Be a Supporter!

rightward media bias

  • 1,252 Views
  • 47 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 09:36 PM Reply

At 5/2/12 06:35 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: No, it really hasn't. A serious threat to national security is a large invading force. Terrorists have always been around, have always caused problems, and have never been cause to revoke freedoms on a national level from ordinary citizens.

So 3000 dead is what, just part of the cost of freedom? I don't think so. There's plenty of middle ground, and even with the Patriot Act you are just as free now as you were before its passage.

Only if you think WMD proliferation has no impact on US security.
Right, because we found tons of WMDs in Iraq.

I forgot; you think the evidence for WMDs was a giant conspiracy, too.

And yet, there was tons of warrant-less wire tapping and abuses were found in investigations largely related to political activity of the non-terrorist sort.

Like what? The DOJ review said it was all pretty much agent error and poor record keeping, nothing malicious.

Then you don't understand foreign policy very much. When we botch something up in Pakistan, the Pakistani's stop our convoys and help set up raids on our service men.

And in return, they sacrifice US assistance in their fight against an enemy that's killed thousands of Pakistani troops and civilians over the past several years. Their leaders want US help, they just don't want to admit it publicly. Killing bin Laden is obviously worth a month or two of non-critical supply hassles, and there's no evidence that it led to any formal Pakistani policy of arming and coordinating attacks against US troops. Their government is a mess; the Taliban sympathizers lurking in it don't need to wait for a political opportunity to do something they'd just deny anyway.

Attacking a compound that way was way over the lines of anything we'd previously done (drone attacks)

Wrong.
http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-us-war-pakistan
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-special-forces-in-pakistan-ra ids-20091222-lbsc.html

We were there to root out Al Qaeda. That was the motivator. He was in charge of the group. Taking out or capturing the leader of that group was of the highest priority if we wanted to actually destroy Al Qaeda.

Yeah, and by 2007, when Romney said that, the mission had obviously changed to helping Afghanistan fend for itself against the Taliban and so prevent it from becoming another haven for terrorists.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 10:21 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 10:43 AM, Memorize wrote: Even when I'm gone for a year, things don't change around here much.

For instance: You're still a fucking idoit.

Yah I'm going to guess you were banned for a year because all you do is go around calling everyone who isn't a Libertarian an idiot. Not very good discussion material.

At 5/1/12 09:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: When you get down to it, no one in the media is calling out republicans nearly as much as they should be. And the people calling out Obama now, are the same people who completely ignored or cheer leaded our way into Iraq.

Well I'm not particularly old, but I do recall that this was the same case in Bush's presidency when the media was not showing much negative about the Democrats but everything negative about the Republicans. Basically, the incumbents were the ones under massive fire since they were the group doing all the work and pushing all proposals, the Democrats were merely the always contrary voice of dissent.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 2nd, 2012 @ 11:54 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 06:39 PM, Memorize wrote: Obamacare

Is the Mitt Romney (Republican, Conservative) policy. How is that liberal again?

Stimulus

Also done under the prior Republican President.

Auto Bail out

See Stimulus

Bank Bail out

See Stimulus, also why exactly is letting the banks fail and plummeting us into a depression bad? Never quite got that...although I do agree some of the mechanisms (letting big firms get bigger) were very face palm.

Expanding wars in Middle East

Huh? How? He's reducing them actually...we're pulling out of Iraq, Libya wasn't a war, and he campaigned on the idea of being a "one war" (Afghanistan) President.

Increased border bombings in Middle Eastern Countries

Which is liberal how? That's a policy Conservatives cheer when a president they elect do it.

Renewal of the Patriot Act

How is liberal to renew a conservative policy? I think you missed the "liberal" qualifier in asking about bad policies he's held.

Claims and has targeted Americans for assassination (including a 16 yr old)

Again, how is this a liberal policy?

Against gay marriage

NOT liberal in the least.

Continued Support of Drug war

Not Liberal either.

A couple things to note here is that these are ALL big Government positions. And since big Government is something liberals claim to support, then I should consider all of these to be Liberal Positions.

George Bush was very big government, and most liberals I know actually don't support many of the things you mentioned. You clearly don't spend much time around liberals and I think need to research the term a little more instead of listening to what the news tells you a "liberal" is.

The other thing is that all of these positions are almost identical to Bush, which begs the question: Why is Obama considered a "Great Guy" and Bush Horrible?

Well, Bush enacted a lot of these, and there's also a lot of the shadow positions he started. It's funny to me how some people seem to think Obama or any president could have just simply stopped everything Bush put into motion in 4 years...especially a first term president who clearly would like a second.

Let's face it. The only reason you get away with calling Obama a centrist is because you're using an idiot like Bush as an indicator.

He is more to the center then Bush...and he's certainly not the left-wing demon that FOX News and other conservative outlets tried to make him out to be. I don't see him overly leaning too far one way or the other...for the most part he's pretty much steered the country's course in much the same way it was going.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 3rd, 2012 @ 07:25 AM Reply

At 5/2/12 09:36 PM, adrshepard wrote: So 3000 dead is what, just part of the cost of freedom? I don't think so. There's plenty of middle ground, and even with the Patriot Act you are just as free now as you were before its passage.

No it was an atrocious crime against us. However, me taking off my shoes and having my e-mail stolen by the government doesn't make me safer, nor do my phones being tapped without warrant. You don't shoot your horse because it stumbled.

I forgot; you think the evidence for WMDs was a giant conspiracy, too.

There was none. And we didn't find any.

And all discussion is conjecture and guesswork about what "might" have happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath _of_the_2003_Iraq_War

Like what? The DOJ review said it was all pretty much agent error and poor record keeping, nothing malicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co ntroversy

And in return, they sacrifice US assistance in their fight against an enemy that's killed thousands of Pakistani troops and civilians over the past several years. Their leaders want US help, they just don't want to admit it publicly. Killing bin Laden is obviously worth a month or two of non-critical supply hassles, and there's no evidence that it led to any formal Pakistani policy of arming and coordinating attacks against US troops. Their government is a mess; the Taliban sympathizers lurking in it don't need to wait for a political opportunity to do something they'd just deny anyway.

You don't know fuck about Pakistan. Pakistan created tons of these splinter groups because they were worried about India and having an Amero-Indian friendly state next to them. In fact, their intelligence agency has very close ties to the taliban & al qaeda. Which is why bin laden was able to hide in their country for 10 years.

Yeah, and by 2007, when Romney said that, the mission had obviously changed to helping Afghanistan fend for itself against the Taliban and so prevent it from becoming another haven for terrorists.

Which is why we've really buckled down against the taliban rather than entering negotiations with them and we're paying so much attention to Pakistan... right. All reports pretty much say that the depressed PTSD population of Afghanistan can't be helped because they have no hope and have entered a state of solitary survival.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to rightward media bias May. 3rd, 2012 @ 11:32 AM Reply

At 5/3/12 07:25 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: No it was an atrocious crime against us. However, me taking off my shoes and having my e-mail stolen by the government doesn't make me safer, nor do my phones being tapped without warrant. You don't shoot your horse because it stumbled.

Aside from the shoes, when has any of this happened to you?

I'm no fan of these measures, but can we all stop the boogeyman act?

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 3rd, 2012 @ 03:02 PM Reply

At 5/3/12 07:25 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: No it was an atrocious crime against us. However, me taking off my shoes and having my e-mail stolen by the government doesn't make me safer, nor do my phones being tapped without warrant. You don't shoot your horse because it stumbled.

Because taking your shoes off is such an outrageous violation of your principles? It takes five seconds. Grow a pair.

Also, don't delude yourself into thinking the government gives a crap about your emails. You aren't that important. And even if you were, how would you be any less free?

I forgot; you think the evidence for WMDs was a giant conspiracy, too.
There was none.

Like I said.

Like what? The DOJ review said it was all pretty much agent error and poor record keeping, nothing malicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co ntroversy

I don't see anything there suggesting it's been used to further some oppressive end.

And in return, they sacrifice US assistance in their fight against an enemy that's killed thousands of Pakistani troops and civilians over the past several years. Their leaders want US help, they just don't want to admit it publicly. Killing bin Laden is obviously worth a month or two of non-critical supply hassles, and there's no evidence that it led to any formal Pakistani policy of arming and coordinating attacks against US troops. Their government is a mess; the Taliban sympathizers lurking in it don't need to wait for a political opportunity to do something they'd just deny anyway.
Pakistan created tons of these splinter groups because they were worried about India and having an Amero-Indian friendly state next to them. In fact, their intelligence agency has very close ties to the taliban & al qaeda.

