i didnt say they were
i was asking a question

Glad you're here Rich, I get tired of stepping on these guys every once in a while. A tip for you though, so you won't get too disillusioned:

Their political views have nothing to do with reality. There is nothing - and I mean NOTHING - that you can say that will force them to actually think about their position or follow a thought to a logical conclusion if they don't think they like where it leads. They've already learned everything they'll ever need to know and they get their information from newsmax.com and AM radio.

They're idiots. That's why they're conservative in the first place. 12clicks has to be super republican butch because of that big Village People mustache, he's afraid someone will think he's a leather fag :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

it's not as bad as you think. There are many good people in Washington who are actually committed to the public welfare. They just get drowned out by the anti gay marriage, anti-abortion, pro-bible and anti-porn crowd.

You just can't beat the right-wingers for being persistent, loud and obnoxious.

Common senese is a fine basis for moral value. Religion, in all the millions of murders over the last few thousand years, isn't.

As a businessman, I'd settle for Kerry laying off the harrassment against adult webmasters perpetuated by the present admininstration.

:2 cents:

Secular humanism and a bit of empathy for your fellow human beings is the very best 'moral base' you can have. Certain things, it seems to me, you either know instinctively or you just don't have the ability to learn it. You don't torture animals. You don't put crazy people on the street, like Reagan did. You don't sentence a guy who stole a shirt from Macy's to 30 years in San Quentin, even if it IS his third strike. You don't tell a woman she has to carry a kid whether she likes it or not. You don't mix your religion and your government. You don't make someone ride on the back of the bus.

These are things that really shouldn't have to be taught.

not that i agree with either of you, but the word you're looking for is 'reactionary'.

oh yeah... you don't TORTURE people. Even if they're evil ragheads.

Because we are better than that.

id agree, but ive noticed he double talks alot. where he stands now might not be where he stands if elected.

ah yes, the power of propaganda. Karl Rove says he's waffler, now half the population thinks it's true. He doesn't change his positions any more than any other politician trying to walk a tightrope in front of reporters, and I think he demonstrated his decisiveness pretty conclusively in Vietnam.


You don't hear John McCain trying to smear his war record, just the chickenhawks in the White House. Don't believe a fucking thing they tell you.

he panders to the audience he's speaking to at that moment.
he cant be on everyones side, but he sure does try.

That was a nice clip. I needed that, thanks:thumbsup

The Geneva Convetion doesn't endorse or say anything about going into countries without good cause either. So when you do that, your bound to have "guerillas" try to kill you.

If America decided to invade Canada tommorrow because of it's rich natural resources to take it and use it for their own profit, Canadians would be justified in defending their country and resources, even if it meant killing US troops, and yes they would likely be wearing civilian clothing. Like Iraq, Canada has no military strength to speak of so it would be citizens or sympathizers defending their country any way they could.

being an idiot, you wouldn't know that the Washington Times is owned by Sun Myung Moon and is a right wing rag. Yes, this is classic propaganda.

Now you know.

http://web.archive.org/web/200304011...om/i2/moon.jpg

Birds of a feather.

i know who owns it
i also know cnn and the other liberal news media would never raise the issue. maybe kerry should sue them for the horrible lies they are spreading about him. i find it amusing how anything negative published about the left is "propaganda" where cnn and others bashing bush are noting but fact.

If you'd believe the Moonies over CNN there's really nothing I can say to you.

Liberal media, my ass. They're owned by corporations and they toe the line to their masters, for the most part.

Do you see anyone talking about Iran-Contra right now? No. They gave an hour of coverage to a non-moving plane on a runway that only held Reagan's body. He was non-moving as well. That sound like liberal bias to you? Is there any liberal network like Fox?

Conservatives have gotten to their present position because they are masters of the media and they know how to work the system.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...+media+studies

There you go. Learn something. Stay away from the Moonies.

And the Scientologists as well. You're not safe.

The Most Biased Name in News, Seth Ackerman, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, August 2001

?Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of ?liberal bias? in the media were part of ?a strategy? (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: ?If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is ?work the refs.? Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.??
-------------------------------


The Liberal Media, RIP, Eric Alterman, The Nation, March 13, 2000

?Bill Kristol, perhaps the most honest and intelligent conservative in Washington (excluding, of course, that funny, friendly, charming McCain fellow). ?The press isn't quite as biased and liberal. They're actually conservative sometimes,? Kristol said recently on CNN. If Chris missed that one, he might have come across a similar admission by Kristol offered up in the spring of 1995. ?I admit it,? Kristol told The New Yorker. ?The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.??
-----------------------

Spinning Populism In American News Media, Norman Solomon, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, undated

??The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive,? Buchanan acknowledged in March 1996. He added: ?I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked.??
-----------------

Interesting stuff huh? Amazing what you find out when you actually look to see if there's really any evidence of a liberal media.

its all party politics. i know most media has some form of bias.
whichever side the highups follow, they bash the other side to gain power. if you think cnn isnt biased, you have problems. you think remembering and reporting about a dead president is bias? cnn covered it for how long? 2 seconds? "reagan dead, back to bashing bush."

you went from conservative idiot to incomprehensible waste of time in less than three posts. Congratulations. But it's really not that much of a step.

I DARE you to read this (if you read) and come back here and say there isn't a conservative slant in the media. http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm

I'm expecting you to come back with something bizarre and completely unrelated to the topic, by the way. This post is really for the other people reading this thread. Both of them.

you're an idiot. you provide someones internet rant as proof that the liberal media bias doesnt exist? you have serious problems. lets get back to kerry changing his mind on issues. didnt he vote for the patriot act that he now attacks? how about no child left behind? did he thow away his friends medals? ribbons? or where they his? does he own a suv? or is it his family. he makes statements that he later has to "clarify" two or three times. these are the facts, but the liberal media wont even touch it.

I own an SUV too, does that make me a bad man?

http://www.starterupsteve.com/images/steve4.gif

nice pic, lol.. http://www.starterupsteve.com - what the fuck is up with that site? are you even a webmaster?

nothing wrong with owning a suv. when he's in detroit, he's proud of owning a suv, on earth day, he doesnt own it, its his family. and yes, im a webmaster.

what's your site?

did you read that article or do I have to post it here and make you look like more of an idiot than you already are?

comment on that article. I'd like to hear what you have to say about it. Debunk it.

its in my profile

I missed that. :(

i agree with the basis of it. they would go out and deny it. im not here promoting fox news or anything like that. what i was originally saying is that all the big media is biased in one way or another. those names listed on there dont represent the entire media. im sure all those things could be said about clinton and liberal networks.

the whole point of the article is that there is no liberal echo chamber. There wouldn't be any attack dogs out to defend Clinton. If the media is biased, it has to be biased one way or the other, it can't be biased both ways. You read the article. Which way is it biased?

I was wondering why this person was saying that CNN has a liberal bias, because to everyone outside the USA, that comment sounds more ridiculous than I can explain. Then I realized why he's saying it.

http://www.starterupsteve.com/images/steve4.gif

He's a fucking kid with his head up his ass who thinks that being a Republican will help make him a cool rich guy. Why are intelligent people wasting breath on this kid?

Covering Clinton's blowjob constantly and then brushing off the huge scandals from Woodwards book in one week, yeah what a 'liberal' bias CNN has. Who owns most of CNN now, Ted Turner? Don't think so. Actually I think it's AOL. Who owns AOL? I'll let you find that out for yourself. :1orglaugh

its biased to the left making the generalization that the media is represented by the conservative right. it appears that was written along time ago. there are more leftwingers on tv now. the only thing they dont dominate is the radio. and there are always attack dogs defending someone or another. they are defending kerry now. if cnn isnt biased, why didnt they bitch at clinton after bombing iraq in 98? he used the same intel and reasoning bush used. now they are out for bush's blood. and yes, it can be biased both ways. fox news is one side, cnn is the other. those two are the most extermine and there are serveral in the middle who dont report new selectively.

he's young, confused. Maybe he can still be helped :thumbsup

im no kid, and thats not my picture. bash away

Clinton didn't waste 800 American lives and untold billions of American dollars invading Iraq. Bush did. Hence the media coverage.

If you had followed any of the links I gave you or actually read and pondered the bartcop article, we wouldn't still be having this conversation about a biased liberal media.

It's no fun to win an argument when you know you're wrong. Quit trying. Being a conservative doesn't make you look tougher. Read and learn and be objective, you'll thank yourself when you're in your 30s.

If that's not your pic and you're not a kid, I'm shocked for two reasons:

a) your argumentative techiques are high school level. If you're not a kid, this is bad.

b) you have a picture of a pimple faced 17 yr old boy on your really, really shitty website. Why?

Clinton preferred to kill civilians.

im done with this. if you think the only bias in the media is the right, then thats fine. im not going to change your mind. i guess i learned something here tonight.

and what did you learn?