Cat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,839 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Sometimes you just have to cut through all of the ifs, what if, do you think, I think, and change the channel. I got to the point where I'd just notice these opinion phrases and not care whatever they had to say.

Forgive me for not completely getting the context of your post, that stuff was everywhere, and I did not quite get the point.

The politicals class are doing whatever they can to start a ruckuss, and at some point all we can do is go vote for what we think is best.

I have a friend that is opposite me politically, yet when we discuss things in detail we find there is alot of common ground for the most part.

He's actually way into it, and is reading a book that goes into the phsycology of politics.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,449 Posts
I personally think that the job of the media is to find out the inadequacies of the government so whoever is in power don't become overly corrupt. The media is somewhat liberal right now because the leading party is Republican. The media will be somewhat conservative when we have a Democrat administration again (remember the Clinton era?)


Stories of corruption and debauchery in the leading party SELLS. Remember the Clinton era? The media certainly wasn't liberal back then. The media is liberal right now. For me, the media just likes to be contrary :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
I don't think it's possible for any PERSON to be neutral when talking about politics, if they know what they're talking about. If you're into politics, you'll have an opinion either way.

Same goes for the media. A reporter cannot possible remove any bias from his or her work when it comes to politics, because he or she will have an opinion that will inadvertantly shine through.

Case in point...I've read other journalists written essays that are the exact opposite of the one you've linked to. How? Because there is a bias. When you TRULY believe something, you can find evidence to support that. That's what debating is all about. Two opposing sides with evidence to back up their point.

That being said, the only time we can pull bias out of the media is if we replace all journalists and writers with robots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,550 Posts
emrldsky said:
I don't think it's possible for any PERSON to be neutral when talking about politics, if they know what they're talking about. If you're into politics, you'll have an opinion either way.

Same goes for the media. A reporter cannot possible remove any bias from his or her work when it comes to politics, because he or she will have an opinion that will inadvertantly shine through.

Case in point...I've read other journalists written essays that are the exact opposite of the one you've linked to. How? Because there is a bias. When you TRULY believe something, you can find evidence to support that. That's what debating is all about. Two opposing sides with evidence to back up their point.

That being said, the only time we can pull bias out of the media is if we replace all journalists and writers with robots.
I agree 1000%

Whether you think the media is biased one way or the other, it's still pretty darn good compared to some other countries.
I work with a couple originally from China. We were talking about the news one day and they mentioned that they knew NOTHING about Tiennamen Square until they moved outside of China. They had heard that there was a conflict with students but that is all they heard about it, none of what really happened there that day. THat is what happens with Government controlled media!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
If it is a 'myth', why did Fox News ever pass CNN?
several progressive blogs are jumping all over Chris Mathews at MSNBC for his more & more frequently uttered biased comments.
Why can't Chris Mathews say whatever he wants?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
Cat Daddy said:
If it is a 'myth', why did Fox News ever pass CNN?
... Why did it ever "pass" CNN? I'm afraid I have't a clue what you're talking about. I, personally, watch CNN. I prefer it infinitely to Fox. If you're talking about "ratings", I highly doubt it had anything directly to do with any perceived bias.

Don't try to play that card. We all have our own preferences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Yes, ratings is what I was talking,

but I too, flip between all of them, just to get the news and not some interpetation,

ever notice how they all seem to have their little 'quip' to end the segments? Alot of bias in the 'quips'.

And when the 'ifs', 'I think' ideas come out, I know it time to change the channel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,839 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Cat Daddy said:
If it is a 'myth', why did Fox News ever pass CNN?
several progressive blogs are jumping all over Chris Mathews at MSNBC for his more & more frequently uttered biased comments.
Why can't Chris Mathews say whatever he wants?
Well, he DOES say whatever he wants, but

Per the link:

1. What is your complaint with Chris Matthews and MSNBC?

Chris Matthews is a major opinion leader who has repeatedly compared Americans concerned about the war in Iraq to Osama bin Laden, a charge that borders on accusing over half the American public with treason. Matthews is perceived, wrongly, as a responsible and objective mainstream journalist with a reputation for calling it as he sees it. That gives his partisan smears a veneer of credibility that makes them particularly offensive and dangerous in a nation at war. It is wrong for Chris Matthews and MSNBC to politicize the deaths of 3,000 Americans on September 11.


3. Why are Matthews' comments a problem?

It is incredibly biased, irresponsible, and offensive for a supposedly-objective journalist to repeat as truth partisan Republican talking points accusing patriotic Americans of sharing traits with the greatest mass murderer in American history. Chris Matthews' right-wing bias has been an ongoing, growing problem and it needs to stop.


4. So you've launched a boycott of "Hardball's" advertisers?

We are asking companies to refrain from associating their products with Chris Matthews' hateful, extremist rhetoric.

