Media is controlling the liberal thought process again.....

[( . )( . )]

Weak troll or idiot. Choose.

By the looks of it I think he's just really young and still not very aware. Don't forget for younger guys the leftist cathedral is literally all they have ever been exposed to. They simply know of no other reality. In other words a legit agenda traditionally of the right has never even been seen. How old are you rascal?

 

[rascal99v]

Because the Syria debacle wasn't full of lies? Because Benghazi isn't full of lies? Because the IRS scandal isn't full of lies? Because the Fast and Furious gun running scandal isn't full of lies? All of which are completely ignored by the leftist media.

Who died in Syria? Nobody. How much money was spent going to war in Syria for no reason? None. Did a war in Syria cause deficits to our country and ruin our ecomony? NO. Same old right wing talking points. Fast and Furious was started under Bush. Check it out. The IRS was proven to be false. Even FOX news stopped talking about it. Issa had to backtrack and said on FOX News that he "has no evidence" of anything. That's why he dropped it. The right Wing media looks for anything to destroy a sitting Democratic President.

The media lambasted Bush for the Iraq war, no amount of your revisionist thinking is going to change that fact.

Not true at all. Do you even remember you history?

Every major network was cheering for the war. In fact they had a countdown ticker until it started. Bush got praise and huge press coverage after 9/11. The media was all for him like it should have been because of that. He was dubbed "the Popular War Time President" in every newspaper. "Liberal media"? LOL :crackup:

Go back and read some old copies. Then he got caught lying about the war. Changing his stories every other day about what the real reason was for going. Cheney pressuring for a war with no facts. Taking shaky evidence and trying to push that as facts. Using Colin Powell as a stooge to have him lie at the UN for their war

Yes, he should be lambasted for that. Just like any President should be. If the Media was so "Liberal", Bush wouldn't have won a second term with a "Liberal Media".

You mean my example is weak? Hardly, it is a perfect clear-cut display of what is constantly going on around us regarding the leftist media organizations.

Yes, your example is very weak. You haven't given any good examples at all.

What is clear cut? You can only name CNN and the big 3 networks which only have 30 minutes of news each night. They don't have news all day long dude. Print media is owned by conservatives like Rupert Murdoch, who owns over 25 magazines and newspapers. He also owns all the FOX TV affiliates and 20th Century FOX which is Hollywood movies that you like to claim is so Liberal..

Hell, most news stories you read today only give the perspectives of Pelosi, Reid, and Barry. Watch any of the major networks, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc,... and you will find they ALL constantly have Barry's mouthpieces on speaking, but hardly ever and Right leaning politicians.

LOL...This proves that you don't watch anything at all on the other networks. You just believe only what you hear from FOX news and right wing radio. Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele, John MCcain's daughter, George Will, Bill Bennett, Alex Castellanos, David Gergen and others are all Republicans that contribute to these networks. They all were involved in Republican Presidential campaigns and even ran the Republican National Committee.

If you think my example is ridiculous, I challenge you to go and find alternatives from those same networks I listed above where they completely agreed with Bush invading Iraq.

Yes, your example is ridiculous. But, I think you also think it's ridiculous as well, because you mention that it is.

Actually, I challenged you to find where this "Liberal Media" is at that you speak of. You keep naming the same things, but you can't find any other "Liberal Media", can you?

Nobody can completely agree with everything. Do you completely agree with your girlfriend or wife?

There were individuals on the networks who didn't agree with the war. But as a whole, all the coverage on all the networks were positive for Bush's war. They were being Cheerleaders for it. Why the hell do you think it was so popular for? Because the "Liberal Media" as you claim, pushed the news in a positive light for support of the war.

I mention cartoons, but the ENTIRE media was abuzz in how it was racist to make fun of Barry.

Well, when you portray the President eating watermelon and chicken, hanging a sign on an outhouse by calling it the White House, having a racist Judge email racist jokes about the Presidents' deceased mother, congressmen putting racist comments on their web sites, portraying the President as Hitler, I think deserves some press coverage, don't you?

