I watched Sarah Palin's speech at the Tea Party Convention over the weekend. Watching her speech was a lot like reading TMF political boards. LONG on talking points - almost no substantive policy discussion. I know she played well with the Tea Party people, talking points only get you so far.Charlie
What amazed me (and always amazes me) is that these conservative pundits get away with such ridiculous name calling ("lamestrem media) - without ever providing substantive backing.When conservative friends of mine (and they are becoming fewer and fewer all the time) talk about the "liberal" media, I challenge them with two things - First, keep in mind Fox News is "mainstream (based on ratings) and second, I ask them to provide me with just ONE example of a liberal bias in other mainstream news media. Just one. Never has anyone come up with the example. At best, they say "it's all biased" - at which point I change to NBC news (or CNN or MSNBC) and ask them to explain why the current story, whatever it is, has a liberal bias. No one has ever risen to the challenge.Interestingly enough, these conservatives also label liberals as "sheeple" without realizing that they are the ones blindly following their pundits.
provide me with just ONE example of a liberal bias in other mainstream news media. Just one. Oh! Oh!Dan Rather and the documents of questionable origin!!!!!!!And the fact that Rather kept his job proves that the network leaned to the left. Oh, wait. He didn't keep his job.Nevermind.
And that was an example of shoddy journalism - not a liberal bias. Look at what some of the news media did to Clinton.There is a bias towards "scooping" other outlets, and sensationalism, but that doesn't provie it's biased towards liberals.It really an equal opportunity bias against whomever they can "catch" in something sensational.Oh how i long for the days of real investigative journalism....
I ask them to provide me with just ONE example of a liberal bias in other mainstream news media.What, you've never seen one of their "gotcha" stories on gun owners that are riddled with errors and lies? Their biggest gun story last year (Mexicans get most of their illegal guns from America!) was such an example. They GROSSLY overstated the percentage of guns that come from America because they pretended that the small percentage that Mexico submits ot the BATFE for tracing are ALL the guns Mexican authorities confiscated when that was FAR from the case.The lie was tailor-made for the 0bama Administration to push for another Assault Weapons Ban. AG Holder even used the occasion to state that a new AWB was still part of 0bama's platform. But 65 Blue Dog Dems sent 0bama a letter essentially saying "Don't even THINK about it!" and then Fox News pointed out the math error... that pretty much ended the story (except you occasionally hear the wrong numbers reported by media sources to this day despite it being debunked months ago.)
First, explain why that is "left leaning" and not just shoddy sensationalist journalism. Second, what makes you think the stories were in error? Third, check out Glenn Beck's use of statistics (which never seem to add up to 100), and the liberal doctoring of video to support his lies.....
First, explain why that is "left leaning" and not just shoddy sensationalist journalism.While not all lefties are anti-gun you'd be hard pressed to find any anti-gun people who aren't lefties. So exaggerating stats to prop up the anti-gun agenda isn't something you'd EVER find righties doing whereas there's a long history of lefties doing it.Second, what makes you think the stories were in error?The fact that they were in error leads me to think they were in error. Even Factcheck.org, hardly a pro-gun outfit, says the stories were in error:http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/Third, check out Glenn Beck's use of statistics (which never seem to add up to 100), and the liberal doctoring of video to support his lies.....So you ask for an example of liberal media bias, I give you one and you change the subject to an example of (purported) conservative media bias. How does that disprove my example exactly? How is that even relevant to my example?
you'd be hard pressed to find any anti-gun people who aren't leftiesChristians are anti-gun.
The issue is one of intentional bias in reporting. I have seen nothing to indicate that the errors were intentionally propagated to support a left leaning cause. Quite the contrary, I think the errors existed because of the business interests of the media, not the political leanings of them. The opposite is quite true of Beck/Limbaugh/Palin/Hannity/O'Reilly (the latter of whoim still proclaims to be an independent despite voting registry record clearly indicating he is a Republican) who while decrying the "liberal" bias of the mainstream perpetuate ridiculous lies demonstrating their conservative bias.Show me the intentional left leaning bias.... Clearly the right leaning bias is intentional, if not outright fraudulent.
Christians are anti-gun.Really? I'm a Christian, I'm far from anti-gun. Most of the people I know are Christians, plenty of them are just as pro-gun as I am. There are over 90 million gun owners in this country, you're saying none of them are Christians?
Show me the intentional left leaning bias.... Clearly the right leaning bias is intentional, if not outright fraudulent.Must have missed this little incident recently:http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/freshloaf/2010/02/15/atlant...Excerpt:In an e-mail statement, [Atlanta Progressive News] editor Matthew Cardinale says Springston was asked to leave APN last week “because he held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News."In other words Mr. Springston was fired because he didn't portray a liberal bias in his reports!Show me the memo/statement/report from Fox News where they fired someone for "holding the notion that there is an objective reality that can be reported objectively."Go ahead, I'll be waiting.
Uh huh.... And the blog that posted this little tidbit is known for not being objective. And, I wouldn't call the Atlanta Progressive News "mainstream." It would be like calling the NRA Gazzette mainstream, and calling them on the carpet for not being objective..... Or Palin/Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh - all of whom have a national audience.....
