Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Well said.

  • Very true

    I thought his speech was really good. He did a great job of trying his best to build bridges. I think he would have done better if he would have controlled the strange right wing attacks coming out of the party. Those type of attacks just don't seem like him. But I'll say I'm happy that we have a new leader that is able to publicly speak well and who has some charisma.

  • Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and others are there to keep the flames of hate alive

    I guess you didn't see the Pew study showing Fox News was much more balanced than other news organizations (spreading that balanced hate?) []

    It's frankly getting pretty old when people attack Fox.

    • I think most people have the perception that Fox News == Bill O'Reilly (or Sean Hannity).
      • Likely true. And most of those most people probably don't watch O'Reilly (who lays into everyone), and seem to forget about Colmes sitting across the table from Hannity. But, they don't say anything about MSNBC. 3 hours a day is Olberman, Maddow and Mathews, which is 1/4 of the day being pretty unfettered *far* left (think Hannity's America, for 3 hours a day instead of an hour on the weekend). Actually, more than 1/4 since they re-run the programming.

        In either case, it's just gotten old :-)

        • It never ceases to amaze me when people in the US, enjoying what is possibly the furthest right democracy in the industrialized world, talk about the "far left" in America. What constitutes the far left in the US often amuses political commentators the world over (seriously -- I've seen news commentators laughing over here when this topic comes up). As a bit of comparison, here are some positions one politician here in the UK advocates:

          • Make Britain greener (and urged people to see "An Inconvenient Truth"
          • I was speaking with a co-worker yesterday who is from .ca and said something similar; that our left wing isn't really liberal.

            But, it's all relative. If you were to compare the "liberals" in Iran, they would be on the "right" compared to US liberals. So yes, the US compares its right to its left, since they are our right and left.

            • I was speaking with a co-worker yesterday who is from .ca and said something similar; that our left wing isn't really liberal.

              It's a common thing to say but it's not really true at all. Our left wing agrees with theirs on pretty much everything.

          • There is no "far left" in the US unless the US narcissistically compares its left wing to its right wing.

            How is that "narcisstic"? We're talking U.S. politics here; how does it make sense to NOT speak of it in terms relative to its own constituencies?

            You're "amazed" by people using language appropriately.

            That said, I don't agree with your claims anyway: everything you mentioned is a clear majority position in the leadership of the Democratic Party, except for the National ID card thing. Besides that, there's also a fair bit of question-begging fallacy, like "blindly cutting" and "slavishly follow."

    • The analysis you link to makes no such "balance" claim, and instead says:

      On the Fox News Channel, the coverage was both more negative toward Obama and more positive toward both McCain and Palin than we found in the press generally.

      But, leaving that aside, the very idea that the press should be "balanced" between candidates (or parties) in deeply flawed to begin with because it proceeds from the idea that positive and negative coverage should be doled out in equal measure irrespective of what the candidat

      • I don't think it should be 50/50 pos/neg for every candidate, that'd be silly. But, when a news agency is just as negative and just as positive to both sides, I think it shows balanced coverage.

        The quote you say, I think you're mis-reading. It's saying Fox was more negative to Obama compared to the other networks which were MUCH more positive to him. And, they were more positive to McCain compared to the MUCH more negative reporting from the others. It's not saying Fox was more negative to Obama and more

          • Terrorist fist jab
          • Obama's "baby mama"
          • Leading poll questions [] such as "With ACORN fraud, military ballots missing, and people voting more than once, do you believe that Obama would have won this election without all those situations?" (It shouldn't take a journalism major to see what's wrong with this)

          There's gobs, gobs more of this. Plenty of it. Fox News is heavily biased and it takes no work to dig up a multitude of examples of it.

          Note that, as of this writing, that poll question is still on Hannity

          • Again, you're ignoring Colmes and all the centrist/liberal views Fox constantly has on. Why exactly is it you'll say Fox spews hate, but I guess what Olbermann and Maddows says is always loving? You want to say Fox is biased, yet the Pew research shows the other networks have done less than balanced coverage.

            but they choose to continue employing someone whose bias is worn on his sleeve

            So, if Fox should fire Hannity, I guess MSNBC should get rid of Olbermann and Maddow and Mathews, right? You're being

            • Not watching TV and only seeing Youtube clips, I miss out on a lot of stuff. I do see Olbermann and while I liked him at first, I don't any more. He's ridiculous, but I have seem him, Maddow or Matthews spewing hate. (Actually, while Olbermann and Maddow are clearly biased, what little I've seen about Matthews suggests that he's merely a pretty serious about his questions and doesn't allow the person he's interviewing to give him BS). However, I have a particular distaste for Fox for reasons I've stated

              • I thought your original post was very nice, aside the bash on Fox (but, it was there, so I could comment on it). And, I agree with your original post that the GOP shouldn't be defined by "extremists" just as I think the Dems shouldn't be defined by "extremists".

                No need to reply, as I don't take anything personal unless it's prefixed with "You're a...". :-)

          • There's gobs, gobs more of this. Plenty of it.

            Yes, there is. ON BOTH SIDES. You apparently don't watch Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann much (the former of which just admitted that his "job" is to help Obama's presidency to succeed, rather than questioning or challenging it).

            The sleezefest of Hannity, O'Reilly and many other Fox News commentators is just disgusting.

            Almost as bad as Olbermann. But not quite.

  • Finally! Now we can all get back to demonizing George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Trilateral Commission/Military Industrial Complex/Knights Templar conspiracy to crash airplanes into buildings so that we could suck all of the oil out of Iraq to power our ... (I don't remember how that ends; I stopped listening when he repeated "Commander in Chimp").

    I can only hope that we'll still have Governor Palin to mock come January 20th. That's vital to the health of our public discourse, apparently.

    • No matter how many times I read that, I still can't understand what you're trying to say. No offence, but your sarcasm (deliberately?) obscures what you're trying to say. Or maybe I'm just thick (many people will assume this, I suppose)

      • Sometimes I get a distinct impression that chromatic is on a quest to mock folly for the sake of mockery itself, and only occasionally has a firm opinion of his own at all.

        • Exactly, chromatic. Oprah said the other day, "so this is what democracy feels like." An incredibly divisive and un-American thing to say, since she obviously said it only because her guy won.

          As you say, the hate from the left was intense. Maybe Ovid didn't notice it because a. he agrees with it and b. it has been so persistent for the last 6 years or so that he just tunes it out. For every "Obama is a seekrit Muslim" cry, I heard ten "Abort Sarah Palin" cries.

            • I had an epiphany several years ago when I realized that the nasty things people were saying about Bush were so very similar in tone to nasty things I'd said about Clinton. ...

              I think on balance it was much worse against Bush, but that doesn't really mean much I suppose. I had a similar epiphany, although I had it awhile before Bush took office. I realized that much of the things I said, and attitudes I had, toward Clinton were fruitless and damaging. This was probably around the time of the impeachment.

              Now, that doesn't mean I am going to like Obama (maybe I will) or his policies (I surely won't), and it doesn't mean I won't try to fight against him in many respects. That's

                • Be careful, you're coming dangerously close to mixing your firm opinions with your hobbies!

  • If there's any doubt as to why the Republicans have done so poorly in this election, just look at John McCain's gracious concession speech. ... His "supporters" often booed him and shouted obscenities. Until people on all sides start realizing that those they disagree with are worthy of respect and consideration, we're going to continue down this torturous path.

    Ovid, how can you be so blind to the fact that the left is at least as virulently hateful of the right? []

    Yes, it's on both sides, but your argument is that Republicans lost because they were nasty. If that were true, the Democrats would have lost too. Your argument has no merit.

    I think most Republicans are decent people I merely disagree with. It's the extreme ones who accuse Obama of being a socialist

    Obama is a socialist, by a standard traditional definition that I, and many people, have used for many years. I am not going to stop using a perfectly legitimate word just because you hurl ad hominems at me.

    • Wasn't McCain on Larry King saying that he didn't think Obama was a Socialist?

      So he either didn't get the memo about that day's talking point or he actually genuinely didn't think the accusations of Obama's socialism had any merit. Now that the campaign is over, it's going to be hard to say I suppose.

      • Wasn't McCain on Larry King saying that he didn't think Obama was a Socialist?

        I have no idea if he said that, and I have no idea why you think it matters. :-) I disagree with McCain often. I gave legitimate reasons why I think Obama is a socialist; if someone cares to discuss those, fine. But I won't bend my opinion to fit someone else's, no matter which side he's on. I do not get memos.

        I've been calling Obama a socialist for a long, long time. More than a year ago. And it was based on his specific proposals, such as his proposal to outlaw the firing of striking workers, not on