Do you believe there is a leftist bias

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Yawn.

 

The reason Faux was brought up is because you conservatives whine about the liberal bias so much, it is simply ignorant not to acknowledge that it goes both ways.

 

Depending on where you look, there may be a liberal or conservative bias. All in all, it depends on the makeup of the population it covers. There are some liberal stations, there are some conservative ones.

 

I don't understand how people can discredit one source claiming bias and use the other as credo, though.

[Guest Some Guy]

Why does it say that Tyler posted a responce but I can't see it?

 

EDIT: It popped up after I posted this.

 

Depending on where you look, there may be a liberal or conservative bias. All in all, it depends on the makeup of the population it covers. There are some liberal stations, there are some conservative ones.

 

Are you now admitting that there is a liberal bias on some mainstream news channels? You did say earlier in the thread that you thought Fox was at least as Conservative as CNN or PMSNBC are liberal and then backed off on that a few posts later and now seem to acknoweldge it again. You seem to have swung around on your stance 1 1/2 times.

 

I don't understand how people can discredit one source claiming bias and use the other as credo, though.

 

Kind of like what you do with "Faux" News, huh?

 

I like that you yawn at me for pointing out your hypocracy in making personal attacks on people for no reason other than "they don't agree with me" and you and others whining about it when Rob (although I saw you start many of those flaming wars)or Marney did it. Maybe I am dealing with a 12 year old.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

We're going after Saddam because he has been a threat to America (to a degree) since the Gulf War,

Oh please. Iraq has been a small piss in the bucket. It's certainly not a big enough deal for all this rhetoric and the scaling back of nukes nearly into conventional territory.

 

preaches hate and death to all Americans

 

This is enough reason for war?

 

and practices genocide.

 

And has for a long time, and suddently NOW it's wrong and we have to go after him. I don't believe the U.S. really cares about that reason as we've sat back and watched him kill plenty of Kurds before.

 

I believe there are more than enough gung-ho Constitutionalists out there who will literally wage war on DC if they feel the government is walking all over them.

 

Except for the ACLU, where have they been?

 

Bush knows that threatening personal freedom will not get him another 4 years - that's why he won't do it (not that I'm sure he wants to).

 

All he has to do is say "It's for your own protection." It works pretty well so far. We've been left in the dark regarding this war for our own protection. We've had civil liberties trampled on for our own protection.

 

9/11 fucked up a lot of things.

 

That's the thing, 9/11 fucked up almost nothing. It's still a bunch of guys sneaking in and striking out of nowhere. It was just more effective this time.

 

Aside from going after Al-Qaeda, the key to preventing another 9/11 is not taking away everyone's privacy, but changing beauracracy at places like the INS, which mysteriously got these guys papers weeks (months?) after the attack.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

But, let's look at the title of the thread "Replying to Do you believe there is a leftist bias". Now tell me why people keep harping on Fox News in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with them? They have a conservative tilt, the thread is about liberal bias in the media. To bring up Fox as your answer is silly and shows that you have very little to base your beliefs that the others aren't liberal.

It is very relevant. If the media is just as liberally biased in some outlets as it is conservatively biased in others, then it all ends up level.

 

Someone, maybe on this board, I don't rememer said something like, "How can Bernie Goldberg write a book on the liberal bias of the media and not mention Fox News' conservative bias?"  Well, I don't know, maybe because the book (just like this thread) is about LIBERAL BIAS, not conservative bias.

 

Wrong. And if you heard Goldberg speak before, you'd know it. I saw an interview with him on a local news channel. He mentioned that "some people complain about biased news and then go find a news outlet that tilts the news to their personal bias. These people do not really want unbiased news coverage, they just want the news biased towards them."

[cawthon777 0]

We're going after Saddam because he has been a threat to America (to a degree) since the Gulf War,

Oh please. Iraq has been a small piss in the bucket. It's certainly not a big enough deal for all this rhetoric and the scaling back of nukes nearly into conventional territory.

 

preaches hate and death to all Americans

 

This is enough reason for war?

