More proof the press is "liberal"........

[mark]

.................why is it Pat Robertson can say this:

US television evangelist Pat Robertson's claim that Ariel Sharon's stroke was an act of God has triggered a bout of soul-searching in Israel about the Jewish state's relationship with right-wing Christians.

You can read it here:

http://metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060113-015026-1640r

Hmmmm, the press goes nuts about the evangelist's remarks & it's the top story in the evening news.
Meanwhile............Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans can say this:

.......Nagin also promised that New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again. Many of the city's black neighborhoods were heavily damaged by Katrina.

"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans — the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

You can read it here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-16-katrina-mayor_x.htm


Why isn't THIS STORY the top story in the news, especially on ML King Day??? I thought Dr. King stood for equality?? Apparently Nagin hasn't heard of ML King. Why isn't the press harping about this?? Suppose a white mayor stood up in a city & proclaim their city become a "vanilla" city?? Could you imagine that?? Nagin gets away with it....& you still think the press is "fair & balanced?"

I've been saying for years ( usually getting beat up for it ) on this forum the dems & liberals gets a free ride & the press is pretty liberal & here's some proof. Pat Robertson, a mere citizen makes a stupid remark & it's front page news.......then......Nagin who has some power says something absolutely more stupid & gets away scott free.

And you still get your daily news from CBS, NBC, ABC, & CNN still ??
Shame on you.

Comments?.................see ya mark

[Jeremy]

Currently, 12:38 AM, January 18

www.cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com)

Nagin's comments are front page, right panel.

www.foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com)

Nagin's comments are front page, right panel.

www.usatoday.com (http://www.usatoday.com)

Nagin's comments are front page.

Nagin should really be removed from office. Regardless of his qualifications as Mayor, a man who can't see beyond the color of a person's skin is not a part of the solution, he is part of the problem.

The story about Pat Robertson is actually dated. It's not breaking news. The reason you see it on the front page of the Middle East times is because that's a web site about the Middle East. The Middle East is not really concerned about New Orleans right now or racism in this country, both of which are actually "liberal" concerns.

To be honest, I don't know why Israel is concerned about Pat Robertson or even equating the man with Christian culture in the US. Robertson is not a very good representative of US Christian culture. In addition to this story, which even the White House condemns, he recently called for a CIA assassination of the Venezuela President. Many people believe he has gone mentally ill. In any case, I don't believe that either the assassination wish, nor blaming God for a stroke, is the view of most Christians.

[kdown]

Both Nagin and Robertson are complete jerks. I really don't think that main stream America pays any attention to either one.

[acoolmom777]

Something has to take "front page" and there you have it.... religion and politics...

[tkcomer]

A liberal press? Hardly. Israel has our congress in their back pockets. Has for years. You can’t insult Israel or question their motives in this country. Our congress won’t allow it. Robertson’s remarks inflamed the Republicans. Who are in control. Never forget, the “liberal” media is controlled by big business. We all know which party big business donates to. This was an effort by big business to slap Robertson down. To please the party in power. Big business has been consolidating media outlets for several years. So they can control what you see or read. The Republicans control the FCC. And big business does not want to tick off the Republicans. As you say, follow the money.

[dpolley]

A liberal press? Hardly. Israel has our congress in their back pockets. Has for years. You can’t insult Israel or question their motives in this country. Our congress won’t allow it. Robertson’s remarks inflamed the Republicans. Who are in control. Never forget, the “liberal” media is controlled by big business. We all know which party big business donates to. This was an effort by big business to slap Robertson down. To please the party in power. Big business has been consolidating media outlets for several years. So they can control what you see or read. The Republicans control the FCC. And big business does not want to tick off the Republicans. As you say, follow the money.

OH, PLEASE!!! Do you realize how wrong your whole reply is?

[Eddie]

You're 100% on the money TK. You can follow the money trail straight down to Mexico where "big business" has taken the US jobs to, and the Republicans have supported them doing, simply because big business owns the White House.

