Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/14/03 02:41 AM, OSC wrote:

At 5/13/03 06:49 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

My comment was only applying to FOX News who has nothing but conservatives on that channel. My point on Savage was that Fox would be more right-wing than that already are if they had him. MSNBC having him (as well as Scarborough) is trying to even the playing field because MSNBC has liberals as well (or am I misinterpreting the side of the fence Bucannon and Press is on).

For anyone wanting to point out Hannity and Colmes, I'm sorry, but a)Colmes isn't liberal (he may be a democrat, but he's not a liberal democrat) b)Colmes is nothing more than Hannity's sidekick and almost a mute sidekick at that. Whenever I see that show, I keep forgetting Holmes is on the damn show. It's all Hannity.

oh so only fox can be right wing but not other network? your interpretation of fox is the same stupid shit people always spout. that someone who is less liberal than ted kennedy is a conservative right-wing zealot who can't be taken seriously. i could understand people saying that about micheal savage considering he's extremely insulting, but you're taking it to a rediculus level. not only are you wrong about fox news in general(it has cavuto and gretta, but it also has sheppard smith and that big story guy[forgot his name]). fact is you probably just heard it from a long chain of "friend of a friend of a..." and spouted it back out

At 5/14/03 10:04 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: oh so only fox can be right wing but not other network? your interpretation of fox is the same stupid shit people always spout. that someone who is less liberal than ted kennedy is a conservative right-wing zealot who can't be taken seriously. i could understand people saying that about micheal savage considering he's extremely insulting, but you're taking it to a rediculus level. not only are you wrong about fox news in general(it has cavuto and gretta, but it also has sheppard smith and that big story guy[forgot his name]). fact is you probably just heard it from a long chain of "friend of a friend of a..." and spouted it back out

I'm not saying only Fox can be right-wing. I'm saying all Fox is is right-wing. Other channels have right-wing personnel (perhaps except ABC News), but at least the other channels has some left-wingers as well.

Heard it from a friend of a friend? Nah. I just look at articles.

no that is far from the truth, at least half their reporters are liberal. i even named some of them

At 5/15/03 01:13 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: no that is far from the truth, at least half their reporters are liberal. i even named some of them

Excuse me while I laugh at that fabrication. You get that info from Fox News themselves? Figures.

At 5/15/03 02:56 AM, OSC wrote: Excuse me while I laugh at that fabrication. You get that info from Fox News themselves? Figures.

no you're just an idiot. they don't say it themselves but if you watch them you may just notice(if you're not stubborn as fuck, which you probably are). in fact you'd even notice stories popping up that make the republicans look bad that do NOT appear on the other networks(for instance, the iraqi protests were covered by fox before anyone, and more so than anyone else has. but because you're such an idiot who's stubborn to call them conservative you'd never know that). you really should observe instead of repeating BS you hear from others if you want to be credible

what do they call the protests?

oh-oh!! i know!!! Anti-American!!

Thus, they are demonizing the Middle East, making it seem like its full of terrorists, which then, the republicans could commit more wars in that area easier, since its full of "terrorists"

At 5/15/03 01:44 PM, Jiperly wrote: what do they call the protests?

oh-oh!! i know!!! Anti-American!!

Thus, they are demonizing the Middle East, making it seem like its full of terrorists, which then, the republicans could commit more wars in that area easier, since its full of "terrorists"

ah, I see you are a adept at the fine manueverings of propaganda. Also notice how "terrorists" are also described as "inhumane" in the ways they "enforce" their "extremist" laws. Scary, strong irrational non-humans. So when our soldiers go to war, their not killing people, theyre fighting goblins from the desert wastlands of the ancient world of Babylon.

PROPAGANDA

running your life since 1935

I think it's a sad day in American history when we go to war with a country because "they MIGHT have weapons."

....."and if they do, then some day they might become as dangerous to us as all the other countries who have weapons and are a PRESENT danger to us."

......Wouldn't it make more sense to have gone to war with an anti-american country that we know ALREADY has WMD and is ALREADY a threat (like Korea)?

I mean, it seems like that would be a bigger priority than a country that "just might" become as dangerous to us as ones that already are. Doesn't it?

At 5/16/03 03:19 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: I think it's a sad day in American history when we go to war with a country because "they MIGHT have weapons."

....."and if they do, then some day they might become as dangerous to us as all the other countries who have weapons and are a PRESENT danger to us."

......Wouldn't it make more sense to have gone to war with an anti-american country that we know ALREADY has WMD and is ALREADY a threat (like Korea)?

I mean, it seems like that would be a bigger priority than a country that "just might" become as dangerous to us as ones that already are. Doesn't it?

Well ninja It's not as simple as that, I personally wouldnt want to go to war with a country that HAS a nuke with the capabilities to reach California. But going to war with a country that might (or is in the process od getting) weapons that could have weapons that in the near future would reach America doesnt sound as kamikazee as the first one.

