God save Obama

[greasemonkey]

Interestingly, here's a comment about the media's obvious conservative bias from Paul Krugman's NY Times blog (quoting Steve Benen):

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

A few things. How is that obvious bias under any circumstance? The shows hadn't even taken place yet. They could not have been biased yet.

An admitted liberal wrote that piece but that isn't important actually, I am just pointing that out.

Those are guest lists on Sunday morning talk shows. It isn't the news. Also, a very liberal show could have conservative guests. For example, when Oreilly interviewed Obama after the Superbowl. Oreilly is conservative. Obama is liberal. It didn't make Oreilly all the sudden move to the left. It was just a guest.

I am talking about the actual reporting. What questions did they get asked on these shows...etc? If they were all tossed softball questions and lauded/praised on the show then there would be conservative bias. If they were guests and got slammed with hard questions then there would be liberal bias. If they just asked normal questions and had normal discussions then likely no bias took place.

 

[greasemonkey]

Greasemonkey,

I do agree with some of the things you say from an outsiders perspective.

You are obviously passionate about many subjects and I find that to be an admirable quality.

Why do you spoil your otherwise well-structured arguments by suggesting,or even outright saying, that others are stupid or ignorant or of lower intelligence? I can understand a once off when something really grates your gears - let's face it we've all been there - but it seems you quite often take personal potshots for no other reason besides that person having an opposing view.

Not only is it flaming it also increases the chance that the thread will be locked which prevents others from expressing their own equally valid views.

Your probably correct, Nifty. I will work on that.

I do get passionate and I detest misinformation. I will work on my demeanor in future posts.

 

[gaydave]

Did somebody really say this?



OMG

Agreed, that is an absurd statement.

1. MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are left-leaning. Big deal.

There is little doubt about this and plenty of proof that it is fact. Agreed.

2. FOX, Bortz, Hannity, Beck, Medved, Rush and O'Reilly are right-leaning. Big deal.

There is little doubt to this either. None in this group deny it save for Fox NEWS. Now, the commentary shows are obviously right leaning. I have to say that the actual NEWS portion of the station truly are fair and balanced more so than those in group 1. The commentary shows (beck, hannity, and the like) are certainly right leaning. The news doesnt seem to be and there are stats to back that part up.

3. George Bush was not a ficsal conservative.

Not even close to being one. Agreed totally. I think many equate GWB to "conservative". That isn't the case by any stretch. The guy was simply a big Government republican. That is the type that the tea party is kicking to the curb. Real conservatives dislike them as much as they dislike socialists.

4. Clinton was forced into being a fiscal conservative by Congress.

This is factual and based in actual historical evidence. It is not opinion and really can't be debated. Once again, AGREED totally. The Gingrich congress saved this man's legacy AND the country, although Clinton was fighting it the whole way.

5. Republicans get votes to some extent using fear.

Agreed yet again. Absolutely they do and it is not debatable either. So do the Democrats at the same rate at least. this is equally spread among both parties.

6. Democrats buy votes via social programs.

This is another fact. Both parites use Government money to buy votes or influence. The Democrats do it by giving it all away in social spending and trying to get ignorant people hooked on it, Which was your point. The Republicans aren't afraid to use influence and money to obtain votes either. They just wouldn't do it via social redistribution.


Your points are quite valid. Good post.

 

[bryand]

I almost lost sight of the fact that I was trying to debate liberals. Let's take it a little slower kids

WE ALL can agree on a few points:

1. The earth is round.

2. The sun is hot.

3. 1 plus 1 equals 2.

Sometimes its challenges the conversation to agree on the obvious and move to higher ground. Otherwise you spend days in a pissing contest over facts established long ago. That you guys can't even admit your party's agenda and failings is just more proof that most liberals are fact-challenged. No flaming intended.

 

[lots0]

If the main stream media appears to be left leaning... The people making that judgment must be so far right wing that everything but Hannity and Fascism appears to be leaning left...

