Another Bush Bust

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Hey, just as biased as FoxNews

Please list proof of Fox News’ bias. I think this issue has been brought up before - but no one could find where the news reporting was biased.

I know that is asking a lot from someone that is much more comfortable just talking shit than they are actually backing it up, but this isn’t the first time you have said this.

Back it up.

[/quote]

NONONO
No no no

That’s not how it works. You started by calling the socialist worker leftist. You didn’t back that up, you didn’t give proof.

But when someone points out that they are not more biased than Fox, all of a sudden you want them to back it up with proof.

First things first, you’ll have to prove that the socialist worker is biased. You might think that’s pretty obvious. You might be right.

But I happen to think it’s pretty obvious Fox is biased also.

22

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The Boys in Brazil
November 8, 2005; Page A16
…
To read some of the accounts, you’d think the Ch?vez vision provided a serious alternative to the continuing expansion of free trade and global competition, and to the prosperity that has come with them. Give the Castro acolyte some credit for media savvy and sound bites – which is what you have to fall back on when you lose on substance.
…[/quote]

The notion of Dubious winning from anybody on substance. It’s freaking hilareous.

But perhaps the people in South America didn’t really see the presperity that comes with free trade and global competition. You think they didn’t look hard enough?

23

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Hmmm…free trade means that the best product, the best service wins. Are the Lefties on here against that? Very revealing.[/quote]

No, free trade means you undercut the prices of farmers in Africa by subsidising your own farmers.

And it also means you start to bitch and moan and tax on imports when the Japanese for instance make better cars that your own pampered car manufactering companies.

That’s what free trade means.

24

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmmm…free trade means that the best product, the best service wins. Are the Lefties on here against that? Very revealing.

CAFTA. That’s NAFTA with a C.

NAFTA was so great, people are violently rioting to oppose CAFTA… there’s your first clue.
[/quote]

Yes, we must listen to people because they are a violent mob.

Please tell me you know these are the same people who show up for all of these meetings, making it seem like a lot of people in a lot of places, but actually just everyone they could find in the world are moved from place to place for these types of protests.

Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to.

25

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
NONONO
No no no

That’s not how it works. You started by calling the socialist worker leftist. You didn’t back that up, you didn’t give proof.[/quote]

Are you serious? I need to prove that a rag entitled “The Socialist Worker” is left wing? It’s very title suggests it’s political stance. You are a dense one, aren’t you? Either that, or you are being very lazy.

That’s not what was said - but nice try on the spin. You said Fox News was biased. You even call it Faux News. I simply asked you to prove the bias. I can tell by your feet shuffling and deflection you have no intent, or ability to prove your charge.

I asked first. Not the other way around. I have no burden of proof until you ask for it. It just so happens that you are asking now - a day or so after I asked you. It doesn’t work the way you wished it would.

I’ll be glad to prove the Socialist Worker is biased, but not until you provide what was asked of you first. I should have expected you to chicken out, and try and change the subject.

You have never proven a single position down here. You are just an over emotional left-wing hack that runs and hides if yout think that there is even a hint that you might be forced to prove a position.

26

http://www.socialistworker.org/WhereWeStand.shtml

I just couldn’t wait, wreckless. This is what the Socialist Worker says about itself on their own webpage.

Now about you proof that Fox is biased…

27

[quote]The Mage wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmmm…free trade means that the best product, the best service wins. Are the Lefties on here against that? Very revealing.

CAFTA. That’s NAFTA with a C.

NAFTA was so great, people are violently rioting to oppose CAFTA… there’s your first clue.

Yes, we must listen to people because they are a violent mob.

Please tell me you know these are the same people who show up for all of these meetings, making it seem like a lot of people in a lot of places, but actually just everyone they could find in the world are moved from place to place for these types of protests.

Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to.
[/quote]

Agreed. Thousands of people when to Hitler rallies. But he still had shitty ideas. The people opposing free trade are workers demanding support in inefficient industries that everyone else has to pay for. Such as the total cost to American for each steel job saved costing around 800k-1mil

28

[quote]rainjack wrote:
http://www.socialistworker.org/WhereWeStand.shtml

I just couldn’t wait, wreckless. This is what the Socialist Worker says about itself on their own webpage.

Now about you proof that Fox is biased…[/quote]

I said it before. The man who runs the show at FOX is one of the richest men in the country. The people that appear on the network (O’Reilly, etc) are extremely biased. So what’s the difference? That the socialist worker tells you where it is coming from, as opposed to FOX, who airs the news that it sees fit, puts the right spin on it, and throws it out there? Every news company is biased.

It’s pretty well known that the BBC is the only way to go for unbiased news. And even they, being run by people, are not completely objective…I don’t know that pure objectivity is possible by humans.

