Newshoggers Comments
You have completely offended me with your rhetoric!
How dare you twist the "facts" to make it appear as if republicans have looser or weaker morals than the liberal left know as the democratic party. Everyone knows democrats are controlled by a homosexual Hollywood mafia-style cabal.
Apparently Cernig is too.
You!
You!
You!
Pagan!
Gas on the fire indeed: I don't care how firmly your tongue is in your cheek, every one of those examples except the last should be Democratic, not 'Democrat'.
Nell,
As I've explained before, I'm an ex-pat Scot in Texas and I've never quite caught up on the ettiquette of that particular useage try as I might. Like the difference between kitty-corner and catty-corner. Call it one of my quirks if it makes it easier to forgive me.
Regards, C
The figures suggest (in an utterly unscientific way) that Republicans may watch their mouths when they speak or write, but are far more likely to DO what they don't talk about.
And in that your research has at least some bona fides but is utterly unscientific, it should be accepted as complete fact by untold numbers of Republicans. At least... that's the treatment they give global warming.
Has anyone looked into the frequency of threatening comments left on feminist blogs? Threats of personal harm and harm to the blogger's children and other loved ones?
I seldom read right wing blogs, but I have a feeling this doesn't happen to them with near the frequency it does to us.
I think you may well be right, Granny. Certainly the emails received by Amanada Marcotte and Melissa McEwan from wingnut threateners would suggest so.
Regards, C
Interesting bit of research you did, but of course it was apples and oranges. Newsbuckit's research reported a fact, pure and simple, that is neutral in and of itself. It's just undeniable that the 7 words appear more on lefty sites than right wing. It's not even close. Whether this means anything (it must mean *something*) is what everybody is arguing about.
OTOH, your research already has interpretation built in. You chose the categories, and these choices could be said to reflect a bias. For example, Republicans are in charge of the executive branch. Therefore, the current war is theirs. All news about it is their news. Since it's news your looking at, you won't even see Clinton's wars, Johnson's war, or any other "Democrat war". Second, the results were "closer" (usually less than 2 to 1, as opposed to 40 to 1 in the 7 words research). Thus, the results are open to the criticism that they are skewed by the left wing media bias that right wingers take on faith. So your survey is tainted by bias before we even get to the question of whether they mean anything.
the results are open to the criticism that they are skewed by the left wing media bias that right wingers take on faith. So your survey is tainted by bias before we even get to the question of whether they mean anything.
Marty, like I care?
My survey was as scientific and meaningful as the other one. In other words - NOT.
Others have already taken Newsbuckits methodology apart.
My meta-point, if you will, is that there's a lot of gossip masquerading as politics on poliblogs nowadays. Witness the latest screeds on Coulter and Maher. As I said in the post, it's all about shameless and incestuous traffic blegging rather than actually having a point.
And we (polibloggers) choose to castigate the MSM for spending so much time on Britney and Anna Nicole Smith? You could build a new bridge with the irony.
Regards, C
With your Yahoo searches, all you really have pointed out is media bias.
Is the result surprising when one republican who is in a scandal generates more press than ten democrats in scandals similar to the republican?
Da5id, you missed the point. See my comment above.
Regards, C
Commenting by HaloScan
