Left-wing activism manufactures fake legitimacy arguments for liberals (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

Around 2:00 a.m. on Election night, 2000, a cousin of Bush's called the election (after polls were closed, correctly) for Bush on Fox news. In accordance with the rules of liberal logic, this was somehow an unforgiveable act that in some mystical, unexplainable way affected the election. (according to BS propaganda like Outfoxed).

But what was perfectly fine with the left was (despite Katherine Harris having given ahead of time, in writing, a request for the media not to call Florida until the rigidly conservative panhandle had closed its polls as to not affect the results-the panhandle is in a different time zone) the Associated Press (i.e. the entire liberal media) calling the election early (and incorrectly) for Gore despite the numbers on their own hundred million-dollar Voter News Service computer having Bush ahead at the time.

This (perfectly fine) example of liberal activism in broadcast news cost Bush an estimated 10,000-37,000 votes as the rigidly conservative panhandle had an unusual drop in that many votes for only this election year. Gore lost. The media created the debacle. Bush was easily legitimate. This was just another BS liberal attempt to manufacture outrage about a non-issue.

The media IS biased-Obscenely-and it does matter.

 

[Schweddy]

Let us not forget Dan Rather whom would not come to the same conclusion. Even after the votes were "counted".

Which I personally believe was the main reason for the craziness that happened soon after. Sounds like liberal bias to me.

I am sooo gald that man is no longer on the air.

 

[Hoot]

Around 2:00 a.m. on Election night, 2000, a cousin of Bush's called the election (after polls were closed, correctly) for Bush on Fox news. In accordance with the rules of liberal logic, this was somehow an unforgiveable act that in some mystical, unexplainable way affected the election. (according to BS propaganda like Outfoxed).

But what was perfectly fine with the left was (despite Katherine Harris having given ahead of time, in writing, a request for the media not to call Florida until the rigidly conservative panhandle had closed its polls as to not affect the results-the panhandle is in a different time zone) the Associated Press (i.e. the entire liberal media) calling the election early (and incorrectly) for Gore despite the numbers on their own hundred million-dollar Voter News Service computer having Bush ahead at the time.

This (perfectly fine) example of liberal activism in broadcast news cost Bush an estimated 10,000-37,000 votes as the rigidly conservative panhandle had an unusual drop in that many votes for only this election year. Gore lost. The media created the debacle. Bush was easily legitimate. This was just another BS liberal attempt to manufacture outrage about a non-issue.

The media IS biased-Obscenely-and it does matter.

Blah, blah, blah...absolute hogwash.

"Felon disenfranchisement laws may have hurt Gore in two ways. With the result of the presidential election coming down to a handful of votes in Florida, the disenfranchisement of close to three quarters of a million felons and ex-felons in the state may well have made the difference between a Gore presidency and a Bush one. Considering that the majority of felons are poor, black and Latino -- that is, likely Democratic voters -- had fewer than two percent of the disenfranchised in Florida voted, Gore would have probably been elected president." Mother Jones Magazine

Gore lost FL because of the stopping of the vote count by the partisan members of the USSC. Gore also lost FL because he had idiots for lawyers. Gore also lost FL because far too many people were mistakenly identified as felons and taken off the voter rolls.

I'm really sick of all the whining and crying about a liberal biased media.

It doesn't exist. If anything, we have a conservative-biased media.

This has been proven time and time again in this forum in previous posts, based on PEW research and the Center for Excellence in Journalism.

The "liberal media" is just more republican spin. Tell a lie, repeat the lie, keep repeating the lie until enough people begin to hear and believe it.

To refer to the "Associated Press as (ie the entire liberal media)" throws out any hope you have of making a compelling and convincing argument.

I read recently that Republicans are the party of hate...your posts do not dispute this. You got your man in the WhiteHouse...you control the Senate and the House...stop crying about how mean the liberals are...show me something...do something good for America instead of spending our nation into an obscene deficit and taking us into a war against a nation that never attacked us. And oh yeah...why are we selling F-16's to Pakistan?

Think that will make the world safer?

I don't.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Around 2:00 a.m. on Election night, 2000, a cousin of Bush's called the election (after polls were closed, correctly) for Bush on Fox news. In accordance with the rules of liberal logic, this was somehow an unforgiveable act that in some mystical, unexplainable way affected the election. (according to BS propaganda like Outfoxed).

But what was perfectly fine with the left was (despite Katherine Harris having given ahead of time, in writing, a request for the media not to call Florida until the rigidly conservative panhandle had closed its polls as to not affect the results-the panhandle is in a different time zone) the Associated Press (i.e. the entire liberal media) calling the election early (and incorrectly) for Gore despite the numbers on their own hundred million-dollar Voter News Service computer having Bush ahead at the time.

This (perfectly fine) example of liberal activism in broadcast news cost Bush an estimated 10,000-37,000 votes as the rigidly conservative panhandle had an unusual drop in that many votes for only this election year. Gore lost. The media created the debacle. Bush was easily legitimate. This was just another BS liberal attempt to manufacture outrage about a non-issue.

The media IS biased-Obscenely-and it does matter.

If anyone to consider your argument to be valid I would LOVE to see some sources, preferably the sources you used.

Which form of activism are you using in this context.. I don't remember a group of Liberals forming into militia and attacking the white house, nor do I remember a group of protesters throwing rocks and various items at Bush's limo... wait now I remember.

Why even bring this issue up? Are you having second thoughts on George W. Bush? I did, during those times I was a Republican... how naive I was..

What is it with you people and automatically associate "Liberal" with Democrats.. I am A LIBERAL and I could care-less about either party.. I just happen to find the Democratic party more bearable.

 

[ludahai]

Blah, blah, blah...absolute hogwash.

Gore lost FL because of the stopping of the vote count by the partisan members of the USSC. Gore also lost FL because he had idiots for lawyers. Gore also lost FL because far too many people were mistakenly identified as felons and taken off the voter rolls.

Gore lost Florida because more Florida voters voted for Bush than for Gore. One thing you should note, Bush won a far larger share of the vote in Florida in 2004 WITHOUT the early erroneous call than he did in 2000. Most media outlets called Florida before the polls in the Panhandle closed. There have been numerous local reports of people leaving the lines (some of which were quite long) because they erroneously felt that Gore had already won the state. If the media were being responsible, they would have waited until at least a half an hour after the polls closed in a close state (which Florida undeniably was) to ensure that any such call wouldn't affect anyone still in the queue to vote.

I'm really sick of all the whining and crying about a liberal biased media.

It doesn't exist. If anything, we have a conservative-biased media.

Liberals whine if a conservative is given a voice in a newspaper or a TV program. Now that there are more options out there, the liberals can't deal with it. The mainstream news programs are largely liberal. Talk radio is conservative, but not the news media.

This has been proven time and time again in this forum in previous posts, based on PEW research and the Center for Excellence in Journalism.

The "liberal media" is just more republican spin. Tell a lie, repeat the lie, keep repeating the lie until enough people begin to hear and believe it.

Tell that to the likes of Dan Rather.

To refer to the "Associated Press as (ie the entire liberal media)" throws out any hope you have of making a compelling and convincing argument.

I read recently that Republicans are the party of hate...your posts do not dispute this. You got your man in the WhiteHouse...you control the Senate and the House...stop crying about how mean the liberals are...show me something...do something good for America instead of spending our nation into an obscene deficit and taking us into a war against a nation that never attacked us. And oh yeah...why are we selling F-16's to Pakistan?

Think that will make the world safer?

I don't.

Let's talk about how the Democrats continue stalling judicial appointments then. How about the Bolton nomination? Imagine if Republicans tried to block the Reno and Bader-Ginsberg nominations the way the Democratics are blocking Bush nominees? The media would have been apoplectic! As would the liberals in the U.S.

Iraq had threatened Americans on several occasions, and suicide bombers, whose families were being paid by Iraq, had killed a number of Americans in Israel.

I do agree that selling F-16s to Pakistan is a mistake. However, selling out your soul to the Chinese like Clinton did is a far worse offense in my book.

 

[sdsmith]

Liberal bias is still an issue with some emotion I see...

I don't really see it that way. I see a lot of bias in both directions depending on what you watch. Generally, I'm OK with it. Anyone who is reasonable would understand that it is impossible to be truely objective.

Anyway...what's the point in that. We watch given news programs such as Hannity & Combs or Bill O'Riley because we want that perspective. We generally like news tilted towards our personal rational or world view regardless of its inate "rightness" or "wrongness".

I'm personally glad that there are still multiple media outlets and stations so that I can sample and attempt to form an opinion. When we get down to one outlet...then I'll worry.

 

[argexpat]

Liberals whine if a conservative is given a voice in a newspaper or a TV program. Now that there are more options out there, the liberals can't deal with it. The mainstream news programs are largely liberal. Talk radio is conservative, but not the news media.

Who are these liberals? And if the mainstream media is largely liberal, as you claim (which you can't prove without resorting to anecdotal evidence) then it's the corporate media that's liberal. Has that occurred to you? And do you have an explenation for why corporations would want to advance a liberal agenda? I'd love to hear it.

Let's talk about how the Democrats continue stalling judicial appointments then. How about the Bolton nomination? Imagine if Republicans tried to block the Reno and Bader-Ginsberg nominations the way the Democratics are blocking Bush nominees? The media would have been apoplectic! As would the liberals in the U.S.

Are you kidding me? That's exactly what Republicans did when they were in the minority to Roosevelt's and Johnson's appointments.

Can you imagine if Clinton had lied about going to war, then landed on an aircraft carrier wearing a custom-tailored flight suit to declare mission accomplished, only to have the the military become mired in a bloody insurgency no one had planned for which is still getting grunts killed? He got a blow job from an intern and you Republicans cricified him. Your heads would explode.

Iraq had threatened Americans on several occasions, and suicide bombers, whose families were being paid by Iraq, had killed a number of Americans in Israel.

Then why were we supporting this tyrant right through his bloodiest atrocities? Rumsfeld had him by the arm, why didn't he take him down in a full nelson?

I do agree that selling F-16s to Pakistan is a mistake. However, selling out your soul to the Chinese like Clinton did is a far worse offense in my book.

Please explain how Clinton sold his soul to the Chinese.

 

[myshkin]

Let's talk about how the Democrats continue stalling judicial appointments then. How about the Bolton nomination? Imagine if Republicans tried to block the Reno and Bader-Ginsberg nominations the way the Democratics are blocking Bush nominees? The media would have been apoplectic! As would the liberals in the U.S.

Iraq had threatened Americans on several occasions, and suicide bombers, whose families were being paid by Iraq, had killed a number of Americans in Israel.

This is such a bad example of anything. Democrats have been much, much, much more accomodating to Bush judicial nominees than republicans were for 8 years prior to Bush.

http://www.factcheck.org/article324m.html

By your language I'd have to say that you are a victim of right wing propaganda..

Your statements are nothing but talk radio pablum.

Janet Reno was Clinton's 3rd nominee for AG. He withdrew 2 in the face of Republican hysterics.

What did the 'liberal media' say then?

 

[TheKiller]

lol myshkin wat kind of a dumbass name is that "oooh look at me ive red dostoyvsky" think ur smart well let me tell u somethin ur not