The Liberal Media bias

[NHT123]

Before you flame me hear me out; the bias can be proven by exactly how much attention Obama has had. The modern Liberal ideology has driven people to almost elect a man who has not been on record of ever achieving anything politically. His campaign is full of empty rhetoric and his typical supporter (which stretches into Canada and beyond) only know his slogan "Change and hope" I ask Change and hope for what?

More credible less Liberal Democratic candidates were passed up to elect a man whose main desirable attribute is the fact that he is African American. If he was completely white he would not have received the same amount of attention that he is. Now conservative media outlets are obvious. Fox News although the most fiscally conservative is one of only a few examples out of the vast mainstream of media.

Did you know that John Mcain was a media darling before when he took on the polemic of the republicans and decided to be more liberal then the vast majority of his republican running mates? The media started to hype him up as he was the most liberal running force in the Republican Party; Although Mcain as not a bad choice at all. John Mcain has all but been ignored, when was the last time you heard something about Mcain? Obama had all the media attention when he went through his European Tirade.

And in fact you can see about how bullshit movies (Not even worth calling documentaries) like Fahrenheit 9-11 and Sicko got so much attention even though both of them are about as factual as the Hollywood remake of 300. "Super Size Me" is another great example, when Morgan Spurlock attempts to exonerate all the obese from what they obviously did to themselves. Mc Donald's is not forcing anyone to eat their products, and they fully acknowledge that eating their product is harmful like the tobacco companies acknowledge that smoking is harmful. But why did Micheal Moore rise to such fame making crap movies? Because of the attention he got from the media.

And before you say anything further, hear this man out; although he is a political comedian he actually gives some serious well thought-out explanations of today's liberal society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ -c

[robattle]

Of course if Obama was white he would have never gottan this far. It seems to me that just because he's half black he gets to go to the top. The media likes this and puts him on much more then that old white guy would may have been the better choice all along.

And those documentaries appear to be for show but I never saw Fahrenheit 9-11 or Sicko is that a good thing? Media attention can make stupid people look smart because the media is just telling their side of the story. Oh and that video you linked to I can't see it because youtube keeps saying "you don't have the latest flash player" I've been trying to fix that for months, still fucked up blah.

And in truth I'm not sure about this.

[Saruman200]

At 8/29/08 12:29 PM, NHT123 wrote: Before you flame me hear me out; the bias can be proven by exactly how much attention Obama has had. The modern Liberal ideology has driven people to almost elect a man who has not been on record of ever achieving anything politically. His campaign is full of empty rhetoric and his typical supporter (which stretches into Canada and beyond) only know his slogan "Change and hope" I ask Change and hope for what?

Obama may not have achieved anything politically, but neither did some of our best presidents, such Lincoln, JFK, and FDR (and Washington, if we're talking about "achieving anything politically").

More credible less Liberal Democratic candidates were passed up to elect a man whose main desirable attribute is the fact that he is African American. If he was completely white he would not have received the same amount of attention that he is. Now conservative media outlets are obvious. Fox News although the most fiscally conservative is one of only a few examples out of the vast mainstream of media.

Did you know that John Mcain was a media darling before when he took on the polemic of the republicans and decided to be more liberal then the vast majority of his republican running mates? The media started to hype him up as he was the most liberal running force in the Republican Party; Although Mcain as not a bad choice at all. John Mcain has all but been ignored, when was the last time you heard something about Mcain? Obama had all the media attention when he went through his European Tirade.

True.

And in fact you can see about how bullshit movies (Not even worth calling documentaries) like Fahrenheit 9-11 and Sicko got so much attention even though both of them are about as factual as the Hollywood remake of 300. "Super Size Me" is another great example, when Morgan Spurlock attempts to exonerate all the obese from what they obviously did to themselves. Mc Donald's is not forcing anyone to eat their products, and they fully acknowledge that eating their product is harmful like the tobacco companies acknowledge that smoking is harmful. But why did Micheal Moore rise to such fame making crap movies? Because of the attention he got from the media.

Micheal Moore get's way too much crap for nothing. Believe it or not, his movies are based on facts. Do they cherrypick those facts? Yes. Are they manipulative? Yes. As far as I'm concerned, making movies that are at least somewhat based on facts is better than what he could be doing: making stupid statements over the radio like all those other dumbass political commentators.

And before you say anything further, hear this man out; although he is a political comedian he actually gives some serious well thought-out explanations of today's liberal society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ -c

That movie was complete bullshit. Just because someone has a different political view than you doesn't mean they are evil or stupid... Both conservatives and liberals can be smart, good kind people. That guy is an idiot and all he does is make conservatives look like what he makes liberals out to be.

Media bias is there, but there's a much conservative bias as their is liberal bias. The media is flows with opinions of the people. It changes directions like the wind, one minute to the left, another to the right. So don't bother complaining, main-stream media isn't a good source for anything controversial anyway.

[NHT123]

At 8/29/08 01:18 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Obama may not have achieved anything politically, but neither did some of our best presidents, such Lincoln, JFK, and FDR (and Washington, if we're talking about "achieving anything politically").

JFK had the Bay of pigs fiasco and really did a whole lot about Veitnam *rolls eyes* Lincoln was nearly a Dictator (Yes I know he was republican) and FDR held more terms then he should have.

Micheal Moore get's way too much crap for nothing. Believe it or not, his movies are based on facts. Do they cherrypick those facts? Yes. Are they manipulative? Yes. As far as I'm concerned, making movies that are at least somewhat based on facts is better than what he could be doing: making stupid statements over the radio like all those other dumbass political commentators.

Not at all he makes many assertions which are not true. For instance he said that Saddam never made threats against other nations; but what the fuck was Kewait all about? He twists facts, makes up things, manipulates and places imagry that is not directly tied in order to make an unfounded opinion. It is not even a fair attempt at a reasonable discussion.

That movie was complete bullshit. Just because someone has a different political view than you doesn't mean they are evil or stupid... Both conservatives and liberals can be smart, good kind people. That guy is an idiot and all he does is make conservatives look like what he makes liberals out to be.

Its talking about the "MODERN" liberal ideology and says nothing about the liberals who are actually informed. Actually it is refering to the vast majority of idiots who support Obama in the first place. It isn't refering to the smarter ones.

Media bias is there, but there's a much conservative bias as their is liberal bias. The media is flows with opinions of the people. It changes directions like the wind, one minute to the left, another to the right. So don't bother complaining, main-stream media isn't a good source for anything controversial anyway.

Bullshit, where is the media coverage for Mcain? This is simply not true, otherwise Mcain would get just as much coverage as Obama and he doesn't have a tenth of that. It is a strawman argument and is full of shit.

[Saruman200]

At 8/29/08 01:45 PM, NHT123 wrote:

At 8/29/08 01:18 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Obama may not have achieved anything politically, but neither did some of our best presidents, such Lincoln, JFK, and FDR (and Washington, if we're talking about "achieving anything politically").

JFK had the Bay of pigs fiasco and really did a whole lot about Veitnam *rolls eyes* Lincoln was nearly a Dictator (Yes I know he was republican) and FDR held more terms then he should have.

Historians, who actually know what they're talking about rate Lincoln as the best president, FDR as second or third (nternchanging with Washington. And the US only entered Vietnam with actual combat brigades in 1965, two years after JFK was killed. However, military advisors had been there to help South Vietnam since the presidency of Dwight D. Einshower.

Micheal Moore get's way too much crap for nothing. Believe it or not, his movies are based on facts. Do they cherrypick those facts? Yes. Are they manipulative? Yes. As far as I'm concerned, making movies that are at least somewhat based on facts is better than what he could be doing: making stupid statements over the radio like all those other dumbass political commentators.

Not at all he makes many assertions which are not true. For instance he said that Saddam never made threats against other nations; but what the fuck was Kewait all about? He twists facts, makes up things, manipulates and places imagry that is not directly tied in order to make an unfounded opinion. It is not even a fair attempt at a reasonable discussion.

True. But, it's better than the Ann Coultour-style alternative.

That movie was complete bullshit. Just because someone has a different political view than you doesn't mean they are evil or stupid... Both conservatives and liberals can be smart, good kind people. That guy is an idiot and all he does is make conservatives look like what he makes liberals out to be.

Its talking about the "MODERN" liberal ideology and says nothing about the liberals who are actually informed. Actually it is refering to the vast majority of idiots who support Obama in the first place. It isn't refering to the smarter ones.

"Modern" liberal ideology is basically all liberals. This would be different than Classical Liberalism, which is essentially modern libertarianism.

Media bias is there, but there's a much conservative bias as their is liberal bias. The media is flows with opinions of the people. It changes directions like the wind, one minute to the left, another to the right. So don't bother complaining, main-stream media isn't a good source for anything controversial anyway.

Bullshit, where is the media coverage for Mcain? This is simply not true, otherwise Mcain would get just as much coverage as Obama and he doesn't have a tenth of that. It is a strawman argument and is full of shit.

I said you where right when you said that currently Obama gets more coverage than McCain. Your right.

[DrAfrothunder]

That was a waste of 47 minutes and 55 seconds of my life. I'm not even sure what i can say. Just...no...

[Musician]

The media focuses on the stories that the people are interested in. People are more interested in Obama, and don't care so much for John McCain. It's not liberal bias for the media to be focusing on a popular/controversial candidate, it's capitalism.