That's true. But you're making the intelligience agency out to be just another extension of the central government when in fact, it's more like a independent entitity, with people who could support the Taliban or hide bin Laden without the political leadership's knowledge.

Which is why we've really buckled down against the taliban rather than entering negotiations with them and we're paying so much attention to Pakistan... right.

No one expects the negotiations to yield real peace. At best, some elements of the Taliban will peel off and give lukewarm support to the Afghan government.
The whole idea of the surge was to protect major population centers and give time to the Afghan security forces to improve. It wasn't to go after Al-Qaida or kill bin Laden.

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 3rd, 2012 @ 04:15 PM Reply

At 5/3/12 03:02 PM, adrshepard wrote:
At 5/3/12 07:25 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: No it was an atrocious crime against us. However, me taking off my shoes and having my e-mail stolen by the government doesn't make me safer, nor do my phones being tapped without warrant. You don't shoot your horse because it stumbled.
Because taking your shoes off is such an outrageous violation of your principles? It takes five seconds. Grow a pair.

Also, don't delude yourself into thinking the government gives a crap about your emails. You aren't that important. And even if you were, how would you be any less free?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_
States_Constitution

Read up.

I don't see anything there suggesting it's been used to further some oppressive end.

Its the fact that its unconstitutional and an invasion of our privacy and hence an abridgment of our freedoms.

Pakistan created tons of these splinter groups because they were worried about India and having an Amero-Indian friendly state next to them. In fact, their intelligence agency has very close ties to the taliban & al qaeda.
That's true. But you're making the intelligience agency out to be just another extension of the central government when in fact, it's more like a independent entitity, with people who could support the Taliban or hide bin Laden without the political leadership's knowledge.

Well that sounds like the most horrible kind of ally to have. one that can't even control its own intelligence agency to the point its supporting terrorists who are attacking your allies.

The whole idea of the surge was to protect major population centers and give time to the Afghan security forces to improve. It wasn't to go after Al-Qaida or kill bin Laden.

Right, well the whole point of going into afganistan was to get terrorists. Its Bush that over threw a government and completely missed the point of the reason we should have gone in.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 3rd, 2012 @ 04:19 PM Reply

At 5/3/12 11:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm no fan of these measures, but can we all stop the boogeyman act?

Thousands of people had their phones tapped illegally. In more recent times the government was putting GPS tracking devices on cars without warrants (now ruled unconstitutional, btw).

I trust the government to be bureaucratic, not to be mind police.

And it doesn't matter if I've been directly affected as long as someone has. Where's your sense of social justice?

The worst that's ever happened to me was being swabbed for chemicals because I had a brace on my arm with some metal on it when I went through a metal detector at an airport. They didn't check to see if the metal was removable or even sharp, and basically missed the most threatening possible part of the whole thing. Basically the point I'm making is that the inconvenience is the real issue, its the fact that they are ineffective, intrusive, and sometimes unconstitutional.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to rightward media bias May. 3rd, 2012 @ 05:37 PM Reply

At 5/3/12 04:19 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: And it doesn't matter if I've been directly affected as long as someone has. Where's your sense of social justice?

Information is no problem. How the information is used poses the problem. I have yet to see any of this information used improperly without repercussion.

Getting illegally tapped is not an issue of social justice. Being arrested and secretly imprisoned (cause you can't convict based on illegal taps) is an issue of social justice. Controlling what others can or cannot do in their own privacy is a social justice issue.

Perhaps I am too integrated in the age of information to be afraid of information.

Basically the point I'm making is that the inconvenience is the real issue, its the fact that they are ineffective, intrusive, and sometimes unconstitutional.

I am perfectly fine with those arguments, cause they're quite often true. I prefer these arguments to the amorphous "watch out Big Brother is watching you,," boogey man talk. I see this boogey man stuff as little different than the "brown people and fags will blow up your children" talk of the far right.

Kwing
Kwing
  • Member since: Jul. 24, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Game Developer
Response to rightward media bias May. 4th, 2012 @ 07:48 PM Reply

At 5/1/12 10:43 AM, Memorize wrote: Even when I'm gone for a year, things don't change around here much.

We STILL have this shit on Newgrounds? The media is a business. Which way do you think business leans?

Even if the media was a neutral mercenary that covered whatever people paid them too, big businesses have donated millions (almost a billion, in total) toward Republican candidates.


If I offer to help you in a post, PM me to get it. I often forget to revisit threads.
Want 180+ free PSP games? Try these links! - Flash - Homebrew (OFW)

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to rightward media bias May. 4th, 2012 @ 08:27 PM Reply

At 5/4/12 07:48 PM, Kwing wrote: big businesses have donated millions (almost a billion, in total) toward Republican candidates.

And they have to Democrats too.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to rightward media bias May. 5th, 2012 @ 02:28 PM Reply

At 5/4/12 08:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 5/4/12 07:48 PM, Kwing wrote: big businesses have donated millions (almost a billion, in total) toward Republican candidates.
And they have to Democrats too.

Dems and Repubs are all pulled by the way strings. The two parties are more similar than they're made out to be. They campaign on radically different values but they govern the same (at least at the presidential level).


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to rightward media bias May. 5th, 2012 @ 02:29 PM Reply

^ Same*. How the fuck did I write the word way instead of same? They only have one letter in common.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to rightward media bias May. 5th, 2012 @ 02:30 PM Reply

At 5/5/12 02:28 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Dems and Repubs are all pulled by the way strings. The two parties are more similar than they're made out to be. They campaign on radically different values but they govern the same (at least at the presidential level).

People who say this fail to see a different and more likely conclusion.

There is only so much any president can do.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to rightward media bias May. 5th, 2012 @ 07:09 PM Reply

At 5/5/12 02:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 5/5/12 02:28 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Dems and Repubs are all pulled by the same strings. The two parties are more similar than they're made out to be. They campaign on radically different values but they govern the same (at least at the presidential level).
People who say this fail to see a different and more likely conclusion.

There is only so much any president can do.

That's definitely true. But Obama campaigned on liberal values and is not a liberal president. It's more than just Obama attempting to govern in a liberal fashion while failing to bring change. A lot of legislation he has signed is antithetical to what a "liberal" would stand for. Democrats and republicans get a lot of their campaign contributions from the same sources. This has an effect on where they stand on some key issues. I'm not saying that democrats and republicans overlap on every issue. Obviously there are social issues like gay marriage where there is a large gap. We lost freedoms under Mr Bush, and we're losing more under Obama. The two aren't the same but the differences are exaggerated.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
CaptainCornhole
CaptainCornhole
  • Member since: Apr. 27, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 5th, 2012 @ 09:13 PM Reply

At 5/5/12 02:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 5/5/12 02:28 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Dems and Repubs are all pulled by the way strings. The two parties are more similar than they're made out to be. They campaign on radically different values but they govern the same (at least at the presidential level).
People who say this fail to see a different and more likely conclusion.

There is only so much any president can do.

Actually big bizznizz donates more to Dems then Reps. http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/php/CEOPAY11.html?mod=e2tw

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to rightward media bias May. 6th, 2012 @ 09:42 AM Reply

At 5/5/12 09:13 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote:
At 5/5/12 02:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 5/5/12 02:28 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Dems and Repubs are all pulled by the way strings. The two parties are more similar than they're made out to be. They campaign on radically different values but they govern the same (at least at the presidential level).
People who say this fail to see a different and more likely conclusion.

There is only so much any president can do.
Actually big bizznizz donates more to Dems then Reps. http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/php/CEOPAY11.html?mod=e2tw

Maybe in the past, but right now if you look at the percentage of people donating to who:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php?ql3

Barack has received 45% from small donations, which I'll give you is less than half.
But Mitt Romney only received 11% from smaller donations.

And when you get into the SUPER PACS its worse.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/superpacs.php?type=w&cycle =2012


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to rightward media bias May. 6th, 2012 @ 11:44 AM Reply

At 5/6/12 09:42 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Barack has received 45% from small donations, which I'll give you is less than half.
But Mitt Romney only received 11% from smaller donations.

While Romney may be getting more from businesses, Obama is still getting a shit ton of money from them. Theoretically Obama may be less beholden to them, but by the pure amount of money he is very beholden.

That's only if you believe that money corrupts all politicians.