As far as radio stations, they pale in comparison to the reach of the major networks I list above.

Conservative radio outnumbers Liberal radio, FOX NEWS and it affiliates outnumber MSNBC, CNN has conservative pundits, ABC, NBC, CBS only shows 30 minutes of national News, which only devoted 10 minutes maybe to the President. Print media is owned by people like Murdoch and Tribune. So, where is the "Liberal Media" that you speak of?

You can't name anything else except your same examples like peaks & valleys and deasin try to claim.

 

[dasein]

By the looks of it I think he's just really young and still not very aware. Don't forget for younger guys the leftist cathedral is literally all they have ever been exposed to. They simply know of no other reality. In other words a legit agenda traditionally of the right has never even been seen. How old are you rascal?

Yeah, probably a sophomore.

The good news is that right wing media is moving the dialogue more back to center by beating the pink media in the ratings and $$ dept. It's just as much about people being tired of "dumb" media as "left" media. Personally, I find Fox boring, though their format is better and smarter, the show hosts more literate even when waxing doctrinaire, which is why they kick the competition. I can't even watch CNN, it's so dumbed down. Growing up in the 70s, the slant was outrageous, I remember watching the famous "Guns of Autumn" on 60 Minutes as an eight year old and even then knowing something was wrong in media news. 60 Minutes used to be an organ of the Democratic Party just like 20/20 and PBS still are. 60 Min seems to be wising up though, the post net mob is not as gullible as prenet, and won't suck down the tripe as easily, so they have to change or go away.

and @ troll, FYI of the 25 largest newspapers in the country, exactly TWO are demonstrably conservative leaning, the WSJ and the Orange County Reporter. A handful of the rest are center, a vast majority demonstrably left. The Washington Times isn't even on the list. This slant proves on down into smaller papers. This is changing slowly, as the papers are fighting for survival, and when the chips are down, waving their historical pink flag threatens to put them in the dinosaur bin because you can only rubbish your advertisers for so many decades before they stop buying ads in your paper. But rest assured, in good times for papers, they wear their Mao hats proudly.

All of the big three networks, ABC, CBS, NBC are left.

Two of the three big news networks are left, MSNBC and CNN.

CNBC used to be center, but has drifted far left, especially in evening programming mostly focused on rubbishing American companies with constant "greed and corporate scam" shows. FBN will be kicking their asses soon enough, which would not have been possible had CNBC remained center.

The three main news magazines? Time, Newsweek, USNWR, all left.

So keep on trying to make it all about talk radio and Fox News with its 2 million audience compared to NPR's 24 million. Pffft. But since you are hung up on "conservative radio," read and learn, from a lefty source you shouldn't have a problem with:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/04/rush-vs-npr

Crow. Eat.

Oh, and we all know that networks have "counterviews" from the other side, usually weak sisters set up to knock down, Fox does it too, business as usual, but will say Fox has better leftist foils and allows them to speak their minds. Doesn't change the networks' overall slant one iota.

One final thing, about 70-80% of those employed in journalism vote Democrat and under 10% self-identify as conservatives, this hasn't changed in 40 years. Suuuuure, there's no slant, none at all.

 

[Peaks&Valleys]

I'm not a right winger, but I listen to right wing radio to see how much the right wing is lying. I hear what they say. I check it out. Then I learn that is not correct. You should do the same.

I should do what? Listen to right wing radio stations to see if they're lying? Then automatically assume they're lying based on evidence I made up in my brain?

I'm good.

What list? You haven't named anything of value. Have you done any research yourself to know this? Don't take what you hear on the radio or Fox News to be factual.

Thanks for the tip, I'll take that into consideration.

Do you realize how ignorant you sound? With your poor examples and biased opinions.

In all honesty, I think this is the first political "discussion" I've been in on these forums. But this, technically, isn't a political discussion. All we're arguing here is which side has a larger share in the media outlets. There's no bias about it, it's not what you believe or how you feel. This is actual factual $hit you should be able to look up.

Billionaire right wing owners and corporations own most of them. Ever hear of Tribune? Ever hear of Rupert Murdoch? He owns over 25 magazines and newspapers that reaches the most people. He even owns 20th Century FOX Movie corporation. You like to talk about Hollywood so much. What about him and the other right wingers who actually own the companies? They are making money off your "Liberal Hollywood" as you claim.

Yeah, I'm sure they are. So?

The TV Show Bones gives you "Liberal News"? :crackup: How does a TV show or a movie make a person Liberal? :crackup:

What? I'll try to figure out what you were asking here. Here we go:

Writers, directors, producers even actors. In Hollywood, except for the few closet conservatives, they're liberal. That's it. If you didnt' have biased tunnel vision you would realize that through their writing, directing, producing, acting, that they would be pushing their political agenda. That's a "media" outlet.

You are giving more weak examples. College Professors? College professors are not in the media. LOL How does a college professor that has a few hundred students compare to a radio station that has millions of listeners?

You may have an argument there, they're not exactly media. Even though they pick the books you read, and the topics you study, and the media outlets you cover. And considering the vast majority of college professors are liberal, there may be some bias there. Nobody's forced to listen to a radio station. When you go to college, you're forced to listen to your professors.

So, it's all liberal? How about a little homework assignment? Go to all the talk radio stations in the U.S. and count the number of right wing stations to liberal stations. Then go and count all the conservative newspapers to the moderate to liberal papers. After that, count up all the right wing blogs and web sites compared to the liberal ones. Come back here and report your findings. Then show me where this "Liberal Media" that you believe exists.

There's thousands of radio stations and a gazillion blogs. It's more about how many viewers, readers, listeners each of these outlets cover. Does that make sense?

Ever Hear of The Wall Street Journal? The Washington Times? Arizona Republic? New York Post? Colorado Springs Gazette? Denver Post? Boston Globe? San Diego Union Tribune? That is already 8 to 1 dude, should I go on?

So those are all conservative? Is that what you're trying to say? Well, lets see here. The Washington times, never heard of it. Arizona Republic, what's that? Why are you posting newspapers that the only people who them are those that actually live there. Well, I guess The Wall Street Journal could be one that people read on a national scale, good for you, you found one! Haven't read this one in years, let's look it up and see what the 'ol wiki has to say about it. Not sure if it's correct but I'll believe wiki over the 'ol rascally rascal over here.

In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo calculated the ideological bias of 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The Journal was the most liberal, more liberal than NPR or The New York Times.

Hmm, what do you know.

Howard Stern is not syndicated. He is on XM and most people don't subscribe to pay radio. Actually Howard did support Bush at one point. Name me one big time syndicated Liberal talk show host.

Oprah?

 

[Married Buried]

Because the Syria debacle wasn't full of lies? Because Benghazi isn't full of lies? Because the IRS scandal isn't full of lies? Because the Fast and Furious gun running scandal isn't full of lies? All of which are completely ignored by the leftist media.

You really can't compare these things. People were dying every day for years in Iraq. Including American troops. Ofcourse that will get talked about more. Those other scandals were pretty minor compared to this.


Bush thought he was going to be a hero, in and out in 3 months. Remember Cheney saying it's only going to cost 300 million?

I don't need to tell you what happened next.

 

[Married Buried]

I repeat, making fun of Bush was NEVER considered bad by ANY OF THE NETWORKS. But ONE guy dresses as Obama in a clownsuit, and suddenly we are the most racist, hateful nation on the planet.

No, the liberal media will NOT have it. If you question ANYTHING about Barry, you are racist. Not even comedic value is allowed.

Remember this one? HAHHAA that was funny as hell. Imagine if they did this with Obama?

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/bush-chimp.jpg

 

[dasein]

Bush thought he was going to be a hero, in and out in 3 months.

