[eavesdropper]

[quote=DriveByLurker]Is KMmart even pretending to be a retail business anymore, or have they come clean and admitted that they were always just a front for an experiment to measure the long term effects of bad fluorescent lighting on cheap Chinese thermoplastics?[/quote]

DBL, if you knew anything about merchandising aesthetics, you’d realize that bad fluorescent lighting is the ONLY thing that will bring out the true sleaziness that is the hallmark of the very best cheap Asian thermoplastics. And nobody can do it like the masters at Kmart, right down to the degree to which they loosen the light tubes to cause that Morse code-like flashing. It’s actually a subliminal consumer message for shopping addicts.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=DriveByLurker]Is KMmart even pretending to be a retail business anymore, or have they come clean and admitted that they were always just a front for an experiment to measure the long term effects of bad fluorescent lighting on cheap Chinese thermoplastics?[/quote]

DBL, if you knew anything about merchandising aesthetics, you’d realize that bad fluorescent lighting is the ONLY thing that will bring out the true sleaziness that is the hallmark of the very best cheap Asian thermoplastics. And nobody can do it like the masters at Kmart, right down to the degree to which they loosen the light tubes to cause that Morse code-like flashing. It’s actually a subliminal consumer message for shopping addicts.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Arraya]The “liberal” NY Times was instrumental in drumming up support for the wars[/quote]

Exactly. In fact, they and many of the other so-called “liberal media” kept the Clinton-Lewinsky thing going on for months and months, and jumped on every Clinton administration “scandal” that popped up during his administration. For the first several years of GWB’s tenure, they rarely questioned his decisions and actions. They watched without comment while a largely Republican Congress (with the aid of an only-too-happy-to-help Democratic faction) blew through the budget surplus left from Clinton, and proceeded to pile up another huge deficit (and that didn’t include the war costs, which were intentionally omitted from the budget).

In fact, the press were asleep at the wheel for 8 or 10 years at least, and didn’t stir until Hurricane Katrina made it impossible for them to look away. IMHO they were trying to prove that they weren’t liberal and biased, and went overboard in the process. What they fail to realize is that those that truly believe that Fox is fair and balanced are never, ever going to believe that the NYT or WaPo or any other outlet not owned by Rupert Murdoch is unbiased. So they need to forget about reaching that part of the population, and get back to actually doing their jobs. When they start doing that, maybe comedians won’t feel that they have to bring the shortcomings of our lawmakers to our attention, or have to organize rallys where people who are shocked and dismayed by the vitriol being spewed by the wingnuts can get together and realize that they are far from being alone in their concern for our nation’s future.

You know, I’ve been hearing a lot of unsupported figures and dubious claims thrown out by the far right recently, among them pronouncements that 80 percent of the country feels as they do. With the amount of air time and column space that their theatrics earn them, who would believe that those figures weren’t accurate. Well, perhaps the driving force behind the organizing of Saturday’s rally was the desire to show Washington that these claims and numbers are far from accurate. I’d have to say that the attendance figures appear to support that hypothesis.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Arraya]The “liberal” NY Times was instrumental in drumming up support for the wars[/quote]

Exactly. In fact, they and many of the other so-called “liberal media” kept the Clinton-Lewinsky thing going on for months and months, and jumped on every Clinton administration “scandal” that popped up during his administration. For the first several years of GWB’s tenure, they rarely questioned his decisions and actions. They watched without comment while a largely Republican Congress (with the aid of an only-too-happy-to-help Democratic faction) blew through the budget surplus left from Clinton, and proceeded to pile up another huge deficit (and that didn’t include the war costs, which were intentionally omitted from the budget).

In fact, the press were asleep at the wheel for 8 or 10 years at least, and didn’t stir until Hurricane Katrina made it impossible for them to look away. IMHO they were trying to prove that they weren’t liberal and biased, and went overboard in the process. What they fail to realize is that those that truly believe that Fox is fair and balanced are never, ever going to believe that the NYT or WaPo or any other outlet not owned by Rupert Murdoch is unbiased. So they need to forget about reaching that part of the population, and get back to actually doing their jobs. When they start doing that, maybe comedians won’t feel that they have to bring the shortcomings of our lawmakers to our attention, or have to organize rallys where people who are shocked and dismayed by the vitriol being spewed by the wingnuts can get together and realize that they are far from being alone in their concern for our nation’s future.

