<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Um, if your trying to pull the "media cost Gore the election" crap that Rolling Stone reported, then don't believe that. Rolling Stone is the most bias magazine I have ever read. Period. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not a Rolling Stone fabrication. The media was downright <i>hostile</i> to Gore, and treated Bush with kid gloves.
But to comment on the Rolling Stone story-- it did accurately describe how Gore got pounded by the media, using his 'botched' photo op in New Hampshire as an example. Here's the Reader's Digest version: The Washington Times reports that Gore wasted 4 billion gallons of water (at a cost of $7 million dollars) to flood the parched Connecticut River for a photo-op of Gore in a boat. The story caught fire and was followed up by the New York Times, the New York Post, and Newseek.
Turns out, the story wasn't true. The water (500 million gallons, just a <i>tad</i> short of 4 billion) was being poured into the river <i>anyway</i>, and the only accomodation to Gore was them pushing the schedule up by a few hours. Additionally, no money was <i>wasted</i>, seeing as how the water was being pushed through turbines to create energy.
But, the story caught fire, and set the tone for how Gore would be presented-- as an arrogant, opportunistic liar.
Now, real quick-- can anyone name another politician who recently went a bit overboard for a ridiculous photo-op? Pencils on your desks, please.
Eric Alterman (one of msnbc's pundits) did a good job detailing the various Gore 'lies' that were released into the echo chamber of today's 'liberal' media.
"Lies" that Gore was held accountable for:
1) Claiming to have invented the internet.
His exact quote was "I took the initiative in creating the internet". Vinton Cerf, often referred to as the father of the internet, has admitted to Gore's instrumental legislative role in funding and developing Arpanet. But it was turned into a ridiculous sound bite and repeated ad infinidum. That diehard liberal rag The Boston Globe launched this one.
2)He claimed that he and Tipper were the role model for the couple in 'The Love Story'.
Seeing as how he was friends with Erich Segal at Harvard, it must have seemed pretty plausible. However, the Time reporter who initially reported it said that Gore only told her that Segal had mentioned to some reporters in the Nashville Tennessean that Gore and Tipper were the models. This was true. Segal had been misquoted, however. What he had actually said was that Gore AND Tommy Lee Jones were both models for the male character, but nothing about Tipper. The viciously liberal New York Times and CNN (which reported that Segal said 'News to me' about the 'lie') gave this one legs.
3)He claimed to have discovered the Love Canal toxic waste site
The William Kristol RNC edited quote: "I found a little place in upstate New York called the Love Canal. I was the one that started it all."
The <i>real</i> quote, to a group of high schoolers talking about how one person can make a difference, in reference to a girl who had written his congressional office about a toxic waste site in Toone, TN: "I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. . . . I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue, and Toone-- Tennessee-- that was the one you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all."
The folks at the Washington Post, Hardball, and ABC news, among others, decided that they liked the RNC version better and reported it that way.
By comparison, the media let Bush make up all the garbage he wanted, and didn't really call him on any of it.
Did you know that Bush was responsbile for the popular Texas HMO patients' bill of rights? If by 'responsible' you mean 'vetoed it once in 1995, and then opposed it again in 1997 when it became law without his signature', then yes, he was <i>very</i> responsible.
Did you know that through Bush, 4.7 billion dollars was spent on health care for the poor in Texas? Well, if we're including the 3.5 billion that came through charity care and local institutions, then yes-- that is an accurate statement.
Did you know that Bush promised to have prescription drugs as an integral part of his Medicare plan? If you cross out 'Bush' and replace it with 'Gore', then yes, this is true. Otherwise, though Bush claimed it was part of his plan . . . it . . . uh . . . wasn't in his plan.
And on and on. Face it, Gore, who is unlikeable enough to begin with, was painted as a smug, arrogant, ostentatious snob. Perhaps he embodies some of those qualities, but they exaggerated them to comic proportions. Additionally, it benefited Bush because people were then drawn to the 'Aw shucks' political outsider, in over his head, but battlin' it tout like a plucky, good ol' cowboy
I <i>know</i> several people who didn't vote for Gore <i>specifically</i> because of the internet thing. And you're trying to kid yourself and say that the beating he took in the media <i>didn't</i> hurt him?
They called the election to Gore early if I remember correctly before the polls were closed, yet they bashed him pretty hard. Not to mention that the media went pretty hard on Bush quite a bit about his "capability" and him being a drunk and his education, even though he scored better on some aptitude tests than Gore. Gore also got alot of good publicity with his "kiss" with his wife. He was also sold as a way intelligent man who had a hard time connecting with people because of his intelligence.
But that's the way it goes, the candidates favorite linkage institutions always put a good word in for their favorite, and hammer the opponent and skew the truth til' it seems obscene.
If you ask me though, Gore's arrogance in the debate is what did it for me.
There's no doubt the conservative paper's were harsh on Gore. They were pretty bad to Bush too. I have to disagree with you there about the kid gloves though Bathroom Monkey. All the major news stations on television are pretty left leaning, with the exception of Fox News.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Nov 16 2003, 07:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Nov 16 2003, 07:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There's no doubt the conservative paper's were harsh on Gore. They were pretty bad to Bush too. I have to disagree with you there about the kid gloves though Bathroom Monkey. All the major news stations on television are pretty left leaning, with the exception of Fox News. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> At some point we must open a thread to discuss the 'liberal' media <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
There's some who would say that the far right considers everything to the left of their views to be 'liberal' or 'left' when in fact it actually falls more in the realm of 'moderate'.
Wlliam Kristol: "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Rich Bond (chair of the GOP during the 1992 elections): "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media]... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
Pat Buchanan: "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage -- all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that"
Bring it on! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Spot the Difference Why are newspapers so liberal in labeling "conservatives"?
BY DAVID W. BRADY AND JONATHAN MA Sunday, November 16, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
The release of former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg's book, "Bias," first prompted our examination of the degree to which the news media deviate from objective coverage. Mr. Goldberg wrote of how during Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, Peter Jennings consistently labeled Republican loyalists as "conservatives" or "very determined conservatives." Meanwhile, the ABC News anchor did not refer to Democratic loyalists as "liberals," treating Mr. Clinton's allies, instead, as mainstream lawmakers. So we asked ourselves, was the media's tendency to label particular senators isolated to the Clinton impeachment trial? Or is there a more pernicious generality? After a study of New York Times and Washington Post articles published between 1990 and 2002, we conclude that the problem is endemic.
We examined every Times and Post article that contained references to a senator. Specifically, we set out to reveal the treatment of the 10 most liberal and 10 most conservative senators from each congressional session. We used the Poole-Rosenthal ratings--developed by the University of Houston's Keith Poole to illustrate a senator's ideological extremity--to determine which senators to study. Using a reliable news database, we deployed a constant search term to uncover when news writers labeled senators conservative or liberal. For five successive congressional sessions during this time period, we documented when Times and Post reporters directly labeled Republican loyalists "conservatives" and Democratic loyalists "liberals" in their news stories. (We excluded editorials.)