29

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I said it before. The man who runs the show at FOX is one of the richest men in the country. The people that appear on the network (O’Reilly, etc) are extremely biased. So what’s the difference? That the socialist worker tells you where it is coming from, as opposed to FOX, who airs the news that it sees fit, puts the right spin on it, and throws it out there? Every news company is biased.

It’s pretty well known that the BBC is the only way to go for unbiased news. And even they, being run by people, are not completely objective…I don’t know that pure objectivity is possible by humans.[/quote]

George Soros is richer than anyone at Fox - yet he is a radical left winger. John Corzine is a billionaire that is the lefty running for governor in your own state. What does being rich have to do with the price of tea in China?

I asked for proof that Fox was biased in their news reporting. So far I have gotten nothing. Either you have a very weak position, or you are to lazy to prove me wrong.

30

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I said it before. The man who runs the show at FOX is one of the richest men in the country. The people that appear on the network (O’Reilly, etc) are extremely biased. So what’s the difference? That the socialist worker tells you where it is coming from, as opposed to FOX, who airs the news that it sees fit, puts the right spin on it, and throws it out there? Every news company is biased.

It’s pretty well known that the BBC is the only way to go for unbiased news. And even they, being run by people, are not completely objective…I don’t know that pure objectivity is possible by humans.

George Soros is richer than anyone at Fox - yet he is a radical left winger. John Corzine is a billionaire that is the lefty running for governor in your own state. What does being rich have to do with the price of tea in China?

I asked for proof that Fox was biased in their news reporting. So far I have gotten nothing. Either you have a very weak position, or you are to lazy to prove me wrong.

[/quote]

Jesus Christ RJ it would have taken you two seconds to find this out yourself, but here it is, being spoonfed to you. Have fun.

On Rupert Murdoch

"His Fox News was singled out for criticism because of its blatantly one-sided coverage of the war in Iraq and for printing unsubstantiated stories about the conflict. When CNN reporter Christian Amanpour blamed Fox for creating “a climate of fear and self-censorship” regarding coverage of Iraq, a Fox spokeswoman shot back, “Given the choice, it’s better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda.” (7)

Said Murdoch of the war, “The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.” (4)

Aside from Fox, Murdoch’s News Corp owns TV Guide, HarperCollins, 20th Century Fox, the London Times, and the New York Post. Murdoch also bankrolls William Kristol’s neocon mouthpiece the Weekly Standard, which has been losing money ever since it started up in the mid-1990s. "

Here’s another one:

http://www.davidswanson.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=6

“People such as Rupert Murdoch (all 175 of whose newspapers editorially supported this illegal invasion and followed through with pro-invasion news reporting on it) can be tried for propagandizing war crimes and the internationally recognized ‘crime of aggression’ (i.e. illegal invasion), upon the same grounds for which Herr Goebbels is now universally detested, and for which the leading Nazi industrialists were likewise imprisoned.”

One more:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=122948

MURDOCH THE WAR MONGER: Just after the Iraq invasion, the New York Times reported, “The war has illuminated anew the exceptional power in the hands of Murdoch, 72, the chairman of News Corp? In the last several months, the editorial policies of almost all his English-language news organizations have hewn very closely to Murdoch’s own stridently hawkish political views, making his voice among the loudest in the Anglophone world in the international debate over the American-led war with Iraq.” The Guardian reported before the war Murdoch gave “his full backing to war, praising George Bush as acting ‘morally’ and ‘correctly’ and describing Tony Blair as ‘full of guts’” for his support of the war. Murdoch said just before the war, “We can’t back down now ? I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly.” [New York Times, 4/9/03; Guardian, 2/12/03]

Here Rainjack, here’s a damn movie about him. Maybe you should put down your copy of, “The way things ought to be” by Rush and go see this.

http://www.outfoxed.org/OutfoxedSummary.php

Here’s Wikipedia (even though i despise this site) and what they say about FOXNEWS:

The Fox News Channel is a U.S. cable and satellite news channel. It is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, and is a subsidiary of News Corporation, under major shareholder and chief executive officer Rupert Murdoch. As of January 2005, it is available to 85 million subscribers in the U.S. and to further viewers internationally, broadcasting primarily out of its New York City studios.

Launched on October 7, 1996 to 17 million cable subscribers, the nascent network quickly rose to prominence in the late 1990s as it started taking market share away from competitor CNN.

Although Fox asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks with its slogans “We Report, You Decide” and “Fair and Balanced”, numerous critics claim that the network has a conservative bias.

So Rainjack, anything else? Or did you pull your head out of the sand yet?