[tkcomer]

It’s hard to move the media down south. But this “liberal” media sure does miss a lot. It’s a well known fact that this congress has been backing Israel for years. That is part of our image problem in the Middle East. To have a well known religious person badmouth Israel is a no, no. Remember, we gave back the land we conquered in WW II. Israel refuses to give back the land they conquered. They have broken over 50 UN resolutions by keeping land that does not belong to them. They need to give that land back. Then, if the bombings don’t stop, no mercy. Wipe out anyone that attacks them. But our “liberal” media won’t report the WHOLE story. No need to educate us. We are too worried about Brad and Jen and sports scores.

[mark]

................if the media isn't liberal as you say.......why is there NEVER anything good reported going on in Iraq??

I mean NOTHING. Surely something good is going on somewhere. Sadly, the press hates Bush soooo much, they never will report anything positive.

Why is that?? ............see ya mark

[mark]

Both Nagin and Robertson are complete jerks. I really don't think that main stream America pays any attention to either one.

You are probably right....except for the press.

They don't see it our way.

Anything democratic........ free ride.
Anything Republican......no free ride.

The above example proves it.............see ya mark

[Chuck]

What kind of free ride you want. I for one don't want one.

I plan to say nothing much in the future on the war. Don't have to. Solders are returning and they can. Even I will listen to them.

"Both Nagin and Robertson ". For no one paying attention they sure are getting some air time here.

[mark]

What kind of free ride you want. I for one don't want one.

I plan to say nothing much in the future on the war. Don't have to. Solders are returning and they can. Even I will listen to them.

"Both Nagin and Robertson ". For no one paying attention they sure are getting some air time here.


OK, forget the war for a moment. Here's some better examples:

Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne while drunk.....still in office 35 years later-----yep, free press ride for sure.

Bob Packwood accused of sex harrassment----- gone ...definitely no free press ride.

Bill Clinton ( in his own words ) guilty of sex harra$$ment & lying-----well.......I don't need to go any further on this one.

Escaped impeachment.....definitely free press ride................see ya mark

[Jeremy]

Clinton hardly got a pass. The whole thing was plastered all over the news for what seemed like forever, while real news stories got buried. It was during this time that everyone shoud have heard the word's Osama bin Laden. Instead they heard Wag the Dog.

[kdown]

As usual I agree with Mark

[acoolmom777]

You know the way I look at it is...If you "cut them and they bleed red" just as you and I, then they should have to follow "the laws" just as you and I. What makes them any better and allows them to opt out when they break the laws, just because they hold some type of title! Well I hold a title...taxpayer, wife, mother, caretaker, maid, cook (sometimes..lol), driver, etc…..a crime is a crime…as the old saying goes…”if you do the crime then do the time”

[tkcomer]

Define liberal. From what I see, it’s anytime the media bashes something you like. Or gives something you hate a free ride. No matter what side of the fence you’re on. The media consolidation really didn’t get started until the early 90s. Clearwater has gobbled up radio stations across the country. And it’s well known they decide what gets played on the air. Or what doesn’t get played. It’s the same with TV. Local newspapers seem to have a looser set of reins. It’s often funny to see an editorial out of the Lexington Herald (Liberal) and the Cincinnati Enquirer (Slightly conservative) on the very same subject. The Ledger Independent has a tendency to run both sides. A lot of famous reporters bash whoever is in power. Republicans hate Helen Thomas because she bashes Bush. But even Rush Limbaugh used clips of her on his show when she was bashing Clinton. I still don’t see a liberal media. It was their reporting of the Democrat’s shenanigans and abuse of power that got them thrown out and got the Republicans elected. And I helped. But the Republican Party of today sure uses that liberal media bullhorn to call anyone they don’t like unpatriotic or unholy. And so far, the majority of voters have followed. But their house of cards is slowly starting to crumble. If there were truly a liberal media, this morally corrupt bunch would be easy pickings.

[Chuck]

I agree Mr. Comer.

My point is you guys keep saying that the media is bias and you are reporting on things we have all heard about. If the press covered them up. How did anyone hear about them.

