The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:30 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:36 am 
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109135/

They make it sound easy. It isn't, anymore.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:11 pm 
What if they come with real estate?

Image


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:19 pm 
Who needs to move to Canada? I already live in Ann Arbor, which is close enough. :P


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:34 am 
HA! 25 months for processing! It's not Canada I mock, but the inefficiancy of those trying to "run away". They'll spend more time waiting to leave than actually gone before the next election.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:53 pm 
And it appears there's a misconception about politics! That's a link to the open comments section on the BBC's website. from what I've read, I think all the Canadian contributions are more Red, White, and Blue than the movie "Team America". ok, maybe a bit of exageration there, but it appears Canada is not full of peacenik hippies, as many who want to 'flee' there believe.

I can just imagine the lines from both directions at the immigration offices. One line of hippies from the US, trying to flee to Canada. The other line of Canadians, trying to flee the influx of hippies. :lol:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 1:44 am 
The only problem with that map is that it's grouping a whole lot of Bush supporting areas in with the US of C.


Image

And even that is too simplistic. if you look at all the purple areas here...

Based on percentage win..


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:58 am 
Yes, while it is amusing when people discuss the Red-Blue map divide for laughs or to blow off steam, its pretty inane---and a little creepy---when supposedly sophisticated commentators get real serious about it.

The election split 51-48, o mighty pundits! If that were the score in a AA high school basketball game, everyone would be talking about what a nail-biter it was. About the only thing the map does show is that rural voters are more conservative than urban and suburban voters. That does mean something, because the senate is divided by states and this gives rural voters an advantage on a national scale: Wyoming has as many senators as New York or New Jersey. Other than that, the urban-suburban split is only a few percentage points.

The real danger to the country is the break-down in the national dialogue between appalled left-wingers who think the nation is between taken over by "ignorant Rednecks" and outraged right-wingers who think it is being destroyed by "socialists" and "hippies." The first two groups have only a limited influence on our culture, and the third group went extinct 30 years ago. Meanwhile, cynical money-interests and amoral media elites are corrupting our political discourse to their own profit and billing us for the privilege of being manipulated.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:05 am 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 12:18 am
Posts: 1134
Location: Idaho
Going by this red/blue map above. ^^^

Hmmm, Kerry only got a majority in 100% of counties in Massachusetts, Hawaii and the District of Columbia. (Which is only one precinct, IIRC.) Bush took all of Alaska, Oklahoma, Nebraska and possibly Utah.

For one county "missed it by that much". all Kerry had was Vermont.

In the Bush column are Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, Nevada, and looks like Delaware too. Possibly Utah.

Is there a version of this map with the white counties finalized as to who they went for?

Oh yeah, Bush also got an overall majority in John Edwards' home state.
(And Al Gore's home state in 2000.)

What color would the media use for a libertarian candidate? Probably transparent because except for some tiny articles buried deep inside newspapers to tell people Badnarik was on the ballot, the LP candidate this year was ignored. The real fringe candidate, who couldn't scrape together enough signatures to get on all the ballots, was Ralph Nader. Yet somehow he rated far more media coverage.

Biased left or right? Nahhh, the bias in the media is a bit left of center (except for CBS with their two bogus anti-Bush tales, they went far left) and squarely biased against the libertarians.

If you want another look at media bias, dig up the figures on where the TV networks' employees sent their political donations. FOX News Channel's were least biased but still sent a good majority to Democrats. CBS had a whole TWO people make $1,000 donations to the Republican Party while out of the $111,000 or so take from NBC employees, none went to Republicans. Check it out for yourselves, this financial data is required to be publically available, I'm not doing the legwork for ya. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:32 am 
Thanks for telling us those numbers exist. Since everyone seems to accused the media of being biased against thier side, I'd always assumed they were pretty unbiased.

This would explain why Illinois, my home state, was quickly given up as "Kerry Country", even though the last time I looked, it was a closer race than Ohio. The last time I looked though, was before all the votes could have been counted.

*edit* just rechecked, and Kerry's lead in Illinois opened up considerably. Oddly enough, Kerry now shows a win in my home county, when up till now it's been one of the few tied counties.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:34 pm 
Travellar wrote:
Thanks for telling us those numbers exist. Since everyone seems to accused the media of being biased against thier side, I'd always assumed they were pretty unbiased.


Not unbiased, but if one picks thier examples of "the media" one can always find instances of bias against one's opinion.

Travellar wrote:
This would explain why Illinois, my home state, was quickly given up as "Kerry Country", even though the last time I looked, it was a closer race than Ohio. The last time I looked though, was before all the votes could have been counted.

*edit* just rechecked, and Kerry's lead in Illinois opened up considerably. Oddly enough, Kerry now shows a win in my home county, when up till now it's been one of the few tied counties.


My county has Bush ahead 68% to 42% with 85 assorted nuts (including myself) voting for Badnarik.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:41 pm 
bizzybody wrote:
What color would the media use for a libertarian candidate? Probably transparent because except for some tiny articles buried deep inside newspapers to tell people Badnarik was on the ballot, the LP candidate this year was ignored. The real fringe candidate, who couldn't scrape together enough signatures to get on all the ballots, was Ralph Nader. Yet somehow he rated far more media coverage.

Ignorance of what goes on outside the Beltway has been a chronic problem in the national media for at least a generation. My memory goes back to the days when Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority helped elect Ronald Reagan and the news magazines were full of articles about the Evangelical movement. From their point of view, it had sprung up out of nowhere! The quarter or a third of the population outside of New York who were Evangelical Protestants might just as well have landed in flying saucers.

bizzybody wrote:
Biased left or right? Nahhh, the bias in the media is a bit left of center (except for CBS with their two bogus anti-Bush tales, they went far left) and squarely biased against the libertarians.

Important note: the "two tales" were not bogus, just the two letters someone gave to CBS. The actual events described in the letters had already been described and confirmed by other testimony and evidence.

The "bias" involved in this case depends on whether you subscribe to Bush's view of reality or some other. All of the hard evidence and trustworthy testimony, thus far, confirms a basic story: Bush didn't want to go to Vietnam, and instead got a place in a air national guard unit fully stocked with other sons of families with money and political pull. He basically stopped showing up for Texas National Guard duty after 3 1/2 years of his six year term service and a number of national guard officials had to scramble a year or so later to give him the paper qualifications to get out of the guard with an honorable discharge. In the meantime, he ducked physicals and cooperate as little as possible with any attempts by guard officials to get him to turn up for any meetings to resolve his duty requirements. There is no evidence that he ever performed any Alabama guard duty, and testimony that he probably never turned up there. He did help a little in a polical campaign in Alabama, but constantly showed up hungover and did not contribute all that much.

All of this correspondes with Bush's own version of his misspent youth: he was a chronic drunkard for the first half of his adult years and made life miserable for everyone around him. Of course, denies any favoritism in getting into the guard

If anyone else had tried to run for president with a personal history like this, you would expect that all of this evidence would have come out in the first few months of his campaign and he/she would have been torn to shreds by the national media and the TV comedians. Whatever other prejudices the national media might have, they surely do love George Bush. Five years after he first appeared in the national spotlight, and the investigation into his seedy past has only begun.

bizzybody wrote:
If you want another look at media bias, dig up the figures on where the TV networks' employees sent their political donations. FOX News Channel's were least biased but still sent a good majority to Democrats. CBS had a whole TWO people make $1,000 donations to the Republican Party while out of the $111,000 or so take from NBC employees, none went to Republicans. Check it out for yourselves, this financial data is required to be publically available, I'm not doing the legwork for ya. :)

This would be relevant only if you could show some effect on their coverage of events. More than anything else, I'd say you could make a case that the prejudice of the networks is: against serious news; in favor of scandal, if the subject of the scandal can't fight back; in favor of simplistic, easy, melodramatic stories; and against anything that might endanger their access, social position, or six-figure incomes.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:17 pm 
Just the media biased against Libertarians? Heck, EVERYONE is biased against libertarians. Just look at when Badnarik got arrested for trying to get in to the debates... :(


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:23 pm 
sirgimpofbaath wrote:
Just the media biased against Libertarians? Heck, EVERYONE is biased against libertarians. Just look at when Badnarik got arrested for trying to get in to the debates... :(


Thread necromancy is bad, mmkay? Check the date of the last post next time.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group