EPTI got to 40 before I lost count...
DHS: Recession fueling right-wing extremism - Page 21
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
I got to 40 before I lost count... | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On August 20 2009 05:24 ShaperofDreams wrote: I tried to count how many times Aegrean has mentioned the constitution in this thread alone. I got to 40 before I lost count... I fail to see why that's a problem, given that this is a thread concerning the Department of Homeland Security, a US government office. I actually was just re-reading the Constitution this morning and it continues to be a pretty inspiring document. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 19 2009 19:55 Tyraz wrote: I think you are failing to separate the percentage of coverage with what they are covering. Did you ever think that why the reason The Republican Party gets more criticism is because of the Republicans? There is no doubt the Republican Party has more Gun-nuts and Christian radicals than The Democrat party. I think you'll find that percentage of positive and negative coverage of candidates is relativity even. It is only when some other crazy shit happens that coverage gets skewed. Does your...conjecture....that the GOP has more nuts then the Left (therefore explaining the liberal bias) explain this as well: + Show Spoiler + On December 07 2008 03:04 Savio wrote: Also according to LA Times survey of journalists: * Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal. * 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control. * Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools. Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988), ![[image loading]](http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2D.jpg) And according to the ASNE report of 1996, ![[image loading]](http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2C.jpg) You should read the thread before thinking you came up with some unique and new criticism because chances are (and it was true in this case), someone already tried it and was debunked. EDIT: also assuming that the Right has more nuts than the Left is pretty daring considering that its the left that protests nude (PETA), tries to ram/sabottage fishing boats (we just had a thread on this), throws blood or paint on people's jackets, believes 911 was planned and carried out by Bush, carries sign advocating soldiers killing their own officers (see my earlier post), chains themselves to trees, makes medical students watch gay porn (lol, read the thread on Bible required curriculum), claims SC is sexist (see the thread), etc, etc. Also compare pictures: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/08/Death_Sign2_82322.jpg) This dinky little sign compared to: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://thepeoplescube.com/images/KillBush_Kids_180.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/rallies/Bush_1.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/rallies/Bush_2.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/rallies/Bush_is_the_disease_punks_3531.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/images/kill-bush-posted-on-a-myspace-site.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/vile5.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://maaadddog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/kill_bush_sights.jpg?w=300&h=276) while these signs were largely ignored basically because one was against Bush while the other (God save us!) was against Obama. I mean look at the difference in the signs and the number of people! I can't believe their was an uproar because one old man had a hand written, hardly readable sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs. But the Left likes to try to make the Right look loonie...and they have the tools since as I showed above, they have larger control over media. And BTW, those charts of journalists leanings INCLUDE Foxnews in their analysis. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7303 Posts
Ive never understood why so many conservatives bash the word like its on the same level as a nazi or something. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On August 20 2009 06:26 Savio wrote: Does your...conjecture....that the GOP has more nuts then the Left (therefore explaining the liberal bias) explain this as well: + Show Spoiler + On December 07 2008 03:04 Savio wrote: Also according to LA Times survey of journalists: * Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal. * 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control. * Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools. Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988), And according to the ASNE report of 1996, You should read the thread before thinking you came up with some unique and new criticism because chances are (and it was true in this case), someone already tried it and was debunked. EDIT: also assuming that the Right has more nuts than the Left is pretty daring considering that its the left that protests nude (PETA), tries to ram/sabottage fishing boats (we just had a thread on this), throws blood or paint on people's jackets, believes 911 was planned and carried out by Bush, carries sign advocating soldiers killing their own officers (see my earlier post), chains themselves to trees, makes medical students watch gay porn (lol, read the thread on Bible required curriculum), claims SC is sexist (see the thread), etc, etc. Also compare pictures: + Show Spoiler + This dinky little sign compared to: + Show Spoiler + while these signs were largely ignored basically because one was against Bush while the other (God save us!) was against Obama. I mean look at the difference in the signs and the number of people! I can't believe their was an uproar because one old man had a hand written, hardly readable sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs. But the Left likes to try to make the Right look loonie...and they have the tools since as I showed above, they have larger control over media. And BTW, those charts of journalists leanings INCLUDE Foxnews in their analysis. Wtf? I would never have anything to do with PETA, or Greenpeace. They are activist groups, and generally I (along with quite a lot of people) detest their hypocritical methods. They endanger others to get their point across. If they were 'Democratic' then surely they would understand the importance of Gandhi and peaceful protest. You don't need to look far to see what is more effective: Malcom X or Martin Luther King? Edit: i think this highlights an important distinction. While Republicans rally around all who criticize ONE of their masses, Democrats are quite a bit more hesitant before rising up and defending some radical. For example, those images you put up before, I don't think very many Democrats would support those (only pointing out perhaps that meant he was unpopular.. which he was...). From over here i heard no support for any of those images of Bush you had up. In fact, contrary to what most think, I didn't mind Bush: he had a very 'traditional' view of what Presidency should be. Like all the formal meetings, and formal discussions; I think he took the Job very seriously indeed. The problem is, that i got the impression most of the information he got was rather one sided. Like he got Big Business to tell him how to stimulate the economy by lowering wages and increasing productivity. The rest of the world took little surprise in the fact the average income dropped... but to the advocates of private industry, they just couldn't understand it. | ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
On August 19 2009 20:52 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious. No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good." | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On August 20 2009 08:58 Eniram wrote: No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good." Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'? | ||
|
EndlessRain
140 Posts
On August 20 2009 06:26 Savio wrote: Does your...conjecture....that the GOP has more nuts then the Left (therefore explaining the liberal bias) explain this as well: + Show Spoiler + On December 07 2008 03:04 Savio wrote: Also according to LA Times survey of journalists: * Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal. * 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control. * Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools. Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988), And according to the ASNE report of 1996, You should read the thread before thinking you came up with some unique and new criticism because chances are (and it was true in this case), someone already tried it and was debunked. EDIT: also assuming that the Right has more nuts than the Left is pretty daring considering that its the left that protests nude (PETA), tries to ram/sabottage fishing boats (we just had a thread on this), throws blood or paint on people's jackets, believes 911 was planned and carried out by Bush, carries sign advocating soldiers killing their own officers (see my earlier post), chains themselves to trees, makes medical students watch gay porn (lol, read the thread on Bible required curriculum), claims SC is sexist (see the thread), etc, etc. Also compare pictures: + Show Spoiler + This dinky little sign compared to: + Show Spoiler + while these signs were largely ignored basically because one was against Bush while the other (God save us!) was against Obama. I mean look at the difference in the signs and the number of people! I can't believe their was an uproar because one old man had a hand written, hardly readable sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs. But the Left likes to try to make the Right look loonie...and they have the tools since as I showed above, they have larger control over media. And BTW, those charts of journalists leanings INCLUDE Foxnews in their analysis. You're actually surprised a lot of the media are liberals? Being able to read and write does tend to act as a barrier for some people. | ||
|
EndlessRain
140 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 20 2009 06:59 Tyraz wrote: Wtf? I would never have anything to do with PETA, or Greenpeace. They are activist groups, and generally I (along with quite a lot of people) detest their hypocritical methods. They endanger others to get their point across. If they were 'Democratic' then surely they would understand the importance of Gandhi and peaceful protest. You don't need to look far to see what is more effective: Malcom X or Martin Luther King? Edit: i think this highlights an important distinction. While Republicans rally around all who criticize ONE of their masses, Democrats are quite a bit more hesitant before rising up and defending some radical. For example, those images you put up before, I don't think very many Democrats would support those (only pointing out perhaps that meant he was unpopular.. which he was...). From over here i heard no support for any of those images of Bush you had up. In fact, contrary to what most think, I didn't mind Bush: he had a very 'traditional' view of what Presidency should be. Like all the formal meetings, and formal discussions; I think he took the Job very seriously indeed. The problem is, that i got the impression most of the information he got was rather one sided. Like he got Big Business to tell him how to stimulate the economy by lowering wages and increasing productivity. The rest of the world took little surprise in the fact the average income dropped... but to the advocates of private industry, they just couldn't understand it. Dude, all I said in my post was that you can't say without any evidence that there are more radicals on the Right than the Left, then I gave examples of radical Leftists. I never said you agreed with the radical Left just like you never said I agreed with the radical Right. We both think that both extremes are retarded. I was just pointing out that there is plenty of stupidity in the extremes of both sides. Also most conservatives are not trying to "rally around" that one old man and his sign (there may be 1-2 on this site that are but I am talking overall). They are rallying against Obama's plan. Also, in my posts I never supported that man's sign, I just pointed out that the Left has done MUCH worse than he did without it ever making much news. Its good from time to time to remind ourselves of the double standard in the media regarding what was considered acceptable behavior regarding Bush and what is acceptable regarding Obama. Obama is the golden child so 1 old man with a barely readable sign is big news. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
ex. "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 20 2009 09:22 EndlessRain wrote: You're actually surprised a lot of the media are liberals? Being able to read and write does tend to act as a barrier for some people. If you had any data showing a significant difference in IQ between the parties, that would be postable, but what you wrote may just be the way you imagine the world because it makes you feel good to think that. Come back with something more substantial than your imagination. I could give you a ton of reasons I think journalists tend to be more liberal (don't like doing real work, replace god-based religion with politics-based religion, etc) but those are also conjecture without data. The only think we know for SURE is that the news media is liberally biased. That should be kept in our mind as we analyze the news and make our decisions based on it. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 20 2009 09:30 EndlessRain wrote: The fact that the majority of conservatives believe that Obama wasn't born in the US, or aren't sure if he was and believes in creationism is really all you need to know about them. Well, a majority of liberals believe government can improve efficiency. Which of those it dumber? EDIT: This seems to be a good response to your accusation: + Show Spoiler + Certain MSNBC hosts have been fixated over using the “birthers” to discredit conservatives, highlighting a poll commissioned by the far-left Daily Kos site which found a majority of Republicans (58 percent) either believe Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S. (28 percent) or are not sure he was (30 percent). Chris Matthews led Friday's Hardball with the beliefs of the GOP's “lunatic fringe” and “wack jobs,” but where was MSNBC two years ago ranting about the Democratic Party's “lunatic fringe” and “wack jobs” when a survey discovered a bigger majority of Democrats (61 percent) think or are not sure if President George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Washington Examiner columnist/blogger David Freddoso pointed out a couple of hours earlier, during another MSNBC segment devoted to the Daily Kos poll (his post about his appearance), what Rasmussen Reports found. That poll released on May 4, 2007 determined: Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. So, more than a third of Democrats believe the President of the United States knew of a terrorist attack which would murder thousands of Americans and did nothing to stop it. That's quite an indictment of how a significant portion of that party thinks the absolute worst of their nation. Sadly, even some Republicans accept that lunacy. More from Rasmussen's summary: Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view. Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.... --http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/08/04/flashback-35-democrats-think-bush-knew-9-11-attacks-advance Surprise surprise...people are stupid. Also people tend to say things in polls with the intent of communicating their overall feelings about the person rather than their knowledge on the actual subject. But the fact that so many ppl talk about the "birthers" by itself is probably more a result of liberal media bias since we don't hear so much about how democrats supposedly think Bush planned or knew about 9/11 before it happened. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On August 20 2009 06:26 Savio wrote: Also compare pictures: + Show Spoiler + This dinky little sign compared to: + Show Spoiler + while these signs were largely ignored basically because one was against Bush while the other (God save us!) was against Obama. I mean look at the difference in the signs and the number of people! I can't believe their was an uproar because one old man had a hand written, hardly readable sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs. But the Left likes to try to make the Right look loonie...and they have the tools since as I showed above, they have larger control over media. And BTW, those charts of journalists leanings INCLUDE Foxnews in their analysis. Are you seriously making a point by comparing the size of signs? It is nearly impossible to engage is such conversation. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 20 2009 10:10 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Are you seriously making a point by comparing the size of signs? It is nearly impossible to engage is such conversation. The amazing thing was the media response to the 2. That is the main point. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
go figure | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 20 2009 10:04 Mindcrime wrote: The majority of the rage against Bush came from the anti-war movement. It's not like this crowd has been particularly friendly to any President responsible for a war. ex. "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" so THAT explains why it is ok to call for Bush's death and not Obama's. Thanks for clearing it up. For some weird reason I think that it might have had something to do with the people reporting the news on both events. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 20 2009 10:15 Mindcrime wrote: Calling for someone's death for wanting to discuss an issue gets more attention than calling for someone's death for starting a war. go figure Both a war and health policy are political stances. EDIT: But I guess if you figure that statistically speaking a lot of media reporters probably think he knew about or planned 9/11 it would make sense that they would treat the 2 circumstances differently. EDIT2: In case you can't tell, that first edit is humor | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 20 2009 10:19 Savio wrote: so THAT explains why it is ok to call for Bush's death and not Obama's. Thanks for clearing it up. For some weird reason I think that it might have had something to do with the people reporting the news on both events. "ok" has nothing to do with it | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 20 2009 10:21 Savio wrote: Both a war and health policy are political stances. EDIT: But I guess if you figure that statistically speaking a lot of media reporters probably think he knew about or planned 9/11 it would make sense that they would treat the 2 circumstances differently. EDIT2: In case you can't tell, that first edit is humor how did 9/11 come into the conversation? | ||
| ||
