|
"She actually says "Do you realize how offensive that is", because a man has a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache.
Anyway, even if the first idiot had any actual reasons for his statement (I seriously doubt he did), would he have even got the chance to say it?
[sarcasm] There were rumors that there were going to be counterprotestors planted in the crowd to make them look bad. I'm not saying it happened, but CNN would be the ones to do it, I think. [/sarcasm]
|
There were rumors that there were going to be counterprotestors planted in the crowd to make them look bad. I'm not saying it happened, but CNN would be the ones to do it, I think."She actually says "Do you realize how offensive that is", because a man has a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache.
Anyway, even if the first idiot had any actual reasons for his statement (I seriously doubt he did), would he have even got the chance to say it?
David,
There are equally rumours that the police infiltrate every anti-capitalist demo and commit violence to justify their actions and make the protesters look bad. As you seem to have joined in these conspiracy theories, albeit with a different target set, would you like to be measured for your complimentary tinfoil hat now or later? ;-)|
|
Well that first guy WAS a dumbass "he's a fascist". "why?" "because I think he's a fascist"
If you're gonna make a dumb statement like that have a reason, don't just repeat the meme because you heard it on Hannity.
And how many times did we get to see protesters inanely shrieking that Bush was a fascist while mediatainment faces endorsed their "appropriate" protests?
As for the bias from the reporter she was obviously upset from the getgo so maybe she shouldn't have volunteered herself to do the reporting if she knew that it would get to her like that, what did she expect from the tea parties? "We love Obama but can he stop spending?"
No, that was not a reporter. That was a political activist filing an video report. CNN just pays some of them to help bundle its political views with its mediatainment program.
As far as the tea parties themselves, I hate those things. but that's way off topic to go into.
It is symptomatic of the underlying issue.
Indeed, it is symptomatic of the sheer absurdity we now have. (The Daily Show clip, at least for now. And it is the last minute, from 7:20 on, that is the most relevant part. Warning: seriously off-color humor.)It seems everyone is confused about who everyone else is, and even who they are supposed to be.
There were rumors that there were going to be counterprotestors planted in the crowd to make them look bad. I'm not saying it happened, but CNN would be the ones to do it, I think."She actually says "Do you realize how offensive that is", because a man has a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache.
Anyway, even if the first idiot had any actual reasons for his statement (I seriously doubt he did), would he have even got the chance to say it?
David,
There are equally rumours that the police infiltrate every anti-capitalist demo and commit violence to justify their actions and make the protesters look bad. As you seem to have joined in these conspiracy theories, albeit with a different target set, would you like to be measured for your complimentary tinfoil hat now or later? ;-)
Yeah, I agree, that kind of thinking is pretty silly. A more reasonable assumption would be that this reporter looked around and saw the most extreme person (and probably one of the most unintelligent ones) and decided to pick them to talk to.
|
|
There were rumors that there were going to be counterprotestors planted in the crowd to make them look bad. I'm not saying it happened, but CNN would be the ones to do it, I think."She actually says "Do you realize how offensive that is", because a man has a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache.
Anyway, even if the first idiot had any actual reasons for his statement (I seriously doubt he did), would he have even got the chance to say it?
David,
There are equally rumours that the police infiltrate every anti-capitalist demo and commit violence to justify their actions and make the protesters look bad. As you seem to have joined in these conspiracy theories, albeit with a different target set, would you like to be measured for your complimentary tinfoil hat now or later? ;-)
Sorry. I guess I should have written sarcasm around that.
Edit: Fixed it now.
|
|
There were rumors that there were going to be counterprotestors planted in the crowd to make them look bad. I'm not saying it happened, but CNN would be the ones to do it, I think."She actually says "Do you realize how offensive that is", because a man has a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache.
Anyway, even if the first idiot had any actual reasons for his statement (I seriously doubt he did), would he have even got the chance to say it?
David,
There are equally rumours that the police infiltrate every anti-capitalist demo and commit violence to justify their actions and make the protesters look bad. As you seem to have joined in these conspiracy theories, albeit with a different target set, would you like to be measured for your complimentary tinfoil hat now or later? ;-)Sorry. I guess I should have written sarcasm around that.
Edit: Fixed it now.
David,
Apologies for not picking up on the sarcasm. I've clearly been in too many discussions with people who really do believe this stuff to pick up deadpan delivery via Internets any more.|
|
There were rumors that there were going to be counterprotestors planted in the crowd to make them look bad. I'm not saying it happened, but CNN would be the ones to do it, I think."She actually says "Do you realize how offensive that is", because a man has a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache.
Anyway, even if the first idiot had any actual reasons for his statement (I seriously doubt he did), would he have even got the chance to say it?
David,
There are equally rumours that the police infiltrate every anti-capitalist demo and commit violence to justify their actions and make the protesters look bad. As you seem to have joined in these conspiracy theories, albeit with a different target set, would you like to be measured for your complimentary tinfoil hat now or later? ;-)Sorry. I guess I should have written sarcasm around that.
Edit: Fixed it now.
David,
Apologies for not picking up on the sarcasm. I've clearly been in too many discussions with people who really do believe this stuff to pick up deadpan delivery via Internets any more.
No problem. Sarcasm doesn't really translate well to the interweb anyway.
|
Actually lots of conservatives did protest the creation of DHS on civil liberty grounds. Others protested it on limited government grounds.
Further, I'd find it less amusing if conservatives in the US hadn't viciously attacked anyone protesting the establishment of the DHS on civil liberties grounds. I believe the words used were 'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'.
And yet it took the DHS looking into militia groups and other right wing radicals for them to find their voice, for the most part. I don't remember Limbaugh decrying the DHS when they looked into left wing groups. Or Malkin. Or House/Senate Republicans. Or Fox News.
What I do remember was rhetoric along the lines of “None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead,” said by that nice chap Senator John Cornyn, (R-TX). News flash for you folks! You create a huge surveillance state, and it's going to turn it's eye upon you. And it wasn't the Democrats who did that. (Though, sadly, many of them got scared in key votes, which was a real annoyance. Understandable though, given the Republican tendency to wrap themselves around the flag and 9/11 and decry anyone who opposed these acts as helping Al-Qaeda)
Also, the Teabagging nonsense was quite amusing. Especially the Fox sponsorship of the events!
Also, the Teabagging nonsense was quite amusing. Especially the Fox sponsorship of the events!
No, the coverage from CNN and NBC(& affiliates) of the tea parties was the amusing part. After watching their lack of journalist integrity makes you realize why Fox kicks their rear ends in the ratings.
|
|
Is that the Fox that decries protests from left wing groups as 'a call for violence' 'dangerous' and calls the protesters pinheads? Or is that the Fox that lets Cody Willard, Business Correspondent decry the fascism in the US? Or the Fox that lets people call for revolution, and not be shot down by Sean Hannity?
Either way, I listen to and watch the BBC. Much better news.
Is that the Fox that decries protests from left wing groups as 'a call for violence' 'dangerous' and calls the protesters pinheads? Or is that the Fox that lets Cody Willard, Business Correspondent decry the fascism in the US? Or the Fox that lets people call for revolution, and not be shot down by Sean Hannity?
Either way, I listen to and watch the BBC. Much better news.
Just curious. If you don't watch Fox news, how do know what you just mentioned occurred? I have a feeling what you're going to say but I'd like to hear it from you. BTW, BBC is Ok. I rate it above CNN, but it is too left-wing for my tastes.
|
|
From a mixture of sources. Reading the internet, looking on various forums, checking YouTube Videos, watching the Daily Show along with various news orientated programs over here. Fox gets mentioned a lot!
There was a recent show over here, called Newswipe, which looked at the media's coverage of the G20 conference and the demonstrations around it. It concluded by showing Bill O'Reilly declaring that demonstrators wanted 'Communism everywhere, and for us to lower our weapons while Osama Bin Laden beheads people', because they were, rather loosely mind you, protesting about the economy and the war in Iraq.
So, left wing protests are nutcases, while right wingers who want Texas to leave the Union are praised by Sean Hannity.
Finally, the BBC is not left wing. It is neutral (by law). And it's neutral in content, as one can tell by the constant accusations of bias by both sides of the political spectrum.
From a mixture of sources. Reading the internet, looking on various forums, checking YouTube Videos, watching the Daily Show along with various news orientated programs over here. Fox gets mentioned a lot!
There was a recent show over here, called Newswipe, which looked at the media's coverage of the G20 conference and the demonstrations around it. It concluded by showing Bill O'Reilly declaring that demonstrators wanted 'Communism everywhere, and for us to lower our weapons while Osama Bin Laden beheads people', because they were, rather loosely mind you, protesting about the economy and the war in Iraq.
So, left wing protests are nutcases, while right wingers who want Texas to leave the Union are praised by Sean Hannity.
Finally, the BBC is not left wing. It is neutral (by law). And it's neutral in content, as one can tell by the constant accusations of bias by both sides of the political spectrum.
BBC is not neutral. As far as your accusations about Fox News, I would recommend that you watch it instead of listening to bits of it taken out of context or material that has been re-edited.
Your news outlet is biased.
No, YOUR news outlet is biased.
NO, YOUR-
Want some news, folks?
The more extreme one's opinion, the more likely one is to identify the news as biased (usually in the other direction). THAT is called confirmation bias, and, unlike bias on FOX or NPR, pretty much everyone agrees that confirmation bias is real...
|
|
The Daily Mail is the most hideously biased paper over here. Incidentally, you'll find left wingers bash the BBC just as hard. Recently infact Robert Fisk accused the BBC of being a Zionist mouthpiece.
Most of the clips I've seen of Fox are not edited either (something that'd show up pretty obviously). And they leave me in no desire to watch any more of the 'news' channel.
I've got your "media bias" right here.
"The tendency to see bias in the news...is such a reliable indicator of partisan thinking that researchers coined a term, "hostile media effect," to describe the sincere belief among partisans that news reports are painting them in the worst possible light."
Your news outlet is biased.
No, YOUR news outlet is biased.
NO, YOUR-
Want some news, folks?
The more extreme one's opinion, the more likely one is to identify the news as biased (usually in the other direction). THAT is called confirmation bias, and, unlike bias on FOX or NPR, pretty much everyone agrees that confirmation bias is real...
I have no problems admitting FOX news leans to the right. I just don't like the fact that Uzzy is criticizing a station that he has never watched.
The Daily Mail is the most hideously biased paper over here. Incidentally, you'll find left wingers bash the BBC just as hard. Recently infact Robert Fisk accused the BBC of being a Zionist mouthpiece.
Most of the clips I've seen of Fox are not edited either (something that'd show up pretty obviously). And they leave me in no desire to watch any more of the 'news' channel.
The Daily Mail isn't the only one running that story. If you look you'll find many others carrying the same story.
|
|
Of course not. There are other Right Wing papers here in the UK, just as there are Left Wing papers. You fail to realise that there is often a large tension between the print media and the BBC. They are eager to paint the BBC in a bad light whenever they can, due to the BBC's massive advantage of the license fee. It doesn't change my point, which is that the BBC is often accused of being biased towards and in favour of all political viewpoints.
And I've probably watched hours worth of Fox News, via smaller snippets on various media. Do full ten minute clips, unedited and uncut not count?
I see we agree anyway. Fox does lean to the right (though, 'lean' is probably underselling it)
Of course not. There are other Right Wing papers here in the UK, just as there are Left Wing papers. You fail to realise that there is often a large tension between the print media and the BBC. They are eager to paint the BBC in a bad light whenever they can, due to the BBC's massive advantage of the license fee. It doesn't change my point, which is that the BBC is often accused of being biased towards and in favour of all political viewpoints.
And I've probably watched hours worth of Fox News, via smaller snippets on various media. Do full ten minute clips, unedited and uncut not count?
I see we agree anyway. Fox does lean to the right (though, 'lean' is probably underselling it)
You don't seem to understand. This is something the BBC has come out and admitted in a leaked document. This has nothing to do with "right" wing vs "left" wing newspapers. However, if you have a newspaper article that can counteract this info I'll gladly take a look at it.
|
|
You don't seem to understand. This is something the BBC has come out and admitted in a leaked document. This has nothing to do with "right" wing vs "left" wing newspapers. However, if you have a newspaper article that can counteract this info I'll gladly take a look at it.Of course not. There are other Right Wing papers here in the UK, just as there are Left Wing papers. You fail to realise that there is often a large tension between the print media and the BBC. They are eager to paint the BBC in a bad light whenever they can, due to the BBC's massive advantage of the license fee. It doesn't change my point, which is that the BBC is often accused of being biased towards and in favour of all political viewpoints.
And I've probably watched hours worth of Fox News, via smaller snippets on various media. Do full ten minute clips, unedited and uncut not count?
I see we agree anyway. Fox does lean to the right (though, 'lean' is probably underselling it)
This, funnily enough, shows that you've done nothing more then a quick google search and plucked out an article.
Point 1. This was not a 'leaked' document. This was from a conference held by the BBC and broadcast live on the web.
Point 2. The points raised in the article you mentioned were all points raised in open discussion, by individuals (albiet individuals in positions of influence). They did not at all define BBC policy. What does define BBC policy are the Editorial Guidelines, which you can read here.
Point 3. Here's the response to the article (which was one of many of the laughable attempts by the print media to attack the BBC, for the reasons I explained above) from the Director General of the BBC, and the director of the news at the BBC.
DG of the BBC
Director of the News at the BBC
Finally, in regard to the Fox News point, if I wanted to watch it, I'd have to pay extra money. Which I really, really don't want to. So I make do with watching in horror the various clips on the net. While this may not give me a full account of what Fox News is, I feel the hours of clips I've seen from various sites do give me a good enough view to form a valid opinion.
|
|
The Daily Mail is the most hideously biased paper over here. Incidentally, you'll find left wingers bash the BBC just as hard. Recently infact Robert Fisk accused the BBC of being a Zionist mouthpiece.
Ah, the absurdity!
Particularly since the BBC has ruled against their Mideast editor for "anti-Zionist" bias.As for Fox vs CNN vs MSNBC, that is why I posed the Daily Show link. It sums up the sheer absurdity mediatainment has fallen into with this particular incident.
This, funnily enough, shows that you've done nothing more then a quick google search and plucked out an article.
Actually, I knew to look for the article because the story made news here in the States a couple of years back. The story is true. Your insulting tone doesn't change the facts.
As Newton said, for every action, there is a reaction. Fox News is just the equation trying to balance itself out.
|
|
Really, this back and forth about the news media is counterproductive. Yes, Fox News leans to the right, and yes CNN leans to the left. Both sides have admitted that at some point, either in so many words or in their actions. The real question here is, did Fox News sponser the tea parties. The answer, based on a quick Lexus Nexus search seems to be no. It was advertised on their broadcasts in paid advertisements and some of the on air pundits took part, but the only sources of information that say that they actually were sponsors and organizers of the events are other media outlets and Democrat politicians.
|
|
This, funnily enough, shows that you've done nothing more then a quick google search and plucked out an article.Actually, I knew to look for the article because the story made news here in the States a couple of years back. The story is true. Your insulting tone doesn't change the facts.
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Facts which I provided for you, which you curiously ignored. Ah well.
The story isn't true, by the way.
As for the Tea Parties, while there may not have been direct sponsorship by Fox News, the fact they put 'FNC' before several of the Tea Parties they went too does imply some level of ownership, the same way the 'Barclay's Premiership' does.
As for the Tea Parties, while there may not have been direct sponsorship by Fox News, the fact they put 'FNC' before several of the Tea Parties they went too does imply some level of ownership, the same way the 'Barclay's Premiership' does.
Listening to John Stewart I see. :D
Or maybe it just indicates which of these gatherings they would be at. Of course that is a less interesting explanation.
P.S.: Was there any banners or other signs to indicate at these (four?) rallies that this was an FNC [sponsored] Tea Party? Or was the indication solely on a screen image that FNC broadcast while talking about the rallies?
|
|
As for the Tea Parties, while there may not have been direct sponsorship by Fox News, the fact they put 'FNC' before several of the Tea Parties they went too does imply some level of ownership, the same way the 'Barclay's Premiership' does.Listening to John Stewart I see. :D
Or maybe it just indicates which of these gatherings they would be at. Of course that is a less interesting explanation.
If that was the case, then they'd just say 'And Fox will be at these Tea Parties'. They wouldn't call them FNC Tax Tea Parties unless they wanted to imply ownership.
If that was the case, then they'd just say 'And Fox will be at these Tea Parties'. They wouldn't call them FNC Tax Tea Parties unless they wanted to imply ownership.As for the Tea Parties, while there may not have been direct sponsorship by Fox News, the fact they put 'FNC' before several of the Tea Parties they went too does imply some level of ownership, the same way the 'Barclay's Premiership' does.Listening to John Stewart I see. :D
Or maybe it just indicates which of these gatherings they would be at. Of course that is a less interesting explanation.
Again, was there anything at these events with banners or such that said, "FNC Tea Parties" or was it just a graphic shown on their program. You know a graphic that is often written in a way to minimize space. But again, that is the boring interpretation, and who really wants that right?
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Facts which I provided for you, which you curiously ignored. Ah well.
The story isn't true, by the way.
ip, the same way the 'Barclay's Premiership' does.
The "facts" that you mention are just the Director of the News' opinion. That one article that you mention there are two former employees of BBC that freely admit to the left wing bias while they worked there. Of course that is their opinion as well. However, as Sam mentioned, BBC's Middle-East editor recently got into trouble. That might tell you that BBC is not as impartial as you might think.
|
Essentially they crying sour grapes. They lost their toys and are pouting.
Ah...not unlike the Dems in '04 huh?
The bottem line in my opinion is who do you think is going to pay for this bailout in the end? The goverment? Or are we going to "sell" our debt to another country again? No in the end it's going to fall on the shoulders of the taxpayer to cover this... even though for most part we will see little benefit. I do hope it works but I don't belive it will. I just don't see how creating more debt can be benificial in the end.
|
|
{sarcasm} I don't want the boring response, I want my paranoid Fox-CNN-BBC world conspiracy! [/sarcasm]
We all know FOX leans right and CNN leans left, so why are people suprised that FOX news would cover something that damages Pres. Obama's popularity and CNN wouldn't . CNN and FOX were doing the opposite thing during the Pres. Bush years. I personnally would like to know where all the fiscal, responsible people were when Pres. Bush was spending billions in Iraq. And don't give me the "War on Terror" line, I didn't support the war in Iraq and was told many times by so-called "conservatives" that I was Un-American because of it.
|
|
Garydee, one thing you should keep in mind when discussing European news outlets (and their biases) is, Europeans are generally more "liberal" (American definition) than Americans. Their "right wing" parties would seem more centrist here, Their "liberal" parties would be a bit to the left of the typical Democrat here (main stream Dems, that is, they're rather to the right of our radical wing of the Democrat party), but are "centrist" in Europe. Their Left Wing parties would make Code Pink look like stuffy bankers from the 20's. They do have their "conservative" parties, but they aren't in the mainstream like Republicans are here.
If you really want "balanced" coverage, look to Agence France Presse. They tend to just report the news and leave the bias to the reader.
If you really want "balanced" coverage, look to Agence France Presse.
As a Texan, aren't you required to blindly hate all things French? Of course, you could always just rename it "Agence Freedom Presse" to make it all OK! ;)
Garydee, one thing you should keep in mind when discussing European news outlets (and their biases) is, Europeans are generally more "liberal" (American definition) than Americans. Their "right wing" parties would seem more centrist here, Their "liberal" parties would be a bit to the left of the typical Democrat here (main stream Dems, that is, they're rather to the right of our radical wing of the Democrat party), but are "centrist" in Europe. Their Left Wing parties would make Code Pink look like stuffy bankers from the 20's. They do have their "conservative" parties, but they aren't in the mainstream like Republicans are here.
If you really want "balanced" coverage, look to Agence France Presse. They tend to just report the news and leave the bias to the reader.
What would my friends and family say if they caught me listening to French news? *shudder* :)
Of course, you could always just rename it "Agence Freedom Presse" to make it all OK! ;)
Hey, that might just work! ;)
|
|
Again, was there anything at these events with banners or such that said, "FNC Tea Parties" or was it just a graphic shown on their program. You know a graphic that is often written in a way to minimize space. But again, that is the boring interpretation, and who really wants that right?If that was the case, then they'd just say 'And Fox will be at these Tea Parties'. They wouldn't call them FNC Tax Tea Parties unless they wanted to imply ownership.As for the Tea Parties, while there may not have been direct sponsorship by Fox News, the fact they put 'FNC' before several of the Tea Parties they went too does imply some level of ownership, the same way the 'Barclay's Premiership' does.Listening to John Stewart I see. :D
Or maybe it just indicates which of these gatherings they would be at. Of course that is a less interesting explanation.
Which is shorter? 'Tax Day Tea Party' or 'FNC Tax Day Tea Party'?
Intentionally or otherwise, by putting their name infront of the 'Tax Day Tea Party', Fox implied ownership. That's just a basic rule of grammar.
Which is shorter? 'Tax Day Tea Party' or 'FNC Tax Day Tea Party'?
I thought you were suggesting they should have said, 'And Fox will be at these Tea Parties' That is certainly longer than, 'FNC Tax Day Tea Party'. But as I say, that interpretation isn't as sexy as thinking, 'Fox owes these rallies'. I understand why someone would want to go with the more interesting interpretation even if it makes little sense.
Intentionally or otherwise, by putting their name infront of the 'Tax Day Tea Party', Fox implied ownership. That's just a basic rule of grammar.
Let's for the sake of argument say I agree, I don't because I don't think little titles on displaces on a news cast are held to the same standard as other things, but let's just say I do agree. Ok, so there were more than 50 of these rallies (a report said there were rallies in all 50 states, which would mean at least 50 rallies). Of these rallies Fox, if we accept your and Stewart's intepration (despite there not being any banners or other indications at the actually rallies), was claimng they "owned" 4 of them. So what about the rest? I mean if we accept your interpretation which showed only 4 of the over 50 rallies being "owned" by Fox, what about the rest of the rallies that weren't "owned" by Fox?
|
|
The "facts" that you mention are just the Director of the News' opinion. That one article that you mention there are two former employees of BBC that freely admit to the left wing bias while they worked there. Of course that is their opinion as well. However, as Sam mentioned, BBC's Middle-East editor recently got into trouble. That might tell you that BBC is not as impartial as you might think.
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Facts which I provided for you, which you curiously ignored. Ah well.
The story isn't true, by the way.
Again, you seem to be misunderstanding something. Firstly, the Daily Mail article suggested that this was a leaked document from a secret event. It wasn't.
Secondly, the Daily Mail article suggested that this was BBC policy. It wasn't. It was an open debate, full of off the cuff remarks. It does not at all show that the BBC is biased. Or that it's policy is biased against Christianity, and full of 'Political Correctness'. (Incidentally, the argument that the BBC is politically correct kinda falls down when you realise that the BBC makes Top Gear. ;) )
Personal opinions do not make BBC Policy. What does are the Guidelines, which I linked to earlier. What the Daily Mail article implied was that the personal opinions at that seminar were infact BBC policy. Which is wrong.
Now, as to Jeremy Bowen. Firstly, the complaint against him was handled by the BBC Trust, an impartial body set up to deal with complaints. The complaint was partially upheld. You can read the BBC Trust's findings here. The actual findings seem quite mild. Hardly evidence of any bias.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Which is shorter? 'Tax Day Tea Party' or 'FNC Tax Day Tea Party'?I thought you were suggesting they should have said, 'And Fox will be at these Tea Parties' That is certainly longer than, 'FNC Tax Day Tea Party'. But as I say, that interpretation isn't as sexy as thinking, 'Fox owes these rallies'. I understand why someone would want to go with the more interesting interpretation even if it makes little sense.
Intentionally or otherwise, by putting their name infront of the 'Tax Day Tea Party', Fox implied ownership. That's just a basic rule of grammar.
I figured that the "FNC Tax Day Tea Party" was indeed intended to be shorter than "And Fox will be at these Tea Parties."
It is also worth noting that from what I saw the FNC label was only up for a couple days of broadcasting. The fact that it came down before the events says they were not trying to claim ownership of the 4 rallies they covered on site.
|
|
Which is shorter? 'Tax Day Tea Party' or 'FNC Tax Day Tea Party'?
Intentionally or otherwise, by putting their name infront of the 'Tax Day Tea Party', Fox implied ownership. That's just a basic rule of grammar.
CNN had a graphic that said CNN tea party also. Does that mean that CNN helped plan hem too?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
We all know FOX leans right and CNN leans left, so why are people suprised that FOX news would cover something that damages Pres. Obama's popularity and CNN wouldn't . CNN and FOX were doing the opposite thing during the Pres. Bush years. I personnally would like to know where all the fiscal, responsible people were when Pres. Bush was spending billions in Iraq. And don't give me the "War on Terror" line, I didn't support the war in Iraq and was told many times by so-called "conservatives" that I was Un-American because of it.
I have said it before. Some conservatives like myself have been concerned about Washington's out of control spending. Medicare D was Bush, The first Stimulus was Bush. Bailouts started under Bush. It isn't just the current party that has me beating my head against the wall.
While I did and do support our military presence in the middle east I am somewhat concerned about the billions spent especially given our other spending. That said BILLIONS are much smaller than TRILLIONS and if Washington doesn't come back in line soon my great-great-grand children will be screwed too.
The reason these tea parties are going on now is because the spending isn't getting any better and shows every sign of getting worse much worse. For many Americans this isn't the change we want. So while conservatives may not have been protesting in the street during the Bush Presidency doesn't mean there isn't reason to do it now.
The reason these tea parties are going on now is because the spending isn't getting any better and shows every sign of getting worse much worse. For many Americans this isn't the change we want. So while conservatives may not have been protesting in the street during the Bush Presidency doesn't mean there isn't reason to do it now.
But that's just the thing- noone's coming up with any answers as to WHY this wasn't happening during the administration. Is it as simple as not wanting to look like a traitor to the cause/party, or something more?