 

 

Iraq endorses terrorism, Saddam wants us all dead, and he has the capabilities to kill a lot of Americans. He will do everything in his power to use them himself or pass them into the hands of others who will. THAT is reason enough to go to war. And I think using the word "war" is giving Saddam a bit too much credit. This won't be a Vietnam, or Korea, Germany, or Japan. When we go in, we will go in hard and fast, cut off communications systems, and the Iraqi soldiers - as with the Gulf War - will surrender for the most part without much of a fight. Despite the pro-Saddam rhetoric to the contrary, the Iraqi people are behind the U.S. and once they see an opening they will help to oust Hussein from power.

 

9/11 fucked up a lot of things.

 

That's the thing, 9/11 fucked up almost nothing. It's still a bunch of guys sneaking in and striking out of nowhere. It was just more effective this time.

 

 

What I meant is that it fucked up a lot of things regarding future safety. We can't very well allow them to continue to sneak in therefore we need to take measures to see that they don't. So what measures should we use and which ones are constitutional, protect the individual rights of citizens, yet will also protect them from foreign enemies?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

What I meant is that it fucked up a lot of things regarding future safety. We can't very well allow them to continue to sneak in therefore we need to take measures to see that they don't. So what measures should we use and which ones are constitutional, protect the individual rights of citizens, yet will also protect them from foreign enemies?

There's a difference between doing background checks on immigrants and this:

 

A.J. Brown, a 20-year-old antiwar activist and computer major at Durham Technical Community College in North Carolina. Brown was questioned by the Secret Service after an anonymous tipster called the agency to denounce an anti-Bush poster hanging in her apartment. The poster depicts Bush holding a length of rope over a backdrop of figures hanging by their necks and criticizes the number of death row inmates who were executed during Bush's tenure as Texas governor.

 

Brown was getting ready for a Friday night date when two agents from the Raleigh office and a local police investigator showed up at her doorstep, saying they'd received a report that she had "anti-American" material in her apartment. They had no warrant, so she refused to grant them entry, but opened the door wide enough to let them view the poster, she said.

 

For 45 minutes, they tried to convince her to let them into her apartment, to check if she had any maps of Afghanistan or pro-Taliban material, she said.

 

"I kept saying no," Brown said. "Finally, I was like, 'I think the Taliban are assholes,' and they left a little later. At first I thought they were rounding up activists and incarcerating them; I was scared. After they'd gone, I didn't know whether to scream or laugh my head off."

 

Like I said, most the changes that need to be made are beauracratic within the government. Even if they were conducting checks on the 9/11 hijackers, due to how slow their papers arrived nobody would have heard the alarm bells until way after it was too late.

[cawthon777 0]

There's a difference between doing background checks on immigrants and this:

 

A.J. Brown, a 20-year-old antiwar activist and computer major at Durham Technical Community College in North Carolina. Brown was questioned by the Secret Service after an anonymous tipster called the agency to denounce an anti-Bush poster hanging in her apartment. The poster depicts Bush holding a length of rope over a backdrop of figures hanging by their necks and criticizes the number of death row inmates who were executed during Bush's tenure as Texas governor.

 

Brown was getting ready for a Friday night date when two agents from the Raleigh office and a local police investigator showed up at her doorstep, saying they'd received a report that she had "anti-American" material in her apartment. They had no warrant, so she refused to grant them entry, but opened the door wide enough to let them view the poster, she said.

 

For 45 minutes, they tried to convince her to let them into her apartment, to check if she had any maps of Afghanistan or pro-Taliban material, she said.

 

"I kept saying no," Brown said. "Finally, I was like, 'I think the Taliban are assholes,' and they left a little later. At first I thought they were rounding up activists and incarcerating them; I was scared. After they'd gone, I didn't know whether to scream or laugh my head off."

 

Like I said, most the changes that need to be made are beauracratic within the government. Even if they were conducting checks on the 9/11 hijackers, due to how slow their papers arrived nobody would have heard the alarm bells until way after it was too late.

Yes, I agree. And I'm not promoting or endorsing that behavior by the government - but background checks alone won't solve all the problems. The terrorist cells, sleeper cells in particular, know how to cover their tracks and occassionally things will get out of hand and someone's rights will get trampled on.

 

Do I believe it's justified? No but let's say this girl really was involved in some plot against America and the authorities just went away when she wouldn't let them in. What happens then?

