I will admit that I have gotten tired of all sides of government: Democrats, Repbulicans, Tea Party, Green Party, Ice Cream Party.

 

I am starting a Common Sense Party.

 

OK....where do I sign up for the Ice Cream Party?

OK....where do I sign up for the Ice Cream Party?

Coldstone ?

Should I start a roll call?

 

TB&G is here and agrees with Habib. It's a double double standard, like so many things now.

:lol: You are always reliable and always honest. Habib made a nice post, but admits he can't speak to differences in coverage. There is an obvious double standard in the way it's being reported and I know you agree.

Hyperbole on either side accomplishes nothing ... the Nazi references, the crosshairs, etc. It does nothing to further discourse or even begin to offer solutions to problems.

Thanks for your honesty, we find ourselves in rare agreement. Can I take it that you also see a double standard as to the way the media handled the coverage of this vs. the way they handled the coverage of the Tea Party?

I agree that there is a double standard. I think this comes from a view of the haves versus the have nots. I think the media sees the Tea Party/Conservatives/Republicans as the haves and the Unions/Liberals/Democrats as the have nots. The media, like many people in society, favors the underdog, which is the have not, so they don't want to attack those who they see as fighting for their livelihood. In Wisconsin, the Republican leadership is seen as the oppressor by the media because they are taking away rights that the have nots fought for. I am not saying this view is right or wrong or taking sides. I am just laying it out as I believe the media sees this and why they are reporting it the way they are.

Interesting view, seems logical. I find it odd that the media sees most Tea Party people as "the haves" when the vast majority of them are just average people trying to make ends meet like most people. Thanks, VOR, I never really look at it from that point of view.

Thanks for your honesty, we find ourselves in rare agreement. Can I take it that you also see a double standard as to the way the media handled the coverage of this vs. the way they handled the coverage of the Tea Party?

Frankly, I have watched very little of the television coverage of the Wisconsin situation, and honestly, I don't put a lot of stock in the Wall Street Journal's take on things these days, given the obvious slant of its ownership.

 

The Media Research Center is Brent Bozell's organization ... I think we know where those sympathies lie.

Do you believe Governor Walker has engaged in hyperbole? I find he has been very blunt and straightforward. 1) the state if going bankrupt 2) government union worker benefits are a significant part of that 3) we can't sustain that level 4) I'm not going to raise taxes 5) I'm going to reduce benefits to more reasonable levels 6) I'm going to eliminate certain CBA provisions that will impede that reduction.

 

I am you with right up to number 6. So are the Wisconsin unions. Gov Walker was asked by David Gregory yesterday, "Why not take yes for an answer?" It is a good question. His answer was pretty much that next year they might not be so agreeable. Guess what governor, you get paid to negotiate tough agreements. This year, next year, every year. Is it easier to negotiate when the other side has no power to say no? Sure, but that doesn't make it a good idea. If the union has no power to represent its members, it has no useful function. Wisconsin is about union busting, no more no less.

Frankly, I have watched very little of the television coverage of the Wisconsin situation, and honestly, I don't put a lot of stock in the Wall Street Journal's take on things these days, given the obvious slant of its ownership.

 

The Media Research Center is Brent Bozell's organization ... I think we know where those sympathies lie.

I've watched quite a bit, the article seems to be pretty much spot on. In this case, at least, there seems to be a double standard from the media.

I think we know where those sympathies lie.

We know where YOUR sympathies lie.

 

Does that mean that we can't trust what YOU write?

We know where YOUR sympathies lie.

 

Does that mean that we can't trust what YOU write?

Really, Bluto? Where do my sympathies lie?

 

If you find something factually wrong with what I write, you're entitled to challenge it.

 

I've been reading and watching Brent Bozell for years ... it's obvious he's clearly as biased as those he likes to attack for being "biased."

I've watched quite a bit, the article seems to be pretty much spot on. In this case, at least, there seems to be a double standard from the media.

Maybe it is "spot on" as you say, but I would hardly consider you an unbiased observer.

Maybe it is "spot on" as you say, but I would hardly consider you an unbiased observer.

:lol: I certainly don't consider you one. I have no clue what you do for a living, but it wouldn't surprise me if you actually worked in the media.

I am you with right up to number 6. So are the Wisconsin unions. Gov Walker was asked by David Gregory yesterday, "Why not take yes for an answer?" It is a good question. His answer was pretty much that next year they might not be so agreeable. Guess what governor, you get paid to negotiate tough agreements. This year, next year, every year. Is it easier to negotiate when the other side has no power to say no? Sure, but that doesn't make it a good idea. If the union has no power to represent its members, it has no useful function. Wisconsin is about union busting, no more no less.

 

We're not disagreeing on that, my point is simply that its necessary. I find it ironic that Obama criticizes Wisconsin for its effort at union busting, yet federal union employees have no collective bargaining rights under the Civil Service Reform Act, yet maintain a very comfortable standard of living. I'm not sure the two positions can be reconciled. If they agree with my #2 and #3, then whatever label you want to give "union busting" becomes a fact. It is all intertwined, its certainly not some hidden agenda.

:lol: I certainly don't consider you one. I have no clue what you do for a living, but it wouldn't surprise me if you actually worked in the media.

I have watched the media, television and print, long enough that those that squawk the most and loudest about "bias" are usually among the most biased themselves. Brent Bozell is a classic example of that.

I have watched the media, television and print, long enough that those that squawk the most and loudest about "bias" are usually among the most biased themselves. Brent Bozell is a classic example of that.

 

Aren't you squawking about bias?