The first finding of our study is consistent with the results found for media stories on institutions such as corporations, Congress or universities, namely, that most of the time the story is straightforward--as in "Senators X, Y, and Z visited the European Parliament." However, when there were policy issues at stake we found that conservative senators earn "conservative" labels from Times reporters more often than liberal senators receive "liberal" labels. Sticky Labels Classifications of U.S. senators as liberal or conservative
For instance, during the 102nd Congress, the Times labeled liberal senators as "liberal" in 3.87% of the stories in which they were mentioned. In contrast, the 10 most conservative senators were identified as "conservative" in 9.03% of the stories in which they were mentioned, nearly three times the rate for liberal senators. Over the course of six congressional sessions, the labeling of conservative senators in the Washington Post and New York Times occurred at a rate of two, three, four and even five times as often as that of liberal senators (see chart). It appears clear that the news media assume that conservative ideology needs to be identified more often than liberal ideology does.
The disparity in reporting was not limited to numbers. Times reporters often inject comments that present liberals in a more favorable light than conservatives. For instance, during the 102nd Congress, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa was described in Times stories as "a kindred liberal Democrat from Iowa," a "respected Midwestern liberal" and "a good old-fashioned liberal." Fellow Democrat Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts received neutral, if not benign, identification: "a liberal spokesman" and "the party's old-school liberal."
In contrast, Times reporters presented conservative senators as belligerent and extreme. During the 102nd Congress, Sen. Jesse Helms was labeled as "the most unyielding conservative," "the unyielding conservative Republican," "the contentious conservative" and "the Republican arch-conservative." During this time period, Times reporters made a point to specifically identify Sen. Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and Sen. Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire as "very conservative," and Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma as "one of the most conservative elected officials in America."
We have detected a pattern of editorialized commentary throughout the decade. Liberal senators were granted near-immunity from any disparaging remarks regarding their ideological position: Sen. Harkin is "a liberal intellectual"; Sen. Barbara Boxer of California is "a reliably outspoken liberal"; Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois is "a respected Midwestern liberal"; Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York is "difficult to categorize politically"; Sen. Kennedy is "a liberal icon" and "liberal abortion rights stalwart"; and Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey is a man whose "politics are liberal to moderate."
While references to liberal senators in the Times evoke a brave defense of the liberal platform (key words: icon and stalwart), the newspaper portrays conservatives as cantankerous lawmakers seeking to push their agenda down America's throat. Descriptions of conservative senators include "unyielding," "hard-line" and "firebrand." A taste of Times quotes on conservatives during the period of 1990-2000: Sen. Nickles is "a fierce conservative" and "a rock-ribbed conservative"; Sen. Helms is "perhaps the most tenacious and quarrelsome conservative in the Senate, and with his "right-wing isolationist ideology" he is the "best-known mischief maker." Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona is "a Republican hard-liner"; Sen. Smith is "a granite-hard Republican conservative"; Sen. Gramm takes "aggressively conservative stands" and has "touched on many red-meat conservative topics," as "the highly partisan conservative Texan"; Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas is "hard-core conservative," "considerably more conservative . . . less pragmatic," "hard-line conservative . . . one of Newt Gingrich's foot soldiers" and "a hard-charging conservative"; Sen. Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas is "a staunch conservative"; and Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho is "an arch-conservative."
This labeling pattern was not limited to the Times. Liberal and conservative senators also received different treatment from the Washington Post. Distinctly liberal senators were described as bipartisan lawmakers and iconic leaders of a noble cause. In the 107th Congress, Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland was described as "one of the more liberal senators but [with] a record of working with Republicans." Sen. Harkin was bathed in bipartisan light: "a prairie populist with a generally liberal record, although he's made a few detours to more conservative positions demanded by his Iowa constituents." Of Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, the Post said: "Though a liberal at heart, she is more pragmatic than ideological." Other liberals were lionized or cast in soft focus: "Sen. Kennedy is a hero to liberals and a major irritant to conservatives, plus an old-style liberal appeal to conscience"; Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota "was one of the few unabashed liberals left on Capitol Hill and an ebullient liberal"; Sen. Moynihan was "a liberal public intellectual." In contrast, the Post portrayed conservative senators unflatteringly. Republican loyalists were often labeled as hostile and out of the mainstream. In the 107th Congress, Sens. Gramm and Nickles were dismissed as a "conservative Texan" and "conservative Oklahoman" respectively. Post reporters regarded Sen. Smith as an "idiosyncratic conservative," "militantly conservative" and "a conservative man in a conservative suit from the conservative state of New Hampshire." Other Republicans were characterized as antagonists: Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma is "a hard-line GOP conservative"; Sen. Kyl is "a combative conservative"; Sen. Helms is "a cantankerous, deeply conservative chairman," "a Clinton-bashing conservative," "the crusty senator from North Carolina," "the longtime keeper of the conservative flame" and "a conservative curmudgeon."
Our preliminary results for other papers--USA Today, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Los Angeles Times--reveal similar patterns to those described above. The major exception is The Wall Street Journal, and even there the labeling of conservatives to liberals is a little less than 2 to 1. The effect of these findings on senators' re-election, fund raising and careers is little understood, but the relationship is complicated. However, one can conclude fairly from this survey that conservative senators, consistently portrayed as spoilers, are ill-served by the political reporting in two of the leading general-interest newspapers of the United States. Liberals, on the other hand, get a free pass. If this is not bias, pray what is?
Mr. Brady is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of political science at Stanford, where Mr. Ma is a senior in economics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'> Edit: And I won't note the irony that a post intending to demonstrate the liberal slant of the media pointed us to the the op/ed section of the Wall Street Journal.
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Nov 16 2003, 03:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Nov 16 2003, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'> Edit: And I won't note the irony that a post intending to demonstrate the liberal slant of the media pointed us to the the op/ed section of the Wall Street Journal.
Oh wait, I just did. </span> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That means what to the discussion? There's irony because an op/ed piece is talking about "liberal" bias and it just happens to come from the WSJ? Would you expect to see such a thing in either the New York Times or the Washington Post? I'd hope not. The fact is that there are news organizations that lean left and right... That do exhibit bias.
However... That does not mean the merit of this article is lessened just because it comes from the WSJ. The article in question has merit. It helps you to recognize the "hidden" bias that does actually exist. It is not usually explicit... But implied. People complain about FoxNews all the time... About how it is soooo "right" of the political spectrum. Yet... When people try to complain about "liberal" news sources... Its suddenly wrong and ironic.
