• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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)



Dan Coulter hasn't been charged or arrested, because S/He has yet to violate the law, unlike the others who did or were suspect. And, well, Democrats like transexuals like Dan.
 
What if there really was a Liberal Bias in the Press?


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_kel_051213_what_if_there_really.htm
 
argexpat said:
Dear Liberal Media Conspiracy Theorist,
Click to expand...


Nothing you say that begins with such a laughable misidentification is going to be taken seriously.

Apparently you need a refresher on what “conspiracy theorist” means. Calling conservatives conspiracy theorists for pointing out liberal bias makes about as much sense as leveling the same charge at them for calling labor unions a hub for liberal activism. It is just overwhelmingly proven.

When conservatives point out that Dan Rather called a leak about a looming Clinton indictment “well orchestrated” and “Republican backed,” only to have a liberal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter admit the next day to accidentally leaking the information, it is not paranoia. It is the only logical explanation.

Try and find the last example of the New York Times or the Washington Post endorsed a Republican president. It was Eisenhower. When America voted for Reagan over Mondale by gigantic majorities, all the major papers were endorsing Mondale, just like McGovern, Carter, etc.

75-80% of the producers, news directors, reporters, and anchors who control the dissemination of news in this country consistently admit when asked in non-partisan studies to supporting incredibly liberal things and nearly always voting for Democrats.

Ever wonder why when liberal operatives get done serving Democrats in office they get immediately put in positions of extraordinary power in the media? George Stephanopolous just got promoted to news director of ABC. Tim Russert, Bill Moyers, Chris Matthews, etc, etc. The list is a mile long.

Most conservatives aren’t even alleging a conspiracy. We are simply asserting that there are enormous conflicts of interest throughout the media that almost always favor liberals.

Since you seem so inept at correctly identifying actual conspiracy theorists, here is a real example: Calling the media conservative based on almost nothing more than the actions of two opinion journalists (Hannity and O’Reilly)-who, by definition, aren’t even supposed to be objective-on ONE channel (FOX).

Liberal conclusions almost always require huge unsubstantiated leaps to buy into them. Republicans operate on facts and evidence, and there are mountains it against the liberal media.
 

Trumped up charges? Which ones? I would be happy to discuss any of the following at length......

2005 & The Culture of Corruption

1. Jack Abramoff is about to squeal like a stuck pig. This will be a HUGE story in 2006.
2. Duke Cunningham resigned in disgrace after admitting he took 2.4 million in bribes
3. Scooter Libby indicted 5 counts: obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury
4. DeLay indicted on campaign fundraising charges.
5. Supreme Court will here case of DeLay's congressional redistricing in Texas
6. Bill Frist sold shares of his family's company stock - HCA just before it tanked
7. Michael Scanlon, former chief of staff to Tom DeLay, pleaded guilty to bribery charges - his plea also implicated Ohio Republican Bob Ney.
8. Halliburton - Pumping Up Gas Prices, $7 Billion in no-bid contacts, $1.8 Billion missing from 2004 pentagon audit.
9. Chuck McGee - former executive director of the New Hampshire GOP, pleaded guilty to a felony charge of "jamming" Democrat phone banks.
10. Payolla Scandal of pundits : Armstrong Williams, Michael McManus, Maggie Gallagher and Iraq newspapers
11. Ohio Gov. Bob Taft was convicted of four misdemeanor ethics violations for failing to report gifts and golf outings.
12. John Rowland, the former GOP governor of Connecticut is in prison for trading access to his office for vacations and home repairs.
13. Former Republican Gov. George Ryan of Illinois is under indictment for racketeering charges.
14. Karl Rove - new Grand Jury is investigating Rove for illegal disclosure of CIA agent
15. Former Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman member Kenneth Tomlinson under investigation for violating the Public Broadcasting Act
16. Dennis Hastert - Vanity Fair in an interview with a FBI whistleblower alleges that the Speaker of the House took bribes from Turkish officials in exchange for favorable legislation.
17. Walden O'Dell, Chairman & CEO of Diebold abruptly resigns after class action lawsuit is filed against Diebold for securities fraud.

And that's not even getting into Teri Schiavo, FISA or the NSA !