At 5/15/03 11:58 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: no you're just an idiot. they don't say it themselves but if you watch them you may just notice(if you're not stubborn as fuck, which you probably are). in fact you'd even notice stories popping up that make the republicans look bad that do NOT appear on the other networks(for instance, the iraqi protests were covered by fox before anyone, and more so than anyone else has. but because you're such an idiot who's stubborn to call them conservative you'd never know that). you really should observe instead of repeating BS you hear from others if you want to be credible

Oh wow. The protests were covered by Fox. That must mean there's liberalism on that channel!! First off, I never thought I'd hear a more right-wing opinion than Fox News, but there it is. There's a difference between bringing a story and how that story is displayed. Fox News didn't just show the protests, they brought on a panel to bash the shit out of it. When Fox News shows liberalism, it's in the form of "Here's how stupid people think." rather than just leaving it as an opposing opinion. My relatives watch Fox News. They think it's the best news channel. It's figures, too, since they're all conservatives. Of course the news channel that tends to their beliefs would be their favorite. I've watched a good amount of Fox News and I have yet to see a liberal viewpoint that isn't bashed all to hell.

Understand that while I have my viewpoint, I'm not putting to shame Fox News. They have no credibility in my eyes, but they're allowed to have their bias. If ABC News can (who also has no credibility as far as I'm concerned, but then again, I never paid attention to ABC News), so can Fox News.

Come to think of it, between the two, it's pretty much cancelled out.

You know. I do believe that FOX had about 2 mildly liberal people on there at one point. Unfortunately, during "war time," these people weren't really aloud to speak out (making FOX even more "right wing" recently). In fact, one man was even fired for participating in an anti-war rally because it wasn't "good publicity" for the station.

Also, it's not even that FOX is so "right wing," it's just that FOX is so....well, sleezy. I mean, they're all about propaganda and not real news. Especially war propaganda, which makes them appear very right wing as of now.

It is left-wing beliefs that "the people should know the truth" and that "the people should run the country, the government should help them, and businesses should stay out of it entirely, etc." and blah blah blah. This is why "muckraking" is a primarily liberal business (see Harpers and the Progressive, etc).

However, the right-wing beliefs more revolve around the businesses and authority figures "knowing better than the common man" and, hence, "making decisions for the people, since they don't know enough to do be able to do it themselves" etc. and blah blah blah. Well, FOX rarely talks about "the truth" or "muckraking news," since (like most big businesses), they concern themselves more with propaganda and getting ratings (and money) than with quality and news.

Now, it's not that these sorts of things strongly attract right-wing individuals, it's more that they strongly repel left-wing individuals. So, the only people left to run the station are primarily right-wing people. After all, news is supposed to be more of a "muckraking" or even "left-wing sport" anyway. Those who get into the news business with dreams of "letting people know the truth," or "getting the word out to the people," will have their dreams crushed if they enter FOX, who cares little about "the truth" and more about flashy gimics, emotional propaganda, and ratings (as mostly all big businesses are).

Does anyone understand what I'm talking about?
--------------------------
But I digress. Everyone here must realize that FOX is WAY more right wing than any news station on TV. I mean, it's pretty common knowledge and, what can I say, that's just how things are. I mean, look at Bill O'Reilly (see "The O'Reilly Factor").

My GOD! Even if he was liberal, I would still be able to recognize that that man is a MORON! Well, he's even more weird and rude than he is stupid. @_o'

Now, for those of you who don't know who O'Reilly is, he's probably the worst example of a "right wing" activist that you've ever seen (to be fair). If you want to know how he acts, see cannibal's posts for an example. lol ("Gays are evil! God will punish the hippies! America is the greatest country in the world!," etc etc).

Basically, he's violent and rude to people on the show (especially those who are left wing *wink wink*). He always interupts people and tells them "NO, YOU'RE WRONG!" (without backing it up) or even sometimes will say something like, "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!" And he never lets them finish talking. @_o'

In fact, one guy on that show actually contradicted him mostly by ignoring him when O'Reilly tried to angrily interupt him about 27 times (no joke @_o') and kept telling him that "he's wrong" and that he was "a shame to his family and America!".....I don't know how he got that out of the man's argumenst.

Well, O'Reilly blew up on him and told him to "get the F#$@ out of his studio before he tears him to F#%@ peaces." This episode was of course never aired. Why? Because the right-wing O'Reilly lost an argument to a left-wing guy, and then blew up because he couldn't handle it.

This is the type of people FOX has. O'Reilly is a right-wing extremist, and usually news stations never have extremists on their shows, since these people obviously can't represent the entire station. But they allow people like O'Reilly to have their own shows. @_o' And we can safely say that that in itself represents the affiliations of the FOX broadcasting system. Heh heh.

I have to agree with OSC. When anti-war rallies are shown on tv, they're usually shown in a very unemotional demenor. They'll just show the rally and make comments like, "a large group of people gathered on such-and-such street today, waving anti-war posters as they marched down main street."

Then they'll usually interview people by asking them questions that have nothing to do with their beliefs, like "so how long have you been out here?" or "is you're whole family supporting you in this rally?" And when they show these people talking, they'll only show them saying something short like, "This war is for oil! Think of the Iraqi people!" without letting them explain their reasoning for these beliefs. Or they'll MOSTLY have them talking about things that have NOTHING to do with their beliefs, like, "I've been here all day with my family. We're all out here and it's great to see such a turnout of people. Blah blah blah."

HOWEVER.....whenever a pro-war rally is shown. They always portray it very emotionally. Often including mentionings of "God" and showing people crying for their loved ones, etc.
------------------
To test this, I went to the FOX site a while back and looked up all the recent articles they had on the war. There were only 3, yet not a single one was against the war. All of them were war propaganda, talking about how the American's are "helping people in Iraq" and about "POWS coming home to the good ol' USA."