No. he was very clear, in speech after speech immediately post 9/11, that retaliation and attempts to prevent future 9/11s would be a long, drawn out, difficult and expensive proposition. At that time, the whole country was clamoring for response. Going to the Middle East post 911 was the clearest mass popular mandate since entering WW2 post Pearl Harbor. Had we not gone there, future violence such as the Boston bombing (and who knows what else would have occured without our Iraq intervention) would have had Bush leading the list of all time worst presidents instead of just a mediocre one. Scylla and Charybdis for poor old GWB. Almost every single U.S. president, good, bad, smart, dumb, left, right, Demo, GOP, in history would have committed to the long haul and trillions of expense in the ME post 911.

The American Public's memory has and always will be the span of a gnat's hair, like old ladies who order rich at a fancy restaurant and then are panic stricken and finger pointing when the bill arrives. We HAD TO go there, a vast majority of the public demanded it. Where would we go? Where and under what pretense that the rest of the civilized world would accept? I'm 100% sure this was debated in intel wonky land, and "WMDs" in Iraq were the best available pretense that wouldn't give our enemies excuse to prosecute their pet atrocities du jour at the same time.

It's only the left that hypocritically wants to bring out the agitprop microscope in retrospect, make it all into a tabloid headline for the ignorant, fake WMDs, oil imperialism or some Bush family jihad, and the left mob, with the political awareness and historical memory of fruit flies, eat that right up every time. The hypocrisy of this spin outs when any reasonable criticisms of the O administration in the present are dismissed out of hand as "racism" or due to something "Bush or Republicans did." Democrats were all over pleasing their constituencies at the time by going to the ME. Hell, Bush's response was probably a large factor in his reelection in 2004... but the ghastly bill had not yet arrived at the old ladies' table, LOL. "If you want the lobster, Catherine, get it! it's OK with us."

Occam's Razor holds clearly and correctly that the post 911 U.S. presence in Iraq was motivated by fear and uncertainty per 911 and future terrorism, it was a risk we had no choice but to address and manage. We had no idea whether 911 was the first of many planned attacks, whether we would have a 911 of the week going forward, convenient to forget this in retrospect. Moreover, we have no way of measuring the effectiveness of the chosen route against the massive costs, but trying to talk about the cost alone and not the prospective benefit obtained is just typical leftist agitprop. Interesting that all the left's exorbitantly expensive social and other programs are never held to the same standards.

And it's a fact that most of the Bush deficits followed directly from this historical necessity, not from paltry 5% tax bracket reductions (which despite current spin and dishonest framing, were not "tax cuts" but revisions to the pre Clinton bracket increases of 1993). The Obama administration has faced no such historical necessity. No administration post Kennedy (Cuban Missile) has faced such. Luckily for Kennedy, Cuba was a known geographic quantity and right next door, terrorism leading to 911 was definitely not such.

For the record, I almost died in 911, and was one of the few who didn't want to go to the ME in retaliation (and was probably wrong in that), hate the idea of the Patriot Act, hate HLS and its excesses, but despite that, understand reasonably that we were going and doing as a matter of mass public mandate, that fighting a hidden, borderless enemy would take lots of time and cost trillions. Though not and never a Republican, I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror as an honest, reasonable person if I laid 911 and the resulting expense entirely on Bush or even the Republicans. It was a true public mandate, and like the old ladies pointing a finger at "Hilda who ordered the most expensive dessert" as the entire cause of the $200 lunch bill, Bush gets all the blame and none of the credit for the fact that we haven't had much terrorism in the U.S. since 911. I believe that history will be much kinder to the Bush admin in this regard.

 

[dasein]

"Mass public mandate" to invade Iraq, that's a new one lol. Nevermind the deliberate propaganda campaign waged to sell the war...we FORCED Bush to do it

We all know that Bush had a solid 30-40% support from left wing neoconservative Republicans no matter what he did.

Read. Learn. Get some perspective that doesn't come from a leftyblog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

I was living on the edge of the f-cking crater at the time in half a foot of dust made of people, paper and god knows what, didn't know what I was breathing, and still didn't support going. That doesn't mean I can facilely dismiss historical fact and clear public mandate in the choices we made, point fingers today, or retroactively dismiss with hindsight the fact that we were in a domestically uncertain climate where terrorism on our soil was concerned. A vast majority of the public of all stripes was hollering for blood, not as a result of propaganda, but because that's what Americans tend to do when people come over here and blow up our sh-t.

 

[Married Buried]

For the record, I almost died in 911, and was one of the few who didn't want to go to the ME in retaliation (and was probably wrong in that), hate the idea of the Patriot Act, hate HLS and its excesses, but despite that, understand reasonably that we were going and doing as a matter of mass public mandate, that fighting a hidden, borderless enemy would take lots of time and cost trillions. Though not and never a Republican, I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror as an honest, reasonable person if I laid 911 and the resulting expense entirely on Bush or even the Republicans. It was a true public mandate, and like the old ladies pointing a finger at "Hilda who ordered the most expensive dessert" as the entire cause of the $200 lunch bill, Bush gets all the blame and none of the credit for the fact that we haven't had much terrorism in the U.S. since 911. I believe that history will be much kinder to the Bush admin in this regard.

There was nothing wrong with going to the ME after 9/11. Afghanistan was understandable. Iraq was a stupid mistake.

 

[dasein]

There was nothing wrong with going to the ME after 9/11. Afghanistan was understandable. Iraq was a stupid mistake.

We share some common ground here at least. I agree that a protracted operation may have been a mistake in retrospect. But then we now have the benefit of hindsight. Stupid though? I can't say that. What I can say is that I'm sure glad I'm not the one who had to make the call on how to respond to 9/11 or suggest a course of action, and that the low incidence of terrorist acts here after 9/11 is worth even high cost to achieve compared to other national objectives such as the war on drugs and various other fiscal black holes that we don't scrutinize and weigh as carefully as we should.

Terrorism's power comes partially from its randomness and irrationality, also from its ability to hide in plain sight within sovereign national borders who may be very difficult to accuse as conspirators. With the most heterogenous culture and substates in the world, the U.S. is at high risk for terrorist acts, maybe the highest in the world. Have often heard "we should have just gone and gotten those responsible," (not here but many times elsewhere) which I think is incredibly naive and reflects ignorance of our domestic and international legal systems.

 

[Married Buried]

We share some common ground here at least. I agree that a protracted operation may have been a mistake in retrospect. But then we now have the benefit of hindsight.

Hindsight my ass. I have family from the middle east and they were ALL predicting exactly what happened. Most smart and educated people knew exactly what would happen. Funny how people who know nothing about the middle east think they know what they are talking about.

 

[dasein]

Hindsight my ass. I have family from the middle east and they were ALL predicting exactly what happened. Most smart and educated people knew exactly what would happen. Funny how people who know nothing about the middle east think they know what they are talking about.

For purposes of this discussion could care less where your family is from, and what they may or may not know in terms of "exactly what would happen" or any other nebulous thing you may post, as the question pertains to U.S. domestic terrorism policy and my claim of domestic popular mandate for ME intervention, its costs and resulting benefits. Did the massive expenditure chill domestic terror acts in the U.S.? Of course no valid conclusion outs because it's impossible to fully know and weight things that didn't occur.

 

[dasein]

a massive lying propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq (not Afghanistan) war.

I've claimed that we had a mandate for ME intervention post 911, that many options were debated with escalating and deescalating policy based on results and new emerging intel. Yes, when a country sends its military onto sovereign soil without being able to point a finger at that particular sovereign, then they are in possibly global political hot water, and yes, of course there was spin accompanying the policy and strategic plan, there always is in politics and military action. You are free to call it a "lying propaganda campaign" I'll refer to it as necessary spin and wise disinformation that is as old as military history back to and before Urban 2 preaching the Crusades. The mistake you are making is that the spin/lying propaganda determines that the underlying intel and true government securtiy rationale for the plan was faulty, non sequitur, and that the execution was flawed, non sequitur.

 

[Derek Flint]

I guess you only like to read the news that suits you, right?

