I thought we might be done with the terd sandwich (Bush) Vs. Giant Douche (Kerry) Debate.
I didn’t expect the liberals to appreciate this post. “My gosh Zeb when they are bashing conservatives and republicans they are only telling the truth. And when they are saying nice things about we liberals they are also telling the truth. Get it through your thick scull man…ahhh go do chin-ups.” LOL
Here is more that they can hate.
The actual journalists and reporters themselves tell you in this next piece that they are in fact liberal!
"The third person who made a seminal contribution to the debate in 1981 was Dr. Robert Lichter, who simply demolished the myth of media objectivity when he took and subsequently published a survey of the media themselves.
The numbers were dramatic. Lichter found that at least 81% of the news media had voted for the liberal Democrat for President in every election going back to 1964. He found that 90% favored abortion; 76% found nothing wrong with homosexuality; only 47% believed adultery to be wrong; 50% had no religious affiliation; and 86% seldom or never attended church or synagogue. The Lichter study triggered a new national debate about the objectivity of the American news media, with conservatives making it a major item in the public conversation.
Hey there professor looks like the old liberal meida has been at it for quite a while!
http://www.mrc.org/oped/1999/19990604.asp
Now your jobs as liberals should be to somehow attack the source because you don’t like the facts. Isn’t that the way it goes?
LOL, please continue to entertain me 
I seem to remember something about a war and no WMDs (though that’s not the reason we went to war now, we swear!). Wasn’t that taking place during the election? I can’t remember whether it was Bush or Kerry who started it. Oh wait:
“We’ve always been at war with Eurasia.”
Here is a question to ask. Why are journalists liberal? Why are the people who are out there every day, meeting people and politicians, seeing how government policies actually affect crime and poverty and education… why are these people mostly liberal?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Read Vroom’s post and mine right above your’s. Both refer to the same thing. You all are bitching because someone in the highest position had his performance critiqued using a higher standard than someone who had not been in that position. Again, where in society does this NOT happen? If we don’t call it “liberal bias” then, why do it now?[/quote]
You all? Who?
Critiquing perfomance is a lot different than personal attacks.
How many times was the national guard story trotted out?
How many times were the SwiftVets ignored–and do we still have Kerry’s records?
That’s the liberal bias.
For christs sake answer the questions and charges as they’re written and stop trying to duck and dodge like a coward.
Unless you know your position is indefensible, which is what it sounds like.
What’s your next straw man going to be?
[quote]futuredave wrote:
I seem to remember something about a war and no WMDs (though that’s not the reason we went to war now, we swear!). Wasn’t that taking place during the election? I can’t remember whether it was Bush or Kerry who started it. Oh wait:
“We’ve always been at war with Eurasia.”
Here is a question to ask. Why are journalists liberal? Why are the people who are out there every day, meeting people and politicians, seeing how government policies actually affect crime and poverty and education… why are these people mostly liberal?[/quote]
That’s simple–most people who go into journalism actually want to change the world. No one wants to just go to interesting places and tell us what happened any more. The vast majority of journalism students have ulterior motives.
And because of the first amendment, they know their voices can never be silenced, no matter what John McCain does to the rest of us.
Next?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
You all? Who?
Critiquing perfomance is a lot different than personal attacks.[/quote]
So, there were no personal attacks on the democratic running mate?
[quote]
How many times was the national guard story trotted out? [/quote]
How many times should it have been?
You love this saying. Too bad it means nothing when you are arguing using the exact same talking points and not really making any new ground as far as the point you think you are trying to make. What the hell is your “man” made of?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
You all? Who?
Critiquing perfomance is a lot different than personal attacks.
So, there were no personal attacks on the democratic running mate?
How many times was the national guard story trotted out?
How many times should it have been?
How many times were the SwiftVets ignored–and do we still have Kerry’s records?
Ignored? They were on every channel. Who didn’t know about the swiftvets? When did they get “ignored”?
What’s your next straw man going to be?
You love this saying. Too bad it means nothing when you are arguing using the exact same talking points and not really making any new ground as far as the point you think you are trying to make. What the hell is your “man” made of?[/quote]
X: attacks on the democratic running mate? The same guy who said “when John Kerry is president, people like Chris Reeve will stand up and walk?” the guy who once claimed to be channeling a dead baby?
Swifties? Yeah, they were on every channel. Being screamed at by Chris Matthews on Lardball is not the same as having their charges–including proof–taken seriously. Unlike the FORGED DOCUMENTS that CBS said “well, even if they’re false, they’re still true.”
I think that after the first 3 times they investigated Bush’s National Guard service and found nothing, maybe they could’ve stopped? Or at least given equal time to investigating why Kerry’s discharge is so many years after he supposedly got out?
I don’t have to make up “new ground” to make my point here. I just have to keep saying the truth, unlike you and your brethren, who need to keep coming up with new falsehoods to cover your position.
That’s why you haven’t answered any of my questions, isn’t it? Cause you know if you do, the whole stupid sorry house of cards tumbles down around you. As the democrat party is crumbling down.
Yes, I love the straw man saying. Because it’s so accurate. You never answer any questions, you only fling more mud.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
1.So, there were no personal attacks on the democratic running mate?
- What the hell is your “man” made of?[/quote]
2 things, snookums:
- haven’t you heard? 2 wrongs don’t make a right. So even if there had been personal attacks on Edwards, what’s that got to do with anything?
- Is that a personal attack?
and while we’re at it, the Columbia School of Journalism is not an arm of Fox News, guys.
If they were concerned enough about their image to do a study, and then found what they reported, I imagine it was pretty serious. I mean, how did Bill O’Reilly get into this? How did it become the “Evil Conservatives” against everyone else?
You guys are nuts.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
"Monday, March 14, 2005 1:01 p.m. EST
Study: Press Went Easy on Kerry
A Columbia School of Journalism study released Monday found that the media took it easy on Sen. John Kerry throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, with coverage of President Bush coming out three times more negative.
The school’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 36 percent of reports on Bush painted him in an unfavorable light, while only 12 percent did the same to Kerry - according to Reuters. The Massachusetts liberal also benefited more from positive coverage, garnering 50 percent more stories rated as favorable than Bush.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism monitored 16 newspapers across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites in 2004.
On the Iraq war, for instance - which was a watershed issue for Bush - the study found that the three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative, Reuters said.
The Columbia group also noted a huge rise in readers who have turned to the Internet to get their news."
[/quote]
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
- haven’t you heard? 2 wrongs don’t make a right. So even if there had been personal attacks on Edwards, what’s that got to do with anything?[/quote]
Isn’t your point that personal attacks are wrong? If it is, then the attacks on both sides should be what you are against. It is highly strange that you only champion the rights of one party on that issue, isn’t it?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
- haven’t you heard? 2 wrongs don’t make a right. So even if there had been personal attacks on Edwards, what’s that got to do with anything?
Isn’t your point that personal attacks are wrong? If it is, then the attacks on both sides should be what you are against. It is highly strange that you only champion the rights of one party on that issue, isn’t it?[/quote]
So this is the next straw man?
I never said it.
I said that the media reported far more negatively about GWB than Kerry.
There’s a difference there, if you’re smart enough to be able to discern it.
I haven’t championed the rights of either party, actually. I’ve tried to get you to answer a couple of simple questions–which you seem unwilling or incapable of doing–but that’s all.
Don’t put words in my mouth. You do it alot, in all the arguments you get into–and you’ve been doing it to me as long as I’ve known you. In that time, I’ve treated you with nothing but respect. But I think it’s about time you earned that respect.
And if you insist on arguing with me in this manner, then I’ll simply start putting words in your mouth. It’s easy to do–and probably entertaining.
Joe
When the libs don’t have a point they attack the opponent. It is their one consistent theme.
Unfortunately statistics, documentation and their own two eyes will rarely if ever sway their opinion. Fortunately over 50% saw thru it in 2004. No doubt a hell of a lot more will in 2008.
[quote]
futuredave wrote:
why are these people mostly liberal?
Joe Weider wrote:
That’s simple–most people who go into journalism actually want to change the world.
Next?[/quote]
So, people who “want to change the world” are liberals.
I happily agree.
The question then is: Should the world be changed or not? Or are we happy with the level of poverty, disease, corporate crime, deception and greed?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
…I’ll simply start putting words in your mouth.[/quote]
Oooo - Make ProfX say “I like to build muscle and lose fat at the same time”.
That would be funny.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
…I’ll simply start putting words in your mouth.
Oooo - Make ProfX say “I like to build muscle and lose fat at the same time”.
That would be funny.[/quote]
I’ll make him say I want to be as ripped and lean as Greg Lemond by the time I’m done here…!!!
[quote]futuredave wrote:
futuredave wrote:
why are these people mostly liberal?
Joe Weider wrote:
That’s simple–most people who go into journalism actually want to change the world.
Next?
So, people who “want to change the world” are liberals.
I happily agree.
The question then is: Should the world be changed or not? Or are we happy with the level of poverty, disease, corporate crime, deception and greed? [/quote]
Now where did you see me say that?
I guess I should have added more, but I figured everyone here was smart.
Sorry, my mistake.
These kids are indoctrinated by screamin’ lib nutcase high school teachers, then by panty sniffin college professors, and so they become farther left than the most ardent communist. It’s very cute, really. Then they go into journalism, determined to make everyone agree with them.
Like the people at CBS news.
There is less poverty in America than anywhere in the world. Yet we’ve been fighting the “War on Poverty” for 50 years. And every 2 years the libs march before us and scream and cry about how it’s worse than ever.
And they were in charge for 40 years…amazing!
Corporate crime? NY Times economist Paul Krugman has been nothing but critical of GWB, and yet he was an Enron advisor.
Odd…huh?
[quote]futuredave wrote:
futuredave wrote:
why are these people mostly liberal?
Joe Weider wrote:
That’s simple–most people who go into journalism actually want to change the world.
Next?
So, people who “want to change the world” are liberals.
I happily agree.
The question then is: Should the world be changed or not? Or are we happy with the level of poverty, disease, corporate crime, deception and greed? [/quote]
You see futuredave, it not a matter of the world needing change. Most of the reporters who want to “change the world” are young impressionable liberals who basically have a difficult time getting their own life in order much less the worlds. But…they can harp on and on about how “bad” republicans are, and well…that makes them feel better about life in general. When they take off their rose colored glasses, the world is still the same and they have done nothing…but earn a paycheck that is.
With the advent of cable TV,and conservative radio coming into popularity over the past several years there is a growing trend of young conservatives entering a field that was previously dominated by the aforementioned group. This means that as time goes by there will be more balance to the news, unlike what has taken place over the past 40 years or so.
All the whining about FOX is actually a healthy thing. That means that FOX and hopefully others on the horizon will actually be able to balance the oh soooo slanted evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC.
Next question?
Joe, relax man, you look like you are having a fit.
The allegations of the swiftees and the talking points of the republican party were repeated day after day after day for weeks on end.
There are times and occassions that one party appears favored over the other, that will always be. However, I’d maintain that whoever is in power is the one that is going to get the most criticism.
When you make decisions, people bitch. How can you ever expect it to be different. Look at the current focus on the sitting administration as appropriately. Next time there is a “liberal” administration, it will face the same.
Some of you are so biased you feel that if your interpretation of the speaking points are not made, then the news story itself is biased. Well, you have to realize your own beliefs cloud things.
Yes, sure, you can point that back at me, but at least I believe that whoever is in charge is (and deserves) to be looked at more critically. You make policy, people need to stick a microscope up your butt. It isn’t bias to do so.
Finally, both parties play dirty pool. Don’t point to one side and say they pulled trick Y so everything is biased. Both sides played dirty at times, and they got different traction in different places at different times.
How often do we have to listen to whining about how biased everything is? It’s tiring really. Become a republican. Get involved in the media. Report based on how you think things should be reported.
Alternately, don’t, and whine endlessly about it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Joe, relax man, you look like you are having a fit.
The allegations of the swiftees and the talking points of the republican party were repeated day after day after day for weeks on end.
There are times and occassions that one party appears favored over the other, that will always be. However, I’d maintain that whoever is in power is the one that is going to get the most criticism.
When you make decisions, people bitch. How can you ever expect it to be different. Look at the current focus on the sitting administration as appropriately. Next time there is a “liberal” administration, it will face the same.
Some of you are so biased you feel that if your interpretation of the speaking points are not made, then the news story itself is biased. Well, you have to realize your own beliefs cloud things.
Yes, sure, you can point that back at me, but at least I believe that whoever is in charge is (and deserves) to be looked at more critically. You make policy, people need to stick a microscope up your butt. It isn’t bias to do so.
Finally, both parties play dirty pool. Don’t point to one side and say they pulled trick Y so everything is biased. Both sides played dirty at times, and they got different traction in different places at different times.
How often do we have to listen to whining about how biased everything is? It’s tiring really. Become a republican. Get involved in the media. Report based on how you think things should be reported.
Alternately, don’t, and whine endlessly about it.[/quote]
The forums favorite liberal has entered the thread…I’m all smiles!
I’ll have a few comments about your post later on.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Joe, relax man, you look like you are having a fit.
The allegations of the swiftees and the talking points of the republican party were repeated day after day after day for weeks on end.
There are times and occassions that one party appears favored over the other, that will always be. However, I’d maintain that whoever is in power is the one that is going to get the most criticism.
When you make decisions, people bitch. How can you ever expect it to be different. Look at the current focus on the sitting administration as appropriately. Next time there is a “liberal” administration, it will face the same.
Some of you are so biased you feel that if your interpretation of the speaking points are not made, then the news story itself is biased. Well, you have to realize your own beliefs cloud things.
Yes, sure, you can point that back at me, but at least I believe that whoever is in charge is (and deserves) to be looked at more critically. You make policy, people need to stick a microscope up your butt. It isn’t bias to do so.
Finally, both parties play dirty pool. Don’t point to one side and say they pulled trick Y so everything is biased. Both sides played dirty at times, and they got different traction in different places at different times.
How often do we have to listen to whining about how biased everything is? It’s tiring really. Become a republican. Get involved in the media. Report based on how you think things should be reported.
Alternately, don’t, and whine endlessly about it.[/quote]
vroom,
It’s not about the Democratic Party or the Republican Party doing anything. It’s about biased news coverage – news organizations that claim to be unbiased should not be blatantly biased. End of story.