Here's the articles:

Monday, April 21, 2003
No. 18 on Most-Wanted List Arrested in Iraq

"DOHA, Qatar — Muhammad Hamza al-Zubaydi, who played a key role in the brutal suppression of the Shiite Muslim uprising of 1991, was arrested Monday in Iraq, the U.S. Central Command said....(continued)"

(This one is pretty much all about how the "brave American soldiers" captured and arrested an "evil evil man." Go American troops! Yay, you got that evil guy! You're so good.....Reading it reminded me of a "G.I. Joes" episode. @_o').

Monday, April 21, 2003
Gen. Garner Arrives in Baghdad

"BAGHDAD, Iraq — Retired U.S. Lt. Gen. Jay Garner arrived in Baghdad Monday for his first postwar visit as U.S. forces and Iraqi police kept the peace in a city still largely without power, clean water or a clear political direction."

(Basically talks about how we're all getting along and the war is good and peaceful. It talks about this "good American," Garner, is going to help reconstruct this village--go him, what a nice American---and about how a "bad Iraqi" exile, Mohammed Mohsen al-Zubaidi, is threatening to "put on trial anyone whose hands are stained with the blood of the Iraqi people," and how no one likes him--bad him, why can't he be as helpful and nice as the American guy?).

From the same article:

Good Guy Quote: "What better day in your life can you have than to be able to help somebody else, to help other people, and that is what we intend to do," Garner (American guy) said upon arrival."

Don't make me puke. I swear, some of these people have cue cards. Once again with the "America helping the tragity" image.

Bad Guy Quote: Mohammed Mohsen al-Zubaidi (Iraqi guy), a recently returned Iraqi exile, had promised to put on trial anyone whose "hands are stained with the blood of the Iraqi people" under a new constitution based on Islamic law

They of course use the most violent quote they could find, depicting him as a "vengence seeking man" and not a "helping other people" one as they did with the main American character. Once again, they treat this war like an action cartoon. @_o'

Monday, April 21, 2003
U.S. POWs Reunite With Families

"FORT BLISS, Texas — To chants of "Hoo-ah!" and tearful hugs from family, seven American soldiers who survived three harrowing weeks of captivity in Iraq made a joyous homecoming — and began a long journey of adjustment and healing."

(Emotional nationalistic propaganda such as this has been springing up everywhere on tv, so I don't think I need to explain what it's about).

From the same article: (note the emotion used)

Emotional Nationalistic Propaganda Quotes: "About 20 of Williams' family members planned to be together Sunday for an Easter lunch, said Tucker, who wore a red, white and blue button with his nephew's picture and kept a digital camera handy to show off pictures of the pilot's two children."

"I say a special prayer each night for our fallen comrades, for the soldiers that didn't make it home, and the ones that are still over there. I want everyone to remember them in their prayers," Chief Warrant Officer Ronald D. Young Jr. told 1,500 cheering colleagues, friends and family members who had gathered late Saturday night at Fort Hood."

OK. They even got a priest in there talking about God again.

"For many of the rescued soldiers, homecoming meant basking in life's little joys — a daughter's tresses or a home-cooked meal."

When did some guy's daughter's hair become "war news?"

"The only thing he's talked about was if his little girl's hair had grown," said Williams' uncle Russell Tucker. "That was the first thing he asked."

This isn't news, but again is just used to make you pity the soldier and other's like him. Go troops.

Now, while POWS coming home does classify as news, the page and page description in the article of his "daughter's hair" and "home cooked meals," and "praying to God," ISN'T. That isn't "news," it's just the milking of another tragety or emotionally touching situation to get ratings for the station.

Frankly, if I hadn't seem my family for a long time, when I got home, I'd want to be with them, and not have dozens of video cameras in my face with reporters asking me if I think "God got me through this," or what I "missed the most about America."

These were all the war-related topics on that site at that time. Let's see, that's pro-war: 3, anti-war: 0. Not a single one shows people or incidents that are "anti-war."
-------------------

So, all in all, you can see how biased, not just FOX, but almost all media stations have become during this war time.

Though, I must admit that FOX is probably the cause for the others becoming this way. After all, FOX is the most successful station right now as far as ratings go (thanks of course to their clever propaganda and emotional tricks). If they do something or cover something, then all the stations follow. FOX started the "reality show" thing, for example, and then reality shows started popping up on all stations. FOX started the whole "POWS coming home" sessions, then they all started doing it. FOX started this thing where they have the wife or family member of a soldier talk to them through some communicater in Iraq, live (which again, isn't news, it's just to entice peoples' emotions and get them to tune in). Pretty soon, I saw this done on another station. FOX started the "Michael Jackson" thing, and then they all got big on it as well.

So, when FOX gets all "righty" about the war, then most the other stations do it because they think "that's what the people want, and apparently, people want FOX, why else would they have the highest ratings?" Well, like I said, those high ratings come from cheap emotional or nationalistic propaganda which makes us feel good to watch. Though some stations like CNN or the BBC try to stay away from the "FOX tactics" for the most part, you can start to see that other stations are faultering under the pressure of what the American people want to hear during this war (which is what FOX gives them).

So, basically, FOX herds people in with emotions and propaganda, which takes away ratings from other stations, so then they feel pressured to return the same tactics to gain viewers back. Does everyone understand what I'm saying? Hence the sudden "Red Scare" about those who are against the war.
------------

Few, sorry for the length. @_o'

Now, forget about propagands for a moment. Even the facts are biased. Why has no news station talked about us rationing Iraqi water which killed over 500,000 children? I'm sure that classifies as news to the Iraqi people, why wasn't it shown here? What about when we gave weapons of mass destruction to both Iraq and Iran and told them to go kill each other? Why wasn't that shown if it relates to this war and if people were really "oh so concerned" about Suddam having weapons? You think they'd be a little interested in where he actually got these weapons from. All they talk about is what "Suddam did." Suddam killed this, Suddam did that, Suddam is evil. Over time, America has killed more of his people than he did (that includes the water rationing deaths and the lives lost in the Iranian Conflict due to the weapons we supplied to Iran)!

In fact, on TV I've often seen topics such as "Iraqis teaching children to be anti-American," or "look at the filth they live in, bad bad Suddam for letting his people live like that." In fact, one time FOX showed some kids in the hospital with diseases they got from tainted water (which they talked about----even about how all these kids were dying), but then they started critisizing Suddam for "letting his people live like that," and about how "when America takes control, we will change these conditions.".......not once did they mention that those exact diseased, which resulted from the contaminated water, WERE AMERICA'S DOING!" Talk about rediculous.

"making decisions for the people, since they don't know enough to do be able to do it themselves"

You know, I heard Rush Limbaugh say about the same exact thing about liberals. Is this a pot, kettle, black thing?

Yes, Bill O'Reily is right-wing, but I wouldn't call him an extreme right-winger, but he's on the level of Rush Limbaugh. I'd call them extreme had I not heard of Michael Savage.

At 5/17/03 01:15 AM, OSC wrote:
Oh wow. The protests were covered by Fox. That must mean there's liberalism on that channel!! First off, I never thought I'd hear a more right-wing opinion than Fox News, but there it is. There's a difference between bringing a story and how that story is displayed. Fox News didn't just show the protests, they brought on a panel to bash the shit out of it. When Fox News shows liberalism, it's in the form of "Here's how stupid people think." rather than just leaving it as an opposing opinion. My relatives watch Fox News. They think it's the best news channel. It's figures, too, since they're all conservatives. Of course the news channel that tends to their beliefs would be their favorite. I've watched a good amount of Fox News and I have yet to see a liberal viewpoint that isn't bashed all to hell.

but fox covered it before anyone else did, and they covered it moreso. it's just an example of how they are not conservative. they have conservatives working for them, but everyone does. and it's certain not all their reporters are conservative, especially the afternoon reporters. the reason fox news comes across as conservative is because it actually reports what other media organization won't when it's news that makes the republicans look good. but there are also stories that make them look bad that the others won't report either(why they don't report them i wouldn't know)

Understand that while I have my viewpoint, I'm not putting to shame Fox News. They have no credibility in my eyes, but they're allowed to have their bias. If ABC News can (who also has no credibility as far as I'm concerned, but then again, I never paid attention to ABC News), so can Fox News.

Come to think of it, between the two, it's pretty much cancelled out.

i don't think anyone has credibility either, but it's important to know fox is far from conservative.

At 5/17/03 03:35 AM, OSC wrote:

"making decisions for the people, since they don't know enough to do be able to do it themselves"

You know, I heard Rush Limbaugh say about the same exact thing about liberals. Is this a pot, kettle, black thing?

Yes, Bill O'Reily is right-wing, but I wouldn't call him an extreme right-winger, but he's on the level of Rush Limbaugh. I'd call them extreme had I not heard of Michael Savage.

Well, that is the right-wing beliefs. The Liberals are mostly "anti-business control," and more "people control." That's why they're called Liberals.

The right-wing belief, obviously, is the opposite. It comes from older times. Where they believed that the upper, educated class should make the decisions for the common people. Now, it's that the businesses and authority figures should make the decisions for the rest of the country, since the "common man" is too "uneducated about world and financial issues" to be able to make "the best choices" himself. Democracy was founded on that belief. That's why we vote on a person to make our decisions for us.

That's why so many republicans are for the war. It was a decision made for us by our "betters" (or people in office), regardless of the common peoples' consent or not. See now? And the reason behind it is that "our betters" know better.
-------------
And O'Reilly IS an extremest! @_o' Have you ever heard that guy on other shows? He talks about how those who allow nudity to take place will "go to hell," and how liberals are all "hippies who are a discrace to our country." Come on! If that isn't extremist behavior, then I don't know what is.
------------------
OH! If you're interested, later I could post the article where he was freaking out because a liberal man contradicted him! He almost hit the guy! It was kinda scary! @_o'

Now, if you are saying that O'Reilly isn't an extremist right-wing individual, then are you implying that all "regular" right-wing people act this way and feel this way?

One reason I called him an extremist is because I HOPE that not all right-wing individuals feel that those against them are "a discrace to the American population" or would almost hit someone who countered one of their beliefs.

Please tell me that that's not normal "right-wing behavior," and that that is extreme.

