• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bias: Even here at DP

I think I agree with you completely.
Verax said:
This thread has really been something. Mostly conservative lies / bs / denial vs. liberal mostly truths / mostly factual / mostly right about everything.

This sums up the election as well.
Click to expand...
 
Moderator's Warning:
ENOUGH. Several infractions and thread bans have been issued already. Be civil and do not engage in personal attacks, namecalling, baiting etc... or else go take a walk and cool off.

THIS IS NOT A DRILL. Anyone who wants to continue having access to DP needs to chill, address the topic, be civil and stay within the rules. Just reading this thread gave me a headache.
 
helix2048 said:
Regarding your post, if Romney gets elected, it will be interesting to see what his 4 years will look like.

In terms of media bias, I couldn't care less what news stations air what content. One job I worked at had CNN headline news airing all day on a TV in the middle of the room. The station had been aired for so long on that TV that the CNN information bar on the bottom of the screen was burned into the display. After having news crammed down my throat for 10 hours a day at work, I really developed a distaste for watching it. I prefer to read my news online.

I know I am guilty of posting some biased media on here from time to time. I guess I enjoy getting a rise out of people, but it eventually forces the truth of the situation to show. I don't stand behind the obviously biased articles I've posted but I am trying to find out the truth. I may not like the truth at times, but I am intelligent enough to accept it.

Most of the conservatives on this site probably assume I am very liberal from my posts. I am simply a truth seeker. Sometimes that means bringing up what appears to be a stupid discussion, but I get the information I am looking for. I don't agree with everything Obama stands for. He's done some things that have pissed me off. I'm not sold on the fact that Romney is what America needs. Either way, we are going to see the results in 4 years.
Click to expand...

Exactly... 24hr news agencies ought to have been a good thing... but instead of 24hr news coverage... it's 24 hrs of the same sensationalist stories repeated every 15 to 30 mins at a time... and a constant search to create a news item that draws attention... It's such a stain on the world...

If you ever get a chance to see an international news broadcast that covers American news events it's an amazing feeling to see the news presented as facts without bias...

Lately, PBS World has been showing Deutsche Welle's international news broadcast in English... it's amazing...

I also am curious to see what happens under a Romney administration... hopefully we get to see it soon... because more of the same isn't going to "change" much...
 
vauge said:
Moderator's Warning:

We do not discuss actions against users. There is a place to discuss that topic, but not up here.
If you have concerns over a post, please click the report post button.

I did not move/close this thread as there are some good points worth discussing.


I hope this post dose not detour the thread as there is some really quality stuff in the OP.

Back to my opinion:
I think that Obama is going to sweep. It sure feels like 2008 all over again - large media coverage for Romney - last minute surge etc...
The Republican party is in shambles.
Click to expand...
Silly you. Of course that is unlikely.

I just deleted all those things that would allow you to ban me with impunity. You have cowed me. But the opinion has validity.
 
I want to know, from the moderators, what is wrong with saying one side of the political isle is bloody insane? People say that about Conservatives, and frankly, it doesn't offend me. I just don't see it as "uncivil" to have strong opinions one way or the other. I don't get offended easily I guess, but I suppose some people do.

If a civil discussion is what is demanded of us, I'de like to see some consistency here at DP. I frequently see Conservative posters reprimanded for their comments, but then I see threads like "Romney is a douchebag", and nothing is said. So, I'm trying to figure this forum out really. It's ok to call the cadidates "douchebag" and things like that, when they aren't here to fire back at the insult, but it's not ok to call another poster a "doucebag", when they are capable of defending themselves here? What's going on?

How does DP expect there to be a "civil" discussion, when the thread title is "Romney's a douchebag"??? Wonder what kind of response I would get from DP if I posted a thread titled "Obama's a Freakin Red Commie Bastard"??

Liberals never seem to want to play by the same set of rules, which is ironic, because they go bat **** crazy when they hear Obama say, "everyone should play by the same set of rules". Ok Obama, then YOU AND CONGRESS come under the jurisdiction of Obamacare then! Play by the same rules Obama. Balance the budget, like all 50 states are required to do. Play by the same rules Obama! Don't spend more than you make, like the overwhelming majority of American households. Play by the same rules Obama!

These cliche liberal slogans are nothing more than populist lip service
 
There might of been a case for widespread bias when there were 3 big networks that provided all the news to the nation. It just doesn't exist anymore. There's so many sources of information that nobody goes to one source. Nobody has to go to one source. In fact if you're a conservative and can't stand any news that is contrary to your belief system you can live in Fox new/Daily Caller/Redstate/Drudge land. Same for Liberals.

What I find most interesting is the constant stream of "scandals" that are manufactored on the right and tend to be duds...with no recourse from their viewers. When it was found out that the AWOL records of Bush were manufactored it was a big deal. When Scandal number 10 is proven to be misinformation Conservatives just move on to the next one without any sort of rebuke.
 
iliveonramen said:
There might of been a case for widespread bias when there were 3 big networks that provided all the news to the nation. It just doesn't exist anymore. There's so many sources of information that nobody goes to one source. Nobody has to go to one source. In fact if you're a conservative and can't stand any news that is contrary to your belief system you can live in Fox new/Daily Caller/Redstate/Drudge land. Same for Liberals.

What I find most interesting is the constant stream of "scandals" that are manufactored on the right and tend to be duds...with no recourse from their viewers. When it was found out that the AWOL records of Bush were manufactored it was a big deal. When Scandal number 10 is proven to be misinformation Conservatives just move on to the next one without any sort of rebuke.
Click to expand...

Benghazi is real, it has teeth, and it could be obama's watergate. More incriminating evidence is coming out every day. Obama cannot run from it. When the MSM starts to turn on him, he is toast.
 
Bobcat said:
Benghazi is real, it has teeth, and it could be obama's watergate. More incriminating evidence is coming out every day. Obama cannot run from it. When the MSM starts to turn on him, he is toast.
Click to expand...

CIA officials which are generally pretty busy doing stuff released a timeline and that has refuted virtually every allegation made by the rightwing noise machine. There was not "stand down" call at the CIA annex. They went in to try and save the individuals in the consulate. The CIA security team in Tripoli quickely charted a plane and flew to Benghazi but got stuck at the airport.

The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft without consent of the host country. Leon Panetta said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk US troops.

Within 25 mins the CIA annex team got to the consulate which was engulfed in heavey diesel smoke and flames and tried to get the staff out. They succeeded with the majority of the staff.

The CIA base contued the attack for 90 minutes.

The 2nd team at the airport tried to figure out where Stevens was and get transportation and added security to find him.

So in reality the real situation shows a firefight that took place at the consulate within 25 minutes of the first call for help.

Edit: Of course....something that has become the bread and butter of Conservatives....a lie is halfway around the world while the truth is still putting it's pants on.
 
iliveonramen said:
CIA officials which are generally pretty busy doing stuff released a timeline and that has refuted virtually every allegation made by the rightwing noise machine. There was not "stand down" call at the CIA annex. They went in to try and save the individuals in the consulate. The CIA security team in Tripoli quickely charted a plane and flew to Benghazi but got stuck at the airport.

The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft without consent of the host country. Leon Panetta said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk US troops.

Within 25 mins the CIA annex team got to the consulate which was engulfed in heavey diesel smoke and flames and tried to get the staff out. They succeeded with the majority of the staff.

The CIA base contued the attack for 90 minutes.

The 2nd team at the airport tried to figure out where Stevens was and get transportation and added security to find him.

So in reality the real situation shows a firefight that took place at the consulate within 25 minutes of the first call for help.

Edit: Of course....something that has become the bread and butter of Conservatives....a lie is halfway around the world while the truth is still putting it's pants on.
Click to expand...

Totally incorrect on all counts.

Lets see now, Panetta wanted to get permission to save american citizens from a terrorist attack? Permission??????????? are you fricken crazy?

The seals that went in and died trying to save americans did it on their own, they did not follow orders, if they had survived, our stupid govt would probably court marshall them.
 
So many facts only the right wing knows. Kinda like voices only you can hear.
iliveonramen said:
CIA officials which are generally pretty busy doing stuff released a timeline and that has refuted virtually every allegation made by the rightwing noise machine. There was not "stand down" call at the CIA annex. They went in to try and save the individuals in the consulate. The CIA security team in Tripoli quickely charted a plane and flew to Benghazi but got stuck at the airport.

The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft without consent of the host country. Leon Panetta said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk US troops.

Within 25 mins the CIA annex team got to the consulate which was engulfed in heavey diesel smoke and flames and tried to get the staff out. They succeeded with the majority of the staff.

The CIA base contued the attack for 90 minutes.

The 2nd team at the airport tried to figure out where Stevens was and get transportation and added security to find him.

So in reality the real situation shows a firefight that took place at the consulate within 25 minutes of the first call for help.

Edit: Of course....something that has become the bread and butter of Conservatives....a lie is halfway around the world while the truth is still putting it's pants on.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
So many facts only the right wing knows. Kinda like voices only you can hear.
Click to expand...

what ramennoodleman posted is totally incorrect. the facts are out there, and they are very bad news for obama.
 
Bobcat said:
Totally incorrect on all counts.

Lets see now, Panetta wanted to get permission to save american citizens from a terrorist attack? Permission??????????? are you fricken crazy?

The seals that went in and died trying to save americans did it on their own, they did not follow orders, if they had survived, our stupid govt would probably court marshall them.
Click to expand...

So now the CIA report is lying? It may not be posted on The Daily Caller but they just recently released a detailed timeline of the attack which refutes basically all the misinformation coming out.
 
iliveonramen said:
So now the CIA report is lying? It may not be posted on The Daily Caller but they just recently released a detailed timeline of the attack which refutes basically all the misinformation coming out.
Click to expand...

Who do they work for? who are they protecting? do you think the obama admin would let this report out if it incriminated obama?

wake up, this is politics, not facts.
 
Bobcat said:
Who do they work for? who are they protecting? do you think the obama admin would let this report out if it incriminated obama?

wake up, this is politics, not facts.
Click to expand...

That must be it...it's not possible that it's another in a long line of disproven rightwing "scandals"......
 
The timeline provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official...

And this was who exactly?
 
iliveonramen said:
Google it...everybody is reporting it...it's just the first site that popped up.
Click to expand...

lots of stories out there, many trying to provide cover for obama. but fear not, the truth will come to the top. The only question is whether obama can suppress it for 3 more days.
 
I look at it this way. News has evolved. All sides are biased. However, look at the numbers. We have Fox (the only main stream con news channel) and we have multiple left leaning news channels. How i see it is that Fox news is for the fringe group while the rest of the US prefers the remaining MSM.

Hell, look at the online equivalencies of Fox news : WND, Alex Jones, Becky, Towhall, conservapedia, Focus on the family. All of these sites just ooze fringe.

It's kinda like why would anyone want to be associated with a single @sshole neighbor when you have dozen of other neighbors that are nice and normal



Fox is simply the outcast.
 
madman said:
I look at it this way. News has evolved. All sides are biased. However, look at the numbers. We have Fox (the only main stream con news channel) and we have multiple left leaning news channels. How i see it is that Fox news is for the fringe group while the rest of the US prefers the remaining MSM.

Hell, look at the online equivalencies of Fox news : WND, Alex Jones, Becky, Towhall, conservapedia, Focus on the family.

It's kinda like why would anyone want to be associated with a single @sshole neighbor when you have dozen of other neighbors that are nice and normal



Fox is simply the outcast
Click to expand...

"The rest of the US prefers the remaining MSM"?

You didn't type that with a straight face, did you?
 
tres borrachos said:
"The rest of the US prefers the remaining MSM"?

You didn't type that with a straight face, did you?
Click to expand...

Again, those of us that are not on the fringe group, get out news/commentary from the remaining MSM.

and yes, the rest of the US
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom