Bias in the Media, LOL

[pimpdave]

... Btw, still waiting for your constitutional justification for the federal mandate forcing me to purchase insurance.

Because your tears are like sweet nectar.

[Nobunaga]

... Btw, still waiting for your constitutional justification for the federal mandate forcing me to purchase insurance.

Because your tears are like sweet nectar.

... Yeah, well, she throws shite out there and when you ask her to back it up... nothing but crickets.

...

[PLAYER57832]

... Btw, still waiting for your constitutional justification for the federal mandate forcing me to purchase insurance.

Because your tears are like sweet nectar.

... Yeah, well, she throws shite out there and when you ask her to back it up... nothing but crickets.

...

Yeah, such terrible stuff that several federal judges have already agreed with me, so ridiculous that the issue is now sitting in the Supreme court... as yet undecided, and that even though the current Supreme court is packed with Big business patsies.

[thegreekdog]

... Btw, still waiting for your constitutional justification for the federal mandate forcing me to purchase insurance.

Because your tears are like sweet nectar.

... Yeah, well, she throws shite out there and when you ask her to back it up... nothing but crickets.

...

Yeah, such terrible stuff that several federal judges have already agreed with me, so ridiculous that the issue is now sitting in the Supreme court... as yet undecided, and that even though the current Supreme court is packed with Big business patsies.

Let's see. I need to rack my brain here. Would big business be positively or negatively affected by forcing people to purchase insurance. Let's see... hmm... from whom does one purchase health insurance? I think businesses that sell health insurance, right? Would those businesses be classified as big? I wonder about that.

Ooh, I thought of something else I need to think about. Have some companies gotten a free ride? I wonder about that. Because I know that President Obama was in favor of restricting lobbying access to the White House. I wonder how that worked out. Did those companies that got a free ride; did they lobby the president? That would be weird, right? Because Democrats, especially the president, supported the Affordable Care Act out of the goodness of their respective hearts.

[AAFitz]

... CNN labels the GOP racist for not campaigning in a majority Hispanic town in Iowa.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro ... -obama-2-1

... Never mind that the town is quite tiny - candidates would meet bigger audiences at middle school badminton tournaments... and never mind that the town voted 2 to 1 for Obama... making it rather, well, pointless... No, never mind. These GOP white dudes are all just racist shits.

... Biased? Noooo... I'm imagining things. LOL.

...

Funny, given CNN's pretty conservative bias. Really all this stuff does is help shift opinion more to the right, giving the illusion that shows like CNN are somehow liberal because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly criticize) those on the right.

Beyond that, one incident just doesn't prove much of anything. To judge bias, you have to look at a pattern. The pattern shown by the media is to favor the "money" people. It really doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Repubs or what. In fact, none of those title really apply except to target a specific candidate .

Exactly! And when Fox criticizes the left, it's to help shift opinions more to the left, giving the illusion that Fox is somehow conservative because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly) those on the left.

"Occasionally"....was that the word you really wanted to use there?

[thegreekdog]

... CNN labels the GOP racist for not campaigning in a majority Hispanic town in Iowa.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro ... -obama-2-1

... Never mind that the town is quite tiny - candidates would meet bigger audiences at middle school badminton tournaments... and never mind that the town voted 2 to 1 for Obama... making it rather, well, pointless... No, never mind. These GOP white dudes are all just racist shits.

... Biased? Noooo... I'm imagining things. LOL.

...

Funny, given CNN's pretty conservative bias. Really all this stuff does is help shift opinion more to the right, giving the illusion that shows like CNN are somehow liberal because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly criticize) those on the right.

Beyond that, one incident just doesn't prove much of anything. To judge bias, you have to look at a pattern. The pattern shown by the media is to favor the "money" people. It really doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Repubs or what. In fact, none of those title really apply except to target a specific candidate .

Exactly! And when Fox criticizes the left, it's to help shift opinions more to the left, giving the illusion that Fox is somehow conservative because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly) those on the left.

"Occasionally"....was that the word you really wanted to use there?

Good point. In my defense, I was sarcastically parotting Player's ridiculous assertion.

[Juan_Bottom]

That would be weird, right? Because Democrats, especially the president, supported the Affordable Care Act out of the goodness of their respective hearts.

Not to pick sides, because Pelosi did this, but I had a laugh-attack when I found out that Bohener tried to secretly buy and trade a bunch of stock from companies that stood to benefit from Obama Care BEFORE the announcement that the public option was dead. I mean, here's a guy who is constantly berating the president being about as two-faced and politician-y as anyone can be. Anyway, it was mentioned in NEWSEEK about a month ago.

[thegreekdog]

That would be weird, right? Because Democrats, especially the president, supported the Affordable Care Act out of the goodness of their respective hearts.

Not to pick sides, because Pelosi did this, but I had a laugh-attack when I found out that Bohener tried to secretly buy and trade a bunch of stock from companies that stood to benefit from Obama Care BEFORE the announcement that the public option was dead. I mean, here's a guy who is constantly berating the president being about as two-faced and politician-y as anyone can be. Anyway, it was mentioned in NEWSEEK about a month ago.

I read a byline or headline or whatever somewhere (maybe Newsweek?) about Congressional insider trading and associated rules (or non-rules). This is probably something people should pay more attention to, although I have to say it doesn't really surprise me.

[AAFitz]

... CNN labels the GOP racist for not campaigning in a majority Hispanic town in Iowa.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro ... -obama-2-1

... Never mind that the town is quite tiny - candidates would meet bigger audiences at middle school badminton tournaments... and never mind that the town voted 2 to 1 for Obama... making it rather, well, pointless... No, never mind. These GOP white dudes are all just racist shits.

... Biased? Noooo... I'm imagining things. LOL.

...

Funny, given CNN's pretty conservative bias. Really all this stuff does is help shift opinion more to the right, giving the illusion that shows like CNN are somehow liberal because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly criticize) those on the right.

Beyond that, one incident just doesn't prove much of anything. To judge bias, you have to look at a pattern. The pattern shown by the media is to favor the "money" people. It really doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Repubs or what. In fact, none of those title really apply except to target a specific candidate .

Exactly! And when Fox criticizes the left, it's to help shift opinions more to the left, giving the illusion that Fox is somehow conservative because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly) those on the left.

"Occasionally"....was that the word you really wanted to use there?

Good point. In my defense, I was sarcastically parotting Player's ridiculous assertion.

I know, but someone had to say it.

[Nobunaga]

... Btw, still waiting for your constitutional justification for the federal mandate forcing me to purchase insurance.

Because your tears are like sweet nectar.

... Yeah, well, she throws shite out there and when you ask her to back it up... nothing but crickets.

...

Yeah, such terrible stuff that several federal judges have already agreed with me, so ridiculous that the issue is now sitting in the Supreme court... as yet undecided, and that even though the current Supreme court is packed with Big business patsies.

... Agreed with you?! You've made no constitutional argument. You agreed you would, after you got over your cold, or dyed your hair, or gave your kid a bath or whatever it was this time. I'm not asking for a legal presentation, just in your own words - back up that mandate.

... And I am still waiting.

...

[pimpdave]

Yeah Player, you better meet his demands. After all, he calls fascists socialists and democratic-republics commie-nazis, so, he totally knows what he's talking about and stuff.

[Nobunaga]

Yeah Player, you better meet his demands. After all, he calls fascists socialists and democratic-republics commie-nazis, so, he totally knows what he's talking about and stuff.

... Presented above, the product of public schools.

... Makes you feel good about the future, doesn't it?

...



... (Nazi is short for National Socialism).

[PLAYER57832]

... CNN labels the GOP racist for not campaigning in a majority Hispanic town in Iowa.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro ... -obama-2-1

... Never mind that the town is quite tiny - candidates would meet bigger audiences at middle school badminton tournaments... and never mind that the town voted 2 to 1 for Obama... making it rather, well, pointless... No, never mind. These GOP white dudes are all just racist shits.

... Biased? Noooo... I'm imagining things. LOL.

...

Funny, given CNN's pretty conservative bias. Really all this stuff does is help shift opinion more to the right, giving the illusion that shows like CNN are somehow liberal because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly criticize) those on the right.

Beyond that, one incident just doesn't prove much of anything. To judge bias, you have to look at a pattern. The pattern shown by the media is to favor the "money" people. It really doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Repubs or what. In fact, none of those title really apply except to target a specific candidate .

Exactly! And when Fox criticizes the left, it's to help shift opinions more to the left, giving the illusion that Fox is somehow conservative because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly) those on the left.

"Occasionally"....was that the word you really wanted to use there?

Good point. In my defense, I was sarcastically parotting Player's ridiculous assertion.

No, actually you proved it, by attempting to convey that Fox even touches real liberalism. I have not, for example, heard anything on monkey wrenchers, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

... Btw, still waiting for your constitutional justification for the federal mandate forcing me to purchase insurance.

Because your tears are like sweet nectar.

... Yeah, well, she throws shite out there and when you ask her to back it up... nothing but crickets.

...

Yeah, such terrible stuff that several federal judges have already agreed with me, so ridiculous that the issue is now sitting in the Supreme court... as yet undecided, and that even though the current Supreme court is packed with Big business patsies.

... Agreed with you?! You've made no constitutional argument. You agreed you would, after you got over your cold, or dyed your hair, or gave your kid a bath or whatever it was this time. I'm not asking for a legal presentation, just in your own words - back up that mandate.

... And I am still waiting.

...

LOL... try paying attention to what he various rulings have said. You can have your opinion, but a constitutional expert, you are DEFINITELY not, so stop trying. You make yourself look idiotically extreme.

[thegreekdog]

No, actually you proved it, by attempting to convey that Fox even touches real liberalism. I have not, for example, heard anything on monkey wrenchers, etc.

No actually, you've decided to use a different definition of "liberalism" than is currently en vogue in the United States. This is what you do - you change the definitions and arguments to fit how you would like the discussion to go.

How about if I did this:

MSNBC doesn't touch real conservatism. So your original assertion is completely incorrect.

Oh no! I came back on you with your own argument! What are you going to do now?

[PLAYER57832]

No, actually you proved it, by attempting to convey that Fox even touches real liberalism. I have not, for example, heard anything on monkey wrenchers, etc.

No actually, you've decided to use a different definition of "liberalism" than is currently en vogue in the United States. This is what you do - you change the definitions and arguments to fit how you would like the discussion to go.

LOL LOL LOL LOL

Nope, no dice. It is the right wing that has been very actively changing the definition of "liberal" and even "socialism".
Sad, that you seem to have bought it.

How about if I did this:

MSNBC doesn't touch real conservatism. So your original assertion is completely incorrect.

Oh no! I came back on you with your own argument! What are you going to do now?

That you think this is a legitimate comparison speaks volumes. MSNBC is not a liberal organization. It is definitely not truly on the left. I have said this before. Try listening to Democracy Now or Alternative Radio to get what I mean. Or, try reading things by Bill Devalle, some others to see what the even more radical left is about.

I mean, Bill Devalle would be a nicer neighbor than some on the furthest right (he is not going to shoot you for disagreeing), but his ideas are so radical they are nearly insane.

[thegreekdog]

That you think this is a legitimate comparison speaks volumes. MSNBC is not a liberal organization. It is definitely not truly on the left. I have said this before. Try listening to Democracy Now or Alternative Radio to get what I mean. Or, try reading things by Bill Devalle, some others to see what the even more radical left is about.

Okay, then try these two on for size... you can pick which one you would like to deal with to try to prove that you're not being unbelievably hypocritical:

(1)

Democracy Now and Alternative Radio are just bringing attention to conservatism

(2)

Democracy Now and Alternative Radio don't know what true conservatism is.

[PLAYER57832]

That you think this is a legitimate comparison speaks volumes. MSNBC is not a liberal organization. It is definitely not truly on the left. I have said this before. Try listening to Democracy Now or Alternative Radio to get what I mean. Or, try reading things by Bill Devalle, some others to see what the even more radical left is about.

Okay, then try these two on for size... you can pick which one you would like to deal with to try to prove that you're not being unbelievably hypocritical:

(1)

Democracy Now and Alternative Radio are just bringing attention to conservatism

LOL... they are not redefining conservativism. They are espousing an admitted off the mainstream view. Big difference. They don't pretend to be anything but what they are. The others all pretend to be middle of the road, but are not.

(2)

Democracy Now and Alternative Radio don't know what true conservatism is.

Possibly true. They don't really attempt to define conservative views. They would call all mainstream media to be in the pockets of corporations, (even NPR)


Neither really is a comparison to what the mainstream media has done in comparison to the left and liberalism.

[PLAYER57832]

... Btw, still waiting for your constitutional justification for the federal mandate forcing me to purchase insurance.

Because your tears are like sweet nectar.

... Yeah, well, she throws shite out there and when you ask her to back it up... nothing but crickets.

...

Yeah, such terrible stuff that several federal judges have already agreed with me, so ridiculous that the issue is now sitting in the Supreme court... as yet undecided, and that even though the current Supreme court is packed with Big business patsies.

Let's see. I need to rack my brain here. Would big business be positively or negatively affected by forcing people to purchase insurance. Let's see... hmm... from whom does one purchase health insurance? I think businesses that sell health insurance, right? Would those businesses be classified as big? I wonder about that.

Ooh, I thought of something else I need to think about. Have some companies gotten a free ride? I wonder about that. Because I know that President Obama was in favor of restricting lobbying access to the White House. I wonder how that worked out. Did those companies that got a free ride; did they lobby the president? That would be weird, right? Because Democrats, especially the president, supported the Affordable Care Act out of the goodness of their respective hearts.

Not sure what you are attempting to argue there, but it is not a refutation of what I said, at all. I agree that there is a debate, but the idea that anyone who disagrees with Nobunga's view is somehow a constitutional idiot is just wrong.

[thegreekdog]

Not sure what you are attempting to argue there, but it is not a refutation of what I said, at all. I agree that there is a debate, but the idea that anyone who disagrees with Nobunga's view is somehow a constitutional idiot is just wrong.

You make the point (as some do) that the Supreme Court is packed with justices who are pro-business.

I make the point that if the justices were pro-business, and made their decisions solely on that basis, why would they overturn the Affordable Care Act, which will be a boon for business at the expense of taxpayers?

You're taking a very naive view of what the Affordable Care Act will do and you're taking a very cynical view of the Supreme Court.

[PLAYER57832]

... Btw, still waiting for your constitutional justification for the federal mandate forcing me to purchase insurance.

Because your tears are like sweet nectar.

... Yeah, well, she throws shite out there and when you ask her to back it up... nothing but crickets.

...

Yeah, such terrible stuff that several federal judges have already agreed with me, so ridiculous that the issue is now sitting in the Supreme court... as yet undecided, and that even though the current Supreme court is packed with Big business patsies.

... Agreed with you?! You've made no constitutional argument. You agreed you would, after you got over your cold, or dyed your hair, or gave your kid a bath or whatever it was this time. I'm not asking for a legal presentation, just in your own words - back up that mandate.

... And I am still waiting.

...

Well, since you claim ignorance, its that whole ability of the government to make rules necessary for the safety and security of the nation.

Beyond that, I have not said you have no grounds for your view, just that your ignorance of the opposition makes you sound like a raving lunatic instead of a legitimate debater.

MY views is that its far more constitutional than this idea that corporations have the right to give whatever they want to political campaigns in the name of free speech.. a LOT more. Yet, strangely, the same people who seem to opposed to one idea see no problem with the other.

I think we need a fully nationalized healthcare system.

[Nobunaga]

...Univision, the Spanish language TV network, is the only one with the balls to report this kind of thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/univi ... teenagers/

... I wonder why, seriously.

...

[Juan_Bottom]

Its bad for everyone. Liberal news probably wont report something like that right before the presidential election, because it could hurt Obama somehow, since it happened while he was in charge of law enforcement. Conservative news won't report that because it could hurt Romney. His own family is illegally purchasing guns and running them to their compounds in Mexico.
And the media in the middle doesn't hold anyone's feet to the fire unless its sensationalist.

[Woodruff]

Its bad for everyone. Liberal news probably wont report something like that right before the presidential election, because it could hurt Obama somehow, since it happened while he was in charge of law enforcement. Conservative news won't report that because it could hurt Romney. His own family is illegally purchasing guns and running them to their compounds in Mexico.
And the media in the middle doesn't hold anyone's feet to the fire unless its sensationalist.

I'm not convinced there is a "media in the middle" anymore that isn't related to Comedy Central.

[Phatscotty]

Is there a left tilt to the media's coverage of the news? If there is, can it be proven? And if it can be proven, can the consequences be quantified in a meaningful way? Acclaimed UCLA Professor of Political Science and Economics, Tim Groseclose, has the startling answers in this new Prager University course. Whatever you do, don't miss his final conclusion.