Anyway, I have the article, but it's not on the web. So, I'll have to actually write the entire speech myself.....which may take a while. But if you or anyone else is really interested, I'll do it. ^_^

At 5/18/03 12:19 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: stuff

that's simply not true, liberals and conservatives both have authoritarian beliefs. in fact their level of authoritarianism is about equal. overall they are both somewhat libertarian, so neither believes in controlling people.

about the elitist thing, that isn't true either. that's just an interpretation gained by taking the party name literally(similarly the green party isn't made of green people).

democrates: psuedo libertarian - moderate to strong left

republicans: psuedo libertarian(in a different way than the democrats) - moderate to mediocre right

At 5/18/03 12:55 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

At 5/18/03 12:19 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: stuff

that's simply not true, liberals and conservatives both have authoritarian beliefs. in fact their level of authoritarianism is about equal. overall they are both somewhat libertarian, so neither believes in controlling people.

I wasn't talking about "controlling people." It was about basically "hiring" (electing) people whose job it is to make decisions for America. The belief behind it is that the average American can't run the country "correctly" or "know what's best for the country," because he "knows nothing about politics are world relations, etc." It's like, a plumber may not know the best way to handle relations with Iraq, etc, because that's not his job and he's not "educated enough" for it.

So, we elect people who are "educated on this subject" (like politics and world relations) to make these decisions for us. Now, it's true that "controlling people" sometimes takes place in this system, but I wasn't saying that that is the purpose right-wing individuals have behind the system. They truly believe that this is the most helpful way to run the country, not the best way to control people.

Liberals are more against this because they are the ones who feel that it's too controlling of people. Take the war for example. Many liberals are against it because they find it unfare that our whole country must go to war without the people's consent, even though the people are the ones fighting it. They feel that "the people" should have more of a say in America's actions. See?

At 5/18/03 01:49 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

I wasn't talking about "controlling people." It was about basically "hiring" (electing) people whose job it is to make decisions for America. The belief behind it is that the average American can't run the country "correctly" or "know what's best for the country," because he "knows nothing about politics are world relations, etc." It's like, a plumber may not know the best way to handle relations with Iraq, etc, because that's not his job and he's not "educated enough" for it.

not exactly, it's not that people can't make the right decisions(if that were the logic we may as well forget elections altogether). it's that in our current world there is too much political work to do for a true democracy to really work. in fact the weak government that america actually started with didn't actually work and it was much stronger than a true democracy would likely be

Liberals are more against this because they are the ones who feel that it's too controlling of people. Take the war for example. Many liberals are against it because they find it unfare that our whole country must go to war without the people's consent, even though the people are the ones fighting it. They feel that "the people" should have more of a say in America's actions. See?

the majority of americans supported the war. there wre plenty of anti-war protesters but opiion stayed strongly in favor of the war. there were even pro-war protests to speak out against the anti-war ones

At 5/18/03 02:25 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

not exactly, it's not that people can't make the right decisions(if that were the logic we may as well forget elections altogether). it's that in our current world there is too much political work to do for a true democracy to really work. in fact the weak government that america actually started with didn't actually work and it was much stronger than a true democracy would likely be

Why would we forget elections? The purpose was that the "common man" couldn't make the right decisions, not that "no man" can make these decisions.

The purpose was to elect someone who's "studied" politics and world relations, and whose job it is to do that. We elect them trusting that these "educated" individuals will make the best decisions in the American people's favor (though this sometimes isn't always the case). So, we give these people the ability to make many of our decisions for us, and we just trust that they make the right ones based on their "greater knowledge" of political and world relations.

Now it's true that an anarchy may not be the most successful way of life, so it seems like this system of electing would be the best way to go. The difference between the right and left wing points of view is how much we should trust these people to make our decisions for us, not whether or not we should.

The right wing is "more trust," feeling that if we give too much of the weight of running the country on the average American's soldiers, we may be "jepardizing national security" and that the "common man" may interfear in the success of those we elect, hurting our country "for the worst" (such as economy-wise, etc).

The theory: "The business man knows more about business than the plumer, so we should our leave our "business" to him, for the greater success, since he will most likely make the best choices."

From the left comes "little trust" to these individuals. Feeling that even though these people may be "more educated" than us, that doesn't give them the right to make decisions without our consent, especially considering that their actions affect the "common man" the most.

The theory: "We should still let the plumer have a say in our "business," since it's not fair to have the business man make all his choices for him, especially since the business man's decisions affect the plumer as well."

the majority of americans supported the war. there wre plenty of anti-war protesters but opiion stayed strongly in favor of the war. there were even pro-war protests to speak out against the anti-war ones

Wooah! Actually, that's not true. Even though our media portrayed the whole country as "backing Bush," in actuality, numbers showed that more people were against the war than for it (at least originally. Though, I think those numbers may have changed during mid-war). Just like more people still hated Bush, even though the media made it appear otherwise (remember, Bush actually lost the popular vote. He's never been the most popular guy.).

It's like I was saying earlier. Our media has become very biased during war times. So they'll show anti-anti-war rallies, but rarely the anti-pro-war ones.

Although, not to affend anyone, but it seems to me that the anti-war population, respect the freedom of speech more to do something like go against the freedom of speech of others. Mostly, those who are pro-war are usually the ones who are most "vocal" about it. And I, too, can give many examples of personal incidents in my city where pro-war people have been very violent to the beliefs of those who are anti-war, but I can give no examples of the other way around. @_o'

So, while these people may be the most "loud" with their beliefs, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are the majority nor that they represent the feelings of all Americans. In fact, many anti-war people feel just too threatened now to be so evident about their beliefs (in case you don't know, people have been fired, kicked off shows, arrested, had their property damaged, etc, just for being anti-war, and some of these incidents took place in my city alone....and I live in California. @_o').

But, an astounding amount of people are still against the war. Much more than the media likes to let on. In fact, though Michael Moore was booed at the Oscars, a few weeks later, his books hit number one on the most read list in America. @_o' So, once again, you can see that while pro-war individuals may be the most "loud" or obvious to the public in their beliefs, they don't represent the whole population. As you can see, the anti-war ones still exist in great numbers, but they tend to do so more "silently" and less obviously (perhaps due to fear).

In another example, the Dixie Chicks included a single unflattering line about Bush in one of their songs. Then there were many violent anti-dixie chick (CD burning, etc @_o') rallies across America. This of course, was reported on the news. However, what wasn't reported was that the Dixie Chicks CD hit number one on the most popular country music CD list a little after that. So once again, it's more "loudness" versus "quietness" that make America seem so pro-war in the media. After all, incidents like Micheal Moores book or the Dixie Chicks CD being a best seller won't hit the news, yet the booing at the Oscars and the CD burning rallies will. See?

At 5/17/03 11:36 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: but fox covered it before anyone else did, and they covered it moreso. it's just an example of how they are not conservative. they have conservatives working for them, but everyone does. and it's certain not all their reporters are conservative, especially the afternoon reporters. the reason fox news comes across as conservative is because it actually reports what other media organization won't when it's news that makes the republicans look good. but there are also stories that make them look bad that the others won't report either(why they don't report them i wouldn't know)

The right-winging that Fox News is doesn't come from the stories, but from how they are portrayed. Protester stories are met with bashing and how they're liberals showing their Anti-American colors (not exact words, obviously, but not far off). Anything that Fox News reports that's liberal is done under that "Stupid people news". It's all I've seen from Fox News and it's all most people has seen from Fox News.

i don't think anyone has credibility either, but it's important to know fox is far from conservative.

Credibility is only as good as the person who interprets it. However, there's no way I can be convinced that Fox is far from conservative when all I ever see from Fox News is conservative.

O'Reilly is out there, alright, but not as extreme as Michael Savage. I've listened to Savage's radio show. He says some pretty vicious stuff. If you haven't heard him, do so and maybe you can tell me how you compare Savage to O'Reilly. I could use a different opinion other than my own on it.

And I, too, can give many examples of personal incidents in my city where pro-war people have been very violent to the beliefs of those who are anti-war, but I can give no examples of the other way around.

I can give examples of anti-war people being violent to people trying to commute to work. :-)

I know violent isn't the right word, but I thought it would give the humor a bit more kick to it.

At 5/18/03 03:01 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
Why would we forget elections? The purpose was that the "common man" couldn't make the right decisions, not that "no man" can make these decisions.

i didn't say "no man", i said that there's too much to be done for everyone to be involved and thus a true democracy can't really work. that's more than likely true

The right wing is "more trust," feeling that if we give too much of the weight of running the country on the average American's soldiers, we may be "jepardizing national security" and that the "common man" may interfear in the success of those we elect, hurting our country "for the worst" (such as economy-wise, etc).

no, the right wing has to do with economic freedom. which is why communism is put in the left wing because it has to do with very little economic freedom

Wooah! Actually, that's not true. Even though our media portrayed the whole country as "backing Bush," in actuality, numbers showed that more people were against the war than for it (at least originally. Though, I think those numbers may have changed during mid-war). Just like more people still hated Bush, even though the media made it appear otherwise (remember, Bush actually lost the popular vote. He's never been the most popular guy.).

actually even before the war the majority of americans supported the idea. and the UN was being seen as an utterly worthless door to diplomacy

another thing, did you know absentee ballots are only counted if they are within range to change the electoral outcome? why? because there were millions thrown out because of that(far more than enough to change the popular vote outcome) that and you obviously haven't heard of "irving slosberg" who's incident proves al gore was rigging the election

It's like I was saying earlier. Our media has become very biased during war times. So they'll show anti-anti-war rallies, but rarely the anti-pro-war ones.

right lol, the liberal media is conservative. come on everyone knows better than that

Although, not to affend anyone, but it seems to me that the anti-war population, respect the freedom of speech more to do something like go against the freedom of speech of others. Mostly, those who are pro-war are usually the ones who are most "vocal" about it. And I, too, can give many examples of personal incidents in my city where pro-war people have been very violent to the beliefs of those who are anti-war, but I can give no examples of the other way around. @_o'

err no who told you that? the reasons for the pro-war protests are because the pro-war people wanted to show that they have freedom of speech as well. and most anti-war protests were violent to begin with, not that there are really many peaceful protests in the world at all

In another example, the Dixie Chicks included a single unflattering line about Bush in one of their songs. Then there were many violent anti-dixie chick (CD burning, etc @_o') rallies across America. This of course, was reported on the news. However, what wasn't reported was that the Dixie Chicks CD hit number one on the most popular country music CD list a little after that. So once again, it's more "loudness" versus "quietness" that make America seem so pro-war in the media. After all, incidents like Micheal Moores book or the Dixie Chicks CD being a best seller won't hit the news, yet the booing at the Oscars and the CD burning rallies will. See?

umm actually that's not true, it WAS reported in the news. who was it that told you it wasn't? he/she/it was wrong plain and simple. besides how would you even know about it if it really wasn't reported?

At 5/18/03 03:42 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

actually even before the war the majority of americans supported the idea. and the UN was being seen as an utterly worthless door to diplomacy

How do you know what everyone thought? @_o' That may be yours (and the group you hand around) and the medias opinion, but they did polls that showed otherwise, and even Fox broadcasted these polls, and they are the ones most glorifying the war.

another thing, did you know absentee ballots are only counted if they are within range to change the electoral outcome? why? because there were millions thrown out because of that(far more than enough to change the popular vote outcome) that and you obviously haven't heard of "irving slosberg" who's incident proves al gore was rigging the election

OK, I think you're a bit paranoid. Gore didn't "rig the election" just to get popular vote. Calm down man, the liberals aren't "out to get ya." Sheesh. And they didn't "prove it." If they did "prove it" then he wouldn't be in the political business anymore, but he still is very active in it. I don't understand how our media, that watches every little thing about that election, wouldn't make a bigger deal than that if he really did go "rig the election." lol. The Nixon incident was a big deal, and he didn't even actually rig it.

Originally, the election between Bush and Gore was going just like an average election. With the two main parties neck and neck and the third parties getting barely 3%. Now, here's why Gore began to loose.

He originally was very concerned about environmental issues. In fact, he wrote many many books on the subject (though you might deny it, Gore actually was an intelligent man---ironically, it was partially because of this that he didn't "connect" to the masses. While he was going up their talking about complicated political theories and "lock boxes," @_o' Bush was just.....well, being Bush. Bush had the whole "common man" appearance, while Gore didn't----the masses of course, like this, it's one of the reasons Clinton won, in fact. Actually, the media made multiple jokes about Gore "being a robot" because of this).

But guess what happened during the mid of Gore's run? Even though Gore was originally ahead, Bush had started to catch up. Though there was about a 10-20% difference, it was still threatening enough to make the democrats decide to change something. So, feeling that the "catching up" of votes had to do with "the feelings of the masses," Gore's party pushed him to drop his environmental campaign. And he did.

However, this was a HUGE mistake. Many liberals were furious at Gore for doing this, feeling betrayed by his actions. So, guess what started happening? More liberals began voting for Nader, a third party.

Now, it wasn't just that Gore had "betrayed his people" that caused this. It was also because Nader wasn't as threatening a choice to make as third parties generally are (meaning, Nader wasn't as extremist as the Green Party usually was, and the only thing he was really "extremist" about was environmental issues, which the liberals felt strongly about during this time).

Now here's the thing, both Nader and Gore were intelligent, both Nader and Gore wrote many books on environmental issues....but Gore was the only one who "betrayed" those beliefs. So, once again, more and more liberals began turning from the Democratic party and voting for the Green Party. Not just due to them being betrayed by Gore, but also because Nader wasn't as threatening as most extremists usually were.

So, guess what happened to the election? Bush and Gore suddenly were almost tied. Well, where did Gore's votes go? To the Green Party. If you didn't watch the news, the Green Party's results were very shocking. They had about over 15% of the popular vote. This is simply unheard of in most elections, with the third parties rarely ever getting over 5%.

And, of course, though Gore won the popular vote, he lost the election. Mostly due to his betrayal of his liberal background. So, you know what happened after the election? Gore jumped strongly back on his environmental ground, and has even written another book on the subject. Yet, the media seems to be only interested in that he got a beard. @_o' (I think it shows the attention span of the American viewer----though there were jokes about him becoming a "mountain man," which was a joke that linked his beard to his return to environmental issues). But, he still has a long way to go before he can gain the trust of the liberals once again.

right lol, the liberal media is conservative. come on everyone knows better than that

What the heck are you smoking? @_o' Where is the "liberal media?" Tell me, because I'd like to watch it sometime. The whole point about what the majority of people were talking about here is that the media is very right wing as of now. Even those who are right-wing on this forum agreed with that to some extent. I mean, if our media is so "liberal" then how do you explain you're beloved O'Reilly getting on there? lol. I'm sure that the "liberal media" would be encouraging war with Iraq and glorifying Bush. lol. You know nothing of Liberal beliefs. Heh heh.

Boy, you're starting to sound like my old grandpa. lol. Once again, the liberals aren't "out to get ya," which is what my grandpa believes. Do you also believe that they're "watching everything," cause if so, then I think my grandpa found a friend. No, Gore didn't "rig the election" and no the liberals don't "control the media behind the scenes," and no, there's not a "liberal conpiracy." Heh heh.

Although, not to affend anyone, but it seems to me that the anti-war population, respect the freedom of speech more to do something like go against the freedom of speech of others. Mostly, those who are pro-war are usually the ones who are most "vocal" about it. And I, too, can give many examples of personal incidents in my city where pro-war people have been very violent to the beliefs of those who are anti-war, but I can give no examples of the other way around. @_o'

err no who told you that? the reasons for the pro-war protests are because the pro-war people wanted to show that they have freedom of speech as well. and most anti-war protests were violent to begin with, not that there are really many peaceful protests in the world at all

No one had to "tell me that," because I've lived it. And I'm sure that many anti-war individuals here have lived it to.