You just upset cause the people you support are getting some bad press. Well, guess what,,, they have earned it.

We are not contesting the thing you bring up about our party. I am even letting you get away with name call us. (Liberals) just because you disagree with what my or our beliefs.

The press has been equal in it's coverage. This thread sound like it should carry the "Rush Limbaugh" stamp.

[Jeremy]

There's an example. For every "liberal" that is said gets a free ride in the press, there's a "conservative" on the other side getting by just as easily.

Rush Limbaugh goes on the air talking about how all drug abusers are the scourge of the country. Then he gets caught popping pills and checks into a rehab center. A few articles about it and he's back at his job, saying the same things.

Cheney with Enron and Haliburton, and he's still Vice President? And the government's still buying from Haliburton? Where's the multimillion dollar investigation into that scandal?

Bush definitely had a DUI and almost certainly was a cocaine user, but that got buried awfully quick. He even got elected just a few weeks after a small handful of reports about his DUI came out.

And where's the rest of the story on Jeff Gannon? The White House allowed Gannon into presidential news briefings weeks before his Internet-based news organization was even registered and online. He was allowed special access into the White House when no press meeting was taken place. He was "handed" important questions above well known and seasoned reporters who compete for those questions. All of this and it turns out that Gannon was a gay male prostitute. Now where was the serious press coverage on that? When a gay male prostitute gets special treatment from the White House he's got the goods on someone in there. If it were Clinton, they'd still be on it. What's more juicy than gay male prostitutes in the White House when it's a gay friendly President?

All politicians get passes until it reaches a point where they can't possibly keep a lid on it anymore. Why? Because all these people hang out together. They're all friends. Report the wrong thing, don't get invited back. It's as simple as that. There are very few crusader reporters and even if there were more, they wouldn't last long. They'd be blacklisted out of Washington.

[DecupldSolutions]

All politicians get passes until it reaches a point where they can't possibly keep a lid on it anymore. Why? Because all these people hang out together. They're all friends. Report the wrong thing, don't get invited back. It's as simple as that. There are very few crusader reporters and even if there were more, they wouldn't last long. They'd be blacklisted out of Washington.

Even happens here in town on some scale. Lobbying and special interests. Corporate on big government and you can pretty well spot the guarded interests locally.

Corruption is not new though. Neither is incompetence. Just because they haven't been caught don't mean they are good.

Anyways, found this willynagin thing and thought it was funny.

[Shrek]

.................why is it Pat Robertson can say this:
US television evangelist Pat Robertson's claim that Ariel Sharon's stroke was an act of God has triggered a bout of soul-searching in Israel about the Jewish state's relationship with right-wing Christians.
You can read it here:
http://metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060113-015026-1640r
Hmmmm, the press goes nuts about the evangelist's remarks & it's the top story in the evening news.
Meanwhile............Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans can say this:
.......Nagin also promised that New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city again. Many of the city's black neighborhoods were heavily damaged by Katrina.
"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans — the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."
You can read it here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-16-katrina-mayor_x.htm
Why isn't THIS STORY the top story in the news, especially on ML King Day??? I thought Dr. King stood for equality?? Apparently Nagin hasn't heard of ML King. Why isn't the press harping about this?? Suppose a white mayor stood up in a city & proclaim their city become a "vanilla" city?? Could you imagine that?? Nagin gets away with it....& you still think the press is "fair & balanced?"
I've been saying for years ( usually getting beat up for it ) on this forum the dems & liberals gets a free ride & the press is pretty liberal & here's some proof. Pat Robertson, a mere citizen makes a stupid remark & it's front page news.......then......Nagin who has some power says something absolutely more stupid & gets away scott free.
And you still get your daily news from CBS, NBC, ABC, & CNN still ??
Shame on you.
Comments?.................see ya mark

What planet are you from? It is apparent that fanatical religious groups are in power now but that is no reason to want to control the media. All the arguments I am reading seem to be about having control over others. Don't we live in a free America. What is your solution? Kill of everyone that disagrees with you? Guess I will be at the top of you list.

