• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Left Wing Lie Of The Hour (Including Ones About The Fictional Right Wing Media)

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

For those of you liberal hysterics who neurotically whine about links, the above link is to the story in question.




The New York Times was asked over a year ago to not release sensitive information about surveillance efforts going on within our borders. It withheld the story for an entire year and then waited till THE DAY the Patriot Act was up to be renewed to release it.

I guess the timing was just a coincidence, you know, being that the media is actually right wing and all. :roll:

I guess it was also a coincidence that the New York Times needlessly replaced the more accurate word, “surveillance” with the more accusative, outraged word, “eavesdropping” all throughout this front page story. There’s no way the “right wing” New York Times would have used this slanted choice of wording to generate ACLU-style, anti-big brother sentiment (paranoia), right? :roll:

This blatant editorial effort to influence the passage of the Patriot Act might not have been such an overt admission of the New York Times’ liberal aims if the paper had kept their editorial sabotage efforts on their EDITORIAL page instead of their FRONT PAGE, where OBJECTIVE news is supposed to be reported.

Needless to say, the always ethics-challenged Democrats in charge of the major papers across the country-who clearly take all their cues from the New York Times- parroted the same DNC talking points with very few exceptions.

But the New York Times definitely still gets to walk away from the month of December with the Un-Ethics award for using excerpts from one of their journalists’ (activists’) book-writing endeavors on the front page as legitimate news coverage. ;)
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The NYT isn't the only media source calling it eavesdropping.....all other media sources that are reporting on it have a choice in what to call it, so you can't just say that they're following the example or anything like that....
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
And...this is a lie how?
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In Chapter 3 (Shell Game) of Byron York's, "The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy," York shares some Election 2004 fundraising numbers from a non-partisan campaign finance group.

64% of donations that were under $200 went to Republicans while only 35% went to Democrats. 92% of the donations that exceeded $1 million went to Democrats.

Democrats are the party of the rich, not Republicans.


When I was thinking about this, I noticed a trend and I think I have figured out the general Democrat strategy. The myth that Democrats represent the little guy is known to be a myth by those who see the contribution amounts. They know their constituents are less like Peter Parker's auntie and more like Arianna Huffington.

So they accuse Republicans of doing what THEY are actually guilty of. This blurs the issue with phony "eye of the beholder" conclusions.

They also do this with media bias. Every non-partisan study done on the media in the last fifteen years ALL indicate overwhelmingly that journalists at every level of the news business are far more liberal than the public. The evidence in general in indisputable and overwhelming, yet because Democrats employ this "tell the big lie" strategy, there are actually people who think the media can be made up (ADMITTEDLY) of 75-80% Democrats and be conservative.

Give me a break.

They also do this with campaign finance. Democrats championed McCain-Feingold and then turned around and systematically violated every level of that law from top to bottom in 2004. They blatantly coordinated efforts with the Kerry camp and redefined the term "donation abuse." They took the tens of millions they were formerly able to get from their tycoon constituency and dumped all that money into 527s.

But to blur the issue, we have Tom DeLay being frivolously persecuted over NORMAL, PERFECTLY LEGAL, COMMON fundraising practices by a partisan Democrat, Ronnie Earl.

And yes, he has been cleared of the absurd charges.

If Democrats are pointing a finger about something, chances are, it's to blur the issue to protect themselves.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You know Aquapub, most right wing christians support the war yet the 10 commandments say thow shall not kill
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stace said:
The NYT isn't the only media source calling it eavesdropping.....all other media sources that are reporting on it have a choice in what to call it, so you can't just say that they're following the example or anything like that....

I sure can. Look at Jayson Blair. Every fabricated story, every plagiarism was mindlessly run on the front pages of nearly every paper in the country. When they write it, no one questions them, they just repeat it like parrots. If Jayson Blair's bogus stories being repeated without the two seconds of fact-checking it would have taken to realize the stories were bogus doesn't convince you, nothing will. They all take their cues (quite mindlessly, in fact) from the NYT.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Che said:
You know Aquapub, most right wing christians support the war yet the 10 commandments say thow shall not kill

The bible also places different expectations on governments than it does on people.

The bible, society, and the law will not allow for government pacifism.

Letting our country go up in flames makes us an accomplice, and is grounds for treason.

And, on a side note, if you stand there and watch someone, for instance, be murdered, without intervening, you can be charged as an accessory.

Pacifism is for monks and priests. Governments have an obligation to answer to and defend their people.



And....what relevance does any of this have to the topic?
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Society doesn't call for war. In fact Aquapub, only about 38% are for the war now.

The Bible isn't for War as I said in my last post. Also, the bible does place expectations on governments: To follow the 10 commandments. Besides the bible is a 1000+ years old. What does it know about gov't

Law doesn't call for war. I don't see anywhere any law that approves of breaking U.N. call for not going into Iraq and getting 2000 American marines killed for nothing. Besides, who needs the law anyway? Not Bush because according to him you can't spy on people without a court order but yet he did exactly that right after. Without a court order!

Going up in flames? Well attacking Iraq which had no WMDs and didn't have Al Queda 'til we got there wasn't really much of a solution.

And what relivence did this have? None. I just thought since you brought up that thing about republicans being dirt poor I thought I counter it
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
aquapub said:
In Chapter 3 (Shell Game) of Byron York's, "The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy," York shares some Election 2004 fundraising numbers from a non-partisan campaign finance group.

64% of donations that were under $200 went to Republicans while only 35% went to Democrats. 92% of the donations that exceeded $1 million went to Democrats.
You know, I keep seeing you throw this statistic around, I would very much like to see a link explaining this. Which non-partisan group was this? Where is the data?
 
H

hipsterdufus

aquapub said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

For those of you liberal hysterics who neurotically whine about links, the above link is to the story in question.




The New York Times was asked over a year ago to not release sensitive information about surveillance efforts going on within our borders. It withheld the story for an entire year and then waited till THE DAY the Patriot Act was up to be renewed to release it.

I guess the timing was just a coincidence, you know, being that the media is actually right wing and all. :roll:

I guess it was also a coincidence that the New York Times needlessly replaced the more accurate word, “surveillance” with the more accusative, outraged word, “eavesdropping” all throughout this front page story. There’s no way the “right wing” New York Times would have used this slanted choice of wording to generate ACLU-style, anti-big brother sentiment (paranoia), right? :roll:

This blatant editorial effort to influence the passage of the Patriot Act might not have been such an overt admission of the New York Times’ liberal aims if the paper had kept their editorial sabotage efforts on their EDITORIAL page instead of their FRONT PAGE, where OBJECTIVE news is supposed to be reported.

Needless to say, the always ethics-challenged Democrats in charge of the major papers across the country-who clearly take all their cues from the New York Times- parroted the same DNC talking points with very few exceptions.

But the New York Times definitely still gets to walk away from the month of December with the Un-Ethics award for using excerpts from one of their journalists’ (activists’) book-writing endeavors on the front page as legitimate news coverage. ;)
The NYT should have released this story as soon as they had it. It makes me wonder, what other atrocities by the neo-con men are they sitting on?
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
The New York Times was asked over a year ago to not release sensitive information about surveillance efforts going on within our borders. It withheld the story for an entire year and then waited till THE DAY the Patriot Act was up to be renewed to release it.

I guess the timing was just a coincidence, you know, being that the media is actually right wing and all. :roll:
Or they could have released it over a year ago JUST BEFORE THE ELECTIONS.

You would have really been howling at the moon then!!!! :rofl
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Che said:
1) The Bible isn't for War as I said in my last post. Also, the bible does place expectations on governments: To follow the 10 commandments. Besides the bible is a 1000+ years old. What does it know about gov't

2) Law doesn't call for war. I don't see anywhere any law that approves of breaking U.N. call for not going into Iraq and getting 2000 American marines killed for nothing. Besides, who needs the law anyway? Not Bush because according to him you can't spy on people without a court order but yet he did exactly that right after. Without a court order!

3) Going up in flames? Well attacking Iraq which had no WMDs and didn't have Al Queda 'til we got there wasn't really much of a solution.

4) And what relivence did this have? None. I just thought since you brought up that thing about republicans being dirt poor I thought I counter it
1) Am I missing something here? YOU introduced the Bible as if it were relevant. I am just telling you that in the book of Kings and elsewhere, the Bible is pretty clear about condemning rulers who needlessly let people suffer. The pacifism commanded to the Israelites was personal, not governmental.

If you don't think the Bible has anything useful to say about how to run a government, then why did you bring up what the Bible says about peace? I'm guessing you were advocating GOVERNMENT pacifism, right?

2) When war is upon you, the law sure does call for war, and our presidents swear an oath to take us there if need be.

As to the series of blatant lies you followed that up with....

a) FYI: Bill Clinton went into Serbia without U.N. support.

b) The U.N. DID authorize use of force numerous times against Iraq, we are the only ones who would enforce it, though.

c) The Israelis destroyed Hussein's nuclear program in direct defiance of U.N. directives and against the will of practically the entire world, but it was still right. When the world is to stupid to support doing something about foreign threats, we sometimes have to answer to a higher law-common sense.

d) Removing a terror-sponsoring, genocidal-warmonger connected to Al Queda was not marines getting killed for nothing.

3) This is a lie. The 9/11 commission says that bin Laden was offered asylum by Saddam, and Zarqawi was there before we got there too.

4) You thought you'd bring up Christians contradicting themselves on the war to dispute my point about Republicans being poor???!?!?! What the hell are you talking about?
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aquapub said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

For those of you liberal hysterics who neurotically whine about links, the above link is to the story in question.




The New York Times was asked over a year ago to not release sensitive information about surveillance efforts going on within our borders. It withheld the story for an entire year and then waited till THE DAY the Patriot Act was up to be renewed to release it.

I guess the timing was just a coincidence, you know, being that the media is actually right wing and all. :roll:

I guess it was also a coincidence that the New York Times needlessly replaced the more accurate word, “surveillance” with the more accusative, outraged word, “eavesdropping” all throughout this front page story. There’s no way the “right wing” New York Times would have used this slanted choice of wording to generate ACLU-style, anti-big brother sentiment (paranoia), right? :roll:

This blatant editorial effort to influence the passage of the Patriot Act might not have been such an overt admission of the New York Times’ liberal aims if the paper had kept their editorial sabotage efforts on their EDITORIAL page instead of their FRONT PAGE, where OBJECTIVE news is supposed to be reported.

Needless to say, the always ethics-challenged Democrats in charge of the major papers across the country-who clearly take all their cues from the New York Times- parroted the same DNC talking points with very few exceptions.

But the New York Times definitely still gets to walk away from the month of December with the Un-Ethics award for using excerpts from one of their journalists’ (activists’) book-writing endeavors on the front page as legitimate news coverage. ;)
the Patriot Act expires Dec 31, 2005. So the released a story, on a day that hasn't happened yet? POWERFUL, not only left wing, but they control time too.

Or, do you mean the Thrid congressional vote was occuring, second for the Senate. The Times, didn't even do what you said they did. The Seante voted and passed PATRIOT renewal legislation, the house changed it and passed it, and sent it back to the senate, which did not approve the house changes to the Bill.

Therefor, the NYT waited a year, and put out a story, that- SHOULD THE HOUSE NOT HAVE CHANGED THE RENEWAL LEGISLATION- would have happened AFTER the patriot act renewal passed under queitly.

The House tried to play politics and it BIT THEM IN THE ASS. I'd say waiting to release a story, regarding legal violations on the part of the US government, is generally favoring the government.
 
H

hipsterdufus

BWG said:
Or they could have released it over a year ago JUST BEFORE THE ELECTIONS.

You would have really been howling at the moon then!!!! :rofl
That's my point exactly. It could have changed the outcome of the election.
So the next time you want to slam the NYT for being a liberal paper, think about why, when they quite possibly had the chance, did they not release a story very detrimental to the president.

Damn the NYT!
 

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Here's a couple of my favorite examples of bias at the NYT.

An Advocate for the Right."
-- Front-page headline on Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, July 28, 2005.

VS

"Balanced Jurist at Home in the Middle."
-- Headline on Clinton Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, June 27, 1993.
and...

"
And as ultraconservatives and bottom liners circle, PBS appears to be too accommodating in response. When conservatives attacked the respected Bill Moyers, labeling him a dangerous liberal, PBS offered Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot. Whatever slight liberal flavor might be dug out of the Moyers broadcasts, those are openly ideological conservative editorialists. Will they do investigations like Mr. Moyers?"
-- From a February 21 editorial defending PBS.

VS

"The entire federal government -- the Congress, the executive, the courts -- is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That agenda includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives. It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich. It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable. And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine….And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture."
-- Some "slight liberal flavor" from Bill Moyers from the November 8, 2002 edition of his old PBS show, "Now."
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Che said:
You know Aquapub, most right wing christians support the war yet the 10 commandments say thow shall not kill
And where does it say that? Incidently the bible says alot about social justice, so its largely lost on the likes of bush
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

For those of you liberal hysterics who neurotically whine about links, the above link is to the story in question.




The New York Times was asked over a year ago to not release sensitive information about surveillance efforts going on within our borders. It withheld the story for an entire year and then waited till THE DAY the Patriot Act was up to be renewed to release it.

I guess the timing was just a coincidence, you know, being that the media is actually right wing and all. :roll:

I guess it was also a coincidence that the New York Times needlessly replaced the more accurate word, “surveillance” with the more accusative, outraged word, “eavesdropping” all throughout this front page story. There’s no way the “right wing” New York Times would have used this slanted choice of wording to generate ACLU-style, anti-big brother sentiment (paranoia), right? :roll:

This blatant editorial effort to influence the passage of the Patriot Act might not have been such an overt admission of the New York Times’ liberal aims if the paper had kept their editorial sabotage efforts on their EDITORIAL page instead of their FRONT PAGE, where OBJECTIVE news is supposed to be reported.

Needless to say, the always ethics-challenged Democrats in charge of the major papers across the country-who clearly take all their cues from the New York Times- parroted the same DNC talking points with very few exceptions.

But the New York Times definitely still gets to walk away from the month of December with the Un-Ethics award for using excerpts from one of their journalists’ (activists’) book-writing endeavors on the front page as legitimate news coverage. ;)
Dear Liberal Media Conspiracy Theorist,

So the NYT withheld a highly controversial story about the President of the United States illegally spying on Americans for over a year? That means, had they not sat on it, they would have published it before last year's election. So, using your assinine logic, one could argue that they sat on it to help the president win the election, right? And if they had published it a year ago, you would have used that as evidence that the NYT is a seething viper pit of liberal bias and was trying to sabotage Bush's presidency. That's the beauty of a conspiracy theory, it's so crackpot friendly!

P.S. You realize that the "liberal media" is the corporate media, right? You have something against corporations? If you don't like the MSM, you just don't like capitalism. Are you one of those pinko commies?
 
H

hipsterdufus

argexpat said:
Dear Liberal Media Conspiracy Theorist,

So the NYT withheld a highly controversial story about the President of the United States illegally spying on Americans for over a year? That means, had they not sat on it, they would have published it before last year's election. So, using your assinine logic, one could argue that they sat on it to help the president win the election, right? And if they had published it a year ago, you would have used that as evidence that the NYT is a seething viper pit of liberal bias and was trying to sabotage Bush's presidency. That's the beauty of a conspiracy theory, it's so crackpot friendly!

P.S. You realize that the "liberal media" is the corporate media, right? You have something against corporations? If you don't like the MSM, you just don't like capitalism. Are you one of those pinko commies?
Nice post. Remember this is the same paper that let Judy Miller carry the administrations water on the fake WMD stories.

BTW- Is anyone taking bets that Judy Miller will join Bob Nofacts at Faux Newz?
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Gill said:
And as ultraconservatives and bottom liners circle, PBS appears to be too accommodating in response. When conservatives attacked the respected Bill Moyers, labeling him a dangerous liberal, PBS offered Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot. Whatever slight liberal flavor might be dug out of the Moyers broadcasts, those are openly ideological conservative editorialists. Will they do investigations like Mr. Moyers?"
-- From a February 21 editorial defending PBS.

VS

"The entire federal government -- the Congress, the executive, the courts -- is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That agenda includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives. It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich. It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable. And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine….And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture."
-- Some "slight liberal flavor" from Bill Moyers from the November 8, 2002 edition of his old PBS show, "Now."
"
How does the content of an editorial reflect on the factual reporting of the newspaper as a whole?
 

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Engimo said:
How does the content of an editorial reflect on the factual reporting of the newspaper as a whole?
Read the first quote then, it's from a headline. Or.. if you don't like that one, I can post a few dozen more examples.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Gill said:
Read the first quote then, it's from a headline. Or.. if you don't like that one, I can post a few dozen more examples.
Yeah, except those headlines are entirely valid (and without context, not really showing examples of anything).

Ginsburg was much more of a centrist than an outspoken liberal, especially with her court record before her tenure on the Supreme court. Roberts, though, was a laywer under a Republican administration and actively pushes conservative ideology. Like I said, though, without looking at what types of articles those are and their content, it's an oversimplifcation of what was going on.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I was thinking about how many Republicans have been brought up on so many trumped up charges lately that went nowhere, and wondering if Democrats just suppose that partisan crusades are a part of the game when they see Democrats like James Traficant, Bill Clinton, etc. getting prosecuted. If that IS what causes all these lying smearfests, what Democrats are missing is that Democrats are usually guilty-and it is usually provable because Republicans use actual facts and evidence rather than conspiracy theories and hysterics. I was going to spell it all out, but I came across a column that covers the entire thing quite well....


http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/?uc_full_date=20051214
 
Top Bottom