bonojr said:

I direct you once more to dailyhowler.com for a fairly detailed analysis of why Ann Coultier's book is possibly the most factually inaccurate book EVER published. by anyone. in history. it's a joke.

and the fact that she's on television every day kind of undermines her point about how conservatives are never allowed a point of view in the media...

as for Bernard Goldberg, his book is a cut and paste job from nataionalreview.com.
[This message was edited Mon Sep 2 18:05:12 PDT 2002 by Aaron]

IceNine said:

What he said.

If they start some shit with us, I say let them have it. Until then...


NO.

Aaron said:

Once again, my point is the general media, like Jennings, New York Times, the mainstays who claim an objective viewpoint, have a biased liberal slant, just as the Hollywood elites -- all whose views don't represent most of America, percisely why successful shows like Fox and Limbaugh testify to the number of conservatives out there. The same with the success of conservative books. And yes, there are slants in certain conservative news coverage like on Newsmax.com, but for the most part, the press follows a liberal agenda.

bonojr said:

I don't buy this idea that "the media" is inherently liberal and is currently running amok over the airwaves perpetuating it's agenda. This is bullshit of the highest order - born out of a conservative ideology seeking compassion that has managed to somehow cast itself as the victim in an ongoing "cultural war" that they're generally too uptight to deal with on any level other than fear and hatred.

It's really a beautiful and brilliant accomplishment: the evolution, born out of martyrdom, of the "Conservative Rebel"; the "Last of a Dying Breed", fighting the good fight and speaking for the voiceless in our society, but when you really look at it, it doesn't hold water. Everyhwere I turn, the loudest voices hear are right wing. Flick on an AM radio station or FOX news if you don't believe me. Whiners like Rush Limbaugh, Phil Savage, Sean Hannity, Oliver North, Bill O'Reilly, Ted Freeking Nugent and G. Gordon Liddy DOMINATE the airwaves, citing all of the examples they can dig up about the "evil, anit-American liberal social agenda" and its domination of the communication channels that they themselves rule.

Now WHERE exactly is this liberal bias, and what precisely is their "agenda"? They're painted as bunch of whining. finger pointing, baby-killing, tree-hugging, opprotunistic pussies, but the voices I hear doing most of the bitching belong to the mouths on the other side.

your turn.

bonojr said:

NY Times, eh? Case in point. Coultier blasted them for being liberal because they didn't carry a front page story about Dale Earnhart dying when he did. Yet, they did. Factually inaccurate on her part. Better yet, the NY Times gave her a rave review. That's some liberal media...

Aaron said:

No shit, Aaron. Geez, everywhere I turn ther's a neverending stream of rediculous left wing bullshit that defies logic, decency, morality and common sense. I can't escape it! My God, these leftists are just taking over!

Aaron said:

Guess what Err-on? I'm not Coultier, and one instance of inaccuracy supports no argument that the NY Times isn't. Watch the magic in the next few paragraphs.

bonojr said:

That's only one instance. As I said before, go to www.dailyhowler.com for an in-depth analysis of exactly how inaccurate her book is. But even if what she said about the NY Times was true, do you really think it's a logical step to label them a raging liberal rag because a NASCAR driver didn't make the front page when he got in a wreck?

I mean, that's her evidence??? And inaccurate at that.

[/quote]

I don't buy this idea that "the media" is inherently liberal and is currently running amok over the airwaves perpetuating it's agenda. This is bullshit of the highest order - born out of a conservative ideology seeking compassion that has managed to somehow cast itself as the victim in an ongoing "cultural war" that they're generally too uptight to deal with on any level other than fear and hatred.

It's really a beautiful and brilliant accomplishment: the evolution, born out of martyrdom, of the "Conservative Rebel"; the "Last of a Dying Breed", fighting the good fight and speaking for the voiceless in our society, but when you really look at it, it doesn't hold water. Everyhwere I turn, the loudest voices hear are right wing. Flick on an AM radio station or FOX news if you don't believe me. Whiners like Rush Limbaugh, Phil Savage, Sean Hannity, Oliver North, Bill O'Reilly, Ted Freeking Nugent and G. Gordon Liddy DOMINATE the airwaves, citing all of the examples they can dig up about the "evil, anit-American liberal social agenda" and its domination of the communication channels that they themselves rule.

Now WHERE exactly is this liberal bias, and what precisely is their "agenda"? They're painted as bunch of whining. finger pointing, baby-killing, tree-hugging, opprotunistic pussies, but the voices I hear doing most of the bitching belong to the mouths on the other side.

your turn.[/quote]

Where is where I told ya Herby. Thank God though we've got some heartland noise on the radiowaves! In general the media is liberal, many unwittingly since they tend to copy each other. Ever notice that? Ever been to a newsroom? It's a bit daunting to write a news story, and it's only natural to see what everyone else is writing about it. Another reason is the fact that Jennings, Rather, many Producers for these media outlets are Democrats, and are in pro-left circles. Hey, that's their right. But when it bends over for the liberal agenda, that's a problem. Let's examine some things...


Forgive me, I forget the kid's name, he was a homosexual young man in Wyoming who was tied to a fence and left to die. He was tortured as well, an innocent killed by two punks from a bar. One picked him up under the guise of a homosexual and they killed him. Remember all the news on that? The outrage? They even made a TV movie. It was a crime beyond the norm and clearly deserved such coverage.

Now, fast forward. A few years later, two homosexual men sodomized and tortured and young boy in Missouri. Did you remember this? Funny, run a Lexis/Nexis search and you'll find far fewer articles about this occurrence...Hmmm. But it was the same outrageous crime, with a unique slant just as the other -- truly newsworthy as the other wasn't it?

Another on the homosexual subj: remember in the early 90's the mass hysteria over AIDS? It was big news, the next health risk to millions, infecting anyone of any sexual orientation or walk of life in it's path. Now, this is a terrible disease for sure, and one day, hopefully there will be cure. Why don't we hear about AIDs so much now? Why isn't there such a clamor in the media over this dreadful disease? The fact is AIDS has been and is predominately destroying the gay population, male homosexuals. Again, not hetro, not drug-users. The shouts that this disease was equally effecting everyone weren't true, but the facts didn't seem to matter there did they?

The guy in Caly who recently brought his suit to ban the Pledge since he claimed it violated his daughter's rights...remember mister atheist? Remember the huge news coverage concerning how it would subject his daughter to say under God. Well, a few weeks later his divorced wife claimed she was a Christian and so is her daughter...and the daughter had no problem saying the pledge. Gosh, not much press on that was there?

From Oliver Stone to the media, we constantly hear of the 80's as the decade of greed, that the rich got richer, poor got poorer. Really? The fact is during the 80's we experienced the longest period of peacetime economic growth in history. All sectors got richer, with the rich paying more taxes. The median income of families, before taxes, went up 12.5 percent. The 1980's was also a huge decade of charitable giving. Check the U.S. Census Bureau.

These are just some of the (social) issues the media has liberally and wrongfully diluded. Happen to see the inkling of an agenda now? Happen to see the inkling of a slant in reporting?

bonojr said:

Yes, it all sounds nice on paper. And then people remember what it was really like living it day-to-day.

Dammit I forgot how much fun this forum was!

And herbthe4 is my new hero! For today...

First of all, it's "Herbie", and you can only call me that when I'm with my Dad in order to differentiate us.

Your use of the word "noise" is appropriate to describe the voices I sited in my example. It's all the same show, really, following Rush's example of the "Conservative Rebel", and generally voicing the same opinions and complaints about how conservative Americans have no voice. They beat up the "liberal" media as if they themselves are not a part of it! What is talk radio than? Seems like "media" to me. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity...that IS the media, right?




The fact that you can site a few examples of so-called biased reporting proves little. I can make an equally long list of news stories similarly slanted (or silenced) from the other end that I could label biased along the same lines. if you really require them, I'll dig them up, but it's not really my point. The right tends to spend far more time and invest far more energy in these types of things in they're neverending attempt to be right about everything, cling to the opinions they've already formed (after all, they're INSTITUTIONS) and attack their enemy rather than state their case (a LOT of that going on these days...).

I think you're confusing cause and effect to some degree. The fact that the news appears liberally slanted to you is a direct reflection of the "liberal" agenda that, at the very least, SEEKS to be fair and open minded. Therein lies the difference and the end result in what you read. The fact that you list homosexuals and aethiests in your examples (surprised you didn't cite affirmative action hiring practices) is a good illustration of this: At least "the left" attempts to, on a certain level, acknowledge the EXISTENCE and legitamacy of aethiests, gays, blacks, arabs, peaceniks, hispanics, poor people, working women and the like. If the right had their way, and without this so-called bias, these citizens might as well be invisible.

It has been liberal thinkers, throughout history, who have brought about genuine change in any society. Conservatives like to cite The Founding Fathers as the exemplary standard and the finest examples of Conservative thought. Bullshit. Those men were radical revolutionary thinkers of the highest order, raising hell against a system of taxation and religous intolerance, Standing Up to The Man and his traditions, dumping tea in the Boston Harbour and generally demanding change by any means necassary. These days, your "liberal" media would paint them as a bunch of Anti-American, unpatriotic, worthless troublemakers - but I'm getting off topic.

Let's face it, "the media" in this country exists mainly to sell papers and boost ratings. They'll report what we buy and watch, and they're all owned almost exlusively by mega corporations and white multi billionaires who want more money. Now how liberal is that? [/quote]




Well, I hear this a lot from those who yearn for the heroic days of Ronald Reagan and his mighty revolution of prosperity, but anyone who really looks at it knows that this is bullshit. What you really need to look at is the size of THE GAP between the richest and the poorest to really analyze this 'growth". If I increse my "wealth" at 20k a year by 5% and the my boss increased his by the same percentage at 100,000k a year (which isn't what happened, but I'll use it anyhow), I now make $21,000/year and he makes 105,000, a difference of $84,000, up from 80,000. In other words, I LOSE GROUND, and it's been undercalculate here for simplicity's sake.

