• 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.

@Trajan

Caine said:
Proof that the right is trying to hijack the constitution.

Lets see... Any justice who doesn't rule a case conservatively is an..
ACTIVIST JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any "conservative" justice is just a strict interpreter of the constitution.

Bush's secret surveillance isn't against the constitution.....
Why?
Because its protecting Americans, do it doesn't matter what other rules he breaks.
Click to expand...


It's not unconstitutional unless the wire taps without warrants are used in criminal prosecutions.

Caine said:
Oh yeah.... the seperation of church and state is suddenly a false interpretation of the establishment clause, even though there have been several cases this year that have been ruled in favor of the ACLU when it comes to seperation of church and state issues reguarding Ten Commandments in Courthouses.
etc... etc...
Click to expand...

I'm agnostic so I really don't give a **** but there was a good special on it on Fox today.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It's not unconstitutional unless the wire taps without warrants are used in criminal prosecutions.



I'm agnostic so I really don't give a **** but there was a good special on it on Fox today.
Click to expand...
Fox... bleh...
 
cnredd said:
Well this just proved a point of mine made less than 5 hours ago...
Click to expand...

That's not true. If someone posted a fact from Fox, I would believe it as much as a fact from CNN. It's not like you can get facts wrong. They just present it differently. They're still facts.
 
cnredd said:
Well this just proved a point of mine made less than 5 hours ago...
Click to expand...
Ive been watching CNN lately to see what all the hype is about "liberal media"

I have come to the conclusion that CNN is NOT biased.

For one.. I take into consideration that both actual news segments are not, in my opinion, bias. As mentioned in your post, its the same stuff, the headlines don't change my opinion.

However, as far as special shows go, Ive yet to see a biased CNN show..
Larry King is not biased (watched him after the Bush speech tonight)
Paula Zahn is not biased, she just interviews people.
Anderson Cooper doesn't focus on political issues that much.
CNNs Saturday programming was just as usefull as Headline News, it kept repeating regular News Segments.

Fox However, has Mr. Bill O'Riley, althought I see eye to eye with him sometimes.
Hannity and colmes, Where Hannity is always attacking the Democratic guests and interrupting them, not letting them talk that much. And colmes is mild mannered and was even picked out by Hannity to work with him.... for obvious reasons.
and Gretta Van Suestren (however the hell you spell it) is too busy reporting on The Natalie Holloway case, obviously no bias there.

This is what ive come up with so far.......
Any support of the claim that CNN is "Liberal Media" from someone like cnredd or others who I can actually bring myself to believe would be appretiated.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Fox news is to liberals as light is to vampires.
Click to expand...

What? Hello?!? Did you read my post?
 
Kelzie said:
What? Hello?!? Did you read my post?
Click to expand...

Of course I did but you can't argue that many liberally leaning folk on this site don't hold negative presuppositions about FOX and don't view it as a credible source. I admit, though, that I made a generalization about liberals... I realize not all share this POV.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Of course I did but you can't argue that many liberally leaning folk on this site don't hold negative presuppositions about FOX and don't view it as a credible source. I admit, though, that I made a generalization about liberals... I realize not all share this POV.
Click to expand...

Well, I still do look at Fox negatively. I don't watch it or anything. Regardless of the facts, my liberal heart likes to hear it presented in a liberal way. ;) But a fact's a fact. And you have to admit many conservatives won't buy the NY Times as a source.
 
Also, in the case of that post that cnredd referred us to, Ive thought of this possibility.....

In the case of that story in your post, maybe it was thought of this way.

CNN: In thier headline of "More Americans Killed" or whatever you said, Maybe CNN believes that the lost lives of US forces is more important.

Fox: In thier headline of "Terrorists Dealt hard blow" or whatever, maybe they, for some reason, don't find the fact that American forces died as long as a good amount of terrorists were killed.

Personally, I think the lives of the US forces deserve more mention than the terrorists, The thought of Fallen Soldiers shouldn't be thrown aside just because we killed the terrorists. The men who were sacrificed in order for the operation to succeed deserve more than a last minute mention.
Ive always hated it when they say, "59 Terrorists were killed today in an operation in Fallujah that was aimed at weakening the insurgency stronghold in the city.... 3 US troops died in the battle.

The troops deserve more than a last minute mention, like they are "lives" in a video game or something.
 
Kelzie said:
Well, I still do look at Fox negatively. I don't watch it or anything. Regardless of the facts, my liberal heart likes to hear it presented in a liberal way. ;) But a fact's a fact. And you have to admit many conservatives won't buy the NY Times as a source.
Click to expand...

True dat. Despite my Libertarian views, I have to admit I raise an eyebrow when someone posts a nytimes.com link

Does anybody else find it a bit odd that they released the whole NSA Spying story just after the Iraqi elections, after they'd been holding it for a year or so?
 
Caine said:
Also, in the case of that post that cnredd referred us to, Ive thought of this possibility.....

In the case of that story in your post, maybe it was thought of this way.

CNN: In thier headline of "More Americans Killed" or whatever you said, Maybe CNN believes that the lost lives of US forces is more important.

Fox: In thier headline of "Terrorists Dealt hard blow" or whatever, maybe they, for some reason, don't find the fact that American forces died as long as a good amount of terrorists were killed.

Personally, I think the lives of the US forces deserve more mention than the terrorists, The thought of Fallen Soldiers shouldn't be thrown aside just because we killed the terrorists. The men who were sacrificed in order for the operation to succeed deserve more than a last minute mention.
Ive always hated it when they say, "59 Terrorists were killed today in an operation in Fallujah that was aimed at weakening the insurgency stronghold in the city.... 3 US troops died in the battle.

The troops deserve more than a last minute mention, like they are "lives" in a video game or something.
Click to expand...

Well, they're both true. A person would be just as silly not believing that 59 terrorists dies because it came from a conservative source as they would be not believing 3 of our guys dies if it came from a liberal source. Neither of them is going to screw up the facts.
 
Caine said:
Also, in the case of that post that cnredd referred us to, Ive thought of this possibility.....

In the case of that story in your post, maybe it was thought of this way.

CNN: In thier headline of "More Americans Killed" or whatever you said, Maybe CNN believes that the lost lives of US forces is more important.

Fox: In thier headline of "Terrorists Dealt hard blow" or whatever, maybe they, for some reason, don't find the fact that American forces died as long as a good amount of terrorists were killed.

Personally, I think the lives of the US forces deserve more mention than the terrorists, The thought of Fallen Soldiers shouldn't be thrown aside just because we killed the terrorists. The men who were sacrificed in order for the operation to succeed deserve more than a last minute mention.
Ive always hated it when they say, "59 Terrorists were killed today in an operation in Fallujah that was aimed at weakening the insurgency stronghold in the city.... 3 US troops died in the battle.

The troops deserve more than a last minute mention, like they are "lives" in a video game or something.
Click to expand...

Yes but making American death the focus tends to produce a negative view of the war whereas highlighting our progress focuses attention on the positive aspects.

But I agree that U.S. Soldiers who sacrifice their lives deserve our utmost respect... although many news sources fail to give a name to the deceased and focus solely on the number.
 
Kelzie said:
Well, they're both true. A person would be just as silly not believing that 59 terrorists dies because it came from a conservative source as they would be not believing 3 of our guys dies if it came from a liberal source. Neither of them is going to screw up the facts.
Click to expand...

Well, my point was kinda arguing against the thought of CNN's method of reporting was negative just because it mentioned the US deaths first instead of the insurgent ones.

I find nothing negative about giving our troops more than a last minute mention in a story.
 
The Real McCoy said:
True dat. Despite my Libertarian views, I have to admit I raise an eyebrow when someone posts a nytimes.com link

Does anybody else find it a bit odd that they released the whole NSA Spying story just after the Iraqi elections, after they'd been holding it for a year or so?
Click to expand...

Do I find it odd that a paper would hold onto a story until it would sell better? No. Liberal or conservative, they're all about profit.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Yes but making American death the focus tends to produce a negative view of the war whereas highlighting our progress focuses attention on the positive aspects.

But I agree that U.S. Soldiers who sacrifice their lives deserve our utmost respect... although many news sources fail to give a name to the deceased and focus solely on the number.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. because, who cares about the US deaths.... they are just pawns right????
 
Caine said:
Yeah.. because, who cares about the US deaths.... they are just pawns right????
Click to expand...

Don't be silly. Nobody's saying that.
 
The Real McCoy said:
But I agree that U.S. Soldiers who sacrifice their lives deserve our utmost respect... although many news sources fail to give a name to the deceased and focus solely on the number.
Click to expand...

Well, thier reasons for that are many.
Many times when soldiers within our Task Force were killed, all MWR access was cut off to us until they could locate and inform the families of the deceased.
This is one reason why the names aren't mentioned when they get the story, and afterwards, they have much more news to report on than to go back and give the names, or maybe the families do not want the names to be given out at that time....
 
The Real McCoy said:
Um... did you read my post?
Click to expand...
I posted that before you edited it.....Or I wouldn't have been so sarcastic.

My apologies.
 
Caine said:
I posted that before you edited it.....Or I wouldn't have been so sarcastic.

My apologies.
Click to expand...

God I hate it when people do that. Trajan does it all the time. They're always "That's not all I said" like it's your fault they forgot something. JUST START A NEW POST.
 
galenrox said:
Yeah, after twelve hours of bullshit. It was an open and shut thing that could've been a nonpoint if you hadn't wasted my ****ing time with all of your partisan bullshit. And by the way, although you may have won the battle, if you read the whole debate, you lost the war man. That debate is nothing but you saying something stupid, me pointing out you said something stupid and asking you to say something not stupid, followed by you posting something stupid, and so on and so forth until after twelve hourrs you posted A legitimate source.
Click to expand...

Who, Trajan? No way. You must be talking about someone else.
 
Kelzie said:
God I hate it when people do that. Trajan does it all the time. They're always "That's not all I said" like it's your fault they forgot something. JUST START A NEW POST.
Click to expand...

Sorry.. I thought I might be able to squeeze it in before anyone responded.

Anyway, I watch FOX because I side with the conservatives on Iraq but I'll be the first to admit that their "War on Christmas" tyrade is way out of hand.
 
Kelzie said:
God I hate it when people do that. Trajan does it all the time. They're always "That's not all I said" like it's your fault they forgot something. JUST START A NEW POST.
Click to expand...
Thats why I always make a new post...
 
The Real McCoy said:
Sorry.. I thought I might be able to squeeze it in before anyone responded.

Anyway, I watch FOX because I side with the conservatives on Iraq but I'll be the first to admit that their "War on Christmas" tyrade is way out of hand.
Click to expand...

No worries. I was just trying to get a dig in at Trajan. You know, bringing the thread back on track. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom