CNN Censored & Fox News = Bush's Footsoldiers

[Pinto]

CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship."

Ê As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administration line in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion.

Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al Qaeda."

What does Iraq have to do with al Queda?

Such a dumb-arse comment from someone who is supposed to be a provider of unbiased news is outrages.

Is Fox news popular in the US?
Is it a real news service or just video-tabloid?

link (http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm)

[Ugg]

I don't watch TV but from the quotes I've seen from FOX reporters, it is less about journalism and more about party politics. There is no doubt in my mind that the media rolled over on command and turned a blind eye to its profession. Why is it that 70% of all Americans believe that Saddam was behind 9-11 if not for the media. TV here is nothing more than talking heads and regurgitated White House press releases.

[tazo]

Wasn't CNN the station that gave away the US' position in Iraq during the invasion?

Yeah....censorship...more like blabbing :D

[Pinto]

Originally posted by tazo
Wasn't CNN the station that gave away the US' position in Iraq during the invasion?

Yeah....censorship...more like blabbing :D

This is about questioning the REAL reasons behind the invasion, not some specific incident from the front line.

How many US deaths occurred because of the report you mentioned?

How many deaths have occurred because of the war in general?

[pivo6]

Originally posted by tazo
Wasn't CNN the station that gave away the US' position in Iraq during the invasion?

Yeah....censorship...more like blabbing :D

Aren't you referring to Geraldo who draw a map of the US position in the sand while reporting for Fox?

[IJ Reilly]

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al Qaeda."

Have they no shame? I suppose if you have ratings, you don't need shame.

[tazo]

Originally posted by Pinto
This is about questioning the REAL reasons behind the invasion, not some specific incident from the front line.

How many US deaths occurred because of the report you mentioned?

How many deaths have occurred because of the war in general?

People die in war. I dont understand where people get this idea that the iraq war was the first war to have people die in it.

[mactastic]

A case could be made that FOX News, via Geraldo Rivera, provided aid and comfort to the enemy by giving away troop movements. If CNN had done this, conservatives would have dropped the hammer on them. But it's FOX, so they get a pass.:rolleyes:

[Pinto]

What is the connection between Fox and the Govt?

[tazo]

Originally posted by mactastic
A case could be made that FOX News, via Geraldo Rivera, provided aid and comfort to the enemy by giving away troop movements. If CNN had done this, conservatives would have dropped the hammer on them. But it's FOX, so they get a pass.:rolleyes:

But CNN, did do it.... ;)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by tazo
But CNN, did do it.... ;)

How so? I hadn't heard that.

[tazo]

Originally posted by mactastic
How so? I hadn't heard that.

Back when we had just begun the war on iraq, there was a big thing about how when all the stations had their correspondents in the desert, how CNN's correspondent gave away [somewhat] the US' position. Potentially that is an enormous risk....

[mactastic]

Originally posted by tazo
Back when we had just begun the war on iraq, there was a big thing about how when all the stations had their correspondents in the desert, how CNN's correspondent gave away [somewhat] the US' position. Potentially that is an enormous risk....

Can you provide any links? I looked and couldn't find anything on it. Tons on Geraldo, but maybe that's because I knew his name to put in the search engine.

[tazo]

I could have sworn that CNN did that too....I too only could come up with geraldo's story, even after a dozen google searches.

[mactastic]

Same here... You're not thinking of Peter Arnette are you?

[tazo]

Originally posted by mactastic
Same here... You're not thinking of Peter Arnette are you?

No...

Arnette was the guy that had an interview with iraqi-tv; he worked for MSNBC. I remember that whole incident. What I remembered was CNN being accused of giving away the position of US soldiers some time ago. Perhaps I am just recalling CNN's reporting of the Geraldo Rivera incident.

[mactastic]

I don't know why anyone lets Geraldo report news. The guy is a disgrace to the journalistic profession.

[pdham]

Originally posted by Pinto
What is the connection between Fox and the Govt?

Obviously none officially. However the presodemt and founder of FOX News and now the executive of foxnews.com, Roger Ailes has a long history with the republicans in the White House. Most notably he crafted the media campaign for Bush in the 88 campaign.

Taken from an article by FAIR (Fairness and accuracy in reporting)

Fox's founder and president, Roger Ailes, was for decades one of the savviest and most pugnacious Republican political operatives in Washington, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns. Ailes is most famous for his role in crafting the elder Bush's media strategy in the bruising 1988 presidential race. With Ailes' help, Bush turned a double-digit deficit in the polls into a resounding win by targeting the GOP's base of white male voters in the South and West, using red-meat themes like Michael Dukakis' "card-carrying" membership in the ACLU, his laissez-faire attitude toward flag-burning, his alleged indifference to the pledge of allegiance--and, of course, paroled felon Willie Horton.

Described by fellow Bush aide Lee Atwater as having "two speeds--attack and destroy," Ailes once jocularly told a Time reporter (8/22/88): "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it." Later, as a producer for Rush Limbaugh's short-lived TV show, he was fond of calling Bill Clinton the "hippie president" and lashing out at "liberal bigots" (Washington Times, 5/11/93). It is these two sensibilities above all--right-wing talk radio and below-the-belt political campaigning--that Ailes brought with him to Fox, and his stamp is evident in all aspects of the network's programming.


Rest of article (http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html)

Paul

[zimv20]

"fair and balanced", my ass

[tazo]

Originally posted by zimv20
"fair and balanced", my ass

i concur..

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by tazo
People die in war. I dont understand where people get this idea that the iraq war was the first war to have people die in it.

I think you missed his point. No one died in this war because of the media.

CNN never gave away troop positions. Get your facts straight before stating them as such.

[tazo]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I think you missed his point. No one died in this war because of the media.

CNN never gave away troop positions. Get your facts straight before stating them as such.

I already said I must have been thinking of something else...lol. Pseudobrit, why doncha RTFT before ya jump to conclusions and fall off a cliff.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by tazo
I already said I must have been thinking of something else...lol. Pseudobrit, why doncha RTFT before ya jump to conclusions and fall off a cliff.

I did read the ****ing thread. It doesn't change the fact that you, at several different points in this thread, stated wrong information as fact and never fully recanted.

[tazo]

What do you want my first born child plus an affidavit? Lol. Read the thread 'brit.

[raschild]

You're all griping about Fox being "foot soldiers" of President Bush and his administaration. You might even say that Fox is biased, despite its "Fair and Balanced" slogan. Can any of you honestly say that you're not biased in the field of politics? CNN is just as biased as Fox, only in a different direction. As humans, it's impossible to share information without slanting it to one's own view. As for Fox muzzling CNN.....give me a break. CNN did what was in style at the time, and they're doing it again right now. :rolleyes:

[Taft]

Originally posted by raschild
You're all griping about Fox being "foot soldiers" of President Bush and his administaration. You might even say that Fox is biased, despite its "Fair and Balanced" slogan. Can any of you honestly say that you're not biased in the field of politics? CNN is just as biased as Fox, only in a different direction. As humans, it's impossible to share information without slanting it to one's own view. As for Fox muzzling CNN.....give me a break. CNN did what was in style at the time, and they're doing it again right now. :rolleyes:

Then why do they say they are fair and balanced? Oh right...they're liars.

Not exactly a place I'd trust to give me my news. But I guess millions of Americans can't be wrong. :rolleyes:

As far as the CNN thing goes, do you honestly believe the White House exerted no pressure on them to step in line? Not to say CNN is without blame. I think the press has totally muzzled themselves since 9/11. Since then, the Bush administration and FOX news has succesfully painted those with dissenting opinions as unpatriotic and even traitors. There has been a climate of fear in the US that has prevent a lot of productive conversation from happening.

How many times has Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh accused protestors or dissentors as traitors or "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"? Being labeled a traitor can be a very scary thing. It feels as though your whole country has turned against you.

It is a very succesful tactic for squelching other opinions and a technique that has been used by conservatives to great effect after 9/11. Way to prey on people's fears, you conservative heros!

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by raschild
You're all griping about Fox being "foot soldiers" of President Bush and his administaration. You might even say that Fox is biased, despite its "Fair and Balanced" slogan. Can any of you honestly say that you're not biased in the field of politics? CNN is just as biased as Fox, only in a different direction. As humans, it's impossible to share information without slanting it to one's own view. As for Fox muzzling CNN.....give me a break. CNN did what was in style at the time, and they're doing it again right now. :rolleyes:

In a word, phooey.

While it may be true that no news source is completely unbiased, that's no excuse for freely and deliberately introducing bias into journalism.

[Frohickey]

Aside from Fox News, Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh, the rest of the media is slanted to the left.

Where is the much vaunted 'diversity in ideas' that area always touted by the liberal left? Or is it that 'diversity' and 'tolerance' is only if it mirrors the liberal's viewpoint. :o

[Taft]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Aside from Fox News, Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh, the rest of the media is slanted to the left.

Where is the much vaunted 'diversity in ideas' that area always touted by the liberal left? Or is it that 'diversity' and 'tolerance' is only if it mirrors the liberal's viewpoint. :o

Of course. How stupid I am!

And this is why MSNBC fired Donahue, who was running their highest rated show even though he lagged behind O'Reilly by a significant factor, and hired Michael Savage. Right?

And of course the Wall Street Journal's editorial page leans heavily left. As does the Economists. And don't forget the Chicago Tribune. Thats about as left as a newspaper comes.

I just get so sick of this argument.

Taft

[tazo]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Aside from Fox News, Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh, the rest of the media is slanted to the left.

Where is the much vaunted 'diversity in ideas' that area always touted by the liberal left? Or is it that 'diversity' and 'tolerance' is only if it mirrors the liberal's viewpoint. :o

You must be a construction worker, because you nailed that on the head. ;)

I completely agree with frohickey. Liberals are often the first to tout their openness to other's opinions.

It is like how ford used to say "you can get the model t in any color, as long as it's black"; you can say anything you want to a liberal and have them respect it, as long as it's what they agree with.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by tazo
I completely agree with frohickey. Liberals are often the first to tout their openness to other's opinions.

It is like how ford used to say "you can get the model t in any color, as long as it's black"; you can say anything you want to a liberal and have them respect it, as long as it's what they agree with.

I thought you gave up using stereotypes tazo?

There's nothing like polarizing the issue when in fact the majority of news reporting these days is moderate. Don't want to piss off those corporate sponsors.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Aside from Fox News, Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh, the rest of the media is slanted to the left.


sigh.

you got any studies to back that up, or is it just your own bias?

if you'll recall, i posted a study recently that destroyed the "liberal media" myth. i'm no longer humoring statements that the media, in the large, leans left.

you want to see some real leftist media? go read In These Times.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Studies have been done that prove that while the majority of journalists are Democrats, their output as a whole is moderate.

[Taft]

Originally posted by tazo
You must be a construction worker, because you nailed that on the head. ;)

I completely agree with frohickey. Liberals are often the first to tout their openness to other's opinions.

And?

Lets say, for a moment, that there is a liberal bias in the media. What does this statement, or the similarly ignorant and inflammatory statement made by Frohicky, have to do with it? It has nothing to do with this conversation and only serves as a character attack based on a stereotype to discredit "the left" and their ideas.

So are ALL liberals hypocrites who tout their openness and then act in a closed minded manner?

Then I guess all conservatives are greedy old men who want to rape the environment and give corporations big breaks.

And I guess all white guys can't dance.

And all Jews are good with money.

And all...well you get the picture.

Tazo, I noticed on another thread that you claimed to be moderate. Now, in both that thread and this one you have propagated some pretty nasty stereotypes against liberals. While you may be joking, I can't help but wonder if you've taken Fox's meaning of the phrase "Fair and Balanced" to heart.

Its a dangerous road to travel down...

Taft

[tazo]

Originally posted by Ugg
I thought you gave up using stereotypes tazo?

There's nothing like polarizing the issue when in fact the majority of news reporting these days is moderate. Don't want to piss off those corporate sponsors.

If you read my post, i said often, that would be indicative of 'some' liberals acting in such a manner.

[zimv20]

here's a recent example of just how "liberal" the media is:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1982860

head and subhead:

Bush 9/11 Admission Gets Little Play
Story Doesn't Make Many Front Pages


So when President George Bush admitted on Wednesday, for the first time, that there was "no evidence that Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks, one would assume that would be big news and an opportunity for the press to make up for past failings.

And according to some newspapers, it was a big story. The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune (both owned by the Tribune Co.) ran front-page stories on the revelation Thursday. But an analysis of most major American newspapers found the story either buried deep within the paper -- or completely absent.

Of America's 12 highest-circulation daily papers, only the L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, and Dallas Morning News ran anything about it on the front page. In The New York Times, the story was relegated to page 22. USA Today: page 16. The Houston Chronicle: page 3. The San Francisco Chronicle: page 14. The Washington Post: page 18. Newsday: page 41. The New York Daily News: page 14.

The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention it at all.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Taft
Tazo, I noticed on another thread that you claimed to be moderate.

He isn't. Everything I've seen from him seems to have a conservative slant to it.

I see plenty of people who claim to be moderate who aren't. I'm not sure why they do it; but usually it seems to be because they're afraid of being stereotyped or dismissed automatically.

Other times, it's because they really think that most people believe as they do and cannot come to terms with the fact that others think differently.

The media doesn't report what they like -- "must be biased"

The polls don't agree with what they think -- "must be inaccurate"

A reporter digs up a story that attacks a politician "on their side" -- "reporter/newspaper is a partisan hippie scumbag/corporate slave, and undoubtedly a liar."

Meet someone who disagrees -- "must be an idiot"

But what does it matter, tazo will just come along and tell me I didn't read the thread again, that must be why I don't agree with him... :rolleyes:

[raschild]

zimv20-

Since when has Saddam been the culprit of 9/11 (remember Osama?)? I was under no impression that 9/11 was why we are in Iraq. The only relation I see between Hussein and 9/11 is that 9/11 was the spark that lit the fire that burned his regime. We went in there after an irrational dictator that was a threat to American national security now--not because he was behind 9/11 then. That's why the President's "confession" wasn't big news.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by tazo
If you read my post, i said often, that would be indicative of 'some' liberals acting in such a manner.

That "often" is indicative of no such thing. Your statement was clearly based on a stereotype of liberals that you have. The same could be said of conservatives but hasn't been.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by raschild
We went in there after an irrational dictator that was a threat to American national security now

How, exactly, do you qualify that statement? (with a straight face)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by raschild
zimv20-

Since when has Saddam been the culprit of 9/11 (remember Osama?)? I was under no impression that 9/11 was why we are in Iraq. The only relation I see between Hussein and 9/11 is that 9/11 was the spark that lit the fire that burned his regime. We went in there after an irrational dictator that was a threat to American national security now--not because he was behind 9/11 then. That's why the President's "confession" wasn't big news.

had you read the article, you might have noticed:

For months leading up this year's war on Iraq, the Bush administration implied that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The argument was well-received by Americans, and might have been the single leading factor behind public support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. An oft-cited poll conducted by The Washington Post last month revealed that 69% of Americans continue to believe it likely that Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.

No real evidence to support this has emerged, however, leading some (including E&P, just last week) to declare that the media had failed in its duty to correct the public misperception.

So when President George Bush admitted on Wednesday, for the first time, that there was "no evidence that Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks, one would assume that would be big news and an opportunity for the press to make up for past failings.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by raschild
We went in there after an irrational dictator that was a threat to American national security now--not because he was behind 9/11 then. That's why the President's "confession" wasn't big news.

Oh, and where is the evidence of that threat to national security? Just another empty claim by gw & co. to further their own empire building I guess...

[Waluigi]

Originally posted by Taft
How many times has Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh accused protestors or dissentors as traitors or "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"? Being labeled a traitor can be a very scary thing. It feels as though your whole country has turned against you.


Don't lump Bill O'Reilly with Rush Limbaugh like that. People will eventually be mislead to think they are the same if they are bombarded with constant lumping of them like yours (just like FOX NEWS does with their fair and balanced slogan)!

Bill takes a stand against certain protestors who take action and impede the process of the military, not those who disagree, but talk about it rationally. Rush throws cheap shots at anyone who is liberal or not conservative enough and disagrees with the republican agenda, no matter what they do. Come on Taft, we've had many discussions about this, I've read Al Franken's freaking book (a great one by the way), and even Al Franken thinks Bill is intellectually honest (even though he also thinks he is a big bully).

--Waluigi

[pseudobrit]

Yeah, O'Reilly and Limbaugh are different characters. Limbaugh will savagely attack anyone who seems to be on a different wavelength than he, even if it requires a total hackjob with facts. He knows he's lying and does it skillfully. He's the RNC's Goebbels.

He'll say stuff to cause facts and fantasy to comingle and blur in a listener's mind, and before you know it, Clinton is a sex-addicted simpleton who murdered his way into office and wants to bang your 16year-old daughter, snort coke all day and make abortions and homosexual sex mandatory.

He said something to the effect that Wesley Clark "goes around acting like he was some important general or something; he was just commander of some rinky-dink NATO [read: French and German, therefore anti-American] international operation." Obviously he's afraid of Clark and hasn't had time to dig up anything resembling real dirt, or he would have used it. So he lied and decieved.

Bill, on the other hand, is just a dolt who likes stirring the pot. And will attack anyone, regardless of political persuasion to do so. I really think he believes what he says, as opposed to Limbaugh who simply says what he knows will work, even if he knows it to be untrue.

[tazo]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
He isn't. Everything I've seen from him seems to have a conservative slant to it.


I am a moderate because I agree with both political extremes at times.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by tazo
I am a moderate because I agree with both political extremes at times.

tazo, that doesn't make you a moderate. Sure moderates draw from ideas from both the right and left, but to be a moderate also means you don't advance extreme ideas. For instance, when you use phrases like "feminazis" you are advancing a idea of one political extreme (Limbaugh) that places you well out of any moderation in the discussion of feminism. If in the next sentence you quote Nader and speak of "corporate raiders" it doesn't balance your views out and make you a moderate.

[zimv20]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1045302,00.html

he speaks out against bush's policies, he gets death threats. if this is a pattern, maybe it's why we don't see more of the media questioning what's going on.

who says the media can't be intimidated?

[mactastic]

Lots of people get death threats. Doesn't sound like Bush is threatening to kill him though. Nor the administration.

At least he's not as bad off as that poor girl who's accused Kobe of rape. She spoke out, and look what's happening to her.

[tazo]

Originally posted by Sayhey
tazo, that doesn't make you a moderate. Sure moderates draw from ideas from both the right and left, but to be a moderate also means you don't advance extreme ideas. For instance, when you use phrases like "feminazis" you are advancing a idea of one political extreme (Limbaugh) that places you well out of any moderation in the discussion of feminism. If in the next sentence you quote Nader and speak of "corporate raiders" it doesn't balance your views out and make you a moderate.

