Interesting

[RUNNINGFROMTHELAW]

anyone ever notice that Televison news is so obviously liberal in its reporting. does this bother anyone?

[Wizard]

Originally posted by RUNNINGFROMTHELAW
anyone ever notice that Televison news is so obviously liberal in its reporting. does this bother anyone?

Ever notice that Republicans always say the media is Liberal and Democrats always say the media is Conservative? :P

Come on the point is that the media picks up on controversy, if it is more controversial to be liberal they do that, if it is more controversial to be conservative they do that.

[RUNNINGFROMTHELAW]

i have heard this arguement before and disagree with it but i respect your views. I know of many magazines and newspaper as well as TV programs that totally play off of a liberal spin. I also know of many conservative pubications which do the same. Hummmm... I guess i just have a beef with the liberal bull #$%&.

[sbp]

Originally posted by RUNNINGFROMTHELAW
anyone ever notice that Televison news is so obviously liberal in its reporting. does this bother anyone? Its no secret much of the news media slants left even though they deny it.

A good book about this is Bernard Goldberg's Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261901/qid=1020202875/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/104-9100090-3871165)

[mojo]

Originally posted by RUNNINGFROMTHELAW
i have heard this arguement before and disagree with it but i respect your views. I know of many magazines and newspaper as well as TV programs that totally play off of a liberal spin. I also know of many conservative pubications which do the same. Hummmm... I guess i just have a beef with the liberal bull #$%&. your sig suggests that you don't want "the man" to "get you down"...this seems pretty liberal :hihi:

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by mojo
your sig suggests that you don't want "the man" to "get you down"...this seems pretty liberal :hihi:

"The man" is big gubmint. I don't want big government. I'm probably one of the most conservative members of this board.

Here's an email that's making the rounds in conservative circles:

50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund is then due.

The team was about to send out refunds when the Democrats stopped them, and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrats' interpretation of fairness. After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the richest people. That would be unconscionable.

The Democrats' plan says:
People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. People in the $15 seats will get back $15, because that's only fair. People in the $25 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. People in the $50 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.

The people driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help.

[Merlin]

We here at Got Apex have got to start thinking of more informative/descriptive ways of titling threads than "Interesting"

[Nija]

Originally posted by Merlin
We here at Got Apex have got to start thinking of more informative/descriptive ways of titling threads than "Interesting"
intresting....
:P

[RUNNINGFROMTHELAW]

Originally posted by kb0wwp


"The man" is big gubmint. I don't want big government. I'm probably one of the most conservative members of this board.

Here's an email that's making the rounds in conservative circles:

50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund is then due.

The team was about to send out refunds when the Democrats stopped them, and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrats' interpretation of fairness. After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the richest people. That would be unconscionable.

The Democrats' plan says:
People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. People in the $15 seats will get back $15, because that's only fair. People in the $25 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. People in the $50 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.

The people driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help.

i agree.

[Wizard]

Originally posted by RUNNINGFROMTHELAW


i agree.

Ok this whole republican's want small government BS that they constantly tlak about. I have yet to see any results from that?

Let's look at the facts, while Billy C. was president there was a federal surplus, signifying a reduction in federal spending. Hmm if they are spending little money that means there is less government going on. Oooh whoops whatta know Georgie B. gets into office and pumps spending into all sorts of things right away, wipes away surplus in a matter of weeks and we are back to our pork government we had before.

While visiting Washington DC I sat down with some members of the GOP at the GOP head quarters in DC. Great board room they had, and of course they proceeded to start telling us about how they were going to push for smaller government, and one of the ways was to give control of school money back to the states. The idea is to kill the federal wing of the government that decides these things. So I asked, "How are underfunded states (a lot of the southern states) ever going to get enough money for their schools if there is no one there helping to distribute the money?" He then explains that there will be a "comittee that will work on that" ok fine, but how is the comittee going to enforce its acts "ok well there'll be a subcomittee to make sure everything goes well". Hmm things are looking worse now. So I asked who's going to watch over the comittee to ensure that the comittee is being just in how it spreads money, whelps what do you know "a comittee to oversee the comittee will be created" Great so now in their bought to reduce government we've gone from a single comittee on education for the senate to having three comittees on education. And if anyone knows anything about government its that these comittees blow past money so fast. They spend money on extravagant places to have their meetings, they spend money fancy food so that the comittee members aren't hungry during the meeting. WoW with the GOP's wise reduction of government idea we created more government.

Furthermore on Welfare, the GOP needs to quickly rethink their whole stance on it because one day all the white hicks on welfare are going to realize that their precious money is going to get taken away from them. And since southern white people make up the vast majority of welfare recipients that sounds like Grass Roots problems for the GOP.

[Nija]

Originally posted by Wizard

Furthermore on Welfare,

yeah, everyone on WELFARE NOW !!!!
w00t!!!
:naughty:

[Wizard]

Originally posted by Nija


yeah, everyone on WELFARE NOW !!!!
w00t!!!
:naughty:


Hahhahaha who in the world brought up that controversial topic :shifty: :hihi:

[sbp]

Originally posted by Wizard


Ok this whole republican's want small government BS that they constantly tlak about. I have yet to see any results from that?

Let's look at the facts, while Billy C. was president there was a federal surplus, signifying a reduction in federal spending. Hmm if they are spending little money that means there is less government going on. Oooh whoops whatta know Georgie B. gets into office and pumps spending into all sorts of things right away, wipes away surplus in a matter of weeks and we are back to our pork government we had before.

While visiting Washington DC I sat down with some members of the GOP at the GOP head quarters in DC. Great board room they had, and of course they proceeded to start telling us about how they were going to push for smaller government, and one of the ways was to give control of school money back to the states. The idea is to kill the federal wing of the government that decides these things. So I asked, "How are underfunded states (a lot of the southern states) ever going to get enough money for their schools if there is no one there helping to distribute the money?" He then explains that there will be a "comittee that will work on that" ok fine, but how is the comittee going to enforce its acts "ok well there'll be a subcomittee to make sure everything goes well". Hmm things are looking worse now. So I asked who's going to watch over the comittee to ensure that the comittee is being just in how it spreads money, whelps what do you know "a comittee to oversee the comittee will be created" Great so now in their bought to reduce government we've gone from a single comittee on education for the senate to having three comittees on education. And if anyone knows anything about government its that these comittees blow past money so fast. They spend money on extravagant places to have their meetings, they spend money fancy food so that the comittee members aren't hungry during the meeting. WoW with the GOP's wise reduction of government idea we created more government.

Furthermore on Welfare, the GOP needs to quickly rethink their whole stance on it because one day all the white hicks on welfare are going to realize that their precious money is going to get taken away from them. And since southern white people make up the vast majority of welfare recipients that sounds like Grass Roots problems for the GOP. Actually results were seen when the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 after decades of the Democrats ruling. It was the Republicans who were in favor of a balanced budget as part of the Contract With America (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html). Bill Clinton on the other hand thought it couldn't be done. The Republicans also cut some spending and governmental programs much to the Democrats chagrin. :heh: Its funny how the budget began running surpluses after the Republicans took control of Congress.

Unfortunately over time the fire has diminished and the Republicans have become gluttons for pork barrel spending. In many ways they are not much different from the Democrats now. :disa:

Now you know how DC works. Why have one committee when three can created to waste more money and paste the buck along? This has been the way DC has being operating for decades and the taxpayers are footing the bills. Feels good don't it? :o

JFYI the economy started going into the toilet at the end of Clintons term and became a recession in March of 2001. So the blame for the crap economy can't be pinned on Bush as much as some would love to. Having a weak economy means less money is coming in. Fortunately the economy is beginning to pick up.

As for the increase in spending some of it had to be done. Like rebuilding the military which was underfunded during the Clinton years and there's no way you can forget about national security (War on terrorism anyone?).

White hicks don't even come close to being the vast majority of welfare recipients.

[jase71]

Media bias (left or right) is gradually becoming a thing of the past.

The real bias now is corporate bias. Don't piss off the sponsors. Don't piss off your owners. Anyone's fair game to be taken down as long as it sells advertising and keeps viewers watching.

CBS is owned by Westinghouse. NBC is owned by G.E. ABC is owned by Disney. CNN is owned by TimeWarner.

The media is allowed to play at being politically biased, but it all gets filtered through the corporate screening process. They can pretend to be liberal or conservative, as long as they don't cross the pre-set boundary of profitability. A story is more likely to be killed because it upsets the owners than because it's politically biased.

Dollars matter far more to today's media than politcal ideologies.

[Ladogaboy]

Well, conservative or liberal aside, first look at which companies own, and ergo control, the the different broadcasting companies. Then try and find any disparaging stories on any of them.

Politically, I have to consider myself a moderately conservative liberal, because I agree with some of what each side has to say but never with everything.