For example, there was a report made recently that a man was arrested for entering a mall with the words, "No War" printed on his T-Shirt. Though he did nothing else wrong, the man was asked to leave the mall for wearing what the officials called a "controversial" message on his T-Shirt. The man refused to leave, and so was arrested and even convicted for "trespassing." @_o' I could try to find the article for anyone else who is interested. Is this what you meant by "violent?"

In a more famous issue, the Dixie Chicks country-singing group was accused of betrayal to their country by including a single unflattering line about President Bush in one of their songs. People protested their actions by refusing to purchase the girls' music and even began to burn the group's CDs in violent rallies. And in case you don't know, few people were ever arrested in these rallies. But the girls are punished by for their opinions.

Another recent issue involved a news reporter who was actually fired for participating in an anti-war protest, because it "wasn't a good image for the station."

Then again, Harpers reported that on a popular Fox News show, "The O'Reilly Factor." A man named Jeremy Glick, who's father was killed in 9/11, was violently kicked off the show for admitting that, during his leadership of the CIA, Bush Sr. actually greatly financially supported the exact terrorist groups that later became the Taliban who killed his father. Without his previous support, the Taliban could not have attacked the US. That episode was never aired. Glick reported that after the interview, in his humiliation for not being able to contradict Glick's argument, Bill O'Reilly said to him, "Get out of my studio before I tear you to F@#$ pieces." The article lists the entire speech between Glick and O'Reilly. Once again, it alarms me that you consider O'Reilly's behavior to be simply "a little out there" for a right-wing individual. I truly hope that you don't base your favor of someone simply by comparing them to another person who is worse.

I have witnessed the betrayal of the freedom of speech myself. At the end of my block is a fence that is plastered with pro-war posters. Once, I saw that someone put a single anti-war poster in the mist of the others. This is, like I said, quiet protesting. The next day, I saw that someone had torn it down.

Then a few weeks later, someone hung up a sheet on that wall that said "peace" on it. Once again, quiet protesting. Two days later, someone actually bothered to take a knife, go over, and knife the sheet to shreds. This is violent protesting because it's threatening to those who may wish to continue to make their beliefs known, and it's destroying property.

At the same area, a pro-war rally was gathered a couple of weeks ago. Only about 20 people came, but a news station covered the event as dozens of cars past by, honking their approval. A week later, a few women sat at the same area with a picture of their sons/grandsons who were in the war. Their sign said something akin to, "Stop the war, bring my son home." No news station covered it, and no one honked. So much for your "liberal media" image.

By my grandmother's house a billboard once read, "Support our Troops, Send them Home." No more than two weeks later, it was painted over in white and a banner was hung under it that read, "Support the USA" in red, white, and blue.

Does anyone else have some examples they could add? ^_^

Now, due to the smaller scale "red scare" that has been brought onto us by the media, we can see that indeed, those who are pro-war feel more comfortable about being "loud" in there beliefs.

However, those who are against the war may feel pressured not to make their beliefs known. If they are against the war, then they are often dubbed "anti-american" and are delt harsh concequences for their beliefs (such as being fired, arrested, kicked of a show, having their property destroyed, etc etc). So, I wasn't saying that those who are anti-war are quiet about it "by nature" nor that those who are pro-war are loud about it "by nature," it's just that during these times, it is difficult for anti-war individuals to feel comfortable about making their beliefs known, while it is much easier for pro-war individuals.

After all, they can yell "Go America, kick Iraqi butt!" all they want and no one can say anything, because they're being "supportive of their country." But when anti-war individuals go "Stop the war! Bush is being selfish!" then they are frowned upon for not being "supportive of their country enough," and, like I said, are often delt harsh blows for it. Do you understand what I mean now?

umm actually that's not true, it WAS reported in the news. who was it that told you it wasn't? he/she/it was wrong plain and simple. besides how would you even know about it if it really wasn't reported?

Oh good, it was? I'm glad, I must have missed it. ^_^ But why would they only report that only few times when they were reporting the rallies all the time? @_o'

I know about it because I actually read, as amazing as the action sounds.

At 5/18/03 03:42 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

no, the right wing has to do with economic freedom. which is why communism is put in the left wing because it has to do with very little economic freedom

Uh, do you realize that the right and left-wing points of view don't revolve around economics only, right? @_o'

At 5/18/03 03:10 AM, OSC wrote: O'Reilly is out there, alright, but not as extreme as Michael Savage. I've listened to Savage's radio show. He says some pretty vicious stuff. If you haven't heard him, do so and maybe you can tell me how you compare Savage to O'Reilly. I could use a different opinion other than my own on it.

.....I never compared O'Rielly to Savage. @_o' O'Rielly is an extremist, and Savage is more of an extremist. And I truly hope that you don't base your opinions on someone just by comparing them to someone worse. @_o'

It surprises me that you would call O'Reilly's behavior a little "out there" for a right-wing individual. I wouldn't think that you'd want the rest of the world to associate your party with that man, since he's probably the worst example of level-headedness I've seen in a long time, and a bad example of any intelligent and "down to earth" right-wing individual. Nor would I think that you'd want want us to assume that that's next to normal behavior for all right-wing individuals. @_o'

At 5/18/03 03:41 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
Uh, do you realize that the right and left-wing points of view don't revolve around economics only, right? @_o'

umm yes they do, right-left is economic. libertarian-authoritarian is social. they are not the same