What gets me is how so many people are taken in by the blatant propaganda and misinformation... from both sides. But Fox has to be the very best in history at political propaganda. Fox has an entire machine and intentional process that drives people's opinions with the most base misinformation and innuendo.

I find it really sad that the political agenda of this country is driven by a very few that don't have the people of this countries best interests at heart. All they look at is the how much profit they can make off of the American people.

One of the best examples of this is how these people at Fox have gotten people to go against their own best interests. After listening to Fox and believing what they heard (after all they can't lie on air... can they? - BTW Yes they can - there is NO law against it) many retired people decry the "Liberal" and "Socialist" policies of Social Security and Medicare. These same people (for the most part) that are screaming about doing away with these programs are ONLY are alive and survive because of Social Security and Medicare... Two Socialist programs.

The Propaganda is very powerful when it can get people to go against their own best interests.

 

[lots0]

Thought I would add this little gem;

The owner of Fox and CEO of News Corp, The wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and many many other very left leaning TV, Radio, online news sources and Newspapers, Mr. Rupert Murdock was the main money man and driving force behind the Fairness Doctrine being done away with by the Government. (Fairness Doctrine = The law that said you couldn't lie intentionally on air and if you gave a political opinion on air you had to give opposing view points equal air time) .

Truly surprising that anyone would be against such a logical and obviously good law. But Mr. Murdock was, he spent Millions and Millions on political campaigns and donations just to make sure the Fairness Doctrine went away.

With the Fairness Doctrine Law out of the way... Mr. Murdock was free to start Fox News... as a political propaganda machine.


For more on the Fairness Doctrine...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Mr Murdock and his many TV stations and the news providers he owns are still to this day very active against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (for obvious reasons). They state they are acting in the defense of the First Amendment to the Constitution. But let me ask you this... How is silencing opposing political view points defending the Constitution of the United States? I just don't get that...

 

[greasemonkey]

Thought I would add this little gem;

The owner of Fox and CEO of News Corp, The wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and many many other very left leaning TV, Radio, online news sources and Newspapers, Mr. Rupert Murdock was the main money man and driving force behind the Fairness Doctrine being done away with by the Government. (Fairness Doctrine = The law that said you couldn't lie intentionally on air and if you gave a political opinion on air you had to give opposing view points equal air time) .

Truly surprising that anyone would be against such a logical and obviously good law. But Mr. Murdock was, he spent Millions and Millions on political campaigns and donations just to make sure the Fairness Doctrine went away.

With the Fairness Doctrine Law out of the way... Mr. Murdock was free to start Fox News... as a political propaganda machine.


For more on the Fairness Doctrine...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Mr Murdock and his many TV stations and the news providers he owns are still to this day very active against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (for obvious reasons). They state they are acting in the defense of the First Amendment to the Constitution. But let me ask you this... How is silencing opposing political view points defending the Constitution of the United States? I just don't get that...

As per Nifty's suggestions ( and a good one at that) I am going to hold back and be very nice about this.

I am requesting that you please know what it is that you are talking about in reference to "the fairness doctrine".

The fairness doctrine is not "logical and obviously good". It is very bad. It is not to stop "lying" at all. The reason that the democrats want it is because conservative talk shows absolutely DOMINATE the radio airwaves and the blogosphere. The liberals have tried the competition approach but nobody is wanting to hear them on the air and conservative talk shows grow stronger and gain audiences. To this end the "fairness doctrine" was re introduced. That way they could force some talk shows off the air while adding their point of view to other shows. That is ALL it was about. Period. It had nothing to do with wanting to fabricate stories on air. It was very much to stifle the conservative voice.
It was an appalling effort and a direct attack on our first amendment rights. Nothing about this was anything but a political maneuver to hurt the conservatives.

Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.

The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as "unbalanced" views.

 

[greasemonkey]

If the main stream media appears to be left leaning... The people making that judgment must be so far right wing that everything but Hannity and Fascism appears to be leaning left...

Ridiculous. It is a known entity. It is like you are debating that WWF is not fake or that the earth is round. It is common knowledge and several proofs of this have been shown on this very thread. If you cannot see that then perhaps you should look back into it as it is a basic known fact that can be shown over and over in examples and articles.

One of the best examples of this is how these people at Fox have gotten people to go against their own best interests. After listening to Fox and believing what they heard (after all they can't lie on air... can they? - BTW Yes they can - there is NO law against it) many retired people decry the "Liberal" and "Socialist" policies of Social Security and Medicare. These same people (for the most part) that are screaming about doing away with these programs are ONLY are alive and survive because of Social Security and Medicare... Two Socialist programs.

The Propaganda is very powerful when it can get people to go against their own best interests.

2 very telling quotes by you.

first of all, people realize that these social programs are A) not in their best interst and B) definitely not in their children and grandchildren's best interest. They are not dumb or weak minded. You are not intellectually superior to them. Quite the opposite.

You say the ONLY reason they are alive is because of these social programs???? That is so very sad. So very brainwashed. Do you really beleive that you need the federal govt in order to survive? Do you really believe that it cannot be done on your own? Just wow.

as I said before

A cruel form of hatred is to convince people that they are "helpless" to survive by their own initiative and power, and that they need the "goodwill" of redistributors to take what others have earned and transfer it to the Helpless. Sad, but this entitlement mentality destroys the value of good work, and disempowers the individual from fully realizing his potential. In essence, the welfare state is economic and psychological feudalism at its worst.

 

[lots0]

I am requesting that you please know what it is that you are talking about in reference to "the fairness doctrine".

The fairness doctrine is not "logical and obviously good". It is very bad.

LOL... I would "request" the same from you... Maybe if you got some actual facts and not just the Murdock Propaganda...

Ahh.. I see. So Equal political speech is "VERY BAD"... One can not allow someone that thinks differently to speak or be heard... Of course that would be bad... NOT!

It was called the "Fairness Doctrine" because it was "FAIR" to all. No one could dominate the "news" broadcasts with propaganda, there would always be a counter point.

first of all, people realize that these social programs are A) not in their best interst and B) definitely not in their children and grandchildren's best interest.

You gotta be kidding me... You really believe that?
If you do. you should take a few minutes and go to your local Senior Center. How many of those folks would not be here if it were not for Social Security and Medicare... Not many at all... And if you still question the value of Social Security/Medicare just ask any of those tens of MILLIONS of people that do DEPEND on it to surive if they think it is a "VERY BAD" program...

You just spout Rupert Murdocks/Roger Ailes Fascist propaganda... How sad for all of us.

 

[Nifty29]

I will point out something that is very obvious from an outsiders' perspective.

There are deep divisions among the people of the US.

It concerns me greatly, because a country divided is a country weakened and AFAIC the US is the only thing preventing <insert wannabe superpower name here> from turning the world into one big dictatorial sweatshop.

The US Government and it's people should take a close look at what befell the Roman Empire....those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[lots0]

I will point out something that is very obvious from an outsiders' perspective.

There are deep divisions among the people of the US.

It concerns me greatly, because a country divided is a country weakened and AFAIC the US is the only thing preventing <insert wannabe superpower name here> from turning the world into one big dictatorial sweatshop.

The US Government and it's people should take a close look at what befell the Roman Empire....those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Actually Nifty your not as much an outsider as you think.
Are you aware that Rupert Murdock is an Australian and a naturalized US citizen?

You are so right to compare the Romans and the U.S.A.

Too bad, but most U.S. schools no longer teach any of the details of Roman History.

 

[LaurieJim]

@Nifty and Lots0 , You boys know your dear to my heart and we dont always agree but damn, I love my Fox news and find them to be the most fair and balanced, now Glen Beck is just way out there in my opinion but I do Like O' Reilly and Hannity and Greta.

Laurie

 

[greasemonkey]

LOL... I would "request" the same from you... Maybe if you got some actual facts and not just the Murdock Propaganda...

Ahh.. I see. So Equal political speech is "VERY BAD"... One can not allow someone that thinks differently to speak or be heard... Of course that would be bad... NOT!

It was called the "Fairness Doctrine" because it was "FAIR" to all. No one could dominate the "news" broadcasts with propaganda, there would always be a counter point.



You gotta be kidding me... You really believe that?
If you do. you should take a few minutes and go to your local Senior Center. How many of those folks would not be here if it were not for Social Security and Medicare... Not many at all... And if you still question the value of Social Security/Medicare just ask any of those tens of MILLIONS of people that do DEPEND on it to surive if they think it is a "VERY BAD" program...

You just spout Rupert Murdocks/Roger Ailes Fascist propaganda... How sad for all of us.

For goodness sakes please.

They DO have the opprotunity to have their opinions heard. They have attempted it. It is free market. Free competition. Nobody wants to hear socialist garbage spewed on the radio that is why the programs don't survive. They have equal OPPORTUNITY. Not equal OUTCOME. If you would take a few moments and read up on the fairness doctrine you will see that it was to (why was it done away with in the first place?) stop one viewpoint from monopolizing the access to communicating their views. That is not remotely possible today. It is admittedly and clearly being raised again by LEFTISTS to try and silent the conservative majority. What the hell is good about tha? You are looking at it in the most SIMPLE of terms. You need to look more deeply into it. Please do so. It will make more sense to you.

Do you truly think it is as simple as wanting to be fair? if so I will consider that when deciding to read any further of your posts.

Ask yourself this: If the fairness doctrine from the 40s WAS to get reenacted then what would the purpose be? Would it be to enable equal access to airwaves and communications? No, that already exists. It clearly would be for the left to be able to stifle the right. It would make no sense and certainly not be fair by any stretch. That would be like telling stores that they could only sell so much chocolate then after that they had to sell Brussell sprouts until the same amount was sold. Then they could sell chocolate again. Its absurd.

Why would you be for having the federal govt seize individual rights? That is what you are saying is fair and logical. You WANT the feds to be able to allow or disallow certain viewpoints rather than just allowing the free market to decide?

Why do you want the govt to decide things for you? Don't you like freedom? Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail, freedom to make your own choices and make your own way? Do you really feel that you need a govt body in order to survive? If so, I feel very sorry for you. That is sad and it is a sad statement of how you feel about your self worth.

 

[greasemonkey]

You are so right to compare the Romans and the U.S.A.

Too bad, but most U.S. schools no longer teach any of the details of Roman History.

YES! EXACTLY! We should compare the two. In doing so then why would you be for socialist values? Why would you be against the principles that made America so strong? Why would you be against sturdy self reliance? For govt reliance? Against free market values? for govt control? Against individual rights? For govt controlled enterprise?

Think about it.

 

[nisosbar]

Amaaaaaazing. I will consider this when reading your opinions from now on. It is not even DEBATABLE. shhhheeeeesh.

Sometimes its challenges the conversation to agree on the obvious and move to higher ground. Otherwise you spend days in a pissing contest over facts established long ago. That you guys can't even admit your party's agenda and failings is just more proof that most liberals are fact-challenged. No flaming intended.

The two of you are funny, though you may not be aware of it.

You claim that the notion that 'the media is left-leaning' is a notion which is 'not even DEBATABLE' and yet, you have failed to provide even a single example that shows left-leaning bias. If it is so pervasive and obvious that it is, as you say, "not debatable," you ought to be able to provide such an example with great ease. Yet, you have not, nor has bryand.

Which really just sort of points to a suspicion that rather than expressing beliefs which you have arrived at carefully after studying the facts as they are (and which you should be able to share, as most former students can do with regard to areas of study they covered), you are merely repeating what you have heard either on TV or talk radio. No offense, but that is my honest impression.