I dont know why people assume i listen to limbaugh; I have never in my life lol. I describe a feminazi as someone that is a feminist, dislikes anything not politically correct, and acts extremely rude towards others.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by tazo
I dont know why people assume i listen to limbaugh; I have never in my life lol. I describe a feminazi as someone that is a feminist, dislikes anything not politically correct, and acts extremely rude towards others.

People probably make that assumption because of your use of words like "feminazi." It is a creation of Limbaugh and few folks outside his fans use the term. That, however, wasn't my point. Regardless of whether or not you listen to Limbaugh, views that are extreme rule out the use of term "moderate" to label yourself.

Hey, tazo, I don't care if call yourself a moderate or anything else. Just be aware that is not how you come across in the political forums.

[vniow]

Originally posted by scem0?
I describe a feminazi as someone that is a feminist

*waves*

I must be a femenazi then.

*shrugs*

[tazo]

Originally posted by vniow
*waves*

I must be a femenazi then.

*shrugs*

lol I believe the term is 'feminazi' :rolleyes: ;) And for the record I do not consider you vniow to be a feminazi :)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by tazo
lol I believe the term is 'feminazi' :rolleyes: ;) And for the record I do not consider you vniow to be a feminazi :)

Would you call anyone a "feminazi" to their face?

Is anyone you know a "feminazi?"

Or is it just a term you throw about in anger at people who don't seem to agree with you, so you can point to them as being extremist?

[tazo]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Would you call anyone a "feminazi" to their face?

Is anyone you know a "feminazi?"

Or is it just a term you throw about in anger at people who don't seem to agree with you, so you can point to them as being extremist?

I have called someone a feminazi to their face, within earshot. I also do know a few feminazis. One was a teacher who did nothing but harass me in front of the students over my political views, and the other 'feminazi' that I know was a peer who did nothing but defame men, and act rudely towards others.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by tazo
I have called someone a feminazi to their face, within earshot. I also do know a few feminazis. One was a teacher who did nothing but harass me in front of the students over my political views, and the other 'feminazi' that I know was a peer who did nothing but defame men, and act rudely towards others.

tazo, some feminists, and some women in general, do indeed have a hatred of men. The reasons for that are probably as varied as the number of interactions those women have had with men. By using a term that equates feminism, the idea that there should be equality of women with men, to Nazism, one of the most repugnate ideologies ever known to humanity, all you do is antagonize people and show that you don't have a very good understanding of the two ideologies.
Standing up for your ideas is admirable, but doing so by using such inflammatory terms only leads to your isolation. If you believe strongly in your ideas, then I always think it is better to explain them to people in ways that can win them to your position.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by tazo
I have called someone a feminazi to their face, within earshot. I also do know a few feminazis. One was a teacher who did nothing but harass me in front of the students over my political views, and the other 'feminazi' that I know was a peer who did nothing but defame men, and act rudely towards others.

Since you are a moderate, what do you call men that hate women?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg
Since you are a moderate, what do you call men that hate women?
Single :o

[Frohickey]

Frohickey said:
Where is the much vaunted 'diversity in ideas' that area always touted by the liberal left? Or is it that 'diversity' and 'tolerance' is only if it mirrors the liberal's viewpoint.
Originally posted by Taft Lets say, for a moment, that there is a liberal bias in the media. What does this statement, or the similarly ignorant and inflammatory statement made by Frohicky, have to do with it?

What statement was ignorant and inflammatory? That the 'tolerance' claimed by liberals is only for liberals? How many stories of college conservatives trying to get their voices heard whilst the 'tolerant' liberals suppress their 'tolerance' on the way to the dumpster?

Yale (http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1999/october_1999_2.html)

"The anti-rights people came through our site and dumped an entire table of literature into the trash" (http://www.womenshooters.com/archive/old0103issue/sas0103.html)

And, on an actual event that I was at. There was a SAS counterprotest held in Sacramento a few years ago. The MMM were on their side, we were on our side, but that did not stop a few of the MMM supporters from coming over and trying to start a fight with us. Some even spit on SAS supporters, and had to be shooed away by the cops! :eek: The MMMers were the first to resort to violence!

[Taft]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What statement was ignorant and inflammatory? That the 'tolerance' claimed by liberals is only for liberals? How many stories of college conservatives trying to get their voices heard whilst the 'tolerant' liberals suppress their 'tolerance' on the way to the dumpster?

Yale (http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1999/october_1999_2.html)

"The anti-rights people came through our site and dumped an entire table of literature into the trash" (http://www.womenshooters.com/archive/old0103issue/sas0103.html)

And, on an actual event that I was at. There was a SAS counterprotest held in Sacramento a few years ago. The MMM were on their side, we were on our side, but that did not stop a few of the MMM supporters from coming over and trying to start a fight with us. Some even spit on SAS supporters, and had to be shooed away by the cops! :eek: The MMMers were the first to resort to violence!

Your statements that equate 'liberals' with 'hypocritically intolerant'. Its a stereotype and an unfair one at that.

You gave me two perfect examples of people claiming liberal beliefs acting in an intolerant way.

That means all liberals act that way, right? Ha!

Well then it must mean that MOST liberals act that way, right? Ha! Ha!

Your few personal experiences do not a universal truth make. But if you want to ignorantly stereotype me along with the rest of the liberals out there go right ahead.

But I'll be there every time calling you out on this erroneous and asinine statement.

Taft

[Frohickey]

Well, I call it the way I see it. So far, I haven't seen any liberal groups be tolerant and clearly want to hear the other point of view.

[mactastic]

I've seen plenty of conservative and Christian bias at my school, some of it disgusting and offensive, but I don't think that all conservatives think or act that way. I just call it like I see it though...

[tazo]

Originally posted by Ugg
Since you are a moderate, what do you call men that hate women?

gay. or stupid ;)
Of course the two aforementioned answers are independent of each other for all of you who like to jump to conclusions....


And I have yet to hear of any masculinists.....

But the first time I do and can equate a similarly bad political affiliation with it, I will do so....

Rest assured :o

[Ugg]

Originally posted by tazo
gay. or stupid ;)
Of course the two aforementioned answers are independent of each other for all of you who like to jump to conclusions....


And I have yet to hear of any masculinists.....

But the first time I do and can equate a similarly bad political affiliation with it, I will do so....

Rest assured :o

Hmmm, most gay men don't hate women and stupid men are probably even less likely to do so...

Allow me, they're called Fundamentalist Christian Republicans. They've been around for years and years and have had no qualms in showing their hatred.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by tazo
gay. or stupid ;)
Of course the two aforementioned answers are independent of each other for all of you who like to jump to conclusions....


And I have yet to hear of any masculinists.....

But the first time I do and can equate a similarly bad political affiliation with it, I will do so....

Rest assured :o

tazo, being gay means you are attracted to the same sex, not that you hate the other.

Let me ask you a question point blank. What is your objection to feminism? As I stated before, it is the idea that women should have political and social equality with men. I can't understand having a problem with that idea.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
tazo, being gay means you are attracted to the same sex, not that you hate the other.

Let me ask you a question point blank. What is your objection to feminism? As I stated before, it is the idea that women should have political and social equality with men. I can't understand having a problem with that idea.

But society already has that today. Nowadays, the feminists are still at it in order to gain an advantage.

Now, you will point out why there are less of a particular gender in a certain profession. Lets say high tech. Maybe some are just not good at it. Maybe some are not willing to put in long hours to succeed. Maybe some take leaves of absences in order to raise a family, biology being what it is when you have a 9lb baby in your belly. Who knows. But there is currently no societal prejudices in most of the professional jobs out there.

Okay... sorry, there is. You are not going to have female NFL football players, unless they are genetically engineered to have more upper body strength than men. Plus, you are not going to have male lap dancers. :p

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
But society already has that today. Nowadays, the feminists are still at it in order to gain an advantage.


