Do you believe there is a leftist bias

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Point me out a true liberal-driven front page article (where the journalist spews partisan drivel) and I'll show you a newspaper who has no circulation."

 

During that whole stupid Augusta controversy, the NY Times rabidly covered this non-story at every turn. Am I shouting "liberal bias"? No. But it's just the way the world works.

 

A newsroom (not the editorial board) is peppered with people that think a certain way. That causes them to hunt out stories they have a vested interest in. It's just human nature...

[Guest JMA]

Read the Goldberg book on the Media.

 

He gives lots of examples of the truth vs. what the media tells you.

Goldberg got some facts wrong in his book. He was called on it by Al Franken.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The NY Times did not have the Augusta story on the front page of their newspapers every day.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

There was one span where it was oversaturated to the point the paper was agenda-driven. I'm sorry I didn't document the days and articles that it appeared...

[Guest bob_barron]

Read the Goldberg book on the Media.

 

He gives lots of examples of the truth vs. what the media tells you.

Goldberg got some facts wrong in his book. He was called on it by Al Franken.

How did Al prove Goldberg wrong? What did he call him on?

 

I'm just wondering- I'm not spreading my Al hate.

[Guest Mad Dog]

What facts did he get wrong?

 

I would tend to believe someone that worked for CBS over an SNL flop.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Now, now, Al is going to be the next big talk radio superstar -- although he probably has never hosted a radio show in his life (but he is a better choice than Hightower *sp?* or Cumo).

 

OK, here's a few conservative-oriented publications discussing the NY Times Augusta coverage...

 

Newsweek excerpt, taken from the ultra-arch-supersized-conservative Media Reseach Center:

 

http://www.mediaresearchcenter.org/mainsea...rch/search.html

 

On Nov. 25, the New York Times ran a front-page story headlined CBS STAYING SILENT IN DEBATE ON WOMEN JOINING AUGUSTA. It was the 32d piece the Times had run in just under three months on the issue of whether the Augusta National Golf Club, which hosts the Masters Tournament, would admit women as members.

 

The story spanked the TV network that has a contract to air the Masters for resisting the argument that it can do something to alter the clubs policy, although it was unclear who -- other than the Times -- was making the argument; as the piece eventually noted, public pressure on CBS to take a stand has been glancing. That was just shocking, one Times staffer said on the condition that his name not be used. It makes it hard for us to have credibility on other issues. We dont run articles that just say so-and-so is staying silent. We run articles when something important actually happens.

 

A certain amount of griping is to be expected in any newsroom, but the chorus of complaints at the Times has been getting louder. The Masters coverage is so overheated, one staffer says, that executive editor Howell Raines is in danger of losing the building....

 

Its not just the newsroom thats concerned. From conservative activists to everyday readers, many people around the country are noticing a change in the way the Old Gray Lady covers any number of issues, from the looming war with Iraq to the sex-abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church to the New Jersey Senate race. Raines, the hard-charging executive editor, has an almost religious belief in flooding the zone -- using all the papers formidable resources to pound away on a story. But increasingly, the Times is being criticized for ginning up controversies as much as reporting them out. This is certainly a shift from The New York Times as the 'paper of record, says Alex Jones, a former Times media reporter and coauthor of The Trust, a book about the paper. Its a more activist agenda in terms of policy, especially compared to an administration thats much more conservative....

 

ts the Times that drives the nations news agenda -- and therefore presents the biggest target. Every day, when its editors send out a list of the next days front-page stories, papers around the country alter their lineups -- or just run the Timess stories in their entirety. The Times has so much accumulated reputational capital that stories that are really ideological are presented as accurate news stories, and can mislead the public, says Dave Kopel, a conservative press critic with Denvers Rocky Mountain News.

 

Conservatives have long complained that the Times has been an organ of the liberal elite, and Raines, with his well-documented lefty politics, is a convenient right-wing bogeyman....

 

If Raines is working in any tradition, its that of the crusading Southern populist. He began his career in Alabama, and cut his teeth at a time when the Southern papers were still charging the barricades of segregation. On the foreign-policy front, the Vietnam era helped cement his skepticism about government authority when lives are on the line. He once said the Reagan years oppressed me because the callousness and the greed and the hardhearted attitude toward people who have very little in this society.

 

Whatever changes Raines is making, hes doing it with the blessing of the front office. His aggressiveness, as well as his news judgment, are seen as a reflection of the ambitions and philosophies of the Timess 51-year-old publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Raines and Sulzberger have had a close relationship for years. While Sulzbergers day-to-day contact with Raines is limited, Sulzberger, who would not comment for this article, is clearly comfortable with Rainess activist ways....

 

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074599

 

Nobody would ever call New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines a demagogue. Oh, he breathes sulfurous fire on his foes from time to time, as Bill Clinton can attest, and like many editors he enjoys enlisting his troops in journalistic crusades. We should be grateful, for example, for the Times' aggressive coverage of the coming war with Iraq, especially the stories that illustrate the bloody downside of intervention. Raines' Times has applied more serious cogitation to the merits of President Bush's war resolution in a half-dozen news articles than Congress did in all of its "deliberations." If, as H.L. Mencken put it, reporters should always belong to the party of opposition, Raines is only doing his job.

 

But at some point, saturation coverage of a story begins to raise more questions about the newspaper's motives than about the story being covered. The Times reached—and passed—that point this morning with its 40th-plus news story, column, or editorial (since July!) about the Augusta National Golf Club's refusal to admit female members. Only a five-star general like Raines could have commanded such extravagant coverage as this.

 

The headline of today's Page One, above-the-fold story—"CBS Staying Silent in Debate on Women Joining Augusta"—is the giveaway that the Times is blowing on embers in hopes that the story will reignite. CBS, which has broadcast the Masters golf tournament for the last 46 years, first abstained from the issue in July, when the war of words broke out between Augusta chairman William "Hootie" Johnson and Martha Burk, chairwoman of the National Council of Women's Organizations. The fact that the network is still silent isn't big news today any more than it will be big news tomorrow, even if the Times were to contrive a story titled "CBS Stays Silent: Day 150." This sort of churning and whisking of yesterday's topic, adding new ingredients in incremental proportions in story after story until you build a 12-foot tall meringue isn't news coverage, it's blogging!

 

The New York Observer's Sridhar Pappu put the Times saturation coverage in excellent context last week, writing that the paper has "prodded and pulled the story, refusing to let it slip from the table of conversation" at Raines' insistence. As a Southern liberal who came to political consciousness during the civil-rights struggle, Raines equates the ban on women members at Augusta with racial discrimination, Pappu explained. When Pappu called Raines to discuss the coverage, a Times spokesperson told him the editor was unavailable for comment. If Pappu were to put another call into Raines for comment about the Masters this week, he could easily headline his next story "Raines Stays Silent in Debate on Times' Augusta Coverage."

 

As crusades go, the intensity of the Times' against Augusta, which included a Nov. 18 editorial urging Tiger Woods to boycott the Masters in protest, seems somewhat out of proportion. If Augusta's ban is such a godawful thing (and I'm not saying that it isn't), then where was the Times all those decades that the club was practicing its unholy discrimination—out shooting the back nine? A Nexis search of "New York Times and August National and women and member" before this summer's confrontation produces less than three stories a year going back to 1990 and none before. This indicates that either the Times overlooked one of the decade's greatest injustices until alerted to it by Johnson and Burk's summer duel, or that the Times found a story that it could conveniently exploit for months to the smug satisfaction of its liberal readers: A nation of 140 million women against a men's club of 300.

 

Calling the Times on its posturing last week was the Kansas City Star's crotchety business columnist Jerry Heaster. "Instead of encouraging Tiger Woods to boycott the Masters, the New York Times should make its own statement by refusing to cover the prestigious golf tournament until Augusta National admits a female member," Heaster wrote.

