I have no doubt that every human has a bias, it is rather stupid however, to believe in plot theories, without serious proof. Also, every "mainstream" media outlet is out there waiting for Fox to report something bogus so they can bash it? Seriously. One of their own? An alliance of the "liberal" media? No offense, but this is either one huge joke or...well, one huge joke.
"Liberal media" is code for "Jewish media conspiracy," whether the person saying it knows it or not. I'm not about to say that GarfieldJL or anyone else who uses the phrase is a bigot, but he and others like him are perpetuating a myth used by bigots.
Yeah..."commentators" from both side of the spectrum. "Journalists" too...
I have no doubt that every human has a bias, it is rather stupid however, to believe in plot theories, without serious proof. Also, every "mainstream" media outlet is out there waiting for Fox to report something bogus so they can bash it? Seriously. One of their own? An alliance of the "liberal" media? No offense, but this is either one huge joke or...well, one huge joke.
Frankly, this is hopeless. You have your mind set on it and to further things, you read and listen to media only reinforcing your belief. I doubt you even know what the word "liberal" even means. Before I get accused of being a leftist, I'm actually more center-right, but this is Canadian center-right, which probably means something like raging communist in the eyes of the "American conservatives". This discussion should never have even started...
QFE
"Liberal media" is code for "Jewish media conspiracy," whether the person saying it knows it or not. I'm not about to say that GarfieldJL or anyone else who uses the phrase is a bigot, but he and others like him are perpetuating a myth used by bigots.
a. I'm glad you're not making the insinuation that someone is being a bigot, because calling someone that is flaming.
So let me be obvious--don't call people or make insinuations that people are bigots here.
b. Since when is 'liberal media' code for 'Jewish media conspiracy'? No one here has ever come close to implying this. What does being Jewish have to do with having a liberal or conservative outlook? You can be liberal and be Jewish, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, American, etc., etc., etc. You can be conservative and be Jewish, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, American, etc., etc., etc.
Wow, never thought there was a dollar store/sex shop somewhere in the world...Only in America. I actually found one on Beale St., but I can't discuss the items on the forum. Trust me, they were hilarious and tacky all at the same time, especially after a hurricane and 4 beers.
Seriously though. Still art and the brightly colored ceramic penises were obviously part of an art display. Whether you like it or not, whether you think of it as in good or poor taste, it still remains art.
Michelangelo's nudes are art. Botticelli, Raphael and Da Vinci made art. Brightly colored Chia-Penises are crappy kitsch.
I can paste the waste from my cats' litterbox onto a piece of green construction paper and stick it in an art display. That doesn't make it art. The colorful penises are indeed in poor taste. Just as important, if not more so, they're just stupid--nothing more than a giggling-kid-making-colorful-penis-models-to-shock-the-art-teacher
kind of stupid.
Wanna start an art thread? :D
As far as I know, if something is called art, it's art. Like I can call this tekst a poem , I can call my dogs dropings art.
b. Since when is 'liberal media' code for 'Jewish media conspiracy'? No one here has ever come close to implying this. What does being Jewish have to do with having a liberal or conservative outlook? You can be liberal and be Jewish, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, American, etc., etc., etc. You can be conservative and be Jewish, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, American, etc., etc., etc.
It's been the case for decades, but I'm pretty sure it first started around the same time as McCarthy's HUAC hearings. It's since been assumed to be fact by people who are (hopefully) unaware of the origin.
Well, let me set the ground rule then that using the term 'liberal media' is acceptable, using or implying 'Jewish media conspiracy' is not. We'll also set the ground rule that 'conservative media' is acceptable, while using or implying 'Fascist/Religious-right media conspiracy' is not.
Actually it wasn't slanted too far right, Forgive me if I find that highly dubious. I am in Canada, so I don't have regular exposure to Fox News, but I did see a few days worth of sampling as a part of a free preview on satellite. I'm not sure how you can say they aren't clearly right wing. They didn't even seem to try and present themselves as anything but. Most interviews I saw (granted, a limited number) where there were opposing views had the journalist and the right wing proponent with the majority of the screen and when the right wing guy would speak he would fill the screen, but when the left wing guy spoke he remained in his little corner of the screen. The supposedly unbiased journalist/moderator clearly was taking the side of the right wing guy and they essentially ganged up on the other. I don't remember what the topics were, but even if the right side was more accurate, the way the debate was portrayed was clearly one sided. Again, they didn't even try to portray it as an honest debate with two sides and an impartial moderator. After seeing a few examples like that, I just couldn't take them seriously.
That being said, there are a lot of American news organizations that I can't take seriously. CNN seems very sensationalized, for example. IMO you should trust soley in any one organization, and you need to try and get views from all sides on any one topic.
it was a lot closer to center than what some people would like to believe. But should they be anywhere on the political spectrum? As a supposed news organization shouldn't they strive to present "just the facts" as much as possible?
Letting people who are whom they say they are, give accounts cannot even be compared to using fraudulent documents to slander someone. What does one have to do with the other? Misinformation is misinformation, and one incident does not alter the importance or severity of the other.
Well the CBC has a pretty bad reputation for being slanted to the left, isn't the CBC also under control of the Canadian Government, or it had been for a number of years? Which the Canadian Government had been under control of one party for a pretty long time. I'll do some research to confirm or disprove it.
The CBC is funded by the government, which was the Liberal party until about a year ago. However, the CBC presented a fair deal of information on the Sponsorship Scandal, which was done by Jean Chretien's Liberals and was used by the Progressive Conservatives under Stephen Harper to call an election (which they won), so they're not quite liberally biased.
ACLU is just another control mechanism amongst more control mechanisms. If a person looks at our history, how we have changed over the past thirty years, you will notice a move towards complete 'political correctness'. ACLU and others try to keep the American freedoms out of politics. The only political correct change I am greatful for is how we call each other's ethnic background in this manner: Irish-American, African-American, Italian-American, etc... Beside that one specific change, I do not think the ACLU has any logical existance.
Remember, the government cannot impose or promote religion, but religion can get involved in political anything. The ACLU tries to flip that logic around. Any religious group can become apart of our government, but they cannot make laws to force people into believing in their religious beliefs. However, religious groups can make their descisions on a moralistic perspective, which derives from their religious background. At the end of the day, the constitution still has legs to stand upon.
I am English-Lithuanian-Swiss-Swedish-Scottish-Native American-Irish-German-Norwegian American
Make up your mind already:).
Jae Onasi is a typical American, whom can trace their origins from many countries.
Anyways the CBC is directly funded by the Canadian Government, and there have been numerous complaints of it having a left wing slant, even going after a political party directly.
Having seen the debates comparing the MSNBC Republican Debate to the Fox News Republican Debate (I've seen them both), it is in my opinion and many other people's as well that Fox News handled the Republican Debate a lot better even calling people on the fact they hadn't answered the question.
Having seen the debates comparing the MSNBC Republican Debate to the Fox News Republican Debate (I've seen them both), it is in my opinion and many other people's as well that Fox News handled the Republican Debate a lot better even calling people on the fact they hadn't answered the question.
Well, let's face it, Chris Matthews is more interested in hearing himself than having his guests (in this case candidates) speak. A very poor choice for a moderator. What I find interesting is that the Dems are sooo afraid of appearing on Fox in the first place. Frankly, you don't get much more partisan than Chris Matthews, so what are the dems afraid of? That the favor would be returned?
Well the CBC has a pretty bad reputation for being slanted to the left, isn't the CBC also under control of the Canadian Government, or it had been for a number of years? Which the Canadian Government had been under control of one party for a pretty long time. I'll do some research to confirm or disprove it.
Anyways the CBC is directly funded by the Canadian Government, and there have been numerous complaints of it having a left wing slant, even going after a political party directly.
So, where is this proof?
Though the CBC is funded by the Canadian government, it certainly isn't controlled by it. Frankly, it's quite "American right-wing" to hear "owned by the government" and equate it automatically to government propaganda machine. Ironic that you trust your army and president so much, isn't it the government?
As Hallucination mentioned, the liberals were defeated during the last federal elections and the CBC did report properly all the information about the sponsorship scandal even though it was against the Liberal party. If anything, you can accuse the CBC of being federalist and anti-separatist. Then again, who outside of Quйbec isn't? Finally, before you jump off your seat and take the word liberal for raging leftist, let me clarify that the Liberal Party in Canada seriously isn't left. It's more like dead center, sometimes leaning left or right, depending on the flavor of the month. The New Democratic Party is actually the real representative of a true leftist ideology in Canada, while the Conservative Party is the real right. Then there's the Bloc Quйbйcois, who is composed of separatists, which has no real purpose in Ottawa, other then often holding the balance of power, but meh.
Oh did anyone here aside from myself know about what is going on in Venezuela?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276356,00.html)
I have yet to see anyone other media outlet cover the situation.
I've been paying attention to MSNBC news on cable, not the net, and they covered on memorial day Prisons in the US, while Fox covered Memorial Day services and the stuff in Venezuela. I'm surprised it is even on MSNBC's website to be honest.
If I shouldn't support the ACLU, then who should I support?
If I shouldn't support the ACLU, then who should I support?
I'd think the oposite would be an anarchist group. Not very good on organizations myself, but there are some other liberty movements.
Or, if you want to be a little more extreme, the christian church. Oh hell, any church. Even though you can do both they seem to dislike eachother.
The opposite of the ACLU isn't Anarchists.
Many Churches aren't intolerant, it depends on what church you're referring to.
The opposite of the ACLU isn't Anarchists.
Many Churches aren't intolerant, it depends on what church you're referring to.
True. What are other organizations besides ACLU anyway? I could look them up myself, but opinion helps as well.
Personally I feel once the ACLU was necessary, but now I'm not sure that it is, at the very least it needs some serious reforms within it.