I'm not sure participating in this particular sub-forum is for me.

 

[lots0]

YES! EXACTLY! We should compare the two. In doing so then why would you be for socialist values? Why would you be against the principles that made America so strong? Why would you be against sturdy self reliance? For govt reliance? Against free market values? for govt control? Against individual rights? For govt controlled enterprise?

Think about it.

Obviously your not not aware, I guess you were never taught, that Rome destroyed it's self and Rome was in no way Socialist. The rule of the mob is not socialism.

I like Socialist Values.
I like the idea of people banding together to help each other have a better life.
I like the idea that the weakest amongst us is protected.
I like the idea that workers can band together to demand better, safer working conditions and better pay.

Ya I like Socialist Values... IMO only a sociopath would not like these things.

 

[gaydave]

The two of you are funny, though you may not be aware of it.

You claim that the notion that 'the media is left-leaning' is a notion which is 'not even DEBATABLE' and yet, you have failed to provide even a single example that shows left-leaning bias. If it is so pervasive and obvious that it is, as you say, "not debatable," you ought to be able to provide such an example with great ease. Yet, you have not, nor has bryand.

Which really just sort of points to a suspicion that rather than expressing beliefs which you have arrived at carefully after studying the facts as they are (and which you should be able to share, as most former students can do with regard to areas of study they covered), you are merely repeating what you have heard either on TV or talk radio. No offense, but that is my honest impression.

I'm not sure participating in this particular sub-forum is for me.

I am not for flaming but I sure can understand the irritation that some have with some of these posts like the one above. How can you make the bolded claim above? Do you not even read the posts by everyone before you post?

It is extraordinary that you would type that in to a reply. Clearly you have not bothered paying attention and it really takes away from the good debate going on.

Look at what I found from these guys posts in reading this thread

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Quote:
As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Quote:
General Electric wants to put their company on the fast track for government subsidies from the Obama administration. CEO Jeffrey Immelt will be leading something the government calls the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Of itself this isn’t that big a deal. Big businesses have sucked up to Presidents of both parties in order to gain favorable treatment, tax breaks or subsides from the government. Such has always been an affront to the free market. But Immelt’s moves have come while General Electric has owned NBC.

Not surprisingly NBC has offered the most favorable news coverage of any network for Obama. MSNBC has become little more than a mouthpiece for the far left, even with last night’s departure of Keith Olbermann. NBC, which claims to be unbiased, has in fact been offering biased coverage in order to secure subsidies for their parent company. It’s very clear that GE has been using NBC and MSNBC for these purposes. They have provided the administration with positive coverage, in exchange GE has received millions in subsides and a coveted spot on the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

NBC has been sold to Comcast in a deal that will be finalized in the next few weeks. It will be interesting to see how NBC’s news coverage changes. It will also be interesting to see if GE’s stock in the administration takes a hit. After two years of round the clock positive left-wing news coverage, it might not be until a second Obama administration that we get to see whether GE takes a hit. But make no mistake, GE’s goal has been to obtain subsidies from the Obama administration. They have used NBC in order to obtain subsidies, tax breaks and government power.

Corporations have no business getting in bed with government in order to obtain anything. The problem I have with GE and other major companies is that what they are really doing is looking to destroy the free market. They want government to either give them money that their competition doesn’t have or they want government to regulate or tax their competition out of the market. GE is doing this with the subsidies they’re after, they’re also likely doing it via regulation. Government has no business picking winners and losers and yet the current administration is picking winners and losers left and right. Unfortunately no matter what company turns out to be the winner, it’s consumers and taxpayers that end up losing. We end up paying higher prices and our tax money is used to subsidize billion dollar corporations like GE

 

[lots0]

gaydave

of the four links you put up only one actually works and it goes to AIM a radical left wing group that still tries to convince people President Obama is not a citizen, among other things.

I would no more trust AIM to be UN-biased than I would trust a Politico to keep his/her campaign promise.

No one has presented any real evidence in this thread to support the point about liberal media bias and nisosbar was correct.

 

[gaydave]

Obviously your not not aware, I guess you were never taught, that Rome destroyed it's self and Rome was in no way Socialist. The rule of the mob is not socialism.

I like Socialist Values.
I like the idea of people banding together to help each other have a better life.
I like the idea that the weakest amongst us is protected.
I like the idea that workers can band together to demand better, safer working conditions and better pay.

Ya I like Socialist Values... IMO only a sociopath would not like these things.

Possibly you may be the one unaware again.

While they didn't call it socialism at the time it did have the same principles and workings of what we now call socialism. It was a huge reason for the fall of the empire actually.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Here is another excerpt. Not from the above.

In 1787, Edward Gibbon finished his book, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." In it, he names several reasons for Rome's fall. One of them just happens to be "creeping socialism."

Many years after the fall of the Roman republic, the emperors introduced socialism into the empire. The Roman government put higher and higher taxes onto the people and spent that money on a Roman welfare state. This weakened the empire by limiting business, making people dependent on the government and exhausting the state treasury.

In order to continue it's social/socialist programs in the capital city and empire, Rome would enable massive taxation to it's municipalities and territories (land whose residents would not be afforded the rights of a Roman Citizen), as well as impose trade restrictions ( a good example was Rome's price fixing of wheat in order to support it's burgeoning welfare system - Roman citizens were "entitled to the right" of "free" wheat, the "Annona") to keep artificial prices on certain commodities. This lead to massive inflation, which in turn put an added burden on the Roman state.

Rome would continue to conquer in order to obtain resources to fuel it's insatiable appetite.

Socialism is a grand idea on paper, until you put it to practice. Then it reveals itself as the parasite it is (it consumes everything to keep the ball rolling).

 

[gaydave]

gaydave

of the four links you put up only one actually works and it goes to AIM a radical left wing group that still tries to convince people President Obama is not a citizen, among other things.

I would no more trust AIM to be UN-biased than I would trust a Politico to keep his/her campaign promise.

No one has presented any real evidence in this thread to support the point about liberal media bias and nisosbar was correct.

Thanks. I fixed the links, they work now. They also worked when they were posted earlier in this thread and still do on those posts, which I commented was amazing that it was missed with the comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think I will bow out now. It is proving too frustrating and worthless to argue basic points. FWIW, if AIM is radical and left wing then why would they try to convince people that Obama is not a citizen? For purposes of reasonable discussions on this topic you should be informed that Left wing is considered "liberal", which would normally be for Obama who is also liberal. Also you should know that AIM as was in the above story that u didn't read was for "accuracy in media".

Here is another little something for you.

How do you know the media are biased?

In addition to a number of major media surveys, The American Society of Newspaper Editors published a 1999 study that showed 78% of Americans said there is a news bias in the media.
(‘Editors group releases preliminary journalism credibility study,”

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

)

Furthermore, not only do the overwhelming majority of citizens believe there is a bias, but they say that bias is overwhelmingly liberal. This, according to a 2003 poll conducted by the Princeton Review Research Associates for PEW Research Center for The People & The Press, shows a 2 to 1 margin of respondents believe their media coverage is slanted to the left.
(“Strong Opposition to Media Cross Ownership Emerges: Public Wants Neutrality and Pro American Point of View,” Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) )

The public seems to be correct. According to another poll from the PEW Research Center conducted by the Princeton Review Research Associates in 2004, “about a third of national journalists (34%) and 23 % of local journalists describe themselves as liberals.” A mere 7% of journalists described themselves as conservative.
(“How Journalists See Journalists,” Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) )

But how do you know the media’s political opinions influence their reporting?

Many of them are actually admitting it these days. They admit they’re anti-business, pro-big government, anti-family and anti-religion. A couple of years ago, CBS commentator Bernard Goldberg caused quite a stir by saying in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece that he couldn’t believe people were actually still arguing about whether or not the media were liberal, because it was so obviously true.

 

[lots0]

Your quoting an article from cato, another one sided radical point of view.

You do seem to like radical one sided sources of information.

I have spent a life time studying the Romans (a little hobby of mine - I also collect Roman Coins and Artifacts.)

And no one that has studied and understood Roman culture could possibly associate Socialism with the Roman Empire. They were an Empire of pure Capitalists. You confuse the Rule of the Mob 'Ochlocracy' with 'Socialism'.

I guess the "Creeping Socialism" of the Roman Republic was when they gave their Slaves, the freedom to wear the clothing of their choice...
You can't be a Slave owning society and be Socialist... It just can't be done.

 

[gaydave]

It is extremely interesting that all of the posts from you and others with like opinions only response is to say "yeah, well I don't trust that source". "yeah, well that is a conservative source".

Great line of reason you have going there. BryanD and Greasmonkey have continually given reasons, rationale and proof of their positions. Your side has simply said that they don't agree and asked for more proof. You are losing the debate quite handily at this point.

I am out of it for good now. I won't add further as it is such a waste of time and you are not even reading the very thread you are responding to nor do you seem to have a firm grasp on basic facts.... Carry on though, I will keep reading and being amused by the liberals in this debate.


EDIT: I don't include bbkpoker in that group. I like his comments and find him to be the only reasonable one from the liberal side of this arguement.

 

[lots0]

Thats the problem. You see these things as proof and I (and others) don't.
Simple as that.

It is not "Proof" when someone with a point of view writes an article supporting their point of view.

It is not "Proof" when you post links to op ed or blog articles... after all op ed/blog articles are JUST opinion.

Here let me post some links... About how biased Fox is.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

BTW - these links are just as much 'Proof' as the links posted by the cons, actually more so, because I posted more links and from better sources.. LOL

 

[footdr]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

some philosophers and historians believe that, in the "natural order of things", empires have their own life cycles. They wax strong in youthful exuberance and attain a vibrant maturity, only to wane in their hubris and excesses, and then die in an overextension of resources and a loss of moral values. It was this kind of thinking that led Will and Ariel Durant to come up with their observation: "Civilizations are born stoic and die epicurean."

According to this paradigm, the average age of the great civilizations is thought to be around two hundred years. That would position a country like the United States at just about the age of decline. But even if you don't subscribe to the pattern theory, the causal factors that account for the rise and fall of empires are recorded in history and cannot be easily dismissed.

Each of the great civilizations in the world has passed through a series of phases from its birth to its decline to its death. At least one historian has chronicled them as 'descriptive stages' in the life of an empire: the first stage moves from bondage to self-determination and confidence; the second from confidence to great courage; the third from courage to liberty; the fourth from liberty to abundance; the fifth from abundance to selfishness; the sixth from selfishness to complacency; the seventh from complacency to apathy; the eighth from apathy to moral decay; the ninth from moral decay to dependence; and the tenth and last stage moves from dependence to bondage. We have reduced these descriptive stages to five causal factors, and they can be seen to overlap:

Hubristic arrogance applied to resolving problems

Unregulated immigration and dilution of the culture

Misplaced altruism that sustains a lower quality population

Loss of respect for societal values and traditions

Loss of economic discipline and overextension of resources

The problem, of course, is that we don't really learn from history. George Santayana said that "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." The philosopher Hegel said: "What experience and history teach us is this: that people and government never have learned anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it." Or, in the words of Winston Churchill, "The one thing we have

 

[BBKPoker]

I almost lost sight of the fact that I was trying to debate liberals. Let's take it a little slower kids

WE ALL can agree on a few points:

1. The earth is round.

The earth is an oblate spheroid.