Ask the liberal.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
What the bloody hell is a liberal?

Why is American liberalism almost the antithesis of liberalism past?
 
The definition of a liberal: Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

The Republican definition of liberal: Gay, French, America-hating, terrorists.
 
UK political definition of Liberal: can make as many promises as they like because no bugger will ever vote them into power.

I don't agree with that - I like many of their policies and have voted for them - but the chances of my seeing a UK Lib Dem government during this lifetime are slim.
 
haha....that's how it is in Southern US....life could be so bad for them under the Bush administration and all of Bush's economic policies could be hurting them....but they will vote Republican no matter what because of the right-wing propaganda machine that is the media.
 
Please enlighten us upon how "the media" is a right-wing propaganda machine, I for one would really like to know.

Do you belief that government is there to help the people?
 
Isn't it wonderful how governments are never any good at anything, other than conspiracy theories?
 
A_Wanderer said:
Please enlighten us upon how "the media" is a right-wing propaganda machine, I for one would really like to know.

Do you belief that government is there to help the people?
Click to expand...


Both sides have their propaganda machines. Taking all media forms and not restricting them to "news" programs (excluding the press for now):

CNN left-wing
MSNBC Identity crisis
Fox Right Wing
Talk Radio Mostly right wing--Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage
with some weak left wing like Air America
CBS Left wing
ABC, NBC Lean left
Hollywood Left
Country Music Right
Rock Music Left, but for the most part can't be bothered.
Television
Evangelism shows: RIGHT

BUT BACK ON TOPIC, WHY ARE LIBERALS EMBARASSED TO BE CALLED LIBERALS?
 
MrBrau1 said:
Dear Liberal,

Why do you hate America?

Signed- 58 Yr Old White Christian Male in GA.
Click to expand...
hope4u49_1.png
 
Okay this is why the media is a right-wing propaganda machine.

As we know, every media corporation in America is owned by a massive corporation. The main ones are Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, GE, and News Corp. These five corporations control 95% of what we know as the "media". This includes radio, print, and television sources. So everything you hear on these sources is (by extension) put out by these corporations. So say there is a new bill in Congress which would make it cheaper and easier to outsource jobs, GE (which is known for being one of the biggest companies to outsource jobs) isn't gonna show an investigative report on this bill during NBC news. This incident happened when a telecommunications bill was being passed by Michael Powell and the FCC. It gave these large corporations even more power to do own more media outlets. Total, in the five companies I mentioned, there was less than half an hour of news coverage on this bill in all five companies combined. It would have been bad for the corporations to let the public know about the bill so they did not give out much information on it through their news companies. I'm not suggesting that this is some large conspiracy. It's good business. If some information hurts your company, you don't let people know about it. But the fact is, the Republicans favor these large corporations when doing their work in Washington and these large corporations affect the media as we know it.
 
unosdostres14 said:
Okay this is why the media is a right-wing propaganda machine.

As we know, every media corporation in America is owned by a massive corporation. The main ones are Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, GE, and News Corp. These five corporations control 95% of what we know as the "media". This includes radio, print, and television sources. So everything you hear on these sources is (by extension) put out by these corporations. So say there is a new bill in Congress which would make it cheaper and easier to outsource jobs, GE (which is known for being one of the biggest companies to outsource jobs) isn't gonna show an investigative report on this bill during NBC news. This incident happened when a telecommunications bill was being passed by Michael Powell and the FCC. It gave these large corporations even more power to do own more media outlets. Total, in the five companies I mentioned, there was less than half an hour of news coverage on this bill in all five companies combined. It would have been bad for the corporations to let the public know about the bill so they did not give out much information on it through their news companies. I'm not suggesting that this is some large conspiracy. It's good business. If some information hurts your company, you don't let people know about it. But the fact is, the Republicans favor these large corporations when doing their work in Washington and these large corporations affect the media as we know it.
Click to expand...

Major corporations own both left and right wing media outlets. Typically, these corporations only care about the bottom line, regardless of politcal affiliation. CBS/Viacom is a giant conglomerate, and they are considered left leaning. Corporate ownership is not an expression of politcal favor. Try again.
 
But they are right-wing how?

Are they all pro-Republican, do they control the independence of their news divisions, do they not question this administration?

It would seem to me that in the profession of journalism there is often a soft overall sympathy to the left and it is this is what gets reflected on many outlets. I have not seen some sort of large scale pro-GOP bias in the media ~ quite the contrary I have seen a lot of questioning and exposition sometimes to ridiculous levels (the almost self-flagellating blanket coverage of Abu Ghraib contrasted against ignoring the crimes of Saddam ~ see Eason Jordan admitting to not covering what went on during the 1990's in order to keep the Baghdad bureau open). They will question the government, there is freedom of the press in the US and while ownership may be consolidated there is surely a considerable degree of freedom in what gets reported.
 
clipper699 said:


Major corporations own both left and right wing media outlets. Typically, these corporations only care about the bottom line, regardless of politcal affiliation. CBS/Viacom is a giant conglomerate, and they are considered left leaning. Corporate ownership is not an expression of politcal favor. Try again.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the corporations themselves are for Republicans or for Democrats. I'm saying that these corporatons screen their media outlets to make sure that no information given out hurts their interests. These interests of these large corporations are generally the same interests of Republicans. This is seen with GE and outsourcing. GE favors outsourcing because it costs less. Republicans favor outsourcing because it allows for lower taxes to the rich (the republican base). So if GE doesn't discuss the problem of outsourcing in the media, this helps the republicans. They aren't endorsing the Republicans, but their interests coincide with those of the Republicans.
 
Again with the Republicans = Rich people. This is utter tripe, the rich are a minority in the US, surely the Republicans could not be winning elections by targeting a small section of the demographics.
 
The term "liberal bias in the media" is tossed around a lot. In fact, the contrary has happened since 9/11. When Bush proclaimed "you're either with us or against us" it seemed un-American to criticize the government. This is why when you are watching the little ticker on foxnews, every once in a while you see. TERROR ALERT: YELLOW. Since 9/11, there has been a definite conservative bias in the media. Sure, there have been instances where there has been liberal handlings (Dan Rather and the Bush military thing), but there also have been major instances where the media would not criticize Bush. Where was the major outcry when no weapons of mass destruction were ever found? You think the media was too rough during the Abu Ghraib scandal? Overlooking some small instances, the corporations of the media as a whole do not criticize the government like they did in the past with presidents like Nixon. Do you think there would be a "woodward and bernstein" of today investigating president Bush. No, as time goes on, the media becomes less and less free, and more and more a product of the corporations that run it.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Again with the Republicans = Rich people. This is utter tripe, the rich are a minority in the US, surely the Republicans could not be winning elections by targeting a small section of the demographics.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that Republicans do not target the rich in their policies?

That is absolutely false and really shows your lack of knowledge in politics. Of course Republican policies favor the rich. 90% of Bush's tax cut went to the top earning 2% in America.
 
The poor people who are voting for Republicans vote the way they do because of their stances on social issues.
 
unosdostres14 said:


Are you suggesting that Republicans do not target the rich in their policies?

That is absolutely false and really shows your lack of knowledge in politics. Of course Republican policies favor the rich. 90% of Bush's tax cut went to the top earning 2% in America.
Click to expand...
We can go toe to toe over politics but it is a simple fact that you cannot win elections by exclusively targeting a minority. Thats the way democracy works, you try to get the majority of votes. Now you do allude to social issues as one reason that people vote republican but they are not the only reasons.

Some people see Bush as a decisive leader who has taken proper action against Islamism post-9.11 ~ the adoption of the Bush doctrine strongly reflects those of the early cold war and do seem to be a brilliant strategy that is already begining to yield dividends.

It is flawed to go about painting republicans as greedy rich white guys or ignorant bible thumpers when in truth the party is made up of a wide variety of people from many walks of life. I might as well start saying that all democrats are all PC thugs and urban blacks or that Greens are Stalinists.
 
Last edited:
yes, the rich republicans cater to the masses by claiming to be morally upright christians...so the masses go "well, golly, Tom DeLay is such a great christian man. i'll vote for him because of his ethics"...meanwhile, Delay is constantly being investigated
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:

It is flawed to go about painting republicans as greedy rich white guys or ignorant bible thumpers when in truth the party is made up of a wide variety of people from many walks of life.
Click to expand...

The people that follow the party are composed of all different economic, social, and religious backgrounds. But when you look at percentages, in terms of how much money they have those in the top 15% of America vote overwhelmingly for Republicans and those in the bottom 15% of America vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. There are rich democrats and there are poor Republicans, but the base of the Republican party is generally more economically well off.
 
A_Wanderer said:

Some people see Bush as a decisive leader who has taken proper action against Islamism post-9.11 ~ the adoption of the Bush doctrine strongly reflects those of the early cold war and do seem to be a brilliant strategy that is already begining to yield dividends.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the Bush doctrine. This allows unilateral strikes against countries without UN approval. Hmm....yes....those dividents that we are beginning to yield. 1,500 soldiers that died looking for weapons of mass destruction are a great dividend! Yeah....because of the Bush doctrine, we stopped Saddam from making his weapons of mass destruction! We'll just ignore the lack of such weapons and the dead men and women.
 
unosdostres14 said:


Ah, yes, the Bush doctrine. This allows unilateral strikes against countries without UN approval. Hmm....yes....those dividents that we are beginning to yield. 1,500 soldiers that died looking for weapons of mass destruction are a great dividend! Yeah....because of the Bush doctrine, we stopped Saddam from making his weapons of mass destruction! We'll just ignore the lack of such weapons and the dead men and women.
Click to expand...
I think that the shift towards democratic change in the Arab world, the rapid changes in the attitudes toward Islamism in the region and the destabalisation of the Mullah's in Iran are all part of that. The UN has been exposed for what it is, a gravy train for corrupt officials and a hotbed of anti-semitism and despots. Oil for food and food for sex scandals, coddling Arafat and the utter inability of it to stand up for human rights by stacking commissions with the worst abusers all illustrate why there is no United Nations.

WMD were a reason to go to war, not the only reason. Freedom and liberty are the only ways to defeat the sick ideology of radical Islam once and for all and ensure a peace, stability and prosperity for a long time to come.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
Hey there! I finally made an account here!
Replies
2
Views
265
U2_family365
U
G
U2 UV Poster Help
Replies
15
Views
1K
dmalezi
D
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
R
Help a MacPhisto out! - Night #2 (9/30) at the Sphere (pics and videos)
Replies
3
Views
738
Ralph_Sutter
R
DaveC
2024 NFL Playoff Pick 'Em
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
DaveC
DaveC

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom