|
[Previous entry: "James Lesson 9: Faith Tested by Reaction to Injustice(5:1-11)"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Now for Something Completely Different"]
03/15/2005: "Hunger for Freedom is breaking out...."
Replies: 10 Comments
You right wingers are always such propagandists. You conveniently ignore the pro-syrian demonstrations just days ago. If you want to run this country, face reality and quit digging your head into the sand, or you will take us all down with your propaganda and ignorance.
Hunger for freedom said @ 03/15/2005 08:59 AM CST
We do not ignore it; we just don't need to cover it because the left-wing press already gave the story way too much press coverage. I am here to publish the good news that is happening around the world that the left wing press will not publish.
God Bless America Please....
Q and A Blogger said @ 03/15/2005 09:44 AM CST
Bless America, you bet. The best way to do that is to deal with reality, not propaganda.
The left wing press reports reality, not propaganda from such as World Net Daily. The left wing press reported both events. Can you say World Net Daily did? You can be sure many of its stories are right out of the Bush White House media machine. Paid for, in full. You can not trust the right wing press, they are being paid by the Bush White House.
Bless America said @ 03/15/2005 10:42 AM CST
As a matter of fact, worldnetdaily.com did cover the pro-Syrian rally and they did a little more digging then the liberal press. They found that most of the "protesters" were foreigners and others coerced into protesting. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43213
But of course your liberal press covered that.
Also, when was the last time your "balanced" liberal press showed a pro-life person in a positive light? When was the last time you "balanced" liberal press showed the arguments against the homosexual agenda in a possitive light? When was the last time your "balanced" liberal press showed some of the real heroes of the IRAQ war or the great successes that have come out of both Afghanistan and IRAQ.
But of course, the liberal press is correct. I'm glad you are so opened minded and that you have corrected me so well.
Q and A Blogger said @ 03/15/2005 12:42 PM CST
Will I guess you showed me -- they "found", i.e., they used the word of ONE person -- an exiled former prime minister. Exiled by whom? Guess. Great coverage. Completely one-sided, as usual. What was that about balance?
Your corrective balance said @ 03/15/2005 01:35 PM CST
You seemed to miss all my other points. To hard for you?
Q and A Blogger said @ 03/15/2005 01:39 PM CST
You can not make an accusation, then say it is true unless I can refute it. You need to provide proof.
Where is your proof that they show pro-lifers in a negative light, or do not show the arguments against the homosexual agenda, or have not reported on the successes of the Iraq/Afghan war? Or are you just saying this because you think things are that way?
Other points said @ 03/15/2005 03:10 PM CST
No matter what proof I provided, you would not agree so it does not matter. You have an irrational hatred for all things conservative. What can I say.
Q and A Blogger said @ 03/15/2005 03:36 PM CST
Hey - let me ring the bell on round one. If I may be so bold as to interject another thought, could it be the real issue is the bias media? I don't like to be divisive as in liberal vs conservative because the last time I read, it was "we, the people." Both of you agree that the media is not serving your needs. Once upon a time the media would report both sides of an issue and let you, the reader, form an opinion. The editorial page was for stating those opinions. But unfortunately the media has decided that "we", the readers, are not intelligent enough to form an opinion. So now the news tells me not only the story, but what to think. This has let to ridiculous stories on how people spell or if someone has tripped when walking.
My point is this: both of you scare me with your extreme one-sided viewpoint, in that your way is the high way. Ask yourself, if the media were not bias, why would so many blogs exist? Let's work on influencing the media to report the facts and do less editorializing (unless it's the opinion page). Dan Rather could have saved his reputation by just saying "serious allegations have arisen and we will review our facts" instead of resorting to name calling and a temper tantrum. So I encourage both of you to expand your views, look for truth and accuracy in reporting. And please, no more labeling or name calling in this great nation on God's green earth.
Lenora said @ 03/16/2005 10:32 AM CST
You have some very good points, but I don’t remember a time when the press was not biased.
If you look back to the revolutionary war period the newspapers were already biased, you had Pro-British newspapers and newspapers that were for splitting from the Brits. I'm sure if you went back further you would find the same thing. But, what I find is that most modern mainstream news sources publish under the facade of being balance when in fact they are quite liberal.
The conservative sources that I use have no hesitation at all stating that they are indeed conservative and they look at all of life from a conservative perspective. I don’t think my worthy opponent is quite as forthright. He/She lives under the delusion that his/her news sources are perfect.
Q and A blogger said @ 03/16/2005 12:31 PM CST
|