[GirlColumbo]

it is no secret that the press prints what they know the public will jump on, they are in business to sell papers after all, and what sells is still the same stuff that has always made people grab the news, sex, religion, and politics........

[GirlColumbo]

oh yea, and most likely breaking news that happens in the above order......scandle sure makes folks scurry to the news stand............

[gleroyjr]

As always mark tells it like it is. Mark one up for Mark.

[kdown]

If it bleeds, it leads.

[GirlColumbo]

there you go, the problem with politics is too many politicians are worrying about how to cover up lies, who knows what on them, and spend all their time running from scandles when they should be concentrating on how to make decisions that are best for the citizens in this country. It is really sickening how those who are in office dont seem to have any common sense anymore.

[Shrek]

If it bleeds, it leads.

Exactly, It is all just News to them. The press was just as hard on each every President we have ever had.

But what you all are telling me is that the press doesn't report on all things and you are correct. G.W. Bush gets by with too much and it is the press that gets away with not publishing the truth about him.

[GirlColumbo]

I bet shrek himself could make his way easily through the media crowd to do some heavy reporting.......bet the president would even snap to it and get the big green feller a reporters notebook and a good writing pen to jot down the juciest notes.....

just my way of saying it would take a VERY BRAVE REPORTER to do the TRUTH reporting

[Shrek]

The Truth will set you free, or get you assassinated.

Dick.M

[GirlColumbo]

sherk that is the sad sad truth

[stinkerbelle]

its too bad people are soo worried about political correctness...the jeff gannon story is way juicier than the monika tale...remember ken starr and $40 million u.s.taxpayers dollars to find out our president clinton is human...dubya is the new teflon don in the press...the neo-cons protect this guy to the destruction of our free society

[mark]

Define liberal. From what I see, it’s anytime the media bashes something you like.
According to dictionary.com Liberalism is:
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
Or to sum it up easier:
ACLU
People for the American Way.
PETA
Most democrats
Most Hollywood celebs.
Sierra Club & other tree hugger groups
Anyone else that wants to take $$ from those who earns it & give it to those who choose not to work.
That is liberalism my friends...............see ya mark

[Jeremy]

According to dictionary.com Liberalism is:
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

See now, that's funny. Because if that's the definition I'm wondering where all the negative connotations come from, as in "He's a flaming liberal." As if that were an insult. As if "natural goodness of humans" is a bad thing. Or "civil and political liberties" are bad things. I mean, this is America. We're supposed to be the liberty people.


Or to sum it up easier:
ACLU
People for the American Way.
PETA
Most democrats
Most Hollywood celebs.
Sierra Club & other tree hugger groups
Anyone else that wants to take $$ from those who earns it & give it to those who choose not to work.
That is liberalism my friends...............see ya mark

Do you really think all those groups you mentioned get a free ride in the press? Everytime the ACLU, PETA, or Green Peace sneezes the wrong way the press is all over it.

[dpolley]

Do you really think all those groups you mentioned get a free ride in the press? Everytime the ACLU, PETA, or Green Peace sneezes the wrong way the press is all over it.

Yes, the press is all over it because the acts of ignorance perpatrated by these groups are "newsworthy" in the eyes of our great media. It isn't because the media are "after them"!

[Jeremy]

Yes, the press is all over it because the acts of ignorance perpatrated by these groups are "newsworthy" in the eyes of our great media. It isn't because the media are "after them"!

Then couldn't the same be said of acts of ignorance on the part of conservatives and Republicans? That the media isn't "after them" either? Maybe it's not a liberal press just because every now and then a Republican gets slammed by the media. Maybe the Republican actually did something worth slamming them about?

[tkcomer]

That definition of liberalism is what our founding fathers had in mind. Civil and political liberties, governed by the people, protection from arbitrary authority. Sounds pretty good to me. Most of the groups you mentioned are not anything like that. They want laws passed against the people with the authority to enforce them and they have no respect for liberties. Democrats do that a lot. Republicans don’t do that, do they? Laws mean nothing to them or their friends. Which is why they are in so much trouble right now. That liberal press is a crafty bunch. They stood silent while that bunch of hooligans did so many underhanded dealings that the feds had to step in with indictments for them and their friends. Now all the liberal press does is do reprints from the courthouse. You would think the liberal press would be quoting what the sacred Allen Greenspan said last year, day after day. That if this evil bunch does not change the direction they are steering this country, the good ol’ USA will go under with in 20 years. That’s one way to get out of Social Security payments and aid to the poor, which will include us. Declare bankruptcy. Like a lot of their big business campaign donors. Liberal press? Jeeze.

[kdown]

There are two articles, Part 1 and Part 2, at the following web site. I believe that these articles prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our news media is extremely liberal. I challenge everyone here to read both articles.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/4/152928.shtml

[Chuck]

That really only proves that anyone can post an opinion anywhere. Since it is a republican site I would expect the to talk down the other team. It was only "His Opinion" and "How He" précised what he was see. He then choose to write about it so he could "kick" the other team.

I really am not falling prey to these "My sides better than your side" threads.

Till we all learn to work and play well together as one team we will never be able to find any solution that works for everyone.

I just think it is best to find solution rather than try prove my side is better than your's.

[tkcomer]

Wow, what an article. Bush should have appointed this guy to the Supreme Court. But he wouldn’t have made it. Even the Conservatives don’t like George’s choice in cheerleaders. Anybody that tries to sugar coat that much hatred is a wacko, no matter what side of the fence they’re on.

[uprivergirl]

According to dictionary.com Liberalism is:
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
That pretty much describes me! Does that make conservatives the direct opposite?
Sorry Mark, could not resist!:D

[Jeremy]

There are two articles, Part 1 and Part 2, at the following web site. I believe that these articles prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our news media is extremely liberal. I challenge everyone here to read both articles.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/4/152928.shtml

I really doubt people whose minds are made up that the press is liberal will believe me, but this article is so full of holes that it not only does not prove that the press is liberal, it proves the author is a total hypocrite.

Over two pages of Internet text, something that would take up several pages in an actual magazine, the author makes many claims, and offers very few examples to back them up. The examples he does offer don't support his argument. At one point he even offers as an argument something that is the opposite of what he is arguing. He says that the press and Hollywood are rampant with McCarthyism because liberals on the verge of being socialists are out to get everyone. This is totally messed up. McCarthyism was out to get socialists! Not the other way around. Even if his argument were true, that would be reverse-McCarthyism.

But wait there's more. He gives four personal experiences to back up his claim that the press is liberal, only one of which was public and can be independently verified. The public one was the Oscars and Michael Moore's speech. This is one of the ones that he says solidified his opinion that the press was liberal. I remember watching that speech, and as it was given the celebrities in the audience looked uncomfortable to me. One celebrity actually snickered, Harrison Ford, as if Moore were insane. But all of that is besides the point. Michael Moore is not a member of the press. The celebrities aren't members of the press. The press stories that hit the television and papers after Oscar night was that Michael Moore acted inappropriately. How's that for a liberal press?

He tried to slide Bill Maher in as proof that the press is liberal as well. Bill Maher isn't the press. He's a comedian who happens to be political and left in his views. His counterpart would be Bill O'Reilly on the right. Neither are press. Both guys don't report the news, they give opinions on it.

Janeane Garofalo, definitely not the press.

So where's the press that's liberal? He offers three personal stories (none of which can be verified as true). The first is that his teacher at Columbia University was a mean spirited liberal. The problem here is that it was a political science class, again, not the press. Even if the teacher is an extreme leftist radical, hey, it's political science, what do you expect? He's still not a reporter.

The second story is sickening, if it were true. Anyone cheering the death of anyone is sad. But again, it's a personal story. How do we know it actually happened? If it did happen, was it exhaggerated? True story from the press: After the war began, popular rock group Pearl Jam was giving a concert. Pearl Jam's lead singer made an offhand criticism of the President. The press reported that the crowd was so disgusted that many of them walked out, not exactly a liberal statement. Turns out it was less than 50 people, in a crowd of 5,000. How many of those students cheered at hearing Reagan was shot? How many were disgusted as I am, and as the author was? Was it the whole classroom, one person, three? Obviously if the author wasn't cheering it wasn't everyone.