The part of this article that I was most impressed with... and you should be as well, if you were honest with yourself... is that they excluded editorials. But I bet that was overlooked... Just like the implied bias against conservatives from most news organizations.
I meant the irony of complaining of some sort of blanket liberal media bias by directing us to the op/ed page of the WSJ, which is widely read and fiercely conservative.
Then again, most people don't mind bias in the news, as long as it's their particular brand of bias.
But this thread has been hijacked quite enough . . I'll stop here until someone with the time (not me, gotta head out for a two hour drive) starts a thread where we can discuss bias in the media.
Damn you BM, for posting all the stuff about Gore before I could. I heard it all in Al Franken's book "Liars and the lies they tell"...very good book by the way, teaches you how to lie with footnotes.
Actually, possibly <b>the</b> funniest thing about that book was Ann Coulter's response to it. The following comes from alfrankenweb.com:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4) Coulter: I claim Evan Thomas' father was the Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas. Franken drones on and on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Evan Thomas' father -- without saying that he was Evan's grandfather. This was one of about five inconsequential errors quickly corrected in "Slander" -- and cited one million times by liberals as a "lie." Confusing "father" with "grandfather" is a mistake. Franken's deliberate implication that there was no relationship whatsoever between Norman and Evan Thomas is intentional dishonesty. <b> REALITY: Al Franken DOES indeed say that Norman Thomas was Evan Thomas's grandfather. Al Franken on page 379: "Evan Thomas is the grandson of Norman Thomas. Did you find this endnote? Congratulations. See how hard it was to find?" </b> Context is lost on Ann. Al was writing about how Ann Coulter deceptively uses endnotes / footnotes ("Endnotes are much harder to reference. If you are using your 'footnotes' to lie, make them endnotes" as Ann Coulter does) and thus, Al put the endnote / footnote about Norman Thomas in the ENDNOTE section. <b>That footnote is purposely hard to find. Hence, "See how hard it was to find?" Yes, believe it or not, Ann actually proves Al's point about Ann's endnotes / footnotes!</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know how conservatives feel about Michael Moore*? That's how the rest of the world feels about Ann Coulter.
P.J. O'Rourke, to the Onion AV Club: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People love to be told what they know already. It's not so much that what they say is wrong, though Ann Coulter does seem to be completely crazy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even other conservatives are starting to give up on that nut.
*<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>This is not to imply that everyone to the left of conservatives thinks he's terrific. Hell, I'd personally lump him into the loony bin right next to Ann. It's just to give you a point of reference.</span>
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Immigration' target='_blank'>Bush calls for Immigration Overhaul</a>
Since this is part of his policy (and a deciding factor in the upcoming elections), thought I'd post it here for comments/opinions. Mine: Like almost everything else, what he says is pure fluff. Sure it's only fair to allow immigrants in to "take the jobs Americans won't take" while shutting out the illegal immigrants. But just how does he plan to do that and how much does he plan to spend. Sure this policy is probably making Mexican officials jumping for joy (+1 foreign policy), it's dangerous treading ground when our job economy is already this weak.
On a more upbeat note, I have now added a new 'bushism' to my list: "Our borders should be shut to criminals, to drug traders, drug traffickers and to criminals..." I guess he makes a point <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
Why isn't Bush putting the National Guard on our borders? We do have systems that allow you to come and work in the USA but why have a border guard if they can't even do their job? Throw the national guard on it and see how many get by.
communistwithagun " Exactly. Instead of blowing up third world countries and adding to the deficet, why can't we develop a renewable engery source so we wont NEED the middle east. YEEESH"
I love you <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--AsterOids+Jan 7 2004, 07:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Jan 7 2004, 07:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> communistwithagun " Exactly. Instead of blowing up third world countries and adding to the deficet, why can't we develop a renewable engery source so we wont NEED the middle east. YEEESH"
I love you <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And they say im anti-american <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You are. =)
I was reading in Time magazine this article about how when they found Saddam after having said he could ask his people to fight for him because he would fight with his people to the very end, he puts up no fight or protest and goes along with the marine as he takes him away. Also it was rumored (but not confirmed for obvious reasons), that Saddam spit in the face of the marine that was taking him away. In response, he punched Saddam in the face and said "President Bush sends his regards."
I hope that is true. That would rock. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The political partisan is making my head explode. Where to begin...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Like almost everything else, what he says is pure fluff. Sure it's only fair to allow immigrants in to "take the jobs Americans won't take" while shutting out the illegal immigrants. But just how does he plan to do that and how much does he plan to spend. Sure this policy is probably making Mexican officials jumping for joy (+1 foreign policy), it's dangerous treading ground when our job economy is already this weak<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You start yourself off by saying, "like almost everything else", so far it seems like this man can do no good, and you are completely convinced of that to the bitter end. I'm saying that it wasn't politically motivated a bit, but the reality is that something had to be done. Give credit where credit is due. Another problem is that you are convinced the job economy is weak, if you have studied economics (I won't make assumptions), you will understand business cycles and how they work. The president in reality has very little control of economics in the long run. Yes, a president may be able to push an expansion period a little longer, or shorten the stagnation period, but can never eliminate or prevent it. In the history of economics no economy has ever grown without end, the US is no exception, don't blame him for the economy, it only shows that you don't completely understand, and more importantly, you're showing that you're simply repeating what you were told.
I'll admit though, I'm not completely sure how well this plan is going to work, or how effectively, but the important part is that it's a definitive course of action for the United States in addressing the situation and acknowledging it. It's not so much that it's a solution but rather a step in the right direction which is better than nothing at all as it has been a growing situation especially with Homeland Security. You can give it all to political wheelings and dealings and trying to gain more support with hispanics in keys states like California, what it really comes down to is the fact that he at least did <b>something</b>. I'm also sure that if a politician that you liked did the same exact action you would be singing is praises.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He warped the Colombine Massacure to promote his sick ideals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. I've seen Bowling for Columbine and can honestly say that gun violence is a prevalent situation in America and something is wrong. He didn't warp it at all, although he did use it to support his opinion, and an opinion that by the end of the film I readily agreed with. In fact he stopped the sales of ammunition at Wal-Marts with the aid of two Columbine survivors, and guess what, it was the survivors that wanted that course of action, not Moore. Moore always referred to Columbine as a tradgedy and nothing else, and in all honesty, I can't even really understand your conflict with his use/depiction of Columbine. There's nothing sick about him being worried or concerned with gun violence.
