or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Media Bias 2: The neverending saga
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Media Bias 2: The neverending saga

post #1 of 82
Thread Starter 
Since this media bias continues to rear its head in instances Republican and Democratic (or third party as well) and in current events beyond Rush Limbaugh, I thought I would post about additional instances of bias in this thread.

NY Times.

Bobby Jindal was elected as the first non-white governor since Reconstruction, first Indian-American governor and youngest governor of Louisiana. These would normally be seen as good things and they are, unless you are the New York Times reporting on this event.

Quote:
The ascendancy of the Brown- and Oxford-educated Mr. Jindal, an unabashed policy wonk who has produced a stream of multipoint plans, is likely to be regarded as a racial breakthrough of sorts in this once-segregated state. Still, it is one with qualifiers attached.

Why are there qualifiers even though it is filled with firsts? Well because the NY Times doesn't like the the terms of the advancement. Jindal is a minority, but the wrong type of minority. He is a child of immigrants, but the wrong type of immigrants. He belongs to the wrong party and of course we can't say this but his is an evil Republican so it doesn't count since no Democrat had to help him rise up.

Quote:
For one thing, he is by now a familiar figure in Louisiana, having made a strong run for the governorship in 2003, though losing to Ms. Blanco. Before that he had held a series of high-profile administrative jobs, including state health secretary at the age of 24, when he earned a reputation for efficiency critics said cold-bloodedness for slashing a bloated budget, cutting jobs and lowering reimbursements to doctors.

Why are we citing nameless critics from 12 years ago regarding the election of the man today? It is very simple, we get to use the associate Bobby Jindal with the word cool-blooded(ness). If the critics were right, would he be elected today without the need for a run-off, youngest elected governor ever (beating out that Bill Clinton guy no one has ever heard of and thus we won't mention that fact) while smashing through racial barriers?

Please do not concern yourself with such matters because we are the NY Times. Republican = coldblooded via unnamed 12 year old sources, enough said.

Quote:
Yet Mr. Jindal, with his decisive victory on Saturday, appears to have overcome a significant racial hurdle that blocked him in 2003, according to analysts: race-based opposition in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana that once supported the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

What stopped Jindal in 2003 wasn't Katherine Blanco running her campaign and receiving the majority of the vote. It wasn't the fact that historically the state has elected 40 Democratic governors and 9 Republicans. No it was the fact that the Klan didn't love Jindal.

Now that he is elected, well the Klan must LOVE Bobby Jindal. He is just like them except for the whole lack of Aryan blood, not being white bit. However as the NY Times, we can assure you that Bobby Jindal will act just like that deplorable David Duke and work for the interests of the Klansmen who now love him. The proof of this? Silly there is no proof, it is just fun to make all Republicans racists. George Bush doesn't like black people and neither does Bobby Jindal. He will probably seek to reform the government and civil service workers in it which is code for...lynch black people. Since Jindal isn't a white Southern Republican male (code for racist) we just have to point out that racists love him and he thus a racist by association.

Enjoy...
Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 82
This looks like a redundant thread to me...

Why is this not placed in the almost identical thread on exactly the same topic by the very same poster?

It's only a never-ending saga because Trumpt is now veering out of control in his obsession with this non-issue. It's clearly now an idée fixe which may well require the attention of a professional health care provider in a supportive environment - unfortunately that environment is not here....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #3 of 82
That last quoted bit certainlydoes not suggest racists love Jindal. It suggests that the northern and eastern parishes of LA no longer have much support for people like David Duke.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #4 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

This looks like a redundant thread to me...

Why is this not placed in the almost identical thread on exactly the same topic by the very same poster?

It's only a never-ending saga because Trumpt is now veering out of control in his obsession with this non-issue. It's clearly now an idée fixe which may well require the attention of a professional health care provider in a supportive environment - unfortunately that environment is not here....

Maybe if we ignore him, he'll go away.
post #5 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Maybe if we ignore him, he'll go away.

I doubt it. He's desperate and the closer we get to the next election it will probably get worse. Maybe it might taper off once he realizes it's hopeless.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #6 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I doubt it. He's desperate and the closer we get to the next election it will probably get worse. Maybe it might taper off once he realizes it's hopeless.

Maybe we should create a new sub-forum called "Ripping the Free Press a New Asshole-sider" or something...
post #7 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

That last quoted bit certainlydoes not suggest racists love Jindal. It suggests that the northern and eastern parishes of LA no longer have much support for people like David Duke.

It says he overcame the race base opposition. It does not state that anything about the parishes themselves have changed other than the decision to support him.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #8 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Maybe we should create a new sub-forum called "Ripping the Free Press a New Asshole-sider" or something...

Or maybe we could have a forum where liberals can have other liberals agree with them and then use that agreement as ammunition in their arguments against conservatives. Oh wait.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Since this media bias continues to rear its head in instances Republican and Democratic (or third party as well) and in current events beyond Rush Limbaugh, I thought I would post about additional instances of bias in this thread.

NY Times.

Bobby Jindal was elected as the first non-white governor since Reconstruction, first Indian-American governor and youngest governor of Louisiana. These would normally be seen as good things and they are, unless you are the New York Times reporting on this event.



Why are there qualifiers even though it is filled with firsts? Well because the NY Times doesn't like the the terms of the advancement. Jindal is a minority, but the wrong type of minority. He is a child of immigrants, but the wrong type of immigrants. He belongs to the wrong party and of course we can't say this but his is an evil Republican so it doesn't count since no Democrat had to help him rise up.



Why are we citing nameless critics from 12 years ago regarding the election of the man today? It is very simple, we get to use the associate Bobby Jindal with the word cool-blooded(ness). If the critics were right, would he be elected today without the need for a run-off, youngest elected governor ever (beating out that Bill Clinton guy no one has ever heard of and thus we won't mention that fact) while smashing through racial barriers?

Please do not concern yourself with such matters because we are the NY Times. Republican = coldblooded via unnamed 12 year old sources, enough said.



What stopped Jindal in 2003 wasn't Katherine Blanco running her campaign and receiving the majority of the vote. It wasn't the fact that historically the state has elected 40 Democratic governors and 9 Republicans. No it was the fact that the Klan didn't love Jindal.

Now that he is elected, well the Klan must LOVE Bobby Jindal. He is just like them except for the whole lack of Aryan blood, not being white bit. However as the NY Times, we can assure you that Bobby Jindal will act just like that deplorable David Duke and work for the interests of the Klansmen who now love him. The proof of this? Silly there is no proof, it is just fun to make all Republicans racists. George Bush doesn't like black people and neither does Bobby Jindal. He will probably seek to reform the government and civil service workers in it which is code for...lynch black people. Since Jindal isn't a white Southern Republican male (code for racist) we just have to point out that racists love him and he thus a racist by association.

Enjoy...
Nick

Excellent points. To me, this is the worst:

Quote:
Yet Mr. Jindal, with his decisive victory on Saturday, appears to have overcome a significant racial hurdle that blocked him in 2003, according to analysts: race-based opposition in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana that once supported the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

This is the worst because it's not even about him...it's about conservatives being racists in general. It's really a clever bias point, because they're complimenting him for breaking through a barrier while slamming conservatives at the same time. It's a little like saying that if Rudy Guiliani won the South Carolina primary he'd have overcome the Christian Bigots who oppose gay marriage because they're bigots doing their bigot dance in their bigot church.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 82
I think what we have here - and SDW and Trumpt are, I'm afraid, classic text-book examples - is a syndrome where no bias exists but where no divergence from their own views is tolerated.

The unfortunate facts are that there is no Liberal Bias in the US because there are no liberals. There are shades of Conservative, shades of reactionary and various interest groups who want their own agenda in place and who may oppose dyed in the wool hard core extremists like SDW but in the final analysis you could take the most 'left wing fanatic' from the US and transplant him/her almost anywhere on the face of the globe and they would odds on be somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun.

There are exceptions of course but none whatsoever in the media which is fully under control of the increasingly totalitarian cabal who exercise power and serves the sole purpose of being a conduit to either distract or program the sheep.

So why the constant foaming and frothing about 'bias'? Well, it's simple; any-one who disagrees with the hard-right is a leftie. Even if they are a fully paid up member of the Joseph Goebells Appreciation Society (and it seems many of the US right may well be).

It's a less funny and more dumbed-down version of the old Emo Philips gag:

Quote:
"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"
He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist church of god or Baptist church of the lord?"
He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist church of god, or are you reformed Baptist church of god?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. "
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #10 of 82
Why Bobby Jindal Is Bad: The comprehensive post.

Quote:

Bobby Jindal is Bad for Louisiana for many reasons.

Questionable Campaign Contributions:

Bobby Jindal has collected campaign contributions from many questionable sources. During his first run for Congress he accepted funds from Halliburton’s PAC (Halliburton is a company that overcharged and double charged the U.S. for services). He has also accepted money from Tom Delay’s ARMPAC and people connected to the Jack Abramoff scandal. He has violated the spirit of campaign finance laws by accepting contributions from people and their varied corporations, a legal activity that basically allows the wealthy to circumvent campaign finance limitations. He accepts money from people seeking to put a landfill in our state. He criticizes other candidates for their involvement in video poker but accepts money from people involved in the video poker industry (including John Georges himself during his last campaign for Congress). How is he not a hypocrite?

Questionable votes:

Jindal has voted against the troops, against children, against a bill that would bring funding for us to fix our dead zone, against gasoline consumers, against voting rights for U.S. Citizens, and against Louisiana in support of Bush’s failed policies in Iraq.

And when Bobby Jindal is not voting against Louisiana, he just doesn’t vote!

Questionable Campaign tactics:

Bobby Jindal claimed to be against negative ads on the Jim Brown show (and on nola.com). However, the very next week he released the “clown” attack ad. He missed many debates in the campaign, what some pundits called political cowardice. He did not respect the intellectual property of Louisiana Universities. He stood by and allowed the Republican Party to tell incomplete stories about him. And he just blatantly lies.

Lack of Leadership:

Bobby Jindal was supposed to have all this clout, at least that is what his campaign and the media told everyone in 2004 and 2006. He was supposed to be going to washington with political capital to spend to get Louisiana what it needs.

The job of a Congressman is to work with other congressmen and use your clout to convince them to support the legislation that you also support.

Bobby Jindal has consistantly ignored this portion of his job. Look at the CAFTA vote. Instead of trying to convince people to vote against it, Bobby Jindal just sat in a corner and let the bill pass. Once the bill had enough votes to pass, jindal then cast his vote against CAFTA. So, instead of working against the bill, he sat and let the bill pass and then voted against it so he wouldn’t alienate louisiana industry that would be hurt by it.

And the same thing goes for this override vote. Instead of working to get his peers to support the legislation he claimed to support, he just sat back and did nothing.

If Bobby Jindal was a leader, he would lead others to vote with him. Bobby Jindal is obviously not a leader… and we need a leader to be our next governor.

Conclusion:

This should all be enough to tell you that Bobby Jindal is not the man he claims to be and that Louisiana would not be served well by electing him Governor. And how stupid are we as a state if we are going to elect someone governor who is a die hard Republican when the Federal Government will most likely be led by Democrats for most of our next governor’s term. Electing Bobby Jindal did not make sense in 2003 and it does not make sense now. If this post has not convinced you, then please read the rest of this blog and learn why as a choice for Governor, that Bobby Jindal is Bad.

Need more?

Quote:
1. Bobby Jindal has accepted thousands of dollars in donations from Rep. Tom DeLay and Rep. Jerry Lewis. Jindal accepted $5,000 from DeLay’s ARMPAC and $12,000 from PACs associated with Lewis.

2. Bobby Jindal has accepted $6,000 from Tony Rudy and the Chitimancha Tribe of Louisiana, both of whom were clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

3. In 2005, Bobby Jindal voted with President Bush 90% of the time and with the Republican Party 97% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly.

4. Rep. Roy Blunt, considered by C.R.E.W. to be one of the “most corrupt members of Congress,” gave Bobby Jindal nearly $6,000 through his political action committees (opensecrets.org).

5. In 2005, Bobby Jindal voted against the creation of a bipartisan ethics taskforce. (HR 213, Vote 106, April 14, 2005).

6. Bobby Jindal voted against HRS 5, Vote 5 on January 5, 2005, which would have closed the “revolving door” between lobbyists and lawmakers seeking private sector job deals based on their committee assignments.

7. Bobby Jindal refused to call for the resignation of disgraced Attorney General (and Rice graduate!) Alberto Gonzales.

8. Bobby Jindal voted to make 14 of the 16 “key provisions” of the USA Patriot Act “permanent.” (HR 3199, Vote 414, July 21, 2005).

9. Bobby Jindal voted against re-establishing FEMA as separate from the Department of Homeland Security (HR 2360, Vote 497, September 28, 2005), and Jindal skipped a crucial committee hearing on FEMA Hurricane Preparations in 2007.

10. On August 29, 2005, Bobby Jindal called FEMA’s coordination with the State “tremendous” during an interview on CNN.

11. Bobby Jindal skipped a critical vote that would have established an independent probe to investigate the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina (HRES 437, Vote 471, September 15, 2005).

12. Bobby Jindal voted against a $3 billion hurricane aid package for Louisiana (HR 1591, Vote 265, April 25, 2007).

13. Bobby Jindal opposed Emergency Appropriations for Louisiana hurricane recovery (HR 1591, Vote 186, March 23, 2007).

14. Bobby Jindal introduced legislation that would have allowed private insurers to create tax-free funds for claims related to a natural disaster (H.R. 164, March 27, 2007).

15. Bobby Jindal attempted to ban “certain people” from returning to public housing in New Orleans, even though his motion was simply a recapitulation of preexisting law.

16. Bobby Jindal quoted Martin Luther King, Jr in order to justify his opposition to affirmative action. In 2003, Jindal told The Times-Picayune, “I oppose set-asides and quotas. An insightful man got it right 40 years ago: people should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Jindal also misused a Martin Luther King quotation in order to claim that those protesting in support of the Jena Six were “outside agitators.”

17. Bobby Jindal believes in teaching creationism and/or “intelligent design” in the classroom.

18. In September 2003, Bobby Jindal told The Times-Picayune that he was “100 percent pro-life with no exceptions.”

19. Bobby Jindal has attempted to take credit for Mary Landrieu’s bill that opened up 8 million square miles for exploration, giving Louisiana 37.5% of the tax revenue, despite the fact that Jindal had actually worked to defeat this bill.

20. Bobby Jindal voted against appropriating $14 billion for the research and development of alternative energy (HR 6, Vote 40, January 18, 2007).

21. Bobby Jindal supports Social Security privatization.

22. Bobby Jindal voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate on prescription drug prices (HR 4, Vote 23, January 12, 2007).

23. Bobby Jindal has continually voted in direct support of President Bush’s Iraqi War agenda, including votes against establishing benchmarks and votes opposing important oversight provisions.

24. Bobby Jindal opposed giving our nation’s National Guard access to TRICARE (HR 1815, Vote 221, May 25, 2005).

25. Bobby Jindal voted in favor of cutting $14 billion in student aid (HR 4241, Vote 601, November 18, 2005).

26. Bobby Jindal supports draining our public schools of resources and funding by offering vouchers and increasing incentives (and/or tax credits) for business-run, parochial, and charter schools.

27. Bobby Jindal voted to cut $70 billion in taxes for the wealthiest Americans (HR 4297, Vote 135, May 10, 2006).

28. Bobby Jindal voted to reduce Medicare funding by up to $20 billion (H CON RES 95, Vote 88, March 17, 2005).

29. Bobby Jindal is opposed to stem cell research.

30. Bobby Jindal voted against a bill that would have created harsher punishments for hate crimes (HR 3132, Vote 469, September 14, 2005).

31. As a Congressman, Bobby Jindal received nearly $200,000 from Big Oil, nearly $200,000 from Big Insurance, over $11,000 from Big Tobacco, and nearly $115,000 from Big Pharmaceutical companies.

32. Bobby Jindal campaign staffers have been accused of attempting to intimidate and blockade individuals attending campaign rallies, for fear that these individuals were Democrats.

33. Bobby Jindal received $50,000 in bundled donations from a Colorado-based company seeking a permit to build a controversial landfill near Baton Rouge.

34. Although Bobby Jindal is, independently, a multi-millionare, his campaign has received over $10 million in donations from big businesses, many of whom have (or are seeking) contracts and/or tax incentives from the State government.

35. Bobby Jindal has leveled false (potentially criminal) allegations against his opponents and has continually avoided qualifying his assertions of “corruption.”

36. Bobby Jindal’s multi-pointed “health care plan” fails to address the elderly or the physically disabled. Despite the fact that the elderly and the disabled account for the bulk of Louisiana Medicaid spending, Jindal supports Medicaid privatization (without any consideration for those most in need).

37. Bobby Jindal believes Louisiana should continue to adhere with the school accountability measures drawn up by President Bush’s failed No Child Left Behind Act.

The people have spoken!
post #11 of 82
Wow. This has become a kind of right-wing deconstructionism.

Do you guys see liberal bias in this too?

post #12 of 82
It does seems in these threads that bias is actually a code word for "not sufficiently deferential "
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #13 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Wow. This has become a kind of right-wing deconstructionism.

Do you guys see liberal bias in this too?


From the toast's perspective, that bite is out of the right side. Stunningly blatant liberal bias!
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #14 of 82


post #15 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Why Bobby Jindal Is Bad: The comprehensive post.[/URL]

Need more?[/URL]

The people have spoken!

They have spoken and given Jindal the office despite the fact that the media probably took your list of talking points and chanted them endlessly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Wow. This has become a kind of right-wing deconstructionism.

Do you guys see liberal bias in this too?


Of course we don't see bias in that picture. However when the caption for the picture reads "Grilled cheese sandwich prepared for Bobby Jindal in 1982 by woman who voted for David Duke. Then yeah, we are going to note the bias.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

It does seems in these threads that bias is actually a code word for "not sufficiently deferential "

Yes, clearly labeling someone a cold-blooded, qualified-non-breakthrough, who just happens to associated with racists is clearly just about forgetting their manners.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #16 of 82
Don't say I never gave you anything. You should get a few laughs...


The News on Your Face - News So Fake You'll Swear It Came From The Mainstream Media


Quote:
TNOYF offers conservative political satire. And fake news. And sometimes fake satire. At other times we provide satirical news. And fake political satire. Not to mention actual, real satire that is political in nature. And conservative. However, at no time do we offer Nutella.



Islamic Rage Boy and his ferocious likeness are copyrighted by The Nose on Your Face. Use with permission, or be buried up to your neck in the Afghani desert.

post #17 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes, clearly labeling someone a cold-blooded, qualified-non-breakthrough, who just happens to associated with racists is clearly just about forgetting their manners.

Nick

What can I say? We interpret that last quoted bit completely differently. To me, to interpret the article as somehow suggesting he associated/associates himself with racists to get elected is without merit. I highly doubt either one of us is going to be persuaded.

46% of the people who voted voted for someone else. There are bound to be criticisms, and they are bound to be reported. Again, it seems like what you're really upset about is that the article wasn't purely a celebration of his election.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #18 of 82
^Flounder, I think merely mentioning the fact that some right-wing Republicans are racist drives the non-racist Republicans mad. The deference the thread starter appears to want here is to ignore the role racism plays in instances where it actually does play a role in elections. Like here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

What stopped Jindal in 2003 wasn't Katherine Blanco running her campaign and receiving the majority of the vote. It wasn't the fact that historically the state has elected 40 Democratic governors and 9 Republicans. No it was the fact that the Klan didn't love Jindal.

Very simply, that's just not what the quoted paragraph says.

It refers to the voters in those districts who had earlier supported a racist candidate and who had not supported Jindal because of his race. It says the voters didn't love Jindal; not the Klan. Is that factually wrong? Do you dispute that voters in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana did not throw their support behind Jindal in 2003? Do you dispute this lack of support was racially-motivated? Do you dispute that voters in those districts once supported former Klan leader David Duke? If you accept those premises as true, then yes, it appears that Bobby Jindal has overcome a significant racial hurdle to the Governorship. The "racial hurdle" refers to the history of conservatives in those districts refusing to elect a racial minority. Overcoming that hurdle is a good thing.

Here's the quote again:

Quote:
Yet Mr. Jindal, with his decisive victory on Saturday, appears to have overcome a significant racial hurdle that blocked him in 2003, according to analysts: race-based opposition in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana that once supported the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
post #19 of 82
It's Jindal's own fault. He got off the white, privileged, liberal plantation. He's askin' for it.
BTW.. I wonder who the democrat Bull Connor types voted for?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #20 of 82
Artman:

Quote:

The people have spoken!

Well first, I'm not sure why you've assumed trumpt and I are pushing for the candidate. I am not a supporter or detractor of his at all, but that's just me. That said, reading over that list...there are some VERY weak and questionable points.

Taking money from...Halliburton? GASP!

Negative ads? Double gasp!

He's not a leader because he doesn't "get others to vote with him." That scumbag! Ooh...and he "refused" to call for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. I mean, what was he thinking?!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 82
Wingers are taking post-modernism way too seriously, what with their complaining that things aren't hegemonic enough for the white christian male...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #22 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Artman: ...

Bias in journalism, GASP!

post #23 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Bias in journalism, GASP!


A single conservative network amongst 400 liberal ones. GASP!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #24 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

A single conservative network amongst 400 liberal ones. GASP!

Single and network, two words that don't go together.

News Corporation

Television
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Television Stations
WNYW - New York City
WWOR - New York City
KTTV - Los Angeles
KCOP - Los Angeles
WFLD - Chicago
WPWR - Chicago
KMSP - Minneapolis
WFTC - Minneapolis
WTXF - Philadelphia
WFXT - Boston
WTTG - Washington D.C.
WDCA - Washington D.C.
KDFW - Dallas
KDFI - Dallas
WJBK - Detroit
KUTP - Phoenix
KSAZ - Phoenix
WUTB - Baltimore
WRBW - Orlando
WOFL - Orlando
WOGX - Ocala
WAGA - Atlanta
KRIV - Houston
KTXH - Houston
WJW - Cleveland
WTVT - Tampa
KDVR - Denver
KTVI - St. Louis
WITI - Milwaukee
WDAF - Kansas City
KSTU - Salt Lake City
WHBQ - Memphis
WGHP - Greensboro
WBRC - Birmingham
KTBC - Austin
DBS & Cable
FOXTEL
BSkyB
Star
DirecTV
Sky Italia
Fox News Channel
Fox Movie Channel
FX
FUEL
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
# Fox Sports Net
FSN New England (50%)
FSN Ohio
FSN Florida
National Advertising Partners
Fox College Sports
Fox Soccer Channel
Stats, Inc.
Film
20th Century Fox
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Television Studios
Blue Sky Studios
Newspapers
United States
New York Post
United Kingdom
News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times
Australia
Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
Newsphotos
Newspix
Newstext
NT News
Post-Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times
Magazines
InsideOut
donna hay
SmartSource
The Weekly Standard
TV Guide (partial)
Books
HarperMorrow Publishers
HarperMorrow
General Books Group
Access
Amistad
Caedmon
Avon
Ecco
Eos
Fourth Estate
HarperAudio
HarperBusiness
HarperCollins
Harper Design International
HarperEntertainment
HarperLargePrint
HarperResource
HarperSanFrancisco
HarperTorch
Perennial
PerfectBound
Quill
Rayo
ReganBooks
William Morrow
William Morrow Cookbooks
Children's Books Group
Avon
Greenwillow Books
Joanna Cotler Books
Eos
Laura Geringer Books
HarperAudio
HarperCollins Children's Books
HarperFestival
HarperTempest
Katherine Tegen Books
Trophy
Zondervan
HarperCollins UK
HarperCollins Canada
HarperCollins Australia
Other
Los Angeles Kings (NHL, 40% option)
Los Angeles Lakers (NBA, 9.8% option)
Staples Center (40% owned by Fox/Liberty)
News Interactive
Fox Sports Radio Network
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Broadsystem
Classic FM
Festival Records
Fox Interactive
IGN Entertainment
Mushroom Records
MySpace.com
National Rugby League
NDS
News Outdoor
Nursery World
Scout Media
post #25 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Single and network, two words that don't go together.

News Corporation

Television
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Television Stations
WNYW - New York City
WWOR - New York City
KTTV - Los Angeles
KCOP - Los Angeles
WFLD - Chicago
WPWR - Chicago
KMSP - Minneapolis
WFTC - Minneapolis
WTXF - Philadelphia
WFXT - Boston
WTTG - Washington D.C.
WDCA - Washington D.C.
KDFW - Dallas
KDFI - Dallas
WJBK - Detroit
KUTP - Phoenix
KSAZ - Phoenix
WUTB - Baltimore
WRBW - Orlando
WOFL - Orlando
WOGX - Ocala
WAGA - Atlanta
KRIV - Houston
KTXH - Houston
WJW - Cleveland
WTVT - Tampa
KDVR - Denver
KTVI - St. Louis
WITI - Milwaukee
WDAF - Kansas City
KSTU - Salt Lake City
WHBQ - Memphis
WGHP - Greensboro
WBRC - Birmingham
KTBC - Austin
DBS & Cable
FOXTEL
BSkyB
Star
DirecTV
Sky Italia
Fox News Channel
Fox Movie Channel
FX
FUEL
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
# Fox Sports Net
FSN New England (50%)
FSN Ohio
FSN Florida
National Advertising Partners
Fox College Sports
Fox Soccer Channel
Stats, Inc.
Film
20th Century Fox
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Television Studios
Blue Sky Studios
Newspapers
United States
New York Post
United Kingdom
News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times
Australia
Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
Newsphotos
Newspix
Newstext
NT News
Post-Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times
Magazines
InsideOut
donna hay
SmartSource
The Weekly Standard
TV Guide (partial)
Books
HarperMorrow Publishers
HarperMorrow
General Books Group
Access
Amistad
Caedmon
Avon
Ecco
Eos
Fourth Estate
HarperAudio
HarperBusiness
HarperCollins
Harper Design International
HarperEntertainment
HarperLargePrint
HarperResource
HarperSanFrancisco
HarperTorch
Perennial
PerfectBound
Quill
Rayo
ReganBooks
William Morrow
William Morrow Cookbooks
Children's Books Group
Avon
Greenwillow Books
Joanna Cotler Books
Eos
Laura Geringer Books
HarperAudio
HarperCollins Children's Books
HarperFestival
HarperTempest
Katherine Tegen Books
Trophy
Zondervan
HarperCollins UK
HarperCollins Canada
HarperCollins Australia
Other
Los Angeles Kings (NHL, 40% option)
Los Angeles Lakers (NBA, 9.8% option)
Staples Center (40% owned by Fox/Liberty)
News Interactive
Fox Sports Radio Network
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Broadsystem
Classic FM
Festival Records
Fox Interactive
IGN Entertainment
Mushroom Records
MySpace.com
National Rugby League
NDS
News Outdoor
Nursery World
Scout Media

Oh blah. I was talking about FNC.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #26 of 82
ZING!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #27 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

What can I say? We interpret that last quoted bit completely differently. To me, to interpret the article as somehow suggesting he associated/associates himself with racists to get elected is without merit. I highly doubt either one of us is going to be persuaded.

46% of the people who voted voted for someone else. There are bound to be criticisms, and they are bound to be reported. Again, it seems like what you're really upset about is that the article wasn't purely a celebration of his election.

I think there is a large difference between celebrating an election and bringing up an entirely different election where it is claimed a different candidate and this candidate claimed the same constituency.

David Duke ran for governor in 1991 when Bobby Jindal was 20 years old. What relevance does that have in 2007? Aside from having the same geographical location, there is nothing to suggest the support between the two was the same. Yet the article is referencing who it contends these parishes supported in 1991 in a breakthrough election in 2007. The only possibility is bias. There is no logical way to tie the two together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

^Flounder, I think merely mentioning the fact that some right-wing Republicans are racist drives the non-racist Republicans mad. The deference the thread starter appears to want here is to ignore the role racism plays in instances where it actually does play a role in elections. Like here.

Very simply, that's just not what the quoted paragraph says.

It refers to the voters in those districts who had earlier supported a racist candidate and who had not supported Jindal because of his race. It says the voters didn't love Jindal; not the Klan. Is that factually wrong? Do you dispute that voters in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana did not throw their support behind Jindal in 2003? Do you dispute this lack of support was racially-motivated? Do you dispute that voters in those districts once supported former Klan leader David Duke? If you accept those premises as true, then yes, it appears that Bobby Jindal has overcome a significant racial hurdle to the Governorship. The "racial hurdle" refers to the history of conservatives in those districts refusing to elect a racial minority. Overcoming that hurdle is a good thing.

Here's the quote again:

The role racism plays in this election is asserted by the article writer and supported by absolutely nothing. It is hilarious that the first non-white governor elected since RECONSTRUCTION becomes a prism by which we can judge how racist Republicans are claimed to be.

What the paragraphs says is a claim that is supported in no form or fashion by any evidence presented by the author. He asserts it and since it fits his narrative, that is good enough. There are no exit polls.

I dispute the entire paragraph. Jindal lost to Blanco in 2003 by a margin of 53-48 percent. To suggest it would be impossible for him to pick up five more percent based off nothing more than the Blanco incompetence related to Katrina is completely plausible. It is also entirely plausible that he filled the void and nothing more. Blanco had held various elected offices since 1984 and had NEVER lost an election. It was expected she was going to run for reelection this time, but apparently decided not to when considering who was running and the weight of her bad performance would hold her support down.

Also what is meant by supported? The word suggests much more than what actually happened. David Duke managed to make it past the primary and received 39% of the vote statewide which was by the way, the most support he ever managed to garner. Since I've not seen anything to suggest the support of Duke was the same as Jindal in any fashion and the article provides no support for that contention. The events are 16 years apart for goodness sake. How can we presume the demographic, political party affiliation, or anything else is even the same between the two times?

It is a completely baseless claim and I will gladly dispute all of it. The author doesn't even give names of the claimed parishes.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #28 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The role racism plays in this election is asserted by the article writer and supported by absolutely nothing. It is hilarious that the first non-white governor elected since RECONSTRUCTION becomes a prism by which we can judge how racist Republicans are claimed to be.

What the paragraphs says is a claim that is supported in no form or fashion by any evidence presented by the author. He asserts it and since it fits his narrative, that is good enough. There are no exit polls.

I dispute the entire paragraph. Jindal lost to Blanco in 2003 by a margin of 53-48 percent. To suggest it would be impossible for him to pick up five more percent based off nothing more than the Blanco incompetence related to Katrina is completely plausible. It is also entirely plausible that he filled the void and nothing more. Blanco had held various elected offices since 1984 and had NEVER lost an election. It was expected she was going to run for reelection this time, but apparently decided not to when considering who was running and the weight of her bad performance would hold her support down.

Also what is meant by supported? The word suggests much more than what actually happened. David Duke managed to make it past the primary and received 39% of the vote statewide which was by the way, the most support he ever managed to garner. Since I've not seen anything to suggest the support of Duke was the same as Jindal in any fashion and the article provides no support for that contention. The events are 16 years apart for goodness sake. How can we presume the demographic, political party affiliation, or anything else is even the same between the two times?

It is a completely baseless claim and I will gladly dispute all of it. The author doesn't even give names of the claimed parishes.

Oh come on.

Let me get this straight. You don't have any evidence that the facts reported in that paragraph are incorrect, but you still dispute it on a factual basis? I mean, just come on. Either you can contradict those facts or you can't. The most you can muster in opposition are questions that the article already resolved in one way or another. No it doesn't go into much detail, but that's not a reason to disbelieve it. What contrary evidence do you have? None. Don't you see that as a problem?

The facts::

Quote:
Do you dispute that voters in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana did not throw their support behind Jindal in 2003? Do you dispute this lack of support was racially-motivated? Do you dispute that voters in those districts once supported former Klan leader David Duke?
post #29 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Oh come on.

Let me get this straight. You don't have any evidence that the facts reported in that paragraph are incorrect, but you still dispute it on a factual basis? I mean, just come on. Either you can contradict those facts or you can't. The most you can muster in opposition are questions that the article already resolved in one way or another. No it doesn't go into much detail, but that's not a reason to disbelieve it. What contrary evidence do you have? None. Don't you see that as a problem?

The facts::

Oh come on?!? Are you insane?!?

Let me see if I get you what you say, the writer asserts it and thus it is a fact? Why is it a fact? Where is the proof?

I've presented plenty of contrary information. I noted the large disparity in both time and percentages between the Duke election and the Jindal win. How do you get that Jindal went from 48% support to 53% support via the 38% Duke managed to garner 16 years prior? It is about the most ridiculous assertion I could imagine. The article did not resolve any of my questions. It provides support for nothing. It gives no numbers or support of any kind. Where do you get off claiming as fact mere assertions by the writer. It is akin to claiming it is fact because he says so.

It doesn't go into much detail? It doesn't go into ANY detail. It doesn't name percentages, parishes, demographical groups won or lost, nothing. Find me the facts in that paragraph because there are none. It is nothing more than assertions that you grant fact status because it fits YOUR narrative as well.

It plays to your bias and you eat it up hook, line and sinker.

Do you dispute that voters in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana did not throw their support behind Jindal in 2003?

Which northern and eastern parishes? What percentage garnered constitutes support? How can we compare what is not named?


Do you dispute this lack of support was racially-motivated?

Do we have any information that shows anything at all about the support racially motivated or otherwise?

Do you dispute that voters in those districts once supported former Klan leader David Duke?

Which districts? They aren't even named. What constitutes support since the most Duke ever garnered was 38%? If Blanco or Jindal ever garnered more than 38% in those districts were they both supported by racists since it is a higher than what Duke got? Do we have anything that shows the exact same people voted for Duke and Jindal 16 years apart?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #30 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Oh come on?!? Are you insane?!?

Let me see if I get you what you say, the writer asserts it and thus it is a fact? Why is it a fact? Where is the proof?

I've presented plenty of contrary information. I noted the large disparity in both time and percentages between the Duke election and the Jindal win. How do you get that Jindal went from 48% support to 53% support via the 38% Duke managed to garner 16 years prior? It is about the most ridiculous assertion I could imagine. The article did not resolve any of my questions. It provides support for nothing. It gives no numbers or support of any kind. Where do you get off claiming as fact mere assertions by the writer. It is akin to claiming it is fact because he says so.

It doesn't go into much detail? It doesn't go into ANY detail. It doesn't name percentages, parishes, demographical groups won or lost, nothing. Find me the facts in that paragraph because there are none. It is nothing more than assertions that you grant fact status because it fits YOUR narrative as well.

It plays to your bias and you eat it up hook, line and sinker.

Nick

I'll grant you that given the lack of support (except for unnamed "analysts"), there's a case to be made about the veracity of the facts implied in the writer's assertions in that quoted paragraph. And as far as I know, you haven't denied that they are true; but merely disputed their veracity given the lack of support offered. So you're keeping an open mind here at least. However, I think you're wrong about why the David Duke point was offered, as I pointed out in my initial reply and here (in a different capacity).

The point about David Duke was offered to show that voters in the district had at one time supported a racist candidate, which would suggest that candidates would find it difficult to win those districts if they belonged to a racial minority. I'm not sure what "supported" means either, and you're right to criticize the writer for vagueness. Nevertheless, if that's true, then it would seem to go towards Bobby Jindal's overcoming a significant racial hurdle to the Governorship.
post #31 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I'll grant you that given the lack of support (except for unnamed "analysts"), there's a case to be made about the veracity of the facts implied in the writer's assertions in that quoted paragraph. And as far as I know, you haven't denied that they are true; but merely disputed their veracity given the lack of support offered. So you're keeping an open mind here at least. However, I think you're wrong about why the David Duke point was offered, as I pointed out in my initial reply and here (in a different capacity).

I think you are giving me a bit too much credit. I'm just being polite about what are some completely unsubstantiated claims. The David Duke point was clearly to make Jindal a "sellout" minority. We all know that Republican minorities are not "true" representatives of their race due to the fact that... well Democrats say so. Colin Powell, Condileeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, they are just white people with black skin according to many leftists.

Quote:
The point about David Duke was offered to show that voters in the district had at one time supported a racist candidate, which would suggest that candidates would find it difficult to win those districts if they belonged to a racial minority. I'm not sure what "supported" means either, and you're right to criticize the writer for vagueness. Nevertheless, if that's true, then it would seem to go towards Bobby Jindal's overcoming a significant racial hurdle to the Governorship.

I really don't think you've given enough thought to how long 16 years is a a timeframe. Did Bobby Jindal overcome racists or did the 2 year olds during the David Duke election simply become 18 year olds who could vote? Many definitions of generation are done at the 15 year mark now. Basically we are talking about an entirely different window of time and very different factors at play. Clinton wasn't even president yet as an example. There was not a single web page yet on the planet and the first internet connection was made that year. A little band named Nirvana had just signed their first recording contract. In 1991, a little animation studio called Pixar wouldn't release their first movie, Toy Story, for another four years. No one had heard of a rapper named Snoop Doggy Dog yet.

To put it bluntly, that is a hell of a long time. We can't even relate the two unless the writer wants to give us some context beyond geography.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #32 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I think there is a large difference between celebrating an election and bringing up an entirely different election where it is claimed a different candidate and this candidate claimed the same constituency.

David Duke ran for governor in 1991 when Bobby Jindal was 20 years old. What relevance does that have in 2007? Aside from having the same geographical location, there is nothing to suggest the support between the two was the same. Yet the article is referencing who it contends these parishes supported in 1991 in a breakthrough election in 2007. The only possibility is bias. There is no logical way to tie the two together.



The role racism plays in this election is asserted by the article writer and supported by absolutely nothing. It is hilarious that the first non-white governor elected since RECONSTRUCTION becomes a prism by which we can judge how racist Republicans are claimed to be.

What the paragraphs says is a claim that is supported in no form or fashion by any evidence presented by the author. He asserts it and since it fits his narrative, that is good enough. There are no exit polls.

I dispute the entire paragraph. Jindal lost to Blanco in 2003 by a margin of 53-48 percent. To suggest it would be impossible for him to pick up five more percent based off nothing more than the Blanco incompetence related to Katrina is completely plausible. It is also entirely plausible that he filled the void and nothing more. Blanco had held various elected offices since 1984 and had NEVER lost an election. It was expected she was going to run for reelection this time, but apparently decided not to when considering who was running and the weight of her bad performance would hold her support down.

Also what is meant by supported? The word suggests much more than what actually happened. David Duke managed to make it past the primary and received 39% of the vote statewide which was by the way, the most support he ever managed to garner. Since I've not seen anything to suggest the support of Duke was the same as Jindal in any fashion and the article provides no support for that contention. The events are 16 years apart for goodness sake. How can we presume the demographic, political party affiliation, or anything else is even the same between the two times?

It is a completely baseless claim and I will gladly dispute all of it. The author doesn't even give names of the claimed parishes.

Nick

Louisiana 2007 Election Results
Louisiana 2003 Election Results
Louisiana County Map
Louisiana Road Map (showing major cities and counties)
Louisiana County Demographics (2000 census)
Louisiana Voter Guide
Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans
Orleans Parish Demographics
Saint Bernard Parish Demographics
Jefferson Parish Demographics
Saint Tammany Parish Demographics
David Duke (still alive and kicking in Saint Tammany Parish)

[CENTER][/CENTER]

So basically it's about the "free white flight" starting in the 60's (civil rights movement plus building of the the Interstate system in the 50's and 60's (primarily), and the "forced black flight" from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005!

Talk about "upwardly mobile whites" versus "downwardly immobile blacks" now I'll leave it to you to do your own analysis, but it is quite clear as to cause and effect on this one!

Have a nice day.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #33 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Louisiana 2007 Election Results
Louisiana 2003 Election Results
Louisiana County Map
Louisiana Road Map (showing major cities and counties)
Louisiana County Demographics (2000 census)
Louisiana Voter Guide
Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans
Orleans Parish Demographics
Saint Bernard Parish Demographics
Jefferson Parish Demographics
Saint Tammany Parish Demographics
David Duke (still alive and kicking in Saint Tammany Parish)

[CENTER][/CENTER]

So basically it's about the "free white flight" starting in the 60's (civil rights movement plus building of the the Interstate system in the 50's and 60's (primarily), and the "forced black flight" from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005!

Talk about "upwardly mobile whites" versus "downwardly immobile blacks" now I'll leave it to you to do your own analysis, but it is quite clear as to cause and effect on this one!

Have a nice day.

Assuming ALL of that is correct, it's off topic. We're talking about how the media has portrayed Jindal's victory. Even if he won because of significant demographic changes, it's merely gratuitous for the media to make the point it did. It's basically name calling here. It's inappropriate.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Assuming ALL of that is correct, it's off topic. We're talking about how the media has portrayed Jindal's victory. Even if he won because of significant demographic changes, it's merely gratuitous for the media to make the point it did. It's basically name calling here. It's inappropriate.

It's all TRUE with respect to this sentence in that NYT's piece;

Quote:
Yet Mr. Jindal, with his decisive victory on Saturday, appears to have overcome a significant racial hurdle that blocked him in 2003, according to analysts: race-based opposition in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana that once supported the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

The "according to analysts" part is glossed over, because of the volume of information necessary to support that claim.

But what the NYT article failed to mention was the relative demographic lost from Orleans Parish, which WAS the major factor in Jindal's victory.

I can come back with a more formal analysis, if you wish, on a parish/precinct basis, using primarily census data, and the 2003/2007 election results. But my brief fact checking last night on the links I posted does show key percentage gains by Jindal in certain key areas that the NYT article mentions.

And that's me spending a FEW hours of fact checking and preliminary analyses (and knowing where to look helps a lot).

Compare that to experts on Louisiana demographics/history/elections who have spent years understanding trends and events. \

At least I'm willing to spend some time in actual fact checking to determine if there is ANY validity to the aforementioned statement, and to no surprise to me it appears to be true. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #35 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

It's all TRUE with respect to this sentence in that NYT's piece;



The "according to analysts" part is glossed over, because of the volume of information necessary to support that claim.

But what the NYT article failed to mention was the relative demographic lost from Orleans Parish, which WAS the major factor in Jindal's victory.

I can come back with a more formal analysis, if you wish, on a parish/precinct basis, using primarily census data, and the 2003/2007 election results. But my brief fact checking last night on the links I posted does show key percentage gains by Jindal in certain key areas that the NYT article mentions.

And that's me spending a FEW hours of fact checking and preliminary analyses (and knowing where to look helps a lot).

Compare that to experts on Louisiana demographics/history/elections who have spent years understanding trends and events. \

At least I'm willing to spend some time in actual fact checking to determine if there is ANY validity to the aforementioned statement, and to no surprise to me it appears to be true. \

Actually Frank you are alleging a couple things that could be true, but appear to be very different from what the article itself is alleging. First you are alleging demographic change within certain districts/parishes due to white flight. This would mean that the people who voted for a David Duke are less likely to live in those same areas 16 years later. Based off their alleged beliefs, they would have fled those areas or as you noted, they would have engaged in white flight.

The second thing you allege, and this is different from what the article notes as well, is that Jindal won because the people who would have voted against him, depopulated the area due to Katrina and thus he won a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

Both of those could be true and still wouldn't prove what the article alleged, although they do make some interesting thinking.

I think it possible based off a couple points to note the article allegation as wrong. First the age of the two elections makes it very unlikely the same people in the same districts/parishes voted for Duke and Jindal. Second, just the behavior of racists themselves makes it very unlikely. The claim in the past was that the Dixiecrats moved to the Republican party due to the civil rights issue. (Even though the Republicans of the time voted for the same civil rights legislation in higher percentages than Democrats.)

So we know, at least according to those claims, that party loyalty does not ride above the loyalty to act like a racist. Within this governor's race, there was a rich, white Republican who switched parties in order to run against Jindal. The top two Democratic challenges were white males as well, and from what I have read at least one of them were rich enough to self-finance as well.

So even if we buy the newspaper contention, we have to believe that white racists would ignore three white males, two of them wealthy, one of them a Republican who had switched just for this election to run against Jindal, to vote for Jindal who is not of their race.

Sorry but if motivations are going to be claimed by certain people with regard to actions, they have to be consistent. If they are willing to move to avoid minorities (white flight) they aren't going to just go cast their vote for Jindal when they have clear alternatives that match their race.

Also we would have to believe, that in the people had not changed their behavior for 12 years, because Jindal ran the first time and lost in 2003. (Does that mean the racists were supporting Blanco instead since she won? I know Nagin endorsed Jindal over Blanco in 2003) Then a short four years later, we are to believe that they have now changed behaviors that they had followed for the previous 12 and perhaps up to 16 years, all to vote for Jindal.

That doesn't make much sense either.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #36 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Colin Powell, Condileeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, they are just white people with black skin according to many leftists.

I love it when Trumpt uses gross characterizations of "the left" and then rails against the same types of generalizations hurled at the right. There's an "H" word I'm thinking of....
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #37 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Assuming ALL of that is correct, it's off topic. We're talking about how the media has portrayed Jindal's victory. Even if he won because of significant demographic changes, it's merely gratuitous for the media to make the point it did. It's basically name calling here. It's inappropriate.

And that would be the same media that called Al Gore names like "serial liar" when it was demonstrably false. Right?

The point is that the media is out for themselves and ONLY themselves. This idea that they only stick it to conservatives is utterly absurd. They pick a narrative that they like and they stick to it. Period. Because they're certainly not doing my side any favors (Republicans are the "daddy" party and Democrats are the "mommy" party).
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #38 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The David Duke point was clearly to make Jindal a "sellout" minority. We all know that Republican minorities are not "true" representatives of their race due to the fact that... well Democrats say so. Colin Powell, Condileeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, they are just white people with black skin according to many leftists.

Oh, clearly!



Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I really don't think you've given enough thought to how long 16 years is a a timeframe. Did Bobby Jindal overcome racists or did the 2 year olds during the David Duke election simply become 18 year olds who could vote?

Both would go towards overcoming a racial barrier in those districts.

Younger voters who may not have those racist beliefs could help cancel out the older conservative voters who still refuse to vote for a racial minority. These districts had once voted for a racist in 1991, and in 2003 analysts still believed "that many voters are uncomfortable voting for a non-white person." No one's claiming this was the sole reason why Jindal lost in 2003, but given the history of the districts and the fact that Jindal lost the conservative districts despite his conservative views, seems to create at least an inference that racism had in part played a factor. It probably still plays a factor for many.
post #39 of 82
Thread Starter 
You know Shawn, you've brought a good tone to this discussion and so I want you to know I'm not trying to accuse you attempting to avoid reasoning, but why would you give credence to unnamed, unsupported analysts who "believe" that people were uncomfortable? No numbers, no support of any kind. The people won't even go on record with these claims. Why give them any merit?

I went and found a link from Time reporting on this election win.

It states this but again provides no support.

Quote:
Following his defeat in 2003, Jindal ran for and won the congressional seat in Louisiana's first district. Since then, the staunch conservative who converted from Hinduism to Catholicism as a teenager has traveled often to northern Louisiana, hitting up churches and pressing the flesh. The strategy appears to have worked, as Jindal handily won the areas he lost to Blanco four years ago and that heavily supported white supremacist David Duke's bid for the governorship in 1991.

So now I have gone digging for articles about when Blanco won because clearly, at least from the claims in this article she won these nothern areas. She was also a "first" in that she was the first woman elected to the governorship in the history of the state.

I've found two articles and not a single one references David Duke and 1991 in the historic Blanco win.

So I've decided we need to have a little fun here and open the search to more than me.

I'll donate to the charity or cause of your choice or to the choice of anyone who finds the following information as denoted below.

$25- Blanco won as the first woman, but it is qualified or incomplete in some or any fashion because of some variable related to her sex.
$25- Blanco won but a critic, sourced or unsourced is allowed to take a shot in the article at the winning candidate's character, for example calling her coldblooded or anything similarly related.
$50- If anyone can find any news article linking Blanco's win and the votes cast in it with negative votes in a prior election ala David Duke.

That is $100 total open to the charity or cause for whoever finds them. It is split up and different people can claim different items. It can be partially claimed or completely. Finding one doesn't disqualify the others, etc. but I will pay only one claim for each item.

Who wants to see trumptman give $100.00 to Emily's List, Barack for President, NOW or what have you... since the media is fair and unbiased, this should be relatively easy. Clearly they would have noted similar interest points from four years prior when Blanco won.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #40 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

I love it when Trumpt uses gross characterizations of "the left" and then rails against the same types of generalizations hurled at the right. There's an "H" word I'm thinking of....

Hippo-crypt?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Media Bias 2: The neverending saga