5. Who exactly is behind this campaign?

A coalition of more than 20 of the top progressive and moderate political blogs, with a collective daily readership of over 1 million visitors, including DailyKos, Eschaton, AMERICAblog, MyDD, Annatopia, and more (for a full listing, see our home page).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
I seen his show several times and don't think he's 'right wing',

he ask them some tough questions, but does give them a chance to reply, I say that's fair enough for them to come up with a reasonable answer, or tell him they will have to have more time, and will get back to him later with an answer.

Some of this stuff is really poorly written and doesn't make a clear point, i.e.
repeatedly compared Americans concerned about the war in Iraq to Osama bin Laden
We're all concerned, so must I pull teeth to find out they are talking about someone who opposes the war? Or is that even the point?

a responsible and objective mainstream journalist with a reputation for calling it as he sees it.
And people can't watch his show and call it as they see it? Or change channel if they don't like it?

That gives his partisan smears a veneer of credibility that makes them particularly offensive and dangerous in a nation at war.
Alot of the press had made this mistake while our troops are in harms way, Bill O'Reilly got all over the New York Times and their Abugrav coverage, did the coalition of more than 20 of the top progressive and moderate political blogs help Bill? Or who's being perceived as being in danger?

The troops sure are, I was in the army and do respect the job each individual troop does to serve this country, and whether the war is right or wrong, I can't stand the thought of them not being supported by everyone until their return.

3. Why are Matthews' comments a problem?

It is incredibly biased, irresponsible, and offensive for a supposedly-objective journalist to repeat as truth partisan Republican talking points
If they had a point to refute what he was saying, why don't they come out and say it instead of accusing him of using talking points? Can't they make a point that's reasonable?

And even if he was using talking points, he must think they have some use to be debated on his show.

And even if he was using talking points, don't the guest have a chance to respond with whatever they want? That's what I liked about Alan Keyes, he won every debate he was in.

Chris Matthews' right-wing bias has been an ongoing, growing problem and it needs to stop.
censor him, censor him!!!(beware, sarcasm here)

I don't watch much of the Matthews show because I ain't got all them fancy channels, but if he is endangering the troops in harms way, he'd better stop, I want them all to come home safe, just like the rest of the concerned.

I'm guessing we're politically opposite, and I don't mean to push my right-wing bias around, and you may point it out if I don't seem reasonable, I'd actually be glad to never hear from Chris Matthews again, his left-wing bias bothered me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
Cat Daddy said:
Some of this stuff is really poorly written and doesn't make a clear point, i.e.
repeatedly compared Americans concerned about the war in Iraq to Osama bin Laden
We're all concerned, so must I pull teeth to find out they are talking about someone who opposes the war? Or is that even the point?
It's written quite clearly. The statement is saying that Matthews compares concerned citizens to Osama bin Laden.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,623 Posts
CatDaddy said:
The troops sure are, I was in the army and do respect the job each individual troop does to serve this country, and whether the war is right or wrong, I can't stand the thought of them not being supported by everyone until their return.
With all due respect, Cat Daddy, but I have been opposed to this war since its inception, but that does not mean I don't support and pray for the safety of the troops. Their lives are in danger, whether the US government is right or wrong.

I am a Democrat and a patriot. I love my country. My eyes tear up as I see the Star Spangled Banner. I have always thought our country might be wrong at times, but was trying to do the honorable thing. People came here originally to gain freedom of thought. Am I now a traitor because I heard Bush say we were there to rid Iraq of nuclear weapons and refuse to pretend I didn't?

Yes Saddam was an evil dictator. There are many evil dictatorships on this earth, and it's sad that, even if we were asked to help, we don't have the resources to rid the world of them. However, this patriot heard the words "weapons of mass destruction," and this patriot has an almost photographic memory. For the first time since I was a child, I am ashamed of our president and worried about the motives behind the actions of our country. "My country, right or wrong," enabled Hitler to commit genocide. Let us instead hear Senator Carl Schurz' quote "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."

Remember the book 1984? It was not about the USSR, as many thought. It was a warning to all of us to keep all free govenments honest, and to allow free thought! I am an AMERICAN. I have the right to free thought, thank God! I despise the actions of men like Osama bin laden and his cowardly terrorist tactics. How dare anyone compare me to that monster? It's degrading to this patriot! It is our right and our duty to speak up if we think our country is on the wrong track.

God bless America, land that I love!
Stand beside her and GUIDE her
Through the night with the light from above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Well you must also remember the other reasons why President Bush gave to go to war, there are more than just the nuclear bomb issue,

and the way I see it he is really cleaning up what President Clinton left behind,

by not retaliating against Saddam by firing on our Pilots in the no fly zone, one Pilots being shot at once was enough reason for me,

I am former Military and these folks are very precious to me,

and the war should have been over long before President Bush had to take action, because President Clinton had the fire power to do such.