What exact ideals ? In the documentary he claimed that he didn't know the solution or why this happens, he noted that countries with violent histories don't always have the same problem, and that gun restriction doesn't necessarily solve problems, in fact, he only really said that the media's depiction of violence was most likely the problem... I really don't understand exactly what "sick ideals" you are talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why isn't Bush putting the National Guard on our borders? We do have systems that allow you to come and work in the USA but why have a border guard if they can't even do their job? Throw the national guard on it and see how many get by. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not exactly sure of the costs, but I would assume that it's probably not the best solution. The problem is more complicated than simply saying to put more men on the job. You also realize that enforcement doesn't stop the problem, it just makes people try harder to get by. I think there's nothing wrong with immigrants working in America, simply give them the same wages as Americans and there will be no supposed "stealing of jobs", those who work best will get hired.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Exactly. Instead of blowing up third world countries and adding to the deficet, why can't we develop a renewable engery source so we wont NEED the middle east. YEEESH"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can be as anti-war and idealistic as you want but there are simply some things that are worth fighting for. Not to mention, whether the intelligence is flawless or not, our government simply had more than you did, you are not completely aware of the same situation, you are trying to draw conclusions with an incomplete equation. And we can do both by the way, and we have. I know for certain that Bush has made efforts for renewable energy. Just to add also, there are plenty of countries that are not at war and have not developed renewable energy, so your statements depiction of them as mutually exclusive is rather faulty.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited January 2004
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not exactly sure of the costs, but I would assume that it's probably not the best solution. The problem is more complicated than simply saying to put more men on the job. You also realize that enforcement doesn't stop the problem, it just makes people try harder to get by. I think there's nothing wrong with immigrants working in America, simply give them the same wages as Americans and there will be no supposed "stealing of jobs", those who work best will get hired. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We do have a system to allow immigants to work. We do need them to. But you see its not the workers im worried about its the "jumpers" we have a system that allows them to come to America and work. Those are the people I don't care about. What im angry about is these illegals are not paying taxes and are collecting welfare! 30% of all immigants collect welfare! Now don't go and say that "I was the son a immigrant once too" Because I will tell you alot of us went through Ellis Island to get here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not really. I've seen Bowling for Columbine and can honestly say that gun violence is a prevalent situation in America and something is wrong. He didn't warp it at all, although he did use it to support his opinion, and an opinion that by the end of the film I readily agreed with. In fact he stopped the sales of ammunition at Wal-Marts with the aid of two Columbine survivors, and guess what, it was the survivors that wanted that course of action, not Moore. Moore always referred to Columbine as a tradgedy and nothing else, and in all honesty, I can't even really understand your conflict with his use/depiction of Columbine. There's nothing sick about him being worried or concerned with gun violence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To say Moore is not poltically motivated shows that you have little understanding of the situation of Moore. How can you say hes not poltically motivated when he makes a cheapshot any possible chance he gets at conservatives? He cheapshots Heston saying he was responcible for the Colombine murders He cheapshots Bush for 9/11 (but also promoting Hilery Roddam Clinton <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> ) He's <b>VERY</b> politically motivated. Regarding Colombine, yes guns were used. But what Moore didn't tell you was about the 2 Europian school shootings that took place did he? Notice how he would take things out of context and mulipulate it for his own gain. Also if thats his case why didn't he go after video games they played as much a role as the guns did, how about Marylin Manson?
For More infromation about how much this poltical assclown read our side of the story. [URL=Not really. I've seen Bowling for Columbine and can honestly say that gun violence is a prevalent situation in America and something is wrong. He didn't warp it at all, although he did use it to support his opinion, and an opinion that by the end of the film I readily agreed with. In fact he stopped the sales of ammunition at Wal-Marts with the aid of two Columbine survivors, and guess what, it was the survivors that wanted that course of action, not Moore. Moore always referred to Columbine as a tradgedy and nothing else, and in all honesty, I can't even really understand your conflict with his use/depiction of Columbine. There's nothing sick about him being worried or concerned with gun violence. <a href='http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html' target='_blank'>The Truth About Bowling</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The 15 finalists for Bush in 30 Seconds are posted below. The winning commercial will be announced at an event on January 12th at the Hammerstein Ballroom in New York City. It will be shown on television during the 2004 campaigning. You can buy tickets online now.
The finalists are also being sent out to our panel of celebrity judges which includes Michael Moore, Donna Brazile, Jack Black, Janeane Garofalo, Margaret Cho and Gus Van Sant. These judges will determine which ad wins the contest overall. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some of them are pretty funny such as the "WHAT ARE WE TEACHING OUR CHILDREN?" and the "BUSH'S REPAIR SHOP" ads. Some are them are really gonna have Bush embarrassed to the 13th circle such as "HUMAN COST OF WAR" and "POLYGRAPH". For the record, the Democrats aren't sponsoring this, it is completely independent. This is probably the first time such an effort has ever been conceived and done.
Some "conservatives" have denied these as "tin foil" hat conspiracies. I guess that's what you'd call <i>iron</i>ic.
So do you guys still disagree with my statement "Anti-americans are pro Bush" <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
For me it's a win win situation, if Bush gets electod or not. If he gets re-elected, he keeps on spreading the negative PR, which means EU and USA are going further from each other, which means there's better chances for EU to become more united(so please, vote for Bush <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). If he doesn't get back in, USA prolly stops bombing mid-east which is always good.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Jan 8 2004, 10:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Jan 8 2004, 10:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If he gets re-elected, he keeps on spreading the negative PR, which means EU and USA are going further from each other, which means there's better chances for EU to become more united(so please, vote for Bush <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Current EU states that are members of the Iraqi coalition:
Italy Portugal Denmark Spain Netherlands United Kingdom
6 out of 15. Doesn't sound like you're more united against the US to me, and instead have a small majority of 2 votes. Let's add in the 10 new ones and see, shall we?
Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovakia
That makes it 13 out of 25 in favor of the Iraqi occupation. My my, a majority of them are coalition members, how interesting. Hopefully that new super-fair Constituion goes through that forbids the 10 new nations from having a vote! And if you add in the three states on consideration, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey, it becomes 16/25.
Next theory! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I don't mean EU has to unite against USA but I'm talking about the separation of EU and NATO. You might remember the reasons behind this: NATO decides one, EU decides one, who is Germany/any EU-NATO country going to listen? No good, EU and NATO can't co-exist in one country(that is, if EU becomes more than just a trading block). Ofcourse I'd rather see EU than NATO exist, anything that gives EU countries more chances of getting out of NATO is something I'm looking forward to. If Bush PO's the EU countries some more, there might actually happen something. We already have UN broken in to pieces, I'm just waiting for the same thing to happen to NATO <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: Not to mention, even if EU countries are in Coalition, they can leave <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Edit2: Sorry for the bad spelling/construction. I should do better than that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To say Moore is not poltically motivated shows that you have little understanding of the situation of Moore. How can you say hes not poltically motivated when he makes a cheapshot any possible chance he gets at conservatives? He cheapshots Heston saying he was responcible for the Colombine murders He cheapshots Bush for 9/11 (but also promoting Hilery Roddam Clinton ) He's VERY politically motivated. Regarding Colombine, yes guns were used. But what Moore didn't tell you was about the 2 Europian school shootings that took place did he? Notice how he would take things out of context and mulipulate it for his own gain. Also if thats his case why didn't he go after video games they played as much a role as the guns did, how about Marylin Manson? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no debate whether he's politically motivated or not. I said he didn't warp the facts of Columbine. That's just as similar to saying that many African Americans didn't have a leg to stand on during the CR era because they were politically motivated, you can still be within the truth and be politically motivated.