 

That would free up the sports pages for the Times to pursue additional crusades for social justice in baseball (no black owners), swimming (what a white sport!), hockey (still not enough American-born), stock-car racing (too Southern), and yachting (how about scholarships for poor folks?).

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

There was one span where it was oversaturated to the point the paper was agenda-driven. I'm sorry I didn't document the days and articles that it appeared...

Chances are that there was little other news.

 

We often have retarded stories in such times; also, this is more a case of sensationalism than agenda-based politics. People were made to care about this because people screamed discrimination; most women, who could care less about golf, were convinced they were still being discriminated against, and discontent makes for good sales.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"We often have retarded stories in such times"

 

Now that I agree with -- the whole Augusta thing is retarded. Too bad the NY Times didn't think so...

[Guest JMA]

How did Al prove Goldberg wrong? What did he call him on?

 

I'm just wondering- I'm not spreading my Al hate.

Here

 

The confrontation between Franken and Goldberg was on a past show of Donahue. The article I linked you to is mostly about Phil, but it has the Goldberg/Franken exchange in there. I'll try to find a full length exchange between the two. I actually watched the confrontation on television. Anyone who saw it knew Bernie was clearly beaten.

[Guest JMA]

Some highlights.

 

SECAUCUS, N.J. -- January 7, 2003 -- Following are excerpts from last night’s “Donahue,” featuring a debate over whether there is a conservative bias in the media, with Bernard Goldberg, author, “Bias,” comedian and author Al Franken, radio talk show host Jeffrey Whitaker and former New York state governor Mario Cuomo. A transcript is available in its entirety at www.tv.msnbc.com. “Donahue” airs weeknights 8:00-9:00 p.m. ET on MSNBC, America’s NewsChannel.

 

 

 

BERNARD GOLDBERG, AUTHOR, "BIAS": I’m having an acid flashback. This feels like 1968.

 

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

 

DONAHUE: How’s that?

 

 

GOLDBERG: Well, everything you said in the last 45 seconds or so, you could have and probably did say in 1968. And you think nothing has changed.

 

 

* * *

 

 

DONAHUE: I have not even introduced radio talk show host Jeffrey Whitaker. And on the satellite from San Francisco is the good Al Franken, the comedian and author of "Oh, the Things I Know." You’re listening, Al. What do you think?

 

 

AL FRANKEN, COMEDIAN: Oh, I think Bernie is wrong.

 

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

 

FRANKEN: Look at 2000. And I think this is, whether he says it’s about politics or not, when you hear Rush Limbaugh talk about it, when you hear people on the Fox News Channel talk about it, they say it’s about politics.

 

 

And let me use an example from 2000. During the debates, during the first debate, Al Gore said that he had gone down to Texas to go to a disaster site with James Lee Witt, the head of FEMA. It turned out he hadn’t. He had gone to 17 disasters with James Lee Witt, not that one. He went with the deputy of Witt. The press jumped all over him. It was as if James Lee Witt were the most popular man in America and Al Gore was lying to get some of that James Lee Witt magic to rub off on him.

 

 

The next debate -- and this is relevant today, by the way -- George W. Bush says -- and this is a quote -- "By far, the vast majority of my tax cut goes to those at the bottom." "By far, the vast majority of my tax cut goes to those at the bottom." Nothing. We heard nothing from the press on that. The Gore people tried to get press to write about it. They wouldn’t.

 

 

And is it because there’s a conservative bias in the media? I don’t think so. I think the attitude in the media about Bush then was, he doesn’t know. Leave the man alone. He doesn’t know. Leave him alone.

 

 

* * *

 

 

FRANKEN: Here’s the difference between the mainstream media and the

 

15 percent of the media that is Fox, that is "The Washington Times," that is "The New York Post," that’s Hannity, that’s Rush. They cheat. The mainstream media at least tries to be fair.

 

 

 

* * *

 

 

DONAHUE: I have an e-mail from Jesse here. "You ask in your monologue, Where’s a liberal and where’s the liberal media? You’re on TV, aren’t you, Phil?" Well, hooray for that! Bernie, she agrees with you.

 

 

GOLDBERG: Yes. And even if you disagree with her, she sounds like a nice person. My guess is she’s an intelligent person. But even if you disagree with her, you have to understand, Phil, that there are millions and millions and millions of people who think she’s right, who feel the exact same way she does, who feel as if when they watch the so-called mainstream news, their values are being...

 

 

FRANKEN: That’s because you repeat over and over and over...

 

 

GOLDBERG: ... either ignored altogether...

 

 

FRANKEN: ... and over and over again...

 

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

 

DONAHUE: Wait a minute, Al. Make your point, Bernie.

 

 

GOLDBERG: You can dismiss this argument that there’s a liberal bias, but you can’t dismiss that caller and the millions and millions of others. At some point, you have to deal with the fact that many Americans believe this. They believe this. We’re not all delusional.

 

 

* * *

 

 

 

CALLER: Phil, thank you. I think the main thing I wanted to say is

 

I’m sad that the conservatives you have on tonight have done a poor job of articulating our conservative argument, which I think is another bias of the press is that you always pick very smart, astute liberals, like Al Franken, who are very articulate, and then you have conservatives who scratch their heads and can’t come back with something.

 

 

DONAHUE: Oh, well...

 

 

* * *

 

GOLDBERG: Why not, Phil? You have an opinion on everything. Have an opinion on this.

 

 

DONAHUE: Bernie...

 

 

GOLDBERG: Have an opinion on this.

 

 

DONAHUE: Do you know how much I love you, Bernie?

 

 

GOLDBERG: Well, it’s mutual.

 

 

DONAHUE: You know, I think you’ve been wounded tonight, kid, and you’re getting a little personal, and it’s not necessary and it’s taking up time.

[Guest Mad Dog]

And your point is.......

 

Aren't you one of the same people that gets on O'Reilly's case for not letting the other person talk? Al didn't prove anything in that. He used one minor example that doesn't amount to anything.

[Guest Mad Dog]

Stupid double posts

[Guest JMA]

And your point is.......

 

Aren't you one of the same people that gets on O'Reilly's case for not letting the other person talk? Al didn't prove anything in that. He used one minor example that doesn't amount to anything.

How does it not prove anything? Bernie's facts were off and Al called him on it. If you saw the show it even looked like Bernie was going to cry. He looked really upset. Bernie was given an equal oppurtunity to talk.

[Guest Mad Dog]

And what pray tell did he point out that was wrong with his book. He used really just one example that it nit picking at best. And I don't see anything valid stated by Franken in his little tirade. The media was more jumping on Gore for coming off as a complete ass in that debate than anything else.

 

I'll take what a former CBS news reporter says on the issue any day of the week over what a former SNL flop has to say.

[Guest JMA]

And what pray tell did he point out that was wrong with his book. He used really just one example that it nit picking at best. And I don't see anything valid stated by Franken in his little tirade. The media was more jumping on Gore for coming off as a complete ass in that debate than anything else.

 

I'll take what a former CBS news reporter says on the issue any day of the week over what a former SNL flop has to say.

I'll tell you what he pointed out was wrong with the book. An exerpt from the show.

 

Fortunately, Franken came prepared, hitting Goldberg with a haymaker in the first round. He said the problem with people such as Goldberg and Limbaugh is that "they cheat." They rip stuff out of context to make it appear that their target said something that would make decent Americans recoil in horror, knowing full well that their target intended no such thing.

 

Franken said that Goldberg, in his book Bias, branded as "liberal hate speech" a ho-hum 1991 story by John Chancellor on the NBC evening news about shortages and economic hard times in Russia as the former Soviet Union transitioned from communism to capitalism. Goldberg blasted that report -- which apparently set off no alarm bells at the time and was, after all, the work of a centrist, establishment-oriented journalist -- as pro-communist propaganda.

 

But Franken filled in Goldberg on the context of Chancellor's story, including Tom Brokaw's opening remarks that evening: "This is a day for bold print in history to be remembered and savored as the day when the power of the people in the Soviet Union proved to be greater than the power of the gray and cold-blooded men who thought they could return that country to the darkness of state oppression."

 

Franken had Goldberg on the ropes. And what did our progressive host do? He changed the subject. Franken was incensed. "Phil, why are you letting Bernie off?"

There you go. Of course I fully expect you to deny and downplay this. But hey, such is the way of opposing political viewpoints. You don't have to repeat yourself either. I read what you said the first time. I myself will take the word of a renowned SNL alumni and political analysis over a bitter, self-righteous shell of a man, like Bernie Goldberg.

[Guest Mad Dog]

Actually I won't downplay it. I wanted you to actually show how Al proved him wrong. I disagree with how he says Rush and Goldberg "cheat". Considering that in his book Goldberg often explained things with cold hard statistics. I'll have to dig the book out and read over that section again since it's been awhile.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Fortunately, Franken came prepared, hitting Goldberg with a haymaker in the first round. He said the problem with people such as Goldberg and Limbaugh is that "they cheat." They rip stuff out of context to make it appear that their target said something that would make decent Americans recoil in horror, knowing full well that their target intended no such thing."

 

Oh please, the Left does this too (First thing that pops into memory is Gingrich's "withering on the vine" line regarding Medicare).

 

If people didn’t take other people’s words out of context, then pigs would fly and Satan would wear boots.

 

Just because you point out a few things about Goldberg's book that can be challenged that doesn't mean Big Media has a bias. For the record, I have pretty much the same opinion of Big Media as Goldberg does, and I took to task one of his "liberal bias" examples regarding the Alabama chain gang story...

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Now, now, Al is going to be the next big talk radio superstar -- although he probably has never hosted a radio show in his life (but he is a better choice than Hightower *sp?* or Cumo).

Franken and Moore won't work has talk show hosts. There both to angry and bitter, and I've heard local media people who know Franken say he takes his politics very seriously and isn't one to joke around about things.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Article #1:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-02...ome%2Dheadlines

 

ST. LOUIS, Mo. -- Rep. Dick Gephardt, a 26-year veteran of Congress and the former House Democratic leader, announced his second candidacy for president today, pledging to repeal President Bush's tax cuts to finance "quality health coverage for everyone who works in America."

 

The eighth candidate in a growing Democratic field, Gephardt sought to distinguish himself from lesser-known rivals for the party's nomination. "I think experience matters," said the Missouri lawmaker who sought the presidency in 1988.

 

"I'm not the political flavor of the month. I'm not the flashiest candidate around," he said. "But the fight for working families is in my bones."

 

Gephardt's health care plan, which would give billions of dollars in tax credits to businesses and require them to invest the money in employee insurance benefits, is the cornerstone of an ambitious policy agenda designed to win what he called "the contest of ideas."

 

It is his answer to critics who say other Democratic candidates have more momentum or charisma, aides said.

 

Addressing at least 500 friends, family and supporters at his former elementary school's gymnasium, Gephardt said, "Here in the home of my values, here at the heart of the American dream, I announce my candidacy for the president of the United States."

 

"I'm running for president because I'm tired of leadership that's left us isolated in the world, and stranded here at home," Gephardt said.

 

While saying he supports Bush's efforts to disarm Iraq, without the United Nations if necessary, Gephardt said the president's go-it-alone rhetoric has alienated allies. "We must lead the world instead of merely bullying it," he said.

 

Gephardt, 62, ran for president in 1988 but his candidacy fizzled for lack of money after he won the Democratic caucuses in Iowa. He took over the unenviable job of minority leader after the 1994 elections that gave Republicans control of the House for the first time in 40 years.

 

It was Gephardt who handed the gavel to Newt Gingrich, officially transferring power to the conservative Republican on what he later called one of the worst days of his life. He failed to return the Democrats to majority status in four closely fought elections between 1996 and 2002.

 

The sandy-haired, youthful-looking Gephardt has built a formidable network of party activists and fund-raisers, and he is the only Democratic candidate who has sought the presidency before. He unveiled several new initiatives today, a reflection of his vast policy experience, and he said at least 20 members of Congress are backing his campaign.

 

Still, party leaders openly wonder whether Gephardt's time has passed and whether he can unseat a popular Republican president. Democratic donors who lined up at Gephardt's door while he was minority leader are no longer beholden to him. Organized labor leaders, once loyal to his political career, are showing interest in other Democratic candidates.

 

"He's got to convince them that he's not old news, that he brings something different to this effort and that is the catalyst for him to win - a new message that is applicable to the times," said New Hampshire Democratic State Sen. Lou D'Allesandro.

 

After his announcement, Gephardt rushed to Iowa, the first test in the presidential election cycle, where he told union activists that Bush's economic plan is "mindless. It doesn't make sense. It's hurting our economy."

 

The Republican National Committee, in a broadside at the newest Democratic candidate, described Gephardt as an "inside-the-Beltway liberal who has been tried, tested and rejected."

 

Gephardt, the son of a milk truck driver who belonged to the Teamsters, returned home in an effort to soften his public image and argue that his roots shaped his political career. After high-fiving his way to the makeshift stage, Gephardt gave the crowd several thumbs-up before launching into his 40-minute address with his usual low-key delivery.

 

He called White House tax cuts "unaffordable, unsustainable and patently unfair," accused Bush of pursuing "the economics of debt and regret" and assailed administration policies on education, the environmental, the budget and homeland security.

 

"Never has so much been done, in so little time, to help so few," he said.

 

Seven other Democrats already have formed presidential committees or say they intend to do so: former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and New York civil rights activist Al Sharpton.

 

Moseley-Braun and Kucinich filed papers to establish exploratory committees today.

 

Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman have gained distance from the rest of the pack thus far, either by simple name recognition, frequent travel, fund raising or strong early efforts to organize in key states.

 

As Gephardt sought to make his experience a virtue, at least one Democratic rival tried to use it against him. "There are differences between the Democratic candidates," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for Edwards. "If you are looking for a Washington insider to be president, John Edwards isn't your guy."

 

In his speech, Gephardt pledged to "put hardworking Americans first again," an echo of Clinton's 1992 "putting people first" campaign slogan. Health care was the focus of Clinton's campaign.

 

Gephardt outlined a plan to give employers tax credits that would cover "most of the cost" associated with providing health care coverage to their workers.

 

The tax credit would replace the existing employer tax deduction, which is now about 35 percent of the cost of coverage. Gephardt hopes to eventually cover up to 65 percent of insurance costs under his plan, aides said.

 

They said the plan could eventually cost as much as Bush's 10-year, $1.3 trillion tax cut.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Perhaps they believe the word "liberal" is an insult, while the word "conservative" is not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Some Guy]

Since the fall of the Soviet Union was mentioned a few posts back: how about how the stauch Communists were called "conservatives" by the big three news shows. Seems to me that equating a Pinko to a Republican is a bit of a stretch. Last I checked the established American meaning of "conservative" was a right-winger and Communism was about as far to teh left as possible.

 

Another thing. In the past the colors of the states that a party won in a election was blue for the GOP and red for the Dems. That got swicthed at some point, seems that the Dems didn't want red because it put them too close to their ideological soul mates in China, USSR, Cuba, etc...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Since the fall of the Soviet Union was mentioned a few posts back: how about how the stauch Communists were called "conservatives" by the big three news shows. Seems to me that equating a Pinko to a Republican is a bit of a stretch. Last I checked the established American meaning of "conservative" was a right-winger and Communism was about as far to teh left as possible.

 

Another thing. In the past the colors of the states that a party won in a election was blue for the GOP and red for the Dems. That got swicthed at some point, seems that the Dems didn't want red because it put them too close to their ideological soul mates in China, USSR, Cuba, etc...

Two can play the "Ideological Soulmates" game.

 

The right is equated with Fascism, which is 200x worse than communism. Hitler, Moussolini... etc. Lovely bedfellows.

 

That was a real fucking retarded comment, SG.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Gee, a liberal newspaper in a liberal community?!? NO SHIT.

[Guest Some Guy]

Except that the the GOP has virtually no similarities to facism. The Dems are pretty similar in many areas to Marxists and their totalitarian nature is similar to the Commies.

 

Now dispute my post, not an off-hand comment.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Why? I wasn't around to watch these wonderful comments being made, and therefore, cannot confirm or deny their existance. I don't think liberals can be blamed for several people's stupidity, but hell, you blame them for everything else, so why not?

 

As far as the other "point" about red/blue goes... it's retarded. First of all, that's not something that every newspaper and news program follows (I've seen it switched quite a few times), and it's simply stupid logic by an ignorant conservative.

 

And yes, conservatives do have much in common with fascist regimes, including the farce that is Total Information Awareness and other aspects of a police state, a fierce reliance on nationalism, an insistance on public quiescence instead of open debate on issues, and ultra-militarism.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Since the fall of the Soviet Union was mentioned a few posts back: how about how the stauch Communists were called "conservatives" by the big three news shows. Seems to me that equating a Pinko to a Republican is a bit of a stretch. Last I checked the established American meaning of "conservative" was a right-winger and Communism was about as far to teh left as possible.

 

Another thing. In the past the colors of the states that a party won in a election was blue for the GOP and red for the Dems. That got swicthed at some point, seems that the Dems didn't want red because it put them too close to their ideological soul mates in China, USSR, Cuba, etc...

In the Russian context, the Communists were conservatives. They endorsed traditional views and values in their country.

[Guest Some Guy]

Not in the American context though. Commies and Conservatives have almost nothing in common.

[Guest LooseCannon]

But I really don't think they were trying to link American Conservatives with Communists. They often used words like "old-guard" and stuff like that.

[Guest Some Guy]

Why? I wasn't around to watch these wonderful comments being made, and therefore, cannot confirm or deny their existance. I don't think liberals can be blamed for several people's stupidity, but hell, you blame them for everything else, so why not?

Well I guess they can when it is Liberals (Brokaw, Rather, and Jennings) who are making the statements. But I just blame liberals for everything, so what do i know?

 

As far as the other "point" about red/blue goes... it's retarded. First of all, that's not something that every newspaper and news program follows (I've seen it switched quite a few times), and it's simply stupid logic by an ignorant conservative.

 

Almost all of the news programs use the new color distintions, I think Fox News still uses the old one.

 

And yes, conservatives do have much in common with fascist regimes, including the farce that is Total Information Awareness and other aspects of a police state, a fierce reliance on nationalism, an insistance on public quiescence instead of open debate on issues, and ultra-militarism.

 

As opposed to liberals who only in your little fantasy land like open debate. If they did why can I so seldom get a straight answer or the truth out of them. See your own lies about taxes in the Bush thread adn thenm your admission of lying and then you going right back to lying after you had been defeated in a debate. What aspects of a police state would that be? Banning smoking without a vote? Virtually locking people in their houses because of a snow storm and fining the shit out of anyone who dared drive (See the "Snowed in" thread)? Banning religion in public places? Oh wait that's liberalism at it's "finest."

How about the Dems and the Commies. Instead of quelling dissent by assinated the people the Dems assasinate their character (see Gingrich, Newt. Ashcroft, John. Bush, George W. etc...). The huge taxes that the Dems want to levy on the producers of this country is very similar to those I've read Karl Marx blather about. using those taxes to keep the poor at a level where they'll always need "Big Mother" The Democratic party and ensuring their power. Sounds similar to Communist dictators stealing their people's money and using it to keep them down and the leaders in power. Sounds similar to Saddam Hussien too.

 

I am not saying that the Dems are as bad as Commies or dictators but they have far more resemblance to that than the GOP have to Facism.