Oh i don't know. how about that lawful detention without cause and without time limits?
Just because a freedom has not been taking away from you personally, doesn't mean it hasn't been taken away.
Of who? Non-American citizens and/or illegal immigrants who are highly suspected of being terrorists? Folks who travel to Afghanistan as American Citizens to support causes which themselves support the destruction of the United States? The next thing we know, our mutal friend jimmac will be screaming "Mcarthyism" again. There's only one crime defined in the US Constitution, and that's Treason. Maybe you should read the book by the same name.
Quote:
Reverse Ditto. And why not fair.org. OOhhhhh that's right fair.org is a part of the katie couric "did you see the way she asked that question? she must be a registered commie pinko leftist" liberal media. lol
If you have a real argument against my assertion that the media is biased, then post it. Mocking me may make your ego have a nice day, but it doesn't win any arguments. Oh, and telling me "Uh, dude...most like media CEO's and shit are like so totally registered Republicans and like super-rich and stuff....and like their companies are rich....so the media can't be biased to the Left" won't cut it either. Large corporatiions and their CEO's are not neccessarily Republicans.
You can keep mocking the Couric comment I made, but it still happened. She is the one on the air, and if you think an experienced TV anchor/journalist can't twist a story, then you have a lot to learn. And stop with the hyperbole (exaggeration, in case you didn't know). I never said she was communist. I said she was a liberal.
jimmac:
Please tell me that was a joke. (WMD to be found...possibly). If you don't think we will find them, that's OK with me. But to mock me for thinking we will is unacceptable. It's not an unreasonable assertion on my part.
Of who? Non-American citizens and/or illegal immigrants who are highly suspected of being terrorists? Folks who travel to Afghanistan as American Citizens to support causes which themselves support the destruction of the United States?
Yes, them. Glad you're paying attention.
I also like how you have one justification for the non-Americans (to wit: they are non-Americans so morally we can do anything we want to them) and another for the US Citzens (they do things I don't like, so morally we can do anything we want to them).
Even people accused of being child-murdering peadophile rapists have rights and for very good reasons that have nothing to do with protecting criminals and everything to do with protecting society. Of course, terrorist are so evil we have to throw all this out the window and allow the governments of the world to lie to their people.
It looks like 1984 arrived 20 years late, but there's really no need for you to be so damn *happy* about it.
Of who? Non-American citizens and/or illegal immigrants who are highly suspected of being terrorists? Folks who travel to Afghanistan as American Citizens to support causes which themselves support the destruction of the United States? The next thing we know, our mutal friend jimmac will be screaming "Mcarthyism" again. There's only one crime defined in the US Constitution, and that's Treason. Maybe you should read the book by the same name.
Reall life honest to goodness americans. Maybe Fox news didn't report it. Look up the guy fron intel that is/was being held.
Quote:
. Large corporatiions and their CEO's are not neccessarily Republicans.
No. they are just greedy and that is my argument. As I stated before, some media leans left, some leans right and most are driven by the bottom dollar. This is what is really hurting the crediblity of the media and the trust of the american people. this hurts us all more then katie "close the barn door" couric
Quote:
nk an experienced TV anchor/journalist can't twist a story,
Of course they can. But you seem to think they have the final say so on what goes in the air. Get real. Roger ailes has more power then katie could ever dream of.But that seems to be OK with you?
Quote:
You can keep mocking the Couric comment I made, but it still happened. She is the one on the air, and if you think an experienced TV anchor/journalist can't twist a story, then you have a lot to learn. And stop with the hyperbole (exaggeration, in case you didn't know). I never said she was communist. I said she was a liberal.
And paula zahn (cnn) gave the most fluff peice i have seen in a while when she interviewed pat roberston. She softballed the questions and left out so many followups that it looks like a piece from entertainment tonight.
At that point i could have whined... "oh paula zahn in conservative" and CNN is "so right wing" .. then i could have ran to forums.appleinisider.com and told the world she's "tool of the republicans" but i did not. Instead i realized that she's there not for her jounalsim talent but because she has hi Q points. Because she can bring in the viewers which result in higher ad rates which results in more dollars for the corporation that employs her.PERIOD.
Of who? Non-American citizens and/or illegal immigrants who are highly suspected of being terrorists? Folks who travel to Afghanistan as American Citizens to support causes which themselves support the destruction of the United States? The next thing we know, our mutal friend jimmac will be screaming "Mcarthyism" again. There's only one crime defined in the US Constitution, and that's Treason. Maybe you should read the book by the same name.
If you have a real argument against my assertion that the media is biased, then post it. Mocking me may make your ego have a nice day, but it doesn't win any arguments. Oh, and telling me "Uh, dude...most like media CEO's and shit are like so totally registered Republicans and like super-rich and stuff....and like their companies are rich....so the media can't be biased to the Left" won't cut it either. Large corporatiions and their CEO's are not neccessarily Republicans.
You can keep mocking the Couric comment I made, but it still happened. She is the one on the air, and if you think an experienced TV anchor/journalist can't twist a story, then you have a lot to learn. And stop with the hyperbole (exaggeration, in case you didn't know). I never said she was communist. I said she was a liberal.
jimmac:
Please tell me that was a joke. (WMD to be found...possibly). If you don't think we will find them, that's OK with me. But to mock me for thinking we will is unacceptable. It's not an unreasonable assertion on my part.
I think this issue will be a continuing source of irritation for Bush.
I don't think Bush is a shoe in for the presidency ( one reason is this issue ).
I'm sorry but I don't think the economy will be any better come election time. That is enough to pull Bush's fat out of the fire.
In some cases I think Bush is a clueless fool and a hood orniment for big corporations.
I think there is much more to the WOMD ( or lack there of ) issue than we have been told. And no this doesn't mean that we've found them and aren't disclosing.
I think certain factions of Bush support are running scared ( even if they won't admit it ) and would try anything to discredit ( or shut up ) the other side.
And I don't think the media is controlled in any way, shape, or form by liberals. I think this might be just echoing the public's opinion. I think the media is controlled by themselves and if their reporting is slanted at times it's because they want better ratings.
On a related note I heard the other day from a friend that statistically there are more liberals in the country than conservatives so this tendancy you see might be a very natural thing since there are more of us. I haven't had a chance to check this out yet but I will.
The problem is to get these people out to vote. Voter apathy is ( and was in the last election ) at an all time high. I think though if having Bush in office screws up people's lives enough that could change.
However, something will be 'found'. David Kay, head of the pentagon's inspection team (just like the Office of Special Plans was the pentagon's intel source)and Iraq war cheerleader extrodinaire, said the other day to koppel that they found a bunch of documents (I'm assuming these are a little better done than the niger ones) and that they will be releasing their findings in a couple months.
I also like how you have one justification for the non-Americans (to wit: they are non-Americans so morally we can do anything we want to them) and another for the US Citzens (they do things I don't like, so morally we can do anything we want to them).
Even people accused of being child-murdering peadophile rapists have rights and for very good reasons that have nothing to do with protecting criminals and everything to do with protecting society. Of course, terrorist are so evil we have to throw all this out the window and allow the governments of the world to lie to their people.
It looks like 1984 arrived 20 years late, but there's really no need for you to be so damn *happy* about it.
The kind of people we both know we're talking about do not deserve the protections of the Constitution. Whether their "American" traitors who left the country to fight agaisnt it or illegal immigrants, they do not deserve the protections of criminal law which you and I pay for. We're not talking about robbng a bank. We're talking international terrorism. It really IS a war, and sometimes things change during war.
jimmac:
Quote:
And I don't think the media is controlled in any way, shape, or form by liberals. I think this might be just echoing the public's opinion. I think the media is controlled by themselves and if their reporting is slanted at times it's because they want better ratings.
On a related note I heard the other day from a friend that statistically there are more liberals in the country than conservatives so this tendancy you see might be a very natural thing since there are more of us. I haven't had a chance to check this out yet but I will.
You also have no support for your opinion. You are entiteled to it, though. I disagree with point two. The national electorate leans conservative, which is why liberals at the national level have to lie to get elected.
Quote:
The problem is to get these people out to vote. Voter apathy is ( and was in the last election ) at an all time high. I think though if having Bush in office screws up people's lives enough that could change.
We have a true believer here folks. But your right, I think liberals don't vote in the same percentages as do conservatives. This is why we have Jesse Jackson and cohorts bussing people to the polls (with same day registration...somehow I doubt they'd let ME do that) and certain local branches of the Democratic party handing out ciggarettes at the polls.
keyboard:
Quote:
Reall life honest to goodness americans. Maybe Fox news didn't report it. Look up the guy fron intel that is/was being held.
Show me. and drop the Fox News bullshit. I read a variety of sources, including those who I despise just to see their point of view.
Quote:
No. they are just greedy and that is my argument. As I stated before, some media leans left, some leans right and most are driven by the bottom dollar. This is what is really hurting the crediblity of the media and the trust of the american people. this hurts us all more then katie "close the barn door" couric
You assume that liberal bias and profit motive don't and can't go hand in hand. I disagree.
Quote:
Of course they can. But you seem to think they have the final say so on what goes in the air. Get real. Roger ailes has more power then katie could ever dream of.But that seems to be OK with you?
What do you mean, "OK"? It's "OK" because he's free to start twelve networks if he wants. I'm not sure what you mean here. I suppose the government should get involved. Big surprise there.
Quote:
At that point i could have whined... "oh paula zahn in conservative" and CNN is "so right wing" .. then i could have ran to forums.appleinisider.com and told the world she's "tool of the republicans" but i did not. Instead i realized that she's there not for her jounalsim talent but because she has hi Q points. Because she can bring in the viewers which result in higher ad rates which results in more dollars for the corporation that employs her.PERIOD.
That's how the media works.
No big conspiracy here folks.
1) Katie Couric is but one example of a liberal who lets her persoanl views influence her reporting. You can't change that.
2) Your comment on CNN would depend on the rest of their reporting and choice of story. I didn't just wake up and see one anti-Bush story on the Today show and leap over the "NBC's baised" cliff. Seriously, quit the disingenuous "gotcha" tactics or go away.
3) It's not really a conspiracy. It's just the way things are for the most part. I never used the word conspiracy. It's not like I think a bunch of folks with Al Gore masks on sit around giant conference table and cackle wildly as they select news stories. It's in the prevaling media culture. It's in the Universities. It's the political basis for all academic "elite" thought. That's where liberalism is.
Stay on topic, please. I asked nicely. Altering the premise, mocking it or me personally, etc. is not acceptable. If it continues I will personally ask for the thread to be locked.
This is a thread about the political consequences for the Democrats (and Republicans too) given the hypothetical fact we find substantial WMD. That's all, folks. Get some perspective or post in one of the other "Bush lied" threads. Thank you!
Hey! Whatever happened to staying on topic? Apparently we all have to follow the rules of SDW, and we can only do things that are against the rules of his thread when he says so. Can I go to the bathroom, SDW? Please?
Of course, your only intention with this thread was to fabricate a where you might have a foothold and then proceed to just argue on any and every issue that allows you to assert yourself as a 'conservative'.
Since now the discussion has moved to SDW asserting his views on everything from guantanamo, rights of immigrants and media bias, I'd like to start a seperate discussion on MTV's The Real World.
What's up with those people on that show? I bet they put the Real World on their resume later in life. Would you hire someone who was picked for a show precisely because the producers thought they couldn't interact with strangers in a normal way? I wouldn't. What do you think SDW?
(Warning. First link goes to the washington post. So its probably pinko tripe. But hey. they all have funny sounding last names so they are probably are guilty.)
Quote:
You assume that liberal bias and profit motive don't and can't go hand in hand. I disagree.
No I am assuming most media is driven by the bottom dollar to the exclusion of politics. As for assuming, rent the Bad News Bears.
Quote:
Show me. and drop the Fox News bullshit. I read a variety of sources, including those who I despise just to see their point of view.
Sorry can't drop the Fox is Bullshit line from any news org that hires a bush relative to count the votes on election night...(while talking to other bushes on the phone)
Quote:
Rupert Murdoch?s Fox News Channel is the current buzz in TV journalism. Riding high in the news ratings and unsettling the venerated CNN and the more established MSNBC, Fox News has established a reputation for brash and exciting, in-your-face conservative news. Murdoch?s experiment in openly biased TV journalism has been rewarded with a loyal fan base and surprising clout in Washington. But the success of this right-wing news media organization, which cloaks itself in buzzwords like "fair and balanced", raises some troubling questions about meaningful political balance and diversity in television journalism.
Rupert Murdoch was very specific about his picks for his Fox News team, and it shows in their credentials. His choice of network president was Roger Ailes, a veteran of CNBC and MSNBC, who spent his earlier career as advisor to Presidents Nixon, Reagan and the senior President Bush. The network?s high-profile anchors, Brit Hume, Catherine Crier and Neil Cavuto were well-known conservatives at the major news networks. Crier, in fact, began her career as a Republican judge in Texas, a job description that impossibly inspires less faith in "fairness" than "Fox News Anchor."
The network?s clear star, Bill O?Reilly, is an arch-conservative who made his career on the sleazy tabloid show Inside Edition. Murdoch also found room for Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol, the gruesome twosome of McLaughlin Group-ers who hail from Murdoch?s own conservative journal, The Weekly Standard. Other hires include Tony Snow, a syndicated columnist and former chief speechwriter for Bush the elder; syndicated columnist Monica Crowley, a former assistant to President Nixon; Newsday columnist Jim Pinkerton, a former staffer for Presidents Reagan and Bush; John Podhoretz, editorial page editor of the New York Post and a former Reagan speechwriter. Notice a pattern? And, oh yes, the network hired Bush cousin John Ellis as an election analyst and "number cruncher," who spent much of election night on the phone with his cousins, the governors of Texas and Florida, and was responsible for Fox News Channel?s being the first to declare George W. Bush winner of Florida?s electoral votes.
or more importantly shits on the truth:
Quote:
Fox News claims total vindication after court ruling
On August 18th, six American citizens made up the unanimous Jury which found in favor of Jane Akre, wrongly fired by the Network after threatening to expose the fact that they forced her to broadcast what she knew to be documented false information.
Less than six months later the Florida Court of Appeals overturned the Jury's $425,000 award decision to Ms. Akre in a six page written report stating that there is no law against intentionally lying to the public in a television broadcast.
The report went on to say that the FCC has a rule against distorting the news, but that is just a "Policy". The attorneys for Rupert Murdock the Networks owner, stood on the First Amendment, claiming Journalists have a right to lie if they want to.
1) Katie Couric is but one example of a liberal who lets her persoanl views influence her reporting. You can't change that.
And the same goes for Brit Hume, William Safire and Roger Ailes. Why aren't you having a cow over them?
Quote:
What do you mean, "OK"? It's "OK" because he's free to start twelve networks if he wants. I'm not sure what you mean here. I suppose the government should get involved. Big surprise there.
No government. I think that's your inferiority complex coming out. What i mean is you blast "liberals" for controlling the media but don't blast the "conservatives' such as Fox.
Quote:
2) Your comment on CNN would depend on the rest of their reporting and choice of story. I didn't just wake up and see one anti-Bush story on the Today show and leap over the "NBC's baised" cliff. Seriously, quit the disingenuous "gotcha" tactics or go away.
She went to commercial after the interview. The story was about the thinly veiled prayer for death on the "liberal" SC justices by patty robertson. how is my comparison of paula z vs. katie "the cutie" couric any different then your little anecdote? Oh, that's right i didn't come to the conclusion that all of CNN was "conservative" like you did with "liberal-owned by GE" NBC
Quote:
3) It's not really a conspiracy.
I was joking. laugh a little.
Quote:
It's the political basis for all academic "elite" thought.
The kind of people we both know we're talking about do not deserve the protections of the Constitution. Whether their "American" traitors who left the country to fight agaisnt it or illegal immigrants, they do not deserve the protections of criminal law which you and I pay for. We're not talking about robbng a bank. We're talking international terrorism.
Okay, so lets say we throw the Constitution out for proven terrorists...what about people that we only suspect to be connected to terrorism? How strong does the connection have to be before that person is deemed to be a terrorist? Who decides? How is the alleged terrorist's side of the story told? What happens when a mistake is made and someone who is not in fact a terrorist is imprisoned or punished? How many mistakes can acceptably be made in the name of our continued safety and security?
The kind of people we both know we're talking about do not deserve the protections of the Constitution. Whether their "American" traitors who left the country to fight agaisnt it or illegal immigrants, they do not deserve the protections of criminal law which you and I pay for. We're not talking about robbng a bank. We're talking international terrorism. It really IS a war, and sometimes things change during war.
jimmac:
You also have no support for your opinion. You are entiteled to it, though. I disagree with point two. The national electorate leans conservative, which is why liberals at the national level have to lie to get elected.
We have a true believer here folks. But your right, I think liberals don't vote in the same percentages as do conservatives. This is why we have Jesse Jackson and cohorts bussing people to the polls (with same day registration...somehow I doubt they'd let ME do that) and certain local branches of the Democratic party handing out ciggarettes at the polls.
keyboard:
Show me. and drop the Fox News bullshit. I read a variety of sources, including those who I despise just to see their point of view.
You assume that liberal bias and profit motive don't and can't go hand in hand. I disagree.
What do you mean, "OK"? It's "OK" because he's free to start twelve networks if he wants. I'm not sure what you mean here. I suppose the government should get involved. Big surprise there.
1) Katie Couric is but one example of a liberal who lets her persoanl views influence her reporting. You can't change that.
2) Your comment on CNN would depend on the rest of their reporting and choice of story. I didn't just wake up and see one anti-Bush story on the Today show and leap over the "NBC's baised" cliff. Seriously, quit the disingenuous "gotcha" tactics or go away.
3) It's not really a conspiracy. It's just the way things are for the most part. I never used the word conspiracy. It's not like I think a bunch of folks with Al Gore masks on sit around giant conference table and cackle wildly as they select news stories. It's in the prevaling media culture. It's in the Universities. It's the political basis for all academic "elite" thought. That's where liberalism is.
" You also have no support for your opinion. You are entiteled to it, though. I disagree with point two. The national electorate leans conservative, which is why liberals at the national level have to lie to get elected. "
I have every support for it. You just won't pay any attention. What do you mean by national electorate? I was speaking of the general population. I will try to come up with a link to verify this.
" It's in the prevaling media culture. It's in the Universities. It's the political basis for all academic "elite" thought. That's where liberalism is. "
As this Thread would lead towards a notion of WOMD being found the following is not a good sign.....
Funny how the story never stays the same..... Funny I tell you...
The Story Changes......
Quote:
Mr Blair's arrival in the Far East follows talks in Washington with United States President George W Bush.
The prime minister also addressed Congress, where he received a rapturous welcome.
He told US lawmakers that even if Britain and the US had been mistaken about weapons of mass destruction, history would forgive the removal of Saddam Hussein.
"If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering," he said.
"If Britain and the US had been mistaken about WOMD" ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Perhaps you could explain to me Democratic support for Japanese internment camps during WWII? The current situation doesn't approach that. These people are being held legally. Read the articles. The statute in question was enacted in 1984. I suppose that's Reagan's, fault though. I'm not sure I LIKE the law being used this way, but it is legal...and it's not new. A judge has to approve it...not your arch-enemy, John Ashcroft.
Quote:
No I am assuming most media is driven by the bottom dollar to the exclusion of politics. As for assuming, rent the Bad News Bears.
Then you assume wrong.
Quote:
orry can't drop the Fox is Bullshit line from any news org that hires a bush relative to count the votes on election night...(while talking to other bushes on the phone)
Of course not. Tom Brokaw is allowed to slip into the first person on election night, saying "The states WE need to win now are...." , but a conservative network? The horror. ABC can delay calls for Bush, and accelerate calls for Gore (even when Bush's margin was 3 times greater in the given state), but a conservative network? Shame! Other networks can call FL before allt he polls are closed despite a written warning by the Secretary of State not to, but a CONSERVATIVE network? Outrage!
As for your ridiculous other links, perhaps we should talk about Dateline rigging gas tanks to explode on crash tests a few years ago? Hmmm. Fox News is not beyond reproach...and I never said they were.
Quote:
And the same goes for Brit Hume, William Safire and Roger Ailes. Why aren't you having a cow over them?
Because they don't account for 90% of media content.
Quote:
No government. I think that's your inferiority complex coming out. What i mean is you blast "liberals" for controlling the media but don't blast the "conservatives' such as Fox.
Because Fox is a conservative station among about a gazillion liberal ones.
Quote:
he went to commercial after the interview. The story was about the thinly veiled prayer for death on the "liberal" SC justices by patty robertson. how is my comparison of paula z vs. katie "the cutie" couric any different then your little anecdote? Oh, that's right i didn't come to the conclusion that all of CNN was "conservative" like you did with "liberal-owned by GE" NBC
1) He prayed for the retirement of the justices. Not their death.
2) If you ever watched the Today show for more than 30 seconds, you'd see what I mean.
Quote:
Wow. The bitterness runs deep in this one...
I didn't anyone could begin to appraoch giant's level of condescenion, but you're getting there. "Elite" thought refers to academics, Ivy-league professors, etc. You cannot tell me that these "type" of people are not ridiculously liberal. They always have been, and they always will be. You should really do some research on the positions that Harvard (for example) has taken over the years...from McCarthyism to the Cold War to Reagan Administration. The academic elite consistently lean left. My comment has no bitterness at all. You'd like it to, but it doesn't.
bunge:
Quote:
In my opinion, this completely undermines your cause.
I disagree. Things change in war. Illegal immigrants and foreign nationals should not be given all of our Constitutional protections.
Quote:
I have every support for it. You just won't pay any attention. What do you mean by national electorate? I was speaking of the general population. I will try to come up with a link to verify this.
Go ahead. I'm not sure you'll find one.
segovius:
Quote:
That's why the real world is going to lose touch with them starting with Blair....I see him going round about mid-October. Dubya will be off the hook till the elections (if there are any) but then it's 'Goodnight Vienna'.
Oh my. I was about to ping pong you in yet another turn of "liberal - no gooder vs. avid fox news consumer" when i stumbled on one of your posts:
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
It never stops with you guys. Never.
These guys were 100% out-of-line. So was ABC for airing such a piece of alarmist garbage. It is nothing more...NOTHING MORE than a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the President
and...
Quote:
It was a tasteless and shameful story that could have NO other motive than discrediting the administration.
LIKE SOMEHOW ABC forced those words out of the mouths of soldiers!
Now ignoring some of your less then shall we say "educated" comments such as the Supreme court is run by polls. (the last election proved that) and starting a thread that claimed that clinton was responsible for everything short of baby killing over the last decade. (which was textually decimated inside of 10 posts)
I need to ask again. Did ABC force those words out of those soldiers?
Answer: no.
YET, You go on to blame the messenger?!!!?
(Hold that thought. I'll get back to that in a second or too)
Now its one thing to say katie coric is liberal SIMPLY (and i am going by your description here SDW) because she asked a question that went down the trachea a little too much to the left side. (and by proxy DOOOMING all of NBC to the Valhalla of "liberal-dom" SDW's pick of the liberal media week.)
But then you go on to say tom brokaw is liberal because why? He bonked susan sarandon live on camera while singing the USSR's national anthem? Noooo.... Did he show up at a Rob reiner fund raiser? Noooooo.... Did he burn the flag on the steps of our nation's great capitol? Noooooo..... folks, simply because he said "we" during election night.
Throwing Occam's Razor RIGHT out the WINDOW like yesterday's newspaper, a quart of bad milk and a long forgotten lunch that smelt a _little_ too funny in the fridge, you IMMEDIATELY jumped to the conclusion that he is a macgovern loving, stalin bio pic producing, jane fonda porking, tom hayden voting, kiss me before i vote yet again for walter F. (i think the "F" stands for "freakin liberal media") mondale.
Did you ever think that maybe he said* (according to SDW) "we" because:
a) he had a stage manager yelling in his earpiece, "WE have to cut to commercial" or "WE have to get the next segment"
b) It could have been an HONEST mistake.
Please don't tell me the answer (to you) lies in "C" (which you chose!)
c) Its the L-I-B-E-R-A-L media!
OOOHHHHH when things go wrong you know who to blame! The messenger.
And yet. By your own words its OK for FOX "Its not illegal to lie to the public that's why we won the court case" News to be conservative because there are "zillions of liberal media outlets".
But don't two wrongs do not make a right? and if you truly believed its wrong for the liberal media to be biased you should be fight against the conservative media such as Roger "take all phone calls from the white house" Aile's crusade on honesty:
Oh... I forget, CNN is part of the "liberal" elite (sorry professors.) so we can discount THAT link.
Now as promised, i'll get back to your latest comment that i take "umbrage" with (or at least that i have time for):
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
It never stops with you guys. Never.
These guys were 100% out-of-line. So was ABC for airing such a piece of alarmist garbage. It is nothing more...NOTHING MORE than a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the President
and...
Quote:
It was a tasteless and shameful story that could have NO other motive than discrediting the administration.
Let me get something straight here. Are you saying that (and for the record) the ABC news corp. is involved with AND is currently executing a "vast left wing conspiracy" (a real one not Hillary's right wing one) to show the president in a bad light at the least, and to overthrow the presidency and the most, effort?
Do you really believe that? I don't think you do. PLEASE, please, tell me you were joking! Please, Please, tell me you were only trying to get a rise out of the more left (right?) thinking members of this audience. We've quibbled before and joshed back and forth, forth and back but PLEASE do not tell me you actually BELIEVED THIS? I am giving you an out here, TAKE IT! just tell us you were kidding!
(or at least blame it on a few reporters at abc. that would give you an easy out.)
Because if you were not kidding, that means, I feel exponentially more sorry for you then I did before because you believe this hogwash, (family values stop be from calling this CRAP.) and our little ping pong match is fast becoming not fun
Think about, Tommy, Katie and ABC, again. Think of their actions again and of all the conclusions you could come to in every of the three instances posted and yet, you jumped immediately the liberal media excuse!
LIKE SOMEHOW ABC forced those words out of the mouths of soldiers!
No. The soldiers shouldn't have said what they did and should be disciplined for it. What ABC did was just tasteless. It is so OBVIOUS, I can't believe you won't see it. The idea is to give viewers the idea that morale is bad across the occupying force of 200,000 men (from interviewing three soldiers). It's biased, has an ovious agenda, as is just tasteless. It's also a false statement if you listen to anyone in the military.
Quote:
Now its one thing to say katie coric is liberal SIMPLY (and i am going by your description here SDW) because she asked a question that went down the trachea a little too much to the left side. (and by proxy DOOOMING all of NBC to the Valhalla of "liberal-dom" SDW's pick of the liberal media week.)
Here we go again. Maybe I should dodge left and right to avoid you putting words in my mouth. I gave an EXAMPLE. ONE example. It is certainly not the "only" example. As far as NBC, the same argument applies. I know you'd love it if I were so shallow and stupid to make a judgement about something after 30 minutes of viewing time of one program, but I'm not. NBC is on the list of networks that lean left. ABC is worse, IMO. Disagree if you like.
Quote:
But then you go on to say tom brokaw is liberal because why? He bonked susan sarandon live on camera while singing the USSR's national anthem? Noooo.... Did he show up at a Rob reiner fund raiser? Noooooo.... Did he burn the flag on the steps of our nation's great capitol? Noooooo..... folks, simply because he said "we" during election night.
Again Keyboard....there's a word you need to learn: "EXAMPLE". Say it with me...EXAMPLE. And Brokaw!!!??? Are you ****ing kidding me? Liberals are trying to get him to RUN FOR PRESIDENT AS A DEMOCRAT!!! Hmmmm.
Throwing Occam's Razor RIGHT out the WINDOW like yesterday's newspaper, a quart of bad milk and a long forgotten lunch that smelt a _little_ too funny in the fridge, you IMMEDIATELY jumped to the conclusion that he is a macgovern loving, stalin bio pic producing, jane fonda porking, tom hayden voting, kiss me before i vote yet again for walter F. (i think the "F" stands for "freakin liberal media") mondale.
Colorful, but dumb. See above.
Quote:
Did you ever think that maybe he said* (according to SDW) "we" because:
a) he had a stage manager yelling in his earpiece, "WE have to cut to commercial" or "WE have to get the next segment"
b) It could have been an HONEST mistake.
Please don't tell me the answer (to you) lies in "C" (which you chose!)
c) Its the L-I-B-E-R-A-L media!
So, for Brokaw it was either my misperception or an "honest mistake", but for President Bush the niger claim was a delbrate and calculated lie? Again: "Hmmmmm." Brokaw said: "The states WE need to win now [in reference to Gore]". Nice double standard. The difference in my EXAMPLE above though, is that I'm willing to admit it's POSSBILE it could have been a mistake...though after hearing it myself I don't think it's likely at all. It was clear. But, never being one to call one crazy for raising a possibility, think what you'd like.
Quote:
And yet. By your own words its OK for FOX "Its not illegal to lie to the public that's why we won the court case" News to be conservative because there are "zillions of liberal media outlets".
But don't two wrongs do not make a right? and if you truly believed its wrong for the liberal media to be biased you should be fight against the conservative media such as Roger "take all phone calls from the white house" Aile's crusade on honesty:
This is a favorite "gotcha" tactic from the Left. Roger Ailes sent...GASP! a Memo to the President advising him to be tough on terror. The shame! the horror! He advised him that the public would support him if he was seen as tough. Outrage! Impropriety! Let me ask you, Keyboard: How many "media friends" did Clinton have? What about former Clinton aid George Stephonopolous and his hosting of "This Week"? I don't hear a word about that...as usual.
Quote:
Oh... I forget, CNN is part of the "liberal" elite (sorry professors.) so we can discount THAT link.
No, CNN is not per se. I never said it was. Once again, you did.
Quote:
et me get something straight here. Are you saying that (and for the record) the ABC news corp. is involved with AND is currently executing a "vast left wing conspiracy" (a real one not Hillary's right wing one) to show the president in a bad light at the least, and to overthrow the presidency and the most, effort?
The answer to your question "no". But ABC news does lean VERY Left. What absolutely amazes me on this point is that while you trumpet Fox News as Conservatively Biased, you refuse to accept the possibility of liberal bias for other stations. Why would Fox News be conservative if there were no liberal networks? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You say that media is driven only profit motive...except for Fox News, of course. Take your pick: Either there is bias in the media or there isn't. For every exampe of a "biased" Fox News story (which you've yet to show), I can point to ten...no, a hundred liberally biased ones.
Quote:
Do you really believe that? I don't think you do. PLEASE, please, tell me you were joking! Please, Please, tell me you were only trying to get a rise out of the more left (right?) thinking members of this audience. We've quibbled before and joshed back and forth, forth and back but PLEASE do not tell me you actually BELIEVED THIS? I am giving you an out here, TAKE IT! just tell us you were kidding!
I believ that ABc News (in particular) leans very hard to the Left...as does its primary anchor. I believe this comes across in the reporting, choice of story, tone of voice, and choice of headline...just to name a few. It's not some vast consiracy and I never said it was. Once again though: You don't listen. Perhaps instead of posting what I do, I should just post what I'm "not" posting, so you can be clear.
Quote:
Because if you were not kidding, that means, I feel exponentially more sorry for you then I did before because you believe this hogwash, (family values stop be from calling this CRAP.) and our little ping pong match is fast becoming not fun
Think about, Tommy, Katie and ABC, again. Think of their actions again and of all the conclusions you could come to in every of the three instances posted and yet, you jumped immediately the liberal media excuse!
Oh SDW. Say it ain't so...
Read above explanation of "examples". Now, I asl you:
Why do you consistently deny liberal bias? Wh don't you, as a liberal, celebrate it? I think Fox News is great because it is alternative to the liberal media in general. I believe it leans conservative and I love it! Why? Because I am....wait for it...A CONSERVATIVE? Why aren't you falling all over World News Tonight? It constantly preaches an anti-Bush, anti-conservative agenda, yet you deny it? Why? It BENEFITS you. Well, I believe I can answer my own question. The way I see it, you don;t want liberal views labeled as liberal anymore than Jennings, Rather and Brokaw do. (to name E-X-A-M-P-L-E-S). What you want, along with these pillars of journalism, is to label liberal views as MAINSTREAM rather than Leftist. Conservative views are usually labeled as such...as are conservative politicians. But, when someone like Gary Condit comes along, somehow he's a "conservative democrat". How many times have you heard Howard Dean labeled a Liberal?. I haven't...not even once. Go ahead...tell me he's not.
Look, I guess it's fun to call me a kook, but it doesn't solve anything. I have posted numerous examples from multiple networks and outlets in the past, anecdotal examples for supplement, satistics, etc. What have you posted in arguing you point? What has jimmac or giant or BR or anyone else posted? Answer: Nothing. Shoe me the media ISN'T liberal (which is a generally accepted fact outside say, six members here) and then we'll have a discussion. Or, just keep calling me crazy without any retort to my well documented and accepted argument. Up to you.
No. The soldiers shouldn't have said what they did and should be disciplined for it. What ABC did was just tasteless. It is so OBVIOUS, I can't believe you won't see it. The idea is to give viewers the idea that morale is bad across the occupying force of 200,000 men (from interviewing three soldiers). It's biased, has an ovious agenda, as is just tasteless. It's also a false statement if you listen to anyone in the military.
Here we go again. Maybe I should dodge left and right to avoid you putting words in my mouth. I gave an EXAMPLE. ONE example. It is certainly not the "only" example. As far as NBC, the same argument applies. I know you'd love it if I were so shallow and stupid to make a judgement about something after 30 minutes of viewing time of one program, but I'm not. NBC is on the list of netowrks that lean left. ABC is worse, IMO. Disagree if you like.
Again Keyboard....there's a word you need to learn: "EXAMPLE". Say it with me...EXAMPLE. And Brokaw!!!??? Are you ****ing kidding me? Liberals are trying to get him to RUN FOR PRESIDENT AS A DEMOCRAT!!! Hmmmm.
So, for Brokaw it was either my misperception or an "honest mistake", but for Presidetn Bush the niger claim was a delbrate and calculated lie? Again: "Hmmmmm." Brokaw said: "The states WE need to win now [in reference to Gore]". Nice double standard. The difference in my EXAMPLE above though, is that I'm willing to admit it's POSSBILE it could have been a mistake...though after hearing it myself I don't think it's likely at all. It was clear. But, never being one to call one crazy for raising a possibility, think what you'd like.
This is a favorite "gotcha" tactic from the Left. Roger Ailes sent...GASP! a Memo to the President advising him to be tough on terror. The shame! the horror! He advised him that the public would support him if he was seen as tough. Outrage! Impropriety! Let me ask you, Keyboard: How many "media friends" did Clinton have? What about former Clinton aid George Stephonopolous and his hosting of "This Week"? I don't hear a word about that...as usual.
No, CNN is not per se. I never said it was. Once again, you did.
The answer to your question "no". But ABC news does lean VERY Left. What absolutely amazes me on this point is that while you trumpet Fox News as Conservatively Biased, you refuse to accept the possibility of liberal bis for other stations. Why would Fox News be conservative if there were no liberal networks? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You say that media is driven only profit motive...except for Fox News, of course. Take your pick: Either there is bias in the media or there isn't. For every exampe of a "biased" Fox News story (which you've yet to show), I can point to ten...no, a hundred liberally biased ones.
I believ that ABc News (in particular) leans very hard to the Left...as does its primary anchor. I believe this comes across in the reporting, choice of story, tone of voice, and choice of headline...just to name a few. It's not some vast consiracy and I never said it was. Once again though: You don't listen. Perhaps instead of posting what I do, I should just post what I'm "not" posting, so you can be clear.
Read above explanation of "examples". Now, I asl you:
Why do you consistently deny liberal bias? Wh don't you, as a liberal, celebrate it? I think Fox News is great because it is alternative to the liberal media in general. I believe it leans conservative and I love it! Why? Because I am....wait for it...A CONSERVATIVE? Why aren't you falling all over World News Tonight? It constantly preaches an anti-Bush, anti-conservative agenda, yet you deny it? Why? It BENEFITS you. Well, I believe I can answer my own question. The way I see it, you don;t want liberal views labeled as liberal anymore than Jennings, Rather and Brokaw do. (to name E-X-A-M-P-L-E-S). What you want, along with these pillars of journalism, is to label liberal views as MAINSTREAM rather than Leftist. Conservative views are usually labeled as such...as are conservative politicians. But, when someone like Gary Condit comes along, somehow he's a "conservative democrat". How many times have you heard Howard Dean labeled a Liberal?. I haven't...not even once. Go ahead...tell me he's not.
Look, I guess it's fun to call me a kook, but it doesn't solve anything. I have posted numerous examples from multiple networks and outlets in the past, anecdotal examples for supplement, satistics, etc. What have you posted in arguing you point? What has jimmac or giant or BR or anyone else posted? Answer: Nothing. Shoe me the media ISN'T liberal (which is a generally accepted fact outside say, six members here) and then we'll have a discussion. Or, just keep calling me crazy without any retort to my well documented and accepted argument. Up to you.
Because while it might be your opinion it's a crock!
You still haven't answered to anyone's satifaction except your own the Clinton sex scandal question which puts your whole argument in question.
There! No smiley faces, no attacks on you as a person, it's just pointing out that your argument has no basis in reality.
It's all about the way you choose to interpret what you see.
I'm a liberal and it would be like me saying I think the republicans are behind all the worlds ills. I don't believe that because logic tells me that just isn't so. There's good and bad in the republican party just like anything else ( the media ). I'm sure there are liberal and conservative elements to the media but to say that one has control over the entire thing is silly. If anything has control over the entire thing it's greed. Like most things of business in this world.
Yet again, jimmac: You have posted no refutation of liberal bias. None.
What you do is ask the same question, over and over and over again just for fun...even though I've answered it a million times over. If you disagree with my answer, that's fine. Do't go running around falsely stating that I have answered the question. That tactic is bullshit. Total bullshit.
Quote:
There! No smiley faces, no attacks on you as a person, it's just pointing out that your argument has no basis in reality.
Then refute it. Show me the overall media is fair. Show me that ABC and CBS news, the NYT and LAT aren't liberal. Show me, jimmac.
I made a claim which is generally accepted in the real world. Liberal bias has been a major, major problem over the past 40 years. There have been several books written on this topic, the most telling of which is "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, a self-described liberal. Also of note is Ann Coulter's "Slander". Before you dismiss these as "right wing lunacy", how about you cite some examples of books that charge an overall conservative bias in the media as a whole. You can't. Period.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked keyboard: If you charge that Fox News is conservative, then how can you *not* believe there exists a liberal bias eleswhere? You can't have it both ways. If bias does not exist as you claim, then disqualifies any assertion of Fox News being biased. Pick one. Any one will do.
i believe there is a liberal bias to much news coverage, but i also think most of the networks were on board and gung ho in the beginning of the war, in fact i might even say they were co-opted by the military in the beginning with all the "embeds" and such and maybe it's out of guilt that they taking a stand now.
i don't know what all the fuss is about a bias, it's there now because they have president bush and the administration by the short hairs. it's a good story and it's not going anywhere.
i didn't see the networks playing down president clintons scandal, why didn't they show their liberal bias then? because it was a good story, and a good story always prevails over any kind of bias on a legitimate news service.
i believe there is a liberal bias to much news coverage, but i also think most of the networks were on board and gung ho in the beginning of the war, in fact i might even say they were co-opted by the military in the beginning with all the "embeds" and such and maybe it's out of guilt that they taking a stand now.
I agree with that for the most part...though they and other media outlets jumped on every difficulty troops faced like it was the end of the world.
Quote:
i don't know what all the fuss is about a bias, it's there now because they have president bush and the administration by the short hairs. it's a good story and it's not going anywhere.
I think that's a little strong. It's not a story unless they decide to make it one, and that's what has happened. We are talking about 16 words here that were not the exclusive case for war, just a small part of it. As much as some in the media would like to make this into an explosive issue for the next election...that election is just too far away. Poor Dems...it's just not good timing for them.
Quote:
i didn't see the networks playing down president clintons scandal, why didn't they show their liberal bias then? because it was a good story, and a good story always prevails over any kind of bias on a legitimate news service.
That's the essence of jimmac's argument as well. The diference is that the President had "realations" in the oval office on the taxpayer's dime.. Worse, he was accused of subourning perjury and obstructing justice, not to mention the fact that he admitted a DIRECT and UNDENIABLE lie to the American people. That's why it was a "good story". And if you notice, the media absolutely VILLIFIED Ken Starr.
No. The soldiers shouldn't have said what they did and should be disciplined for it. What ABC did was just tasteless. It is so OBVIOUS, I can't believe you won't see it. The idea is to give viewers the idea that morale is bad across the occupying force of 200,000 men (from interviewing three soldiers). It's biased, has an ovious agenda, as is just tasteless. It's also a false statement if you listen to anyone in the military.
False testimony in your opinion.Are you calling them liars? To the men and women that said it AND HAVE SAND in their boots, its their beliefs.
Quote:
It is so OBVIOUS
There is a guy down the street that just sits and chants all day that we are all sinners. Its so obvious to him that we are going to hell.
Quote:
Here we go again. Maybe I should dodge left and right to avoid you putting words in my mouth. I gave an EXAMPLE. ONE example. It is certainly not the "only" example. As far as NBC, the same argument applies. I know you'd love it if I were so shallow and stupid to make a judgement about something after 30 minutes of viewing time of one program, but I'm not. NBC is on the list of networks that lean left. ABC is worse, IMO. Disagree if you like.
You know if that were the case i would buy it. But once you posted a laundry list of who were members of the "liberal" and it was a name brand who's who of in the media. Your one example gets added to frequently.
So you keep on saying "its one example" one example. But every "sample" you brought up you have jumped to the c) "liberal" choice.
Quote:
. I know you'd love it if I were so shallow and stupid to make a judgement about something after 30 minutes of viewing time of one program, but I'm no
Your pattern of postings says otherwise. Disagree with me if you like.
Quote:
Colorful, but dumb. See above.
Thank you. Its good to see you are not completely humorless.
Quote:
President Bush the niger claim was a delbrate and calculated lie?
There were serious doubts as to Niger and it was systemic. Brokaw uttered one sentence.
Quote:
it's POSSBILE it could have been a mistak
Great glad to hear it. And i'll go on the record and say to you, your comment;s are possible as well. Probable? That's where we differ.
Quote:
George Stephonopolous
Is an idiot.
There's three words.
Quote:
The answer to your question "no".
Finally. Thank you. So this:
Quote:
It was a tasteless and shameful story that could have NO other motive than discrediting the administration.
Was wrong.
I think your mind has just been broadened. Your welcome.
Quote:
Once again though: You don't listen. Perhaps instead of posting what I do, I should just post what I'm "not" posting, so you can be clear.
That would be fine too.
Quote:
How many times have you heard Howard Dean labeled a Liberal?.
How many times do liberals support the death penalty AND have been endorsed by the NRA? Paint him as a mcgovernite. go ahead. Just be sure to bring Karl some tissues on election night.
Quote:
But ABC news does lean VERY Left.
In your opinion. Everytime i saw that smug George Will or that tobacco friend cookie roberts are that twit brit hume, I thought ABC was selling out to the right. Funny how people see things huh?
Quote:
Why would Fox News be conservative if there were no liberal networks?
Out of sheer ****ing greed.
Quote:
Why do you consistently deny liberal bias? Wh don't you, as a liberal, celebrate it?
Because there is nothing to celebrate.
Quote:
Take your pick: Either there is bias in the media or there isn't.
a) the either it is or isn't argument ranks up there with your supreme court comment.
b) There's bias in everything. That's not what i am arguing. You seem to think that if there is some bias, then the whole damn system is biased. get real.
Quote:
For every exampe of a "biased" Fox News story (which you've yet to show),
Election night. Bush realtive. Bush relative on phone to other bush realtives
Quote:
I can point to ten...no, a hundred liberally biased ones.
And they are all (almost) owned by five corprations that dictate the rules to Mikey powell and congress. Are these corporations not for profits?
Quote:
What absolutely amazes me on this point is that while you trumpet Fox News as Conservatively Biased, you refuse to accept the possibility of liberal bias for other stations
What absolutely amazes me is that there are people who honestly think that in the board rooms of media owning coporations, there are groups of men and women that say things like
"we have embarrass bush on the iraq thing. let's put some disgruntled soldiers on air"
"ok gentlemen. our profits are down, let's hire more reporters."
"we need more liberal stories. bush is still in office!"
or
"hey katie. ask your question this way. It will really piss off the right wing nuts."
I've said this before and i'll say it again.
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
And for that bottom dollar, the media will do and say things, cut back or not cover stories on, or flat out infringe on the publc's trust just for the sake of a buck.
Comments
Oh i don't know. how about that lawful detention without cause and without time limits?
Just because a freedom has not been taking away from you personally, doesn't mean it hasn't been taken away.
Of who? Non-American citizens and/or illegal immigrants who are highly suspected of being terrorists? Folks who travel to Afghanistan as American Citizens to support causes which themselves support the destruction of the United States? The next thing we know, our mutal friend jimmac will be screaming "Mcarthyism" again. There's only one crime defined in the US Constitution, and that's Treason. Maybe you should read the book by the same name.
Reverse Ditto. And why not fair.org. OOhhhhh that's right fair.org is a part of the katie couric "did you see the way she asked that question? she must be a registered commie pinko leftist" liberal media. lol
If you have a real argument against my assertion that the media is biased, then post it. Mocking me may make your ego have a nice day, but it doesn't win any arguments. Oh, and telling me "Uh, dude...most like media CEO's and shit are like so totally registered Republicans and like super-rich and stuff....and like their companies are rich....so the media can't be biased to the Left" won't cut it either. Large corporatiions and their CEO's are not neccessarily Republicans.
You can keep mocking the Couric comment I made, but it still happened. She is the one on the air, and if you think an experienced TV anchor/journalist can't twist a story, then you have a lot to learn. And stop with the hyperbole (exaggeration, in case you didn't know). I never said she was communist. I said she was a liberal.
jimmac:
Please tell me that was a joke. (WMD to be found...possibly). If you don't think we will find them, that's OK with me. But to mock me for thinking we will is unacceptable. It's not an unreasonable assertion on my part.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Of who? Non-American citizens and/or illegal immigrants who are highly suspected of being terrorists? Folks who travel to Afghanistan as American Citizens to support causes which themselves support the destruction of the United States?
Yes, them. Glad you're paying attention.
I also like how you have one justification for the non-Americans (to wit: they are non-Americans so morally we can do anything we want to them) and another for the US Citzens (they do things I don't like, so morally we can do anything we want to them).
Even people accused of being child-murdering peadophile rapists have rights and for very good reasons that have nothing to do with protecting criminals and everything to do with protecting society. Of course, terrorist are so evil we have to throw all this out the window and allow the governments of the world to lie to their people.
It looks like 1984 arrived 20 years late, but there's really no need for you to be so damn *happy* about it.
Of who? Non-American citizens and/or illegal immigrants who are highly suspected of being terrorists? Folks who travel to Afghanistan as American Citizens to support causes which themselves support the destruction of the United States? The next thing we know, our mutal friend jimmac will be screaming "Mcarthyism" again. There's only one crime defined in the US Constitution, and that's Treason. Maybe you should read the book by the same name.
Reall life honest to goodness americans. Maybe Fox news didn't report it. Look up the guy fron intel that is/was being held.
. Large corporatiions and their CEO's are not neccessarily Republicans.
No. they are just greedy and that is my argument. As I stated before, some media leans left, some leans right and most are driven by the bottom dollar. This is what is really hurting the crediblity of the media and the trust of the american people. this hurts us all more then katie "close the barn door" couric
nk an experienced TV anchor/journalist can't twist a story,
Of course they can. But you seem to think they have the final say so on what goes in the air. Get real. Roger ailes has more power then katie could ever dream of.But that seems to be OK with you?
You can keep mocking the Couric comment I made, but it still happened. She is the one on the air, and if you think an experienced TV anchor/journalist can't twist a story, then you have a lot to learn. And stop with the hyperbole (exaggeration, in case you didn't know). I never said she was communist. I said she was a liberal.
And paula zahn (cnn) gave the most fluff peice i have seen in a while when she interviewed pat roberston. She softballed the questions and left out so many followups that it looks like a piece from entertainment tonight.
At that point i could have whined... "oh paula zahn in conservative" and CNN is "so right wing" .. then i could have ran to forums.appleinisider.com and told the world she's "tool of the republicans" but i did not. Instead i realized that she's there not for her jounalsim talent but because she has hi Q points. Because she can bring in the viewers which result in higher ad rates which results in more dollars for the corporation that employs her.PERIOD.
That's how the media works.
No big conspiracy here folks.
Originally posted by SDW2001
keyboard:
Of who? Non-American citizens and/or illegal immigrants who are highly suspected of being terrorists? Folks who travel to Afghanistan as American Citizens to support causes which themselves support the destruction of the United States? The next thing we know, our mutal friend jimmac will be screaming "Mcarthyism" again. There's only one crime defined in the US Constitution, and that's Treason. Maybe you should read the book by the same name.
If you have a real argument against my assertion that the media is biased, then post it. Mocking me may make your ego have a nice day, but it doesn't win any arguments. Oh, and telling me "Uh, dude...most like media CEO's and shit are like so totally registered Republicans and like super-rich and stuff....and like their companies are rich....so the media can't be biased to the Left" won't cut it either. Large corporatiions and their CEO's are not neccessarily Republicans.
You can keep mocking the Couric comment I made, but it still happened. She is the one on the air, and if you think an experienced TV anchor/journalist can't twist a story, then you have a lot to learn. And stop with the hyperbole (exaggeration, in case you didn't know). I never said she was communist. I said she was a liberal.
jimmac:
Please tell me that was a joke. (WMD to be found...possibly). If you don't think we will find them, that's OK with me. But to mock me for thinking we will is unacceptable. It's not an unreasonable assertion on my part.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" But to mock me for thinking we will is unacceptable. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
And I suppose calling me a four letter word is?
I don't think we will find them.
I think this issue will be a continuing source of irritation for Bush.
I don't think Bush is a shoe in for the presidency ( one reason is this issue ).
I'm sorry but I don't think the economy will be any better come election time. That is enough to pull Bush's fat out of the fire.
In some cases I think Bush is a clueless fool and a hood orniment for big corporations.
I think there is much more to the WOMD ( or lack there of ) issue than we have been told. And no this doesn't mean that we've found them and aren't disclosing.
I think certain factions of Bush support are running scared ( even if they won't admit it ) and would try anything to discredit ( or shut up ) the other side.
And I don't think the media is controlled in any way, shape, or form by liberals. I think this might be just echoing the public's opinion. I think the media is controlled by themselves and if their reporting is slanted at times it's because they want better ratings.
On a related note I heard the other day from a friend that statistically there are more liberals in the country than conservatives so this tendancy you see might be a very natural thing since there are more of us. I haven't had a chance to check this out yet but I will.
The problem is to get these people out to vote. Voter apathy is ( and was in the last election ) at an all time high. I think though if having Bush in office screws up people's lives enough that could change.
Just to clarify my position.
But you already knew these things.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Yes, them. Glad you're paying attention.
I also like how you have one justification for the non-Americans (to wit: they are non-Americans so morally we can do anything we want to them) and another for the US Citzens (they do things I don't like, so morally we can do anything we want to them).
Even people accused of being child-murdering peadophile rapists have rights and for very good reasons that have nothing to do with protecting criminals and everything to do with protecting society. Of course, terrorist are so evil we have to throw all this out the window and allow the governments of the world to lie to their people.
It looks like 1984 arrived 20 years late, but there's really no need for you to be so damn *happy* about it.
The kind of people we both know we're talking about do not deserve the protections of the Constitution. Whether their "American" traitors who left the country to fight agaisnt it or illegal immigrants, they do not deserve the protections of criminal law which you and I pay for. We're not talking about robbng a bank. We're talking international terrorism. It really IS a war, and sometimes things change during war.
jimmac:
And I don't think the media is controlled in any way, shape, or form by liberals. I think this might be just echoing the public's opinion. I think the media is controlled by themselves and if their reporting is slanted at times it's because they want better ratings.
On a related note I heard the other day from a friend that statistically there are more liberals in the country than conservatives so this tendancy you see might be a very natural thing since there are more of us. I haven't had a chance to check this out yet but I will.
You also have no support for your opinion. You are entiteled to it, though. I disagree with point two. The national electorate leans conservative, which is why liberals at the national level have to lie to get elected.
The problem is to get these people out to vote. Voter apathy is ( and was in the last election ) at an all time high. I think though if having Bush in office screws up people's lives enough that could change.
We have a true believer here folks. But your right, I think liberals don't vote in the same percentages as do conservatives. This is why we have Jesse Jackson and cohorts bussing people to the polls (with same day registration...somehow I doubt they'd let ME do that) and certain local branches of the Democratic party handing out ciggarettes at the polls.
keyboard:
Reall life honest to goodness americans. Maybe Fox news didn't report it. Look up the guy fron intel that is/was being held.
Show me. and drop the Fox News bullshit. I read a variety of sources, including those who I despise just to see their point of view.
No. they are just greedy and that is my argument. As I stated before, some media leans left, some leans right and most are driven by the bottom dollar. This is what is really hurting the crediblity of the media and the trust of the american people. this hurts us all more then katie "close the barn door" couric
You assume that liberal bias and profit motive don't and can't go hand in hand. I disagree.
Of course they can. But you seem to think they have the final say so on what goes in the air. Get real. Roger ailes has more power then katie could ever dream of.But that seems to be OK with you?
What do you mean, "OK"? It's "OK" because he's free to start twelve networks if he wants. I'm not sure what you mean here. I suppose the government should get involved. Big surprise there.
At that point i could have whined... "oh paula zahn in conservative" and CNN is "so right wing" .. then i could have ran to forums.appleinisider.com and told the world she's "tool of the republicans" but i did not. Instead i realized that she's there not for her jounalsim talent but because she has hi Q points. Because she can bring in the viewers which result in higher ad rates which results in more dollars for the corporation that employs her.PERIOD.
That's how the media works.
No big conspiracy here folks.
1) Katie Couric is but one example of a liberal who lets her persoanl views influence her reporting. You can't change that.
2) Your comment on CNN would depend on the rest of their reporting and choice of story. I didn't just wake up and see one anti-Bush story on the Today show and leap over the "NBC's baised" cliff. Seriously, quit the disingenuous "gotcha" tactics or go away.
3) It's not really a conspiracy. It's just the way things are for the most part. I never used the word conspiracy. It's not like I think a bunch of folks with Al Gore masks on sit around giant conference table and cackle wildly as they select news stories. It's in the prevaling media culture. It's in the Universities. It's the political basis for all academic "elite" thought. That's where liberalism is.
Originally posted by SDW2001 (from a page ago)
Stay on topic, please. I asked nicely. Altering the premise, mocking it or me personally, etc. is not acceptable. If it continues I will personally ask for the thread to be locked.
This is a thread about the political consequences for the Democrats (and Republicans too) given the hypothetical fact we find substantial WMD. That's all, folks. Get some perspective or post in one of the other "Bush lied" threads. Thank you!
Hey! Whatever happened to staying on topic? Apparently we all have to follow the rules of SDW, and we can only do things that are against the rules of his thread when he says so. Can I go to the bathroom, SDW? Please?
Of course, your only intention with this thread was to fabricate a where you might have a foothold and then proceed to just argue on any and every issue that allows you to assert yourself as a 'conservative'.
Since now the discussion has moved to SDW asserting his views on everything from guantanamo, rights of immigrants and media bias, I'd like to start a seperate discussion on MTV's The Real World.
What's up with those people on that show? I bet they put the Real World on their resume later in life. Would you hire someone who was picked for a show precisely because the producers thought they couldn't interact with strangers in a normal way? I wouldn't. What do you think SDW?
link to intel guy i spoke of
Shown.
(Warning. First link goes to the washington post. So its probably pinko tripe. But hey. they all have funny sounding last names so they are probably are guilty.)
You assume that liberal bias and profit motive don't and can't go hand in hand. I disagree.
No I am assuming most media is driven by the bottom dollar to the exclusion of politics. As for assuming, rent the Bad News Bears.
Show me. and drop the Fox News bullshit. I read a variety of sources, including those who I despise just to see their point of view.
Sorry can't drop the Fox is Bullshit line from any news org that hires a bush relative to count the votes on election night...(while talking to other bushes on the phone)
Rupert Murdoch?s Fox News Channel is the current buzz in TV journalism. Riding high in the news ratings and unsettling the venerated CNN and the more established MSNBC, Fox News has established a reputation for brash and exciting, in-your-face conservative news. Murdoch?s experiment in openly biased TV journalism has been rewarded with a loyal fan base and surprising clout in Washington. But the success of this right-wing news media organization, which cloaks itself in buzzwords like "fair and balanced", raises some troubling questions about meaningful political balance and diversity in television journalism.
Rupert Murdoch was very specific about his picks for his Fox News team, and it shows in their credentials. His choice of network president was Roger Ailes, a veteran of CNBC and MSNBC, who spent his earlier career as advisor to Presidents Nixon, Reagan and the senior President Bush. The network?s high-profile anchors, Brit Hume, Catherine Crier and Neil Cavuto were well-known conservatives at the major news networks. Crier, in fact, began her career as a Republican judge in Texas, a job description that impossibly inspires less faith in "fairness" than "Fox News Anchor."
The network?s clear star, Bill O?Reilly, is an arch-conservative who made his career on the sleazy tabloid show Inside Edition. Murdoch also found room for Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol, the gruesome twosome of McLaughlin Group-ers who hail from Murdoch?s own conservative journal, The Weekly Standard. Other hires include Tony Snow, a syndicated columnist and former chief speechwriter for Bush the elder; syndicated columnist Monica Crowley, a former assistant to President Nixon; Newsday columnist Jim Pinkerton, a former staffer for Presidents Reagan and Bush; John Podhoretz, editorial page editor of the New York Post and a former Reagan speechwriter. Notice a pattern? And, oh yes, the network hired Bush cousin John Ellis as an election analyst and "number cruncher," who spent much of election night on the phone with his cousins, the governors of Texas and Florida, and was responsible for Fox News Channel?s being the first to declare George W. Bush winner of Florida?s electoral votes.
or more importantly shits on the truth:
Fox News claims total vindication after court ruling
On August 18th, six American citizens made up the unanimous Jury which found in favor of Jane Akre, wrongly fired by the Network after threatening to expose the fact that they forced her to broadcast what she knew to be documented false information.
Less than six months later the Florida Court of Appeals overturned the Jury's $425,000 award decision to Ms. Akre in a six page written report stating that there is no law against intentionally lying to the public in a television broadcast.
The report went on to say that the FCC has a rule against distorting the news, but that is just a "Policy". The attorneys for Rupert Murdock the Networks owner, stood on the First Amendment, claiming Journalists have a right to lie if they want to.
oops.
double oops
1) Katie Couric is but one example of a liberal who lets her persoanl views influence her reporting. You can't change that.
And the same goes for Brit Hume, William Safire and Roger Ailes. Why aren't you having a cow over them?
What do you mean, "OK"? It's "OK" because he's free to start twelve networks if he wants. I'm not sure what you mean here. I suppose the government should get involved. Big surprise there.
No government. I think that's your inferiority complex coming out. What i mean is you blast "liberals" for controlling the media but don't blast the "conservatives' such as Fox.
2) Your comment on CNN would depend on the rest of their reporting and choice of story. I didn't just wake up and see one anti-Bush story on the Today show and leap over the "NBC's baised" cliff. Seriously, quit the disingenuous "gotcha" tactics or go away.
She went to commercial after the interview. The story was about the thinly veiled prayer for death on the "liberal" SC justices by patty robertson. how is my comparison of paula z vs. katie "the cutie" couric any different then your little anecdote? Oh, that's right i didn't come to the conclusion that all of CNN was "conservative" like you did with "liberal-owned by GE" NBC
3) It's not really a conspiracy.
I was joking. laugh a little.
It's the political basis for all academic "elite" thought.
Wow. The bitterness runs deep in this one...
The kind of people we both know we're talking about do not deserve the protections of the Constitution. Whether their "American" traitors who left the country to fight agaisnt it or illegal immigrants, they do not deserve the protections of criminal law which you and I pay for. We're not talking about robbng a bank. We're talking international terrorism.
Okay, so lets say we throw the Constitution out for proven terrorists...what about people that we only suspect to be connected to terrorism? How strong does the connection have to be before that person is deemed to be a terrorist? Who decides? How is the alleged terrorist's side of the story told? What happens when a mistake is made and someone who is not in fact a terrorist is imprisoned or punished? How many mistakes can acceptably be made in the name of our continued safety and security?
Originally posted by SDW2001
The kind of people we both know we're talking about do not deserve the protections of the Constitution.
In my opinion, this completely undermines your cause.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The kind of people we both know we're talking about do not deserve the protections of the Constitution. Whether their "American" traitors who left the country to fight agaisnt it or illegal immigrants, they do not deserve the protections of criminal law which you and I pay for. We're not talking about robbng a bank. We're talking international terrorism. It really IS a war, and sometimes things change during war.
jimmac:
You also have no support for your opinion. You are entiteled to it, though. I disagree with point two. The national electorate leans conservative, which is why liberals at the national level have to lie to get elected.
We have a true believer here folks. But your right, I think liberals don't vote in the same percentages as do conservatives. This is why we have Jesse Jackson and cohorts bussing people to the polls (with same day registration...somehow I doubt they'd let ME do that) and certain local branches of the Democratic party handing out ciggarettes at the polls.
keyboard:
Show me. and drop the Fox News bullshit. I read a variety of sources, including those who I despise just to see their point of view.
You assume that liberal bias and profit motive don't and can't go hand in hand. I disagree.
What do you mean, "OK"? It's "OK" because he's free to start twelve networks if he wants. I'm not sure what you mean here. I suppose the government should get involved. Big surprise there.
1) Katie Couric is but one example of a liberal who lets her persoanl views influence her reporting. You can't change that.
2) Your comment on CNN would depend on the rest of their reporting and choice of story. I didn't just wake up and see one anti-Bush story on the Today show and leap over the "NBC's baised" cliff. Seriously, quit the disingenuous "gotcha" tactics or go away.
3) It's not really a conspiracy. It's just the way things are for the most part. I never used the word conspiracy. It's not like I think a bunch of folks with Al Gore masks on sit around giant conference table and cackle wildly as they select news stories. It's in the prevaling media culture. It's in the Universities. It's the political basis for all academic "elite" thought. That's where liberalism is.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" You also have no support for your opinion. You are entiteled to it, though. I disagree with point two. The national electorate leans conservative, which is why liberals at the national level have to lie to get elected. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
I have every support for it. You just won't pay any attention. What do you mean by national electorate? I was speaking of the general population. I will try to come up with a link to verify this.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" It's in the prevaling media culture. It's in the Universities. It's the political basis for all academic "elite" thought. That's where liberalism is. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
By the way universities that gave you the ability to become a teacher. That is unless that isn't true.
Funny how the story never stays the same..... Funny I tell you...
The Story Changes......
Mr Blair's arrival in the Far East follows talks in Washington with United States President George W Bush.
The prime minister also addressed Congress, where he received a rapturous welcome.
He told US lawmakers that even if Britain and the US had been mistaken about weapons of mass destruction, history would forgive the removal of Saddam Hussein.
"If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering," he said.
"If Britain and the US had been mistaken about WOMD" ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
This is NOT funny..
Fellowship
BBC link
I didn't change the topic. I responded to it.
Keyboard:
Perhaps you could explain to me Democratic support for Japanese internment camps during WWII? The current situation doesn't approach that. These people are being held legally. Read the articles. The statute in question was enacted in 1984. I suppose that's Reagan's, fault though. I'm not sure I LIKE the law being used this way, but it is legal...and it's not new. A judge has to approve it...not your arch-enemy, John Ashcroft.
No I am assuming most media is driven by the bottom dollar to the exclusion of politics. As for assuming, rent the Bad News Bears.
Then you assume wrong.
orry can't drop the Fox is Bullshit line from any news org that hires a bush relative to count the votes on election night...(while talking to other bushes on the phone)
Of course not. Tom Brokaw is allowed to slip into the first person on election night, saying "The states WE need to win now are...." , but a conservative network? The horror. ABC can delay calls for Bush, and accelerate calls for Gore (even when Bush's margin was 3 times greater in the given state), but a conservative network? Shame! Other networks can call FL before allt he polls are closed despite a written warning by the Secretary of State not to, but a CONSERVATIVE network? Outrage!
As for your ridiculous other links, perhaps we should talk about Dateline rigging gas tanks to explode on crash tests a few years ago? Hmmm. Fox News is not beyond reproach...and I never said they were.
And the same goes for Brit Hume, William Safire and Roger Ailes. Why aren't you having a cow over them?
Because they don't account for 90% of media content.
No government. I think that's your inferiority complex coming out. What i mean is you blast "liberals" for controlling the media but don't blast the "conservatives' such as Fox.
Because Fox is a conservative station among about a gazillion liberal ones.
he went to commercial after the interview. The story was about the thinly veiled prayer for death on the "liberal" SC justices by patty robertson. how is my comparison of paula z vs. katie "the cutie" couric any different then your little anecdote? Oh, that's right i didn't come to the conclusion that all of CNN was "conservative" like you did with "liberal-owned by GE" NBC
1) He prayed for the retirement of the justices. Not their death.
2) If you ever watched the Today show for more than 30 seconds, you'd see what I mean.
Wow. The bitterness runs deep in this one...
I didn't anyone could begin to appraoch giant's level of condescenion, but you're getting there. "Elite" thought refers to academics, Ivy-league professors, etc. You cannot tell me that these "type" of people are not ridiculously liberal. They always have been, and they always will be. You should really do some research on the positions that Harvard (for example) has taken over the years...from McCarthyism to the Cold War to Reagan Administration. The academic elite consistently lean left. My comment has no bitterness at all. You'd like it to, but it doesn't.
bunge:
In my opinion, this completely undermines your cause.
I disagree. Things change in war. Illegal immigrants and foreign nationals should not be given all of our Constitutional protections.
I have every support for it. You just won't pay any attention. What do you mean by national electorate? I was speaking of the general population. I will try to come up with a link to verify this.
Go ahead. I'm not sure you'll find one.
segovius:
That's why the real world is going to lose touch with them starting with Blair....I see him going round about mid-October. Dubya will be off the hook till the elections (if there are any) but then it's 'Goodnight Vienna'.
Keep dreaming. Nighty night.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It never stops with you guys. Never.
These guys were 100% out-of-line. So was ABC for airing such a piece of alarmist garbage. It is nothing more...NOTHING MORE than a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the President
and...
It was a tasteless and shameful story that could have NO other motive than discrediting the administration.
LIKE SOMEHOW ABC forced those words out of the mouths of soldiers!
Now ignoring some of your less then shall we say "educated" comments such as the Supreme court is run by polls. (the last election proved that) and starting a thread that claimed that clinton was responsible for everything short of baby killing over the last decade. (which was textually decimated inside of 10 posts)
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=27956
I need to ask again. Did ABC force those words out of those soldiers?
Answer: no.
YET, You go on to blame the messenger?!!!?
(Hold that thought. I'll get back to that in a second or too)
Now its one thing to say katie coric is liberal SIMPLY (and i am going by your description here SDW) because she asked a question that went down the trachea a little too much to the left side. (and by proxy DOOOMING all of NBC to the Valhalla of "liberal-dom" SDW's pick of the liberal media week.)
But then you go on to say tom brokaw is liberal because why? He bonked susan sarandon live on camera while singing the USSR's national anthem? Noooo.... Did he show up at a Rob reiner fund raiser? Noooooo.... Did he burn the flag on the steps of our nation's great capitol? Noooooo..... folks, simply because he said "we" during election night.
Throwing Occam's Razor RIGHT out the WINDOW like yesterday's newspaper, a quart of bad milk and a long forgotten lunch that smelt a _little_ too funny in the fridge, you IMMEDIATELY jumped to the conclusion that he is a macgovern loving, stalin bio pic producing, jane fonda porking, tom hayden voting, kiss me before i vote yet again for walter F. (i think the "F" stands for "freakin liberal media") mondale.
Did you ever think that maybe he said* (according to SDW) "we" because:
a) he had a stage manager yelling in his earpiece, "WE have to cut to commercial" or "WE have to get the next segment"
b) It could have been an HONEST mistake.
Please don't tell me the answer (to you) lies in "C" (which you chose!)
c) Its the L-I-B-E-R-A-L media!
OOOHHHHH when things go wrong you know who to blame! The messenger.
And yet. By your own words its OK for FOX "Its not illegal to lie to the public that's why we won the court case" News to be conservative because there are "zillions of liberal media outlets".
But don't two wrongs do not make a right? and if you truly believed its wrong for the liberal media to be biased you should be fight against the conservative media such as Roger "take all phone calls from the white house" Aile's crusade on honesty:
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLIT...on.fox.debate/
Oh... I forget, CNN is part of the "liberal" elite (sorry professors.) so we can discount THAT link.
Now as promised, i'll get back to your latest comment that i take "umbrage" with (or at least that i have time for):
Originally posted by SDW2001
It never stops with you guys. Never.
These guys were 100% out-of-line. So was ABC for airing such a piece of alarmist garbage. It is nothing more...NOTHING MORE than a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the President
and...
It was a tasteless and shameful story that could have NO other motive than discrediting the administration.
Let me get something straight here. Are you saying that (and for the record) the ABC news corp. is involved with AND is currently executing a "vast left wing conspiracy" (a real one not Hillary's right wing one) to show the president in a bad light at the least, and to overthrow the presidency and the most, effort?
Do you really believe that? I don't think you do. PLEASE, please, tell me you were joking! Please, Please, tell me you were only trying to get a rise out of the more left (right?) thinking members of this audience. We've quibbled before and joshed back and forth, forth and back but PLEASE do not tell me you actually BELIEVED THIS? I am giving you an out here, TAKE IT! just tell us you were kidding!
(or at least blame it on a few reporters at abc. that would give you an easy out.)
Because if you were not kidding, that means, I feel exponentially more sorry for you then I did before because you believe this hogwash, (family values stop be from calling this CRAP.) and our little ping pong match is fast becoming not fun
Think about, Tommy, Katie and ABC, again. Think of their actions again and of all the conclusions you could come to in every of the three instances posted and yet, you jumped immediately the liberal media excuse!
Oh SDW. Say it ain't so...
LIKE SOMEHOW ABC forced those words out of the mouths of soldiers!
No. The soldiers shouldn't have said what they did and should be disciplined for it. What ABC did was just tasteless. It is so OBVIOUS, I can't believe you won't see it. The idea is to give viewers the idea that morale is bad across the occupying force of 200,000 men (from interviewing three soldiers). It's biased, has an ovious agenda, as is just tasteless. It's also a false statement if you listen to anyone in the military.
Now its one thing to say katie coric is liberal SIMPLY (and i am going by your description here SDW) because she asked a question that went down the trachea a little too much to the left side. (and by proxy DOOOMING all of NBC to the Valhalla of "liberal-dom" SDW's pick of the liberal media week.)
Here we go again. Maybe I should dodge left and right to avoid you putting words in my mouth. I gave an EXAMPLE. ONE example. It is certainly not the "only" example. As far as NBC, the same argument applies. I know you'd love it if I were so shallow and stupid to make a judgement about something after 30 minutes of viewing time of one program, but I'm not. NBC is on the list of networks that lean left. ABC is worse, IMO. Disagree if you like.
But then you go on to say tom brokaw is liberal because why? He bonked susan sarandon live on camera while singing the USSR's national anthem? Noooo.... Did he show up at a Rob reiner fund raiser? Noooooo.... Did he burn the flag on the steps of our nation's great capitol? Noooooo..... folks, simply because he said "we" during election night.
Again Keyboard....there's a word you need to learn: "EXAMPLE". Say it with me...EXAMPLE. And Brokaw!!!??? Are you ****ing kidding me? Liberals are trying to get him to RUN FOR PRESIDENT AS A DEMOCRAT!!! Hmmmm.
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage5.asp
Throwing Occam's Razor RIGHT out the WINDOW like yesterday's newspaper, a quart of bad milk and a long forgotten lunch that smelt a _little_ too funny in the fridge, you IMMEDIATELY jumped to the conclusion that he is a macgovern loving, stalin bio pic producing, jane fonda porking, tom hayden voting, kiss me before i vote yet again for walter F. (i think the "F" stands for "freakin liberal media") mondale.
Colorful, but dumb. See above.
Did you ever think that maybe he said* (according to SDW) "we" because:
a) he had a stage manager yelling in his earpiece, "WE have to cut to commercial" or "WE have to get the next segment"
b) It could have been an HONEST mistake.
Please don't tell me the answer (to you) lies in "C" (which you chose!)
c) Its the L-I-B-E-R-A-L media!
So, for Brokaw it was either my misperception or an "honest mistake", but for President Bush the niger claim was a delbrate and calculated lie? Again: "Hmmmmm." Brokaw said: "The states WE need to win now [in reference to Gore]". Nice double standard. The difference in my EXAMPLE above though, is that I'm willing to admit it's POSSBILE it could have been a mistake...though after hearing it myself I don't think it's likely at all. It was clear. But, never being one to call one crazy for raising a possibility, think what you'd like.
And yet. By your own words its OK for FOX "Its not illegal to lie to the public that's why we won the court case" News to be conservative because there are "zillions of liberal media outlets".
But don't two wrongs do not make a right? and if you truly believed its wrong for the liberal media to be biased you should be fight against the conservative media such as Roger "take all phone calls from the white house" Aile's crusade on honesty:
This is a favorite "gotcha" tactic from the Left. Roger Ailes sent...GASP! a Memo to the President advising him to be tough on terror. The shame! the horror! He advised him that the public would support him if he was seen as tough. Outrage! Impropriety! Let me ask you, Keyboard: How many "media friends" did Clinton have? What about former Clinton aid George Stephonopolous and his hosting of "This Week"? I don't hear a word about that...as usual.
Oh... I forget, CNN is part of the "liberal" elite (sorry professors.) so we can discount THAT link.
No, CNN is not per se. I never said it was. Once again, you did.
et me get something straight here. Are you saying that (and for the record) the ABC news corp. is involved with AND is currently executing a "vast left wing conspiracy" (a real one not Hillary's right wing one) to show the president in a bad light at the least, and to overthrow the presidency and the most, effort?
The answer to your question "no". But ABC news does lean VERY Left. What absolutely amazes me on this point is that while you trumpet Fox News as Conservatively Biased, you refuse to accept the possibility of liberal bias for other stations. Why would Fox News be conservative if there were no liberal networks? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You say that media is driven only profit motive...except for Fox News, of course. Take your pick: Either there is bias in the media or there isn't. For every exampe of a "biased" Fox News story (which you've yet to show), I can point to ten...no, a hundred liberally biased ones.
Do you really believe that? I don't think you do. PLEASE, please, tell me you were joking! Please, Please, tell me you were only trying to get a rise out of the more left (right?) thinking members of this audience. We've quibbled before and joshed back and forth, forth and back but PLEASE do not tell me you actually BELIEVED THIS? I am giving you an out here, TAKE IT! just tell us you were kidding!
I believ that ABc News (in particular) leans very hard to the Left...as does its primary anchor. I believe this comes across in the reporting, choice of story, tone of voice, and choice of headline...just to name a few. It's not some vast consiracy and I never said it was. Once again though: You don't listen. Perhaps instead of posting what I do, I should just post what I'm "not" posting, so you can be clear.
Because if you were not kidding, that means, I feel exponentially more sorry for you then I did before because you believe this hogwash, (family values stop be from calling this CRAP.) and our little ping pong match is fast becoming not fun
Think about, Tommy, Katie and ABC, again. Think of their actions again and of all the conclusions you could come to in every of the three instances posted and yet, you jumped immediately the liberal media excuse!
Oh SDW. Say it ain't so...
Read above explanation of "examples". Now, I asl you:
Why do you consistently deny liberal bias? Wh don't you, as a liberal, celebrate it? I think Fox News is great because it is alternative to the liberal media in general. I believe it leans conservative and I love it! Why? Because I am....wait for it...A CONSERVATIVE? Why aren't you falling all over World News Tonight? It constantly preaches an anti-Bush, anti-conservative agenda, yet you deny it? Why? It BENEFITS you. Well, I believe I can answer my own question. The way I see it, you don;t want liberal views labeled as liberal anymore than Jennings, Rather and Brokaw do. (to name E-X-A-M-P-L-E-S). What you want, along with these pillars of journalism, is to label liberal views as MAINSTREAM rather than Leftist. Conservative views are usually labeled as such...as are conservative politicians. But, when someone like Gary Condit comes along, somehow he's a "conservative democrat". How many times have you heard Howard Dean labeled a Liberal?. I haven't...not even once. Go ahead...tell me he's not.
Look, I guess it's fun to call me a kook, but it doesn't solve anything. I have posted numerous examples from multiple networks and outlets in the past, anecdotal examples for supplement, satistics, etc. What have you posted in arguing you point? What has jimmac or giant or BR or anyone else posted? Answer: Nothing. Shoe me the media ISN'T liberal (which is a generally accepted fact outside say, six members here) and then we'll have a discussion. Or, just keep calling me crazy without any retort to my well documented and accepted argument. Up to you.
Originally posted by SDW2001
keyboard:
No. The soldiers shouldn't have said what they did and should be disciplined for it. What ABC did was just tasteless. It is so OBVIOUS, I can't believe you won't see it. The idea is to give viewers the idea that morale is bad across the occupying force of 200,000 men (from interviewing three soldiers). It's biased, has an ovious agenda, as is just tasteless. It's also a false statement if you listen to anyone in the military.
Here we go again. Maybe I should dodge left and right to avoid you putting words in my mouth. I gave an EXAMPLE. ONE example. It is certainly not the "only" example. As far as NBC, the same argument applies. I know you'd love it if I were so shallow and stupid to make a judgement about something after 30 minutes of viewing time of one program, but I'm not. NBC is on the list of netowrks that lean left. ABC is worse, IMO. Disagree if you like.
Again Keyboard....there's a word you need to learn: "EXAMPLE". Say it with me...EXAMPLE. And Brokaw!!!??? Are you ****ing kidding me? Liberals are trying to get him to RUN FOR PRESIDENT AS A DEMOCRAT!!! Hmmmm.
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage5.asp
Colorful, but dumb. See above.
So, for Brokaw it was either my misperception or an "honest mistake", but for Presidetn Bush the niger claim was a delbrate and calculated lie? Again: "Hmmmmm." Brokaw said: "The states WE need to win now [in reference to Gore]". Nice double standard. The difference in my EXAMPLE above though, is that I'm willing to admit it's POSSBILE it could have been a mistake...though after hearing it myself I don't think it's likely at all. It was clear. But, never being one to call one crazy for raising a possibility, think what you'd like.
This is a favorite "gotcha" tactic from the Left. Roger Ailes sent...GASP! a Memo to the President advising him to be tough on terror. The shame! the horror! He advised him that the public would support him if he was seen as tough. Outrage! Impropriety! Let me ask you, Keyboard: How many "media friends" did Clinton have? What about former Clinton aid George Stephonopolous and his hosting of "This Week"? I don't hear a word about that...as usual.
No, CNN is not per se. I never said it was. Once again, you did.
The answer to your question "no". But ABC news does lean VERY Left. What absolutely amazes me on this point is that while you trumpet Fox News as Conservatively Biased, you refuse to accept the possibility of liberal bis for other stations. Why would Fox News be conservative if there were no liberal networks? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You say that media is driven only profit motive...except for Fox News, of course. Take your pick: Either there is bias in the media or there isn't. For every exampe of a "biased" Fox News story (which you've yet to show), I can point to ten...no, a hundred liberally biased ones.
I believ that ABc News (in particular) leans very hard to the Left...as does its primary anchor. I believe this comes across in the reporting, choice of story, tone of voice, and choice of headline...just to name a few. It's not some vast consiracy and I never said it was. Once again though: You don't listen. Perhaps instead of posting what I do, I should just post what I'm "not" posting, so you can be clear.
Read above explanation of "examples". Now, I asl you:
Why do you consistently deny liberal bias? Wh don't you, as a liberal, celebrate it? I think Fox News is great because it is alternative to the liberal media in general. I believe it leans conservative and I love it! Why? Because I am....wait for it...A CONSERVATIVE? Why aren't you falling all over World News Tonight? It constantly preaches an anti-Bush, anti-conservative agenda, yet you deny it? Why? It BENEFITS you. Well, I believe I can answer my own question. The way I see it, you don;t want liberal views labeled as liberal anymore than Jennings, Rather and Brokaw do. (to name E-X-A-M-P-L-E-S). What you want, along with these pillars of journalism, is to label liberal views as MAINSTREAM rather than Leftist. Conservative views are usually labeled as such...as are conservative politicians. But, when someone like Gary Condit comes along, somehow he's a "conservative democrat". How many times have you heard Howard Dean labeled a Liberal?. I haven't...not even once. Go ahead...tell me he's not.
Look, I guess it's fun to call me a kook, but it doesn't solve anything. I have posted numerous examples from multiple networks and outlets in the past, anecdotal examples for supplement, satistics, etc. What have you posted in arguing you point? What has jimmac or giant or BR or anyone else posted? Answer: Nothing. Shoe me the media ISN'T liberal (which is a generally accepted fact outside say, six members here) and then we'll have a discussion. Or, just keep calling me crazy without any retort to my well documented and accepted argument. Up to you.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" Why do you consistently deny liberal bias? Wh don't you, as a liberal, celebrate it? "
-------------------------------------------------------------
Because while it might be your opinion it's a crock!
You still haven't answered to anyone's satifaction except your own the Clinton sex scandal question which puts your whole argument in question.
There! No smiley faces, no attacks on you as a person, it's just pointing out that your argument has no basis in reality.
It's all about the way you choose to interpret what you see.
I'm a liberal and it would be like me saying I think the republicans are behind all the worlds ills. I don't believe that because logic tells me that just isn't so. There's good and bad in the republican party just like anything else ( the media ). I'm sure there are liberal and conservative elements to the media but to say that one has control over the entire thing is silly. If anything has control over the entire thing it's greed. Like most things of business in this world.
What you do is ask the same question, over and over and over again just for fun...even though I've answered it a million times over. If you disagree with my answer, that's fine. Do't go running around falsely stating that I have answered the question. That tactic is bullshit. Total bullshit.
There! No smiley faces, no attacks on you as a person, it's just pointing out that your argument has no basis in reality.
Then refute it. Show me the overall media is fair. Show me that ABC and CBS news, the NYT and LAT aren't liberal. Show me, jimmac.
I made a claim which is generally accepted in the real world. Liberal bias has been a major, major problem over the past 40 years. There have been several books written on this topic, the most telling of which is "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, a self-described liberal. Also of note is Ann Coulter's "Slander". Before you dismiss these as "right wing lunacy", how about you cite some examples of books that charge an overall conservative bias in the media as a whole. You can't. Period.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked keyboard: If you charge that Fox News is conservative, then how can you *not* believe there exists a liberal bias eleswhere? You can't have it both ways. If bias does not exist as you claim, then disqualifies any assertion of Fox News being biased. Pick one. Any one will do.
i don't know what all the fuss is about a bias, it's there now because they have president bush and the administration by the short hairs. it's a good story and it's not going anywhere.
i didn't see the networks playing down president clintons scandal, why didn't they show their liberal bias then? because it was a good story, and a good story always prevails over any kind of bias on a legitimate news service.
i believe there is a liberal bias to much news coverage, but i also think most of the networks were on board and gung ho in the beginning of the war, in fact i might even say they were co-opted by the military in the beginning with all the "embeds" and such and maybe it's out of guilt that they taking a stand now.
I agree with that for the most part...though they and other media outlets jumped on every difficulty troops faced like it was the end of the world.
i don't know what all the fuss is about a bias, it's there now because they have president bush and the administration by the short hairs. it's a good story and it's not going anywhere.
I think that's a little strong. It's not a story unless they decide to make it one, and that's what has happened. We are talking about 16 words here that were not the exclusive case for war, just a small part of it. As much as some in the media would like to make this into an explosive issue for the next election...that election is just too far away. Poor Dems...it's just not good timing for them.
i didn't see the networks playing down president clintons scandal, why didn't they show their liberal bias then? because it was a good story, and a good story always prevails over any kind of bias on a legitimate news service.
That's the essence of jimmac's argument as well. The diference is that the President had "realations" in the oval office on the taxpayer's dime.. Worse, he was accused of subourning perjury and obstructing justice, not to mention the fact that he admitted a DIRECT and UNDENIABLE lie to the American people. That's why it was a "good story". And if you notice, the media absolutely VILLIFIED Ken Starr.
No. The soldiers shouldn't have said what they did and should be disciplined for it. What ABC did was just tasteless. It is so OBVIOUS, I can't believe you won't see it. The idea is to give viewers the idea that morale is bad across the occupying force of 200,000 men (from interviewing three soldiers). It's biased, has an ovious agenda, as is just tasteless. It's also a false statement if you listen to anyone in the military.
False testimony in your opinion.Are you calling them liars? To the men and women that said it AND HAVE SAND in their boots, its their beliefs.
It is so OBVIOUS
There is a guy down the street that just sits and chants all day that we are all sinners. Its so obvious to him that we are going to hell.
Here we go again. Maybe I should dodge left and right to avoid you putting words in my mouth. I gave an EXAMPLE. ONE example. It is certainly not the "only" example. As far as NBC, the same argument applies. I know you'd love it if I were so shallow and stupid to make a judgement about something after 30 minutes of viewing time of one program, but I'm not. NBC is on the list of networks that lean left. ABC is worse, IMO. Disagree if you like.
You know if that were the case i would buy it. But once you posted a laundry list of who were members of the "liberal" and it was a name brand who's who of in the media. Your one example gets added to frequently.
So you keep on saying "its one example" one example. But every "sample" you brought up you have jumped to the c) "liberal" choice.
. I know you'd love it if I were so shallow and stupid to make a judgement about something after 30 minutes of viewing time of one program, but I'm no
Your pattern of postings says otherwise. Disagree with me if you like.
Colorful, but dumb. See above.
Thank you. Its good to see you are not completely humorless.
President Bush the niger claim was a delbrate and calculated lie?
There were serious doubts as to Niger and it was systemic. Brokaw uttered one sentence.
it's POSSBILE it could have been a mistak
Great glad to hear it. And i'll go on the record and say to you, your comment;s are possible as well. Probable? That's where we differ.
George Stephonopolous
Is an idiot.
There's three words.
The answer to your question "no".
Finally. Thank you. So this:
It was a tasteless and shameful story that could have NO other motive than discrediting the administration.
Was wrong.
I think your mind has just been broadened. Your welcome.
Once again though: You don't listen. Perhaps instead of posting what I do, I should just post what I'm "not" posting, so you can be clear.
That would be fine too.
How many times have you heard Howard Dean labeled a Liberal?.
How many times do liberals support the death penalty AND have been endorsed by the NRA? Paint him as a mcgovernite. go ahead. Just be sure to bring Karl some tissues on election night.
But ABC news does lean VERY Left.
In your opinion. Everytime i saw that smug George Will or that tobacco friend cookie roberts are that twit brit hume, I thought ABC was selling out to the right. Funny how people see things huh?
Why would Fox News be conservative if there were no liberal networks?
Out of sheer ****ing greed.
Why do you consistently deny liberal bias? Wh don't you, as a liberal, celebrate it?
Because there is nothing to celebrate.
Take your pick: Either there is bias in the media or there isn't.
a) the either it is or isn't argument ranks up there with your supreme court comment.
b) There's bias in everything. That's not what i am arguing. You seem to think that if there is some bias, then the whole damn system is biased. get real.
For every exampe of a "biased" Fox News story (which you've yet to show),
Election night. Bush realtive. Bush relative on phone to other bush realtives
I can point to ten...no, a hundred liberally biased ones.
And they are all (almost) owned by five corprations that dictate the rules to Mikey powell and congress. Are these corporations not for profits?
What absolutely amazes me on this point is that while you trumpet Fox News as Conservatively Biased, you refuse to accept the possibility of liberal bias for other stations
What absolutely amazes me is that there are people who honestly think that in the board rooms of media owning coporations, there are groups of men and women that say things like
"we have embarrass bush on the iraq thing. let's put some disgruntled soldiers on air"
"ok gentlemen. our profits are down, let's hire more reporters."
"we need more liberal stories. bush is still in office!"
or
"hey katie. ask your question this way. It will really piss off the right wing nuts."
I've said this before and i'll say it again.
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most media only gives a shit about the bottom dollar.
And for that bottom dollar, the media will do and say things, cut back or not cover stories on, or flat out infringe on the publc's trust just for the sake of a buck.