I'm almost done with Bernard Goldberg's book. If I hadn't left it at work I would quote a couple of lines that make his point. Basically, there isn't a conspiracy in the media. Most people in the news just happen to be liberal. Our national news comes from New York so it shouldn't be a surprise. They live and work around other liberals. They have liberal friends. They can look around and say to themselves, "everyone I know thinks this way."
The book makes a lot of sense.

Arklier,

thats a pretty harsh accusation.

can you name one public figure who wants:

1. to shove homos in closets?
2. tell kids to pray to only one certain god in schools?
3. ban all birth control?
4. force women to only a motherhood role?
5. teach creation science?
6. to arm violent rapists when released from jail?

hmmm, i didn't think so...

Newt?

Arklier wasn't characterizing an individual, he was chracterizing the conservative platform.

Asking him to name an individual that supports all of the positions of their respective platform is an impossibility....


...oh, excpet for Newt...

...and Pat Buchanan...

thats right, because those are all hyped-up liberal spin with no basis in fact

Metalhead - These got lost in the site update, so here they are again, plus a couple more:

Rick Santorum

Trent Lott

Jesse Helms

Jerry Falwell

Strom Thurmond (back when he could think! )

David Duke

Rush Limbaugh

Michael Savage

and the afore mentioned Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchannan.

Obviously you won't get any of them to admit it "on the record", but I bet if you caught up with them at the bar, or in the case of Mr. Duke, after the Klan rally.....

There are alot of demons dancing in alot of heads around here....

Actually 4Salt, they do on go on record......

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

And the White House supports him! In this day and age? Unreal.....

Ike

When searching for truth it is advisable to get as many points of view as possible. Those who thinks there is a liberal conspiracy at hand might want to get the other side of the story by reading books like “Blinded by the Right”. It brings into perspective what the right wing individuals and organizations will do to perpetuate their agenda and yes the extreme left is just as bad. While you are debating the differences between the two ideologies those who could care less about what you think are destroying your freedoms and your heritage. On another thread a very smart guy posted the fact that it is becoming difficult to know where government leaves off and corporate America begins and that will destroy everything this country has stood fore for the last 200 plus years.

Who was that one Republican congressman that kept making slanderous public remarks against out-of-the-closet homosexual Democrat Barney Frank? Like when said person got a proctology exam and said it was something only Barney Frank would enjoy. You would think that there would be at least some kind of professionalism or at least common courtesy, but there wasn't, and the GOP did nothing to shut this guy up. It disgusted me, the fact that this guy could not even put aside his nature and be bigoted in private.

And yes, my previous post was a generalization of the platform as a whole, though several people were pointed out as supporting most of the platform. And no, I'm not homosexual myself. I just happen to know quite a few of them, most of whom are very nice people. Who cares what they do in bed? Who cares if they walk down the street holding hands? Who cares if they kiss in public?It's no one's business but their own.

IMHO, the Republican party has gotten into bed with dangerous people who want to legislate morality and make everyone conform to their own version of morality, for their own good, no less.

its funny how the liberal media is owned by ultra conservative corporations.

cwugirl- love your posts here. especially about ann coulter.

arklier- keep telling the truth. we need more of it here.

FOX is conservative(extreemely).

MSNBC (owned by GE, the largest defense contractor in the world and the largest producer of nuclear weapons) went from half and half to firing donahue their top rated guy and switching to copying anything fox does. they are now ultra conservative.

CNBC is about almost balanced but more conservative than liberal.

CNN is the only station that could be called liberal. I dont think it is liberal but it is the only station that makes any any attempt at all to be balanced. their problem is dorks like connie chung and arron "gee wiz"brown.

The truth is that about 80% of all information available to the american public thru any media is controlled by 5 white men. only one of those men is known to be liberal to any degree. its just that knee-jerk reactionary republicans make the best audience because they buy into the idea that everything has one cause and one effect.


what is everyones definition of liberal and conservative? I think that it is not a straight line with left on one side and right on the other. I see it as a circle where the far left and the far right have alot in common and begin to resemble each other. not the opposites they may think they are. on the far right is anarchy.... on the far left is anarchy.

the firing of donohue was interesting given he had such a high rating at that time slot....an msnbc memo said they had to get him off the air before the iraq war because the show may 'become a forum for anti-war thought'....that don't sound liberal to me...or maybe it is...depends on the definition i guess.....