Sources:
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20051
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/gopscorecard.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011905D.shtml
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/10/1346254
 
I did a thorough Lexis Nexis search of everything Al Franken and Ann Coulter said about each other in their books as a part of a media research project last year at my university. The results were reminiscent of the 2nd Bush-Gore debate, where MSNBC put a team of fact checkers on standby to tally up which candidate told more lies/made more inaccurate statements.

The worst one Bush got caught on was when Gore tried to irrationally portray a brutal hate crime against a Texas black man named James Byrd as some kind of embarrassment for Republicans and Bush. Bush replied with, "and those men will be put to death." Actually, all but one got sentenced to death. The last one turned state's evidence against the others in exchange for life behind bars. Bush got caught in 4 of these kinds of statements.

Gore got caught telling 27 lies/misstatements and they weren't little details as with Bush. They were things like, "My father was a civil rights leader." Al Gore's father was a notorious racist who voted against the historic 1963 Civil Rights Act.


This is VERY similar to the way things worked out with Coulter and Franken. Franken said exactly one thing that wasn't either a huge distortion or a flat out lie. Coulter DID misspeak about the New York Times not covering the Dale Earnhardt accident, which was an incredibly irrelevant tidbit. EVERYTHING ELSE he said was wrong.

SHE was generally dead on with her facts. And the most disturbing thing here is that Franken had not one word to say about any of her overwhelming evidence of extreme liberal media bias, treasonous Democrat cohesion with the Soviet Union, or any of the scathing indictments she mad about the left's actions. NOT ONE STATEMENT regarding any of it.

In his book, Franken admittedly had a large team of researchers checking out everything targeted conservatives like Coulter had ever said for his book. He called them TeamFranken. In EVERYTHING they researched, all they could find was one minor error and NOTHING to contradict her actual allegations.

Using minor mistakes to assassinate the character of a conservative is what the left has been reduced to with Coulter. I suspect this is something people do when they cannot contend with either the evidence being presented to them or the intelect of the person delivering it. They resort to lies because they have to.
 
Franken said exactly one thing that wasn't either a huge distortion or a flat out lie.
Click to expand...

How true, and that's not even getting into the huge lie he told on-air about not having any knowledge of the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club rip-off. This was nine months AFTER he signed a document listing the money as a debt. Air America essentially stole $875,000. from the kids.

Of course the MSM is silent on the subject.
 


And when 95% of these get thrown out of court over how ridiculous they are (as some of these already have), I suspect you won't be so eager to highlight THAT. Indicted doesn't mean guilty, it means someone who is a threat to Democrats.
 


So you are asserting that the NYT waiting until THE DAY the Patriot Act to publish the wire tapping thing was a coincidence?

You think they haven't endorsed a single Republican president since Eisenhower because their MAINSTREAM?

The term "assinine" has been used here. It fits YOUR "logic" best.

I can only point you to the evidence you continue not to respond to-because you can't:


From my earlier post:

"When conservatives point out that Dan Rather called a leak about a looming Clinton indictment “well orchestrated” and “Republican backed,” only to have a liberal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter admit the next day to accidentally leaking the information, it is not paranoia. It is the only logical explanation.

Try and find the last example of the New York Times or the Washington Post endorsed a Republican president. It was Eisenhower. When America voted for Reagan over Mondale by gigantic majorities, all the major papers were endorsing Mondale, just like McGovern, Carter, etc.

75-80% of the producers, news directors, reporters, and anchors who control the dissemination of news in this country consistently admit when asked in non-partisan studies to supporting incredibly liberal things and nearly always voting for Democrats.

Ever wonder why when liberal operatives get done serving Democrats in office they get immediately put in positions of extraordinary power in the media? George Stephanopolous just got promoted to news director of ABC. Tim Russert, Bill Moyers, Chris Matthews, etc, etc. The list is a mile long.

Most conservatives aren’t even alleging a conspiracy. We are simply asserting that there are enormous conflicts of interest throughout the media that almost always favor liberals.

Since you seem so inept at correctly identifying actual conspiracy theorists, here is a real example: Calling the media conservative based on almost nothing more than the actions of two opinion journalists (Hannity and O’Reilly)-who, by definition, aren’t even supposed to be objective-on ONE channel (FOX).

Liberal conclusions almost always require huge unsubstantiated leaps to buy into them. Republicans operate on facts and evidence, and there are mountains it against the liberal media."



And, BTW, pasting other people's long, mind-numming editorials about how the media would be blatant if it were biased doesn't refute anything. It is just dumb.
__________________
 
aquapub said:
And when 95% of these get thrown out of court over how ridiculous they are (as some of these already have), I suspect you won't be so eager to highlight THAT. Indicted doesn't mean guilty, it means someone who is a threat to Democrats.
Click to expand...

I dunno how good you are at math, but in a list of 17 things, all but one would have to be "thrown out" to approach 95%.

Considering there are several admissions, pleas, and convictions in that list, it's now impossible for 95% to be thrown out, since, well, they are resolved. I don't know of many guilty pleas that go up for appeal (though, of course they can, but they have to be pretty exceptional).

We know indicited doesn't mean guilty, but pleased guilty, convicted, admitted etc, generally do.

Oh and only parts of those already have, I am not aware of any of those 17 being completely dismissed. In fact all I recall offhand was the conspiracy charge in DeLay's campagin finance was thrown out, and on a technicallity at that. That charge can still be properly refiled.
 



I will answer this by referring you to Coulter (who ran as a Libertarian in Conn. ):

12/14/2005

WHY CAN'T I GET ARRESTED?

"I'm getting a little insulted that no Democratic prosecutor has indicted me. Liberals bring trumped-up criminal charges against all the most dangerous conservatives. Why not me?
Democrat prosecutor Barry Krischer has spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to find some criminal charge to bring against Rush Limbaugh. Political hack Ronnie Earle spent three years and went through six grand juries to indict Tom DeLay. Liberals spent the last two years fantasizing in public about Karl Rove being indicted. Newt Gingrich was under criminal investigation for 3 1/2 years back in the '90s when liberals were afraid of him. Final result: No crime.

And of course, everybody cool in the Reagan administration was indicted. Or at least investigated and persecuted. Reagan's sainted attorney general Ed Meese was criminally investigated for 14 months before the prosecutor announced that he didn't have anything (but denounced Meese as a crook anyway).

I note that nobody ever wanted to indict Bob Dole or Gerald Ford (except, of course, other Republicans).

In the Nixon administration, liberals even brought "Deep Throat" up on charges -- and he was one of you people! What, now I'm not even as hip as "Deep Throat"?

I've done a lot for my country. I think I deserve to be indicted, too. How am I supposed to show my face around Washington if I haven't been "frog-marched" out of my office by some liberal D.A. looking to move to D.C. for the next Democratic administration? What's a girl have to do to become a "person of interest" around here? Mr. Krischer, where do I go to get rid of my reputation?"
 
Argexpat, your posts are getting pretty hostile. Is someone getting a little bitter about being repeatedly proven wrong?

If it makes you feel any better, here is some historical proof that further demonstrates how wrong you are in defending the liberal media.

John Martin of ABC News • reported on a rally in October 1989 in support of the homeless. “They came here from all over the country, the rich, the famous, the ordinary, the down-and-out. They staged the biggest rally in behalf of the homeless since the Reagan Revolution forced severe cutbacks in government housing programs.”

In• December 1989 Tom Brokaw said, “Reagan, as commander in chief, was the military’s best friend. He gave the Pentagon almost everything it wanted.” Then they started showing pictures of homeless people and Brokaw said, “Social programs? They suffered under Reagan. But he refused to see the cause and effect.”

In November of 1990, Garrick Utley was with NBC News. He said,• “In the 1980s, the Reagan years, the amount of government money spent to build low-income housing was cut drastically. Then, the homeless began to appear on streets and in doorsteps.

Goldberg writes about 1999 column by editor and former Carter employee, Philip Terzian, in which he details the results of a Village Voice study. The study found that in 1988 the New York Times ran fifty stories on homelessness, including five on page one. But a decade later, in 1998, the New York Times ran only ten stories, and none on page one. Similarly, the Media Research Center found that in 1990, while George Bush was in office, there were seventy-one homelessness stories, but in 1995, when Bill Clinton was president, that number went down to just nine. And he adds that the shift in coverage was clearly not due to homelessness abruptly vanishing all over the country in two years under Bill Clinton.

Goldberg cites a May 22, 1989 New York Times story by Gina Colata as being the first groundbreaking moment in which the mainstream media was willing to acknowledge the overwhelming connection between homelessness and drug and alcohol abuse. And he went on to explain how incapable traditional liberal models of intervention- like housing programs- were of fixing or even treating addicts.

He also refers to a former homeless man, Lee Stringer, who wrote in his book Grand Central Winter that, “When the homeless ceased to be portrayed as blameless victims, people ceased to care. The image became one of people who might just have some complicity in their circumstances, and that changed the mood greatly.”

Later in the book, Goldberg writes about a now famous survey conducted by the Freedom Forum and the Roper Center-two highly reputable, independent groups. The survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents found that Washington journalists are far more liberal and far more Democratic than the average American voter.

89% of journalists• said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, compared with just 43% of non-journalist voters.
7% of journalists voted for George Bush, while 37%• of the voters did.
2% of the news people voted for Ross Perot while 19% of• the electorate did.
50% of journalists said they were Democrats, while 4%• said they were Republicans.
61% of journalists said they were “liberal” or• “moderate to liberal,” while only 9% said they were “conservative” or ”moderate to conservative.”
59% of journalists said the Republican Contract with• America was “an election-year ploy,” while only 3% said it was “serious.”
To thoroughly contrast this with the average American, Goldberg shows the results of a 1985 nationwide poll taken by the Los Angeles Times.
23% of the public• said they were liberal, while 55% of journalists said they were.
49% of the• public was for abortion rights, while 82% of journalists were.
74% of the• public was for prayer in schools, while 25% of journalists were.
75% of the• public was for the death penalty, while 47% of journalists were.
50% of the• public was for stricter gun controls, while 78% of journalists were.

In addition to facts and figures, Goldberg also includes the following rhetorical questions (among others) about subtle forms of media bias:

“Why does• Bob Schieffer tell us that John Ashcroft has conservative views, but that the organizations that opposed him in the confirmation hearings were simply ‘a collection of rights groups?’”
“Why does he [Dan Rather] feel the need, I• wonder, to tell us about President Bush’s ‘Republican-right agenda?’ The man was in office less than a week and already Dan has spotted a ‘Republican-right agenda.’ Why, I wonder, did he never talk about President Clinton and his ‘Democratic-left agenda?’”
__________________

In 2004, Kluwer Academic Publishers published an academic, peer-reviewed study on the media’s calling of states for Bush and Gore in 2000.

They found that states leaning even slightly for Gore were called for him almost instantly, while even states that went heavily for Bush from the beginning by double-digit leads took hours for the media to call.

And in one case, the media even called a state that was leaning towards Bush (according to their multi-million dollar VNS machine) for Gore-Florida. This early call happened while the rigidly conservative panhandle was still voting, and there were consequently 10,000 less votes (all of which probably would have gone to Bush) in the panhandle than in the last several elections. This all happened despite the media being specifically asked by K. Harris, in writing, not to call the state until all the voting was done. The liberal media CREATED the 2000 debacle.
 
Engimo said:
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?
Click to expand...

I second that.
 
GunshySlycat1 said:
I second that.
Click to expand...

Yes, aquapub, where are those statistics? You have yet to provide us with a source.
 
Anyone can claim anything, that's why credible people post up sources to back themselves up. I'm not a democrat, I just try not to buy everything I hear unless there's a credible source.
 

Ann Coulter is so polarized.. such a disgusting specimen of a partisan leach.. she has no mind of her own. The concept of independent thought to Anne Coulter is like the concept of fidelity to William Clinton. Anne Coulter doesn't know what or who she is... the last I saw she proclaimed herself tol be a Neo-Con. Whatever floats your boat darlin'....

It's always good to hear Anne Coulter whine and cry though. Thanks for posting this. It made my day.
 
Last edited:

wow, does repeating yourself make you feel special? I already responded about Dan Coulter.
 


"Dan" Coulter looked pretty good as a teenager but I'm sure Hillary and Pelosi looked just as good!

Why do most liberals resort to insults when they can't respond intelligently?
 
Gill said:


"Dan" Coulter looked pretty good as a teenager but I'm sure Hillary and Pelosi looked just as good!

Why do most liberals resort to insults when they can't respond intelligently?
Click to expand...

Why do you resort to making blanket statements about "most liberals" when someone makes a joke about a conservative pundit?
 
Why do you resort to making blanket statements about "most liberals" when someone makes a joke about a conservative pundit?
Click to expand...
If I was making a blanket statement, I would have said ALL liberals.

The poster made the same comment twice in this thread. I don't consider that a joke.
 


Actually, if the media had a liberal bias it would look like this: CBS News calls leaks about President Clinton’s pending impeachment, “Well orchestrated” and “Republican backed,” only to find out the next day that a liberal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ACCIDENTALLY leaked the information.

Oh wait, this IS what it looks like…..because this IS the kind of thing that happens at the hands of our “objective” media all the time. I guess all this mindless drivel asserting that media bias must be obvious and stupidly conducted in order to be real is just, well, typical liberal “reasoning.”



Oh, and in that last line, where you mention "corporate masters" and laughably act like your post refutes anything, you obligated yourself to admit that CNN has a liberal bias.

CNN has a "corporate master" named Ted Turner. He is a left wing hysteric. By YOUR "logic," CNN has to be liberal.

The truth here is that one rich guy at the top (who, according to campaign finance stats from 2004, is probably a liberal anyway) does not control the moment by moment actions of the 75-85% of producers, news directors, reporters, and anchors who ADMIT they are liberals. It is an lame, transparent diversion, much like the laughable "conservative bias" charges, intended to generate a grossly misguided "eye of the beholder" conclusion.
 
Last edited:



You are right. If the New York Times had refused to wait and published the NSA wiretap story right away, I would have crucified them. But not for the reasons you are alleging.

It is customary for the news outlets to accommodate administrations when national security would be jeopardized if they ran a story. If the NYT would have run this story without hesitation, it would’ve meant that the ONLY administration they won’t accommodate was Bush’s, and that WOULD have been an example of bias. It would also have demonstrated how little concern they have for the harmful consequences of their reporting on national security.

So yes, I WOULD have crucified them, especially if the day they chose to publish it was Election Day, but it would have been a very GOOD example of liberal media bias.

So instead of doing this, they waited a year and did it anyway, and on the DAY the Patriot Act was being voted on. So they still jeopardized national security to make a clearly political attack on a conservative piece of legislation.

In short, your temper tantrum of a point is crap.

The media is overwhelmingly liberal. The facts speak for themselves. Move on.
 

see national security is not jeapordized by releasing a story of government misbehavior, especially when tehre are already fully function legal means for which to have done this. A FISA warrant, three days later would have satisfied the law.

Furthermore, the of the 16 expiring provisions, none if I recall have ANYTHING to do with wiretapping or warrantless searches, those things stay. Furthermore it was the THIRD congressional vote, Second for the Senate about renewing the provisions of teh PATRIOT act. The ONLY reason the senate was voting that day, is because the House made las tminute changes, that the senate wanted to adress anyway. Therefor this wiretap thing, ddi NOT affact the outcome of the senate vote, since the Senate stated they wanted time to review the House Changes. The Senate did NOT say they wanted a review of FISA wiretapping.

FURTHERMORE the NYT sat on the story of the warrantless wiretaps, for a year, for events that had taken place in 2002. The time at which the warrantless wiretaps were not going on(unless of course they are still going on, which would mean more abuse and larger complicity of Congress). It's not as if, according to the NSA and the Admin, the warrantless wiretaps are still going on.

FURTHERMORE what terrorist organization would imagine teh US is not spying on them, or trying? It's not like the NSA is new or anything. The NSA and Echelon are not new, and wairetaps and phone/cellular interceptions are not new either.
 
It's not like the NSA is new or anything. The NSA and Echelon are not new, and wairetaps and phone/cellular interceptions are not new either.
Click to expand...
It's nice to see a liberal finally admit that warrantless wiretaps were used in previous administrations.
 
Gill said:
It's nice to see a liberal finally admit that warrantless wiretaps were used in previous administrations.
Click to expand...

I was refering to warrant issues wiretaps of US citizens and wiretaps on non-US citizens without warrants.

See US law does allow non-us citizens and buildings openly known to be used by foriegn powers to be tapped (aka Embassies), but US law requires that a tap involving a US citizen NOT in buildings openly known to be used by foriegn powers (Embassies) needs a warrant.

of course, if I had my way, government agents would need a court order to crap in any non-governmental public facility.
 
Gill said:
If I was making a blanket statement, I would have said ALL liberals.

The poster made the same comment twice in this thread. I don't consider that a joke.
Click to expand...

"Most liberals" is still a blanket statement. You're still trying to group a lot of people together, still trying to paint them with the same brush.

Calling Coulter Dan instead of Ann is a widespread joke, and not only on this site. Lighten up a little.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…