Thoughts about the "liberal media"

[Justice 0]

First, Bush specifically linking Al Qaeda to Iraq numerous times is a downright deplorable tactic to mislead Americans into thinking there was a link between the group and 9/11. Tugging on the fragile heart strings and what have you.

Oh good Lord, if the connections were there, they should be mentioned. It's not Bush's fault that the respective groups have had a dozen or so respective meetings in the recent past.

 

Second, McHaggis mentions that the 'side bar' reasons for going to war involved Iraq violating one of the UN's 17 resolutions. Of course it's absurd for the US to use this excuse, yet at the same time defy the UN's stance for heading into an 'illegal war' and especially when UN inspectors did report substantial evidence of WMD's. The UN is a great asset for United States foreign policy issues, when it's convenient of course.

 

This is a contradiction: We never violated any UN Resolution by going in. The UN was violating it's own by NOT acting. They were supposed to act long before this and always failed to do so.

 

Plus, you act as the UN was one unified body, when it was really the Rhineland States in greatest opposition to all this, with Russia and China. We had the support of most of Europe when we first initiated this action, and outside of Spain leaving, we still do.

 

The UN is a body that lacks the power or the sheer balls to act on it's own "Strong Words". They should have taken care of this a long time ago, like... oh, I dunno... 1998?

 

The 'fighting terrorism and tyranny' fall under the same hypocritical and totally unbelievable vain. A convincing argument for such a stance simply cannot be made.

 

So is the idea that we have to follow the UN, yet ignore the evidence they've brought forth for years upon years. Or how about pledging action without ever committing any? Seriously, the hypocracy belongs to the UN for never practicing what they preach and actually solving anything. Perhaps if they got off their high-horse and realized that they are a joke to anyone who they might have to deal with they would change, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Jingus 0]

Calling FNC right-leaning is one of the new liberal straw man arguments and rallying cries, similar to "Fox is entertainment news, so it doesn't count."

So... you're claiming that Fox really is "fair and balanced" with no conservative slant whatsoever? I don't think even MikeSC would back you up on that one.

 

I listen to Rush every day

 

(sigh)

 

Considering that most of the US is either reasonable or anti-liberal,

 

That's a heavily loaded, almost Coulter-like turn of phrase there.

 

Is FNC the top-rated cable network because Dubya is using behind-the-scenes manipulation to make it that way?  I think it's because they report all facets of news (including reporting the good work being done in Iraq) and because they are much more energetic than the corpse-like talking heads on the network news.

 

Much more energetic? Yeah, that gains them a lot of younger viewers. But "report all facets of news" is hardly the case. Fox is just about the only conservative news channel out there, compared to several liberal or moderate ones; of course it's gonna have more individual viewers than any other channel, since it practically has a monopoly on the demographics it targets.

[NoCalMike 0]

Calling FNC right-leaning is one of the new liberal straw man arguments and rallying cries, similar to "Fox is entertainment news, so it doesn't count." The reason people deny liberal bias in the mainstream media is because they are so out of touch that they don't step back from their myopic view of the big picture. I don't think anyone can watch anything on ABC, CBS or NBC, be it their evening news shows or their primetime investigative shows, and say that it isn't slanted. Sometimes the mere tone of their voice does it. I listen to Rush every day and at the top of every hour, the local ABC affiliate runs the New York ABC news update and they are the worst. Some reporter last week told us that after Boxer asked her questions (of which they did not play a clip), Condoleeza "fired back!" They then played a clip of Condi when her voice was raised for all of three seconds.

Calling FNC right-leaning is a "straw man" argument? WTF. Do you watch FNC? I mean really. Come on now. Regardless of what CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS do on their broadcasts, there is no way any logical person can say that Fox News is not basically a vehicle for the republican party. I wouldn't even say they are a conservative network, moreso a hack network for whatever the republican flavor of the month is, I mean how else can you explain that the most common guests are Dick Morris and Newt.

 

If you want me to say CNN is just as bad as Fox in actual reporting, I'd agree, but to try and say CNN is more biased then Fox is a joke.

[Special K 0]

The reason people deny liberal bias in the mainstream media is because they are so out of touch that they don't step back from their myopic view of the big picture.

 

This doesn't even mean anything. Guess what? Conservatives will say Fox News is objective, liberals will say the other networks are objective. Guess what! They're both wrong! No one can be completely objective. It is an impossibility. There only degrees of subjectivity.

 

 

Considering that most of the US is either reasonable or anti-liberal,

I assume that your implication here is that being reasonable = being ati-liberal.

 

If this is the case why did 48% of the USA vote for a complete turd like Kerry? Why have Bush's approval ratings been so low? <-- aside from the 9/11 spike.

Why were Bill Clinton's approval ratings 73% while he was being impeached ?(higher than Reagan's EVER were)

 

Oh, right. liberal bias liberal bias liberal bias. Bullshit.

No one should be a parrot for either Air America or Rush Limbaugh. Open your eyes and ears and form some opinions for yourself besides just making ridiculous blanket statements.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

The 'fighting terrorism and tyranny' fall under the same hypocritical and totally unbelievable vain. A convincing argument for such a stance simply cannot be made.

Hypocritical?????

 

Are you suggesting the U.S. is a tyrannical, terrorist state?

[Justice 0]

The 'fighting terrorism and tyranny' fall under the same hypocritical and totally unbelievable vain. A convincing argument for such a stance simply cannot be made.

Hypocritical?????

 

Are you suggesting the U.S. is a tyrannical, terrorist state?

You really don't read anything he posts, do you?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Calling FNC right-leaning is one of the new liberal straw man arguments

You need to look up the definition of a strawman.

 

A straw man arguement is, "If you like Fox News, you must have liked Stalin, too." There is no connection between Fox News and Stalin, and such a comment is simply an emotional appeal to get people to dislike Fox. Thus, a straw man.

 

"Fox is evidence that there is big media that is slanted to the right" isn't a straw man. It's an opinion.

 

and rallying cries, similar to "Fox is entertainment news, so it doesn't count."

 

I thought people reserved that for CNN?

 

I don't think anyone can watch anything on ABC, CBS or NBC, be it their evening news shows or their primetime investigative shows, and say that it isn't slanted.

 

So then why are so many people watching it, even compared to cable news? Are so many people willingly subjecting themselves to what they see as liberal bias? Or are the big numbers of people watching these shows more than any other news programs in the country all "out of touch?" If it's the latter, then at what percentage of a majority do they cease to become out of touch and it's you who looks out of touch compared to them?

 

I listen to Rush every day

 

Well, you had me up to here...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This is a contradiction: We never violated any UN Resolution by going in. The UN was violating it's own by NOT acting. They were supposed to act long before this and always failed to do so.

Nope, nope, nope. The resolution didn't say the US was obligated to execute the punishments if the resolution wasn't followed. Talk all day about UN ineffectiveness if you please, but do not try and back up Bush's war by saying he was simply holding up the word of the UN. Do not spit in their eye and then say that you're doing them a favor.

 

We had the support of most of Europe when we first initiated this action

Most of Europe's governments, which tend to bend and follow along when a superpower says they want to start some shit. Because of this, a lot of those countries have citizens who are pissed at the people in power.

 

and outside of Spain leaving

You Forgot Poland!

[Justice 0]

This is a contradiction: We never violated any UN Resolution by going in. The UN was violating it's own by NOT acting. They were supposed to act long before this and always failed to do so.

Nope, nope, nope. The resolution didn't say the US was obligated to execute the punishments if the resolution wasn't followed. Talk all day about UN ineffectiveness if you please, but do not try and back up Bush's war by saying he was simply holding up the word of the UN. Do not spit in their eye and then say that you're doing them a favor.

Don't spit in their eye and say we are doing them a favor? I never knew we couldn't reprimand them for not following through with what they were supposed to and just go off and do the damn job ourselves. The UN talks big, but they lack the balls to follow that talk with action. I don't see any problem with that at all.

 

Most of Europe's governments, which tend to bend and follow along when a superpower says they want to start some shit. Because of this, a lot of those countries have citizens who are pissed at the people in power.

 

 

What B.S. They could have easily stood by with the Rhineland Coalition if they wanted. You're just trying to figure out a way to say we bullied they guys into siding with us, which isn't the case.

 

You Forgot Poland!™

 

OMFGWTFBBQ

[NoCalMike 0]

I wasn't aware the contract/agreement with the UN said, "disobey our resolutions, and your cities will be flattened by the force of the american military, but they wil also try to bring you democracy on the side"

[cbacon 0]

The 'fighting terrorism and tyranny' fall under the same hypocritical and totally unbelievable vain. A convincing argument for such a stance simply cannot be made.

Hypocritical?????

 

Are you suggesting the U.S. is a tyrannical, terrorist state?

Oh boy. Simply put, yes, I am suggesting that.

 

See: Latin America, Middle East, Asia from the 70's to present.

 

But we've had that argument in dozens of other threads so I won't reiterate unless you'd like to bump an older thread or start an entirely new one.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Don't spit in their eye and say we are doing them a favor? I never knew we couldn't reprimand them for not following through with what they were supposed to and just go off and do the damn job ourselves.

But you did it after declaring them irrelevant. It's illogical to say that the UN is useless and ought to be abolished and then defend your war plan by saying you're just following what the UN decided should be done.

 

You're just trying to figure out a way to say we bullied they guys into siding with us, which isn't the case.

 

No, we didn't bully anyone. We had the support from the nations we did have because we're usually straightforward, correct, and truthful with other countries, so aside from the hippies that bitched about the Afghanistan war and the countries that had oil ties to Saddam, most of the world still thought our hands were clean and it was a pretty safe bet to follow us in.

 

Boy, is the egg ever on THEIR face.

 

OMFGWTFBBQ

 

YOU GOT SERVED!

 

 

(lol, Justice has been served, get it?)

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

The 'fighting terrorism and tyranny' fall under the same hypocritical and totally unbelievable vain. A convincing argument for such a stance simply cannot be made.

Hypocritical?????

 

Are you suggesting the U.S. is a tyrannical, terrorist state?

Oh boy. Simply put, yes, I am suggesting that.

 

See: Latin America, Middle East, Asia from the 70's to present.

 

But we've had that argument in dozens of other threads so I won't reiterate unless you'd like to bump an older thread or start an entirely new one.

Well that puts you at an extreme, fringe viewpoint and pretty much kills your credibility.