Please demonstrate the merit (or possible merit) of the claim that Dick Cheney should be assassinated. Unless you are a terrorist, I fail to see the merit behind such claims.
Lemme put this in big, huge, font, because one of my points is STILL being overlooked:
I do NOT believe that Dick Cheney should be assassinated. I believe that anyone who assassinates him should be punished as a terrorist and a first-degree murderer.
Thing is, though, if I'm your average Iraqi citizen, and I'm witnessing my friends, brothers, sisters, wife, and kids have their lives that much more endangered because of Cheney's influence (not command, but influence) in the war, the question now shifts from one of preference to one of survival. If you were in this predicament, and you believed that one man was largely behind all of this, would not all be fair in love and war? Would you sacrifice your close family members to keep someone who you considered to be a threat to them, alive?
Well, of course the Foxnews reporting will seem right-wing if it doesn't contain liberal bias. And again, I am talking about news reporting. This would exclude a lot of the primetime Foxnews shows such as O'Reilly and Hannity. I am talking about the headlines that are reported every half hour (and you could include Brit Hume there, who leans right).
Again, if O'Reilly and
Hannity and Colmes claim to be Fair and Balanced, which they do, then this claim goes out the window. But it's good to see that you understand that Brit Hume leans well to the Right.
But like I said before, even if we accept the premise that Foxnews is a conservative channel, why do you care? Liberals (oh no, I said the L-word) have NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, and the LA Times. Liberals have all of that and you can't let conservatives have their Foxnews channel. I thought you guys were big on tolerance, I guess that is merely lip service. You are tolerant for things you agree with.
"Tolerance." That'd take a whole thread to discuss.
The thing is, most progressives, libertarians, Marxists, and centrists are commonly labeled as "liberals" by the Far-Right, yet there are fundamental differences between all four groups. "Liberal" is simply too sweeping a word, and I'll be honest here, it just sounds like childplay to keep using it like this.
On the allegations of "liberal media bias," I made a comment on RF some time ago:
When the media holds the Left* under the spotlight, it's called honest reporting.
When the media holds the Right under the spotlight, it's called liberal bias.
* - here, basically, anyone in the above-mentioned groups. It's easier to define what the Left is not than what it is.
Not really, the left-wing of the Democratic Party has some pretty set positions:
What about the right wing?
Are you assuming that everyone not associate with the Right is a Democrat? You do realize that there are those on the Far Left who hate the Democratic Party, right?
Well, before the war, everybody "goofed" that is why it is called a global intelligence failure. Now, the big goof in my opinion was the post-war planning. There simply weren't enough troops after we got to Bagdhad and it went downhill from there.
See, this is what gets me about the Right. If one of your own does something this bad, you use PC language to justify it (that's right, Joe, the Big Bad Liberals do not have a monopoly on "PC" language.). However, if the Big Bad Liberals do something that is even mildly out of line, you raise hell.
THAT, my man, is bias.
