As for the logical conservatives:

#1: Dennis Prager!

(plus others such as Laura Ingram, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, Mike Levin….etc)

Hopefully, my post will put a short break in the pages of name-calling and swearing, let’s just express our views and not atack other people in doing so.

love,
Ms. Neo-Con

So, ignorant dumbasses (please take no offense I’m just being honest here, I’m sure your mother loves you and you’re a great guy), you’re talking out of your hat.

Oh, in particular that bombing of the so-called Kadafi chemical weapon factory by Bill! OHHHH SCREAMMM”N left wing fits!

So STFU you unbelievably ignorant stupid morons who are just making crap up to make some stupid ignoramus point to who? Your dog … cuz that’s the only creature on earth that thinks you’re any more than a lying sack o’crap who makes stuff up a.k.a. you liar!
Stop being a liar — it does not go with your eyes and your mama didn’t raise you that way.

Gee, when liberals learn the truth, have no money because they were taxed to death, live in government supplied shacks. And watch the liberal elite cruise by in Limos, living the good life, while the rest struggle just to eat. I wonder if the brain dead left on this forum will say. Oh Nancy you are our God…….

“One, the “minor abuses” (actually not so minor)”

Not so minor? Heck, in San Fransicko, panties on the head, dogs and naked women is considered Happy Hour.

The “president raping and sexually assaulting numerous women” never happened anywhere except in the diseased imaginations of the right-wing noise machine… And you’ve got it. Don’t you feel better?

Do I feel better because you can regurgitate James Carville talking points?

Yes. And I’m very impressed.

Though hardly convinced.

you need to explain why minor abuses of prisoners by soldiers (who have been punished) is worse than a president raping and sexually assaulting numerous women.

To paraphrase Sarah Silverman, for two reasons. One, the “minor abuses” (actually not so minor) actually happened in the real world, while the “president raping and sexually assaulting numerous women” never happened anywhere except in the diseased imaginations of the right-wing noise machine, and two, the “minor abuses” (actually not so minor) actually happened in the real world, while the “president raping and sexually assaulting numerous women” never fucking happened anywhere except in the diseased imaginations of the right-wing noise machine. I don’t need another reason when wingnut delusions are involved.

i’m ready for that explanation.

And you’ve got it. Don’t you feel better? Or, at least, less like a glove puppet?

“sexual escapades”? is that how you describe multiple acts of rape and sexual assault?

Do I have to explain why to you why these aren’t equivalent?

yes. you need to explain why minor abuses of prisoners by soldiers (who have been punished) is worse than a president raping and sexually assaulting numerous women.

i’m ready for that explanation.

Also, I assume that you don’t invest money in any of these “evil” entities, do you?

Lets see, Abu Ghraib where we torture Muslim men

Naked ladiethze, underwear on the head and dogs?

Torture?!

Thoundths more like a night out on the town where I’m from.

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Lincoln

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

Andrew Jackson

“The mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control; from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining in the different States and which are employed altogether for their benefit; and unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will, in the end, find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands of these corporations.”

My last post, you get the point. Good luck trying to make sense of the reality in front of your own damn eyes.

Writing about Brazil early in the early 20th century, Peter Evans, “Brazil is notable for its tremendously favorable combination of large size, low population density, and rich endowment of natural resources”

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/year/year-c07-s14.html

The [Brazilian] Ministry of Education reports that over a third of the education budget goes to school meals, because most of the students in public schools either eat at school or not at all.

According to South magazine (a business magazine reporting on the Third World), Brazil has a higher infant mortality rate than Sri Lanka. A third of the population lives below the poverty line and “seven million abandoned children beg, steal and sniff glue on the streets. For scores of millions, home is a shack in a slum. . . or increasingly, a patch of ground under a bridge.