You know, I’ve been hearing a lot of unsupported figures and dubious claims thrown out by the far right recently, among them pronouncements that 80 percent of the country feels as they do. With the amount of air time and column space that their theatrics earn them, who would believe that those figures weren’t accurate. Well, perhaps the driving force behind the organizing of Saturday’s rally was the desire to show Washington that these claims and numbers are far from accurate. I’d have to say that the attendance figures appear to support that hypothesis.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Arraya]The “liberal” NY Times was instrumental in drumming up support for the wars[/quote]

Exactly. In fact, they and many of the other so-called “liberal media” kept the Clinton-Lewinsky thing going on for months and months, and jumped on every Clinton administration “scandal” that popped up during his administration. For the first several years of GWB’s tenure, they rarely questioned his decisions and actions. They watched without comment while a largely Republican Congress (with the aid of an only-too-happy-to-help Democratic faction) blew through the budget surplus left from Clinton, and proceeded to pile up another huge deficit (and that didn’t include the war costs, which were intentionally omitted from the budget).

In fact, the press were asleep at the wheel for 8 or 10 years at least, and didn’t stir until Hurricane Katrina made it impossible for them to look away. IMHO they were trying to prove that they weren’t liberal and biased, and went overboard in the process. What they fail to realize is that those that truly believe that Fox is fair and balanced are never, ever going to believe that the NYT or WaPo or any other outlet not owned by Rupert Murdoch is unbiased. So they need to forget about reaching that part of the population, and get back to actually doing their jobs. When they start doing that, maybe comedians won’t feel that they have to bring the shortcomings of our lawmakers to our attention, or have to organize rallys where people who are shocked and dismayed by the vitriol being spewed by the wingnuts can get together and realize that they are far from being alone in their concern for our nation’s future.

You know, I’ve been hearing a lot of unsupported figures and dubious claims thrown out by the far right recently, among them pronouncements that 80 percent of the country feels as they do. With the amount of air time and column space that their theatrics earn them, who would believe that those figures weren’t accurate. Well, perhaps the driving force behind the organizing of Saturday’s rally was the desire to show Washington that these claims and numbers are far from accurate. I’d have to say that the attendance figures appear to support that hypothesis.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Arraya]The “liberal” NY Times was instrumental in drumming up support for the wars[/quote]

Exactly. In fact, they and many of the other so-called “liberal media” kept the Clinton-Lewinsky thing going on for months and months, and jumped on every Clinton administration “scandal” that popped up during his administration. For the first several years of GWB’s tenure, they rarely questioned his decisions and actions. They watched without comment while a largely Republican Congress (with the aid of an only-too-happy-to-help Democratic faction) blew through the budget surplus left from Clinton, and proceeded to pile up another huge deficit (and that didn’t include the war costs, which were intentionally omitted from the budget).

In fact, the press were asleep at the wheel for 8 or 10 years at least, and didn’t stir until Hurricane Katrina made it impossible for them to look away. IMHO they were trying to prove that they weren’t liberal and biased, and went overboard in the process. What they fail to realize is that those that truly believe that Fox is fair and balanced are never, ever going to believe that the NYT or WaPo or any other outlet not owned by Rupert Murdoch is unbiased. So they need to forget about reaching that part of the population, and get back to actually doing their jobs. When they start doing that, maybe comedians won’t feel that they have to bring the shortcomings of our lawmakers to our attention, or have to organize rallys where people who are shocked and dismayed by the vitriol being spewed by the wingnuts can get together and realize that they are far from being alone in their concern for our nation’s future.

You know, I’ve been hearing a lot of unsupported figures and dubious claims thrown out by the far right recently, among them pronouncements that 80 percent of the country feels as they do. With the amount of air time and column space that their theatrics earn them, who would believe that those figures weren’t accurate. Well, perhaps the driving force behind the organizing of Saturday’s rally was the desire to show Washington that these claims and numbers are far from accurate. I’d have to say that the attendance figures appear to support that hypothesis.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Arraya]The “liberal” NY Times was instrumental in drumming up support for the wars[/quote]

Exactly. In fact, they and many of the other so-called “liberal media” kept the Clinton-Lewinsky thing going on for months and months, and jumped on every Clinton administration “scandal” that popped up during his administration. For the first several years of GWB’s tenure, they rarely questioned his decisions and actions. They watched without comment while a largely Republican Congress (with the aid of an only-too-happy-to-help Democratic faction) blew through the budget surplus left from Clinton, and proceeded to pile up another huge deficit (and that didn’t include the war costs, which were intentionally omitted from the budget).