[KeithHybrid]

The only reason anyone could say the media has liberal bias and keep a straight face is if they take into account the sheer amount of conservative bias on Fox News which balances out the little bit of liberal bias found in other news networks.

gb2/fauxnoise/

[Mind-Blight]

At 8/29/08 12:29 PM, NHT123 wrote:

:John Mcain has all but been ignored, when was the last time you heard something about Mcain? Obama had all the media attention when he went through his European Tirade.

How about today? Obama made his speech at the Democratic national convention, and that was supposed to be huge. Instead, the media focused on Jon Mcain choosing a female VP.

[pigtailsboy]

McCain has been on the political scene for longer than some of us have been alive. Obama is fresh and has expressed a lot of interest in the things people care about and on top of that has pointed out some only some of the bellow-the-belt tactics that are so often used to destabilize voter opinion.

But one real reason why Obama has been getting so much press is up until recently the democratic primary had been unresolved as Hilary Clinton and Obama continued to vi for the nomination. McCain has held the republican nomination for months. If you expect more McCain coverage then you can expect more now that only two major party candidates remain. You'll get all the McCain and Obama content you want from now on although I imagine both sides will have that foul feeling every time the opposing candidate is promoted or spoken about. And if you still don't feel there's equal coverage try watching PBS. Some of the more accredited seem as balanced as you can get.

Not meaning to get off topic but I'm hoping most of you will have or will see each of the party conventions to at least give the candidate a chance. Know that both party events are scripted largely but their message as far as we know is largely true. I wouldn't put to much attention into what either candidate says about the other though.

Another thing I felt mentioning was a McCain ad following the Democratic convention. I'm unsure of what networks it was carried on. In it McCain commended Obama. But when I saw it I couldn't help but read another intent behind his words. I know that many political figures have complimented a rival party member before all the wile the watchful public knowing that it wasn't entirely sincere. But in this instance I just felt that there was some sort of hostility his voice.
I was able to find the ad just now so maybe some of you have an opinion on it's content:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4KIvRTg6 KQ

[BrianEtrius]

Whoop de do, like you've just noticed this?

The fact of the matter is that for the majority of the past 30 years most of the media coverage has been liberal. Why? Because that's what the majority of Americans are. As a company you want to o after the bigger group, no the smaller one.

[NHT123]

At 8/29/08 01:55 PM, Saruman200 wrote:
Historians, who actually know what they're talking about rate Lincoln as the best president, FDR as second or third (nternchanging with Washington. And the US only entered Vietnam with actual combat brigades in 1965, two years after JFK was killed. However, military advisors had been there to help South Vietnam since the presidency of Dwight D. Einshower.

Lincoln was a good president but he tore the nation apart and caused a civil war. His cause was just however. FDR went against the constitution something that the liberals always cry about even though its not always that big a deal. I suppose it was the vice president that really committed troops to veitnam; however it was still his pick and the guy he picked started America's involvement in the war.

True. But, it's better than the Ann Coultour-style alternative.

Ann Coultour makes us all look like idiots; her comparitive would be Alex Jones.

"Modern" liberal ideology is basically all liberals. This would be different than Classical Liberalism, which is essentially modern libertarianism.

Nope that is where you are wrong. He is stricktly talking about the vast droves of people who are drawn to this extreme leftist ideolgy by stupidity.

I said you where right when you said that currently Obama gets more coverage than McCain. Your right.

Well that was my proof of the obvious Liberal bias of the media. I am not going to say Fox News is liberal because only an idiot would think that. But the vast majority is.

[NHT123]

At 8/30/08 02:25 AM, pigtailsboy wrote: McCain has been on the political scene for longer than some of us have been alive. Obama is fresh and has expressed a lot of interest in the things people care about and on top of that has pointed out some only some of the bellow-the-belt tactics that are so often used to destabilize voter opinion.

Obama really hasn't done much of anything, honestly he has never taken the party polemic and normally only votes present on the touchy issues. He is not ready to get his hands dirty and he sounds like a dangerious politician.

But one real reason why Obama has been getting so much press is up until recently the democratic primary had been unresolved as Hilary Clinton and Obama continued to vi for the nomination. McCain has held the republican nomination for months. If you expect more McCain coverage then you can expect more now that only two major party candidates remain. You'll get all the McCain and Obama content you want from now on although I imagine both sides will have that foul feeling every time the opposing candidate is promoted or spoken about. And if you still don't feel there's equal coverage try watching PBS. Some of the more accredited seem as balanced as you can get.

Mcain never got any attention during the primary it was always between Obama and Hillary for the next president like the democrat primaries was the actual election race.

Not meaning to get off topic but I'm hoping most of you will have or will see each of the party conventions to at least give the candidate a chance. Know that both party events are scripted largely but their message as far as we know is largely true. I wouldn't put to much attention into what either candidate says about the other though.

There were far more qualified democrats which I would certainly consider; however they are either too liberal or only elected on the basis that they are a minority. At least Hillary was experienced and at least she was a moderate. People Like Dennis K just don't sit well with me.

Another thing I felt mentioning was a McCain ad following the Democratic convention. I'm unsure of what networks it was carried on. In it McCain commended Obama. But when I saw it I couldn't help but read another intent behind his words. I know that many political figures have complimented a rival party member before all the wile the watchful public knowing that it wasn't entirely sincere. But in this instance I just felt that there was some sort of hostility his voice.
I was able to find the ad just now so maybe some of you have an opinion on it's content:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4KIvRTg6 KQ

Sounds like an honest consession; good job with your victory today so you can lose tommorrow was the kind of vibe I was getting.

[NHT123]

At 8/30/08 02:58 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: Whoop de do, like you've just noticed this?

The fact of the matter is that for the majority of the past 30 years most of the media coverage has been liberal. Why? Because that's what the majority of Americans are. As a company you want to o after the bigger group, no the smaller one.

Funny thing is that there are more moderates that either conservatives or liberals and too win they have to be swayed. I am not sure what the agenda behind the liberal news media but I assume there si something.

[PineappleWinnie]

At 8/29/08 04:37 PM, Musician wrote: The media focuses on the stories that the people are interested in. People are more interested in Obama, and don't care so much for John McCain. It's not liberal bias for the media to be focusing on a popular/controversial candidate, it's capitalism.

Capitalism that Barack Obama will help erode once in Presidency, as he is said that he will visit and / or befriend Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez. And some of his followers are anti-Israel, too. Will he do wrong by neglecting to follow the tradition? Not at all, but the USA will certainly go in an extremely different direction.

When I was small Mom used to tell me that "There shall be one day when the USA becomes totally socialist while Russia will become totally capitalist." And I see that she was right. It is going to be ironic to see all of the "Revolucionarios" that still exist praising the USA and expressign their hatred versus someone else (maybe Europe, South Korea, Japan, or something).

OK I totally went off topic. Fuck this. LOL. I'm going to get a donut.

[pigtailsboy]

Being first lady isn't much of a qualification it seems to me even if you are heavily involved in your husband's administration. I'll give her the credit of running for a senate position and serving.

I may not be so impressed by Obama's voting record but what does impress me is his activities before running for office. Just like McCain, Obama made his mark through service. I think the only thing you can argue on is their stance on the popular issues of election.

[pigtailsboy]

At 8/30/08 03:41 AM, PineappleWinnie wrote: Capitalism that Barack Obama will help erode once in Presidency, as he is said that he will visit and / or befriend Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez. And some of his followers are anti-Israel, too. Will he do wrong by neglecting to follow the tradition? Not at all, but the USA will certainly go in an extremely different direction.

When I was small Mom used to tell me that "There shall be one day when the USA becomes totally socialist while Russia will become totally capitalist." And I see that she was right. It is going to be ironic to see all of the "Revolucionarios" that still exist praising the USA and expressign their hatred versus someone else (maybe Europe, South Korea, Japan, or something).

OK I totally went off topic. Fuck this. LOL. I'm going to get a donut.

I wouldn't say we're in danger of being molded into socialist economic society. Our corporate and government structure is on the whole similar to any other capitalist country. Although it does seem the private property of citizens is not nearly as secure as it once was there is a great deal of difference between us and china which is an alleged communist society.

To respond to some of your other points I don't believe having a dialog with countries is reprehensible when it's in the world's and this country's interest. And by having diplomatic channels with a country it will be yet another avenue to work through other than making threats through the United Nations or that of invasion.

When it's a question of Israel I've heard opinions that the government of Israel deserves as much a watchful eye and a stern word as any of Israel's enemies. Regardless of their situation a lot of strong arm tactics have been used by our ally when a less harsh measure could have been more productive. And even if our government were to open diplomatic channels with Israel's enemies we would be no less an ally for doing so. It's one of the many things the Israelis can't do themselves, talk to their neighbor.

Enjoy your donut. *wondering what kind it is*

[D2Kvirus]

Ever think that Obama wouldn't have gotten half the attention he's had if the Democratic nomination was an open & shut case? He's bound to get more press inches than McCain, because he was selected quickly and quietly, which are two wourds you can't use about Obama.

.Alongside "meaningful" and "insightful"...

[homor]

At 8/29/08 01:45 PM, NHT123 wrote: Lincoln was nearly a Dictator

what the fuck are you talking about you fucking idiot?

GENREAL LEE WAS THE ONE HE TOOK TERRITORY, LINCOLN WAS MERELY TAKING IT BACK.

is it evil and dictatorish to take back the territory that WAS TAKEN FROM YOU?

should he have just let them take the land from the states? should he have just let them whip all the slaves they wanted?

and don't give me that fucking "WELL IT WASHA DER' DISISON SO BLAH BLAH BLAH BLSH I LOVE A BIG JUICY COKC IN MA' MOUTH!!!"

because with mindset, russia should be allowed to kill of georgians and occupiy their land because thats their discession, oh, and that makes taking the states back justified too, since it was lincoln discession.

i know you're going to give me a load of shit about how they had a right to suceed if they wanted too and how its nothing like attacking geogria and maybe you'll defend russia's attack by swying geogria started it and get mad at me for the personal attacks and blah blah blah wah wah wah,

but you know what? none of that matters to me, i just want you to think about one thing:

if senators were allowed to start their own country's, america would be in a total state of anarchy.

oh, and if you're talking about that suspenion of trials during the civil war, you can kiss my ass, because if it wasn't for that the war would have been even harder, prehaps even more lives would have been lost.

[alchemylord]

At 8/30/08 03:09 AM, NHT123 wrote:

however. FDR went against the constitution something that the liberals always cry about even though its not always that big a deal.

Except for the fact that the 2 term clause was added after FDR died. So technically the only thing he did was break with tradition.

Nope that is where you are wrong. He is stricktly talking about the vast droves of people who are drawn to this extreme leftist ideolgy by stupidity.

Then how come the largest voting obama block is the highly educated.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/29/08 12:29 PM, NHT123 wrote: Before you flame me hear me out; the bias can be proven by exactly how much attention Obama has had.

No, it can't.

The modern Liberal ideology has driven people to almost elect a man who has not been on record of ever achieving anything politically. His campaign is full of empty rhetoric and his typical supporter (which stretches into Canada and beyond) only know his slogan "Change and hope" I ask Change and hope for what?

Fail. So let me get this straight... Barack is a bad candidate, which proves the media gives him too much attention, which proves the media is liberally biased.

So the opposite of this is... Ron Paul is a great candidate, which proves the press doesn't give him nearly enough coverage, which means the media is authoritarianly biased.

Or, let's see... George Bush was a horrible candidate, which proves he got too much attention, which means the media is conservatively biased.

OH FUCK REALITY IS TEARING APART.

You just threw in three completely unrelated blurbs, falsely claimed they someone proved each other correct, and failed to see that if you apply your methodology to other factors, it completely contradicts yourself.

Someone being a bad presidential candidate =/= the media is giving him too much attention =/= the Media is liberally biased.

More credible less Liberal Democratic candidates were passed up to elect a man whose main desirable attribute is the fact that he is African American. If he was completely white he would not have received the same amount of attention that he is.

Right, I forgot this year that the only people allowed to vote in the primaries where members of the press.

Oh no wait, Obama was elected by the democrats, meaning this doesn't prove liberal bias (at all), meaning this is just more pointless talking. I'm not saying your idea's don't have merit, just that they totally fail to prove your hypothesis.

Now conservative media outlets are obvious. Fox News

Yes.

although the most fiscally conservative is one of only a few examples out of the vast mainstream of media.

I wouldn't call them fiscally conservative. They tend to match up with Republicans and Neo-Cons fiscally, and the GOP is about as liberally conservative as you can get without being a democrat.

Did you know that John Mcain was a media darling before when he took on the polemic of the republicans and decided to be more liberal then the vast majority of his republican running mates? The media started to hype him up as he was the most liberal running force in the Republican Party; Although Mcain as not a bad choice at all. John Mcain has all but been ignored, when was the last time you heard something about Mcain?

Today, actually.

And his "Maverick" angle got attention because it was different and because it stood out, not because it was moderate. McCain doesn't get a lot of attention because he tends not to DO anything. When he does something of note, it is noted, just like Obama.

Obama had all the media attention when he went through his European Tirade.

Tirades tend to get attention.

And in fact you can see about how bullshit movies (Not even worth calling documentaries) like Fahrenheit 9-11 and Sicko got so much attention even though both of them are about as factual as the Hollywood remake of 300.

Movie theater =/= the press. The Washington Post doesn't have the ability to magically make Michael Moore stop existing, so bringing him up, again, fails to prove the media is liberally biased.

"Super Size Me" is another great example when Morgan Spurlock attempts to exonerate all the obese from what they obviously did to themselves. Mc Donald's is not forcing anyone to eat their products, and they fully acknowledge that eating their product is harmful like the tobacco companies acknowledge that smoking is harmful.

Again, your throwing in random shit that has nothing to do with your original point.

But why did Micheal Moore rise to such fame making crap movies? Because of the attention he got from the media.

Because people bought his shit. Again, the media doesn't have the power to magically prevent people from liking Michael Moore.

And before you say anything further, hear this man out; although he is a political comedian he actually gives some serious well thought-out explanations of today's liberal society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ -c

Again, liberal society =/= liberal media.

Your entire post was explaining that some human beings are liberal, therefor the bulk of the media is. This is like me trying to explain that since some people are black, the media is run by black people, and that this is proven by Morgan Spurlock somehow.

[TheKlown]

At 8/29/08 01:05 PM, robattle wrote: Of course if Obama was white he would have never gottan this far. It seems to me that just because he's half black he gets to go to the top.

Hilary would have won if Obama was 100 percent white. Shes a better canidate then obama, but since obama has part black in him people want to be around when the first black president gets elected. It's garbage and he already won all the black votes even though hes clearly not qualified to be president.

[therealsylvos]

Purely anecdotal, so not really proof, but I remeber months ago during the primaries all the major outlets, except fox, was scoffing at people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for calling McCain not conservative.

Nonsense! they said, he is a TRUE conservative and the best choice on the republican side.
I don't remember if it was the day after or a couple of days after McCain became the presumptive nominee CNN.com ran a story by a lefty along the lines of, "McCain really ISN'T a true conservative" and then proceeded to outline all the problems the conservative wing of the republican party were complaining about during the primary season.

It was quite funny actually.

[homor]

At 8/31/08 09:50 AM, therealsylvos wrote: It was quite funny actually.

they'll say anything if they think its sounds liberal enough.

its a pathedic attempt at begging for viewers.

[Chavic]

At 8/29/08 01:45 PM, NHT123 wrote:

JFK had the Bay of pigs fiasco and really did a whole lot about Veitnam *rolls eyes* Lincoln was nearly a Dictator (Yes I know he was republican) and FDR held more terms then he should have.

Then why is JFK so popular?
Lincoln emancipated slaves.
And there where no term limits when FDR was president. Not to mention he helped pull this county out of the Great Depression.
Learn your history before you open your mouth and spew out retarded rhetoric

[therealsylvos]

At 8/31/08 02:56 PM, Chavic wrote:

At 8/29/08 01:45 PM, NHT123 wrote:

JFK had the Bay of pigs fiasco and really did a whole lot about Veitnam *rolls eyes* Lincoln was nearly a Dictator (Yes I know he was republican) and FDR held more terms then he should have.

Then why is JFK so popular?

Because he was martyred an idealized. Can you cite any real accomplishments of his?
And don't even try the missile crisis since he pretty much caused it in the first place.

Lincoln emancipated slaves.

Based on your position on JFK you shouldn't be too hot on Lincoln. He was so unpopular that a huge percentage of the country absolutely refused to have him as their president. It was his election that spurred secession.

And there where no term limits when FDR was president. Not to mention he helped pull this county out of the Great Depression.

Or you know, greatly prolonged it.

Learn your history before you open your mouth and spew out retarded rhetoric

hm

[N0VA64]

Well that certainly USED to be true, but this study from the center from media and public affairs says that since the primaries ended Obama has had 72% negative coverage(79% on Fox News)

[asadsas]

Most of Obama's attention is o'rielly trying to discredit him

LOLOLOL HIS PRIEST SAID BAD WORDS HE BAD

LOLOLOL HE INEXPERIENCED HE BAD

[NHT123]

At 8/31/08 02:30 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: No, it can't.

Then why should I listen to your opinion?

Fail. So let me get this straight... Barack is a bad candidate, which proves the media gives him too much attention, which proves the media is liberally biased.

No he isn't nessisarily a bad candidate; thanks for arguing with your own strawman argument. He just isn't as qualified as the other candidates; more experience as a senator would help for instance. However he some how got twice the attention as all the other candidates and even more the Hillary. Tons of people only know Hillary and Obama; and the only reason they would vote for them was to shift power from a white male. What kind of logic is that? The media has favorited him because he is the most liberal for the fact that he is black alone. Liberal means change, and a black man in office is a big change; his policies are not horribly liberal however. I think this only proves the media bias.

So the opposite of this is... Ron Paul is a great candidate, which proves the press doesn't give him nearly enough coverage, which means the media is authoritarianly biased.

Ron Paul is a republican conservative; I think that proves he didn't get the coverage he needed because he was not liberal or mainstream enough.

Or, let's see... George Bush was a horrible candidate, which proves he got too much attention, which means the media is conservatively biased.

Boy, were you even out of a diaper in the 2000 election? Al Gore was a media favorite, and then again with Kerry. The problem is this back fires, and too much attention can detract from a candidate; such as the bad things can be pointed out in full very quickly because of all the attention etc. Yes the media scrambles to pick a story wether or not it will help their candidate out.

OH FUCK REALITY IS TEARING APART.

You just threw in three completely unrelated blurbs, falsely claimed they someone proved each other correct, and failed to see that if you apply your methodology to other factors, it completely contradicts yourself.

Not at all, it was my supporting evidence rather then claiming only that there is a liberal media bias plz discuss. Plus you failed at disproving my points.

Someone being a bad presidential candidate =/= the media is giving him too much attention =/= the Media is liberally biased.

Media picking a candidate to give attention = Bias towards candidate = bias towards candidates party. Factor in this isn't the first time etc. Then you have to reach the final conclusion.

Right, I forgot this year that the only people allowed to vote in the primaries where members of the press.

No just a bunch of droves of idiots who listen to the media and fuel the presses liberal bias to cater to them and fuels the endless cycle.

Oh no wait, Obama was elected by the democrats, meaning this doesn't prove liberal bias (at all), meaning this is just more pointless talking. I'm not saying your idea's don't have merit, just that they totally fail to prove your hypothesis.

I explained why he is the most liberal of all candidates because of the dumb liberal theology.

I wouldn't call them fiscally conservative. They tend to match up with Republicans and Neo-Cons fiscally, and the GOP is about as liberally conservative as you can get without being a democrat.

Alright ideology wise aswell I suppose; The republican party is not known for being a socialist party.

Today, actually.

Its obvious that Obama gets more attention then Mcain

And his "Maverick" angle got attention because it was different and because it stood out, not because it was moderate. McCain doesn't get a lot of attention because he tends not to DO anything. When he does something of note, it is noted, just like Obama.

Obama got all the attention when he toured in europe; during that I didn't hear a single thing when Mcain toured America which makes more sense too me seeing as the europeans are not voting for him in the next election. It is obvious that Obama gets alot more attention then Mcain.

Obama had all the media attention when he went through his European Tirade.

Tirades tend to get attention.


Movie theater =/= the press. The Washington Post doesn't have the ability to magically make Michael Moore stop existing, so bringing him up, again, fails to prove the media is liberally biased.

Did Fereinhype 9-11 make it to theaters? I think not, and neither did the great global warming swindel or many other great conservative movies; They are not seen as profitable as they will hardly get any media attention. And I doubt you have even heard of those movies.

Again, your throwing in random shit that has nothing to do with your original point.


Because people bought his shit. Again, the media doesn't have the power to magically prevent people from liking Michael Moore.

The media has power of what people know and think, they have influence over their lives especially if you don't research the issues.

Again, liberal society =/= liberal media.

Fair enough, but that does not negate my points.

Your entire post was explaining that some human beings are liberal, therefor the bulk of the media is. This is like me trying to explain that since some people are black, the media is run by black people, and that this is proven by Morgan Spurlock somehow.

You over simplify everything I have just said; hopefully the rest of my post will clerify for you.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 9/2/08 12:09 AM, NHT123 wrote:

Then why should I listen to your opinion?

Why should anyone listen to anyones opinion?

No he isn't nessisarily a bad candidate; thanks for arguing with your own strawman argument.

Lol. "Obama is inexperienced, his main slogan is bullshit, and the only reason anyone wants him elected is because of his race. The guy has no redeeming features"
"So you think he's a bad candidate?"
"STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!"

It isn't a Strawman if you directly imply it.

He just isn't as qualified as the other candidates; more experience as a senator would help for instance. However he some how got twice the attention as all the other candidates and even more the Hillary.

Because Hilary is even stupider then he is.

Tons of people only know Hillary and Obama; and the only reason they would vote for them was to shift power from a white male. What kind of logic is that?

I know, Obama is a shitty candidate who's only redeeming feature is his race, we've already established that.

The media has favorited him because he is the most liberal for the fact that he is black alone.

Except, again, you haven't at all proved the media DOES favor him. Again, so far the only 'proof' you gave of that was 'Obama is inexperienced, therefor the media is giving him too much attention'. Those facts do not relate, whatsoever; my next door neighbor is also inexperienced, and he gets zero media attention.

Liberal means change, and a black man in office is a big change; his policies are not horribly liberal however. I think this only proves the media bias.

Lol. 'Obama is black, and not extremely liberal... therefor the media is liberally biased'. Do you understand that saying two correct statements side by side doesn't mean they relate to each other, or to an underlying point? You keep doing that. Two completely unrelated sentences, both extremely true, neither of them correlating or leading to your hypothesis of a biased media.

Ron Paul is a republican conservative; I think that proves he didn't get the coverage he needed because he was not liberal or mainstream enough.

And because, you know, nobody was voting for him and he is a third party candidate.

But what I was refering to was your statement that went "Obama is inexperienced/bad/whatever your point was means he gets too much media attention which means the media is liberally biased". That's very illogical thinking, and when you apply that exact same train of thought to other candidates, it contradicts itself.

Boy, were you even out of a diaper in the 2000 election? Al Gore was a media favorite, and then again with Kerry.

EXACTLY. THAT'S MY POINT. I was showing how your "[Candidate] is bad, which means the media gave him a bunch of attention, which means the media is biased towards his political position" logic not only fails, but contradicts itself.

The problem is this back fires, and too much attention can detract from a candidate; such as the bad things can be pointed out in full very quickly because of all the attention etc. Yes the media scrambles to pick a story wether or not it will help their candidate out.

Like how the media constantly and blatantly lied about Al Gore and lied about things he'd said, which sorta disproves this 'liberal bias'.

Not at all, it was my supporting evidence rather then claiming only that there is a liberal media bias plz discuss. Plus you failed at disproving my points.

Logic disproves your points. Saying "This candidate is bad, and therefor the media gave him too much attention" IS NOT LOGICALLY SOUND. It's possible for a bad candidate to get too much, not enough, or just the right amount of attention, just like a good or medium candidate. If you had said "This guy is a bad candidate AND he got to much attention", then followed it by actually proving he did get too much attention, you'd have a valid point. But a candidate being bad, of and by itself, does NOT show he got too much attention. Furthermore, a candidate getting too much attention does NOT mean the Media is favoring them. There is such a thing as negative media attention.

Media picking a candidate to give attention

You have yet to prove they do that. You said Obama was inexperienced an running on racial status alone, then plowed over to saying that that means he's getting too much attention. Again, fact one doesn't = fact B. Let's see some proof they give him a lot of attention.

= Bias towards candidate

Really? Hitler was in the news a lot in the '40's, does that mean that the U.S media was biased towards Hitler?

There is such a thing as negative attention.

= bias towards candidates party.

Does the fact that Barry Bonds was in the news every week mean that the Media is biased towards the SF Giants?

The media can be interested (although, again, you fail to prove they are) in Obama, or even favor Obama (you failed to prove they do), without favoring people SIMILAR to Obama. It's possible for someone to Garner media attention because of things like their personality.

Factor in this isn't the first time etc. Then you have to reach the final conclusion.

Proof?

No just a bunch of droves of idiots who listen to the media and fuel the presses liberal bias to cater to them and fuels the endless cycle.

Gee, so the fact that Obama won the primaries is irrelevant to your point, since the media didn't elect him over Clinton; the voters did.

I explained why he is the most liberal of all candidates because of the dumb liberal theology.

Which proves Democrats favor the most liberal candidate, not that the media does.

Alright ideology wise aswell I suppose; The republican party is not known for being a socialist party.

Really? Neo-Cons are the definition of pseudo-socialists, as much as liberal Dems, and the Neo-Cons seem to be taking over. But that's irrelevant too... well, anything.

Its obvious that Obama gets more attention then Mcain

You have yet to prove it.

Obama got all the attention when he toured in europe; during that I didn't hear a single thing when Mcain toured America which makes more sense too me seeing as the europeans are not voting for him in the next election. It is obvious that Obama gets alot more attention then Mcain.

A candidate touring Europe is somewhat new and fresh, newsworthy. A dozen candidates tour America every election, that is old and boring.

Did Fereinhype 9-11 make it to theaters? I think not, and neither did the great global warming swindel or many other great conservative movies; They are not seen as profitable as they will hardly get any media attention. And I doubt you have even heard of those movies.

Sweet Jesus. Stop attributing the General Publics attitude to that of the media.

It didn't make it into theaters because it was poorly made and appealed to a very limited number of people; Neo-Conservatives who have seen 9/11. Therefor, no one bought it, THEREFOR THE MEDIA DIDN'T COVER IT. The media not covering conservative movies that NO ONE HAS SEEN doesn't mean they are biased. If anything, covering them would mean they WHERE biased, towards conservatives; imagine if the media covered a bunch of underground liberal movies and treated them like the real deal. You'd go nuts. So stop with the double standard.

The media has power of what people know and think, they have influence over their lives especially if you don't research the issues.

Cool. Again, they don't have the power to stop people from buying tickets to see Fahrenheit or Sicko, just like they don't have the power to make people stop buying Green Day.

Fair enough, but that does not negate my points.

Yes it does, because you keep throwing out things the Liberal society does and saying it proves something about the media.

You over simplify everything I have just said; hopefully the rest of my post will clerify for you.

I simplified it down to the actual points you where making.