» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: STAR70 on 12/08/05 at 5:25 pm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/234519.shtml?et=y

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: Mistress Leola on 12/08/05 at 6:51 pm

Why is he so obsessed with Dean being 'hung'?  I thought Ron Reagan was the gay son.

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: CatwomanofV on 12/08/05 at 7:12 pm


Why is he so obsessed with Dean being 'hung'?  I thought Ron Reagan was the gay son.



;D ;D ;D


I think the GOP is afraid of Dean and that is why they are trying to nail him for every thing he says.



Cat

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/08/05 at 9:09 pm


Why is he so obsessed with Dean being 'hung'?

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: Mistress Leola on 12/08/05 at 11:04 pm


People are hanged, pictures are hung.


Ah, good call -- I'd forgotten about that distinction.

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: Mushroom on 12/09/05 at 10:12 am


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/234519.shtml?et=y


Now wait a minute.

I have been told that Newsmax is not a reputible news source in here many times, by many different people.

So why is this now accepted, when most other things that come from there are dismissed as being lies?

Or is it only unreputible when you do not agree with the story?

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: Don Carlos on 12/09/05 at 3:35 pm

So Michael Reygun wants to hang Howard for what?  Excersising his freedom of speech?  And we should take this seriiously?  Or maybe he is interested in how well hung Howard is, and NewsMax got it wrong.

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/09/05 at 4:05 pm

If Michael Moore said GOP chair Ken Mehlman should be executed, you'd never hear the end of it from the phony-baloney right-wing media!
::)

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: Tia on 12/09/05 at 4:30 pm


Now wait a minute.

I have been told that Newsmax is not a reputible news source in here many times, by many different people.

So why is this now accepted, when most other things that come from there are dismissed as being lies?

Or is it only unreputible when you do not agree with the story?


they wouldn't have the motive to lie in this case. much as if the nation were to report noam chomsky saying something impolitic, i'd be inclined to believe them because they wouldn't have a reason to trump up a charge against someone perceived to be on their side.

anyway, i love the line about dean "predicting" a vietnam-style debacle. i mean, hello? we're LIVING the vietnam-style debacle NOW. there's no "predicting" about it!

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: Mushroom on 12/09/05 at 5:05 pm


they wouldn't have the motive to lie in this case. much as if the nation were to report noam chomsky saying something impolitic, i'd be inclined to believe them because they wouldn't have a reason to trump up a charge against someone perceived to be on their side.


OK, so we are right back to what I stated.  It is only reputible if you agree with the story.  If you disagree with it, it is not reputible.

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: Tia on 12/09/05 at 5:19 pm


OK, so we are right back to what I stated.

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: Don Carlos on 12/10/05 at 4:31 pm


OK, so we are right back to what I stated.  It is only reputible if you agree with the story.  If you disagree with it, it is not reputible.


The problem is that, in reporting the news, media include their editorial perspective.  No one contests that Michael Raygun made those comments.  I'm too lazy to check, but I guess he did.  The issue, on both sides of the political divide, is when a news source includes editorial comment in the reporting.  Had this report said "Howard Dean Inserts foot in mouth once again..." that would be editorial.  Reporting honestly and accurately on his remarks is just good journalism.  Evan the right wing rags get it right occasionally.

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/10/05 at 10:23 pm


The problem is that, in reporting the news, media include their editorial perspective.

Subject: Re: right-wing psycho Michael Reagan puts death mark on Howard Dean

Written By: Don Carlos on 12/12/05 at 3:43 pm


OK, so we are right back to what I stated.  It is only reputible if you agree with the story.  If you disagree with it, it is not reputible.


I'll say it again.  One can not DISAGREE or AGREE with facts, but one can agree or disagree with the way the facts are INTERPRETED.  Part of both journalism and History/Social Science disiplines is the SELECTION of facts and their arrangments.  For example, a historian discovered that boarding houses where pre Civil War Congressmen lived in Washington bought only salted meats, and starchy foods.  A long term diet based on these foods could easilly lead to chronic constipation (Congress is still full of it), and this could go a long way to explain why compromise was so difficult - the members were all out of sorts, irritable, uncomfortable, and testy (not to mention flatulant).  So from facts we move to surmise and to conclusion.  But what if the boarding houses had summer gardens and put up fruits and veggies?  This fact would not appear in their ledgers and would force an alteration of the interpretation.  Did the Bush White House "cherry pick" the intelligence on Iraq to get to the interpretation and conclusion it wanted?  Does NEWSMAX "cherry pick" the facts to make its editorial point?  Does Fox, or MSNBC, or CNN, or all of them? 

I think that when they do, and I think they all do, and we agree with the slant, or spin if you like, we accept their "analysis", and when we disagree we seek out additional facts to refute that slant or spin.  Thats just the way the world works.

Check for new replies or respond here...