Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Mercy,
So, it amounts "I believe it is wrong, but if somebody else believes that they may have their reasons." Again, WOW!
You would be completely wrong which would make the belief in assassination completely wrong.
I couldn't care less about the slogan, "Fair and Balanced." O'Reilly, Hannity, and Colmes give their opinions in the news, thus excluding them from being news reporters.
It probably would. But if we accept your premise that Foxnews is a conservative channel why do you care so much? Why can't conservatives have one channel?
I indicated the positions of "liberals" in my last post to you. And I believe that would exclude Marxists (they wouldn't bother with the Constitution), libertarians (they wouldn't be advocates of state power as iberals are), and centrists (I assume centrists are not for socializing major aspects of our economy).
So, I think I was being pretty specific when I was using the term 'liberal.'
I don't agree. When the media ignores a comment by a liberal (Bill Maher) that assassinating Dick Cheney would make the world safer that is liberal media bias. When the media focuses on Ann Coulter who jokes about the media's double standard (in ignoring Maher's assassination comment) that is liberal media bias.
We have our set positions too. This wasn't meant to criticize, just an observation.
No.
I am very aware of this (like when Hillary Clinton said our troops did a good job but the Iraqis didn't, she got booed at some left-wing bloggers convention), but these far left groups think they own the Democratic Party now and Democratic candidates feel the need to pander to them.
I don't think calling the mistake on Iraq a "global intelligence failure" is using PC language.
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?
So, it amounts "I believe it is wrong, but if somebody else believes that they may have their reasons." Again, WOW!
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?
You would be completely wrong which would make the belief in assassination completely wrong.
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.
I couldn't care less about the slogan, "Fair and Balanced." O'Reilly, Hannity, and Colmes give their opinions in the news, thus excluding them from being news reporters.
"Tolerance." That'd take a whole thread to discuss.
It probably would. But if we accept your premise that Foxnews is a conservative channel why do you care so much? Why can't conservatives have one channel?
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.
I indicated the positions of "liberals" in my last post to you. And I believe that would exclude Marxists (they wouldn't bother with the Constitution), libertarians (they wouldn't be advocates of state power as iberals are), and centrists (I assume centrists are not for socializing major aspects of our economy).
So, I think I was being pretty specific when I was using the term 'liberal.'
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.
I don't agree. When the media ignores a comment by a liberal (Bill Maher) that assassinating Dick Cheney would make the world safer that is liberal media bias. When the media focuses on Ann Coulter who jokes about the media's double standard (in ignoring Maher's assassination comment) that is liberal media bias.
Quote:
Not really, the left-wing of the Democratic Party has some pretty set positions:
What about the right wing?
We have our set positions too. This wasn't meant to criticize, just an observation.
Are you assuming that everyone not associate with the Right is a Democrat?
No.
You do realize that there are those on the Far Left who hate the Democratic Party, right?
I am very aware of this (like when Hillary Clinton said our troops did a good job but the Iraqis didn't, she got booed at some left-wing bloggers convention), but these far left groups think they own the Democratic Party now and Democratic candidates feel the need to pander to them.
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.
I don't think calling the mistake on Iraq a "global intelligence failure" is using PC language.