[Rufio]

Originally Posted by Bobo

To liberals....


Sorry, GE and Disney don't decide what gets reported. You are seriously mistaken.

No, corporations DO have a major influence on reporting and they have an extreme influence on US foreign policy. I don't see how you can deny the existence of their influence. The parties themselves depend HEAVILY on corporate sponsors. You need their support to win a major office. As for the influence on the media, every story in the US media paints the US in a flattering light compared to how the rest of the world would view it. I've given examples before.


And I'm really not seeing an overwhelming "liberal" bias. I've seen Republican and Democrat biased reporting on each news channel I tune into. Even CNN, the leader of the supposed "liberal media" has Glenn Beck. Besides that, TV news is only a part of the media. What about the Republican bias in talk radio? Talk radio is a part of the media.

Originally Posted by spunkles182\

Should we care about the size of the gap between the rich and poor? If we succeed in raising the incomes of the poor, does it matter if incomes at the top are rising even faster, making us a more unequal society overall?

In fact, there are some really good things about income inequality, namely that it motivates risk, hard work, and innovation. I'm sure Wall Street bankers are motivated by a love of their work -- but a $50 million bonus can also help you get out of bed in the morning. As a matter of fact, high salaries motivate not only the people who get them, but also the people who would like to get them in the future -- a phenomenon that economists refer to as a "tournament effect." Thus, a $50 million bonus for a Wall Street CEO also inspires that ambitious guy in the mailroom to get out of bed if he thinks he's got a shot at being CEO someday.

Generally countries with a smaller wealth gap between the rich and the poor have a higher standard of living from what I've seen. In fact this applies to the country with the highest standard of living in the world.

Originally Posted by CDB

As I understand it there was plenty of evidence, it was just wrong. And it was sourced from more places than our own intelligence sources so it needn't have been engineered by the administration.

From everything I've seen, not many countries actually considered Iraq a big threat. Given that their economy was destroyed and they had over a million civilians die of starvation or malnutrition due to the embargo, that's understandable. I've also seen statements a few years before the war that they didn't have anywhere near nuclear capacity. Which again is understandable given their crappy economy. Even if they had WMDs it's not like that would be just grounds for invasion. We have WMDs. Does that mean that a government that doesn't trust us has the right to invade? There are quite a few countries that have WMDs which are widely distrusted by various people in the world and are not being invaded.


The primary reason behind the war was controlling (not directly importing) the oil reserves.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by Rufio

What about the Republican bias in talk radio? Talk radio is a part of the media.

There's a difference between news analysis and editorial programs and straight news where they coveniently forget to report something that's obviously relevant. Like back when those school shootings were big news and reporters at the majors like CNN, who had to know the gun control debate would flare up, conveniently forgot to report that several of the shootings were ended by legally armed citizens.

From everything I've seen, not many countries actually considered Iraq a big threat.

Dodges the question. They did think he had the weapons. Saying they didn't think he was a threat is a convenient way for liberals to confuse the issue with how other intelligence/military services thought Iraq should be dealt with as opposed to whether or not they thought he had the weapons. Whatever criticisms people may want to level at Bush Co., fabricating the WMD issue is one of the flimsier ones.

Even if they had WMDs it's not like that would be just grounds for invasion. We have WMDs. Does that mean that a government that doesn't trust us has the right to invade?

If other nations honestly thought there was a chance we would use them without first being aggressed upon then yes, they would be justified. As such while we've had nukes for a long time and in fact are the only ones who have used them in war, no one honestly thinks that one day the US might government might go bat**** and sell the warheads from our ICBMs to some radical factions to be used indiscriminatly. Whether or not such an eventuallity was possible between Saddam and Al Qeda is arguable. I don't think it was likely, but I don't think people who disagree are necessarily defective in the head either.

The primary reason behind the war was controlling (not directly importing) the oil reserves.

Then by eliminating Iraq as an effective buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia and by not gaining control of the Iraqi oil fields themselves, and by not getting the government(s) over them in control of themselves we haven't done such a wonderful job. So conspiracy theorywise it doesn't quite fit. The fact that Buch Co., perhaps mistakenly, saw them as a legitimate threat is the most likely explanation.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Rufio

No, corporations DO have a major influence on reporting and they have an extreme influence on US foreign policy. I don't see how you can deny the existence of their influence. The parties themselves depend HEAVILY on corporate sponsors. You need their support to win a major office. As for the influence on the media, every story in the US media paints the US in a flattering light compared to how the rest of the world would view it. I've given examples before.

Do you even read what you post? Do you think before you post? Who ever said corportation don't have an influence? What I said is GE and Disney don't sit there and figure out whats going on the front page of the news and editorial staffs don't get approval from GE or Disney to print their stories or choose what to print. If you do think this, you are absolutely clueless.

And I'm really not seeing an overwhelming "liberal" bias. I've seen Republican and Democrat biased reporting on each news channel I tune into. Even CNN, the leader of the supposed "liberal media" has Glenn Beck. Besides that, TV news is only a part of the media. What about the Republican bias in talk radio? Talk radio is a part of the media.

Wow. They have Glenn Beck!!! They have ONE conservative. How many people on NBC, ABC and CBS news staffs are conservative? NONE!

Talk radio is opinion based shows, not news reports. The reason talk radio and many of the fox news OPINION shows do so well its because people want to get the other side of the story...the side you WON'T GET IN THE MAINSTREAM.


But in all reality, I could go down the list of tv news staffs and newspaper editorial boards and show you how liberal it is (self admitted) but you won't see that. You don't want to see that...therefore you won't.







"You've been at NBC for 30 years..can you name me one conservative thinker there?"

"uh...uh...uh..uh...."








Straight from ABC.






Good ol' Bernie. 25 years at CBS.

[Rufio]

Originally Posted by CDB

There's a difference between news analysis and editorial programs and straight news where they coveniently forget to report something that's obviously relevant. Like back when those school shootings were big news and reporters at the majors like CNN, who had to know the gun control debate would flare up, conveniently forgot to report that several of the shootings were ended by legally armed citizens.

When did anyone fail to report how a shooting ended? Or are you talking about not reporting some instances? Every time I've seen a school shooting reported on in the news, the conclusion was made clear. Maybe you're talking about not stressing that aspect rather than not reporting it.


And if you think that the same thing doesn't happen on the other side of the coin, I can give several examples showing it does.

Originally Posted by CDB

Dodges the question. They did think he had the weapons.

Not really. The reporting on that has been quite mixed:

http://everything2.com/?node_id=1494895

"[the sanctions and containment policy] have worked. [Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"


That's in 2001. Odd that he wouldn't use these vast weapons when Iraq's economy is completely destroyed by the embargo and over a million innocent civilians were killed by it.

Originally Posted by CDB

Saying they didn't think he was a threat is a convenient way for liberals to confuse the issue with how other intelligence/military services thought Iraq should be dealt with as opposed to whether or not they thought he had the weapons. Whatever criticisms people may want to level at Bush Co., fabricating the WMD issue is one of the flimsier ones.

That's complete BS. I level it at both Democrats and Republicans, and I place the rest of the world's overall opinion of Iraq as the most likely. You didn't see this fear mongering throughout all the other UN nations because they didn't have as much interest in Iraq.

And using the word "liberal" is hilarious given that the invasion of Iraq is the complete antithesis of conservative foreign policy.

Originally Posted by CDB

If other nations honestly thought there was a chance we would use them without first being aggressed upon then yes, they would be justified.

No they wouldn't. And there are quite a few nations who DO think that and with good reason.

Originally Posted by CDB

As such while we've had nukes for a long time and in fact are the only ones who have used them in war, no one honestly thinks that one day the US might government might go bat**** and sell the warheads from our ICBMs to some radical factions to be used indiscriminatly. Whether or not such an eventuallity was possible between Saddam and Al Qeda is arguable. I don't think it was likely, but I don't think people who disagree are necessarily defective in the head either.

Yes they would be, given that Saddam was considered a secular plague in the Middle East by these "radical factions." And unlike Saddam, the US has documented cased of allying with Osama Bin Laden and religious radicals in the past. You're pretty much making the case for us to be invaded.

Originally Posted by CDB

Then by eliminating Iraq as an effective buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia and by not gaining control of the Iraqi oil fields themselves, and by not getting the government(s) over them in control of themselves we haven't done such a wonderful job. So conspiracy theorywise it doesn't quite fit. The fact that Buch Co., perhaps mistakenly, saw them as a legitimate threat is the most likely explanation.

Hilarious. They are setting up an Iraq puppet government to control it with more stability. Thus why they were trying to refuse to allow Iraqis to elect their own people to draw up the new constitution, and the attempts to hand-pick those who are elected. Direct colonial rule is extremely rare in these days. Over a century ago the British declared that puppet government was the way to go. The US has done things exactly the way they should be doing them for the most stability of the oil.


And believing Iraq to be a threat is FAR from the most likely explaination given how many other countries in the world have more blood on their hands. In fact, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. supplied Saddam with weapons in the 80's and treated him as a media darling until the invasion of Kuwait. Do you really think France is against the war because they're hippies? Oooooor could it be because the US declared Saddam's previous oil deals null and void, such as switchig the oil currency from the dollar to the Euro?


The idea that the US would be as concerned about Iraq if it was exporting coconuts instead of oil is extremely ridiculous to anyone who's studied the history or is aware of which countries the US is NOT invading and in many cases is allied with.

[Rufio]

Originally Posted by Bobo

Do you even read what you post? Do you think before you post? Who ever said corportation don't have an influence? What I said is GE and Disney don't sit there and figure out whats going on the front page of the news and editorial staffs don't get approval from GE or Disney to print their stories or choose what to print. If you do think this, you are absolutely clueless.

The impression I got from the person you were responding was that he was pointing out the influence of corporate power on reporting rather than claiming they approve every single story that gets printed. There IS a lot that is or is not reported based on their influence. Obviously they don't look over every single story that is reported. Just the ones that have a big impact on the perception of US world power and influence.

Originally Posted by Bobo

Wow. They have Glenn Beck!!! They have ONE conservative. How many people on NBC, ABC and CBS news staffs are conservative? NONE!

Glenn Beck and other Neocons are not real conservatives, but I digress. I don't really see what news staffs have to do with anything. I'm talking about political talk shows, which tend to have more influence. In fact CNN's other top news show, Nancy Grace, is hardly liberal. That being said, I've flipped on that weekend roundtable debate (don't remember if it was Lou Dobbs or what) at NBC a time or two when I was about to fall asleep and saw several Republican biased debaters.

Originally Posted by Bobo

Talk radio is opinion based shows, not news reports. The reason talk radio and many of the fox news OPINION shows do so well its because people want to get the other side of the story...the side you WON'T GET IN THE MAINSTREAM.

You get plenty of it in the mainstream. What you don't get are the views of the rest of the world, or objective assessment of American leaders' intentions compared to the intentions of other world leaders. Having a Democrat or Republican bias is not covering "both sides." In fact the differences between the parties are very superficial.


And those "opinion based" shows offer misleading and distorted news reports constantly.

Originally Posted by Bobo

But in all reality, I could go down the list of tv news staffs and newspaper editorial boards and show you how liberal it is (self admitted) but you won't see that. You don't want to see that...therefore you won't.

You don't have any idea what I want or don't want to see. I really don't care about the personal beliefs of people on news boards. Whether someone declares themselves "liberal" or "conservative" doesn't matter to me, especially given the terms have been distorted to hell from the way they were traditionally used. I'm speaking in terms of bias in reporting. I don't watch much TV News except for an occasional laugh, but the most visible bias is strong nationalism.


I mean a visible bias like this:

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Rufio

The impression I got from the person you were responding was that he was pointing out the influence of corporate power on reporting rather than claiming they approve every single story that gets printed. There IS a lot that is or is not reported based on their influence. Obviously they don't look over every single story that is reported. Just the ones that have a big impact on the perception of US world power and influence.

It was about bias and their viewpoints. Its liberal biased and every person in the news will tell you the same....unless they have something to hide.

Glenn Beck and other Neocons are not real conservatives, but I digress. I don't really see what news staffs have to do with anything. I'm talking about political talk shows, which tend to have more influence. In fact CNN's other top news show, Nancy Grace, is hardly liberal. That being said, I've flipped on that weekend roundtable debate (don't remember if it was Lou Dobbs or what) at NBC a time or two when I was about to fall asleep and saw several Republican biased debaters.

The subject was news, not talk shows.

You get plenty of it in the mainstream. What you don't get are the views of the rest of the world, or objective assessment of American leaders' intentions compared to the intentions of other world leaders. Having a Democrat or Republican bias is not covering "both sides." In fact the differences between the parties are very superficial.

Thats because the views of the rest of the world don't vote. If you want a "world view" then watch their news.

And those "opinion based" shows offer misleading and distorted news reports constantly.

Thats because its OPINION, NOT the news.

You don't have any idea what I want or don't want to see. I really don't care about the personal beliefs of people on news boards. Whether someone declares themselves "liberal" or "conservative" doesn't matter to me, especially given the terms have been distorted to hell from the way they were traditionally used. I'm speaking in terms of bias in reporting. I don't watch much TV News except for an occasional laugh, but the most visible bias is strong nationalism.


I mean a visible bias like this:

You're right, I don't know what you want nor do I care.

Oh wow...you got them!!! Fox News tried to pull a fast one on the public....they were going to fool everyone into thinking Foley was a Dem. The jig is up...

Unbelievable.

[Rufio]

Originally Posted by Bobo

The subject was news, not talk shows.

The main news biases I see are nationalism and sensationalism (like the current Benoit/steroid fiasco). I don't watch the TV news often, but I don't see much of a "liberal" bias aside from lots of pro-illegal immigration rally coverage. And even that gets criticized heavily at places like CNN.

Originally Posted by Bobo

Thats because the views of the rest of the world don't vote. If you want a "world view" then watch their news.

I'm just pointing this out because according to many (O Reilly for instance) it's "far left" to question the good intentions of US politicians overseas. Which is hilarious given that the American left is extremely nationalistic itself.

Originally Posted by Bobo

Oh wow...you got them!!! Fox News tried to pull a fast one on the public....they were going to fool everyone into thinking Foley was a Dem. The jig is up...

Unbelievable.

I recall you cheering on some example of CNN stating there were "dozens" at a rally where thousands could be seen. I assume they were trying to pull the wool over people's eyes despite the visual, eh?


I don't see how that's any less obvious in its ridiculousness than Fox labelling a sex offender a Democrat.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Rufio

The main news biases I see are nationalism and sensationalism (like the current Benoit/steroid fiasco). I don't watch the TV news often, but I don't see much of a "liberal" bias aside from lots of pro-illegal immigration rally coverage. And even that gets criticized heavily at places like CNN.

Its get criticized on one show, Lou Dobbs. Of course you don't see it, you don't watch it often.

I'm just pointing this out because according to many (O Reilly for instance) it's "far left" to question the good intentions of US politicians overseas. Which is hilarious given that the American left is extremely nationalistic itself.

Are you kidding? I can show you clip after clip of "questioning" this war on that very show. The difference is he says "I disagree and they fouled this up" rather than "Bush is a dictator and we're killing babies". One is questioning, the other is accusing.

I recall you cheering on some example of CNN stating there were "dozens" at a rally where thousands could be seen. I assume they were trying to pull the wool over people's eyes despite the visual, eh?

Where? What are you talking about?

I don't see how that's any less obvious in its ridiculousness than Fox labelling a sex offender a Democrat.

Of course you don't see it......its blatantly obvious you see what you want to see.....even when you don't watch the news that often.

I don't watch the TV news often,

Thats obvious.

[Rufio]

Originally Posted by Bobo

Its get criticized on one show, Lou Dobbs. Of course you don't see it, you don't watch it often.

Uh-huh.


For argument's sake, let's assume that there is a visible "liberal" bias among reporters. In that case, TV news is slanted to Democrats, talk radio is slanted to Republicans, and news talk shows are mixed. Since talk radio and news talk shows are ALSO parts of the media, how does that equate to a vast Democrat-biased media?

Originally Posted by Bobo

Are you kidding? I can show you clip after clip of "questioning" this war on that very show. The difference is he says "I disagree and they fouled this up" rather than "Bush is a dictator and we're killing babies". One is questioning, the other is accusing.

... That is EXACTLY what I just said.

It's okay to say "Bush had the best intentions in mind, but he just didn't think it through, he was wrong, and he messed up." It's NOT okay to say "Bush knew exactly what he was doing but decided that securing power interests is worth the cost in human lives."


When people point out things like the US (including those in Bush's cabinet) allying with Iraq in the first place, things that contradict the party line about going into Iraq with the intention of freedom and security, they're labelled as "far left" or "America haters."

Originally Posted by Bobo

Where? What are you talking about?

I'd have to dig through several multi-page threads to find it, but in one of the first political threads I looked at on here, someone referenced CNN reporting "dozens" or "hundreds" at attendence for some rally, before stating that thousands could be seen from the picture. You replied with an emoticon approving the post.

Originally Posted by Bobo

Of course you don't see it......its blatantly obvious you see what you want to see.....even when you don't watch the news that often.

Baseless insult.




I do find it amusing that you talk about the hypocrisy of all things "liberal" while stating your approval of Bill O Reilly, a guy who complains about America's overly litigious legal system and yet tried to sue Al Franken for use of the term "fair and balanced."

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Rufio

Uh-huh.


For argument's sake, let's assume that there is a visible "liberal" bias among reporters. In that case, TV news is slanted to Democrats, talk radio is slanted to Republicans, and news talk shows are mixed. Since talk radio and news talk shows are ALSO parts of the media, how does that equate to a vast Democrat-biased media?

RIght. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSBNC and 90% of the news print media vs......Fox and talk radio (with their immense audience compared to network news). Got it.


I can see the spin is certinaly spinning...

... That is EXACTLY what I just said.

It's okay to say "Bush had the best intentions in mind, but he just didn't think it through, he was wrong, and he messed up." It's NOT okay to say "Bush knew exactly what he was doing but decided that securing power interests is worth the cost in human lives."


When people point out things like the US (including those in Bush's cabinet) allying with Iraq in the first place, things that contradict the party line about going into Iraq with the intention of freedom and security, they're labelled as "far left" or "America haters."

The way you morph 30 years of history like it was comparing last week to this week is ridiculous. At one point, everyone was diplomatic with Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Foreign policy doesnt include a crystal ball to know exactly what is going to happen in the future. You can go down throughout history and find the exact same types of situations on both sides. Its irrelevant to me.

The way you state "party line" sounds like tis written in stone. IT changed dramatically for both sides in the last 10 years...If you looked at JFK now, he would be considered a conservative. Its also irrelevant to me.


I wouldn't call those people who express their view fairly eloquanly "America haters". I would say they lean left and probably liberal. There is a different between what you state and calling Bush Hitler and the soldiers baby killers.


You are the one associating "far left" with "American haters". I don't think I've said that once. Seems to be more of an insult to you than me.

I'd have to dig through several multi-page threads to find it, but in one of the first political threads I looked at on here, someone referenced CNN reporting "dozens" or "hundreds" at attendence for some rally, before stating that thousands could be seen from the picture. You replied with an emoticon approving the post.

Find it and I will explain it but I'm sure you had such a thorough understanding of my point with the "emoticon". Here's one

Baseless insult.

Fact. You state there is no liberal bias then freely admit you don't even watch the news often. Not baseless at all and I certinaly don't see the insult.

Originally Posted by Rufio

I don't watch the TV news often,

...wihch leaves you in a great position to see this issue clearly

I do find it amusing that you talk about the hypocrisy of all things "liberal" while stating your approval of Bill O Reilly, a guy who complains about America's overly litigious legal system and yet tried to sue Al Franken for use of the term "fair and balanced."

I forgot....Bill O'Reilly has to be perfect to defend him.


Where in the definition of the word "approval" does it state he is right all the time? When you find it, let me know.