44% Blame Bush, 55% Don't

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Not quite, Shane. Media Matter corrects erroneous [conservative] news stories and provides the basis for those corrections with reason and facts.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That is what we call commentary. The same can be said of Rush Limbaugh. Both are at opposite extreames and need to be balanced out.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

That is what we call commentary. The same can be said of Rush Limbaugh. Both are at opposite extreames and need to be balanced out.

---

Well, I disagree with your use of the word, "Commentary"

...I tend to think of it as an "critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text." aka "exegesis" which deals with raw materal. Commentary, as you have tended to use it, involves "a written explanation or criticism or illustration that is added to a book or other textual material, or more along the lines of opinion. Media Matter tends to deal with the raw material and contrast that with what is actually said. Your sources tend to color those raw facts to thier liking, many time ignoring what actually happened and only giving a summery report of an incident based upon thier view point. The above example between Media Matter and NewsMax validiates my point quite nicely. Drudge tends to heavily link to such sources. I really don't like being told what to think. And I don't think anyone else does either.

Republicans tell you what to think. And then claim your unpartriotic if you dont arrive at the same conclusions. I have never liked that tactic, in political nor religious circles. I am a pragamatist of the first order, Shane. That transends political lines and in such a case, you can not classify me politically.Yes, I jump from party to party that promotes a sound agenda Republicans have only one type of demographic to satisfy. Democrates, OTOH, have several types to satisfy. Not only do we have unions,enviromentalists, but we also have blacks, mexican, and other demographics that have to understand what is proposed. There are other factions within the democratic party that has to check off what is best for each demographic within the party.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I tend to think of it as an "critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text." aka "exegesis" which deals with raw materal.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The same can be said of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hanity. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I really don't like being told what to think.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, Micheal Savage, Salon.com, Media Matters and all the other idealouges tell us what they think we should think. I don't mind listening or reading them but I balance them out with the other side!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

And I don't think anyone else does either.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

We disagree. I belive many want to just follow a leader and let someone else do the thinking for them. Adventists tend not to be that way at all. Adventists tend to be very critical of everything.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Republicans tell you what to think.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That is an opinion. As a blanket statement I have to disagree. Some do tell us what to believe and some don't. No different than Democrats. Not everyone is the same.

[Ron Lambert]

People will become less critical of tbe president and more critical of the state government in Louisiana as the facts become better known, that the federal intervention was put off by Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco and other state officials, who refused to grant permission for the feds to move in--how Bush pressed Blanco to hurry up and grant permission, even bringing the paperwork allowing it for her to sign when he visited the first time, and after a night of review, she and her administration decided not to sign it. Partisan politics likely played a role here, since the state government is firmly in the hands of a Democrat machine--virtually all the elected officials from the governor on down are Democrats--and of course their party has been telling people that Republican George Bush is the boogeyman. So they were loathe to allow the president to federalize the Louisiana National Guard and take control of the relief efforts. This is in addition to the orders Governor Blanco gave forbidding FEMA and the Red Cross from moving in food, bottled water, and supplies which they already had loaded in trucks, ready to deliver to the Superdome and New Orleans Community center the day BEFORE hurricane Katrina hit. (These facts were stated by the mayor of New Orleans in an interview with Brit Hume on Fox News, and have recently been confirmed by the Red Cross, that they were forbidden to move in by state authorities.) In view of these facts, the criticism of the federal government for its slow response, and especially the criticism of FEMA for being "unprepared" and slow to respond, become really ironic.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

That is an opinion.

---

Be very careful, Shane. At CA, all opinions are equal, but some are more equal than others.