31

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I said it before. The man who runs the show at FOX is one of the richest men in the country.[/quote]

That has absolutely no bearing on the argument. As RJ mentioned, George Soros is one of the richest men in the world and is an avid left wing screecher.

Moreover, even if the man who runs it is a right wing Republican, that isn’t proof that the network is biased in its journalism.

Difference is - you are referring to editorialists, not journalists.

There already has been a thread on this asking FOX’s critics to show evidence that FOX’s journalism biases to the right. Still waiting.

Yikes. Have you seen or read about the recent problems they have had over the past couple of years?

32

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I said it before. The man who runs the show at FOX is one of the richest men in the country. The people that appear on the network (O’Reilly, etc) are extremely biased. So what’s the difference? That the socialist worker tells you where it is coming from, as opposed to FOX, who airs the news that it sees fit, puts the right spin on it, and throws it out there? Every news company is biased.

It’s pretty well known that the BBC is the only way to go for unbiased news. And even they, being run by people, are not completely objective…I don’t know that pure objectivity is possible by humans.

George Soros is richer than anyone at Fox - yet he is a radical left winger. John Corzine is a billionaire that is the lefty running for governor in your own state. What does being rich have to do with the price of tea in China?

I asked for proof that Fox was biased in their news reporting. So far I have gotten nothing. Either you have a very weak position, or you are to lazy to prove me wrong.

[/quote]

Did you look at the post where I linked to articles detailing their bias? Or would you prefer just to shift your stance again to avoid being wrong?

Fox is slanted to the right. CNN to the left. No one watches MSNBC.

Now, that’s fine. I believe, and journalism school/jobs proved that everyone has an agenda. The only truly ojective sections of the paper are tthe box scores and the obituaries. Whenever ANYONE says “I’m not biased,” it sets my bullshit detector off.

Everyone on the planet is fine with the fact the Fox has a conservative bent. Why argue against it?

33

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

I said it before. The man who runs the show at FOX is one of the richest men in the country.

That has absolutely no bearing on the argument. As RJ mentioned, George Soros is one of the richest men in the world and is an avid left wing screecher.

Moreover, even if the man who runs it is a right wing Republican, that isn’t proof that the network is biased in its journalism.

The people that appear on the network (O’Reilly, etc) are extremely biased. So what’s the difference?

Difference is - you are referring to editorialists, not journalists.

That the socialist worker tells you where it is coming from, as opposed to FOX, who airs the news that it sees fit, puts the right spin on it, and throws it out there? Every news company is biased.

There already has been a thread on this asking FOX’s critics to show evidence that FOX’s journalism biases to the right. Still waiting.

It’s pretty well known that the BBC is the only way to go for unbiased news.

Yikes. Have you seen or read about the recent problems they have had over the past couple of years?
[/quote]

See above. Its right there.

34

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmmm…free trade means that the best product, the best service wins. Are the Lefties on here against that? Very revealing.

No, free trade means you undercut the prices of farmers in Africa by subsidising your own farmers.

And it also means you start to bitch and moan and tax on imports when the Japanese for instance make better cars that your own pampered car manufactering companies.

That’s what free trade means.

[/quote]

Sorry, with my 3 degrees and 139 IQ, I can’t figure out wtf you’re trying to say. Free trade means ‘free’, as in freedom of choice, of opportunity, and such. Because some members of government corrupt this ideal, it does not invalidate the concept; it simply puts the onus on you to vote intelligiently and for people of integrity – most especially those who understand how magnificent true capitalism really is.

Do you guys realize what life was like in the pre-capitalist era? It was hell on earth. We need more capitalism, more freedom, more people who think that all realtionships between humans must be VOLUNTARY on all sides; let the Socialist Workers crap die in the ash can of history.

35

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Did you look at the post where I linked to articles detailing their bias? Or would you prefer just to shift your stance again to avoid being wrong?[/quote]

I’m sorry - but your ‘proof’ consists of an op/ed piece on O’Rileysucks.com and something from the FAIR website. I am really not suprised that these folks think Fox is biased. But that is not proof - only opinion.

[quote]Fox is slanted to the right. CNN to the left. No one watches MSNBC.

Now, that’s fine. I believe, and journalism school/jobs proved that everyone has an agenda. The only truly ojective sections of the paper are tthe box scores and the obituaries. Whenever ANYONE says “I’m not biased,” it sets my bullshit detector off.[/quote]

I never said that Fox wasn’t biased in their entertainment. I think they have some of the best conservative commentary out there. All I asked for was proof that their news coverage was biased.

[quote]Everyone on the planet is fine with the fact the Fox has a conservative bent. Why argue against it?
[/quote]

Is that in lieu of actual proof? “Everyone thinks ‘A’, so why argue against it?”