The other thing worth mentioning in your analyisis (the part about all those taxes those poor millionaires paid) is that these figures do not calculate payroll taxes - you know, the part of your check you never see . Read Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Idiot (and Other Oservations)" where this is broken down. For that matter, as long as I'm talking about books and to bring me back ontrack again, check the bestseller list and see how many "liberally" slanted books dominate the sales. Non fiction publication is "the media" too, right?[/quote]



No, I don't see an agenda other than to sell papers and get us to watch the news or listen to the radio. If it was as prolific and prevelant as you and most conservatives seem to think, I don't think I would feel like such a quiet outsider and a minority opinion all of the time. I'll acknowledge an "inkling" of a slant, born as I've said out of at least the hint of an effort to be fair and unbiased - a fundamental part of journalism and news in general. In general, you should be grateful if in fact this bias does exist for being the voice of the voiceless, the one that questions information, challenges thought and brings about change and new ideas. If it went the other way, your headlines might read "Fags Burn in Hell; AIDS is God's Punishment" or "How Can We Stop These Thieving Niggers"...

lib-er-al: 1. generous 2. tolerant; broad minded 3. favoring reform or progress

con-ser-va-tive: 1. tending to preserve established institutions, thought, ideas, etc. 2. opposed to change

Now which definition do you think best embodies the spirit of journalism and American Independence, and which way would you rather have your news served up?

Sorry I ran so damned long...

herbthe4 said:

Well, I hear this a lot from those who yearn for the heroic days of Ronald Reagan and his mighty revolution of prosperity, but anyone who really looks at it knows that this is bullshit. What you really need to look at is the size of THE GAP between the richest and the poorest to really analyze this 'growth". If I increse my "wealth" at 20k a year by 5% and the my boss increased his by the same percentage at 100,000k a year (which isn't what happened, but I'll use it anyhow), I now make $21,000/year and he makes 105,000, a difference of $84,000, up from 80,000. In other words, I LOSE GROUND, and it's been undercalculate here for simplicity's sake.

The other thing worth mentioning in your analyisis (the part about all those taxes those poor millionaires paid) is that these figures do not calculate payroll taxes - you know, the part of your check you never see . Read Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Idiot (and Other Oservations)" where this is broken down. For that matter, as long as I'm talking about books and to bring me back ontrack again, check the bestseller list and see how many "liberally" slanted books dominate the sales. Non fiction publication is "the media" too, right?[/quote]



No, I don't see an agenda other than to sell papers and get us to watch the news or listen to the radio. If it was as prolific and prevelant as you and most conservatives seem to think, I don't think I would feel like such a quiet outsider and a minority opinion all of the time. I'll acknowledge an "inkling" of a slant, born as I've said out of at least the hint of an effort to be fair and unbiased - a fundamental part of journalism and news in general. In general, you should be grateful if in fact this bias does exist for being the voice of the voiceless, the one that questions information, challenges thought and brings about change and new ideas. If it went the other way, your headlines might read "Fags Burn in Hell; AIDS is God's Punishment" or "How Can We Stop These Thieving Niggers"...

lib-er-al: 1. generous 2. tolerant; broad minded 3. favoring reform or progress

con-ser-va-tive: 1. tending to preserve established institutions, thought, ideas, etc. 2. opposed to change

Now which definition do you think best embodies the spirit of journalism and American Independence, and which way would you rather have your news served up?

Sorry I ran so damned long...[/quote]


Interesting points but I don't believe you understood and answered what I was getting at with the examples: Let me put another forth...what's more politically correct in a late nite talk show for example...the host bringing out a t-shirt poking fun at Jesus or Mohammed? Which one would be viewed as INTOLERANT in our society today? Which would the producers of the show put on? This is just another social issue. In regards to politics again, there is tons more, where the press simply falls short on reporting the whole truth.

In regards to nonfiction book sales, conservatism rules, the public demand says it all. The Hollywood Elites and the mainstream NEWSREPORTING media don't adhere to the same principles.

Your false stereotypical comments with conservatives in regards to narrowmindedness, race, sex, etc. are ridiculous and bear no further comment.

Funny, I agree with what the founding fathers were, and I'd call that conservativism, individualism of the highest order, entrepreneurship, etc.

Painting them all as the rich is funny, considering the top 7 or 8 biggest money earners in Congress are Democrats. But what do I care? Envy of the rich is human nature. The liberal left exploits it, igniting class warfare. Likewise, the myth the liberals are for "the working man and poor" is another ruse to create dependancy on government and their social utiopian programs that simply don't work: outcome-based Education, state health-care/medicare, welfare,etc. all the programs. And yes, of course, I believe some Dems are honest people not really aware of this, with compassion, and likewise there are Republicans who promote the same thing, coming to the center to acquiese. I'm not advocating the whole Republican Party. Furthest to the left is communism, furthest to the right, tolitarianism. I'm in favor of conservatism, a constitutionalist really. "Progress", changing the constitution, isn't the goal.

Conservatism is promoting the individual rather than big government. It champions freedom, equality. Are we to punish achievement and success? That's the liberal mindset, and its socialist adherers in Europe. People are kept down and the elites, the aristocracy, does whatever the hell it wants to. When I lived in France that's one of the biggest complaints I heard from a native, arabic as well (oh my can you imagine! Oui c'est vrai.) It's the reason he wanted to move to the U.S. The Royalty taxes in Britain, the artists fleeing to France to live (EXILE ON MAIN STREET, remember?) is just one teeny example of this with the music.

Freedom and equality has been distorted in the post-modern liberal mindset since the 60's. It has now become equality of outcomes, rather than opportunity, which I discussed above. Likewise, freedom has been distorted and pulled beyond what it was intended to be, that is within a framework held in check by the values of society. It's been radicalized to selfish ends...how long before kiddie porn is legal for example? The court abortion decision, etc. This argument flies in the face of many here and even Prince's past. I'm not advocating complete censorship. Again, I don't believe the government should play too much a role, since it is society which is the ultimate value meter. Oh hell, wasn't this about the media? Well, just some more analysis on party differences.

Bonojr, do you think that the State has a role in protecting individuals from being exploited by other individuals and corporations?

Certainly, this country's history is filled with examples where the State had to intervene in order to protect not only individuals but also corporations. How does that fit with your version of conservativism? And what should the limits be in the State's involvement in such interventions?

this one's still going? DAMN!

I cant believe that I wasted 15 minutes of my time reading this garbage. I did come to one sobering concluision which is: there are some really ignorant freaking people on the org. Too many people thinking with their mouths and not their minds. But then I suppose that its just peachy that Iraq is developing nukes, banned biowarfare weapons, and chemical weapons. Don`t worry people just bury your heads in the sands and danger will never find you. It would make me happier than could be if just one person did a little research on the issue. IS THAT TOO FREAKIN MUCH TO ASK FOR!!! I cannot get over how narrow some people are when you look at the big picture.


Besides Iraq is a small problem that a few well placed Trident D-5 MIRV`s couldn`t handle. I mean an OHIO class SSBN costs somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.3 billion USD. I say we test one of those puppies out to see if they really work.

NuPwrSoul said:

Hey NuPwrSoul, those are tough questions indeed, which have crossed my mind. It's like, how much of a certain percentage of government involvement is jussst right? Give me some examples of individuals being exploited.

I don't agree with the government bailing out all these airlines is one thing. Why do some companies and employees lose their jobs and others get preferential treatment, like the airlines? I mean that's the game, baby. Tough crackers but sometimes things don't work out and you struggle to move on. Smaller businesses have to. I don't buy all these businesses falling apart just over 9-11 either. What the hell were they doing with the money?

Corporate power/control greed mongers like at Enron, Adelphia, etc should be held to account; the SEC is a necessity. But I don't think the government should be handing over money to those who have lost their jobs. Individuals could sue, but that probably won't be effective all the time. I believe one of them is being forced to payback to employees (worldcom??) which is good.

You know this may sound callous, but I don't even believe the government should give any money to 9-11 victims. That should be done (and rightfully is) with charity. Just make sure the charity is not keeping a bunch of the cash, or "holding" it for future use. Now, here I would argue for some government oversite on the charity; you here about the scandals with the United Way, and the problems with the Red Cross. Heck maybe they cleaned up their act supposedly -- I don't know. I've learned to distrust third parties, and would rather hand over money/gift to a person myself.

Prince makes a good point on the NPG site, with his Frontline expose/ of the monopoly of power dominated by certain media organizations (NATION OF THIEVES? title). This is the toughest question I struggle with. The thing is, there's always going to be the rich, the powerful, the successful in a free capitalist society. Yeah, you have corruption and all that, but you can't blanket everybody as bad. Should we punish successful business? Should we push certain individuals down just cause they're doing tooo good? I wouldn't call that in line with the American Dream. I'd rather have it be private citizens than a government (that controls the law, military) over my shoulder. That said, I do have problems with huge corporations lobbying and creating laws that affect other competition negatively, but I don't profess to know much about this. I hope that gives some inclination of what I believe.

Some more on corporate America...u know corporate america is a joke from my experience and friends as well -- society is changing. The older generation doesn't have a clue with this job market. Now we have all these local retail offering only part-time less hours, no great pay raises, materials made usually overseas -- ohh and guess what? You have to be perfect! It's not right for ex-cons, those charged with past crimes to be booted from their jobs after the employer finds out in background checks. I'm talking about entry-level lower paying jobs (and to some extent others depending). This is B.S!!! Doesn't someone deserve a second chance? Haven't they served their dues to society? What we have is employer demands rising and your benefits dropping.

Nowhere is this most apparent, however than Corporate America. CEO's ripping people off isn't even a quarter of what goes on in this environment...there are books that need to be written on this. Tell you what, some of these offices, they'll hate you no matter what. They'll hate you cause your black, white, fat, ugly, non-smoking, Christian, it doesn't matter. YOu can be the best employee, but if they don't like you, you don't play by their rules, adios.

To some extent I'd even call the Educational System a lie. What did the teachers always say in school? "Oh, you don't want to be a janitor do you?" "Oh, you don't want to be a garbage man do you? That's why you get educated." Then you go thru freaking college, grab a bachelor's in liberal arts and find out you can make more money doing those things and have peace of mind then bust your ass in corporate america with excessive stress/work/rules/regulations, no time for your loved ones, family, God, etc. Some have found great employement -- Hey if it works for you, fine, consider yourself blessed.

But I can't deal with it, I'll take peace of mind doing manual labor than some corporate prison. I'll take freedom anyday pursuing my dreams than have them sucked dry in a workplace that wants you soul.

Sorry, had to vent some steam.

Now where were those pipe-bombs I was working on...

Umm, I'm not sure how to respond if at all to all that you wrote. Throughout your post you bring up enough reasons to support and oppose government involvement.

To answer your question re: individuals in need of government protection... the easiest example for me is the civil rights movement.

Without the federal government's intervension it would have not happened. Those children had to be accompanied into those schools by the National Guardsmen--many of whom opposed desegregation themselves but had to fulfill their duty.

The "massive resistance" campaign against desegregation cloaked itself in the rhetoric of "states rights" and opposing "big government." So whenever I hear folks complaining about "big government" I say whoa, wait a minute, it was that BIG government that made it possible for many of our rights to be protected.

Unfortunately left up to their devices, many individuals in power and corporations are not willing to act justly by people. For that reason I see the need for government involvement and regulation to ensure that the rights of women, minorities, the poor, the environment, etc. are protected.

What I meant was that despite the fact that you can locate and list some extreme examples of "left wing" reporting to back your claim(s) that the American media is an outlet of left wing propeganda bent on promoting a socialist agenda proves little other than the existence of extremists. I see your point with the Jesus/Mohammed thing, but I've seen SNL alone run parodies of both, so I'm not sure it holds up to well.

You present your points well, although much of it rings like all of the same stuff I always hear on the radio. Often, it seems that there's a book or a newsletter that teaches conservatives how to respond to curious liberals.



"the news" is not the only source of information in our society. Maybe the fact that the "public demand says it all" is a direct testimony to the perceived difference in fairness in reporting. If the Average citizen is a conservative and leans right, then I think their natural tendency would be to view balanced reporting as left leaning. It's a matter of perspective.



It's nearly impossible for me to speak about entire groups of people without generalizing and sterotyping to some degree. Similar to your statements about "The Hollywood Elite" and the "American Media". We can't discuss things like this qithout generalization.




I wouldn't. If that type of "anti- american" revolutionary protest occured today (and sometimes it does), those folks and their actions would not be reported in a positive light. The protestors at the the New World Conference in Seattle were made out as a bunch of violent, looting troublemakers for instance. How biased was that?



Again I'm generalizing, and somehow this conversation has turned into a political debate instead of one about media bias (or for that matter "The War On Iraq - the title of the damned thread...); but from my perspective, the right has a propensity for confusing "freedom" with allowing people to do whatever they want, as long as they're rich, to the overall detriment of society as a whole. The reassigning of wealth is, to a some degee, a good thing. The culture of greed, competition, ownership and individualism, combined with an ever growing and alarming desparity between the wealthy and and the non-wealthy, is historically a dangerous precedent, a bad foundation and a process that has only ever produced bad consequences. Usually, a cicil war erupts. Although the programs you described do get exploited, I'm grateful for the ideas that put them in place and for the measure of good they have provided to the voiceless and the powerless.

Sometimes it seems that the wealthy would have you believe they're envious of the poor, instead of the other way around. To sit in your mansion and your five car garage and try to sell to the average citizen making $30,000 a year that their job must be eliminated because "the poor people" took all of your money is absurd, yet they'd have you beleive it. Yeah, that's what happened, THE POOR took all of the money!



Some punishment. I don't see too many CEO's going on food stamps because they're being forced to give back a little (or a lot) more to the system that gave them so much. Punishment is losing your $8.00 job because paper or fuel costs went up, or missing 2 days pay home sick with the flu because your company can't "afford" sick pay. So maybe you have to move to a 20 room mansion and sell the Benz. Wahhh. Somebody's got to work in those factories, build those mansions and fix those cars.



Here are a few byproducts of the "liberal mindset". these were all "radical" ideas and considered dangerous and threatening to the conservative insitutional ideology:

- Abolition of slavery as a viable option for human existence and cheap labor, truly owning up to our declaration of "all men are created equal", leading to:

- the integration of schools, voting, public transportation and restaraunts.

- The recognition that women are equal to men, entitled to the right to vote, and to earn equal money for equal work (something we STILL haven't managed, despite this massive proliferation of "liberal" influence.)

- Establishment of a freedom from a National religion, something that very few countries have managed to do, despite Pat Robertson's and the Christian Coalition's best efforts. All of the founding fathers WERE NOT Christian!

- offered alternatives to the unadulterated rape of our (and other nation's) natural resources for fuel and energy, establishing SOME measure of restriction on a group of merciless assholes so blinded by greed that they would gladly dump a hundred gallons of oil on their neighbor's lawn if they thought they could make a $100,000 doing it.

- Helped to ensure, to some degree, that criminal charges must be irrevocably PROVEN, beyond a reasonable doubt in order to imprison you for a crime you are accused of. Until those liberal loonies got a voice, being black or poor was enough all by itself to be guilty - often it still is.

- Helped to maintain a livable minimum wage that ensures a small measure of competitive social existence in a society that keeps score with dollar signs and material possessions.

- Made corporations ACCOUNTABLE for the treatment of their employees and for the repercussions of their insatiable greed and dishonesty. Allowed for SAFE working conditions and non-discriminatory hiring practices.

- provided a safety net for underprivileged, less fortunate and less lucky individuals who have managed to slip through the cracks of the progress machine. The fact that some of them have fucked up or made mistakes in life is not the point. We can't just have them ALL wind up in prison, and it's sinful (socialist agenda aside) to think that their's enough money to go around to at least FEED everyone. But then, we have 55" TV's to buy and golf courses to build.

- Provided standards for nutrition, ingredient content and the safe handling of the food we eat and the prescription drugs that are made legally available to us.

- offered some small measure of affordable healthcare for our citizens. How unfair.

- Introduced a social security incentive to ensure a minimum allowance for those who are too old to work any longer, or who have long since paid their dues to our capitalist system, to guarantee that they have at least SOME money to help them die with a measure of dignity - and that privatized corporate, competitive access to this money is denied, thus preventing greedy millionaires form stealing it by "investing" it.

- Recognized that many Americans are Asian, Black, Hispanic, Gay, Atheist, handicapped, female, Jewish, Arabic, divorced, or, in other words, not white and Christian; and that many of these people vote also. This one is my favorite.

- Introduced environmental standards, global respect, and the protection of species that would have long since been eradicated. Not to mention a few oceans, lakes, ponds and forests, in spite of the left wing media's gradual and effecient portrayal of those who champion these things as "tree huggers", "whackos" and freaks amidst corporation's whining about their right to pollute, all the money it costs them and the "myth" of global warming.

- Invented efficient and affordable alternatives to the status quo of energy sources, the continuing use of which benefits a very few select and highly influential group (mostly conservative/status quo types) of people who NEVER want this to happen. The ones that USUALLY elect Republicans.

- Helped to free innocently charged (usually poor, almost always non-white) American citizens from the irreversible and final implementation of Capital punishment.

- Attempted to provide affordable and accessible means of education that are not available exclusively to the few individuals who have the financial means and social connections to pursue them.

- Attempted to make a firearm at least as hard to obtain as driver's license. Now THAT"S out there!

- defended the right of "controversial" forms of literature, film and music to be legally sold and bought by choice, regardless of how "offensive" some may fond it to be (they're slipping on this last one).

Nice agenda.



Now where did THAT come from?? What?



Yeah, the world needs tons more unwanted babies with unfit parents, combined with the elimination of all those wealthy social programs. That would REALLY help!



Nobody does, just the things THEY don't like. Now HERE is where the left is really fucking up, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Over the last ten or 15 years, it seems like the left wants to do all of the censoring. Too bad, really, and very misguided and hypocritical.



you would think so, but it never is. Despite all of this perceived bias, and the wholesale looting of millionaires pockets to redistribute wealth, somehow all of those poor opressed members of the top 5% income bracket (you know, the ones with 95% of all the money; now how do they manage that in spite of all these liberal programs and heavy taxation? They must just be smarter than everyone else and shouldn't be "punished" for it) manage to control nearly everything, from the people we "elect", to the information we receive.

No bias.