Saying only the 'weapons of mass destruction', omits the several other reasons that are not even given consideration.

And Matthews pointing out the parallel statements between what the guest on his show and the enemy are points that should be confronted for a reasonable explination,

because they get in the media and the enemy uses them to fuel the hatred for our troops, who have been doing a great job to serve our country.

Understanding people who say would should have stayed out of the war is not easy when it is consistanly only that 1 reason,

being I know there was several more reasons given, adding to them the 17 the United Nation resolutions violated after the first Gulf war,

what is the President to do with this situation, when terrorist are given a Jet on the ground, training camps, along with the funding, and suicide bombing vest that where found?

He's got to do what he thinks is right, don't he?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,623 Posts
Only this year did Bush admit that the information he received about WMD was false, but he has known this all along. We were deceived. The United Nations asked him to wait only a couple of weeks for another inspection. That is reason enough for me to question his motives. He changed the story after the war began, and told us we were there to free the Iraqi people. Yes, that's enough reason for me to question his motives. This war was not begun to save the Iraqi people. That conveniently became the reason when the Bush government was proved wrong about WMD.

It is our brave young people who are paying the price for these mistakes and falsehoods. Thank God for our dearest allies, but had we waited, perhaps we would not now be hated around the world. I am not supporting Bin Laden or Saddam. I am speaking out because I want us to restore the honor and respect America had earned as a nation. Do you consider falsehoods "only one reason" to object to letting our troops die and to object to the name "traitors?" for those who disagree with the war? I consider it a formidable reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
but he has known this all along
Prove it.

And I'd also venture to guess he gets a whole lot more information that will not be released in the public, have you considered that?

I think he was too politically correct in not using bigger bombs, but that was his call,

and he showed mercy to a whole lot of people that do appreciate what he did in getting our enemy out of power and giving them a chance to live as a free people.

We were deceived
You can't say that unless you know for sure they have not been moved to another country, dumped in the river, or still just not found, so prove it.

The United Nations asked him to wait only a couple of weeks for another inspection.
The inspectors had how many years of trailing behind stuff being moved around, and 2 more weeks would have made any difference?

Do you consider falsehoods "only one reason" to object to letting our troops die and to object to the name "traitors?" for those who disagree with the war?
No one has, without a doubt, proved any falsehood case, and even if they have,

there were several more reasons given before the war even started, so to claim,
and this patriot has an almost photographic memory
and have no recall of these other reasons that where spelled out to the Congress and the Country, doesn't cut mustard for me, with all due respect.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,623 Posts
Bush Admits He Was 'Wrong'
But his speech doesn't account for the administration's heavy hand in spinning faulty intelligence

December 14th, 2005 2:00 PM

George W. Bush answers a question from the audience after delivering remarks on the War on Terror.
photo: Kimberlee Hewitt/whitehouse.gov
In a speech today in Washington, D.C., President Bush accepted responsibility for faulty intelligence that led the nation to war in Iraq.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."
The point, however, is not only that there was faulty intelligence, but that the administration exaggerated that intelligence. As we wrote in 2003, 'WMD' could become the next Watergate.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0551,news,71029,2.html

This articles is typical of the sources in Google about Bush's reasons for going to war:
LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. ......

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. ......

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/

Some of the other sources were so obviously biased that I didn't consider using them. The entire first page of Google articles re Bush's motives were very much like these. These, believe it or not, are only exerpts.

I posted to defend my own patriotism, and why I can remain a patriot and disagree with the government, not to debate what has been broadcast in Bush's own words. However, you asked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
Cat Daddy said:
He's got to do what he thinks is right, don't he?
His job is to do what the American people think is right. He made a few decisions that he didn't get any approval for. That's a dictatorship, not a representative democracy, like we're meant to have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,550 Posts
aphrodeia said:
Cat Daddy said:
He's got to do what he thinks is right, don't he?
His job is to do what the American people think is right. He made a few decisions that he didn't get any approval for. That's a dictatorship, not a representative democracy, like we're meant to have.
I disagree with that. For any president, in my opinion his job is to do what is best for the country, regardless of popular opinion. Where would we be if during the early civil rights movement the higher ups bowed to popular opinion?
Whether what Bush is doing is best for the country is in the eye of the beholder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
jennifer2 said:
I disagree with that. For any president, in my opinion his job is to do what is best for the country, regardless of popular opinion.
A great many dictators operated in much the same way. I hate to bring down Godwin's Law so early in a thread, but Hitler also did what he thought was best. Obviously, he was wrong.

When we give up our rights as citizens in a democracy (or republic, as we are), we go down a dangerous path. It may be that the President needs to make difficult decisions on his own from time to time, but giving him that blanket ability in any situation entirely undermines the principles upon which our system of government was founded.
 
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Top