View Full Version : Powell Expresses Doubt on Obama Agenda
Business_Casual
07-03-09, 14:34
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/03/powell-airs-doubts-on-obama-agenda/
"We can't pay for it all..."
Really? How about we only pay for the lawful and constitutional government in the first place.
M_P
You are going to see Powell and others start backtracking hard in an attempt to gain favor lost by siding with THE socialist as his star factor diminishes. imo of course.
As far as I am concerned Powell lost any repect he may have deserved and all credability when he back stabbed his Political Party and voted instead along race lines in the last election.
He showed his true self and now he is trying to distance himself from his poor judgement...Well pooh on him.
parishioner
07-03-09, 15:20
As far as I am concerned Powell lost any repect he may have deserved and all credability when he back stabbed his Political Party and voted instead along race lines in the last election.
He showed his true self and now he is trying to distance himself from his poor judgement...Well pooh on him.
Yeah, I was dissapointed when he backed him. How can someone's values and beliefs suddenly change like that? They don't. Everyone here knows why he backed Obama and it is a shame.
I wish Powell would make up his mind. First he's a Republican, speaks in favor of limited government, and donates to John McCain's campaign. Then he decides to back Barry, probably wooed by the vague, lofty speeches about "change" that bamboozled the other (dumber) people who voted for Barry.
Now he has woken up and realized that Barry is in fact the big government socialist that we said he was and that we SCREAMED about, at deaf ears, during the campaign.
Well, Colin, now you know why we were jumping up and down screaming at people like you. Next time, listen.
I used to to think he was solid but my opinion of him now is just another self serving - two faced politician.
As far as I am concerned Powell lost any repect he may have deserved and all credability when he back stabbed his Political Party and voted instead along race lines in the last election.
He showed his true self and now he is trying to distance himself from his poor judgement... Well pooh on him.
I don't think he voted "along race lines". Remember he was backstabbed by his party over the Iraqi mobile chemical/biological weapons labs... It was proven false and it made him look the fool. He questioned the plan in Iraq and Condoleeza Rice was elevated to replace him.
Time always "outs" all. We'll see what will become of Powell, Obama AND the US of A very shortly. I think it will be "touch and go" for some time even if The Founders returned as the Parties are full of International Socialists/Globalists.
diving dave
07-03-09, 17:19
Maybe Powell is running low on the Obama kool-aid, its effects are wearing off.
Never assume that every person who supports or votes for a particular candidate is in lockstep with that candidate's entire political agenda. For true believers, it's all or nothing; but most people are centrists and they bridle at all or nothing propositions. In general, people vote for the parts of the individual's platform that they like. Think about pro-gun politicians who got your support even though they've disappointed you on a particular position or bill.
Powell is basically a moderate, centrist Republican. When the Republicans took a hard right with the neo-cons and evangelicals, he was left out in the cold. I believe Powell came to the conclusion that supporting a hawk like McCain would've been more of the same on the international front. Powell gambled. He wanted the U.S. to regain its footing internationally.
Powell is not a social liberal and he is going to express his dissatisfaction when Obama goes in a direction he does not like. We all have the right to speak up when an elected official does something that displeases us. That's part of being in a free country. It's not like the people who voted for Representative Foley were forbidden from expressing their outrage when Foley was caught hitting on young male pages.
Powell has made a political career of dissenting with whoever is in power. He's always the guy who says, "wow, that was a bad idea!"
And the dude drives (or at least drove) a PT Cruiser. I mean come on, how can you take someone seriously when he's in a PT Cruiser?
Powell has made a political career of dissenting with whoever is in power. He's always the guy who says, "wow, that was a bad idea!"
And the dude drives (or at least drove) a PT Cruiser. I mean come on, how can you take someone seriously when he's in a PT Cruiser?
Exactly.
G34Shooter
07-03-09, 17:47
Or this was his ploy all along to play both sides and run in 2012 ;)
littleshoe
07-03-09, 17:51
Remember he was backstabbed by his party over the Iraqi mobile chemical/biological weapons labs... It was proven false and it made him look the fool. He questioned the plan in Iraq and Condoleeza Rice was elevated to replace him.
Intelligence information isnt always right. Althrough from what I heard he went and reviewed many of the reports himself before giving that speech. The WMD issue was an easy one to use as a club against Bush when none were found.
Business_Casual
07-03-09, 18:02
I don't think he voted "along race lines".
That's niave. Of course he did. He has said he felt Affirmative Action was responsible for him making Flag rank.
Remember he was backstabbed by his party over the Iraqi mobile chemical/biological weapons labs... It was proven false and it made him look the fool.
After his capture, when Saddam was debriefed, he admitted he didn't have the weapons and he had let the world believe he did because he was afraid of Iran.
Time always "outs" all. We'll see what will become of Powell, Obama AND the US of A very shortly. I think it will be "touch and go" for some time even if The Founders returned as the Parties are full of International Socialists/Globalists.
On that, my friend, we can agree.
M_P
snip...And the dude drives (or at least drove) a PT Cruiser. I mean come on, how can you take someone seriously when he's in a PT Cruiser?
Not that it would make any difference to him, but when I was last shopping for a car I checked what different cars would cost to insure.
As hard as it was/is to believe, a PT Cruiser would have been the least expensive for me to insure.
Second was a Saturn SL1 which is what I was looking for anyway.
I was very surprised that the PT would have been the lowest
CarlosDJackal
07-03-09, 19:07
As far as I am concerned Powell lost any repect he may have deserved and all credability when he back stabbed his Political Party and voted instead along race lines in the last election.
He showed his true self and now he is trying to distance himself from his poor judgement...Well pooh on him.
+ infinity. Powell can go sit on a rusty spear and take it for a spin as far as I'm concerned. :mad:
I don't think he voted "along race lines". Remember he was backstabbed by his party over the Iraqi mobile chemical/biological weapons labs... It was proven false and it made him look the fool. He questioned the plan in Iraq and Condoleeza Rice was elevated to replace him.
Time always "outs" all. We'll see what will become of Powell, Obama AND the US of A very shortly. I think it will be "touch and go" for some time even if The Founders returned as the Parties are full of International Socialists/Globalists.
Of course Powell voted along race lines...Afterall it has been said many times that Obama was the first viable African American candidate to come down the road ever. Powell wanted to make sure that he was a part of such a Historical event as the election of the First African American President of this country.
Powell simply wants what every other Politician throughout history has wanted...to go down in the History books for doing something seen to be of great importance or significance.
So that in 50 years his name will appear in the history books of school children right next to our countries most prominent men.
Well he may not be remembered as being famous in this country...but he sure will be infamous as far as I am concerned.
His name should appear right next to another prominent individual associated with our countries history...a man by the name of Benedict Arnold.
Powell sold his soul.
How does the story go you can build a thousand bridges in your life time and if s**k one dick they don't call you a bridge builder no more.
All of the great things that he has done in the past is now a moot point.
You don't make 4 stars and not be a politician. Gimme break, someone is surprised by this?
Remember he was backstabbed by his party over the Iraqi mobile chemical/biological weapons labs... It was proven false and it made him look the fool. He questioned the plan in Iraq and Condoleeza Rice was elevated to replace him.
this, and perhaps Dear Leader offered him a felicitous position after he took office, if he supported him during the race, so as to elevate the Dear Leader's extremely poor stature on matters of national defense..now that Dear Leader used him and he has nothing to show for it, he might have re-found his conservative philosophies again :rolleyes:
Or this was his ploy all along to play both sides and run in 2012 ;)
I seriously doubt it. He could have had the nomination in 1998, there was lots of talk about people wanting him to run, but he flat out said he didn't want to.
dwhitehorne
07-04-09, 01:30
Powell has made a political career of dissenting with whoever is in power. He's always the guy who says, "wow, that was a bad idea!"
And the dude drives (or at least drove) a PT Cruiser. I mean come on, how can you take someone seriously when he's in a PT Cruiser?
He also drives a vette. I've been looking for it on the GW parkway for a while;) David
You don't make 4 stars and not be a politician. Gimme break, someone is surprised by this?
Surprised by him no...sickened by his actions...? YES!
OldNavyGuy
07-04-09, 08:35
Now he has woken up...
anyone who believes that is just as big a fool as ol Colin himself :D
he is nothing more than a racist bigot and a traitor to any political party, both sides should dump him as he can NOT be trusted, he is a LIAR and thief of everyone's trust.
he most definitely voted RACE, and don't anyone doubt that for a nano second !!
Business_Casual
07-04-09, 08:48
both sides should dump him as he can NOT be trusted, he is a LIAR and thief of everyone's trust.
That's redundant, we already know he's a politician. ;)
M_P
Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.
He's an anti-gun, "living document" type, so not much he does surprises me these days.
rickrock305
07-04-09, 18:01
he is nothing more than a traitor to any political party
you say that like its a bad thing
David Blinder
07-04-09, 18:26
A friend served with Powell in Vietnam and said he was a butt-kissing political climber that nobody could trust and nothing appears to have changed over the years. He also has the distinction of being the only Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who never commanded a division or higher.
Failure2Stop
07-04-09, 18:33
And the dude drives (or at least drove) a PT Cruiser. I mean come on, how can you take someone seriously when he's in a PT Cruiser?
Dude, you have a PT website (http://pistol-training.com/).
:p
Seriously though, it's a rare exception for those that pin shiny little ornaments to their collars to not be political. Do I like it? No. Is it a fact of life? Yuppers.
I would still rather have Mr Powell in the big chair than the current occupant.
Of course Powell voted along race lines...Afterall it has been said many times that Obama was the first viable African American candidate to come down the road ever.
I happen to disagree with that one. Alan Keyes would make a very good POTUS. His values rate up there with Reagan's and mine!!
There are a few Americans of color that I would and could see myself voting for.....just not Obama. Remember, Obama talked change when the US wanted something different. The media elected Obama and are still so enamored with him that they give him free rides all the time. If the media doesn't, then they are ostracized and put on the 'no access without running all the questions before us' list!!!
I am waiting for Helen Thomas to be politely asked to retire. She has always be the most 'Liberal' White House press room, but it seems that she too smelled stink about the last 'Town Hall' meeting!!! "Staunch Liberal veteran Journalist Helen Thomas,and member of the White House Press Corps. on the new Obama Administration’s ” pattern of controlling the press” is “shocking” she says during a recent White house press briefing."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou7SGNo5QHE
The Obama government 'control' of the people is just starting. Some here will pooh-pooh what I just said, but it is very small step that will likely go unnoticed by the general public.
Gibb's condescending laugh and chuckles just go to show the Elitist attitude ever present in this administration...I have never been one to jump and start calling for the impeachment of a sitting President but I think the time is fast approaching when impeachment is going to be a necessary solution if we want to save the America we know.
Dude, you have a PT website (http://pistol-training.com/).
:p
Thanks, you just volunteered to be the range bitch at the Culpeper class. :cool:
edited to add: Strike that. You volunteered to be the photographer. :p
Powell is basically a moderate, centrist Republican...
Powell is not a social liberal
Wait... what?
IMO a "moderate Republican" IS a social liberal. Doesn't Gen Powell favor most of the social positions common to the left?:confused:
Heavy Metal
07-05-09, 16:35
Thanks, you just volunteered to be the range bitch at the Culpeper class. :cool:
edited to add: Strike that. You volunteered to be the photographer. :p
Are you going to let him use your fancy camera that costs One meeeelion dollars!!!?
rickrock305
07-05-09, 17:43
Gibb's condescending laugh and chuckles just go to show the Elitist attitude ever present in this administration...
just this administration?
so you didn't have a problem with the previous administration? things like Cheney telling Congress to go f*ck themselves?
you guys and your partisanship...wake up and smell the roses, we're getting screwed by both parties. they are bought and paid for by corporate and financial interests.
Heavy Metal
07-05-09, 17:48
just this administration?
so you didn't have a problem with the previous administration? things like Cheney telling Congress to go f*ck themselves?
you guys and your partisanship...wake up and smell the roses, we're getting screwed by both parties. they are bought and paid for by corporate and financial interests.
Actually, that was Cheney privately telling Pat Leahey to go **** himself after Leahey had made an ass of himself in a hearing and Leahey came up to Cheney after the hearing and tried to pal up to him. Cheney had taken Leahey's shit for years he finally got fed up with it.
So, to answer your question, yes, I strongly support Cheney telling an (strongly anti-gun I might add) asshole off because I understand the context of the exchange.
Robb Jensen
07-05-09, 17:50
Powell has made a political career of dissenting with whoever is in power. He's always the guy who says, "wow, that was a bad idea!"
And the dude drives (or at least drove) a PT Cruiser. I mean come on, how can you take someone seriously when he's in a PT Cruiser?
PT website....hahaha!
The dude used to drive a Volvo, and an old one at that. When I was in.....lets say the executive transportation business I saw him numerous times in Mclean and Langley.
rickrock305
07-05-09, 23:29
Actually, that was Cheney privately telling Pat Leahey to go **** himself after Leahey had made an ass of himself in a hearing and Leahey came up to Cheney after the hearing and tried to pal up to him. Cheney had taken Leahey's shit for years he finally got fed up with it.
So, to answer your question, yes, I strongly support Cheney telling an (strongly anti-gun I might add) asshole off because I understand the context of the exchange.
thats not entirely accurate
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy/
Cheney, who as president of the Senate was present for the picture day, turned to Leahy and scolded the senator over his recent criticism of the vice president for Halliburton's alleged war profiteering. In response to Cheney, Leahy reminded Cheney that the vice president had once accused him of being a bad Catholic, to which Cheney replied either "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself." Using profanity on the Senate floor while the Senate is session is against the rules. But the Senate was technically not in session at the time and the normal rules did not apply, a Senate official said.
Cheney, ON THE SENATE FLOOR, told a senator to go f*ck himself...and you see no problem with that?
wow...
ok, lets go into some other elitist attitudes of the previous administration, which you seem to have no problem with...
for example, their outright refusal to testify and comply with congressional subpoenas. how many times did their administration have to claim "executive privilege"? that is the definition of elitist right there.
just this administration?
so you didn't have a problem with the previous administration? things like Cheney telling Congress to go f*ck themselves?
you guys and your partisanship...wake up and smell the roses, we're getting screwed by both parties. they are bought and paid for by corporate and financial interests.
Actually No I didn't have a problem with the last administration...they didn't run around treating me like I was a criminal because I owned more than one firearm that can't necessarily be classified as a so called Hunting rifle.
I would have supported Dick Cheney beating numerous people with a cane on the senate floor.
John_Wayne777
07-06-09, 06:39
Not to be too hard on General Powell, but a bunch of us knew way back in 2008 that an Obama agenda would be ungodly expensive.
...thus one would have to ask Mr. Powell why he didn't figure this out sooner. It's not like Obama's agenda was any big secret.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 10:36
Actually No I didn't have a problem with the last administration...they didn't run around treating me like I was a criminal because I owned more than one firearm that can't necessarily be classified as a so called Hunting rifle.
neither has the current administration.
neither has the current administration.
Antigun legislation is being introduced by this administration on nearly a daily basis.
Attacks on Firearms ownership, freedom of the press and even against Knife ownership is all part of the administrations agenda.
You better open your eyes my friend and quite living in your little dream world...your rose colored glasses aren't going to keep you safe when someone from Team Obama comes knocking at your door wanting to take what you keep in your gun safe.
http://www.nraila.org/
Business_Casual
07-06-09, 12:12
Rick, maybe you missed this:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=33553
It is clear the directives came from HQ (Washington).
M_P
rickrock305
07-06-09, 12:55
Antigun legislation is being introduced by this administration on nearly a daily basis.
actually no, you're wrong on this. Eric Holder made some comments about them considering reinstating the AWB, but considering is a long way from introducing legislation.
i'd like to see ONE piece of anti gun legislation introduced by the Obama administration. just ONE.
you can start here... http://www.govtrack.us/
Attacks on Firearms ownership, freedom of the press and even against Knife ownership is all part of the administrations agenda.
again, you have one iota of proof?
its simply not going to happen. i think the Dems have figured out that gun control is not a good issue for them, as evidence here...
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12245
rickrock305
07-06-09, 12:58
Rick, maybe you missed this:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=33553
It is clear the directives came from HQ (Washington).
M_P
no, i didn't miss that at all.
i don't think its out of the question for the Feds to have some inquiries if your gun ends up killing someone in Mexico, or to investigate suspicious purchases.
they're not taking away anyone's guns, and you are fully within your rights to not let them in your house.
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 13:08
i'd like to see ONE piece of anti gun legislation introduced by the Obama administration. just ONE.
Ehhh technically correct but barely... Obama is the Executive Branch, only the LEGISLATIVE branch can introduce legislation.
There are myriad examples of Democrats in Congress introducing gun control legislation.
Whether they try or succeed will depend on 2010/2012.
Business_Casual
07-06-09, 14:10
no, i didn't miss that at all.
i don't think its out of the question for the Feds to have some inquiries if your gun ends up killing someone in Mexico, or to investigate suspicious purchases.
they're not taking away anyone's guns, and you are fully within your rights to not let them in your house.
Oh, Okay.
How can you type with your head stuck in the sand?
M_P
PS - they are fishing expeditions. They don't know which guns are in Mexico because they aren't going there. The story states that the pastor still had his guns.
just this administration?
so you didn't have a problem with the previous administration? things like Cheney telling Congress to go f*ck themselves?
you guys and your partisanship...wake up and smell the roses, we're getting screwed by both parties. they are bought and paid for by corporate and financial interests.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q116/bridoyal/straw_man.jpg
Nice strawman you've set up there...the post to which you are referring did not criticize the current administration to the exclusion of any or all others; to the contrary, you are going out of your way to divert from the topic of this thread to the Bush Administration.
For crowing about partisanship, you are seemingly going out of your way to bash Dick Cheney and the Bush administration, followed up by thinly-veiled support for the Obama administration.
For the record, both parties can go to hell for all I care and as far as I'm concerned, both have and continue to screw this country.
we're getting screwed by both parties. they are bought and paid for by corporate and financial interests.
Sorry, I guess I forgot to bring my AFDB (Aluminium Foil Deflective Beanie) to the party today but it's in the shop having an extra layer added to it to increase it's effectivenes.
Get yours here today.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
https://www.m4carbine.net/picture.php?albumid=53&pictureid=416
rickrock305
07-06-09, 14:59
Oh, Okay.
How can you type with your head stuck in the sand?
you care to address what i said, or would you prefer to lob insults back and forth? either way is cool with me.
PS - they are fishing expeditions. They don't know which guns are in Mexico because they aren't going there. The story states that the pastor still had his guns.
again, they are looking for suspicious gun purchases and the like. they're not going around rounding up guns or doing illegal searches.
by the way, you should read a little closer. nowhere does it say the pastor still had his guns, it only said why he bought them.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 15:05
Nice strawman you've set up there...the post to which you are referring did not criticize the current administration to the exclusion of any or all others; to the contrary, you are going out of your way to divert from the topic of this thread to the Bush Administration.
i'm not setting up a straw man argument, if you noticed the big ? i was asking a question, not arguing a predetermined point.
i just find it interesting that there was NO mention of any of this during the previous administration. no mention of elitism, no "the country is screwed" talk, none of it.
For crowing about partisanship, you are seemingly going out of your way to bash Dick Cheney and the Bush administration, followed up by thinly-veiled support for the Obama administration.
For the record, both parties can go to hell for all I care and as far as I'm concerned, both have and continue to screw this country.
where is my support for Obama? please point it out specifically. i'm just trying to set the record straight where i see ridiculous paranoia and outright misinformation.
i'm an equal opportunity basher. you should read some of my other posts, as we seem to be in agreement that both parties are screwing this country. there is no differences between the parties, they are all out for the same goals and are being directed by the same puppet masters behind the scenes.
I am not a democrat, i am a registered independent. i lean left on some issues, and right on others.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 15:08
Sorry, I guess I forgot to bring my AFDB (Aluminium Foil Deflective Beanie) to the party today but it's in the shop having an extra layer added to it to increase it's effectivenes.
Get yours here today.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
thats a pretty cheap way to marginalize my statements.
its no secret that BOTH parties are bought and paid for by corporations, lobbyists, and the financial elite of this country. its not some conspiracy theory. and its not some evil Democrat conspiracy either. both parties are no longer serving the people of this country, they are serving themselves and their cronies.
Business_Casual
07-06-09, 15:12
you care to address what i said, or would you prefer to lob insults back and forth? either way is cool with me.
again, they are looking for suspicious gun purchases and the like. they're not going around rounding up guns or doing illegal searches.
by the way, you should read a little closer. nowhere does it say the pastor still had his guns.
Whoa! Throttle back there friend! I am allowed to have a contrary opinion without it being an insult.
I agree, both parties are corrupt and have been for some time. That the democrats are also in control of the media and entertainment areas doesn't help either.
M_P
actually no, you're wrong on this. Eric Holder made some comments about them considering reinstating the AWB, but considering is a long way from introducing legislation.
i'd like to see ONE piece of anti gun legislation introduced by the Obama administration. just ONE.
you can start here... http://www.govtrack.us/
again, you have one iota of proof?
its simply not going to happen. i think the Dems have figured out that gun control is not a good issue for them, as evidence here...
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12245
You post a link to the NRA-ILA site but have you actually taken the time to read the information available on the site?
These are all headlines taken just from today alone.
http://www.nraila.org/GrassrootsAlerts/read.aspx
California: Bill to Restrict Ammunition Sales Rescheduled for Next Week
Bill to Outlaw Gun Shows Advancing
ILLINOIS: Anti-Gun Groups Launch Campaign Against Important Gun Reform
NEBRASKA: Proposal Requiring Fingerprinting for Firearm Sales Put on Hold for Three Weeks
NEVADA: Nevada Will No Longer Recognize Utah and Florida Right-to-Carry Permits
NEW JERSEY: Legislature Passes Gun Rationing Bill
NEW YORK: New York State Senate May Consider Numerous Anti-Gun Bills!
Registration Scheme Postponed Once Again in Albany County Nwe York
NORTH CAROLINA: Anti-Hunting Bill Takes a Step Forward
TENNESSEE: Localities Already Opting-Out of Park Carry Law!
UTAH: Utah Concealed Weapons Permits No Longer Recognized in Nevada
What are all of these if not Anti-Gun Legislation proposed under the current administration?
And lastly a story from ABC...
ABC News story line states.
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
or is this all made up Hooey?
i'm not setting up a straw man argument, if you noticed the big ? i was asking a question, not arguing a predetermined point.
i just find it interesting that there was NO mention of any of this during the previous administration. no mention of elitism, no "the country is screwed" talk, none of it.
Oh come on man...
just this administration?
so you didn't have a problem with the previous administration? things like Cheney telling Congress to go f*ck themselves?
you guys and your partisanship...wake up and smell the roses, we're getting screwed by both parties. they are bought and paid for by corporate and financial interests.
If you were interested in the answer, and didn't have your mind made up, the post to which I replied earlier would have consisted of only the bolded text above. The next paragraph consists of questions, yes, but with an obvious aggressive tone to them implying that you already know the answer to the first question, and the last paragraph confirms that as you are accusing him of partisanship before you know the answer.
Also interesting to me is how much you know about what was and wasn't discussed here during the Bush administration, as you've been registered here for all of about 3 months.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 15:30
Whoa! Throttle back there friend! I am allowed to have a contrary opinion without it being an insult.
sure you are.
but when you tell me i have my head in the sand, its an insult.
I agree, both parties are corrupt and have been for some time. That the democrats are also in control of the media and entertainment areas doesn't help either.
the whole "liberal media" idea is a fallacy.
“Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of ‘liberal bias’ in the media were part of ‘a strategy’ (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: ‘If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is “work the refs.” Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.’”
“Bill Kristol, perhaps the most honest and intelligent conservative in Washington (excluding, of course, that funny, friendly, charming McCain fellow). ‘The press isn't quite as biased and liberal. They're actually conservative sometimes,’ Kristol said recently on CNN. If Chris missed that one, he might have come across a similar admission by Kristol offered up in the spring of 1995. ‘I admit it,’ Kristol told The New Yorker. ‘The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.’”
“‘The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive,’ [Patrick] Buchanan acknowledged in March 1996. He added: ‘I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked.’”
In a careful 1999 study published in the academic journal Communications Research, four scholars examined the use of the "liberal media" argument and discovered a fourfold increase in the number of Americans telling pollsters that they discerned a liberal bias in their news. But a review of the media's actual ideological content, collected and coded over a twelve-year period, offered no corroboration whatever for this view. The obvious conclusion: News consumers were responding to "increasing news coverage of liberal bias media claims, which have been increasingly emanating from Republican Party candidates and officials."
“A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.”
the average liberal legislator has a better than 30 percent greater likelihood of being given a political label than the average conservative does. The press describes [Barney] Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes [Dick] Armey as a conservative. It labels [Barbara] Boxer almost twice as often as it labels [Trent] Lott, and labels [Paul] Wellstone more often than [Jesse] Helms.
Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim, David Croteau, Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Sociology and Anthropology, (archived at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), June 1998:
“The findings include:
“ · On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
“ · Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
“ · The minority of journalists who do not identify with the ‘center’ are more likely to identify with the ‘right’ when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the ‘left’ when it comes to social issues.”
“The biggest lie fed the American people by conservative pundits is that the United States is dominated by the ‘liberal media.’ As if Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner, General Electric, Time-Warner AOL and Viacom are owned and operated by liberals.
“Where was it during Campaign 2000 [see below], after which two separate -- and non-partisan -- study groups determined that George W. Bush, not Al Gore, received the more glowing, less critical headlines and coverage?
rickrock305
07-06-09, 15:33
You post a link to the NRA-ILA site but have you actually taken the time to read the information available on the site?
These are all headlines taken just from today alone.
http://www.nraila.org/GrassrootsAlerts/read.aspx
California: Bill to Restrict Ammunition Sales Rescheduled for Next Week
Bill to Outlaw Gun Shows Advancing
ILLINOIS: Anti-Gun Groups Launch Campaign Against Important Gun Reform
NEBRASKA: Proposal Requiring Fingerprinting for Firearm Sales Put on Hold for Three Weeks
NEVADA: Nevada Will No Longer Recognize Utah and Florida Right-to-Carry Permits
NEW JERSEY: Legislature Passes Gun Rationing Bill
NEW YORK: New York State Senate May Consider Numerous Anti-Gun Bills!
Registration Scheme Postponed Once Again in Albany County Nwe York
NORTH CAROLINA: Anti-Hunting Bill Takes a Step Forward
TENNESSEE: Localities Already Opting-Out of Park Carry Law!
UTAH: Utah Concealed Weapons Permits No Longer Recognized in Nevada
What are all of these if not Anti-Gun Legislation proposed under the current administration?
they are not proposed by the current administration, which is what you said. any congressman can propose a bill at any time, it doesn't mean much. this administration has not been proposing gun control.
And lastly a story from ABC...
ABC News story line states.
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
or is this all made up Hooey?
like i said, Holder has been making some comments, but its simply not going to happen. it doesn't have the support of congress.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 15:39
If you were interested in the answer, and didn't have your mind made up, the post to which I replied earlier would have consisted of only the bolded text above. The next paragraph consists of questions, yes, but with an obvious aggressive tone to them implying that you already know the answer to the first question, and the last paragraph confirms that as you are accusing him of partisanship before you know the answer.
aggressive tone? :D are you serious?
i did already know the answer, its blatantly obvious. and then it was confirmed.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I didn't misrepresent anyone's position. It turns out I was absolutely right.
Also interesting to me is how much you know about what was and wasn't discussed here during the Bush administration, as you've been registered here for all of about 3 months.
yea, i finally decided to register after lurking around for a long while. ;)
you can still read the forum without registering. :)
they are not proposed by the current administration, which is what you said. any congressman can propose a bill at any time, it doesn't mean much. this administration has not been proposing gun control.
like i said, Holder has been making some comments, but its simply not going to happen. it doesn't have the support of congress.
Your arguing semantics now! And the truth is that you don't have anymore to back up your statements than you say I have.
I think that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree…since we could argue these points back and forth until the end of time. Your not going to change my views and obviously you have strong opinions as well.
I’ll stop on my end by stating ( Nice chatting with you..and have a nice day.)
rickrock305
07-06-09, 15:43
Your arguing semantics now! And the truth is that you don't have anymore to back up your statements than you say I have.
not really. let me remind you of your exact words...
Antigun legislation is being introduced by this administration on nearly a daily basis.
Attacks on Firearms ownership, freedom of the press and even against Knife ownership is all part of the administrations agenda.
i asked you for proof, and you rattled off a few insignificant bills that never even got voted on, NONE of which were from or under the directive of this administration.
I think that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree…since we could argue these points back and forth until the end of time. Your not going to change my views and obviously you have strong opinions as well.
I’ll stop on my end by stating ( Nice chatting with you..and have a nice day.)
awww, what fun would that be? :D
nice chatting with you as well, have a good one!
parishioner
07-06-09, 15:44
sure you are.
but when you tell me i have my head in the sand, its an insult.
the whole "liberal media" idea is a fallacy.
“Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of ‘liberal bias’ in the media were part of ‘a strategy’ (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: ‘If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is “work the refs.” Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.’”
“Bill Kristol, perhaps the most honest and intelligent conservative in Washington (excluding, of course, that funny, friendly, charming McCain fellow). ‘The press isn't quite as biased and liberal. They're actually conservative sometimes,’ Kristol said recently on CNN. If Chris missed that one, he might have come across a similar admission by Kristol offered up in the spring of 1995. ‘I admit it,’ Kristol told The New Yorker. ‘The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.’”
“‘The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive,’ [Patrick] Buchanan acknowledged in March 1996. He added: ‘I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked.’”
In a careful 1999 study published in the academic journal Communications Research, four scholars examined the use of the "liberal media" argument and discovered a fourfold increase in the number of Americans telling pollsters that they discerned a liberal bias in their news. But a review of the media's actual ideological content, collected and coded over a twelve-year period, offered no corroboration whatever for this view. The obvious conclusion: News consumers were responding to "increasing news coverage of liberal bias media claims, which have been increasingly emanating from Republican Party candidates and officials."
“A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.”
the average liberal legislator has a better than 30 percent greater likelihood of being given a political label than the average conservative does. The press describes [Barney] Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes [Dick] Armey as a conservative. It labels [Barbara] Boxer almost twice as often as it labels [Trent] Lott, and labels [Paul] Wellstone more often than [Jesse] Helms.
Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim, David Croteau, Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Sociology and Anthropology, (archived at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), June 1998:
“The findings include:
“ · On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
“ · Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
“ · The minority of journalists who do not identify with the ‘center’ are more likely to identify with the ‘right’ when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the ‘left’ when it comes to social issues.”
“The biggest lie fed the American people by conservative pundits is that the United States is dominated by the ‘liberal media.’ As if Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner, General Electric, Time-Warner AOL and Viacom are owned and operated by liberals.
“Where was it during Campaign 2000 [see below], after which two separate -- and non-partisan -- study groups determined that George W. Bush, not Al Gore, received the more glowing, less critical headlines and coverage?
Jesus, the majority of this "research" is more than 10 years old.
Are you serious?
not really. let me remind you of your exact words...
i asked you for proof, and you rattled off a few insignificant bills that never even got voted on, NONE of which were from or under the directive of this administration.
awww, what fun would that be? :D
nice chatting with you as well, have a good one!
Tomato...Tomatoe
Jesus, the majority of this "research" is more than 10 years old.
Are you serious?
Heh...if the closing quote is accurate:
“Where was it during Campaign 2000 [see below], after which two separate -- and non-partisan -- study groups determined that George W. Bush, not Al Gore, received the more glowing, less critical headlines and coverage?
then the pendulum has swung far and fast to the other end of the spectrum, as I doubt anyone could say with a straight face (and clean drug test) that you could change it to the following:
“Where was it during Campaign 2008 [see below], after which two separate -- and non-partisan -- study groups determined that Barack Obama, not John McCain and Sarah Palin, received the more glowing, less critical headlines and coverage?
and it would still be accurate.
parishioner
07-06-09, 16:05
the whole "liberal media" idea is a fallacy.
"New York, Oct.17 (ANI): A study shows that the Kings of Late Night are not equal-opportunity destroyers this year when it comes to telling jokes about the candidates for president and vice president.
They are hammering Republicans a stunning seven times more often than they skewer Democrats, reports Fox News.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs, a media analysis group, kept a tally of jokes told about the presidential contenders on the “Late Show” and “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno” in the five weeks after McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate and vaulted the little-known Alaska governor into the national spotlight.
The total: Republicans, 286. Democrats, 42.
“Generally the Republicans get targeted much more often than Democrats, but this election is driving it off the charts,” Fox News quoted CMPA Executive Director Donald Rieck, as saying.
Letterman and Leno told 106 jokes about McCain and 180 about Palin in the 25 shows that aired between August 29, when McCain chose her, and October 2, the date of the vice presidential debate.
Barack Obama, who may be Leno’’s guest next week, was targeted only 26 times — barely once a night. His gaffe-prone running mate, Joe Biden, who is scheduled to appear on Leno Thursday night, was hit only 16 times, not even one-tenth the number of jokes told about Palin over the five-week period. (ANI)"
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sports/talk-show-hosts-pillorying-mccain-more-than-obama_100108426.html
You are right.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 16:09
Jesus, the majority of this "research" is more than 10 years old.
Are you serious?
so what changed?
where is your proof otherwise? show me some evidence of this liberal media.
one thing that i always see when i ask for proof of liberal media bias is the campaign donations made from journalists, like this article for example...
http://freedomdefender.blogspot.com/2005/04/proof-of-mainstream-media-left-wing.html
only problem with that is the journalists and editors and janitors don't determine the slant of the entire news program or what stories get aired and which get buried. this falls to the executives, who are by and large conservatives.
lets look at guest appearances, check out this link.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200604040001
conservatives far outweigh liberal points of view, from total number of guest appearances, to ideological tilt of panels.
Studies have repeatedly found various media outlets quote Republicans more often than Democrats, by ratios ranging from 3 to 2 on NPR (5-6/04) to 3 to 1 on nightly network news (5-6/02) to a startling 5 to 1 on Fox News Special Report (7-8/04).
One study counts citations of the 25 most prominent think tanks of right, center and left, using the Nexis news media database. Citations are counted in what Nexis designates to be major newspapers, as well as in Nexis' transcripts file, which includes the major broadcast and cable news outlets. Because stories included in the Nexis database change over time, figures for previous years are recalculated for comparison purposes rather than taken from previous editions of the study.
Conservative or right-leaning think tanks garnered 50 percent of citations among the 25 most-cited think tanks, the same percentage as last year, and near their 10-year average of 51 percent of citations. Centrist think tanks declined slightly this year, garnering 33 percent of the citations, compared to 37 percent last year and 36 percent as their 10-year average. Progressive or left-leaning think tanks had the greatest percentage increase this year, receiving 16 percent of citations, up from last year's 13 percent and their 10-year average of 14 percent.
i also recommend checking this out...
Who Are The Media Bosses...
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2448
rickrock305
07-06-09, 16:12
"New York, Oct.17 (ANI): A study shows that the Kings of Late Night are not equal-opportunity destroyers this year when it comes to telling jokes about the candidates for president and vice president.
They are hammering Republicans a stunning seven times more often than they skewer Democrats, reports Fox News.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs, a media analysis group, kept a tally of jokes told about the presidential contenders on the “Late Show” and “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno” in the five weeks after McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate and vaulted the little-known Alaska governor into the national spotlight.
The total: Republicans, 286. Democrats, 42.
“Generally the Republicans get targeted much more often than Democrats, but this election is driving it off the charts,” Fox News quoted CMPA Executive Director Donald Rieck, as saying.
Letterman and Leno told 106 jokes about McCain and 180 about Palin in the 25 shows that aired between August 29, when McCain chose her, and October 2, the date of the vice presidential debate.
Barack Obama, who may be Leno’’s guest next week, was targeted only 26 times — barely once a night. His gaffe-prone running mate, Joe Biden, who is scheduled to appear on Leno Thursday night, was hit only 16 times, not even one-tenth the number of jokes told about Palin over the five-week period. (ANI)"
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sports/talk-show-hosts-pillorying-mccain-more-than-obama_100108426.html
i was more referring to "news" outlets.
but i think its quite obvious why the late night guys would be clowning Sarah Palin so much. she made it easy for them.
oh, and you should really watch where you get your information from...
Media Transparency documents that between 1986 and 2005 CMPA received 55 grants totaling $2,960,916 (unadjusted for inflation).[6] The data reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations.
The funding information, covering 1986-2005, lists the following donors (note: all figures are unadjusted for inflation):
Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $512,000 from 8 donations
the Earhart Foundation contributed $120,000 in six grants between 1999 and 2003;
John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations between 1986 and 2001;
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - $250,000 nine grants over the period between 1989 and 1995;
Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations spanning the period between 1991 and 2003; and
Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations between 1998 and 2001;
Thus, out of the total of $2,960,916 in foundation grants, nearly all of it ($2,668,916) came from just four sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its foundation funding from those four donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles:
John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute
According to Salon journalist Joe Conason, the availability of this information does not indicate an openness on the part of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. In a Jan 2003 exchange of views with Lichter, Conason said "The IRS form 990 returns filed by [Lichter's] center redacts the names of all the individuals and organizations that contribute to it, thereby concealing them from public scrutiny. But the watchdogs at Media Transparency have collated the 990 returns filed by the conservative foundations, which disclose their contributions to Lichter's outfit."[3]
As at February 2008, the CMPA website contains no information about the Center's sources of funding.
so much for their claim of being "nonpartisan"
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 16:13
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2448
Wow...you do know who FAIR is don't you?
Putting out a shingle that says "fairness and accuracy" in reporting doesn't mean you actually believe in it.
parishioner
07-06-09, 16:32
so what changed?
where is your proof otherwise? show me some evidence of this liberal media.
Well I was referring to examples of liberal media which you claim is a fallacy. Talk show hosts count as....media.
I guess you missed this wonderful conservative view on self defense gun use presented by our good friends over at the conservative network ABC. https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=29222
rickrock305
07-06-09, 16:38
Well I was referring to examples of liberal media which you claim is a fallacy. Talk show hosts count as....media.
ok, i should have been more specific. NEWS media.
I guess you missed this wonderful conservative view on self defense gun use presented by our good friends over at the conservative network ABC. https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=29222
so one example equals overall liberal media bias? :D
sure, thats logical.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 16:39
Wow...you do know who FAIR is don't you?
Putting out a shingle that says "fairness and accuracy" in reporting doesn't mean you actually believe in it.
yes, i do. but the information in that link is accurate.
parishioner
07-06-09, 16:43
ok, i should have been more specific. NEWS media.
so one example equals overall liberal media bias? :D
sure, thats logical.
I have a life and Im actually studying for a test at the moment so no, Im not going to waste time trying to find proof that the sky is blue.
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 16:46
yes, i do. but the information in that link is accurate.
Of course it is.
So your proof against media bias, is a group that seeks to engage in it?
Nicely done, are you from Mars? :rolleyes:
rickrock305
07-06-09, 16:57
I have a life and Im actually studying for a test at the moment so no, Im not going to waste time trying to find proof that the sky is blue.
Of course not. Why waste your time learning for yourself when you can just have somebody tell you what to believe. As long as it fits your agenda I guess rght?
rickrock305
07-06-09, 16:59
Of course it is.
So your proof against media bias, is a group that seeks to engage in it?
Nicely done, are you from Mars? :rolleyes:
No, you're conveniently ignoring all the other information I posted countering the liberal media fallacy.
Of course not. Why waste your time learning for yourself when you can just have somebody tell you what to believe. As long as it fits your agenda I guess rght?
Enough hippie.
These posts read like talking points directly from the Democratic Playbook.
But in fact are just large portions of articles that have been cut and pasted from other websites.
But why cite an opinion of your own when you can just plagerize that of someone elses....right?
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 17:06
No, you're conveniently ignoring all the other information I posted countering the liberal media fallacy.
Uhm, no. In fact it's you that's sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the evidence in front of your face. In response you haven't provided anything other than opinion pieces and observations from groups that have a vested interest in denying any media bias.
thats a pretty cheap way to marginalize my statements.
"Its no secret that BOTH parties are bought and paid for by corporations, lobbyists, and the financial elite of this country. Its not some 'conspiracy theory'. and its not some evil Democrat conspiracy, either. Both parties are no longer serving the people of this country, they are serving themselves and their cronies.
What is worse is that you had to explain this... it's 2009 already! I would have bet gold coins to acorns that it would not be needed on this website. It should be blatantly obvious for any with eyes to see and ears to hear. I guess that's why I'm not a gambler... :p
rickrock305
07-06-09, 18:45
Enough hippie.
wow, your creativity and wit is astounding :rolleyes:
rickrock305
07-06-09, 18:55
These posts read like talking points directly from the Democratic Playbook.
But in fact are just large portions of articles that have been cut and pasted from other websites.
But why cite an opinion of your own when you can just plagerize that of someone elses....right?
what happened to this?...
I think that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree…since we could argue these points back and forth until the end of time. Your not going to change my views and obviously you have strong opinions as well.
I’ll stop on my end by stating ( Nice chatting with you..and have a nice day.)
its called backing up opinion with fact. i'm not copying and pasting opinions from other sites, I'm copying facts. i put my opinion out there, and then back it up with facts to support it. pretty basic. shame noone else can do the same.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 19:00
Uhm, no. In fact it's you that's sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the evidence in front of your face. In response you haven't provided anything other than opinion pieces and observations from groups that have a vested interest in denying any media bias.
what evidence? i've asked multiple times for someone to provide some evidence of this, and the best anyone came up with is the amount of jokes told by late night TV (which hardly anyone watches anyway). and that information came from a group who is funded completely by conservatives.
i've provided FACTS, not opinion pieces.
this is not opinion...
Studies have repeatedly found various media outlets quote Republicans more often than Democrats, by ratios ranging from 3 to 2 on NPR (5-6/04) to 3 to 1 on nightly network news (5-6/02) to a startling 5 to 1 on Fox News Special Report (7-8/04).
One study counts citations of the 25 most prominent think tanks of right, center and left, using the Nexis news media database. Citations are counted in what Nexis designates to be major newspapers, as well as in Nexis' transcripts file, which includes the major broadcast and cable news outlets. Because stories included in the Nexis database change over time, figures for previous years are recalculated for comparison purposes rather than taken from previous editions of the study.
Conservative or right-leaning think tanks garnered 50 percent of citations among the 25 most-cited think tanks, the same percentage as last year, and near their 10-year average of 51 percent of citations. Centrist think tanks declined slightly this year, garnering 33 percent of the citations, compared to 37 percent last year and 36 percent as their 10-year average. Progressive or left-leaning think tanks had the greatest percentage increase this year, receiving 16 percent of citations, up from last year's 13 percent and their 10-year average of 14 percent.
those are facts.
or how about the FACT that conservative guests outweigh liberal guests 44% to 27%?
did you even read anything i posted? sure seems you did not...
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 19:20
what evidence? i've asked multiple times for someone to provide some evidence of this, and the best anyone came up with is the amount of jokes told by late night TV (which hardly anyone watches anyway). and that information came from a group who is funded completely by conservatives.
i've provided FACTS, not opinion pieces.
Apply a little critical thought...you decry the use of sources funded by conservatives and provide "facts" from sources funded by progressive media sources.
Sorry slick you can't have it both ways.
this is not opinion...
Studies have repeatedly found various media outlets quote Republicans more often than Democrats, by ratios ranging from 3 to 2 on NPR (5-6/04) to 3 to 1 on nightly network news (5-6/02) to a startling 5 to 1 on Fox News Special Report (7-8/04).
One study counts citations of the 25 most prominent think tanks of right, center and left, using the Nexis news media database. Citations are counted in what Nexis designates to be major newspapers, as well as in Nexis' transcripts file, which includes the major broadcast and cable news outlets. Because stories included in the Nexis database change over time, figures for previous years are recalculated for comparison purposes rather than taken from previous editions of the study.
Conservative or right-leaning think tanks garnered 50 percent of citations among the 25 most-cited think tanks, the same percentage as last year, and near their 10-year average of 51 percent of citations. Centrist think tanks declined slightly this year, garnering 33 percent of the citations, compared to 37 percent last year and 36 percent as their 10-year average. Progressive or left-leaning think tanks had the greatest percentage increase this year, receiving 16 percent of citations, up from last year's 13 percent and their 10-year average of 14 percent.
those are facts.
or how about the FACT that conservative guests outweigh liberal guests 44% to 27%?
did you even read anything i posted? sure seems you did not...
You're quoting figures without providing citations to the data. Moreover the relevance of that data to the topic at hand is dubious.
Similarly this link has information that seems to contradict your statement about CNN/NPR so your definition of "facts" is obviously different than most people.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/media/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news
How one gets from "Republican quotes" to media bias seems like a stretch.
Even still you're missing the main point, poll after poll says that most Americans perceive a liberal bias.
Perceptions of Bias
Most Americans (62%) believe there is a great deal (31%) or a fair amount (31%) of political bias in news coverage generally. This perception has changed little since early in 2004 when 65% said they saw at least a fair amount of political bias in news coverage.
Regarding perceptions of bias in coverage of the presidential campaign, a quarter of Americans say news organizations are biased in favor Democrats, up slightly from 2004. But fewer people see a pro-Republican bias in campaign coverage than did so in 2004 (9% now vs. 17% then).
This result is confirmed in polling group after polling group.
The perception is reality...add a little Chris Matthews and it seems a bit hard to pretend there is no liberal bias.
Irrespective of this perception, it seems very problematic to deny that there is no liberal bias.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 19:48
Apply a little critical thought...you decry the use of sources funded by conservatives and provide "facts" from sources funded by progressive media sources.
Sorry slick you can't have it both ways..
I'm not trying to have it both ways. What are you talking about specifically? The information from FAIR? That information is factual, well known and easily verifiable...its not secret.
You're quoting figures without providing citations to the data.
I already provided the citations the first time i posted it. I guess this proves you're really reading what you WANT to read into my posts.
Moreover this link has information that seems to contradict your statement about CNN/NPR.
it doesn't contradict it at all. its stating completely different things.
Moreover the relevance of that data to the topic at hand is dubious.
How one gets from "Republican quotes" to media bias seems like a stretch.
if the media were truly biased with a liberal slant, why would republicans be quoted so much more?
Even still you're missing the main point, poll after poll says that most Americans perceive a liberal bias.
Most Americans can't tell you who the vice president is, or find Iran on a map. And you expect them to know the difference between liberal and conservative?
And yes, when you have conservatives touting the liberal media bias from every platform they can find, the gullible public will start to believe it. Its not an accident.
The perception is reality...
i don't believe it is. i believe the perception has been altered by a coordinated effort from the right to paint the media as liberal in order to make excuses.
add a little Chris Matthews and it seems a bit hard to pretend there is no liberal bias.
come on now, you can do better than that...what about Olbermann or Maddow!!!
the whole "liberal media" idea is a fallacy.
No wonder why you came off so sneaky in the other thread going. I see you are over here tearing it up as well. The above statement tells one all they need to know about your intellect, but what about your motives?
Do you own any firearms? If so, what type(s)?
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 19:59
I'm not trying to have it both ways. What are you talking about specifically? The information from FAIR? That information is factual, well known and easily verifiable...its not secret.
I already provided the citations the first time i posted it. I guess this proves you're really reading what you WANT to read into my posts.
it doesn't contradict it at all. its stating completely different things.
if the media were truly biased with a liberal slant, why would republicans be quoted so much more?
Most Americans can't tell you who the vice president is, or find Iran on a map. And you expect them to know the difference between liberal and conservative?
And yes, when you have conservatives touting the liberal media bias from every platform they can find, the gullible public will start to believe it. Its not an accident.
i don't believe it is. i believe the perception has been altered by a coordinated effort from the right to paint the media as liberal in order to make excuses.
come on now, you can do better than that...what about Olbermann or Maddow!!!
You're kidding right? So when the "facts" discredit you, you just cynically make up new rules?
How profoundly absurd... and quintessentially liberal.
It's not even new material.
Try again.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 20:08
The above statement tells one all they need to know about your intellect, but what about your motives?
really? what exactly does it tell you about my intellect?
my only motive is to dispel some of the paranoia, misinformation, and downright ignorance i see spread here on a regular basis
Do you own any firearms? If so, what type(s)?
Yes I do. I own a Springfield XD Subcompact 9mm, an HK USP Compact in .45, and an AR15, Spikes Tactical lower with a Daniel Defense upper.
i see what you're trying to imply. let me just dispel your assumptions in a very straightforward way instead of beating around the bush. i am a registered independent. I am not a fan of Democrats, Republicans, or politicians in general. There are certain issues I lean left on, like abortion, and there are issues i lean right on, like gun control and smaller government. I believe that the entire two party system we have now is screwed. The two parties are hardly any different from each other. Sure, they campaign on different issues, but once elected they are completely self serving and only serve the interests of the people who grease their palms like the financial and corporate elite. The entire Democrat/Republican argument is nothing but a distraction to rile and polarize the masses. If we're busy arguing between Dem/Rep, they can accomplish all kinds of crap without fear that we will all come together and revolt over their crap.
That clear the air for you?
rickrock305
07-06-09, 20:10
You're kidding right? So when the "facts" discredit you, you just cynically make up new rules?
How profoundly absurd... and quintessentially liberal.
It's not even new material.
Try again.
what are you talking about? :confused:
are you so intent on attacking me personally that you can't respond otherwise?
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 20:33
what are you talking about? :confused:
are you so intent on attacking me personally that you can't respond otherwise?
Are you out of your mind? :confused:
You lob bombs left and right and now you get thin-skinned about what was at worst an oblique dig about your argument and had nothing at all to do with a personal attack? Sorry to break it to you but you overstate your importance.
You've little interest in facts and seemingly prefer bizarro pseudo-intellectualism.
Either way, not worth my time.
Of course not. Why waste your time learning for yourself when you can just have somebody tell you what to believe. As long as it fits your agenda I guess rght?
I copied several of your so called opinions and googled them only to find them printed word for word elsewhere.
The University I currently attend defines that as plagiarizing.
Its called backing up opinion with fact. i'm not copying and pasting opinions from other sites, I'm copying facts. i put my opinion out there, and then back it up with facts to support it. pretty basic. shame noone else can do the same.
What facts? You are backing it up with Propaganda from known liberal websites like FAIR? Come on!
As for the Fair.org site...Put the nameFAIR.Org along with obama in your favorite search engine and you find hundreds of pro obama articles.
Do the same but substitute obama with the name bush and there are hundreds of anti-bush articles... What happened to non-partisan?
This administration ran a campaign based on "Transparency in Government" only to instill the tightest control over its Public Town Hall meetings. Even the most Veteran reporter columnist Helen Thomas said were “Tighter than any other Administration in History.” Including Bill's.
Doesn’t sound very transparent or open to me, although a valid case could be made for Change!
The complete article and video can be seen here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/02/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5129482.shtml
You are being called out by so many people in this forum who can obviously see through your agenda…the Mods here don’t tend to tolerate Trolls very well.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 20:48
Are you out of your mind? :confused:
no, not at all. please explain your previous post. what "new rules" did i make up? which "facts" did you discredit?
just because you say so, doesn't make it so. burden of proof is on you.
You lob bombs left and right and now you get thin-skinned about what was at worst an oblique dig about your argument and had nothing at all to do with a personal attack?
i haven't lobbed any bombs at anyone. and i'm not getting thin skinned at all. hell, i've been called so many names in this thread alone; hippie, sneaky, etc. if i was thin skinned i certainly wouldn't continue posting here!
i'm just pointing out how weak your argument must be if you feel the need to attack me personally in every response.
you say that you discredited me, and that i'm cynically making up new rules, and thats not personal?
Sorry to break it to you but you overstate your importance.
you keep responding to me and doing your best to insult me. i'm not stating anything about my importance. but your actions tell a different story
You've little interest in facts and seemingly prefer bizarro pseudo-intellectualism.
Either way, not worth my time.
unfortunately, we haven't been able to get past the personal attacks to get to a place where we could discuss something with some semblance of intellect. we ALMOST got there a couple times, but your condescending attitude (starting off you post with "apply a little critical thought" and calling me "slick") its hard to go anywhere from there.
Heavy Metal
07-06-09, 20:51
No, you're conveniently ignoring all the other information I posted countering the liberal media fallacy.
Quoting media matters proves two things. Jack and Shit.
Media matters is an ultra-rabid leftist think-tank funded by George Soros. To consider them accurate and unbiased, one would have to be froot-loops.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 20:55
Quoting media matters proves two things. Jack and Shit.
Media matters is an ultra-rabid leftist think-tank funded by George Soros. To consider them accurate and unbiased, one would have to be froot-loops.
sure, point taken.
but that was one of many.
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 21:02
sure, point taken.
but that was one of many.
Actually that was one of many that was discredited.
I know this might be a shock to you, but if half the information coming out of one's mouth is bullshit, most people tend to discount the other half.
rickrock305-I respect your opinion and you definitely have a right to it. There are legitimate counterpoints to your contentions with valid reasoning based on research. For me it boils down to: 1) I'm tired, work long hours, and don't have the energy to dig them up right now 2) It is exactly like global warming; I can provide verifiable scientific evidence it isn't occurring(I double majored in Biology and Botany from a major univ.), someone can present evidence otherwise 3) I think we have to do what most people have forgotten how to do in a civil society-we must respectfully agree to disagree and continue the conversation
I'm tired, wife was on call last night, and up multiple times to deal with her patients. Look forward to calling you on your points later.:p
rickrock305
07-06-09, 21:14
Actually that was one of many that was discredited.
I know this might be a shock to you, but if half the information coming out of one's mouth is bullshit, most people tend to discount the other half.
yet another logical fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
and your specialty!
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 21:15
yet another logical fallacy
I might be concerned if I thought you knew what a "logical fallacy" was.
Cheney, ON THE SENATE FLOOR, told a senator to go f*ck himself...and you see no problem with that?
The only problem I see is that it didn't happen more often. :cool:
rickrock305
07-06-09, 21:22
I copied several of your so called opinions and googled them only to find them printed word for word elsewhere.
The University I currently attend defines that as plagiarizing.
no, you didn't. you didn't copy my OPINIONS and find them printed elsewhere. Facts and statistics, yes...opinions no.
does the university you attend also require you to back up your research with facts?
What facts? You are backing it up with Propaganda from known liberal websites like FAIR? Come on!
no, the piece i linked to from FAIR was a simple list of who owns what major media organizations.
You are being called out by so many people in this forum who can obviously see through your agenda…the Mods here don’t tend to tolerate Trolls very well.
What is my agenda? So anyone who you disagree with is a troll now? :rolleyes:
rickrock305
07-06-09, 21:24
I might be concerned if I thought you knew what a "logical fallacy" was.
ok, i see you want this to descend into a tit for tat, little kid level of argument. i'm not surprised, but i'm simply not going to join in that with you.
if you'd like to continue the discussion without the ad hominem attacks, i'll be around.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 21:26
rickrock305-I respect your opinion and you definitely have a right to it. There are legitimate counterpoints to your contentions with valid reasoning based on research. For me it boils down to: 1) I'm tired, work long hours, and don't have the energy to dig them up right now 2) It is exactly like global warming; I can provide verifiable scientific evidence it isn't occurring(I double majored in Biology and Botany from a major univ.), someone can present evidence otherwise 3) I think we have to do what most people have forgotten how to do in a civil society-we must respectfully agree to disagree and continue the conversation
I'm tired, wife was on call last night, and up multiple times to deal with her patients. Look forward to calling you on your points later.:p
cool, i look forward to it! it seems as though you are a good deal more respectful than others around here, it will be refreshing to have an honest and respectful discussion. thanks for that.
although at this point, I'm way into the dark area and breaking my own rules about arguing over liberal vs. conservative. its truly pointless anyway, especially regarding the mainstream news media, which is anything but news.
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 21:27
no, you didn't. you didn't copy my OPINIONS and find them printed elsewhere. Facts and statistics, yes...opinions no.
You can call an opinion "fact", it doesn't make it so.
does the university you attend also require you to back up your research with facts?
Wait, you're whining about "logical fallacies"...and yet you resort to the exact same thing? People in glass houses...
You've yet to meet university standards of citation.
When 51 of your 52 posts to a forum are vehemently opposed to the community consensus on basic political ideology, it's time for:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f399/myfask/258Troll_spray.jpg?t=1246933033
rickrock305
07-06-09, 21:34
Wait, you're whining about ad hominem attacks...and you do the exact same thing? People in glass houses...
Let me know when you meet university standards of citation...
This is why you're a troll.
that was not an ad hominem attack in the least. it was making a point that generally when writing a research paper for school, facts are used in the paper and their sources cited.
i'm not trying to meet university standards of citation, because this is quite obviously not university level discourse.
I am not a troll. I know you would love nothing more than to see me reprimanded or banned for being such, as that would silence my opinion which you obviously dislike. Can't disprove it? Well then silence it right?
Except that I'm not a troll. I'm trying to have an honest and reasonable discussion here, minus personal and ad hominem attacks. I'm sorry that you disagree with my viewpoint, but that doesn't make me a troll.
Yes I do. I own a Springfield XD Subcompact 9mm, an HK USP Compact in .45, and an AR15, Spikes Tactical lower with a Daniel Defense upper.
Astounding...if true. Considering your potential to spew nonsense, who knows.
i see what you're trying to imply. let me just dispel your assumptions in a very straightforward way instead of beating around the bush. i am a registered independent. I am not a fan of Democrats, Republicans, or politicians in general. There are certain issues I lean left on, like abortion, and there are issues i lean right on, like gun control and smaller government. I believe that the entire two party system we have now is screwed. The two parties are hardly any different from each other. Sure, they campaign on different issues, but once elected they are completely self serving and only serve the interests of the people who grease their palms like the financial and corporate elite. The entire Democrat/Republican argument is nothing but a distraction to rile and polarize the masses. If we're busy arguing between Dem/Rep, they can accomplish all kinds of crap without fear that we will all come together and revolt over their crap.
That clear the air for you?
No, because anyone, and I mean anyone, who says the media does not have a liberal slant is no true Independent. The are either far-left or less than sane.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 21:38
When 51 of your 52 posts to a forum are vehemently opposed to the community consensus on basic political ideology, it's time for:
except that they're not vehemently opposed. i've stated multiple times, there are issues that i lean left on, and there are issues i lean right on. i'm actually pretty centrist overall. i like to think for myself and don't really fall within party lines.
can you guys not handle an alternative viewpoint now and again?
when i signed up for this site, being a republican was not a requirement. are you saying that it is?
rickrock305
07-06-09, 21:43
Astounding...if true. Considering your potential to spew nonsense, who knows.
here's my modest collection...
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa36/rickrock305/603772d7.jpg
No, because anyone, and I mean anyone, who says the media does not have a liberal slant is no true Independent. The are either far-left or less than sane.
well i guess it depends on how you are defining media. i stated quite a few posts back that i was referring specifically to news media.
but everyone seems to be just saying media, so if that includes movies and television, then yes the media is leftist.
except that they're not vehemently opposed. i've stated multiple times, there are issues that i lean left on, and there are issues i lean right on.
You can say you're Shirley Temple's dance coach for all I care. 52 posts, 51 of them spouting political crap which -- regardless of whether you believe it -- is nothing but tilting at windmills here. Ergo, troll.
If you actually think you're convincing or influencing anyone around here, you're stupid. If you realize you're not convincing or influencing anyone, you're a troll.
Which is it?
can you guys not handle an alternative viewpoint now and again?
Dude, look at the threads. You are the one who cannot handle alternative viewpoints.
Post what you have to say on a subject and then leave it ... that's expressing a viewpoint. Arguing over and over again with half the forum ... that's trolling.
when i signed up for this site, being a republican was not a requirement. are you saying that it is?
Please don't let what I actually said stop you from jumping to conclusions, putting words in my mouth, and then reacting to that rather than the issues at hand.
Thank god I live in Texas. Really, how did this country get to where it is today? WW2 veterans and everyone for that generation and before have got to be spinning in their graves if they could see where this country is going. Im starting to think that Im one of the very few that are under 30 that dosent have my hand out and gets pissed every time I see how much is taken out of my paycheck in taxes. And then see what out tax dollars are spent on. With all the Mexico talk, lets do something about it. Kill two birds with one stone. Bring all the troops back and put them on the border with live ammo and let them do what they are trained to do(Protect this country). To hell with the rest of the world, where were they during Rita or Katrina? Let them kill themselves off. Why does it have to be our job to save the rest of the world when we have plenty of problems of our own here. Sorry had to rant and blow off a little steam.
here's my modest collection...
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa36/rickrock305/603772d7.jpg
well i guess it depends on how you are defining media. i stated quite a few posts back that i was referring specifically to news media.
but everyone seems to be just saying media, so if that includes movies and television, then yes the media is leftist.
Well it seems like you may be one of us afterall. You even admit that the media is left, showing real knowledge. I am humbled (*see humility, as referred to earlier). :cool:
I honestly am not looking to make anyone look bad for lack of something better to do. Your position is extremely controversial. That's all.
I still disagree with you.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 22:00
You can say you're Shirley Temple's dance coach for all I care. 52 posts, 51 of them spouting political crap which -- regardless of whether you believe it -- is nothing but tilting at windmills here. Ergo, troll.
At the top of this forum, it says "General Discussion Current Events, News, Politics, etc."
If you actually think you're convincing or influencing anyone around here, you're stupid. If you realize you're not convincing or influencing anyone, you're a troll.
Which is it?
Maybe I'll convince or influence someone, maybe not. Maybe it will just get them thinking outside the box a little bit, maybe not. And maybe we will all learn something from each other. That is my true goal. Whether someone is influenced or not is not my goal.
Dude, look at the threads. You are the one who cannot handle alternative viewpoints.
Post what you have to say on a subject and then leave it ... that's expressing a viewpoint. Arguing over and over again with half the forum ... that's trolling.
This is a discussion forum isn't it? The title of this subsection is called General Discussion. Isn't it the point to discuss things? Some folks can be mature enough to handle that without it becoming an out and out argument with name calling and everything else. I tried really hard to have a discussion, and I'm absolutely cool with alternative viewpoints...but not when they're interspersed with insults and name calling.
Please don't let what I actually said stop you from jumping to conclusions, putting words in my mouth, and then reacting to that rather than the issues at hand.
what political ideology were you referring to?
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 22:01
Like I said if I thought you knew what a logical fallacy was, I might be concerned.
Seriously why didn't you simply say you were delusional...it would have saved us all a bunch of time and bandwidth.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 22:04
Well it seems like you may be one of us afterall. You even admit that the media is left, showing real knowledge. I am humbled (*see humility, as referred to earlier). :cool:
I honestly am not looking to make anyone look bad for lack of something better to do. Your position is extremely controversial. That's all.
I still disagree with you.
i understand that its a controversial position to take around here, and i wanted to put it out there to see what kind of alternative viewpoints i would find here. i did NOT want it to degenerate into what it has.
like i said, i don't fit in the liberal or conservative box. i'm all over the map with my political leanings. probably more conservative than liberal. but the current party of so called "conservatives", aka the Republican party, has become anything but conservative.
no problem with disagreement, i enjoy it! but it should be done respectfully at the very least.
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 22:05
no problem with disagreement, i enjoy it! but it should be done respectfully at the very least.
Maybe you should have followed your own advice.
Just a thought.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 22:11
Like I said if I thought you knew what a logical fallacy was, I might be concerned.
Seriously why didn't you simply say you were delusional...it would have saved us all a bunch of time and bandwidth.
Maybe you should have followed your own advice.
Just a thought.
interesting, you call me a troll when thats exactly what you're doing to me.
i was plenty respectful of you and your position. i can only put up with the condescending name calling for so long though. and yet still, i don't believe i've called you a disrespectful name yet!
Hey you two!!!
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr134/jsandi1201/bigfish.gif
Maybe I'll convince or influence someone, maybe not. Maybe it will just get them thinking outside the box a little bit, maybe not. And maybe we will all learn something from each other. That is my true goal. Whether someone is influenced or not is not my goal.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)): In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
This is a discussion forum isn't it? The title of this subsection is called General Discussion. Isn't it the point to discuss things?
This went from "discussion" to "trolling" a few pages back.
what political ideology were you referring to?
Wait ... first you pound your chest about being this brilliant independent political thinker, and now you are telling me that the use of the word "ideology" immediately means Republican to you?
http://nortelinsider.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/troll.jpg
interesting, you call me a troll when thats exactly what you're doing to me.
i was plenty respectful of you and your position. i can only put up with the condescending name calling for so long though. and yet still, i don't believe i've called you a disrespectful name yet!
The troll label arises because nearly all of your posts on this forum are in a few threads over a day or so arguing with people about politics. This forum is not monolithic in political ideology, it's not a Republican cheerleading squad, and dissent is acceptable. It's just coming across as trolling more than discussing.
parishioner
07-06-09, 22:24
We have no problem with different opinions. We like a healthy argument every once in a while. And to comment on what you told me earlier about me not thinking for myself- I don't know where you got that from, but that is about the polar opposite of me. I take pride in using my brain and thinking for myself. If the media was slanted right, I would have no problem admitting it but thats not the case. I dont need a study from the early 90's telling me the media is not slanted to the left when I watch, Keith Olberman on MSNBC say "Mr. Bush, you are a Fascist!" or Susan Rosgen on CNN get into an argument with Tea Party prosters when she is supposed to just report what is happening. You are basically pissing on back and telling me its raining.
I honestly don't know what anyone could do to have you see it any differently. I have given you 3 different examples of extreme left wing reporting on 3 different networks. CNN, MSNBC, and ABC. ABC is also doing "Prescription for America" were they go to the white house and have Obama tell us what is best for us. When the republicans sent a letter asking if their viewpoint will be represented, they refused reserving the right to show only what they want to show on their network. If that doesnt have you rethink your stance, what will?
Do you think the media is mostly conservative? Why don't you set aside a week and watch all of the neworks and then come to a conclusion instead of relying on studies from the 90's. It is not difficult to determine. No studies are needed to tell you what you are seeing and hearing.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 22:24
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)): In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
i'm not trying to provoke anyone into an emotional response, i'm trying to have an intelligent discussion with well thought out and intelligent responses. usually those are best done without emotion. and thats why i've let the name calling go without getting pissed off and retaliating. and i'm certainly not trying to be controversial or inflammatory just to invoke those responses. i'm sorry i don't march in lock step with the prevailing opinion here, but that doesn't make me a troll.
This went from "discussion" to "trolling" a few pages back.
i agree, and i was not the instigator or perpetrator of such trolling. i tried to keep it about the discussion, others wanted to delve into name calling and personal attacks to try to provoke an emotional response out of me. i'm not so easily baited.
Wait ... first you pound your chest about being this brilliant independent political thinker, and now you are telling me that the use of the word "ideology" immediately means Republican to you?
nope, never did either of those things. let me explain how i came to that conclusion though...
first you stated "When 51 of your 52 posts to a forum are vehemently opposed to the community consensus on basic political ideology, it's time for:"
the posts you're referring to are opposed to the idea of a liberal media, which is a Republican ideology. so what you are implying here is that the community consensus is in fact Republican.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 22:27
The troll label arises because nearly all of your posts on this forum are in a few threads over a day or so arguing with people about politics. This forum is not monolithic in political ideology, it's not a Republican cheerleading squad, and dissent is acceptable. It's just coming across as trolling more than discussing.
well in all fairness, i do a lot more reading than i do posting.
i don't have much to offer on how to properly stake a BCG or things of that nature.
and I am certainly not trying to be controversial to rile the masses. but i will not allow my positions to be misrepresented or to be nitpicked over silly things either.
i've tried to be respectful throughout the name calling and ad hominem attacks.
Gutshot John
07-06-09, 22:28
interesting, you call me a troll when thats exactly what you're doing to me.
i was plenty respectful of you and your position. i can only put up with the condescending name calling for so long though. and yet still, i don't believe i've called you a disrespectful name yet!
Wow, you can dish it out, but you sure can't take it...I've yet to call you a disrespectful name...other than troll...which you demonstrably are.
Despite your lame protestations you've been repeatedly snide and condescending and have treated those that disagree with you in the same manner you now decry.
Irrespective of your thin-skin, you present innuendo, conjecture and statistical goobledygook as "fact". When those "facts" are called into question, you simply deny, deny, deny and then make counter-accusations. You want to cite polls that are obviously rigged to present flawed information, but when shown polls (from Gallup and Rasmussen I might add) you claim the American people are being manipulated by the conservative media???? It's intellectually dishonest.
Despite your distaste for "logical fallacies" you offered multiple straw men which in toto invariably discredited your subsequent offerings. That is not our fault, that is yours.
There is ample room for dissent here, that you think you're somehow offering something new, that inspires so much dread of truth that we have to shut you down is pathological delusion.
If I respond to your continued responses to mine, indicates more an effort to disabuse you of your persecution complex than change your mind.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 22:42
We have no problem with different opinions. We like a healthy argument every once in a while. And to comment on what you told me earlier about me not thinking for myself- I don't know where you got that from, but that is about the polar opposite of me. I take pride in using my brain and thinking for myself. If the media was slanted right, I would have no problem admitting it but thats not the case. I dont need a study from the early 90's telling me the media is not slanted to the left when I watch, Keith Olberman on MSNBC say "Mr. Bush, you are a Fascist!" or Susan Rosgen on CNN get into an argument with Tea Party prosters when she is supposed to just report what is happening. You are basically pissing on back and telling me its raining..
but at the same time, you can turn on Hannity, or Rush, or OReilly, etc. you can turn on the news and see Karl Rove, or Ann Coulter, etc.
I honestly don't know what anyone could do to have you see it any differently. I have given you 3 different examples of extreme left wing reporting on 3 different networks. CNN, MSNBC, and ABC. ABC is also doing "Prescription for America" were they go to the white house and have Obama tell us what is best for us. When the republicans sent a letter asking if their viewpoint will be represented, they refused reserving the right to show only what they want to show on their network. If that doesnt have you rethink your stance, what will?
i could provide plenty of examples of right wing reporting as well. outright lies from Rush and Oreilly and Hannity, and Coulter, etc.
Do you think the media is mostly conservative? Why don't you set aside a week and watch all of the neworks and then come to a conclusion instead of relying on studies from the 90's. It is not difficult to determine. No studies are needed to tell you what you are seeing and hearing.
i wouldn't its mostly conservative. but i think the mainstream news media is slightly biased to the right overall. sure, there are some left wing programs like Olbermann, and there are some right wing programs like Hannity.
but i think what we can take from your post and mine combined is that the news media is not in the business of news at all. they are in the business of selling advertising, and entertainment, and telling people what they think they want to hear in order to garner higher ratings and greater advertising revenue. kinda sad. sad to think that people are watching this crap and thinking its whats really going on in the world.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 22:49
Wow, you can dish it out, but you sure can't take it...I've yet to call you a disrespectful name...other than troll...which you demonstrably are.
really? let me list a few of your disrespectful comments and personal attacks...
Nicely done, are you from Mars?
In fact it's you that's sticking your head in the sand
Apply a little critical thought
Sorry slick
Are you out of your mind?
you get thin-skinned
prefer bizarro pseudo-intellectualism
an oblique dig about your argument
I know this might be a shock to you, but if half the information coming out of one's mouth is bullshit, most people tend to discount the other half.
I might be concerned if I thought you knew what a "logical fallacy" was.
pathetically narcisstic
delusional
i was going to delve into the other thread as well, but its been deleted. so i guess this kinda discredits the rest of what you say now doesnt it?
thopkins22
07-06-09, 22:53
I didn't want to involve myself in this but....
What you're saying is that one network(and an ideologically inconsistent one at that,) provides such incredible right wing slant that it overpowers the left wing slant of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the BBC? That Fox News doesn't even out the bias, but it literally gives us a right wing media in general?
Everyone here is open to discussion. I've disagreed vehemently with many of these guys multiple times. I've never been called a troll. I wonder why?;)
parishioner
07-06-09, 22:56
i wouldn't its mostly conservative. but i think the mainstream news media is slightly biased to the right overall.
(takes a deep breath) Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Karl Rove and even Rush is sometimes seen on one network and one network only and that is FOX.
Everyone knows that Fox is conservative rightwing. I cant believe I am explaining this. Fox is the only network expressing conservative viewpoints. (Ideally, no news network should be giving any viewpoints but thats what happens when you have 24 hour news channels.)
All the other major networks, including televison, and hollywood all show their liberal tendencies.
I don't know how you can draw such a conclusion, when Fox is only one network.
Conservatives are clearly outgunned.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 22:58
I didn't want to involve myself in this but....
What you're saying is that one network(and an ideologically inconsistent one at that,) provides such incredible right wing slant that it overpowers the left wing slant of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the BBC? That Fox News doesn't even out the bias, but it literally gives us a right wing media in general?
Everyone here is open to discussion. I've disagreed vehemently with many of these guys multiple times. I've never been called a troll. I wonder why?;)
no, i'd say that the one right wing network Fox, and the left wing network, MSNBC, generally balance each other out. then the other networks are fairly centrist, with a slight conservative bias. the pendulum swings though. recently it seems to be swinging to the liberal side.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 23:02
Everyone knows that Fox is conservative rightwing. I cant believe I am explaining this. Fox is the only network expressing conservative viewpoints. (Ideally, no news network should be giving any viewpoints but thats what happens when you have 24 hour news channels.)
i disagree that they are the only network expressing conservative viewpoints. they are of course the most right wing of all the networks, but I see plenty of conservative viewpoints presented on the other networks as well.
All the other major networks, including televison, and hollywood all show their liberal tendencies.
i will not disagree that the majority of television and movies is very liberal.
but the conservatives definitely own talk radio.
I don't know how you can draw such a conclusion, when Fox is only one network.
Conservatives are clearly outgunned.
IMO, Fox is the only obviously conservative network, and MSNBC is the obvious liberal network. The rest fall somewhere in between depending on the show, the guests, etc.
clearly outgunned? not hardly.
thopkins22
07-06-09, 23:07
no, i'd say that the one right wing network Fox, and the left wing network, MSNBC, generally balance each other out. then the other networks are fairly centrist, with a slight conservative bias. the pendulum swings though. recently it seems to be swinging to the liberal side.
They may be less overtly liberal than MSNBC, but you're kidding yourself if you think they support anything remotely "right wing" or favor anything that limits the scope of government.
To be clear, do you really think the Republican party is very right wing these days? Hell, even Fox News would be deemed liberal by conservatives like Goldwater and Taft.
rickrock305
07-06-09, 23:24
They may be less overtly liberal than MSNBC, but you're kidding yourself if you think they support anything remotely "right wing" or favor anything that limits the scope of government.
To be clear, do you really think the Republican party is very right wing these days? Hell, even Fox News would be deemed liberal by conservatives like Goldwater and Taft.
ahhh, therein lies the rub. no, i don't think the republican party is conservative anymore at all. yes, they have become very liberal, yet not like a left wing type of liberal. well i guess it is in a way, in that they are not worried about increasing spending and inserting government into our lives more and more...but they've been hijacked by the religious right. now they campaign on gay marriage and abortion, two ridiculous issues IMO. gone are the days of smaller government and reduced spending.
TheGreenRanger24
07-06-09, 23:39
ahhh, therein lies the rub. no, i don't think the republican party is conservative anymore at all. yes, they have become very liberal, yet not like a left wing type of liberal. well i guess it is in a way, in that they are not worried about increasing spending and inserting government into our lives more and more...but they've been hijacked by the religious right. now they campaign on gay marriage and abortion, two ridiculous issues IMO. gone are the days of smaller government and reduced spending.
The only "ridiculous issues" this country needs to keep an eye on right now are the ones being forced down our throats because of the current administration. Anyone with an open mind and with the least bit of intellectual honesty can see that almost every news network airing on TV right now is leftist. The scary thing is that they are steeped so far to the left that the networks have deluded themselves into thinking they are centrist. Fox News and radio talk shows may be seen as more conservative, but that does not even begin to moderate the intense liberal agenda broadcast to this nation by EVERY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET.
On a somewhat related note: It kills me how most liberals I know can never really look at an issue intellectually. If you don't agree with their feelings, you're a nut job or some kind of terrorist. :rolleyes:
rickrock, I'll concede this point though: the Republican party is definitely not conservative anymore. They need to pull their collective heads out of their asses and go back to "Reagonology."
Oh, here's some food for thought:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/nutjob.html
Powell has made a political career of dissenting with whoever is in power. He's always the guy who says, "wow, that was a bad idea!"
And the dude drives (or at least drove) a PT Cruiser. I mean come on, how can you take someone seriously when he's in a PT Cruiser?
I lost alot of respect for him, when he endorsed Obama. Maybe it was a shot at the Republicans after his term as Sec of State,maybe it was along racial lines:confused: I would define his political views as center right. Seemed like John McCain and he would see eye to eye on many policies.
I began to question his choice in automobiles when I read his autobiography a while back, IIRC he was a vintage Volvo or Volkwagon Bug enthusist, something like that. Whatever it was, I remember cringing when I read it.
They may be less overtly liberal than MSNBC, but you're kidding yourself if you think they support anything remotely "right wing" or favor anything that limits the scope of government.
To be clear, do you really think the Republican party is very right wing these days? Hell, even Fox News would be deemed liberal by conservatives like Goldwater and Taft.
I would argue mainstream America politics has gone left, look at JFK. He ran on the platform of cutting taxes and increasing military spending. If someone ran on that today they would be considered a "war monger" or "preying on the poor."
One thing about lib's they can be really fuzzy on the facts and history. They could bash Bush on one hand, "Bush is a totalitarian dictator", "Bush trampled the Constitution more than any President","Gitmo is a gulag",ect,ect,ect. while praise FDR as there idealogical hero. What FDR did couldnt even be compared to Bush. Stacking the Supreme Court to pass his commie agenda and build his voting block, 4 terms in office, Internment camps,executing German sabotuers in a military tribunal,commissioning the creation of atomic weapons. I dont neccessarily disagree with some of that, namely executing the Germans captured on the East Coast or the Manahattan Project. Still its pretty funny, though listening to the lack of historical perspective when they are critical of poliiocal opponents.
One of the libs I know, used to bash FOX unstop for being impartial, violating journalistic integrity, bought "Outfoxed",ect. Now they watch MSNBC every night and cant even see the hypocricy. Speaking of MSNBC, I remember hearing Olbermann comparing General Petraeus' testimony regarding the Surge to Congress with General MacArthur being relieved by President Truman.A reasoanble person who stayed awake during US history would really question his cognitive ability.
no, i'd say that the one right wing network Fox, and the left wing network, MSNBC, generally balance each other out. then the other networks are fairly centrist, with a slight conservative bias. the pendulum swings though. recently it seems to be swinging to the liberal side.
I would say the media is by and large sensationlist across the board, that would be the common denominator,IMO. I'll say this much, its pretty rare to find a detailed positive story about the GWOT in the mainstream media. You have to seek it on your own. On the other hand, Abu Graib,waterboarding,ect is beaten to death, every detail is released while its in the news cycle. Is it political or merely just seeking sensational stories that sell ??? Still its my view that alot of stories are not being told, or are glossed over.
rickrock305
07-07-09, 06:08
On a somewhat related note: It kills me how most liberals I know can never really look at an issue intellectually. If you don't agree with their feelings, you're a nut job or some kind of terrorist. :rolleyes:
thats a two way street. just look at this thread for a perfect example. i disagree and i get called a pseudo intellectual, delusional, etc.
rickrock305
07-07-09, 06:11
I'll say this much, its pretty rare to find a detailed positive story about the GWOT in the mainstream media. You have to seek it on your own. On the other hand, Abu Graib,waterboarding,ect is beaten to death, every detail is released while its in the news cycle. Is it political or merely just seeking sensational stories that sell ???
I think thats more to the point of sensationalism...the american public loves a good scandal.
Their goal isn't to intellectually debate policy. Their goal is to get you to lick their boots.
Gutshot John
07-07-09, 07:35
really? let me list a few of your disrespectful comments and personal attacks...
Nicely done, are you from Mars?
In fact it's you that's sticking your head in the sand
Apply a little critical thought
Sorry slick
Are you out of your mind?
you get thin-skinned
prefer bizarro pseudo-intellectualism
an oblique dig about your argument
I know this might be a shock to you, but if half the information coming out of one's mouth is bullshit, most people tend to discount the other half.
I might be concerned if I thought you knew what a "logical fallacy" was.
pathetically narcisstic
delusional
i was going to delve into the other thread as well, but its been deleted. so i guess this kinda discredits the rest of what you say now doesnt it?
Yep, no names there. Besides the truth is an affirmative defense...your "delusional" claim that you were being singled out because you dissented was "pathetically narcisstic". You have no idea of what a "logical fallacy" is as you've employed several from the very first, most notably the straw man. An "oblique dig at your argument" isn't the same as an ad hominem, and that you kept whining when you kept discrediting yourself indicates a thin-skinned ego.
You're conflating critiques of your rhetorical "form" with a personal attack. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.
If you wish to apply that standard to me, you should probably apply that standard to yourself.
Something stinks with this guy. Because his statements are so chocked full of ignorance, even though RR apparently owns some firearms he is clearly either a troll or is operating from some remote location only he has awareness of.
For some reason when Mjolnir does this crap no one says anything but me, yet this goof gets everyone riled up. To be honest, I am starting to think they are one in the same. They both make ludicrous, inflammatory statements, yet they remain pleasant when fully discredited while continuing to spin the truth.
Could it be? :eek:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.