And thanks, NPS, for offering up stuff I didn't think of or couldn't express as clearly.

herbthe4 said:

Ooooh great list. Okay if I run for office, you are most certainly working on my campaign

herbthe4 said:

Ever thought of writing a book? Though I can't reply to all, interesting points. Yes, liberal extremism and yes, one's viewpoint can effect his/her perception but the bottom line is what's the truth? This is a hard thing to find. There's omissions, deceptions, half-truths, little lies, etc. Often it isn't what the press reports, it's what it doesn't. When Pres. Clinton is highlighted in the press as saying "We should go after Bin Laden, not Saddam, he didn't kill those people." Fine, okay, he's critizing (Likewise your perception that conservatives want to silence everybody, is not the effort.) Why isn't he being called out for the fact that he was offered Bin Laden and refused him on "legal grounds" in the past? Wouldn't it be fair and balanced reporting?

Yes, stereotype comments abound but you seem quite convinced that I'm asking my black bestfriend to attend poetry readings with the Grand Dragon out in yonder barn; likewise my former workmate's a bit of a dandy but I'm not dowsing him in lamp-oil and grilling out with his remains. I respect everyone but I won't advocate immoral lifestyles, which is exactly what they are, I'd also agree in perserving the sanctity of marriage, and that also stands against Burt and his 10 concubines and Chester with his pet gerbel Scratchy.

Of course the word 'immoral' has no doubt caused quite a stir, I know. This basically comes down to right, wrong, truth, which is relative in your view, obvious in the comment about censorship, which is viewed as banning things which THEY (certain people's opinions) don't like. Right and wrong isn't relative and not opinion. It's about a moral framework, the rule of law, all which derived from the founders and the good ole ten commandments much to the chagrin of many. And no, I'd never advocate a national religion, which is unconstitutional. My point about kiddie porn is more an extreme version, here's more main, funny that Larry Flynt is made out to be a champion of free speech, a liberal icon is more my point. Decency and common sense is pretty clear. Fear of communist manifestos and the like being banned is more fear tactics.

I take it you're not rich. Well, either am I (actually was unemployed for quite sometime, my area was pretty bad hit with highest unemployement in state). Again, I don't agree individuals should be punished for achievement. I'm not saying right now it's having a devastating impact, I'm talking about if the left social plans come to fruition the effect will be far greater. Again, rich folks tend to be haughty and jerks, from my meetings, but hey, maybe you or I will get rich one day.

I think you're giving to much credit to liberal thought in regards to the historic notes, which I'd have to go over, but time's short sorry.

And did you happen to watch In Search of America with Peter Jennings? Interesting shows, the last segment was on Gary, IN a few miles away from me. It highlighted some of things I was mentioning, the fact that $300 million dollars from the Feds was put into the city to revitalize it yet it did nothing. Businesses moved out cause of crime, and with it poverty blossomed. Today there are third world countries in better shape if you visit. So much for helping the poor. Another example of years and years of government dependance. People have to help themselves. Tough love. Speaking of which, now for another round at the warehouse...keep it real.

I'm writing one now, in addition to the one I just wrote above... [/quote]



Your guess is as good as mine. the only REAL truth for me is what I see with my own eyes. The rest is second hand perception.




This was reported fairly extensively. I even posted it myself complete with a link to the story. I guess people in general aren't interested in trying to blame Bill for what happened. Yesterday's news as it were. This is now, and people got a little tired of the overaggressive Clinton bashing by the liberal media after 8 years. Honestly, for such a supposedly biased media, I've NEVER seen a President put up with so much shit and still come out smelling like a rose.



That's a bit of a stretch. I don't recall saying anything like that.



Advocacy and tolerance are two different things.



Often they are.



If his persecutors and high horse hypocritical zealots had just ignored his magazine and not helped sell more of them with all the free publicity (let alone shoot him) he never would've received this status. Also, it was Larry who exposed the hypocricy and extra-marrital affairs of many folks who were calling for Clinton's resignation on "moral" grounds. I'm glad he's around, but is pretty unfortunate that such a scumbag is the poster child for free speech - him and 2 Live Crew for Christ's sake - but the right creatd these monsters by crusading against them and turning them into martyrs.



Neither do I.



Perhaps, but it's not my intention to credit these accomplishments to "liberals" as much as it is to point out how liberal and radical IN THOUGHT they were perceived to be at the time. you mentioned how clear cut right and wrong are earlier, and here are perfect examples of why that's not always so and how dangerous this thinking is. At one point not too long ago, the idea of a woman voting or a black man having a job was considered "wrong".

Oh yeah, by the way, "no" to a war with Iraq.

herbthe4 said:

Your guess is as good as mine. the only REAL truth for me is what I see with my own eyes. The rest is second hand perception.




This was reported fairly extensively. I even posted it myself complete with a link to the story. I guess people in general aren't interested in trying to blame Bill for what happened. Yesterday's news as it were. This is now, and people got a little tired of the overaggressive Clinton bashing by the liberal media after 8 years. Honestly, for such a supposedly biased media, I've NEVER seen a President put up with so much shit and still come out smelling like a rose.



That's a bit of a stretch. I don't recall saying anything like that.



Advocacy and tolerance are two different things.



Often they are.



If his persecutors and high horse hypocritical zealots had just ignored his magazine and not helped sell more of them with all the free publicity (let alone shoot him) he never would've received this status. Also, it was Larry who exposed the hypocricy and extra-marrital affairs of many folks who were calling for Clinton's resignation on "moral" grounds. I'm glad he's around, but is pretty unfortunate that such a scumbag is the poster child for free speech - him and 2 Live Crew for Christ's sake - but the right creatd these monsters by crusading against them and turning them into martyrs.



Neither do I.



Perhaps, but it's not my intention to credit these accomplishments to "liberals" as much as it is to point out how liberal and radical IN THOUGHT they were perceived to be at the time. you mentioned how clear cut right and wrong are earlier, and here are perfect examples of why that's not always so and how dangerous this thinking is. At one point not too long ago, the idea of a woman voting or a black man having a job was considered "wrong".

Oh yeah, by the way, "no" to a war with Iraq.[/quote]


War with Iraq, Saddam's naughty~!

My comment about writing was you should write a book, you write well and prolific, quite knowledgeable, so why not?

Well, I can agree somewhat in the branding controversy labeled on porn and whatnot has caused it's over-inspection/attention... oversite was neglected in this area in Reno's tenure, so I do believe government should crack down on it. Hey! There's an industry to tax! But, again, I'm not sure I'd agree with that either, since...yes, you guessed, it, success, achievement. Even if it is in the form of a...oh never mind. The argument I was trying to make about freedom was that often kids are told "you can do whatever the hell you want to" throw condoms to them, etc and freedom has come to mean do whatever the hell you want, regardless of the offensiveness, shock-value. Will TV get more extreme? Like I said before, culture should determine the morals, values that govern society. Once that's shot, it will fall apart.

I'm not about to get into Clinton, he's got his own psychiatrist and I need a DSL hookup cause this thread is already a full minute wait...

As far as right/wrong in relation to past precedants' slavery, women's rights, yes that could be defined as "liberal" thought. Radical in the eyes at that time to narrow-minded segrationists, but surely many saw this as wrong. I mean with the constitution and all they got themselves in a quandry didn't they...

[/quote]

The culture of greed, competition, ownership and individualism, combined with an ever growing and alarming desparity between the wealthy and and the non-wealthy, is historically a dangerous precedent, a bad foundation and a process that has only ever produced bad consequences.
[/quote].

Communism, anyone?


The rich are getting richer, the poor getting richer. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer could be stated for Iraq. The argument that there's a big pie and I can't get my piece is false. I'd call it an ocean. There are many entrepreneurs, private business owners, inventors, licensee promoters who got where they are through hard work and a vision. Are the poor just to stupid to be rich? Well, no look at that big blonde's MTV reality show-- dare I mention the name. I'm sure we know someone with more smarts. Attitude sure has alot to do with it.

And yes, it would seem some of those with hoards of cash still want more and more. It's like, $50 million is nothing, I need this and this! And hey, that kid needs a heart transplant, that's not fair! So we want to blame them? Again, life is unfair in some matters; for example, athletes making mucho while teachers, who play a far greater role in society, make far less. Personally if I had enough money I'd be helping people out, the sick. That's where character comes in.

Greed is everywhere; it's human nature, the lust for power is everywhere, it's human nature. It's only in this system that one has a fair shot... I know some can't believe this here...I've seen many threads on this site where I don't believe people are quite happy w/life. But if you've resigned to the fact that there is no way in hell you can be reasonably successful than it's a lost cause. You can go visit most workplaces in America and everyone's complaining about the same thing. Look at him/her they're making blah blah. Why am I making this much, blah blah. Okay, yeah, it sucks, and yeah, company's take advantage, and yeah being rich buys power/control/influence, and, and...

So now what?

What individual plan of action are you going to have to change it? To get a piece of the action? What about dreams,goals?

Envy of higher class is a pretty much natural reaction but in the end it only fosters negativity...
(And I have a feeling with the large influx of kids in college now, this is going to get worse, because they're going to come out and wonder "where's the paradise I was promised" when the market's been saturated with degrees. (think outta the box.)

I'd also agree Prince and his word-games and constant bickering about stratificationunilateralsystemsblahblah isn't helping. Hell, the guy made it, how about some positives once in a while? Okay, radio's a mess it's dominated, it all sucks...guess what? He still get's a song on from the last album! Attitude, me no like.

So in a nutshell, the opportunities and potential are there for success. It's not easy. It's not quick. Personally, I've been through some rough times, 29 years old, unemployed til recently, earning a whopping 6 bucks. But hey, a few weeks ago by the pool in her Spanish home in the hills Britney Spears was reading film scripts, one of which happened to be mine, so things aren't that gloomy. You gotta believe...

Enjoyed the debate herbthe4.

Stay tuned for the next discussion on "The art of basketweaving."

Like Prince said "The War will go on & on & on"

Peace Pious~