is a clear and present danger within our own borders -  journalists, liberals and Democrats - who would prefer to see America lose and our country fail." <a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../media-bias.aspx">If the mainstream media had reported on D-Day...Monday, Jun 9 2008, 09:13 AM </a>

06. Comment: "The Democratic Party we have seen since in the last few decades is composed of many extreme-fringe lefties...who wish to destroy America."<a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../positive-news-regarding-iraq.aspx">Positive news regarding Iraq. April 21, 2008 6:35 PM</a>

07. Comment: "American voters really need to question why a terrorist organization wants Barack Obama to be in the White House.  What's next for Obama - an endorsement from Al-qaeda?"<a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../hamas-endorses-obama-for-president.aspx">Hamas endorses Obama for President. Friday, Apr 25 2008, 07:21 PM</a> (This linking liberals, democrats as terrorist helpers.)

08. Comment: "Liberalism is the most threatening ideology to our country today - it ranks right up there with terrorism." <a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../obama-s-political-accomplishments-part-2.aspx">Obama's Political Accomplishments - Part 2. May 14, 2008 7:11 AM</a>

09. Comment: "I agree that Osama bin Laden is one of the greatest threats to our country...Obama is just as dangerous - since he could possibly be elected to lead the nation!  If that were to happen, terrorists everywhere would rejoice and the downfall of the United States would begin."<a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../bush-nails-it.aspx">May 18, 2008 2:39 PM</a> (Another link that Amy asserts between terrorists and liberals.)  

10. Comment: "If I inspire others to unite and fight against the liberals who wish to destroy America, as well as the terrorists - I am accomplishing something. <a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../john-mccain-and-the-pledge-of-allegiance.aspx">John McCain and the Pledge of Allegiance. May 20, 2008 4:03 PM</a>

<b>Live and Learn</b>

11. Comment: "I also stand by my claim that liberalism is as dangerous to this country as is terrorism."<a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../i-propose-a-little-experiment.aspx">I propose a little experiment. June 10, 2008 2:08 </a>

12. Comment: "Both seek to destroy America as we know it."<a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../i-propose-a-little-experiment.aspx">I propose a little experiment. June 10, 2008 2:08 PM</a>

<b>Fighting Liberal Lies! </b>

13. Comment: "Liberalism is like a disease." <a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../welcome-to-fighting-liberal-lies.aspx">Welcome to Fighting Liberal Lies!

April 11, 2008 6:22 PM</a> (Although not specifically relating terrorism and liberalism, shows Amy's general attitude about liberals.)

<b>Be the Change</b>

14. Comment: "More likely, vote Democratic and terrorists everywhere will be rejoicing" <a href="community.livinglakecountry.com/.../change-of-course.aspx">Change, of course? February 11, 2008 7:52 PM</a>

...actually, that's enough. We can see the pattern here. When issues of foreign policy, namely the Iraq War, use of torture, or criticism of Bush is uttered by a liberal on this site, Amy conflates liberalism with terrorism. The proof is in her words.

So, please Amy do not be surprised when Jeff or I get aggressive toward you and call you out. If you can not stand the push back, being named called and the word "damn" - stick your fingers back in your ears already and stay off my blog, unless you have something else to offer.  

__________________

Sally - Again much apologies. I am willing to read a conservative piece and discuss the merits of what is being offered. I think that the forums will be the best place to discuss this.  

MC…I'm ashamed of you and also ashamed that you write in these blogs. There is not one word where Amy calls you of Jeff a "terrorist." The proof all over this country shows that many liberal democrats (many in high places and in our own Gov.) do side with terrorism and will completely ignore the facts that show how evil terrorism is. From Guantanamo Bay to the Iraq war, the same cowardly hypocrites that said “Saddam must be taken down since he has WMD’s and is a national threat to the US and our allies” are the same ones that now find fault with the US and not the enemy. Are you one of those MC?

@Jim: Let me see if I got this straight, you went to your meeting with the JS people and did not provide for them a vetted study? What did you give them? A cocktail napkin with some hash marks? Your word that the paper is liberal?

Jim admit it, you never did a study. You never thought once about designing a double blind experiment to measure bias, or a meta study analyzing overall content. You never thought once about trying to repeat the study to confirm your conclusions, nor did you have your "study" peer reviewed and vetted. You never thought once what the words "conservative" "centrist" or "liberal" meant. Heck, you can not even describe what these words mean even after I asked. And you never thought once that people, like newspapers, are diverse in the opinions, beliefs, and values and can not be easily categorized. And since you never thought about it, you never designed a study to address it.

Also, what do you mean that the "study was in such detail that the JS had not much to say"? Unh? JS is either advocating a liberal position or it is not. I assume your basing your "study" on what it says? Now it seems to me like your stating that JS was not advocating anything liberal if it had "not much to say." Wow.  

Sorry Jim, you decidedly have not done your homework.

But if I am wrong about all this, please, why not post your study up in the forums section, or email it to me and I am very willing to read it and still consider your conclusions based upon the strength and quality of evidence. I am willing to even sign a Non-disclosure if your afraid of copywrite infringement. If you post the study in the forums, let us know when you do.

Other things....

Okay, for the sake of argument, you cite one article that you feel uncovers some great JS liberal conspiracy and bias in its newspaper. (May I have a reference to that article please?) Great. So we have one article to base this conclusion that the whole of JS is liberal. One article? Seriously, your argument hinges on one article? (Hint: Your study's conclusions are stronger  or weaker depending on size of sample. This gives us a statistical likelihood to the validity of the conclusion reached.) Wow. No Jim, contrary to your belief, but the placement of one article does not "say it all."

Also, I didn't realize Maureen Dowd  and Paul Krugman (who writes opinions and editorials and are not news reporter) were the MSM. Really? They must be rather busy generating all that content. Also, I seem to recall Dowd pretty harsh toward Gore. Would it be fair of me then to accuse the whole of media "conservative"

And for the sake of argument, so what if Dowd/Krugman hate Bush and Coultler/Hannity/Limbaugh? So what? I'm sure C/H/L feel the same way about D/K. This is evidence of what? Even this animosity is true, it only attests to the animosity between these people, not about the content bias of the media.

As far as "80-90%" polling of the media showing its liberal proclivities, can you tell me which studies are those? Your case will be made stronger by the more studies which show this. If any of those analyze the JS, that would strengthen your case as well.

In Conclusion...

Lastly, throwing Dowd/Krugmen, random articles, and an unattributed number of 80 or 90% from some mysterious study is a moving of the goal posts. It is you, Jim, that stated that JS is biased liberal, and when asked to provide your study, explain your terms, and describe your methodology you fail to do so and bring in other, non-appliable factors.

Therefore, I think the readers and other participants of LCL.com can ignore your assertions regarding the bias of the JS until you prove them. Also, I recommend not talking about your "study" any longer as proof of your authority in these matters.

But, I suppose, it is your choice to embarrass yourself or not.

MC...If you don't know who or what media outlets are liberal, than there is no point in a discussion with you. You weren’t at the meeting or involved in any emails. That's because I would assume you don't know the difference from liberal media to fair and balanced media. This comes from your comments and emails, so no attack intended.

Wrong again Mr. MC. No cocktail napkins. Three years of saved data directly from the Milw. JS to prove my point. Your comments that come from your lack of research, along with not reading the entire blogs, comments, or issues at hand, is another reason why I left liberalism. I was like you and ignored the facts and had no tolerance for other ideas opinions or more important: The truth. Hurts, doesn’t it.

MC...sorry. The studies were done by the media themselves. Not empirical enough for you? I can see you have no interest in learning more about our bias media or watch anything but the liberal media. If you did, your comments, along with your questions, would be significantly different. Balanced, so to say?

MC:  Please stop telling me to put my fingers in my ears - it's annoying.  Come up with something else.  I can take the foul language and derogatory comments coming from you, don't worry - I'm a big girl.

So, MC, when you say "don't be surprised if you and Jeff get aggressive towards me", that tone is OK - I'm surprised Sally hasn't called you out on any of your mean-spiritedness like she always does to conservatives.  But that's OK, just another example of the liberal double-standard.  Oh, and reading your comment with my examples led me to believe that I am on the right track and am "calling you out".  If you can't take it, put your fingers in your ears...

@Jim: Ah, I see. Since Jeff and I are the liberals here, we are not to take offense when you and Amy when you state things like that we "do side with terrorism." How else are we supposed to read that? Yeah so fine, Amy never called us a "terrorist" just all other liberals. Just how gullible do you think the people that read this board and Jeff and I are? Also, when did you and Amy become mind readers? How do you know how I exactly feel? Did you read my fear when the skies were silent and the rest of Chicago had shut down during that day? Did you feel my anger at those who attacked us? did you know of my joy when we attacked Afghanistan to get the Taliban and al Queda? Well did you?

No you do not. You and Amy are more interested in a witch burning.

You also state that the "proof all over this country."  Really? for the sake of argument Jim, lets assume there are more liberals in this country than terrorists. Let us also assume here are just as many liberals as conservatives. You believe the media is controlled by liberal forces. By your arguments and beliefs, all this culminates into a climate that should be ripe for attacks. Despite the fact that our troops are overseas are "attacking the enemy" - do you think it takes a genius to also apply "attack them there than over there." What do you think 911 was? Well? If liberals are, as Amy puts it "as dangerous to this country as is terrorism" we should be having way more attacks here. But we do not. Therefore, liberals are not dangerous to this country, and are not siding with terrorists.

I wish you and Amy would debate honestly. I wish you would back up your assertions and confine the number and relevancy of them. I really wish you wouldn't try to implicate and smear those that disagree with you as terrorists. I wish you two would back off of the mean-spirited rhetoric and face the criticism. I wish you would stop assuming what I or Jeff believe. I'll give you a hint Jeff, when you insult someone as a terroists they are not going to give your other points, valid as they may or may not be, even a chance.

My patience with you Jeff is nearing the end. I think you are reasonable guy, well, in some cases and I really would like to discuss with you and Amy these issues. But all you issue is one blatant personal attack after another. Again, do not be surprised when I push back. By all means, whine all you want and cry foul when I do.

MC...not sure sure about media bias? This was just emailed to me a few minutes ago

Perhaps I missed it but I thought it was interesting that Jim Doyle spent his day on Tuesday playing 18 holes of golf at a political fund raising event for his own campaign.  Meanwhile residents of the state are watching their lives flow down stream.  Geroge Bush got reamed for being in school class room during 9/11 and for only flying over Katrina ..... and everytime he even takes a few days vacation the JS is all over him for relaxing while there are troops fighting in Iraq.  You have to wonder if Ricardo Pimento and the rest of the phonies at the newspaper will have the same indignation over their boy Diamond Jim fiddling while Rome burned.   I won't hold my breath.

The story broke on the Mark Belling show yesterday.

MC...you are wasting my time and you are most unbelievable. After reading your comments I can't fathom why or how I was ever a liberal. Did I act this way too when I was a liberal? If I did, I apologize to anyone that remembers those days of mine.

AGAIN never did I say “you or Jeff can not take offense” to my blog or comments or did I ever suggest that. How come every time I, or any non-liberal for that matter, asks a question to liberals like you, and especially with facts to back it up, the answers are lies, smears, and total avoidance to the question and the truth. Just like you have done in your recent comments. Unbelievable. Or is it?

@Jim: The burden of proof is on you. I gave you every chance to prove your assertion about the biases at JS and to show me (us) the data. In fact, I wanted you too. However, you resist. Well, blame yourself Jim.

@Amy: Well, then you do admit that you think that Jeff and I terrorists. In fact you've just stated that you are on "the right track" So please Amy, do not ever again deny it.

Since I have now have exhaustively demonstrated this, and you have agreed, we have nothing further to discuss.

__________

And please, don't attack Sally. I have news for you both - we are not your enemies. However, it is you, Amy and Jim, who smear and iterate over and over again that we are your enemy. I do not believe you are the enemy. I do know we have disagreements over policy. It is valid to have those discussions. But poisiong the well and personal attackes do nothing to further your arguments.

Best regards,

MC

MC

Classical rhetoricians have a name for the rhetorical fallacy of personally smearing  one's opponent instead of actually addressing the issue at debate: ad hominem, or "against the man. It's a foul. So I cry foul.  Points duly deducted. Amy and Jim, when you bully and taunt other bloggers to the point where they lash out in anger, then point a finger at them and call them meanspirited, it does not reflect well on you.

Just because others have different views how to handle terrorists, does not mean that they themselves are terrorists. Please be careful with your accusations. You are crossing a risky, slanderous line.

Well, I think we have reached the end of this particular experiment. Maybe we can try again some other time (after the election?).

Sally its hard! "Well, I think we have reached the end of this particular experiment." My week is not up Im going to keep it up. Sally you might not change them all but if you show one person a way to look at the world alittle different then your experiment was a success. H*ll I even went to johnmccain.com and looked at so info on him, I even read his story. (My Sally Pla Experiment)

MC...you have the data in more than one instance. Choose what you wish, but don't put words in my mouth that are not true or said. That part of liberalism is not for me or about me

Sally....when did I call Jeff or MC a terrorist? Amy too? “Crossing the line” comes from those like you that make these accusation and assertions when if fact there isn’t one ounce of proof. More liberal smear campaigns on the local level? Bullying who and from who Sally?

MC...for the last time, PLEASE read the blogs and the comments! I never said you, Sally or Jeff are the enemy. It looks like at times you side with the enemy (my opinion from your rhetoric only) but never did I say that you are the enemy. Why do you liberals keep making up these lies about people?  I also never attacked you. Is this what liberalism is all about? More proof as to why I left liberalism.

Jim, your interpretation and others' interpretation of what's been written is arguable. It's certainly possible to interpret that you are calling liberals guilty-of-terrorism-by-association. I hope we can move on now?    Shoe Guy, I am glad you are keeping up the experiment. I am too.    

I always find it so interesting that liberals can be as downright nasty as they want to be, but bristle whenever anyone calls them on it.  Yet, anything by conservatives - use of facts, logic and just basic observations becomes "mean-spirited".  

And in my own defense, I have never said that liberals are terrorists.  Terrorists wish to kill us.  I do not believe that MC Pickard and Jeff Blackwell want to kill anyone.  However, terrorism and liberalism do share a common goal - destroying the United States as we know it.  Terrorists just want to murder us all.  Liberals want to tear down our social structure by having activists judges, promoting every sexual preference out there and rallying against man/woman marriage, laughing at "family values", fighting against Voter ID which would ensure honest elections (sometimes I think that's the only way Demcrats hope to win - by cheating), worrying more about criminals than their victims, doing nothing to stop illegal immigration, sneering at those who are religious,  and of course the usual - tax, tax, tax.  More money for every useless social program imaginable, all in the name of "feeling good".  That's how I think liberals are destroying America.  So no, Mr. Pickard, I have not called you a terrorist, nor have I called Mr. Blackwell a terrorist either.  Some of your views are probably championed by terrorists out there, and don't forget - terrorist organizations want Barack Obama to become our next President.

Best regards.

@Amy: Great. You've successfully defended yourself against the notion that Jeff and I are foreign terrorists, just not domestic ones. Congratulations.

MC:  I have never called either you or Jeff Blackwell a terrorist.  If you wish to label yourself as such, be my guest.

@Amy: Your arguments against terrorists and liberals are functionally the same (destruction of America) and nearly always conflated in the same sentence. If you wish me to revise my opinion of you, Amy, then I suggest a shift in your rhetoric.  

MC:  I could care less what your opinion of me is.  Can I state it any more simply?  Terrorists want to kill us.  You and Mr. Blackwell do not wish to murder anyone.  You are not terrorists in my view.  However, a lot of your liberal views are damaging to the United States and are seen as helpful to the enemy.  Sorry, can't make myself any clearer than that.  I suggest a change in your rhetoric.

Sally,

Being married to a fiscally conservative Republican, I find myself well immersed in conservative venues.   Although, I confess I have to draw the line at Rush.  I find him so loathsome that I literally feel like I should take a shower after listening...but locally, Belling I listen to when the spouse and I are driving around and I read the Waukesha Freeman.  Granted, sometimes for the laughs that the Sound Off section induces but I do confess to reading it every day.

That being said, I think that there can be a middle ground for listening to other's POV without inducing histrionics.  I know come November my spouse and I will be voting opposite teams it doesn't mean that we'll wake up hating each other's guts and it hasn't since the last time we voted such back in 2000 (my spouse was a Republican for Kerry since even he had to admit that Bush was a walking disaster by that point).  I think some of the best and most entertaining conversations we've had over the years we've been married have been on Sunday mornings over coffee watching the various political shows.

Amy writes:

"I suggest a change in your rhetoric"

I'd suggest a change in yours since it's, as I've stated in the past, yours (and others like you...Jim, my sister-in-law's spouse, etc.) who've sent me fleeing for the hills away from modern day conservatism.

When you can stop with the Power Whining(tm) about how unAmerican everyone who doesn't support the goof in office and the chaos he's created for America that'll take years for anyone, Democratic or (old school!) Republican party affilated to clean up, is the day anyone should take advice from you about changing rhetoric.

Thanks for your comments, Prima -- they are encouragingly rational. I too love conversations with my more conservative spouse where we bounce ideas back and forth with humor, exploring different points of view coming from our different fields. Just because my ideas are more liberal than his doesn't mean he thinks I am 'lying.' In fact, open dialogue has helped us both to be better informed. I am trying very hard to be very open to the points of view of all my fellow bloggers, so that they can see that a more rational, less hostile approach is entirely possible... and better for our society and our country. Hatemongering is so yesterday.   I am so glad you wrote in to share this mindset. Let's keep in touch!    

Sally,

Read both your blogs on experimenting by reading literature from the "other" point of view, and thought that it would be a wonderful exercise for all of us who value our country and it's freedoms. I was especially fascinated by the myriad of responses and rhetoric they inspired.  

Even our founding fathers had their differences, and could hardly agree on the most fundamental issues of those times.  But at least they understood that their's was a common cause.  All of them were FOR America, and none suspected the dissenting other had nefarious motives against America.  They just had different ideas on how to get their.

And that's where rational, constructive debate plays a role, and name-calling does not. To quote a world-reknowned humanitarian:

"A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in ALL people and all things, and who walks humbly and feels charitably with the circumstances of life, knowing that in this world no one is all-knowing."