And yes, he does try and talk to Heston, and you know what? After two shootings in two areas, Heston then deliberately visited those for a NRA rally. For that action alone, Heston deserves any flak he gets from Moore. You must not be a very astute political observant if Mr.Moore seems to be the only person who takes things out of context and manipulates things. Regardless, solely on Bowling for Columbine I believe that he did not radically manipulate truths. Sure he had his opinions going in, but during the conclusion of the documentary Moore didn't point fingers for the catalyst for gun violence.
OK folks, this thread <i>started</i> as an attempt of discussing Bushs policy - it's now derailed into a pro-/anti-Moore debate. Seeing this, I'll <span style='color:red'>***lock***</span> the thread.
Comments
It's not a Rolling Stone fabrication. The media was downright <i>hostile</i> to Gore, and treated Bush with kid gloves.
But to comment on the Rolling Stone story-- it did accurately describe how Gore got pounded by the media, using his 'botched' photo op in New Hampshire as an example. Here's the Reader's Digest version: The Washington Times reports that Gore wasted 4 billion gallons of water (at a cost of $7 million dollars) to flood the parched Connecticut River for a photo-op of Gore in a boat. The story caught fire and was followed up by the New York Times, the New York Post, and Newseek.
Turns out, the story wasn't true. The water (500 million gallons, just a <i>tad</i> short of 4 billion) was being poured into the river <i>anyway</i>, and the only accomodation to Gore was them pushing the schedule up by a few hours. Additionally, no money was <i>wasted</i>, seeing as how the water was being pushed through turbines to create energy.
But, the story caught fire, and set the tone for how Gore would be presented-- as an arrogant, opportunistic liar.
Now, real quick-- can anyone name another politician who recently went a bit overboard for a ridiculous photo-op? Pencils on your desks, please.
Eric Alterman (one of msnbc's pundits) did a good job detailing the various Gore 'lies' that were released into the echo chamber of today's 'liberal' media.
"Lies" that Gore was held accountable for:
1) Claiming to have invented the internet.
His exact quote was "I took the initiative in creating the internet". Vinton Cerf, often referred to as the father of the internet, has admitted to Gore's instrumental legislative role in funding and developing Arpanet. But it was turned into a ridiculous sound bite and repeated ad infinidum. That diehard liberal rag The Boston Globe launched this one.
2)He claimed that he and Tipper were the role model for the couple in 'The Love Story'.
Seeing as how he was friends with Erich Segal at Harvard, it must have seemed pretty plausible. However, the Time reporter who initially reported it said that Gore only told her that Segal had mentioned to some reporters in the Nashville Tennessean that Gore and Tipper were the models. This was true. Segal had been misquoted, however. What he had actually said was that Gore AND Tommy Lee Jones were both models for the male character, but nothing about Tipper. The viciously liberal New York Times and CNN (which reported that Segal said 'News to me' about the 'lie') gave this one legs.
3)He claimed to have discovered the Love Canal toxic waste site
The William Kristol RNC edited quote: "I found a little place in upstate New York called the Love Canal. I was the one that started it all."
The <i>real</i> quote, to a group of high schoolers talking about how one person can make a difference, in reference to a girl who had written his congressional office about a toxic waste site in Toone, TN:
"I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. . . . I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue, and Toone-- Tennessee-- that was the one you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all."
The folks at the Washington Post, Hardball, and ABC news, among others, decided that they liked the RNC version better and reported it that way.
By comparison, the media let Bush make up all the garbage he wanted, and didn't really call him on any of it.
Did you know that Bush was responsbile for the popular Texas HMO patients' bill of rights? If by 'responsible' you mean 'vetoed it once in 1995, and then opposed it again in 1997 when it became law without his signature', then yes, he was <i>very</i> responsible.
Did you know that through Bush, 4.7 billion dollars was spent on health care for the poor in Texas? Well, if we're including the 3.5 billion that came through charity care and local institutions, then yes-- that is an accurate statement.
Did you know that Bush promised to have prescription drugs as an integral part of his Medicare plan? If you cross out 'Bush' and replace it with 'Gore', then yes, this is true. Otherwise, though Bush claimed it was part of his plan . . . it . . . uh . . . wasn't in his plan.
And on and on. Face it, Gore, who is unlikeable enough to begin with, was painted as a smug, arrogant, ostentatious snob. Perhaps he embodies some of those qualities, but they exaggerated them to comic proportions. Additionally, it benefited Bush because people were then drawn to the 'Aw shucks' political outsider, in over his head, but battlin' it tout like a plucky, good ol' cowboy
I <i>know</i> several people who didn't vote for Gore <i>specifically</i> because of the internet thing. And you're trying to kid yourself and say that the beating he took in the media <i>didn't</i> hurt him?
They called the election to Gore early if I remember correctly before the polls were closed, yet they bashed him pretty hard. Not to mention that the media went pretty hard on Bush quite a bit about his "capability" and him being a drunk and his education, even though he scored better on some aptitude tests than Gore. Gore also got alot of good publicity with his "kiss" with his wife. He was also sold as a way intelligent man who had a hard time connecting with people because of his intelligence.
But that's the way it goes, the candidates favorite linkage institutions always put a good word in for their favorite, and hammer the opponent and skew the truth til' it seems obscene.
If you ask me though, Gore's arrogance in the debate is what did it for me.
There's no doubt the conservative paper's were harsh on Gore. They were pretty bad to Bush too. I have to disagree with you there about the kid gloves though Bathroom Monkey. All the major news stations on television are pretty left leaning, with the exception of Fox News.
At some point we must open a thread to discuss the 'liberal' media <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
There's some who would say that the far right considers everything to the left of their views to be 'liberal' or 'left' when in fact it actually falls more in the realm of 'moderate'.
Wlliam Kristol:
"I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Rich Bond (chair of the GOP during the 1992 elections):
"There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media]... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
Pat Buchanan:
"I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage -- all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that"
Bring it on! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Spot the Difference
Why are newspapers so liberal in labeling "conservatives"?
BY DAVID W. BRADY AND JONATHAN MA
Sunday, November 16, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
The release of former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg's book, "Bias," first prompted our examination of the degree to which the news media deviate from objective coverage. Mr. Goldberg wrote of how during Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, Peter Jennings consistently labeled Republican loyalists as "conservatives" or "very determined conservatives." Meanwhile, the ABC News anchor did not refer to Democratic loyalists as "liberals," treating Mr. Clinton's allies, instead, as mainstream lawmakers. So we asked ourselves, was the media's tendency to label particular senators isolated to the Clinton impeachment trial? Or is there a more pernicious generality? After a study of New York Times and Washington Post articles published between 1990 and 2002, we conclude that the problem is endemic.
We examined every Times and Post article that contained references to a senator. Specifically, we set out to reveal the treatment of the 10 most liberal and 10 most conservative senators from each congressional session. We used the Poole-Rosenthal ratings--developed by the University of Houston's Keith Poole to illustrate a senator's ideological extremity--to determine which senators to study. Using a reliable news database, we deployed a constant search term to uncover when news writers labeled senators conservative or liberal. For five successive congressional sessions during this time period, we documented when Times and Post reporters directly labeled Republican loyalists "conservatives" and Democratic loyalists "liberals" in their news stories. (We excluded editorials.)
The first finding of our study is consistent with the results found for media stories on institutions such as corporations, Congress or universities, namely, that most of the time the story is straightforward--as in "Senators X, Y, and Z visited the European Parliament." However, when there were policy issues at stake we found that conservative senators earn "conservative" labels from Times reporters more often than liberal senators receive "liberal" labels.
Sticky Labels
Classifications of U.S. senators as liberal or conservative
For instance, during the 102nd Congress, the Times labeled liberal senators as "liberal" in 3.87% of the stories in which they were mentioned. In contrast, the 10 most conservative senators were identified as "conservative" in 9.03% of the stories in which they were mentioned, nearly three times the rate for liberal senators. Over the course of six congressional sessions, the labeling of conservative senators in the Washington Post and New York Times occurred at a rate of two, three, four and even five times as often as that of liberal senators (see chart). It appears clear that the news media assume that conservative ideology needs to be identified more often than liberal ideology does.
The disparity in reporting was not limited to numbers. Times reporters often inject comments that present liberals in a more favorable light than conservatives. For instance, during the 102nd Congress, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa was described in Times stories as "a kindred liberal Democrat from Iowa," a "respected Midwestern liberal" and "a good old-fashioned liberal." Fellow Democrat Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts received neutral, if not benign, identification: "a liberal spokesman" and "the party's old-school liberal."
In contrast, Times reporters presented conservative senators as belligerent and extreme. During the 102nd Congress, Sen. Jesse Helms was labeled as "the most unyielding conservative," "the unyielding conservative Republican," "the contentious conservative" and "the Republican arch-conservative." During this time period, Times reporters made a point to specifically identify Sen. Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and Sen. Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire as "very conservative," and Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma as "one of the most conservative elected officials in America."
We have detected a pattern of editorialized commentary throughout the decade. Liberal senators were granted near-immunity from any disparaging remarks regarding their ideological position: Sen. Harkin is "a liberal intellectual"; Sen. Barbara Boxer of California is "a reliably outspoken liberal"; Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois is "a respected Midwestern liberal"; Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York is "difficult to categorize politically"; Sen. Kennedy is "a liberal icon" and "liberal abortion rights stalwart"; and Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey is a man whose "politics are liberal to moderate."
While references to liberal senators in the Times evoke a brave defense of the liberal platform (key words: icon and stalwart), the newspaper portrays conservatives as cantankerous lawmakers seeking to push their agenda down America's throat. Descriptions of conservative senators include "unyielding," "hard-line" and "firebrand." A taste of Times quotes on conservatives during the period of 1990-2000: Sen. Nickles is "a fierce conservative" and "a rock-ribbed conservative"; Sen. Helms is "perhaps the most tenacious and quarrelsome conservative in the Senate, and with his "right-wing isolationist ideology" he is the "best-known mischief maker." Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona is "a Republican hard-liner"; Sen. Smith is "a granite-hard Republican conservative"; Sen. Gramm takes "aggressively conservative stands" and has "touched on many red-meat conservative topics," as "the highly partisan conservative Texan"; Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas is "hard-core conservative," "considerably more conservative . . . less pragmatic," "hard-line conservative . . . one of Newt Gingrich's foot soldiers" and "a hard-charging conservative"; Sen. Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas is "a staunch conservative"; and Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho is "an arch-conservative."
This labeling pattern was not limited to the Times. Liberal and conservative senators also received different treatment from the Washington Post. Distinctly liberal senators were described as bipartisan lawmakers and iconic leaders of a noble cause. In the 107th Congress, Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland was described as "one of the more liberal senators but [with] a record of working with Republicans." Sen. Harkin was bathed in bipartisan light: "a prairie populist with a generally liberal record, although he's made a few detours to more conservative positions demanded by his Iowa constituents." Of Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, the Post said: "Though a liberal at heart, she is more pragmatic than ideological." Other liberals were lionized or cast in soft focus: "Sen. Kennedy is a hero to liberals and a major irritant to conservatives, plus an old-style liberal appeal to conscience"; Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota "was one of the few unabashed liberals left on Capitol Hill and an ebullient liberal"; Sen. Moynihan was "a liberal public intellectual."
In contrast, the Post portrayed conservative senators unflatteringly. Republican loyalists were often labeled as hostile and out of the mainstream. In the 107th Congress, Sens. Gramm and Nickles were dismissed as a "conservative Texan" and "conservative Oklahoman" respectively. Post reporters regarded Sen. Smith as an "idiosyncratic conservative," "militantly conservative" and "a conservative man in a conservative suit from the conservative state of New Hampshire." Other Republicans were characterized as antagonists: Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma is "a hard-line GOP conservative"; Sen. Kyl is "a combative conservative"; Sen. Helms is "a cantankerous, deeply conservative chairman," "a Clinton-bashing conservative," "the crusty senator from North Carolina," "the longtime keeper of the conservative flame" and "a conservative curmudgeon."
Our preliminary results for other papers--USA Today, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Los Angeles Times--reveal similar patterns to those described above. The major exception is The Wall Street Journal, and even there the labeling of conservatives to liberals is a little less than 2 to 1. The effect of these findings on senators' re-election, fund raising and careers is little understood, but the relationship is complicated. However, one can conclude fairly from this survey that conservative senators, consistently portrayed as spoilers, are ill-served by the political reporting in two of the leading general-interest newspapers of the United States. Liberals, on the other hand, get a free pass. If this is not bias, pray what is?
Mr. Brady is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of political science at Stanford, where Mr. Ma is a senior in economics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
any chance you could paste the article here?
thanks.
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>
Edit: And I won't note the irony that a post intending to demonstrate the liberal slant of the media pointed us to the the op/ed section of the Wall Street Journal.
Oh wait, I just did.
</span>
Edit: And I won't note the irony that a post intending to demonstrate the liberal slant of the media pointed us to the the op/ed section of the Wall Street Journal.
Oh wait, I just did.
</span> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That means what to the discussion? There's irony because an op/ed piece is talking about "liberal" bias and it just happens to come from the WSJ? Would you expect to see such a thing in either the New York Times or the Washington Post? I'd hope not. The fact is that there are news organizations that lean left and right... That do exhibit bias.
However... That does not mean the merit of this article is lessened just because it comes from the WSJ. The article in question has merit. It helps you to recognize the "hidden" bias that does actually exist. It is not usually explicit... But implied. People complain about FoxNews all the time... About how it is soooo "right" of the political spectrum. Yet... When people try to complain about "liberal" news sources... Its suddenly wrong and ironic.
The part of this article that I was most impressed with... and you should be as well, if you were honest with yourself... is that they excluded editorials. But I bet that was overlooked... Just like the implied bias against conservatives from most news organizations.
Then again, most people don't mind bias in the news, as long as it's their particular brand of bias.
But this thread has been hijacked quite enough . . I'll stop here until someone with the time (not me, gotta head out for a two hour drive) starts a thread where we can discuss bias in the media.
I heard it all in Al Franken's book "Liars and the lies they tell"...very good book by the way, teaches you how to lie with footnotes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4) Coulter: I claim Evan Thomas' father was the Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas. Franken drones on and on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Evan Thomas' father -- without saying that he was Evan's grandfather. This was one of about five inconsequential errors quickly corrected in "Slander" -- and cited one million times by liberals as a "lie." Confusing "father" with "grandfather" is a mistake. Franken's deliberate implication that there was no relationship whatsoever between Norman and Evan Thomas is intentional dishonesty.
<b>
REALITY: Al Franken DOES indeed say that Norman Thomas was Evan Thomas's grandfather. Al Franken on page 379: "Evan Thomas is the grandson of Norman Thomas. Did you find this endnote? Congratulations. See how hard it was to find?"
</b>
Context is lost on Ann. Al was writing about how Ann Coulter deceptively uses endnotes / footnotes ("Endnotes are much harder to reference. If you are using your 'footnotes' to lie, make them endnotes" as Ann Coulter does) and thus, Al put the endnote / footnote about Norman Thomas in the ENDNOTE section. <b>That footnote is purposely hard to find. Hence, "See how hard it was to find?" Yes, believe it or not, Ann actually proves Al's point about Ann's endnotes / footnotes!</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(bold emphasis mine)
Way to go, Ann!
I listened to it on CD...very good.
Slander was better.
Of course, I'm a conservative, and I laugh about the fact that Slander sold more books, proving once and for all conservatives rule =)
Sorry, just felt like drifting there.
<a href='http://slannder.homestead.com/' target='_blank'>She's quite legit.</a>
You know how conservatives feel about Michael Moore*? That's how the rest of the world feels about Ann Coulter.
P.J. O'Rourke, to the Onion AV Club:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People love to be told what they know already. It's not so much that what they say is wrong, though Ann Coulter does seem to be completely crazy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even other conservatives are starting to give up on that nut.
*<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>This is not to imply that everyone to the left of conservatives thinks he's terrific. Hell, I'd personally lump him into the loony bin right next to Ann. It's just to give you a point of reference.</span>
Since this is part of his policy (and a deciding factor in the upcoming elections), thought I'd post it here for comments/opinions.
Mine: Like almost everything else, what he says is pure fluff. Sure it's only fair to allow immigrants in to "take the jobs Americans won't take" while shutting out the illegal immigrants. But just how does he plan to do that and how much does he plan to spend. Sure this policy is probably making Mexican officials jumping for joy (+1 foreign policy), it's dangerous treading ground when our job economy is already this weak.
On a more upbeat note, I have now added a new 'bushism' to my list:
"Our borders should be shut to criminals, to drug traders, drug traffickers and to criminals..."
I guess he makes a point <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
But its not like we had any other alternative. (Al Gore)
Moore talks out of his **** any possible chance he can get.
He warped the Colombine Massacure to promote his sick ideals.
Lied about Canada, he could of never of bought bullets in Canada. Not legally.
And the "weapons of mass distruction" in Colorado...they are in the process of being disarmed so they can launch satalites into space.
You can read our side of the issue.
<a href='http://www.moorelies.com/ml/articles/' target='_blank'>Moore Lies</a>
I love you
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And they say im anti-american
I love you
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And they say im anti-american <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are. =)
But I to, now hold Bush with strong disdain.
I hope that is true. That would rock. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Like almost everything else, what he says is pure fluff. Sure it's only fair to allow immigrants in to "take the jobs Americans won't take" while shutting out the illegal immigrants. But just how does he plan to do that and how much does he plan to spend. Sure this policy is probably making Mexican officials jumping for joy (+1 foreign policy), it's dangerous treading ground when our job economy is already this weak<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You start yourself off by saying, "like almost everything else", so far it seems like this man can do no good, and you are completely convinced of that to the bitter end. I'm saying that it wasn't politically motivated a bit, but the reality is that something had to be done. Give credit where credit is due. Another problem is that you are convinced the job economy is weak, if you have studied economics (I won't make assumptions), you will understand business cycles and how they work. The president in reality has very little control of economics in the long run. Yes, a president may be able to push an expansion period a little longer, or shorten the stagnation period, but can never eliminate or prevent it. In the history of economics no economy has ever grown without end, the US is no exception, don't blame him for the economy, it only shows that you don't completely understand, and more importantly, you're showing that you're simply repeating what you were told.
I'll admit though, I'm not completely sure how well this plan is going to work, or how effectively, but the important part is that it's a definitive course of action for the United States in addressing the situation and acknowledging it. It's not so much that it's a solution but rather a step in the right direction which is better than nothing at all as it has been a growing situation especially with Homeland Security. You can give it all to political wheelings and dealings and trying to gain more support with hispanics in keys states like California, what it really comes down to is the fact that he at least did <b>something</b>. I'm also sure that if a politician that you liked did the same exact action you would be singing is praises.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He warped the Colombine Massacure to promote his sick ideals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. I've seen Bowling for Columbine and can honestly say that gun violence is a prevalent situation in America and something is wrong. He didn't warp it at all, although he did use it to support his opinion, and an opinion that by the end of the film I readily agreed with. In fact he stopped the sales of ammunition at Wal-Marts with the aid of two Columbine survivors, and guess what, it was the survivors that wanted that course of action, not Moore. Moore always referred to Columbine as a tradgedy and nothing else, and in all honesty, I can't even really understand your conflict with his use/depiction of Columbine. There's nothing sick about him being worried or concerned with gun violence.