I asked for proof of bias in Fox’s news coverage. I proved what was asked of me - from their own website. If it is such blatant bias that every one is fine with it - then proving it should be no problem. Right?

36

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
http://www.socialistworker.org/WhereWeStand.shtml

I just couldn’t wait, wreckless. This is what the Socialist Worker says about itself on their own webpage.

Now about you proof that Fox is biased…

I said it before. The man who runs the show at FOX is one of the richest men in the country.[/quote]

Which is obviously enough of a reason for a socialist lib such as yourself to hate him. He has a bunch of money and you don’t.

[quote]
It’s pretty well known that the BBC is the only way to go for unbiased news. And even they, being run by people, are not completely objective…I don’t know that pure objectivity is possible by humans.[/quote]

This is actually a good point. I’ve thought the same thing myself, that true unbiased objectivity is a falsehood. CBS, NY Times, CNN, FOX News, whatever. All probably report with some sort of bias.

The problem starts when an orginazation (CBS for instance) intentionally attempts to decieve the public.

37

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Sorry, with my 3 degrees and 139 IQ, I can’t figure out wtf you’re trying to say. …
Do you guys realize what life was like in the pre-capitalist era? It was hell on earth. We need more capitalism, more freedom, more people who think that all realtionships between humans must be VOLUNTARY on all sides; let the Socialist Workers crap die in the ash can of history.

[/quote]

Wow, impressive. Have you been accumulating those degrees since before capitalism came around?
Tell us all what it was like back in the Hell-on-Earth days.

On a more serious note, you address many topics in the above comment.

  • More Capitalism? Okay, since we are a Capitalist ecomony already. Might as well let this little experiment work itself out.

  • More freedom? Are you referring to personal freedom or market/economic freedom? They’re not the same. In fact, they may be mutually exclusive.

  • More who support voluntary relationships? I’m not sure where you’re headed with this one. Please clarify.

Namaste

38

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmmm…free trade means that the best product, the best service wins. Are the Lefties on here against that? Very revealing.

No, free trade means you undercut the prices of farmers in Africa by subsidising your own farmers.

And it also means you start to bitch and moan and tax on imports when the Japanese for instance make better cars that your own pampered car manufactering companies.

That’s what free trade means.

Sorry, with my 3 degrees and 139 IQ, I can’t figure out wtf you’re trying to say. Free trade means ‘free’, as in freedom of choice, of opportunity, and such. Because some members of government corrupt this ideal, it does not invalidate the concept; it simply puts the onus on you to vote intelligiently and for people of integrity – most especially those who understand how magnificent true capitalism really is.

Do you guys realize what life was like in the pre-capitalist era? It was hell on earth. We need more capitalism, more freedom, more people who think that all realtionships between humans must be VOLUNTARY on all sides; let the Socialist Workers crap die in the ash can of history.

[/quote]

Alright enough with the damn degrees and IQ numbers. I dont give a shit what your IQ is or how many plaques you have on your wall.

Secondly, were you around before capitalism? Can you tell me what feudalism was about first hand? You, above all other Conservatives, spew more crap that you never back up than anyone else here. But hey, your IQ is 139…I hate to stir the embers of such an obviously fiery intellect.

39

[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Did you look at the post where I linked to articles detailing their bias? Or would you prefer just to shift your stance again to avoid being wrong?

I’m sorry - but your ‘proof’ consists of an op/ed piece on O’Rileysucks.com and something from the FAIR website. I am really not suprised that these folks think Fox is biased. But that is not proof - only opinion.

Fox is slanted to the right. CNN to the left. No one watches MSNBC.

Now, that’s fine. I believe, and journalism school/jobs proved that everyone has an agenda. The only truly ojective sections of the paper are tthe box scores and the obituaries. Whenever ANYONE says “I’m not biased,” it sets my bullshit detector off.

I never said that Fox wasn’t biased in their entertainment. I think they have some of the best conservative commentary out there. All I asked for was proof that their news coverage was biased.

Everyone on the planet is fine with the fact the Fox has a conservative bent. Why argue against it?

Is that in lieu of actual proof? “Everyone thinks ‘A’, so why argue against it?”

I asked for proof of bias in Fox’s news coverage. I proved what was asked of me - from their own website. If it is such blatant bias that every one is fine with it - then proving it should be no problem. Right?

[/quote]

Rainjack, did you look at my previous post here? Even “Wikipedia” stated that they have been accused of being biased. The proof is there.

40

These latin americans that are rioting stand to benefit the most from moving our fatories overseas. The world is becoming more glabalized deal with it.