posted on February 18, 2003 10:52:43 PM new
>Your as guilty of this as anyone.
Sometimes, the best defense is a strong offence. NOTE, Colin, that I only directly call someone a name if they are attacking me. Note how cleverly I word my posts to get close to folks at those other times, but keep Deniability intact as I scatter my wit about the messageboard! You know who you are! Yes, you CAN be insulted, but you can never blame me for it. Go ahead! Insult Liberals all that you like! Rail at Democrats until your fingertips turn purple! Foam at the mouth over those who support Clinton and the Clinton years! But do NOT point it at a member of AW! Not unless they start being rude to you first.
I try to live by that, but honestly, sometimes with all of the snide remarks and constant insults being strewn about -- and COLIN, you've been dishing it out since you dropped in here, I sometimes do point it at someone. However, you'd be hard pressed to find times when I point it out to anyone when they didn't start it (never start a fight, but always finish it.). I DO use the word IGNORANT in proper usage; however, SOME people think it's a derogatory swear word and stomp off into the night, shedding baby tears of frustration over it.
As far as why no 'Liberals" or even Ultra-conservatives were bothering to write in this thread until you began to bait them, it is for the same reasons why you refused to learn what the meaning of the labels are that you've been strewing about so carelessly and ignorantly (there's that word again!) Just as your "opinion" as what constitutes a 'liberal' does not have any real meaning, so does the point of this thread post not mean a thing. Go figure.
posted on February 18, 2003 11:25:38 PM new
I read all the FAIR articles. Failed to change my opinion of CNN, sorry. FAIR is a liberal organization, so I would expect them to try and turn the "liberal-bias" argument on its end in regard to the media and CNN.
posted on February 19, 2003 12:05:48 AM new
bones - You're a person after my own heart.
Fox News didn't get to be the number 1 rate cable network show for no reason. Some [in the middle, politically] were looking for a news program that wasn't slanted to the liberal side. I used to take a lot of heat in this forum for using articles from Fox news. Still get kidded every-so-often.
But....look what's happening now. The democrats are looking for their own 'Shawn Hannity - Bill O'Reilly' now. That must mean they see it has worked. Least judging by the number of people who prefer them.
posted on February 19, 2003 12:36:13 AM new
The topic is now our opinion of CNN's news coverage, Linda? I'd say that it hasn't stayed the same. In the second half of the second Clinton term, it really became partisan and it switched to right-wing. I noticed that there was a lot of plugs for FoxNews on there and thought that they must be swapping spit. And it's been really biased towards the right-wing up until about six months ago when Whatzhisname? The bigshot right-winger that owns all of the media, Ted Turner? Hmm. Anyway, he announced that he was retiring from the business and since then, CNN has gone back to mainstream reporting, although they are not hesitant to show news that is critical of Bush or the Republicans (but then, neither is MSNBC of late or even CNBC!).
It is hard for me to say whether being brave enough to show Americans dissatisfied with Bush and the Republicans really constitutes a 'Liberal' reporting method. After all, you have to take into account that all three branches of our government are currently being run by the Republicans and by Bush, and that there is a very far-right slant to what they do. Simply to show both sides of an issue surely looks like 'liberals' if you hang out with the Republicans. Personally, I prefer a balanced news reporting devoid of partisan slant and personal rhetoric.
To call CNN Liberal because they show anti-Bush/anti-War news coverage along with the Pro stuff means that you support just the opposite. That feels more like you expect all of the news to Praise Bush all the time, like Foxnews does or Worshipers do in Church (Halleluiah! Lord Bush On High! Mighty In the White house, Eternal and Everlasting Bush! Hail Bush! All Glory to Bush!) Linda, you are really mixed up in your thinking, but we've known that for some time now.
posted on February 19, 2003 12:49:17 AM new
Linda_K
“Taken from CNN -
CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. “
Notice that CNN didn’t report. Clinton to have said.
Good evening, earlier today I ordered America’s (overt) armed forces to strike….Iraq……because of it’s capacity to threaten it’s neighbours.
The most likely threat, being biological weapons we gave them, but can’t tell you all the details yet, will perhaps turn out to the advantage of our great democracy anyhow, although, may I add, not intentionally.
posted on February 19, 2003 01:42:38 AM new
Borillar - The topic is now. Oh...so since the thread topic is UK's Blair: No march for Saddam victims and everyone has spoken about other things....you're going to remind ONLY me that I'm not discussing the right topic. How funny. Maybe I should point out to you each time you go off on one of your rants that has nothing at all to do with the thread topic.
And austbounty - I haven't a clue as to what in the heck you're talking about. The CNN article of Clinton's speech were exactly as he gave it. You trying to take his words and change them around to meet your own agenda?
