media bias? - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: media bias?
Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:53 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


Since the town you are at has no other religion other than christianity, actually in some religions you are born into it, baptize and circumcisions ring a bell? If you can not differentiate a handicap, religion, a color, a gender, a sexual orientation... something you're innate with vs a political view, what more can be said about your wits... Tell me, were you one of the kids that put a square block in a circular hole and insisted, since it came in the same kit, all the shapes should fit in that circular hole?

i was born a west virginian, but i chose not to stay. that is absolutely no different than being "born" into a religion. it is a choice that you make to either stay or leave.

and, for the umpteenth time in this forum, you have decided to ignorantly take something from my registry out of context. imagine that. do you know my religion? do you know if i even have one? did you know that WV has both synagogues and mosques as well as many other types of religions??? and did you know that where i am currently has dozens of different religions and sects?

ive opened my eyes to new people, places, and ideas. you should try and do the same. but no, you purport to know about me and where i am from just because making clueless claims will support your argument, regardless of the facts. so once again i salute you on spitting baseless rhetoric and thinking it somehow makes you look smarter or right.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


Bingo. Yes. You got it. Of course. You betcha. Hey, if Smith and Wesson puts forth a non hippie to run the corporation. ABC can place a non-conservative person to portray in a low income family sitcom, like Rosanne.
For a person who could careless about having protection in a hate crime, now you want to champion and group together political views with race, gender, ethnicity and all get the same protection.
Just like the other thread where the trans gender didn't deserve a hate crime because you and the bible do not agree with that way of life. Now this discrimination against Republicans should be protected, because now you can associate.
How convenient.

there you go again trying to portray me as some sort of bible thumper just because doing so fits your narrow view of both me and the world at large. surely no one else could ever disagree with your thought process, could they?! zomg!

if you want to debate the hate crime post again, lets go for it. but what you keep ignoring, only when it suits your agenda, is that equality is meant to be flat across the board. you can't say that transgenders (or insert any other group you wish) are equal to everyone else and then give them special treatment. that is the completely opposite of equality!

it is that hypocrisy that i am arguing against with you specifically. i don't give a @!#$ if someone is discriminating against a republican or a democrat, the fact of the matter is that they are discriminating against them. and if you want to treat everyone equally, something that the left/progressives/blue/democrats/whateverthe@!#$termyouwanttouse, then you have to treat EVERYONE equally, not just those that you feel like. you simply cannot promote giving everyone a fair chance in one breath and then in the very next do the exact opposite of that. that is the problem here, and with hate crime laws, and all this other bs.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


And just like government has their anti-discrimination laws. The private sector has their laws as well. Indulge some from this list.

again you try to argue a tangent of what i say. you specifically stated above that you are arguing that since the eeoc doesnt consider poli aff as a discrimination they protect against that it is ok to discriminate against them. by that same logic it is okay to discriminate against anyone else that the eeoc doesnt protect, correct? if no, explain the difference.

for your reference, a credible source, not wikipedia:
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-orientation_parent_marital_political.html
Quote:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce the protections that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation.

so since the eeoc doesnt protect gays against discrimination then that makes it ok, right? i mean that is what youre saying above. yet how many times have you said the opposite? so which is it....either the eeoc allowing discrimination is ok or it isnt. and if it isnt, then how do you make a case for it to be ok only in certain circumstances that YOU agree with and not in others? how do you come to that decision? how do you not consider it hypocrisy? please, address these questions directly instead of skirting around them and trying to argue something different, like you normally do.






Re: media bias?
Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:09 AM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:


there are people on this very site who just a few years ago were screaming at the top of there lungs saying that there was absolutly no media bias whatsoever. so no, not everyone new.
98% of the red necks that ride on Republican shorts bus here were screaming out of their lungs that FOX news was never a right leaning news source. So yhea, you are right on that accord.

Quote:

again with the whole conspiracy. why do you have to take everything anyone says and take it out to the 9th degree so what? sorry i guess i just feel its pretty sad to hire people that fit your political agenda. i posted the article because i thought it was interesting they were basically admiting what it versus saying it didnt exist like it used to be. that and this place has been dead in here.
Like we both said, it happens on both sides. Besides just like i have accepted it, because I’ve yet to see it make a impact on my life or on what I see. It comes down to: i don't care. Personally, I don't believe it being to true as there's lots of Right wing folks within Hollywood and I’m sure they had their fair share of an "agenda," I just think this author will not do research on that aspect, as it will impede on his agenda.

Quote:

you know good and well thats not what i meaning. the article showed several examples of how they were adding things into shows to as they said it, tick off the other side and again you didnt even read what i said i said "IF" not that they specifically were for sesame street, theres a big diffrence.
Between your empty thoughts, and not responding my questions, I could only draw that conclusion of ; I don't know what you mean.