In fact, the press were asleep at the wheel for 8 or 10 years at least, and didn’t stir until Hurricane Katrina made it impossible for them to look away. IMHO they were trying to prove that they weren’t liberal and biased, and went overboard in the process. What they fail to realize is that those that truly believe that Fox is fair and balanced are never, ever going to believe that the NYT or WaPo or any other outlet not owned by Rupert Murdoch is unbiased. So they need to forget about reaching that part of the population, and get back to actually doing their jobs. When they start doing that, maybe comedians won’t feel that they have to bring the shortcomings of our lawmakers to our attention, or have to organize rallys where people who are shocked and dismayed by the vitriol being spewed by the wingnuts can get together and realize that they are far from being alone in their concern for our nation’s future.

You know, I’ve been hearing a lot of unsupported figures and dubious claims thrown out by the far right recently, among them pronouncements that 80 percent of the country feels as they do. With the amount of air time and column space that their theatrics earn them, who would believe that those figures weren’t accurate. Well, perhaps the driving force behind the organizing of Saturday’s rally was the desire to show Washington that these claims and numbers are far from accurate. I’d have to say that the attendance figures appear to support that hypothesis.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1] I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations….[/quote]

Hah! You’re right, Brian. But I chuckle because when they’re trying to confer believeability on a particular issue, event, statement, whatever, relating to their side, they always say, “The New York Times said…” or “The New York Times had an article….” or “It was in the New York Times….”. I’m, like, you just told me that the New York Times is part of the “lamestream media”, and now you’re trying to draw me over to your way of thinking by telling the NYT is at one with your views? Hmmmmm.

I don’t read political sites that agree with my views that are completely one-sided. 3* reasons: 1) i don’t have a lot of extra time, and I don’t need reinforcement of my views; 2) if I want confirmation of something I’ve heard, I won’t go to any political site for it; 3) any site that is completely one-sided (even if it reinforces most of what I believe) is automatically suspect in my book.

However, I do force myself to visit political sites with views unaligned with my own. For one thing, I don’t want it said (by my conscience or anyone else) that I never listen to the other side of an argument, and, for another, I can’t make an informed decision without being informed. Plus it makes me see a side of things that I really don’t like so that I don’t lull myself into a false sense of security about things. I like being prepared: it’s the latent Girl Scout in me.

* 4 reasons actually. #4) any time spent on other superfluous websites is time I don’t get to spend on Piggs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1] I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations….[/quote]

Hah! You’re right, Brian. But I chuckle because when they’re trying to confer believeability on a particular issue, event, statement, whatever, relating to their side, they always say, “The New York Times said…” or “The New York Times had an article….” or “It was in the New York Times….”. I’m, like, you just told me that the New York Times is part of the “lamestream media”, and now you’re trying to draw me over to your way of thinking by telling the NYT is at one with your views? Hmmmmm.

I don’t read political sites that agree with my views that are completely one-sided. 3* reasons: 1) i don’t have a lot of extra time, and I don’t need reinforcement of my views; 2) if I want confirmation of something I’ve heard, I won’t go to any political site for it; 3) any site that is completely one-sided (even if it reinforces most of what I believe) is automatically suspect in my book.

However, I do force myself to visit political sites with views unaligned with my own. For one thing, I don’t want it said (by my conscience or anyone else) that I never listen to the other side of an argument, and, for another, I can’t make an informed decision without being informed. Plus it makes me see a side of things that I really don’t like so that I don’t lull myself into a false sense of security about things. I like being prepared: it’s the latent Girl Scout in me.

* 4 reasons actually. #4) any time spent on other superfluous websites is time I don’t get to spend on Piggs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1] I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations….[/quote]

Hah! You’re right, Brian. But I chuckle because when they’re trying to confer believeability on a particular issue, event, statement, whatever, relating to their side, they always say, “The New York Times said…” or “The New York Times had an article….” or “It was in the New York Times….”. I’m, like, you just told me that the New York Times is part of the “lamestream media”, and now you’re trying to draw me over to your way of thinking by telling the NYT is at one with your views? Hmmmmm.

I don’t read political sites that agree with my views that are completely one-sided. 3* reasons: 1) i don’t have a lot of extra time, and I don’t need reinforcement of my views; 2) if I want confirmation of something I’ve heard, I won’t go to any political site for it; 3) any site that is completely one-sided (even if it reinforces most of what I believe) is automatically suspect in my book.

However, I do force myself to visit political sites with views unaligned with my own. For one thing, I don’t want it said (by my conscience or anyone else) that I never listen to the other side of an argument, and, for another, I can’t make an informed decision without being informed. Plus it makes me see a side of things that I really don’t like so that I don’t lull myself into a false sense of security about things. I like being prepared: it’s the latent Girl Scout in me.

* 4 reasons actually. #4) any time spent on other superfluous websites is time I don’t get to spend on Piggs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1] I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations….[/quote]

Hah! You’re right, Brian. But I chuckle because when they’re trying to confer believeability on a particular issue, event, statement, whatever, relating to their side, they always say, “The New York Times said…” or “The New York Times had an article….” or “It was in the New York Times….”. I’m, like, you just told me that the New York Times is part of the “lamestream media”, and now you’re trying to draw me over to your way of thinking by telling the NYT is at one with your views? Hmmmmm.

I don’t read political sites that agree with my views that are completely one-sided. 3* reasons: 1) i don’t have a lot of extra time, and I don’t need reinforcement of my views; 2) if I want confirmation of something I’ve heard, I won’t go to any political site for it; 3) any site that is completely one-sided (even if it reinforces most of what I believe) is automatically suspect in my book.

However, I do force myself to visit political sites with views unaligned with my own. For one thing, I don’t want it said (by my conscience or anyone else) that I never listen to the other side of an argument, and, for another, I can’t make an informed decision without being informed. Plus it makes me see a side of things that I really don’t like so that I don’t lull myself into a false sense of security about things. I like being prepared: it’s the latent Girl Scout in me.

* 4 reasons actually. #4) any time spent on other superfluous websites is time I don’t get to spend on Piggs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1] I don’t read political sites. My news is from NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times and various European news outlets.

The great unwashed conservative masses on the Internet you are describing would probably call those extreme liberal news organizations….[/quote]

Hah! You’re right, Brian. But I chuckle because when they’re trying to confer believeability on a particular issue, event, statement, whatever, relating to their side, they always say, “The New York Times said…” or “The New York Times had an article….” or “It was in the New York Times….”. I’m, like, you just told me that the New York Times is part of the “lamestream media”, and now you’re trying to draw me over to your way of thinking by telling the NYT is at one with your views? Hmmmmm.

I don’t read political sites that agree with my views that are completely one-sided. 3* reasons: 1) i don’t have a lot of extra time, and I don’t need reinforcement of my views; 2) if I want confirmation of something I’ve heard, I won’t go to any political site for it; 3) any site that is completely one-sided (even if it reinforces most of what I believe) is automatically suspect in my book.

However, I do force myself to visit political sites with views unaligned with my own. For one thing, I don’t want it said (by my conscience or anyone else) that I never listen to the other side of an argument, and, for another, I can’t make an informed decision without being informed. Plus it makes me see a side of things that I really don’t like so that I don’t lull myself into a false sense of security about things. I like being prepared: it’s the latent Girl Scout in me.

* 4 reasons actually. #4) any time spent on other superfluous websites is time I don’t get to spend on Piggs.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Like I said, take advantage of this craziness while you can..

People want to not pay their bills and spend on discretionary items…Fine by me…They want to spend $400+ on a smart phone, fine by me….Bring it on…

Car companies want to extend 0.0%ish financing and near invoice pricing. fine by me..

Fed wants to offer unbelievable loans/refinances on 30 or 15 loans…fine by me…

State wants to give handouts to buy new appliances…Fine by me..

Fed wants to create an artificial bubble in the equity markets (again)…fine by me…

It’s all good. Resistance is futile.[/quote]

flu for King!! I’m in for a campaign contribution (as long as your platform includes legalization of pot).).

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Like I said, take advantage of this craziness while you can..

People want to not pay their bills and spend on discretionary items…Fine by me…They want to spend $400+ on a smart phone, fine by me….Bring it on…

Car companies want to extend 0.0%ish financing and near invoice pricing. fine by me..

Fed wants to offer unbelievable loans/refinances on 30 or 15 loans…fine by me…

State wants to give handouts to buy new appliances…Fine by me..

Fed wants to create an artificial bubble in the equity markets (again)…fine by me…

It’s all good. Resistance is futile.[/quote]

flu for King!! I’m in for a campaign contribution (as long as your platform includes legalization of pot).).

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Like I said, take advantage of this craziness while you can..

People want to not pay their bills and spend on discretionary items…Fine by me…They want to spend $400+ on a smart phone, fine by me….Bring it on…

Car companies want to extend 0.0%ish financing and near invoice pricing. fine by me..

Fed wants to offer unbelievable loans/refinances on 30 or 15 loans…fine by me…

State wants to give handouts to buy new appliances…Fine by me..

Fed wants to create an artificial bubble in the equity markets (again)…fine by me…

It’s all good. Resistance is futile.[/quote]

flu for King!! I’m in for a campaign contribution (as long as your platform includes legalization of pot).).

[Author]

Posts