The "Liberal Media" claim is a joke. You have CBS, NBC, ABC who has a 30 minute nightly news program that devotes about 10 minutes to the President, the rest focuses on other issues in the world.

You have FOX News, right wing magazines & newspapers, right wing internet blogs, and thousands of right wing talk radio stations all across the country promoting the same false right wing talking points each and every day.

The Right controls every major outlet of media, get your facts straight.

Fact: The Media has given over 70% of their campaign donations to the DNC since 1990

No inherent bias there though, right?

Source: the non-biased Center for Responsive Politics, aka, www.opensecrets.org:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2014&ind=B02

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2014&ind=C1100

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2014&ind=C2300

Conservative talk-radio wouldn't exist if the media did their job and was balanced.
Talk-radio simply fills the void left by the media.

BTW, a UCLA media study showed that 18 of the top 20 media outlets lean left:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/media-bias-is-real-finds-ucla-6664.aspx

Follow the money: The media has given a minimum of 70% of their campaign donations to the Dems since donations have been tracked and is not a "joke" - it's a demonstrable fact from independent, unbiased, non-agenda driven sources.

And let's not forget that Journalists that donate politically give over 90% to the Dems:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19113485/#.UoUGxic1jh4

Again, no inherent bias there either, right?

Imagine the hysterics if those numbers were reversed.

 

[slyseiene]

Weak troll or idiot. Choose. The only reason that conservative talk radio or Fox News exists is 80+ years of completely pink mainstream media, 95% of newspapers, 95% of magazines, all big three network news, all shows, all movies, all newswire services except Dow Jones... for decades. That's a fact, not an opinion. Once CNN went so far left, Murdoch saw a niche opening and capitalized on it. Limbaugh was on the radio for 10+ years before conservative talk radio took off, and as much as you harp on radio, it's a backwater in media world, has been for decades. If you don't like right wing media, then you have only lefty print media moguls, Hollywood and Ted Turner to thank for it, because without the total left slant for decades, it would never have gotten any share or traction at all.

BTW, I'm not a conservative or right wing, but an antisocialist libertarian who doesn't watch Fox and doesn't listen to talk radio, but tired of your semiliterate fabrications about the nature and history of American media.

do you hug trees too?

 

[Married Buried]

Did the massive expenditure chill domestic terror acts in the U.S.? Of course no valid conclusion outs because it's impossible to fully know and weight things that didn't occur.

Nice propaganda. No it didn't chill any terrorism in the US. Are you saying you know more than the Pentagon?

Pentagon admits Iraq war increased support for Al-Qaeda

http://digitaljournal.com/article/87600#ixzz2keouUo28

I am convinced revenge for Iraq is coming. Boston Massacre. Remember that? They said the main reason was Iraq.

Gerald Ford says Bush made a huge mistake on Iraq. You know more than him too? Please list your education I would like the hear this.

Ford: Bush made 'big mistake' on Iraq justifications

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/27/ford.iraq

Kissinger: Iraq Military Win Impossible

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900287_pf.html

Bush admits that Iraq Had "Nothing To Do With 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

I think I'm done here.

 

[Derek Flint]

Do you even know why the US invaded Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

 

[Married Buried]

Do you even know why the US invaded Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Alan Greenspan (a republican who has a high access at the White House), has publicly stated the war was about Oil. Next?

Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

 

[Derek Flint]

Alan Greenspan (a republican who has a high access at the White House), has publicly stated the war was about Oil. Next?

Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline

Alan Greenspan isn't a Congressman, Senator, VP or President and he is stating his opinion in a book he is hawking.

Did Greenspan have Intel? Not likely.

Did you even read the resolution?
Would you like to go over it point by point?

And where is all of the Iraqi oil?

And your dismissive "next" comment is meaningless.

Posting an opinion and stating "next" as if it proof of your point is not a valid argument.

I prefer to deal in facts, not opinions.

 

[Derek Flint]

Greenspan Backtracks On Iraq War Oil Claim

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501203_162-3267685.html

"The fiscal guru backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "was not the administration's motive," it should have been."

Next?