“The Brazilian case illustrates the doctrinal pattern. Gerald Haines was not alone in celebrating the triumph of capitalism and American know-how in Brazil, though his timing — 1989 — was a bit off. The brilliant achievements of the Generals and their right-thinking technocratic advisers made Brazil “the Latin American darling of the international business community,” Business Latin America reported in 1972. Arthur Burns, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, was full of praise for Delfim’s “miraculous” work…Chicago school economist Arnold Harberger held up Brazil “as the exemplar of a glowing future under economic liberalism,”

“Brazil, despite having the world’s 8th largest GDP, was ranked 79th in the 1999 Human Development Index (which is a large improvement from decades past)…Brazil stands only behind a few African countries in terms of wealth distribution…the top 1% holds more than the bottom half of the population” (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:MjswKwjxAiYJ:www.fas.harvard.edu/~acgei/PDFs/PhilanthropyPDFs/Phil_Brazil_Case.pdf+brazil+wealth+distribution+starvation+dictatorship&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us)

As of 1989, “32 million Brazilians suffer from starvation” (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42/085.html). This country, again, was “the Latin American darling of the international business community” according to a Latin American business journal. So I’ll think for myself in regards to economics, and won’t take advice from these types of people.

Lets see, Abu Ghraib where we torture Muslim men (this won’t be used as propaganda by the “evil doers” now will it) vs. the sexual escapades of a president. Do I have to explain why to you why these aren’t equivalent? I’m not saying that Clinton shouldn’t be made to answer to these questions…by his wife. Clinton screwing around doesn’t effect your ability to pay healthcare or get a job these days. It also doesn’t make it far more likely that another 9/11 will happen in the future as a result of actions like we’ve done at Abu Ghraib. If you want those types of things to effect who you vote for I don’t know what to tell you. I guess you probably liked Bush initially because you could have a beer with him then huh?

Gephardt isn’t a leftist in any way and was hired because he has connections in Washington. Brilliant logic though. He’s a Democrat, which doesn’t mean that he’s “liberal”, and since corporations hire him they can be “liberal” themselves. Gephardt also works for a group lobbying for nuclear power. Is nuclear power a leftist cause? AS I, ONCE AGAIN, SAID ABOVE, the two parties are, along with the media, made up of economic elites, which you and I aren’t. Gephardt’s party, the Democratic Party, lobbied for NAFTA AGAINST the left in the early 1990’s, do you realize that? Are you trying to help prove my point or are you responding to me?

Regarding Bush’s service, please give me the link proving that a single person saw Bush when he was supposed to be serving? I remember the whole thing. The interviewed officers who conducted the training who said that they never once saw Bush when he was supposed to be there. There are documents saying, which I can link for you if you’d like, saying that he has “yet to be seen” or something to that effect. Hard to serve when you’re not there, but I’m sure his daddy being the head of the CIA had nothing to do with it… Other incidents (like a bust for cocaine) were taken off of his record as well.

I will link all my information, which you will have no answer for, in a following post. I don’t expect you to have anything to counter, because there isn’t anything to counter. What I’d like you to do is think about why what you think is so at odds with the reality in this country. Could it be that the rich people you get your information from are misleading you because of their own economic self interest?

Oh, and regarding why I talk about corporations so much. Corporations are private tyrannies. In addition to my links I will give you quotes from presidents in the past and capitalist economists warning against the rise of corporations. I won’t explain to you why, it’s up to you to ask yourself why these presidents (none of them Marxists) warned against the EXACT same thing I am here. One of the quotes is from Jefferson himself, whom you seem to think would agree with you, when he wouldn’t.

You’ve completely gone off on a tangent. Your utter obsession with the corporate angle is nothing but a distraction. You seem to want to insist that a company’s (undeniable) interest in its bottom line is the primary influence in its media companies’ reporting. That’s just a stretch, conspiratorial even. In order to believe that, you have to believe that these corporations control their reporters with an iron grip. And while that can happen, and does happen, it is extremely rare. You’ve offered some very thin, speculative evidence for this, but no strong evidence that this is a pervasive, institutionalized influence. As I stated earlier, if this happened as frequently as you suggest, reporters would be in open revolt and we would surely hear much more of such behavior from reporters who no longer rely on those corporations for their livelihood. You have virtually acknowledged that the media is comprised primarily of left-leaning reporters (who are also often arrogant); do you think they wouldn’t be up in arms about that kind of treatment and that they wouldn’t work to expose it? Judging by this forum, the left is not very fond of corporations and I suspect leftist reporters would delight in exposing undue corporate influence.

In other words, you would have lots of Bernie Goldbergs coming out of the woodwork writing about their awful experiences being coerced to avoid, or write, particular stories. By the way, the interview with Golberg you referenced was about his new book, not “Bias.” I’m not familiar with his new book, but the example you site had nothing to do with his experience at CBS. I didn’t see the interview, but interestingly, you’re doing exactly what you accuse Bernie Goldberg of doing: Quibbling with one example (the feminist example) to try to bebunk an entire thesis.

You’re picking stories here and there instead of looking at consistent coverage of the issues themselves.

I picked stories “here and there” because you asked for some examples. But the bias is present in the coverage of the issues themselves as well as individual stories–it’s everywhere. And it’s consistently slanted to the left. You see it in what is considered important and what is not, on where stories are printed, and where they’re buried. You see it in the frequency of certain subjects and the absence of others. And, of course, you see it in the detail of the story itself.

For example, the NY Slimes covered Abu Ghraib ad nauseas, way beyond a reasonable level of coverage. On the other hand, Bill Clinton being accused of sexual assault by numerous women, and even of rape), doesn’t merit a single interview or even question from the press. H ow is that possible? Surely you would admit that an accusation even remotely approaching any of those made against Clinton would result in a wolfback descending upon the White House.

You even see it in reporting on the economy. Haven’t heard much about the economy in the last six years, have you? By every objective measure–and the standards that have always been used to measure the economy (inflation, employment, growth, interest rates, stock markets) it is fabulous. But what is the only thing we hear form the media? All we get are reports on the dubious “income inequality.” Did you hear much about that in the 90s? No, and “income inequality” is not much different from what it was in the 90s. Can you explain the renewed focus on it?

Partisan junk means nothing to me as the majority of the Democratic Party isn’t, and usually runs from, even when the public is behind, “liberal” policy positions (again, in regards to healthcare, economics, foreign policy, etc).

That “partisan junk” is a huge part of the liberal media bias. You can’t just ignore it and claim it “doesn’t count.” It’s part and parcel of the entire problem. There are so many different forms of bias, some more obvious than others, but it’s out there and it’s widespread. I was a bit reluctant to offer specific examples, because I knew you would try to pick at the examples at the edges, or come up with some kind of rationalization, or offer some other alternative explanation. Which is why I referred you to sites that offer example after example after example.

As for Dan Rather, there isn’t any question the documents were fraudulent, as even Rather himself eventually acknowledged. You seem to be buying into Rather’s “fake but accurate” hilarity. The so-called “AWOL” claim was NEVER proven; it’s all speculative. And yet, in spite of serving, why did the press look so long and hard into Bush’s military background, but go soft on Bill Clinton despite his far more spotty record on the military, including avoiding it and then trashing it?

Remember, when Clinton was running against WWII vet Bush 41, the media never let military service become an issue. Doesn’t mean Republicans didn’t try–they did–but the media didn’t let it become an issue. They control the agenda and this was not part of that agenda. On the other hand, when Bush 43 ran against Kerry, they searched Bush’s record high and low, while letting John Kerry state repeatedly–and falsely–that he had released his military records. He STILL hasn’t. You think the media would’ve let Bush get away with that?

But more importantly, ask yourself why Democrats are never the target of fraudulent-document-aided hatchet jobs by the liberal media?