Oh, and by the way, I'm Christian and very much anti-gun, anti-violence (and especially anti-Iraq war), anti-insurance company death panels (as should be all Christians), am "pro-Bono" and his efforts to get more Christians involved in supporting others and correcting injustice (and he was successful in getting Falwell on board with his "liberal" causes before Falwell's death) and in having compassion for my fellow man (something the "right-wingers" seem to have forgotten about) and consequently am very much in favor of the stimulus package (but against the Bush/Cheney bailout of AIG and big Wall Street), in favor of universal health care (with a public option, if that is necessary to accomplish that goal) - and realize that as a capitalist, having such a program in place - LIKE THOSE IN THE REST OF THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD is necessary for us to compete against those companies in countries with socialized health care (which is virtually all of those we compete economically with), am "pro-labor" because people, as God's children should be helped by those with the ability to do so (as Jesus himself proclaimed). These are things my Christian beliefs indicate are not optional for one who proclaims to be a Christian. Oh, and I've received "death threats" from some of those so-called "conservative Christians" in response to some of my comments on the WSJ.Huh. Come to think of it, Jesus was a liberal.....
Oh, and as far as Fox news goes, it's clear that they don't care about objectivity. O'Reilly's lies (as previously posted). beck's playing fast and loose with stats (showing people who "really dislike" Obama, and "dislike" Obama, and "are violently ill about Obama" adding up to far in excess of 100%, and editing video to include unrelated footage to boost attandance numbers at a tea bag rally). Hannity.... Well, he's Hannity.Get real. Fair and Balanced is fraudulent. They'd probably fire someone for *being* objective.
I'm a Christian, I'm far from anti-gun.Well, you'd have to be against using it on people to be a Christian.
Fox went to court to defend their right to slant the news to the right.
Well, you'd have to be against using it on people to be a Christian.Where'd you get that line of bull?
So having a gun and using it against a human is consistent with Christian belief? What ever happened to "vengeance shall be mine" - so sayeth the lord...... Maybe, just maybe, if you had no other option but to kill or be killed, I would agree. But Christianity, as I believe it to be, would require you to use ALL available non-lethal means, and NEVER EVER use lethal force to protect mere physical possessions (and some people who profess to be Christians think that protecting your stereo equipment with lethal force is OK).The question you need to ask as a Christian is simply, "what would Jesus do?"
By the way, I did some research on the Atlanta Progressive News. As I said before, it isn't a mainstream news outlet. It is issue oriented from a progressive perspective. Indeed, on their website they say:"To be sure, we published several statements on our Frequently Asked Questions page over four years ago making it very clear that (1) we believe objectivity in news reporting does not exist, and that (2) we report news from a progressive perspective."colovion apparently thinks that their firing someone who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs is evidence of a bias in the media. They are upfront about their policy. Don't like it, don't read it or apply for a job.First, this isn't the Atlanta Journal Constitution - which is the major daily in Atlanta (and rather conservative, in my opinion). It is an issue oriented paper for those who choose to subscribe.Second, they ADMIT their perspective. Something Fox refuses to do, even though it is obvious to sentient individuals.
http://www.david-kopel.org/Religion/Is-the-best-defense-a-go...Excerpt:Many anti-gun and anti-self-defense activists have long used the Bible to push their pacifist agenda. In truth, the assertion that the New Testament compels pacifism is an extraordinarily weak argument.Or if you prefer old school:http://www.david-kopel.org/Religion/Is-the-best-defense-a-go...Excerpt:The Commandment, after all, does not say "Thou shalt not kill humans," but simply says "Thou shalt not kill." The word in the original Hebrew text is r'tzach, which would be translated as "murder."
But Christianity, as I believe it to be, would require you to use ALL available non-lethal means, and NEVER EVER use lethal force to protect mere physical possessions (and some people who profess to be Christians think that protecting your stereo equipment with lethal force is OK).and those other Christians are defining the narrative ..mostly controlling the media ..and gov'tThe question you need to ask as a Christian is simply, "what would Jesus do?" i tried that once ..the answer was "no. the true question is 'what would Christ do?'"=The question you need to ask as a Christian is simply, "what would Jesus do?"
The question you need to ask as a Christian is simply, "what would Jesus do?" This question was answered twice.Matthew: Chapter 538 25 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'39 But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.40 If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.41 Should anyone press you into service for one mile, 26 go with him for two miles.42 Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.43 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors 28 do the same?47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? 29 48 So be perfect, 30 just as your heavenly Father is perfect.Luke: Chapter 627 12 "But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.29 To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.30 Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.32 For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.34 If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.35 But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.36 Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful.37 13 "Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.
I'm very confused as to why you continually utilize biased sources to prove your points (especially when the thrust of you points is that bias on the other side of the political spectrum is inappropriate).David Kopel is a fellow of hte Cato Institute. 'nuff said.
1) Huh?2) Prove it.3) Try, consistent with Christian principles to defend use of lethal force to protect personal property. I dare you.....
Teragram: Thank you. You prove *my* point. An eye for an eye is an argument in favor of proportionality. That is, lethal force is only justified when confronted with lethal force. Shooting someone who is non-violently stealing your stereo would be an eye for a single strand of hair, and not what the word of Lord prescribes.Thank you as well for the references. Many seem to forget Luke, Chapter 6 - especially in this political climate.
3) Try, consistent with Christian principles to defend use of lethal force to protect personal property. I dare you..... impossible. there's no such thing as "Christian principles" ..there's about 4 billion 'Christians' and about as many sets of principles.=
Well, you'd have to be against using it on people to be a Christian.----Where'd you get that line of bull? The Sermon on the Mount.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |