• 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.

Liberal Slant Confronted By Fed Up Conservative

aps said:
LMAO I will never understand why people like you interpret that our wanting the troops to come home as stabbing them in the back and calling them ridiculous names. Thieves, rapists? That doesn't even make sense, Donkey. In fact, I find it rather comical because it is so outrageous that I cannot even understand how you could draw that conclusion. But maybe it's because I actually think and analyze facts.

You laughed? Good. But I've heard liberals say that they want the troops home and to be safe. Yet, the next day they say that our troops are raiding homes, raping women, and murdering Iraqis. Please tell me you've heard this! You'd have to be a hermit to not hear it.
 
Donkey1499 said:
You laughed? Good. But I've heard liberals say that they want the troops home and to be safe. Yet, the next day they say that our troops are raiding homes, raping women, and murdering Iraqis. Please tell me you've heard this! You'd have to be a hermit to not hear it.

I have not heard that. I find it hard to believe when I watch the news every single day AND read the newspaper.
 
aps said:
I have not heard that. I find it hard to believe when I watch the news every single day AND read the newspaper.

OMG, you're telling me you haven't heard that stuff? WOW! Maybe it's just that you CHOOSE not to hear it.
 
Donkey1499 said:
OMG, you're telling me you haven't heard that stuff? WOW! Maybe it's just that you CHOOSE not to hear it.

Was this recent? I certainly heard about the soldier who kicked some Iraqi and when he realized the guy wasn't dead, he killed him. Things like that. Donkey, would you be willing to give me a link to a story?
 
Pacridge said:
I am?

I am?

How?
You said the same thing that aps said, and I already agreed with him.
 
Gibberish said:
Why is it always assumed the media is liberal because they offer negative, and/or debatable stories?

If liberals were in power, which they never have been and never will be the closest you'll get is a moderate democrat government; the media would be producing the same negative and debatable stories.

Let's say I am head of a media team. I need the highest number of viewers possible to pay my extraordinary salaries and corporate fees and turn a profit. Should I run a news story about how bright and sunny it is in the world and how it's "business as usual" or should I run a story that stirs controversy and gets people talking therefore producing many new stories, live interviews, and media articles that get people's attention?

MEDIA IS NOT LIBERAL IT IS CORPORATE. Whatever gets the most viewers and produces the most money short term and long term is what will be put in place.

Find a new stance besides blaming liberals for companies trying to turn a profit.
Aside from Fox and a handful of newspapers and magazines, the media is anti-capital punishment, pro-abortion rights, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, anti-military, pro-Democrats, anti-Republicans, and pro-expanding government. They sometimes avoid huge stories that could make a lot of money, such as Vince Foster, Juanita Broadrick, and others.
 
mpg said:
You said the same thing that aps said, and I already agreed with him.

Come on, mpg. Can't you see the pink cross-like sign indicating that I am a woman?
 
aps said:
Was this recent? I certainly heard about the soldier who kicked some Iraqi and when he realized the guy wasn't dead, he killed him. Things like that. Donkey, would you be willing to give me a link to a story?

I get the Oregonian. It's a pretty liberal paper. Lars Larson a local neo-con radio host refers to it as the "daily fish wrapper." I opened it up the other day and turned to the op-ed page. Browsing the letters to the editor I came across one advocating that the US troops should be killed by the Iraqis. His point was the war was illegal to begin with and the troops knew what they were getting into when they signed up. Iraqis should be protecting their country from an invading force. He knew this was the right way to look at it because he served in Nam and was a veteran. Though he was drafted and as such had no choice but go. Those going now should expect to get shot and or killed...and they deserve it.

Takes all kinds to make the world go around. I certainly don't think he speaks for any one but himself. But I'm sure a lot of people reading his letter thought "see, that's how liberals think." Personally I never personally met any one who thinks this way. But they're out there.
 
aps said:
Come on, mpg. Can't you see the pink cross-like sign indicating that I am a woman?
Sorry. I was going to go back and check, but you beat me to it.
 
Pacridge said:
I get the Oregonian. It's a pretty liberal paper. Lars Larson a local neo-con radio host refers to it as the "daily fish wrapper." I opened it up the other day and turned to the op-ed page. Browsing the letters to the editor I came across one advocating that the US troops should be killed by the Iraqis. His point was the war was illegal to begin with and the troops knew what they were getting into when they signed up. Iraqis should be protecting their country from and invading force. He knew this was the right way to look at it because he served in Nam and was a veteran. Though he was drafted and as such had no choice but go. Those going now should expect to get shot and or killed...and they deserve it.

Takes all kinds to make the world go around. I certainly don't think he speaks for any one but himself. But I'm sure a lot of people reading his letter thought "see, that's how liberals think." Personally I never personally met any one who thinks this way. But they're out there.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing this, Pacridge.
 
Pacridge said:
So if two people agree on something a third can't interject and also agree? I'll try to remember that.
It looked like you were trying to teach me something.

"Look at what the news covers here in the States. "House on Main Street doesn't catch fire" is rarely a lead story."
 
mpg said:
It looked like you were trying to teach me something.

"Look at what the news covers here in the States. "House on Main Street doesn't catch fire" is rarely a lead story."

Nope, merely agreeing with both of you and making a comment of my own. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
mpg said:
Aside from Fox and a handful of newspapers and magazines, the media is anti-capital punishment, pro-abortion rights, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, anti-military, pro-Democrats, anti-Republicans, and pro-expanding government. They sometimes avoid huge stories that could make a lot of money, such as Vince Foster, Juanita Broadrick, and others.

Opinions are great. Media is anti- anything that is going on in the world. Controversy is key. I do not deny some media is slanted, but I believe the slant goes to the left and the right depending on the source. Saying all media liberal is a generalization certain "right-wing" individuals say on here that is just incorrect. Another generalization they use is in reference to democrats as "liberals". I am democrat but am not a liberal.

I was under the impression most of America was anti-capital punishment.

I have never seen a media piece that depicted pro-choice as more correct then pro-life. Please provide a link.

If you take the media talking about people dieing by shootings as "anti-gun rights" I cannot argue with you. Please provide a link if this is not what you mean.

I cannot recall a media piece ever being anti-military. I can recall however certain elected democrats being such. Please provide a link.

The media is pro-corruption, it produces good stories. Republicans just happen to be in the spotlight since they are in power. If Democrats were in power they would be in the spotlight.

Please elaborate on "anti-expanding government".
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Opinions are great. Media is anti- anything that is going on in the world. Controversy is key. I do not deny some media is slanted, but I believe the slant goes to the left and the right depending on the source. Saying all media liberal is a generalization certain "right-wing" individuals say on here that is just incorrect. Another generalization they use is in reference to democrats as "liberals". I am democrat but am not a liberal.

I was under the impression most of America was anti-capital punishment.

I have never seen a media piece that depicted pro-choice as more correct then pro-life. Please provide a link.

If you take the media talking about people dieing by shootings as "anti-gun rights" I cannot argue with you. Please provide a link if this is not what you mean.

I cannot recall a media piece ever being anti-military. I can recall however certain elected democrats being such. Please provide a link.

The media is pro-corruption, it produces good stories. Republicans just happen to be in the spotlight since they are in power. If Democrats were in power they would be in the spotlight.

Please elaborate on "anti-expanding government".
All of the media is slanted. Everyone agrees that Fox slants to the right. Conservatives don't deny it, so why do liberals deny that the other networks slant to the left?

Maybe you were given that impression by the media. I admit that the last poll that I saw was in 1988, but it was about 90% pro-capital punishment. I'm against it myself. It's ok if the media is against it, but only in clearly labeled commentary. If they're against it while reporting, that's a slant, regardless of how many people agree.

Abortion protesters are usually depicted as trouble makers, unlike most other protesters. I don't have a link, but I've seen the reporting first hand.

I'm talking about the way they cover issues such as the Brady Bill and other measures that make it harder to buy guns. They're obviously for it when they report on it.

Does Kelly Flynn ring a bell?

When Clinton was president, the media avoided huge stories, such as the ones that I already mentioned, and others.

Isn't it self explanatory? Anyone who is anti-expanding government doesn't want the government to expand.
 
aps said:
I have not heard that. I find it hard to believe when I watch the news every single day AND read the newspaper.

Obviously you have either not seen or have just chosen to ignore the comments made by such Democrats as Dick Durbin, calling our troops Nazis, and John Kerry, who called our troops 'terrorists'!
 
The following is not from any media reporter. Not from the left, nor from the right. The following is from Jody Casey , a former marine, who left the service five days ago.

What kind of abuses did he witness?

"Well, I mean, I have seen innocent people being killed. IEDs go off and [you] just zap any farmer that is close to you. You know, those people were out there trying to make a living, but on the other hand, you get hit by four or five of those IEDs and you get pretty tired of that, too."

Casey told us how, from the top down, there was little regard for the Iraqis, who were routinely called "hajjis", the Iraq equivalent of "gook". "They basically jam into your head: 'This is hajji! This is hajji!' You totally take the human being out of it and make them into a video game."

It was a way of dehumanising the Iraqis? "I mean, yeah - if you start looking at them as humans, and stuff like that, then how are you going to kill them?"

He says that soldiers who served in his area before his unit's arrival recommended them to keep spades on their vehicles so that if they killed innocent Iraqis, they could throw a spade off them to give the appearance that the dead Iraqi was digging a hole for a roadside bomb.

Casey says he didn't participate in any such killings himself, but claims the pervasive atmosphere was that "you could basically kill whoever you wanted - it was that easy. You did not even have to get off and dig a hole or anything. All you had to do was have some kind of picture. You're driving down the road at three in the morning. There's a guy on the side of the road, you shoot him ... you throw a shovel off."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1741942,00.html
 
Personally, I don't buy it, and not because I am conservative, GOP, or whatever excuse you want to throw at me. I have been over there 3 times and am going back again soon. I have never seen any of this, never met anyone who has said they have. I trained the initial commanders who went in and led the war. I still oversee the training of every commander who goes forward to take over any unit and any base. We keep close contact with these guys.

The very 1st comment mentioned had a guy saying America was addicted to war - that tells me right off that this guy has a chip on his shoulder asbout something.

I am not saying that sometimes things may not get out of hand, but when they do, every commander I have ever trained or worked with would step in and take care of it immediately, as in stop any such action mentioned and punish those appropriately.

Once again, the media is throwing up the worst stories. It is sad, but I might even give it a little more credibility if the media in this country was actually talking up the good things going on over there as well as the negative, but when all the media does is continue what is perceived as a negative media anti-war camapign it is hard to swallow.

Like I said, though, I am waving the BS flag on this one based on my own EXTENSIVE personal experience form being there.
 
Here is an article in today's Boston Globe:

Reporters in Iraq work around the limits of safety measures
By Thanassis Cambanis, Globe Staff | March 31, 2006

The Jan. 7 kidnapping of Jill Carroll, like the severe wounding of ABC anchorman Bob Woodruff later that month, highlighted to the American public the array of dangers confronting journalists in Iraq.

But for reporters still in Baghdad, the events had little impact on the way they operate. They already had limited their movements and steadily increased their security. Yet, they still find ways to report the news.

''I think the notion that we cannot report at all has gotten overblown," said Jonathan Finer, a Baghdad reporter for The Washington Post. ''We are not housebound. We just have to be careful and discreet and take calculated risks, not stupid ones."

With few exceptions, once the danger level spiked a year ago, most smaller Western news organizations closed their bureaus. Most freelancers stopped working independently in the country. Those who remain live outside the Green Zone in guarded hotels or compounds.

Larry Kaplow, the Cox Newspapers bureau chief in Baghdad, has spent one of the longest continuous reporting stints in Iraq; he moved to Baghdad in March 2003, before the US invasion that month, and has been based there since. He said that even the little remaining freedom reporters enjoyed vanished after the recent spate of kidnappings of foreigners in the last few months, including that of Carroll and two Iraqi TV reporters.

''Many areas of western Baghdad fell off-limits," Kaplow said. ''It cuts us off from a lot of the city. Also, we can't be exposed in public, like in a restaurant or on the street, for a long time."

He has watched working conditions tighten since 2003, when reporters drove relatively freely all over the country chronicling daily life, political upheaval, and a level of violence that in hindsight seems tame. Now bombings take place daily and foreign journalists almost never drive outside the city because the highways are too dangerous.

Newspaper and radio reporters tend to work with low-profile security; most have armed guards, travel with two cars, and avoid spending long periods of time interviewing Iraqis in public places, for fear of being spotted by potential kidnappers. . .


Since the conflict began in 2003, 91 journalists and media support workers have been killed, most of them Iraqis, according to a tally kept by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. That makes the war in Iraq deadlier for reporters than any previous one, including Vietnam and World War II, according to the group. . . . [40 journalists have been kidnapped]

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi..._around_the_limits_of_safety_measures/?page=1

Again, if Laura doesn't like the way things are being reported, she can jolly well fly her butt over there and stick around for several months. This is war--this isn't the Olympics. :roll:
 
Again, she is partially correct in what she said - she called the media out for negative stories from reporters who mainly stay in the Green Zone. the article you posted even admitted it - even the little remaining freedom reporters enjoyed vanished . And what happened to Jill Carroll and Bob Woodruff did not "highlight to the American public the array of dangers confronting journalists in Iraq"! We, the Amrican public, have known all along that Iraq is a war zone, that it is dangerous, even to journalists who put themselves in harm's way to get a story! I respect Woodruff infinitely more than the slugs who write their stories and report from the comfort and scurity of hotel in the green zone! He wanted to get the REAL story so badly that he was willing to put his life on the line, unlike these other reporters who have no business being there, who write and report negative story after negative story based upon a point of view removed from the action!

And any American will tell you, don't complain to me about it being dangerous, all you news people - if it is too dangerous, go home! Its not like you're doing much good - more oftentimes than not it seems you are doing a dis-service to the brave men and women fighting over there, to the people of iraq who are trying to build a Democracy and who are even saying you are getting the 'news' wrong, and to this country with nothing but negative press.

The guys reporting from the balconies of Baghdad could just as easily do the same job from balconies back here in the states - they will get to see just about as much of the action as they are now and can write the same negative press!
 
easyt65 said:
Again, she is partially correct in what she said - she called the media out for negative stories from reporters who mainly stay in the Green Zone. the article you posted even admitted it - even the little remaining freedom reporters enjoyed vanished . And what happened to Jill Carroll and Bob Woodruff did not "highlight to the American public the array of dangers confronting journalists in Iraq"! We, the Amrican public, have known all along that Iraq is a war zone, that it is dangerous, even to journalists who put themselves in harm's way to get a story! I respect Woodruff infinitely more than the slugs who write their stories and report from the comfort and scurity of hotel in the green zone! He wanted to get the REAL story so badly that he was willing to put his life on the line, unlike these other reporters who have no business being there, who write and report negative story after negative story based upon a point of view removed from the action!

And any American will tell you, don't complain to me about it being dangerous, all you news people - if it is too dangerous, go home! Its not like you're doing much good - more oftentimes than not it seems you are doing a dis-service to the brave men and women fighting over there, to the people of iraq who are trying to build a Democracy and who are even saying you are getting the 'news' wrong, and to this country with nothing but negative press.

The guys reporting from the balconies of Baghdad could just as easily do the same job from balconies back here in the states - they will get to see just about as much of the action as they are now and can write the same negative press!

I wonder if Laura hates the Vietnam Memorial since it lists only those who died in Vietnam. That's kinda negative if you ask me. LOL

Whatever, easy. Some people aren't willing to risk their lives for a stupid war that should have never started in the first place.
 
aps said:
I wonder if Laura hates the Vietnam Memorial since it lists only those who died in Vietnam. That's kinda negative if you ask me.

Oh, stop the cr@p! Comparing the Viet Nam memorial that honors fallen heroes to liberal media constantly bashing Bush, the war,and even our troops is BS!

[/QUOTE]Whatever, easy. Some people aren't willing to risk their lives for a stupid war that should have never started in the first place. [/QUOTE]

Like I said, I honor and respect Woodruff for going out and risking his life to bring Americans the REAL story. I have no respect for faux reporters sitting on baclonies in Baghdad writing -Bush/troop/U.S.-bashing stories/reports! (And nice attempt to bring in your opinionated liberal slant about the war.)
 
easyt65 said:
Oh, stop the cr@p! Comparing the Viet Nam memorial that honors fallen heroes to liberal media constantly bashing Bush, the war,and even our troops is BS!

LOL They are constantly bashing Bush, the war, and the troops? You want to talk about bias? That is so ridiculous.

Like I said, I honor and respect Woodruff for going out and risking his life to bring Americans the REAL story. I have no respect for faux reporters sitting on baclonies in Baghdad writing -Bush/troop/U.S.-bashing stories/reports! (And nice attempt to bring in your opinionated liberal slant about the war.)

Glad you noticed. :lol:
 
aps said:
LOL They are constantly bashing Bush, the war, and the troops? You want to talk about bias? That is so ridiculous.

Really? Youliberals like polls so much - why do the vast majority of Americans acknowledge what you are denying then, that they are sick and tired of the constant, nothing-but-negative press about the war? What is ridiculous is your attempt to deny what so many others across this country already see.
 
easyt65 said:
Really? Youliberals like polls so much - why do the vast majority of Americans acknowledge what you are denying then, that they are sick and tired of the constant, nothing-but-negative press about the war? What is ridiculous is your attempt to deny what so many others across this country already see.

Supply evidence of your assertion. If you're going to base your conclusion on the townhall meeting held in West Virginia, I give that evidence ZERO probative value. They do not represent America as a whole.
 
Back
Top Bottom