"That's how deep liberals’ hatred goes." he says. Then, later on he says:

So, to appease world opinion and media critics, we fight a "precision war" where we avoid civilian casualties with surgical strikes. Instead of carpet-bombing Baghdad, so that by the time our troops enter there will be no one left alive to resist, we choose to aim only at select military targets.

The same man who says that liberals are hate mongers believes that Baghdad should be carpet-bombed irregardless of civilian casualties. And that's how deep his hatred goes.

After cheering Reagan being shot, he says that those classmates went on to become journalists and rule the media. Now, again, he said explicitly that the classroom was a "large theater-style classroom seating 100 or more students". 100 or so people huh? Are we to believe that this handful of people from 1981 went on to become a nationwide conspiracy of liberal journalists out to control the media?

The third personal story he offers up as "proof" that the media is liberal is a private conversation in a hottub of all places with a journalist from Newsweek. This conversation is particularly hypocritical because most of it is about Dole vs. Clinton and how Dole is the hero because of his military service. He even says, "So, isn't Dole the hero just because of his willingness to die for his country?" Sounds good right? I agree, just being in the military makes you a hero.

But then he does a 180 degree turn, just a few paragraphs later, and starts picking on other military vets, military personnel who have been to war, fought on the lines, and were willing to die for their country.

Every retired military man who has an ax to grind (isn't that why they are no longer in the military? They never reached the top and retired bitter – this is their chance for revenge) is out criticizing our leaders and war planners. That criticizing is nothing more than guessing and opining based on their perceptions, prejudices, expectations and wild theories.

Umm, these guys are heroes too right? They put their time in too. They got shot at. Why are you down on them all the sudden?

Total hypocrisy.

This guy doesn't prove anything. He's just a hate monger as well. In one breath he'll say that liberals hate conservatives and why that is bad, and then in the next breath say why he hates liberals, and why that is good. The only thing he proves is his own bias.

To sum it all up. He offers no real examples of his argument beyond a few personal stories and one public story that was misinterpreted to fit his own warped views. He is strongly biased himself and proves that at every turn of his article. Eventhough his article is titled "Exposing the Liberal Media Game", it's really just a tirade against people he personally hates.

I mean seriously. The man's whole argument boils down to a class of 100 people or so in 1981 that went on to control the media. That's not an exposure. That's the paranoid delusions of a man who didn't like the politics of his political science teacher.

[mark]

............WOW!! What a response. Ken gave us some insight, some of that stuff I've actually forgotten.

To me, it all boils down to the statement I said earlier:


Anyone else that wants to take $$ from those who earns it & give it to those who choose not to work.
That is liberalism my friends...............see ya mark

What's the ol' line someone said before....give a man a fish & feed him for a day....or.....give him a fishing pole, teach him to fish & he will feed himself.

Liberals don't like this statement, but I sure do...............see ya mark

[Jeremy]

Anyone else that wants to take $$ from those who earns it & give it to those who choose not to work.
That is liberalism my friends...............see ya mark

Except that the groups you listed don't take your money. They have nothing to do with your paycheck. All of the ones below:


ACLU
People for the American Way.
PETA
Most Hollywood celebs.
Sierra Club & other tree hugger groups


are private groups with private funding. Even Sally Struthers asking for money to help African children is voluntary. The only one that forces you to part with a single dime is the government itself.

Now you could make a case that "Most democrats" cause your dollars to go into the hands people who don't work by being in the government, but that is a weak argument as well since "Most Republicans" inflate the deficit with government contracts to their pals [read Haliburton], money that gets paid back with our taxes, so which is worse? Is it worse to give handouts to the poor or give handouts to the rich? Depending on who's in Congress, it's one or the other.

------------------------------------

On a side note, does anyone read my posts anymore? It seems like they just get skipped over. :)

[GirlColumbo]

jeremy, your post are being read, there is lots of heavy reading on these political post, lots of interesting thougths and ideals posted by everyone here, whew! can wear a brain out sometimes

[uprivergirl]

Jeremy, I look forward to reading all your posts. I have to say, I agree with almost all of them. I don't post much on the political or religious threads, as I have a hard time wrapping my little pea-brain around the right words to write, but I do read all of them!:)

[Chuck]

I read you Jeremy. I think you have a bigger following than you think.

[mark]

Is it worse to give handouts to the poor or give handouts to the rich? Depending on who's in Congress, it's one or the other.
------------------------------------
On a side note, does anyone read my posts anymore? It seems like they just get skipped over. :)
..........Naw, I read 'em.
Since we are talking about giving out money, I'd rather see the gov't give the money to the rich.

Why you may ask???

It's simple..... I've personally never worked for a poor man...............see ya mark

[annieap]

Jeremy, I read your posts, however I am politically challenged (and I am sure you notice the hair color?? lol)

[Jeremy]

..........Naw, I read 'em.
Since we are talking about giving out money, I'd rather see the gov't give the money to the rich.
Why you may ask???
It's simple..... I've personally never worked for a poor man...............see ya mark

At least that's an honest answer. But again, another myth perpetuated by the so-called "liberal media" is that welfare, or programs for the poor, is a serious drag on the economy. Some even say that welfare accounts for 75% of the U.S. Budget. Totally bogus and if the media were truly liberal, we would learn that:

The most vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and have babies. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined federal, state and local budget of $2,487 billion. Spread out over millions of tax payers the amount you actually pay to someone who doesn't work is mere dollars.

Now, on the other hand, the big money sink, the defense budget, all of that money has recently been spent toppling another country. In fact, not only was the money spent, but we are also left with a huge bill for the effort.

How much will that cost each individual taxpayer? No, seriously, I want to know. If we are taking it down to "the rich man will give me a job and the poor man won't", and if we are taking it to the level of where is the direct effect on me personally, I'd like to know how much I've lost in the whole deal.

I know that I'll never work for an arms manufacturer or an oil tycoon, the places the government handouts are going. I know those Iraqis we liberated won't give me a job. So it's not like I'm benefitting from it in the employment area. In fact, I'm in computers. Most likely Iraq will become another place like India for the outsourcing of American tech jobs. So if I'm on the losing end, how much did I lose?

Give to the poor I'm out a dollar or maybe two. How much did I lose giving to the rich?

[Jeremy]

At one point he even offers as an argument something that is the opposite of what he is arguing. He says that the press and Hollywood are rampant with McCarthyism because liberals on the verge of being socialists are out to get everyone. This is totally messed up. McCarthyism was out to get socialists! Not the other way around. Even if his argument were true, that would be reverse-McCarthyism.

I know, it's pretty bad when you quote yourself, but I came across this article today:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/18/professors.targeted.ap/index.html

where an alumni group is offering students up to $100 per class to supply tapes and notes exposing professors who allegedly express extreme left-wing political views at the University of California, Los Angeles. Now that is a good example of McCarthyism.

Again, it's also hypocritical. "We're just trying to get people back on a professional level of things," said the group's president and founder. But their website (www.bruinalumni.com) espouses all kinds of conservative propaganda, including a blacklist of the college's 30 "most radical professors."

Truth is, it's hard to find a moderate these days. There's hate on both sides of the coin.

[GirlColumbo]

mark please enlighten me as to why you would rather the money go to the rich. If you were talking about the average person who works hard and makes an honest living, I would agree 100 percent, but I am having trouble understanding why you would rather see the money go to rich people. When I think of rich people, my mind conjers up movie, rock/country or sports celeberties.

[DecupldSolutions]

it seems we all need to take a step back. look at what is. and get real. maybe some intelligent things will start ocurring. On a world wide level? wow.
got one for ya. challenge this (http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2688839) you will need to click the green watch button and update your player if it's your first time to ifilm.

Moderator Note: Link contains graphic images not suitable for children.{Jeremy}

[mark]

mark please enlighten me as to why you would rather the money go to the rich. If you were talking about the average person who works hard and makes an honest living, I would agree 100 percent, but I am having trouble understanding why you would rather see the money go to rich people. When I think of rich people, my mind conjers up movie, rock/country or sports celeberties.
..............here's where I'm coming from giving tax breaks or incentives to the rich. Let's take someone most of us know-- Carl Lindner from Cincinnati. When he is taxed to death, he holds his money in funds that doesn't "go south" so to say.
However, let's say the gov't cuts the tax rates or gives good incentives ( liberals here would say just giving the rich more money ) to the rich. Guess what happens??
Lindner then decides to build more UDF's in the Cincinnati area. This puts contractors , plumbers, electricians, drywallers, roofers tile layers, concrete workers & who knows who else to work building the business. Then he must hire a manager & lot's of people to run the place.
This puts people to work. I realize some here would say---big deal, it's only minimum wage jobs. Well, some people may not think that because there are dozens of UDF's in the Cincinnati area & 100's of people are running them.
There are others...( unlike a lot of Holywood celebs who generally spend their millions foolishly ) I'm referring to people such as Bill Gates, Donald Trump, the Castellini Brothers, & others that are true business men.
That's what I mean when I refer to never working for a poor man.
Thanks for asking....................see ya mark

[tkcomer]

Wow. Liberal media to the class wars. Most of the people that work, work for corporations, not an individual. Or you could say they work for the stockholders. And a lot of people that own stock make less than some of the workers. So you could say a lot of people are working for the poor. But these companies still have to make a profit so everyone gets paid. Unless you work for the government. Where you can get decent wages and benefits no matter how far you are in debt. Or how fast you are losing money. Taxpayer’s money. Poor people’s money. And no matter how far in debt the government goes, it just keeps getting bigger at everyone’s expense. See it here: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/state_local.htm

[mark]

..............I agree with the gov't growth, however, I disagree with most people working for corporations. When I was in college taking marketing classes, 80% of the businesses in America were sole-proprietorships, meaning they are small a business.

You can't have a Walmart on every block in America. If that above statement were true, even Tollesboro would have a Walmart.............see ya mark

[tkcomer]

But it takes a lot of small businesses to employ what one Wal-Mart does. And most of the small business owners I know don’t exactly have cash falling out of their pockets. They are hard working folks struggling like the rest of us. But I still don’t see a liberal media. They hounded the Democrats years ago about their scandals. And that is when the Republicans started to take over. They hounded Clinton. I still can’t figure out how he got elected the second time. And now they are hounding the Republicans. But the Republicans did the same thing as the Democrats. They got bigheaded and greedy. And caught. When the feds start handing out subpoenas, you have to report that. It’s what they don’t report is what bothers me. Like that teeny-weenie article in the Enquirer this week about the Navy is starting to worry about China’s new ultra quiet subs. The ones China has said they will use to take out our aircraft carriers if we interfere with their planned takeover of Taiwan. But I doubt we will interfere. By that time we will owe China so much money, and depend on them so much for our products, we won’t be able to interfere. And our troops will be worn out from all this nation building. Why doesn’t the media on either side educate us on this?

[GirlColumbo]

well tk and mark you both make a good debate, although much of it is over my head. giving tax breaks to the rich dont sound so bad when you consider the people who will create jobs here in the U.S. I do think small businesses should get a tax break

[FreeOurPOWs]

Anyone who doubts a liberal bias in the press has their heads in the sand or is so committed a liberal they will not allow themselves to see the truth. I cannot believe this is a discussion. Debating the obvious keeps you folks from dealing with the issues. Wake up.

[Shrek]

Anyone who doubts a liberal bias in the press has their heads in the sand or is so committed a liberal they will not allow themselves to see the truth. I cannot believe this is a discussion. Debating the obvious keeps you folks from dealing with the issues. Wake up.

Interesting thought, you're right and the rest of the world is wrong. Thanks for stopping by and helping me see the light.