Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The media spent 7.5 years aggressively opposing the Presidents plan under Bush. And you think that the media was favorable to him? They would dedicate shows and hours to opposition to the wars, especially Iraq.
And as for President Clinton, was the media supposed to simply embargo coverage of his trial and lies under oath? I know as a Liberal you're used to that type of treatment for prominent Democrats (remember when John Edwards was caught cheating by the National Enquirer, the media didn't pick up the story for weeks, even after it was well established)
The media spent 7.5 years aggressively opposing the Presidents plan under Bush. And you think that the media was favorable to him? They would dedicate shows and hours to opposition to the wars, especially Iraq.
And as for President Clinton, was the media supposed to simply embargo coverage of his trial and lies under oath? I know as a Liberal you're used to that type of treatment for prominent Democrats (remember when John Edwards was caught cheating by the National Enquirer, the media didn't pick up the story for weeks, even after it was well established)
LOL. What world have you been living in? When Bush sat around reading My Pet Goat looking like a deer caught in the headlights, did the media criticize his performance? No. When it came out after 9/11 that Bush and Condi Rice had a report saying that Bin Laden was determined to attack the U.S., did the media pounce all over them for that? No. They moved on pretty quickly. When Bush claimed that Iraq had WMDs, did the media question that? No. They went right along with it, even wrote stories supporting that bogus claim. When Bush famously said that he wasn't concerned about where Bin Laden is, did the media give him a hard time about that? No. They gave him a pass. When Clinton got caught lying about sex with an intern, did the media say "this is a minor story not worth spending a lot of time on?" No. Instead they wasted years talking about it.
I clearly did refute your points, but let's do it again! It's so easy and fun!
About the President reading My Pet Goat. The World Trade Centers hit just been knocked down, the most important story wasn't what the President was doing at the time. It was, uh, the fact that 3000 Americans had just been murdered by Muslims.
The media certainly did report on the issue of CIA report discussing Bin Laden's plans to attack the US, they also rightly pointed out that many such reports are issued... I certainly read and saw reports on the subject, where were you?
Did the media question the WMD issue? Are you kidding? YES, in the aftermath Hans Blix was treated like a god. I'm not sure if you were traveling the world and had no access to any sort of media, but if you were old enough to remember, here in America, the media tried to delay the invasion by questioning the premise of the war. Did the media have all the facts? No, and that's probably why they didn't hammer the President as hard as they did after they had all the facts. If you think that our media was easy on the President at any point, except perhaps a few days after 9/11, I would honestly question your sanity and intellect.
I find it very funny that you Liberals minimize a President lying under oath, to a Federal court but maximize a President's accent. It's pathetic. Bill Clinton should have been impeached, and if not for a complicite media, he would have lost his office.
The idea that the media in general is anything but far left is hilarious me. There is one 24 hour news station that could be called Conservative, the other 3 major ones range from left, to far left. The 3 major networks all have clearly far left evening news shows. You're probably so confused, I bet you still think Tom Brokaw is a moderate.
Print news is very Liberal, talk radio is Conservative, thats why the left is trying to shut it down. They know that if you control the media, you control the people, and the left is about controlling people to do what they don't want to. Most Liberals, as opposed to Conservatives, hate their views being questioned, so they try and stifle debate. If they can't stop the debate by shutting down opposition (as Stalin did, and many Democrats do with the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine) they refuse to debate in all but the most favorable of conditions. Why do you think that the DNC has boycotted Fox while the RNC never boycotted media simply because they felt that a certain outlet was biased.
Liberalism is based on emotion, that's why it doesn't hold to scrutiny, which is why the few smart Liberals push to end debate by changing the facts and the terms (such as this ridiculous notion as a Conservatice bias) and then shutting down such biased outlets by laws.
I clearly did refute your points, but let's do it again! It's so easy and fun!
Actually you didn't no matter how many times you claim to have done so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthBound47
About the President reading My Pet Goat. The World Trade Centers hit just been knocked down, the most important story wasn't what the President was doing at the time. It was, uh, the fact that 3000 Americans had just been murdered by Muslims.
Interesting how you had to point out that 3000 Americans had just been murdered by Muslims. Would it have been less tragic has those people been killed by Russians? Of course not. And yet you chose to highlight that the killers were Muslims. That suggests that you have a problem with an entire group of people all because of their religion. As for what President Bush was doing at the time of the attack, that's just as important a story as the attack itself. In a time of crisis, people look to their leaders to take charge and remain calm, not look like they're clueless. Why do you think there's so much anger at Obama over this BP oil spill? It's because he doesn't look like he's taking control of the crisis. Same with Bush on 9/11. Andy Card walks in and tells him America is under attack. What does he do? He sits there. For 7 minutes! A good leader would've immediately excused himself to deal with the crisis. Did the media bother to point this out? Nope. They gave him a pass because they were too worried about looking unpatriotic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthBound47
The media certainly did report on the issue of CIA report discussing Bin Laden's plans to attack the US, they also rightly pointed out that many such reports are issued... I certainly read and saw reports on the subject, where were you?
The media didn't give the story the attention it deserved. When Condi Rice went before Congress and admitted that she had seen the report, she acted like it was no big deal. The media also acted like it was no big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthBound47
Did the media question the WMD issue? Are you kidding? YES, in the aftermath Hans Blix was treated like a god. I'm not sure if you were traveling the world and had no access to any sort of media, but if you were old enough to remember, here in America, the media tried to delay the invasion by questioning the premise of the war. Did the media have all the facts? No, and that's probably why they didn't hammer the President as hard as they did after they had all the facts. If you think that our media was easy on the President at any point, except perhaps a few days after 9/11, I would honestly question your sanity and intellect.
Nice try. Questioning my sanity and intellect doesn't make your argument any stronger. The bottom line is that media didn't question the WMD claim. People like Judith Miller were acting like cheerleaders for the Bush administration. The media, like Congress, was too afraid to be seen as unpatriotic. What they also realized is that was is good for ratings. Look at what the first Gulf War did for CNN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthBound47
I find it very funny that you Liberals minimize a President lying under oath, to a Federal court but maximize a President's accent. It's pathetic. Bill Clinton should have been impeached, and if not for a complicite media, he would have lost his office.
What's pathetic is that you think lying about about having sex with an intern rises to the level of an impeachable offense. If the media was complicit in anything, it's in encouraging Clinton's impeachment. Why? Because it was good for ratings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthBound47
The idea that the media in general is anything but far left is hilarious me. There is one 24 hour news station that could be called Conservative, the other 3 major ones range from left, to far left. The 3 major networks all have clearly far left evening news shows. You're probably so confused, I bet you still think Tom Brokaw is a moderate.
Your argument here is what's hilarious because it fails the credibility test. The networks are owned by big corporations. Those corporations answer to shareholders, shareholders who don't care about things like journalistic values or keeping the public informed. What they care about is ratings and the value of their shares. That's why it's in their best interests to favor a party that's pro-business. Conservatives are just sore losers. If the media runs a story that's critical of them and their policies, they label them as "liberal". They do the same thing with the courts. If the court renders a decision they don't like, they declare the judge to be "an activist legislating from the bench." But if they give a decision they agree with, then the judge is simply said to be adhering to the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthBound47
Print news is very Liberal, talk radio is Conservative, thats why the left is trying to shut it down. They know that if you control the media, you control the people, and the left is about controlling people to do what they don't want to. Most Liberals, as opposed to Conservatives, hate their views being questioned, so they try and stifle debate. If they can't stop the debate by shutting down opposition (as Stalin did, and many Democrats do with the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine) they refuse to debate in all but the most favorable of conditions. Why do you think that the DNC has boycotted Fox while the RNC never boycotted media simply because they felt that a certain outlet was biased.
They boycott Fox (and rightfully so) because it's not a legitimate news organization. It's simply the right wing's propaganda tool, a way of keeping its followers misinformed so that they'll vote against their own interests. But you're right about controlling the media to control what people think. That's why Fox News spouts Republican talking points. It's why Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal. It's why CNBC gives favorable coverage to corporations. If you keep people misinformed, it's easy to manipulate what they think. You're a perfect example of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthBound47
Liberalism is based on emotion, that's why it doesn't hold to scrutiny, which is why the few smart Liberals push to end debate by changing the facts and the terms (such as this ridiculous notion as a Conservatice bias) and then shutting down such biased outlets by laws.
Liberalism is based on rational thought and using reason, not appealing to fear and ignorance which is the conservative model. If you truly understood liberals, you'd know that we welcome ongoing debate. It's conservatives who seek to shut down dissent. Just look at how they reacted to any debate about the decision to invade Iraq. If you dared to question the doctrine of preemptive war, you were immediately labeled as un-American and of supporting the terrorists. At Bush rallies, why were protesters moved to far away locations? There's a perfect example of conservatives shutting down dissent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthBound47
Yes, Liberals do support ending the free press.
Wrong, but then given how little you understand liberals, the media and economics, why am I not surprised by this statement. Liberals strongly believe in a free press. What we don't believe in is one whose agenda is dictated by corporations or one where the content is just talking points of the Republican party. Seriously, go learn something about liberals before you start posting. Otherwise, you just sound like a misinformed fool.
The relationship between corporate welfare and unemployment is simple. The more we support the corporate America the higher the unemployment. Firing workers improves short term profit. The bill for supporting the rapacious and fraudulent financial industry will be far greater then supplying food and housing to the poor.
Obama just can't take the heat i the kitchen as Truman said. he has spent alot his time preaching much like the rev. wroight that his results are the fault of someone else and pointing fingers. It keeps the maddening mob from actually holding him accoutable for his results in spending away much of their future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
