Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

What? No liberal Slant in the media you say?Follow

#1 Jun 16 2004 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I've been saying this for a long time. I can find numerous examples of it. Let's just look at this gem though (and the source of every argument I've seen claiming that Bush said Iraq was connected to 9/11):


Actual quote:

VP Cheney wrote:
If we are successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.



How this is reported:

Quote:
Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11,"



Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees a blatant change of meaning between those two...

Comments? Excuses from the left? Anything?


EDIT: Added links to the articles.

Edited, Wed Jun 16 22:22:10 2004 by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2 Jun 16 2004 at 9:12 PM Rating: Decent
nice finds. id love to see the links for those quotes to read the stories behind them.
#3 Jun 16 2004 at 9:52 PM Rating: Good
*
116 posts
Gbaji you didn't need to look outside this forum, the Asylum is rampant with liberal slant to any article they link to here. This ******** has gotten so monotonous that it is ridiculous to even try to have a discussion with some people here unless it's about d1ck and fart joke stuff.
#4 Jun 17 2004 at 12:24 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,571 posts
Quote:

...we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.


Gbaji, WTF are you saying? That first quote says the EXACT same thing as the second one.


He's speaking of striking a blow against Iraq, and then goes on to say they're striking at the geographical base of the terrorists - How is he no longer speaking of Iraq?


That was so fricken stupid I have trouble believing if anyone else who has responded has even read it, or has the abilities to comprehend what has been said.
#5 Jun 17 2004 at 12:27 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

Gbaji you didn't need to look outside this forum, the Asylum is rampant with liberal slant to any article they link to here. This bullsh*t has gotten so monotonous that it is ridiculous to even try to have a discussion with some people here unless it's about d1ck and fart joke stuff.


One, most of the articles have RIGHT WING slants. The ******* Forum itself has a RIGHT WING slant.

Two, the fact that your political arguemts are so fuc[b][/b]king critically weak that you don't even bother to try is hardly the forum's fault.

Time for you to just go read the Washington Times website or whatever it is you people do to have an echo chamber of fat white guys frightened of change telling you that what you belive is good.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Jun 17 2004 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
One, most of the articles have RIGHT WING slants. The @#%^ing Forum itself has a RIGHT WING slant.


I'm shocked that you actually think that way. In all the time that I've been reading and posting to Allakhazam, I have believed that the majority of people that post here are left wingers.

nd the biggest liberal is you Smash, at least the biggest mouth ;). Let's see just off the top of my head as to the known conservatives: Me, Gbaji, Totem, Moebius, Tacosid(?), Katie. The leading Liberals: Smasharoo, Patrician, Gitslayer, Skeeter, Yanari, Nexa, Tare, Flishtaco, Pickleprince, Thundra, Kaolin and a host of others. Now mind you there are probably others on the conservative and liberal side (not counting suspected sock puppets), just I have a splitting headache and a lack of sleep today, so if I didn't mention you, I apologize, how many comma's are you allowed in a senctence anyway, before it becomes a run on paragraph?

So IMO the board is more Liberal than conservative.

Hava a great day.


#7 Jun 17 2004 at 7:54 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,571 posts
Katie isn't a person. She doesn't count.
#8 Jun 17 2004 at 8:23 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

So IMO the board is more Liberal than conservative.


Nah, of the more active posters, there's clearly a conservative bias. It's naturally ballanced by the fact that I'm so stunningly good at arguing the liberal position that all of the conservative posters are naturally diminished iin your memory.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Jun 17 2004 at 8:38 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
Katie isn't a person. She doesn't count



Best laugh all week.
#10 Jun 17 2004 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good
Heh, the MOMENT I saw this:

Quote:
Gbaji you didn't need to look outside this forum, the Asylum is rampant with liberal slant to any article they link to here. This bullsh*t has gotten so monotonous that it is ridiculous to even try to have a discussion with some people here unless it's about d1ck and fart joke stuff.


I KNEW that I'd see this:

Quote:
One, most of the articles have RIGHT WING slants. The @#%^ing Forum itself has a RIGHT WING slant.


I'm glad you guys think the way you do. It keeps things lively. Truthfully, both conservative and liberal views are amply represented in the forum.

I read those articles yesterday and agree with gbaj. The information WAS twisted. CNN sprinkles editorial in with information reporting so freely that there is no transistion between a record of what happened and where they start telling you how to interpret it.

Personally, I prefer to get the information and make my own decisions....
#11 Jun 17 2004 at 8:47 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

I read those articles yesterday and agree with gbaj. The information WAS twisted. CNN sprinkles editorial in with information reporting so freely that there is no transistion between a record of what happened and where they start telling you how to interpret it.


Come now. Compared to Fox News, CNN is as impartial as Martians.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Jun 17 2004 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Skeeter is an active liberal?

On a different forum, people were talking about the right wing slant of FOX News. Others were saying that CNN was left wing and, amusingly, the Europeans who posted said that CNN would be right wing in their countries compared to the local news there. The global view is pretty much that all American commercial news media is a tool of the government.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Jun 17 2004 at 9:01 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

The global view is pretty much that all American commercial news media is a tool of the government.


That's largely true post 911.

Look at the massive Regan stroke job. Even PBS joined in on that one.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#14 Jun 17 2004 at 9:06 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Here's the big diffrence between me and the conservative posters.

I post news from impartial sources the great majority of the time, and comment on it. They post news from biased sources, largely without comment.

Were I to start posting Salon, MoJo, and Unte articles here daily there would be such wailing and gnashing of teeth that the forum server might explode out of sheer psychic resonance.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 Jun 17 2004 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You mean World Tribune isn't an impartial and reputable news source? This might explain why no other news outlet nor even our own humble government has reported on Stok's "OMG The Iraqis Had WMDS!!!!!" article.

I'm sure Rush 'n O'Rielly have brought it up many, many times though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Jun 17 2004 at 9:19 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Whatever happened to the guy who would respond to every post with articles from CATO?

That used to drive my wife fuc[b][/b]king nuts. She almost made an account and started posting.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Jun 17 2004 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dyzalot. The Cato Institute says you suck, by the way.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Jun 17 2004 at 9:21 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

The Cato Institute says you suck, by the way


It hasn't come to that yet, but if I take a job with the Kerry Campaign, it just might.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Jun 17 2004 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel, there was a direct link to the UN Quarterly Report that stated what the article said. How more unbiased can you get than to go to the UN and directly link to the report. That is what I have been doing here lately, instead of quoting from newspapers I am looking for the source of information and linking directly to it's web presence when I can. Hoping that this tactic avoids the "slant of the media source" side of the arguement. Of course I started doing this after that link to the World Tribune, but that was mixed with a link to the UN.

Quote:
...Stok's "OMG The Iraqis Had WMDS!!!!!" article.

#20 Jun 17 2004 at 9:26 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Stok is a paragon of impariality.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 Jun 17 2004 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Stop using words that I have to look up in the dictionary to define, like "is".
#22 Jun 17 2004 at 9:30 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I misepll "is" 90 percent of th time, so don't assume that it's actually the word I'm using.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#23 Jun 17 2004 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Gbaji you didn't need to look outside this forum, the Asylum is rampant with liberal slant to any article they link to here. This bullsh*t has gotten so monotonous that it is ridiculous to even try to have a discussion with some people here unless it's about d1ck and fart joke stuff.


How about getting some goddamned culture!? There are other topics inbetween scatology and politics.

How about you start a topic about something different instead of whining about it?

mmmkay?!??

Eb
#24 Jun 17 2004 at 4:10 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,311 posts
Are you telling me a news source gave highlights (sound bites, if you will) of a long statement instead of using the statement in it's entirety?

OMG, say it isn't so!
#25 Jun 17 2004 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
Are you telling me a news source gave highlights (sound bites, if you will) of a long statement instead of using the statement in it's entirety?

OMG, say it isn't so!


I have no problem with folks trimming stuff down a bit. The problem is that in this case, they radically changed the meaning of a quote.

There's a huge difference between saying that by installing a stable democracy in Iraq we will strike a blow into the heart of the region in which most terrorist against the US originates (ie: Middle East, or West Asia if you prefer), and saying that Iraq *is* where those terrorists come from.


The original quote is simply saying that Iraq is one part of the region from which that terrorism arises. The modified quote is saying that Iraq *is* the region. Huge difference. It's also coincidentally enough, one of the main reasons everyone's accusing Cheney of saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.


In this case, the shortened form is what caused about 10000 other news stories, all based off a poor re-write of words from the VP of the US. That's just bad journalism. Journalists are supposed to report the news, not create it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Jun 17 2004 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Chtulhu the Quick wrote:

He's speaking of striking a blow against Iraq, and then goes on to say they're striking at the geographical base of the terrorists - How is he no longer speaking of Iraq?



Reading comprehension is your friend. If we've already established a stable democracy in Iraq, how on earth are we also striking a blow against Iraq? Cause and effect. Removing Iraq as a source of weapons and support for terrorists strikes a blow at what? Can't be Iraq. It's already not supporting terrorists, right? Gotta be something else.

It should be abundantly obvious that the "region" he refers to is the Middle East. Not Iraq. Iraq is the "heart of the region". The region is the Middle East. It is that whole region from which most of the terror attacks against the US have come from, including that which occured on 9/11.

It's really not that confusing. He's describing a chain of events and following what results he believes will occur if we follow that chain.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 239 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (239)