Neutral news media?
-
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.
-
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.
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
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.
How do you think your government should address the threat of terrorism?
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
-
-
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
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.
How do you think your government should address the threat of terrorism?
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
Josh Gray wrote:
How do you think your government should address the threat of terrorism?
First of all, they should increase the security with the Mexican border, as it is now, a terrorist could smuggle any type of weapon they wanted into America, probably even a nuclear weapon, but the government seems afraid to do anything about the border because it is politically incorrect.
-
-
Josh Gray wrote:
How do you think your government should address the threat of terrorism?
First of all, they should increase the security with the Mexican border, as it is now, a terrorist could smuggle any type of weapon they wanted into America, probably even a nuclear weapon, but the government seems afraid to do anything about the border because it is politically incorrect.
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
First of all, they should increase the security with the Mexican border, as it is now, a terrorist could smuggle any type of weapon they wanted into America, probably even a nuclear weapon, but the government seems afraid to do anything about the border because it is politically incorrect.
But that wouldnt have stopped 9/11 or the attack on the Cole (sp?) On another note, do you think the Iraq war has helped stabalise the middle east?
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
