Neutral news media?
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Hezbollah's 'Cowardly' Use of Civilians This is news for the stupid. Skip the facts and get straight to the conclution. I would rather they present the facts and not their opinion. I dont need to be told if it is cowardly or not. I want to make up my own mind. They should at least put crap like that in the editorial section.
If you would have actually looked at the article, you would have seen that the article was about someone in the UN calling Hezbollah 'cowardly'.
If you read past the first paragraph you would see this During that visit he condemned the killing and wounding of civilians by both sides, and called Israel's offensive "disproportionate" and "a violation of international humanitarian law." :)
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
-
That pair of choices certainly explains a lot about you.
Such as the complexity of his beliefs: "Bush bad, Cheney mean, terrorists misunderstood, Jimmy hungry" :laugh:
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
In this highly polarised world, it seems natural that even news media are biased in some way or other. So my qestion is, which news media(portal/network) do you prefer to get the facts of a particular issue?
cheers, Super ------------------------------------------ Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
http://news.yahoo.com/[^] If I watch any news it will be Fox, or PBS. I listen to some talk radio, but I'm as likely to listen to Ed Shultz as Limbaugh.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It would be more accurate to say that to the American Christian Right, the word "liberal" no longer embodies the true latin meaning of the word.
Liberals pretend to be defending freedom, when really they want more government controls. The Liberals' version of what they call freedom is remarkably similar to communism. Liberals think that freedom means being given what you want (i.e. welfare), when conservatives believe that freedom means making sure everyone can make decisions for themselves.
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
Liberals pretend to be defending freedom, when really they want more government controls. The Liberals' version of what they call freedom is remarkably similar to communism. Liberals think that freedom means being given what you want (i.e. welfare), when conservatives believe that freedom means making sure everyone can make decisions for themselves.
As a member of the American Christian right, of course those are your beliefs, and that is your definition. I prefer to use the word "right", as it is hardly conservative to spend vast amounts of borrowed money in order to finance grand experiments in building democracies overseas by force. As for the content of your definition, I refer you to my recent discussions in this forum regarding personal liberty and sovereignty of the individual, and will only state here that I respectfully, but very strongly, disagree with you and the religious right regarding the definition of liberal.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It would be more accurate to say that to the American Christian Right, the word "liberal" no longer embodies the true latin meaning of the word.
Liberals pretend to be defending freedom, when really they want more government controls. The Liberals' version of what they call freedom is remarkably similar to communism. Liberals think that freedom means being given what you want (i.e. welfare), when conservatives believe that freedom means making sure everyone can make decisions for themselves.
There you go again bastardising the word liberal. A liberal is someone who values freedom. Someone who believes the people should be allowed to make their own choices. Someone who believes that society should ensure that people have the freedom to make their own choices. It does not mean they believe people should get government handouts because they can't be bothered to work. More most people long term lack of employment is a lifestyle choice and people should live with the consequences of that choice. Welfare exists to give people a helping hand on a temporary basis. A few years ago I spent three months unemployed. Personally, I can't see how anyone can survive on what the "jobseekers allowance" was. In the month prior to becoming unemployed I paid more tax than I received back from the government in the following 3 months. But, I had savings and I was able to pay my bills.
Scottish Developers events: * .NET debugging, tracing and instrumentation by Duncan Edwards Jones and Code Coverage in .NET by Craig Murphy * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
BBC News[^]
BBC news has seemed to have a very liberal pro-Muslim, anti-Christianity, and anti-Israel bias behind it the times i have looked at it.
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
BBC news has seemed to have a very liberal pro-Muslim, anti-Christianity, and anti-Israel bias behind it the times i have looked at it.
Uh, not that i've noticed. And i've been listening to the World Service for years.
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.0.0.0 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
Precisely because there is no such thing as an unbiased media, I try to read a variety of sources if I care enough to try to find out about something. I may also read blogs, but I don't make the mistake of presuming that someone who is in the thick of things actually understands what's going on, beyond how it affects them personally. Mostly, I accept that there is no real way to know what's going on in the world beyond some broad brush strokes.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
Precisely because there is no such thing as an unbiased media,
the sanest comment i've seen in a while.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/[^] If I watch any news it will be Fox, or PBS. I listen to some talk radio, but I'm as likely to listen to Ed Shultz as Limbaugh.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
PBS
:gasp: That's the commie channel damnit!!!
-- If not entertaining, write your congressman
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It would be more accurate to say that to the American Christian Right, the word "liberal" no longer embodies the true latin meaning of the word.
Liberals pretend to be defending freedom, when really they want more government controls. The Liberals' version of what they call freedom is remarkably similar to communism. Liberals think that freedom means being given what you want (i.e. welfare), when conservatives believe that freedom means making sure everyone can make decisions for themselves.
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
Liberals pretend to be defending freedom, when really they want more government controls.
Why would Liberals want more government control when they are not in government? Wouldnt that just be handing power to the concervatives currently in government?
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
PBS
:gasp: That's the commie channel damnit!!!
-- If not entertaining, write your congressman
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
That's the commie channel damnit!!!
How do you think I stay so well informed on the subject? ;)
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
Liberals pretend to be defending freedom, when really they want more government controls.
Why would Liberals want more government control when they are not in government? Wouldnt that just be handing power to the concervatives currently in government?
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
Josh Gray wrote:
Why would Liberals want more government control when they are not in government? Wouldnt that just be handing power to the concervatives currently in government?
The bush regime administration is not really conservative, they are what is called neo-con. The neo-cons and liberals are just flip sides of the same coin, they agree on wanting more government controls, and sadly, a large portion of the American population are like sheep, and just go along with it. they will give up any liberties if they think it will make them "safer". Government tyranny poses a greater threat than any evil assault weapons or terrorists or scary white extremists.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Why would Liberals want more government control when they are not in government? Wouldnt that just be handing power to the concervatives currently in government?
The bush regime administration is not really conservative, they are what is called neo-con. The neo-cons and liberals are just flip sides of the same coin, they agree on wanting more government controls, and sadly, a large portion of the American population are like sheep, and just go along with it. they will give up any liberties if they think it will make them "safer". Government tyranny poses a greater threat than any evil assault weapons or terrorists or scary white extremists.
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
they are what is called neo-con
And they con people in new and improved ways? :rolleyes:
-- The Show That Watches Back
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
That's the commie channel damnit!!!
How do you think I stay so well informed on the subject? ;)
Thank God for disproportional force.
I always knew you had a little Lenin inside. ;)
-- From the network that brought you "The Simpsons"
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Why would Liberals want more government control when they are not in government? Wouldnt that just be handing power to the concervatives currently in government?
The bush regime administration is not really conservative, they are what is called neo-con. The neo-cons and liberals are just flip sides of the same coin, they agree on wanting more government controls, and sadly, a large portion of the American population are like sheep, and just go along with it. they will give up any liberties if they think it will make them "safer". Government tyranny poses a greater threat than any evil assault weapons or terrorists or scary white extremists.
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
they agree on wanting more government controls, and sadly, a large portion of the American population are like sheep, and just go along with it. they will give up any liberties if they think it will make them "safer".
Are you saying that your government is creating fear in order to get more power?
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
-
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
they agree on wanting more government controls, and sadly, a large portion of the American population are like sheep, and just go along with it. they will give up any liberties if they think it will make them "safer".
Are you saying that your government is creating fear in order to get more power?
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
Josh Gray wrote:
Are you saying that your government is creating fear in order to get more power?
It is a tactic that is probably as old as governments themselves.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Are you saying that your government is creating fear in order to get more power?
It is a tactic that is probably as old as governments themselves.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Is that a yes?
Yes.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Is that a yes?
Yes.
-
I always knew you had a little Lenin inside. ;)
-- From the network that brought you "The Simpsons"
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Can you give me an example or two?
For instance, they have banned .50BMG riles in california, although there has never been any crime commited with them, because they might be "terrorist weapons". http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/06/60minutes/main665257.shtml[^] The Patriot Act[^] has been passed giving law enforcement to spy on you in pretty much any way they want to, because they say it will make you safe from terrorists.