Quote:

goodwrench. if you ever entered your car in a car show, if im the judge, do you think it would be totally cool and okay if i docked you 50 points becaues you weren't conservative? you know. your car is just as good as the guys next to you. but he thinks like me so im going to award him more points. or do you think that you should be judged the same as the next person no matter his political views? i have no problem with someone having a different view. i guess i just choose to treat people equally.
Of course not, you can add would it be fair if you docked me points for being domestic, or being a coupe, or maybe you don't like me, or how long or short I have my hair. Of course it is not fair, just like trying to work for the NRA you just can't be a left winger.

tabs wrote:

i was born a west virginian, but i chose not to stay. that is absolutely no different than being "born" into a religion. it is a choice that you make to either stay or leave.

Yhea, but whether you are “West Viginian” or Jewish, it comes down to: it is what you are from birth. But your dumbass at one week old is not registering with a R, I, D, etc or reading on candidates on who to vote on next week's election.

Quote:

and, for the umpteenth time in this forum, you have decided to ignorantly take something from my registry out of context. imagine that. do you know my religion? do you know if i even have one? did you know that WV has both synagogues and mosques as well as many other types of religions??? and did you know that where i am currently has dozens of different religions and sects?
I just read your past gibberish. It's enough to make a conclusion on your base standings and relegates to what you say on here.

Quote:

ive opened my eyes to new people, places, and ideas. you should try and do the same. but no, you purport to know about me and where i am from just because making clueless claims will support your argument, regardless of the facts. so once again i salute you on spitting baseless rhetoric and thinking it somehow makes you look smarter or right.


Right. No pun intended.

Quote:

there you go again trying to portray me as some sort of bible thumper just because doing so fits your narrow view of both me and the world at large. surely no one else could ever disagree with your thought process, could they?! zomg!

Pot meet Kettle, hypocrite. Here you are arguing with me because I'm not conservative. I think I need the EEOC to come down on your ass.

Quote:

it is that hypocrisy that i am arguing against with you specifically. i don't give a @!#$ if someone is discriminating against a republican or a democrat, the fact of the matter is that they are discriminating against them. and if you want to treat everyone equally, something that the left/progressives/blue/democrats/whateverthe@!#$termyouwanttouse, then you have to treat EVERYONE equally, not just those that you feel like. you simply cannot promote giving everyone a fair chance in one breath and then in the very next do the exact opposite of that. that is the problem here, and with hate crime laws, and all this other bs.
You do know that's very liberal thinking right? But your dumbass will never admit it. Shoot some guns off and watch Nascar to realign to your roots.

Quote:

again you try to argue a tangent of what i say. you specifically stated above that you are arguing that since the eeoc doesnt consider poli aff as a discrimination they protect against that it is ok to discriminate against them. by that same logic it is okay to discriminate against anyone else that the eeoc doesnt protect, correct? if no, explain the difference.
for your reference, a credible source, not wikipedia:
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-orientation_parent_marital_political.html

Speaking of arguing of a tangent, the wiki was used as there was a healthy list of rights all in perfect order. Not to be used for true reference.
And are you that freaking stupid, i told you exactly where I stand and why, if you don't agree or more accurately just do not know how to differentiate, then what will I need to do; stick figure drawings? Again, square block in a circular hole.

Quote:

so since the eeoc doesnt protect gays against discrimination then that makes it ok, right? i mean that is what youre saying above. yet how many times have you said the opposite? so which is it....either the eeoc allowing discrimination is ok or it isnt. and if it isnt, then how do you make a case for it to be ok only in certain circumstances that YOU agree with and not in others? how do you come to that decision? how do you not consider it hypocrisy? please, address these questions directly instead of skirting around them and trying to argue something different, like you normally do.
Hey knubnuts, don't confuse not liking the response I give you vs. skirting around them. If you can't read, well.. that's your issue, if you can and don't like my answer... well, deal or hang yourself.
Sexual orientation, as you may know, the military had an issue with it as well up until this year. Is it messed-up that federal employees doesn't get protected. yes. I think your stupid & illiterate self doesn't read or doesn't like to distinguish with something you're innate with vs. something you choose. Sexual orientation vs political affiliation. (like a broken record). And yes, it is hypocritical that the EEOC does that. But being that it's a federal affair, I would not be surprised that there is a Right Wing wasn't involved in it. lol
So what was the point of your rant again?


By the way, to both of you two. You two have proved the case of a professor I had in grad school and he once addressed the class. He said, (and basically I repeat it here about a million times to many of you inbreds) Liberal vs. Conservatives are totally mislabeled. It is Modern Liberal and Conservative Liberals. Unless you are a mass murder and does ethnic cleansing, you all want equal rights (at least on this thread---for now) that being said is a liberal mentality.
Congratulations on your hypocrisy of past threads of not giving hate crime a standing chance and now bitch endlessly and cry foul that the supposedly Hollywood doesn't hire more Right-Wing people is about as priceless as Sarah Palin enlightening the world on who Paul Revere was.

Thanks for the chuckles. See you all on the next useless thread.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: media bias?
Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:48 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


Quote:

there you go again trying to portray me as some sort of bible thumper just because doing so fits your narrow view of both me and the world at large. surely no one else could ever disagree with your thought process, could they?! zomg!

Pot meet Kettle, hypocrite. Here you are arguing with me because I'm not conservative. I think I need the EEOC to come down on your ass.

here we go again with this. no, i am not arguing with you because youre not conservative. i honestly, 100% do not give a flying @!#$ about that. unlike you, i dont buy into these labels or blindly hate or disregard someone because of them. but that is all you can do. again, you are not able to see beyond R and D, red and blue, conservative or liberal. you just try to portray me in that light because it is the only way you can see things so you just assume that everyone else is as narrow minded as you. no one else could ever disagree with you other than one of the dreaded conservatives! *gasp*

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


Quote:

it is that hypocrisy that i am arguing against with you specifically. i don't give a @!#$ if someone is discriminating against a republican or a democrat, the fact of the matter is that they are discriminating against them. and if you want to treat everyone equally, something that the left/progressives/blue/democrats/whateverthe@!#$termyouwanttouse, then you have to treat EVERYONE equally, not just those that you feel like. you simply cannot promote giving everyone a fair chance in one breath and then in the very next do the exact opposite of that. that is the problem here, and with hate crime laws, and all this other bs.
You do know that's very liberal thinking right? But your dumbass will never admit it. Shoot some guns off and watch Nascar to realign to your roots.

read the last point above. again you are unable to address the issue directly and instead try to skew the conversation because all you see is red and blue, right and left. im not the one calling myself a conservative...you are. so i have no problem when some of my thinking is considered to be either conservative or liberal. right is right regardless of what side of the spectrum you think it falls on.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

i told you exactly where I stand and why, if you don't agree or more accurately just do not know how to differentiate

you said the reason you supported discrimination against poli aff was because it wasnt covered by the eeoc. i pointed out that the eeoc doesnt protect against discrimination against homosexuals either. how hard is it to see the correlations between that? it doesnt matter that you agree with one and not the other, the logic you are using to support (or in this case, deny) the one cause is flawed. maybe next time you should come up with a better argument that isnt a paradox of your own beliefs
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


Congratulations on your hypocrisy of past threads of not giving hate crime a standing chance and now bitch endlessly and cry foul that the supposedly Hollywood doesn't hire more Right-Wing people

for the last time they are two different issues. one (this thread) is wanting all people to be treated the same, the other (hate crime laws) wants to treat people differently. if you truly want equality, then strive for equality. why is that such a hard concept for you to swallow? we all have the same innate intrinsic value so, ideally, we should all be treated the same. saying that its ok to treat a republican different than a democrat is no better than saying its ok to treat a gay person different than a straight one. if we are all equal then we should all be treated equally. what is the problem with you understanding that?





Re: media bias?
Friday, June 17, 2011 10:25 AM on j-body.org
wow, quite the quote festival here. i actually heard an interview of the author shapiro. in long format not using snippets teh raw interview he did with these people does support his theory. it is no different than when hollywood blacklisted people in the past.

you would have to have your head in the sand to not see these things.

on the fox news thing, they are conservative based, lets be honest. they do however allow for other points of view to be fully explored as well. if they were closed minded juan williams would not have a job there. I disagree with almost everything he says, but the very left npr didn't keep him even thoguh by comparison he was moderate when looking at the others in that group.

I'm not looking to get into a nut swinging quote fest but there is plenty of evidence to support.

what i find funny is the difference bw msnbc and fox. calling them what they are, mouth pieces for different sides, it is funny to see the difference in dialogue and terms used to describe other people. msnbc sounds like a low level union meeting with crass terms for people they don't agree with. they claim moral superiority yet always degrade instead of debate. fox isn't perfect but at least they try to maintain some level of decency.



Re: media bias?
Monday, June 20, 2011 5:22 AM on j-body.org
Congratulations on your hypocrisy of past threads of not giving hate crime a standing chance and now bitch endlessly and cry foul that the supposedly Hollywood doesn't hire more Right-Wing people is about as priceless as Sarah Palin enlightening the world on who Paul Revere was.




actually look at my origonal posted. i didnt btich or whine about it, i just posted. you started the whining and quoting up a storm. i just responded to your posts. i should go post up a story about a idiot repulican just to see your head explode since you seem to think im some hardcore repulican. think your head would probalby explode. hell i probalby hate sara palin more then you do.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search