 

There is a big gray area here and some controversial decisions will be made. The intent is not to rob us of our freedoms. Bush and Ashcroft aren't out to turn America into a dictatorship. It's kind of their responsibility to weed these people out and bring them to justice (which we are doing on a regular basis now).

 

There is a general consensus in America that we would rather let a guilty man go free than send an innocent man to prison. I'm not about to take an eraser to our constitutional rights, but we can't allow the guilty to go free in this situation.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Bush and Ashcroft aren't out to turn America into a dictatorship.

Bush, sure. Ashcroft, I have my doubts.

 

Seriously, I stick Ashcroft into the "guys so far to the right it makes me sick," along with Buchanan and so on. He's a real facist and is trying to enforce his morals on the rest of the nation. It's like RobJohnstone in that one thread.

 

Bush was saying the other day something about "I don't agree with the protesting, but I agree with their right to protest" and you know he's lying. The day they went to court to set up the protest in New York City, there were federal prosecutors there that normally weren't. And they stood up and made their presence known that they were against the idea.

 

And the other way the administration weighed in on the anti-war protests in NY was to move to Orange Alert the day they went to court. Now the stupid thing about this Alert system is, well, they don't tell you their reasons for doing it. You don't know how credible the reasons are, because they won't give them to you. And New York City had been on Orange Alert ever since 9/11. But there were still people going "Well, we just moved to Orange Alert, should we really have a massive peace demonstration with lots of people right now?"

 

That said, I don't think GW is eager to put in a thought police. Ashcroft, however, is chomping at the bit. Look at all these monitoring systems they think up. From forcing ISPs to cooperate with them and give them information about the customer's downloading habits to recording every purchase made on a giant computer. And you hear the same statement every time: "This is a real important project to John. He's very passionate about it."

 

The Bill of Rights mean nothing to that man.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

How do you know Ashcroft doesn't just think this is the best way to protect this country from terrorism.

 

So the terrorist threat was raised to Orange so their wouldn't be any protests?

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

And crack was invented by the CIA to wipe out the inner city...

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Aids was created in a lab to wipe out the gay and black community.

[cawthon777 0]

Bush was saying the other day something about "I don't agree with the protesting, but I agree with their right to protest" and you know he's lying. The day they went to court to set up the protest in New York City, there were federal prosecutors there that normally weren't. And they stood up and made their presence known that they were against the idea.

If you're going to call Bush a dictator, might want to come up with something aside from him disagreeing with protestors and the Orange alert warning. The Orange alert argument sounds a bit conspiracy theory to me - especially since it didn't stop too many people from protesting anyway.

 

Whatever feeling you got from Bush was probably more frustration than anything else. From what I've read, most of the people on this thread know what they're talking about. However, how many people in the real world are really into politics or really watch the news (and can see through the news) on a regular basis? Not too many. I'd wager that most of these demonstrators are out there without really knowing what's going on or what's at stake. Not all, but most.

 

They think "Oh, peace is good. I'm into that." and grab a sign. Add that to all the talk of oil being the reason for war, or George W. only going to war to appease his daddy, or bringing back the draft. The casual media viewer is bombarded by these ideas all the time. I know colleges and universities are mostly liberal but mine takes the cake. Everyone completely buys into these anti-war theories without question. When it's debated in class, although I'm in the minority when it comes to my politics - I'm the only one that knows what's going on.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Perhaps that's not a great example, but as I said in another thread, Bush sure as hell loves censorship.

 

When you CART PROTESTERS FOUR MILES AWAY TO A REMOTE STADIUM SO THEY AREN'T SEEN DURING BUSH'S SPEACHES, it seems to me that perhaps someone's rights aren't the foremost thing on Mr. Bush's mind.

[cawthon777 0]

When you CART PROTESTERS FOUR MILES AWAY TO A REMOTE STADIUM SO THEY AREN'T SEEN DURING BUSH'S SPEACHES, it seems to me that perhaps someone's rights aren't the foremost thing on Mr. Bush's mind.

Bush came up with that? Damn, that's impressive considering he's only been in public office for about 10 years. That's one of the most widely used tactics in politics.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Yeah, actually, I felt it was just trying to say that Faux is biased, just as CNN and MSNBC are biased.

 

If you claim one, you have to admit the other.

Actually, on the site it says Fox should be like the more moderate CNN. I know this because I frequently visit (and like) the FAIR website.

And speaking as somebody quite experienced with FAIR --- if you deem them objective and moderate --- well, let's just say that Fox is closer to the middle than those guys are.

-=Mike --- Facts: The Anti-Left

[Guest TheMikeSC]

They're really NOT moderate, due to the fact that their most outspoken, loudmouth conservatives are given primetime spots and touted as the network's marquee journalists.

 

Name one outspoken, loudmouth liberal on CNN who has a primetime spot.

 

Actually, name one blatantly, and admittedly, liberal on CNN. At least they try to hide it.

Larry King?

-=Mike --- who could probably name more, but like the rest of the country, I tend to ignore CNN

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

How do you know Ashcroft doesn't just think this is the best way to protect this country from terrorism.

That's like saying how do you know HHH doesn't think going over everyone is the way to restore the WWE.

 

Even if John thinks that, he's tiptoeing the line and could get called at being unconstitutional pretty soon.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

They're really NOT moderate, due to the fact that their most outspoken, loudmouth conservatives are given primetime spots and touted as the network's marquee journalists.

 

Name one outspoken, loudmouth liberal on CNN who has a primetime spot.

 

Actually, name one blatantly, and admittedly, liberal on CNN. At least they try to hide it.

Larry King?

-=Mike --- who could probably name more, but like the rest of the country, I tend to ignore CNN

King slipped my mind, I'll definitely grant you that one.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The casual media viewer is bombarded by these ideas all the time.  I know colleges and universities are mostly liberal but mine takes the cake.  Everyone completely buys into these anti-war theories without question.

You don't have to be a nutjob to come to those conclusions. I mentioned before in another thread that we've seen Saddam use chemical and biological arms during the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" period. We've seen him kill his own people.

 

And we've had decades to do deal with him. And we haven't after all this time!

 

Some threat to national security...

 

EDIT: And I don't think Bush is a dictator so much as I think he doesn't understand why everybody else can't see things the way he sees them. Either way, you asked if I didn't like the guy just because of his party membership, and you have your answer. No, it's not clear-cut Black & White like that.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

When you CART PROTESTERS FOUR MILES AWAY TO A REMOTE STADIUM SO THEY AREN'T SEEN DURING BUSH'S SPEACHES, it seems to me that perhaps someone's rights aren't the foremost thing on Mr. Bush's mind.

Bush came up with that? Damn, that's impressive considering he's only been in public office for about 10 years. That's one of the most widely used tactics in politics.

Regardless, he uses it.

 

It simply stuck out in my mind because I was one of those people carted away. It was incredibly lame.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The casual media viewer is bombarded by these ideas all the time.  I know colleges and universities are mostly liberal but mine takes the cake.  Everyone completely buys into these anti-war theories without question.

You don't have to be a nutjob to come to those conclusions. I mentioned before in another thread that we've seen Saddam use chemical and biological arms during the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" period. We've seen him kill his own people.

 

And we've had decades to do deal with him. And we haven't after all this time!

 

Some threat to national security...

 

EDIT: And I don't think Bush is a dictator so much as I think he doesn't understand why everybody else can't see things the way he sees them. Either way, you asked if I didn't like the guy just because of his party membership, and you have your answer. No, it's not clear-cut Black & White like that.

If you don't mind me asking ---

 

Doesn't the fact that Saddam failed to live up to his word after all of these years give us the right to MAKE him do it?

 

Bush is in a no-win situation here:

 

He goes to war, he is simply rushing head-long into this.

 

He points out that we gave Hussein 12 years and he must not be a security threat.

 

And Bush doesn't get why everybody doesn't see things like he does?

 

So he's just like every single person on the face of the Earth?

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

-=Mike --- who could probably name more, but like the rest of the country, I tend to ignore CNN

I wouldn't say most of the country ignores CNN. After all, in recent years it has become very moderate. It's a breath of fresh air from Fox News' conservatism/entertainment format.

[cawthon777 0]

You don't have to be a nutjob to come to those conclusions. I mentioned before in another thread that we've seen Saddam use chemical and biological arms during the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" period. We've seen him kill his own people.

 

And we've had decades to do deal with him. And we haven't after all this time!

 

Some threat to national security...

Saddam wasn't even a blip on the radar screen during Clinton's 8 years. Why didn't we take care of him then? Because we were busy not taking care of the Twin Towers bombing in 93, the attack on American embassies abroad, and the attack on the USS Kohl.

 

He would have been taken out during the Gulf War had Bush Sr. been given the "right" by the UN. We've tried to take him out since via assassination missions but he's got all those damn bodyguards and lookalikes...

 

I've heard criticisms of the war saying that it's simply George W. making good on what his dad couldn't take care of. It's not quite that simple but it does show that both Bushes understand that Saddam is a threat and needs to be taken out of power for the good of America and the rest of the free world. I don't see that as being a bad thing.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

-=Mike --- who could probably name more, but like the rest of the country, I tend to ignore CNN

I wouldn't say most of the country ignores CNN. After all, in recent years it has become very moderate. It's a breath of fresh air from Fox News' conservatism/entertainment format.

Actually Fox News is the #1. Cable News Network. So CNN is kinda being ignored.

[Guest JMA]

Actually Fox News is the #1. Cable News Network. So CNN is kinda being ignored.

I'm well aware of that. CNN is still a VERY popular news-channel--just not as popular as Fox News.

 

Therefore, it is not being ignored.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

-=Mike --- who could probably name more, but like the rest of the country, I tend to ignore CNN

I wouldn't say most of the country ignores CNN. After all, in recent years it has become very moderate. It's a breath of fresh air from Fox News' conservatism/entertainment format.

I'm going by the ratings at present.

-=Mike --- who thinks that Russo-booked WCW might outdraw CNN --- but not by much

[Guest TheMikeSC]

You don't have to be a nutjob to come to those conclusions. I mentioned before in another thread that we've seen Saddam use chemical and biological arms during the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" period. We've seen him kill his own people.

 

And we've had decades to do deal with him. And we haven't after all this time!

 

Some threat to national security...

Saddam wasn't even a blip on the radar screen during Clinton's 8 years. Why didn't we take care of him then? Because we were busy not taking care of the Twin Towers bombing in 93, the attack on American embassies abroad, and the attack on the USS Kohl.

 

He would have been taken out during the Gulf War had Bush Sr. been given the "right" by the UN. We've tried to take him out since via assassination missions but he's got all those damn bodyguards and lookalikes...

 

I've heard criticisms of the war saying that it's simply George W. making good on what his dad couldn't take care of. It's not quite that simple but it does show that both Bushes understand that Saddam is a threat and needs to be taken out of power for the good of America and the rest of the free world. I don't see that as being a bad thing.

Heck, we could be a little pissy and ask why Clinton didn't take bin Laden when he was basically offered to us back in the 90's.

 

The reason the senior Bush didn't take out Saddam back in '91 was because he didn't want to lose his coalition.

 

And, as several have pointed out, if this was "About oil" --- we'd have done this a long time ago.

 

Pres. Bush sees a problem and is fixing it.

 

Remember, some Dems bashed him for not preventing 9/11.

 

He's trying to rectify that.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

[ -=Mike --- who thinks that Russo-booked WCW might outdraw CNN --- but not by much

There's a greater consecutive number of people watching CNN. That's why their ad revenue is so high why their ad revenue is so high.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

[         -=Mike --- who thinks that Russo-booked WCW might outdraw CNN --- but not by much

There's a greater consecutive number of people watching CNN. That's why their ad revenue is so high why their ad revenue is so high.

But the sheer number of viewers for them is embarassingly low.

-=Mike --- though, honestly, no news network draws huge numbers

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

And, as several have pointed out, if this was "About oil" --- we'd have done this a long time ago.

Woah fuck, are you serious?

 

Shit, I'd better scratch the "No" off these "No War" banners.

 

 

 

 

The point is not to get improved or cheap access to Iraqi oil, the point is to put Iraqi fields under the control of American companies and

 

A) Have control of the oil, and thus a massive chip against OPEC, and a military toehold in the whole region, enhancing America's "don't fuck with us" status.

B) Sell the oil at a massive profit to other people

 

the amount of oil under Iraq is staggering, and the money to be had from it even more so. We're talking trillions just in corporate taxes, and that's for proven reserves.