What exact ideals ? In the documentary he claimed that he didn't know the solution or why this happens, he noted that countries with violent histories don't always have the same problem, and that gun restriction doesn't necessarily solve problems, in fact, he only really said that the media's depiction of violence was most likely the problem... I really don't understand exactly what "sick ideals" you are talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why isn't Bush putting the National Guard on our borders? We do have systems that allow you to come and work in the USA but why have a border guard if they can't even do their job? Throw the national guard on it and see how many get by. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not exactly sure of the costs, but I would assume that it's probably not the best solution. The problem is more complicated than simply saying to put more men on the job. You also realize that enforcement doesn't stop the problem, it just makes people try harder to get by. I think there's nothing wrong with immigrants working in America, simply give them the same wages as Americans and there will be no supposed "stealing of jobs", those who work best will get hired.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Exactly. Instead of blowing up third world countries and adding to the deficet, why can't we develop a renewable engery source so we wont NEED the middle east. YEEESH"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can be as anti-war and idealistic as you want but there are simply some things that are worth fighting for. Not to mention, whether the intelligence is flawless or not, our government simply had more than you did, you are not completely aware of the same situation, you are trying to draw conclusions with an incomplete equation. And we can do both by the way, and we have. I know for certain that Bush has made efforts for renewable energy. Just to add also, there are plenty of countries that are not at war and have not developed renewable energy, so your statements depiction of them as mutually exclusive is rather faulty.
"I'm saying that it wasn't politically motivated a bit"
I meant to say, I'm <b>not</b> saying that it wasn't politically motivated a bit.
We do have a system to allow immigants to work. We do need them to. But you see its not the workers im worried about its the "jumpers" we have a system that allows them to come to America and work. Those are the people I don't care about. What im angry about is these illegals are not paying taxes and are collecting welfare! 30% of all immigants collect welfare! Now don't go and say that "I was the son a immigrant once too" Because I will tell you alot of us went through Ellis Island to get here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not really. I've seen Bowling for Columbine and can honestly say that gun violence is a prevalent situation in America and something is wrong. He didn't warp it at all, although he did use it to support his opinion, and an opinion that by the end of the film I readily agreed with. In fact he stopped the sales of ammunition at Wal-Marts with the aid of two Columbine survivors, and guess what, it was the survivors that wanted that course of action, not Moore. Moore always referred to Columbine as a tradgedy and nothing else, and in all honesty, I can't even really understand your conflict with his use/depiction of Columbine. There's nothing sick about him being worried or concerned with gun violence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To say Moore is not poltically motivated shows that you have little understanding of the situation of Moore. How can you say hes not poltically motivated when he makes a cheapshot any possible chance he gets at conservatives? He cheapshots Heston saying he was responcible for the Colombine murders He cheapshots Bush for 9/11 (but also promoting Hilery Roddam Clinton <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> ) He's <b>VERY</b> politically motivated. Regarding Colombine, yes guns were used. But what Moore didn't tell you was about the 2 Europian school shootings that took place did he? Notice how he would take things out of context and mulipulate it for his own gain. Also if thats his case why didn't he go after video games they played as much a role as the guns did, how about Marylin Manson?
For More infromation about how much this poltical assclown read our side of the story.
[URL=Not really. I've seen Bowling for Columbine and can honestly say that gun violence is a prevalent situation in America and something is wrong. He didn't warp it at all, although he did use it to support his opinion, and an opinion that by the end of the film I readily agreed with. In fact he stopped the sales of ammunition at Wal-Marts with the aid of two Columbine survivors, and guess what, it was the survivors that wanted that course of action, not Moore. Moore always referred to Columbine as a tradgedy and nothing else, and in all honesty, I can't even really understand your conflict with his use/depiction of Columbine. There's nothing sick about him being worried or concerned with gun violence. <a href='http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html' target='_blank'>The Truth About Bowling</a>
The 15 finalists for Bush in 30 Seconds are posted below. The winning commercial will be announced at an event on January 12th at the Hammerstein Ballroom in New York City. It will be shown on television during the 2004 campaigning. You can buy tickets online now.
The finalists are also being sent out to our panel of celebrity judges which includes Michael Moore, Donna Brazile, Jack Black, Janeane Garofalo, Margaret Cho and Gus Van Sant. These judges will determine which ad wins the contest overall. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://bushin30seconds.org' target='_blank'>Nominees</a>
Some of them are pretty funny such as the "WHAT ARE WE TEACHING OUR CHILDREN?" and the "BUSH'S REPAIR SHOP" ads. Some are them are really gonna have Bush embarrassed to the 13th circle such as "HUMAN COST OF WAR" and "POLYGRAPH". For the record, the Democrats aren't sponsoring this, it is completely independent. This is probably the first time such an effort has ever been conceived and done.
Some "conservatives" have denied these as "tin foil" hat conspiracies. I guess that's what you'd call <i>iron</i>ic.
For me it's a win win situation, if Bush gets electod or not. If he gets re-elected, he keeps on spreading the negative PR, which means EU and USA are going further from each other, which means there's better chances for EU to become more united(so please, vote for Bush <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). If he doesn't get back in, USA prolly stops bombing mid-east which is always good.
Current EU states that are members of the Iraqi coalition:
Italy
Portugal
Denmark
Spain
Netherlands
United Kingdom
6 out of 15. Doesn't sound like you're more united against the US to me, and instead have a small majority of 2 votes. Let's add in the 10 new ones and see, shall we?
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Slovakia
That makes it 13 out of 25 in favor of the Iraqi occupation. My my, a majority of them are coalition members, how interesting. Hopefully that new super-fair Constituion goes through that forbids the 10 new nations from having a vote! And if you add in the three states on consideration, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey, it becomes 16/25.
Next theory! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sources: <a href='http://europa.eu.int/abc/governments/index_en.htm#members' target='_blank'>http://europa.eu.int/abc/governments/index..._en.htm#members</a> <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-4.html' target='_blank'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030321-4.html</a>
Edit: Not to mention, even if EU countries are in Coalition, they can leave <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit2: Sorry for the bad spelling/construction. I should do better than that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no debate whether he's politically motivated or not. I said he didn't warp the facts of Columbine. That's just as similar to saying that many African Americans didn't have a leg to stand on during the CR era because they were politically motivated, you can still be within the truth and be politically motivated.
And yes, he does try and talk to Heston, and you know what? After two shootings in two areas, Heston then deliberately visited those for a NRA rally. For that action alone, Heston deserves any flak he gets from Moore. You must not be a very astute political observant if Mr.Moore seems to be the only person who takes things out of context and manipulates things. Regardless, solely on Bowling for Columbine I believe that he did not radically manipulate truths. Sure he had his opinions going in, but during the conclusion of the documentary Moore didn't point fingers for the catalyst for gun violence.
OK folks, this thread <i>started</i> as an attempt of discussing Bushs policy - it's now derailed into a pro-/anti-Moore debate. Seeing this, I'll <span style='color:red'>***lock***</span> the thread.