 | | 
10-23-09, 09:29 AM
|  | Cuthbert catcher | | Join Date: May 1999 Location: Anywhere except the Unemployment Line
Posts: 1,050
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by dew22  How does your view address public prayer high school graduation, govt meeting, etc. etc? | Absolutely for it. |
10-23-09, 11:24 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Gay Rights/Marriage Rights: I’m Liberal. I could care less who you take to bed and think the gay marriage bans are ridiculous and should all be struck down as unconstitutional. You should be able to marry whoever you want as long as you are both consisting adults. Abortion: I'm Liberal. I fall on the side of women’s rights. Don’t get carried away with that though. I don’t believe abortion is the best answer and prefer adoption. Death Penalty: I'm Moderate. I’m on the fence. I don’t think the death penalty detours anyone, but I’m not ready to totally abolish it (I am a Texan). I do have issues with our system putting innocent people on death row. For that reason I wouldn’t cry too much if the practice were banned. Economic Stimulis: I guess I’m for the stimulus. I recognize that cutting spending would only further slow economic activity. However, I’d like to know where the stimulus funds are going and I’d love to see more of it applied to developing new industry. Ear Marks: I’m an idiot. I hate ear-marks them when they don’t directly benefit the area I live in. Medicare: Liberal. The program needs to be reviewed and restructured to eliminate fraud and waste, but the program needs to continue until we reform the entire health care system and make it unnecessary. Social Security: Liberal. Quote: |
I don't trust it to privatization anymore. I don't like the idea because the people that need it will rely on businessmen. Either fix it or get rid of it
| I second all of that, but I think every working American should pay into and eventually benefit from social security. Separation of Church and State: Moderate. I think there should be no church in the state and no state in the church. I also don’t think politicians should use their public office to force through laws and public policies that favor/reflect the belief systems of any religion. Schools can have prayer at events and even in the classroom, but must be careful not to promote any single religion. Health Care: Very liberal. Access to high quality, affordable, health care should be a right. We need a public health care system or public insurance plan. We need to reform our health industry and eliminate wasteful practices. The health care system if unaddressed will bankrupt our businesses if we do nothing. Already American business is a severe disadvantage to foreign competition because of the costs of health care.
Wall Street: Liberal?? Enforce the regulations in place and develop regulations to keep up with the changing markets as new schemes for making money are introduced. Banks must be regulated and the stock market firms must be closely watched. Gun Rights: Moderate. You can have your guns, but must submit to the laws/regulations in place to protect the public. I’m all for concealed handgun permits as long as there is mandated gun safety training.
Last edited by jikelly; 10-23-09 at 11:25 AM.
|
10-23-09, 01:25 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: August 2002 Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 344
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly |  You keep posting opinion pieces and editorials referencing PERCEPTION and people's BELIEF about how the Bush Administration mistreated the media....yet you still haven't linked to a SINGLE documented case where they were actually caught red handed....ala the Obama administration..
So, one of two things are true....
1. They didn't do it.
2. The "stupidest" president and most corrupt administration was able to completely cover up the acts from a media completely bent on exposing and vilifying EVERY thing they did.
I tend to believe option 1.
I won't argue for a second that the Bush Administration didn't like the negative media, nor would I even think about denying that they probably tried to "game the system" However, they didn't come right out and describe them as an "Enemy" nor did they actively exclude any news outlet or decry them as less than a news outlet.
Didn't happen.
And my huge issue with this is the precedence that it sets. My issue with MOST of the Obama administration policies are with the precedence that they set.
So....I ask you, in complete honesty.......What will your stance be when a future Republican Administration actively excludes CNN, ABC or NBC because they don't like the critical nature or agree with those networks "bias". Will it be alright then!?
Obviously, the news organizations get the point, because yesterday most of them defended FoxNews's right to be part of the media and presidential press conferences.
The biggest issue, that appears to get little attention, is one of precedence and power. Right now you agree with Obama, so your willing to go with it. What will your opinion be, when this power is held by one you disagree with?
Would you be as happy if it was Bush running the Auto companies? Creating Healthcare? Discussing fairness doctrines on Radio, TV, and the INTERNET? Or addressing Media opinion?
Again, I made a SIMPLE assertion, the Bush Administration never publicly excluded particular news outlet, slandered/vilified particular media individuals or even referred to the media as "under their control"
You have yet to actually prove that assertion wrong. Opinion Blog posts from progressive sites doesn't exactly lend credence to the argument.  |
10-23-09, 05:08 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by RookieOne You keep posting opinion pieces and editorials referencing PERCEPTION and people's BELIEF about how the Bush Administration mistreated the media....yet you still haven't linked to a SINGLE documented case where they were actually caught red handed....ala the Obama administration.. | Really???
Did you miss the following?? Quote:
White House Trains Efforts on Media Leaks
Sources, Reporters Could Be Prosecuted
| White House Trains Efforts on Media Leaks - washingtonpost.com
Do you not remember the event??
As far as the opinion pieces I posted them because you can find further instances via a keyword search.
For example, from the list posted in the balloon juice blog,
- waged a coordinated campaign against NBC.
Led me to... Quote:
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The White House launched an unusual attack on a national news network yesterday for its editing of an interview with President Bush, whose controversial speech comparing negotiations with Iran to the appeasement of Nazis has prompted debate in Washington and on the presidential campaign trail.
"This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible," Gillespie wrote, adding that NBC should air Bush's responses "in full."
NBC News said in a statement that the story "accurately reflects the interview" and questioned the White House's criticisms. "NBC News, as part of a free press in a free society, makes its own editorial decisions," the statement read.
| Politics | White House accuses NBC of distorting Bush interview | Seattle Times Newspaper |
10-23-09, 05:52 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2002 Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 510
| |
This idea is no different then when fundamentalists boycotted Ozzy, Alice Cooper, and KISS. All this will do is make more people curious and make more money for FOX. |
10-23-09, 06:13 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: August 2002 Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 344
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly | Again, I don't disagree with any of the points your posting...however, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
The links and posts your putting up relate to the administration responding directly to a particular story or article.
They do not show or prove in ANY way that the Bush administration had an "Enemies" list of the media, dismissed a particular news network as a whole or single out a news reporter and directly attack them, the messenger.
I wouldn't argue for a second that the previous administration didn't address individual stories or try to do damage control/spin. That's politics 101. The point is that there is a world's difference between that and what the current Administration did, of trying to completely blackball a entire news outlet, being overly condescending to it IN PUBLIC, and bragging about controlling the media.
If the previous administration HAD done such acts or set such precedence, I would surely have expected it during Rather-Gate....however it didn't happen. That would have been the PERFECT time for such actions to happen, and be nearly justified. However, even when confronted by a news organization peddling false documentation, the administration NEVER stooped to calling CBS "not a real news outlet"
I think we have reached the point where the fundamental differences in the way we see things is going to lead to a stalemate. I still believe that the precedence set by these actions is terrifying to all media. |
10-23-09, 07:09 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by RookieOne
I think we have reached the point where the fundamental differences in the way we see things is going to lead to a stalemate. I still believe that the precedence set by these actions is terrifying to all media. | I do see your point and to be honest I can't find any news articles to back up the idea that the Bush white house blacklisted certain reporters. I can find references to misinformation and intimidation campaigns aimed at the press.
The precedence set by Obama's words and actions would bother me if I thought Fox news were a real news organization. Their promotion and coverage of the recent tea parties are an excellent example of what's wrong with Fox news.
I do see some good reports from Fox, but, they have been pushing their anti liberal conservative hogwash to the forefront and started that long before Obama was in the media limelight and that led me to disregard them as a credible news agency. |
10-23-09, 07:10 PM
|  | I felt sorry for girls because I thought they didn't have anything....now all I want is what I thought they didn't have. | | Join Date: January 2002 Location: Dallas, GA
Posts: 5,371
| |
So the media is siding against Obama.
I bet Obama will back down, because he is not a strong leader, and he is a wimp. I pure pussy president.
This I predict will be where Obama begins to fall. |
10-23-09, 07:11 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: south louisiana
Posts: 10,218
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly | The Bush white house pursuing medai leaks of confidential information, (some of which could be prosecuted) and Obama dierctly trying to shut out Fox News simply because they're constantly exposing his dubious activities & the communnist sympathizers he's employed in his administrations are two completely differnt things. You're NOT EVEN close.  Just as you're not close in your insistent claims of Bush wire taps being illegal, while being OK, with Obama's compiling an "enemies list"  Twice now, the first was aimed at the general public who didn't agree with his policies in regard to healthcare. And we all know how that one backfired on him  |
10-23-09, 07:17 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Hearne The Bush white house pursuing medai leaks of confidential information, (some of which could be prosecuted) and Obama dierctly trying to shut out Fox News simply because they're constantly exposing his dubious activities & the communnist sympathizers he's employed in his administrations are two completely differnt things. You're NOT EVEN close. Just as you're not close in your insistent claims of Bush wire taps being illegal, while being OK, with Obama's compiling an "enemies list" Twice now, the first was aimed at the general public who didn't agree with his policies in regard to healthcare. And we all know how that one backfired on him | Be glad I'm not president. There wouldn't be a Fox news on the air. I would revoke their broadcaster's license and say it was due to an ongoing criminal investigation.
"I'm sorry, we don't discuss ongoing investigations." |
10-23-09, 07:19 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: south louisiana
Posts: 10,218
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly I do see your point and to be honest I can't find any news articles to back up the idea that the Bush white house blacklisted certain reporters. I can find references to misinformation and intimidation campaigns aimed at the press.
The precedence set by Obama's words and actions would bother me if I thought Fox news were a real news organization. Their promotion and coverage of the recent tea parties are an excellent example of what's wrong with Fox news.
I do see some good reports from Fox, but, they have been pushing their anti liberal conservative hogwash to the forefront and started that long before Obama was in the media limelight and that led me to disregard them as a credible news agency. |  What a joke. You can only find "references" not actual proof, yet you still think it was true. And what exactly was wrong with Fox's coverage of the Tea Parties ? Who by the way, was the ONLY media outlet to cover them.  The rest only "poo-poohed" the American citizens who showed up. I guess you were perfectly OK with the other media's coverage of antiwar activists ? Like Cindy Sheehan ? But ain't it funny how they NOW treat her ? It's like she doesn't exist now that Obama is in charge (supposedly) of the Wars now. Unlike the other media, Fox doesn't "pick and choose" their coverage of events based on whether it's got a liberal or conservative bent. Any claim otherwise is pure dee |
10-23-09, 07:22 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: south louisiana
Posts: 10,218
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly Be glad I'm not president. There wouldn't be a Fox news on the air. I would revoke their broadcaster's license and say it was due to an ongoing criminal investigation.
"I'm sorry, we don't discuss ongoing investigations." |  Yea, that's what liberals do. When they're out of power, "freedom of speech" is one of the tenents of society. But when they're in charge, the word of the day is censorship and the suspension of civil rights. Now we TRULY see how you libs think. Here is PROOF that all you truly believe in is Facism and Communism.
Last edited by D.Hearne; 10-23-09 at 07:23 PM.
|
10-23-09, 07:58 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| |
Fox doesn't pick and choose coverage?????????????????????????
Do we live in a different universe? My Fox news network is biased as hell and doesn't even try to hide their bias. In my universe the President of The United States is calling them out on their B.S.
Maybe the network will turn things around and actually start giving all the facts. Quote:
Fox News is throwing some serious promotional resources behind its coverage of the conservative-driven, anti-tax "Tea Party" movement. The network is encouraging viewers to participate in protests, which it plans to cover live from at least four locations across the country. Now Media Matters says, the network has gone one teabag too far.
Fox News is making a mockery of its famous slogan, the progressive media watchdog says:
Despite its repeated insistence that its coverage is "fair and balanced" and its invitation to viewers to "say 'no' to biased media," Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with "tea party" protests across the country, which the channel has described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies.
Read more at: Fox News "Tea Party" Coverage Crosses The Line: Media Matters | Fox News "Tea Party" Coverage Crosses The Line: Media Matters
Check this out. Quote: |
Fox News has seized upon a study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) for America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), which concluded that under the Senate Finance Committee health care reform bill, "by 2019 the cost of single coverage is expected to increase by $1,500 more than it would under the current system and the cost of family coverage is expected to increase by $4,000 more than it would under the current system," in some cases reporting the study's conclusions as fact. However, health care experts have noted that, in the words of health care economist Len Nichols, "Aside from the obvious conflict of interest associated with a report funded by the very industry it analyzes, PWC's basic analytic assumptions -- by their own admission -- are at variance with the bill and the opinions of most analysts."
| Fox News runs with faulty industry-funded "study" of Baucus bill | Media Matters for America Quote:
Attack on White House criticism of Fox follows years of GOP assaults on media
October 21, 2009 4:50 pm ET — 53 Comments
Following White House communications director Anita Dunn's entirely justified criticisms of Fox News as an "arm" of the Republican Party, conservative media figures have attacked both Dunn and the Obama administration. But Media Matters for America has compiled a list of organized attacks that GOP leaders -- often aided by Fox News -- have conducted against media outlets based on groundless complaints of bias; those attacks have included boycotts or threatened boycotts of media outlets, efforts to revoke journalists' credentials or ban them from press planes, and even calls to have journalists prosecuted.
In 2001, DeLay reportedly boycotted CNN
In 2002, GOP leadership reportedly threatened or engaged in Crossfire boycott
In 2004, NY Times reporters were excluded from Air Force Two
In 2006, GOP House members sought punishment, possible prosecution of NY Times
In 2008, Bush counselor Gillespie attacked NBC
In 2008, McCain campaign repeatedly attacked press, banned or threatened to ban journalists from campaign plane and bus
In wake of Dunn comments, conservative media attack Dunn, White House
In 2001, DeLay reportedly boycotted CNN
In 2001, news outlets variously reported that former Rep. Tom DeLay personally or congressional conservative Republicans generally were engaged in a boycott of CNN. Around that time, CNN president Walter Isaacson met with congressional Republican leaders to hear their "concerns" about purported liberal bias at CNN, and CNN reportedly courted Rush Limbaugh for a show.
Roll Call: In 2001, DeLay "suggested a boycott" of CNN and personally refused to appear on CNN. From an August 6, 2001, Roll Call article (retrieved from the Nexis database):
During this trip Isaacson also intends to sit down with one of CNN's most vocal Republican critics, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (Texas).
DeLay, who has lambasted CNN as the "Clinton News Network" and "Communist News Network," actually suggested a boycott of the network during a recent bicameral GOP leadership gathering. None of the others Republican lawmakers who were in attendance agreed to take part.
[...]
DeLay has been particularly vocal in his criticism of the Atlanta-based news organization.
"DeLay is on a jihad against CNN," claimed another GOP aide, who said the Texan believes that CNN's coverage of issues clearly favors liberal Democrats over conservative Republicans.
In a telephone interview on Friday, DeLay himself said he "won't go on CNN. They have such a liberal bias. It's quite evident to everyone."
U.S. News reported "congressional conservatives" were engaged in a "boycott" of CNN. From the "Washington Whispers" column in the August 13, 2001, U.S. News & World Report:
CNN execs, desperate to win a broader, more GOP audience, are back to begging congressional conservatives to end their boycott of the network Republicans view as liberal. New boss Walter Isaacson joined the effort last week, meeting with hard-line leaders in the House, Senate, and White House, offering to be more balanced or, as one gleeful participant hoped, more like Fox, which is known for featuring GOP-ers.
CNN president reportedly met with GOP leaders to hear "concerns" about purported bias. From the August 6, 2001, Roll Call article:
In an effort to improve his network's image with conservative leaders, new CNN chief Walter Isaacson huddled with House and Senate GOP leaders last week to seek advice on how to attract more right-leaning viewers to the sagging network.
Isaacson met with Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), House GOP Conference Chairman J.C. Watts (Okla.), Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) to talk about CNN's image with conservatives and how it can be improved.
Isaacson confirmed that he also reached out to senior White House officials, but he denied that he was seeking counsel on how to boost CNN's ratings with conservative viewers.
"I was trying to reach out to a lot of Republicans who feel that CNN has not been as open covering Republicans, and I wanted to hear their concerns," Isaacson said in an interview Friday.
"I definitely did not say, 'How do we attract the conservative viewer?'" said Isaacson, who stressed that his message was, "Let me hear what you think of CNN, and I am here to introduce myself."
Roll Call: CNN outreach "demonstrates to GOP strategists" that "unrelenting" bias accusations "are beginning to hit home": From the August 6, 2001, Roll Call article:
| Attack on White House criticism of Fox follows years of GOP assaults on media | Media Matters for America Quote: Fox News Admits Bias!Its London bureau chief blurts out the political slant that dare not speak its name.
By Timothy NoahPosted Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 12:40 PM ET
Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:
Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.
Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.
Norvell never says the word "conservative" in describing "where [Fox's anchorpeople] stand on particular stories," or what Fox's viewers "know … they are getting." But in context, Norvell clearly is using the example of Fox News to argue that political bias is acceptable when it isn't subsidized by the public (as his op-ed's target, the leftish BBC, is), and when the bias is acknowledged.
| Fox News admits bias! - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine
Should the president not call Fox news on such things? |
10-23-09, 08:22 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| |
This is interesting. Quote:
The three broadcast networks were very similar in the tone of their coverage. ABC and CBS had 68% positive coverage of Obama. NBC gave Obama 73% positive coverage. The networks were similar in the negative coverage of McCain. McCain received only 31% positive coverage on NBC, 33% positive coverage on CBS, and 36% positive coverage on ABC.
On Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” by contrast, coverage of Obama was only 37% positive. His GOP rivals fared little better, as McCain attracted only 41% and Palin 43% positive comments on the Brit Hume anchored show. The partisan difference was greater in FOX’s coverage of the policy debate – comments on McCain’s policies were 61% positive, compared to 33% positive comments about Obama’s policies.
| CMPA: Center for Media and Public Affairs |
10-24-09, 12:18 AM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: August 2002 Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 344
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly |
This "Well, so-and-so did it first" rationalization continues to get old.
I'll point out the obvious yet again, for yet another post you put up.
First off...one link is to an editorial on HuffingtonPost.....need I even say it!? The other two were from media matters.com. Here, a quote right from their "About Us" page : Quote:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
| A Progressive group working to correct conservative misinformation
I find it entertaining, to say the least, that the majority of your sources to defend your position that Fox is overly biased and not a news outlet comes from self-acclaimed progressive outlets with an agenda to attack conservativism.......
Wish I had that "pot calling the kettle black" image to insert here......(ok, so I'm very lazy at this internet thing)
Not to mention, the post DOESN'T HAVE ANYONE FROM THE ACTUAL ADMINISTRATION IN IT!!!!!!
Your still not comparing apples to apples. DeLay was not the Administration. The GOP was not the Administration. Congressional Conservatives WAS NOT THE ADMINISTRATION.
This, is the single scariest thing you have said in this post thus far : Quote: |
The precedence set by Obama's words and actions would bother me if I thought Fox news were a real news organization. Their promotion and coverage of the recent tea parties are an excellent example of what's wrong with Fox news.
| So, as long as you agree with it, it's not an over extension of power, or fundamentally wrong?? Is that it.
Which brings me back to the question I posed a few posts back:
When a Conservative wins the office, and there is a Conservative Administration in the White House (It will happen eventually), will you still support the power that they will wield as a result of the precedences set by this Administration?
Or will you pull a Massachusetts, and rush to change the rules before a Conservative gets the seat?
Last edited by RookieOne; 10-24-09 at 12:23 AM.
|
10-24-09, 12:24 AM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: August 2002 Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 344
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly | The Koolaid getting a little bit thinner?? |
10-24-09, 03:02 AM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: south louisiana
Posts: 10,218
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly | Dodging the question again are we? Now tell me how Fox's bias is somehow going to overcome the rest of the media's left leaning bent ? Why should Fox switch their coverage to match the others ? Fox has THE LARGEST viewership now, about three times the numbers the rest have. Close to more viewers than the others COMBINED.  WHY should they change to match your wishes ? |
10-24-09, 09:04 AM
|  | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly Be glad I'm not president. There wouldn't be a Fox news on the air. I would revoke their broadcaster's license and say it was due to an ongoing criminal investigation.
"I'm sorry, we don't discuss ongoing investigations." | Quote: |
His work as a propagandist materially aided Hitler's rise to power in 1933. When Hitler seized power in 1933, Goebbels was appointed Reichsminister for propaganda and national enlightenment. From then until his death, Goebbels used all media of education and communications to further Nazi propagandistic aims, instilling in the Germans the concept of their leader as a veritable god and of their destiny as the rulers of the world. In 1938 he became a member of the Hitler cabinet council. Late in World War II, in 1944, Hitler placed him in charge of total mobilization.
| |
10-24-09, 11:02 AM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: tucson,az/luray,va
Posts: 3,439
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly Be glad I'm not president. There wouldn't be a Fox news on the air. I would revoke their broadcaster's license and say it was due to an ongoing criminal investigation.
"I'm sorry, we don't discuss ongoing investigations." | very good mr chavez  |
10-24-09, 11:28 AM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2002 Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 510
| |
Just because a news station is biased doesn't mean it should lose their rights, be boycotted, and bullied by something whose position is "leader of the free world" |
10-24-09, 12:37 PM
|  | Member | | Join Date: June 2009 Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 20
| |
Remember when Bush called the media the 4th branch of government?
The free press is supposed to be the watch dog of liberty. When they become the lapdog of the government we are all in trouble.
When any administration is uncomfortable with the exercise of free speech, the prohibtion of government sanctions aginst the exercise of that right is doing its Job. |
10-24-09, 04:04 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Hearne Dodging the question again are we? Now tell me how Fox's bias is somehow going to overcome the rest of the media's left leaning bent ? Why should Fox switch their coverage to match the others ? Fox has THE LARGEST viewership now, about three times the numbers the rest have. Close to more viewers than the others COMBINED. WHY should they change to match your wishes ? | I've dodged no questions.
I'm glad that you admit to Fox's bias. Now I'd like to know why they were the single largest promoters of the tea baggers? Posted via Mobile Device |
10-24-09, 04:48 PM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly I'm glad that you admit to Fox's bias. Now I'd like to know why they were the single largest promoters of the tea baggers?
Posted via Mobile Device | Funny watching you try to margainalize a large group of americans dissatisfied with their govt. |
10-24-09, 05:19 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by RookieOne This "Well, so-and-so did it first" rationalization continues to get old. | ??? Not sure what you mean. Quote:
I'll point out the obvious yet again, for yet another post you put up.
First off...one link is to an editorial on HuffingtonPost.....need I even say it!? The other two were from media matters.com. Here, a quote right from their "About Us" page :
A Progressive group working to correct conservative misinformation | Yeah, you're right. I can't argue that with you.
I'm actually surprised at how few legitimate news organizations have reported on the bias of Fox. We all know they lean right. Is it possible that they are not as far right as I've come to believe they are?
They did promote the tea parties like crazy though, and they do have Hannity and Beck on their network, and they really seem to be anti Obama. Guess that's why y'all love the network so much. Quote: |
I find it entertaining, to say the least, that the majority of your sources to defend your position that Fox is overly biased and not a news outlet comes from self-acclaimed progressive outlets with an agenda to attack conservativism.......
| Quote:
I actually find it troubling.
Not to mention, the post DOESN'T HAVE ANYONE FROM THE ACTUAL ADMINISTRATION IN IT!!!!!!
Your still not comparing apples to apples. DeLay was not the Administration. The GOP was not the Administration. Congressional Conservatives WAS NOT THE ADMINISTRATION.
| Did I not? I'll remedy that later. Quote: |
So, as long as you agree with it, it's not an over extension of power, or fundamentally wrong?? Is that it.
| So long as Fox news is a political player, entertainment and not a real news organization, I will not have issue with the Obama administration ignoring/rebuking them. Quote:
Which brings me back to the question I posed a few posts back:
When a Conservative wins the office, and there is a Conservative Administration in the White House (It will happen eventually), will you still support the power that they will wield as a result of the precedences set by this Administration?
Or will you pull a Massachusetts, and rush to change the rules before a Conservative gets the seat?
| Eventually there will be a "conservative" in office. Will I still support the power the Obama administration now wields turned over to new hands?
Well do you support the powers that Bush wielded and turned over to the Obama administration?
I think we would both answer no to that question. I mean there's stuff we agree with and then there is stuff we think is totally unacceptable. (Signing statements are a good example) |
10-24-09, 05:23 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 Funny watching you try to margainalize a large group of americans dissatisfied with their govt. | Why strtrcr50, are you dodging my question?
I just want them to play fair. They are not. I you think that Fox is the only credible source of news then you are misinformed.
To me Fox is no more credible a news organization than MoveOn.org they are a political organization focused on promoting certain views and their political agenda. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
| | | |
| |
Casper