The wage gap between men and women stubbornly remains despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act nearly 40 years ago. Women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for comparable work. This disparity not only affects women's spending power; it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in social security and pensions.
The General Accounting Office compiled data from the Current Population Survey regarding the ten industries that employ 71 percent of U.S. women workers and 73 percent of U.S. women managers. The pay gap between full-time working women and men managers widened between 1995 and 2000, in seven of the ten industries examined.
A full-time working woman currently receives only 73 cents to every dollar received by a man.


http://www.now.org/issues/economic/factsheet.html

In 2003, 73 women serve in the U.S. Congress. Fourteen women serve in the Senate, and 59 women serve in the House. The number of women in statewide elective executive posts is 79, while the proportion of women in state legislatures is at 22.3 percent.

Congress: women hold 73, or 13.6%, of the 535 seats in the 108th US Congress — 14, or 14.0%, of the 100 seats in the Senate and 59, or 13.6%, of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. In addition, three women serve as Delegates to the House from Guam, the Virgin Islands and Washington, DC.

Statewide Elective Executive: In 2003, 79 women hold statewide elective executive offices across the country; women hold 25.3% of the 316 available positions. Among these women, 34 are Democrats, 42 are Republicans, and 3 were elected in nonpartisan races.

State Legislature: In 2003, 1,648, or 22.3%, of the 7,382 state legislators in the United States are women. Women hold 405, or 20.5%, of the 1,984 state senate seats and 1,243, or 23.0%, of the 5,411 state house seats. Since 1971, the number of women serving in state legislatures has increased more than four-fold.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cawp/Facts/Officeholders/cawpfs.html

While there has been progress, it sure seems like there is a lot more to be accomplished. This however, doesn't even talk about the "glass ceiling" in most corporate offices or other areas of society that remain closed. "In order to gain an advantage"? I think a reality check is in order on your part, Frohickey.

[raschild]

Originally posted by Ugg
Hmmm, most gay men don't hate women and stupid men are probably even less likely to do so...

Allow me, they're called Fundamentalist Christian Republicans. They've been around for years and years and have had no qualms in showing their hatred.

Who's stereotyping now?

[Taft]

Originally posted by Sayhey
http://www.now.org/issues/economic/factsheet.html



http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cawp/Facts/Officeholders/cawpfs.html

While there has been progress, it sure seems like there is a lot more to be accomplished. This however, doesn't even talk about the "glass ceiling" in most corporate offices or other areas of society that remain closed. "In order to gain an advantage"? I think a reality check is in order on your part, Frohickey.

Frohicky already answered that. From his mouth:

Now, you will point out why there are less of a particular gender in a certain profession. Lets say high tech. Maybe some are just not good at it. Maybe some are not willing to put in long hours to succeed. Maybe some take leaves of absences in order to raise a family, biology being what it is when you have a 9lb baby in your belly. Who knows. But there is currently no societal prejudices in most of the professional jobs out there.

And of course this makes perfect sense. It can't be that there is still a certain amount of societal prejudice against women. Rather its because women are just worse at the job, are lazy, or take time off for maternity leave.

Damn those stupid, underacheiving women!

:rolleyes:

Taft

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Taft
Frohicky already answered that. From his mouth:



And of course this makes perfect sense. It can't be that there is still a certain amount of societal prejudice against women. Rather its because women are just worse at the job, are lazy, or take time off for maternity leave.

Damn those stupid, underacheiving women!

:rolleyes:

Taft

In the face of stats that show continuing inequality in the economic and political realms, I thought he might reevaluate his position about his statement that, "society already has that today." I don't want to preclude that possibility no matter how remote.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Taft
Frohicky already answered that. From his mouth:

And of course this makes perfect sense. It can't be that there is still a certain amount of societal prejudice against women. Rather its because women are just worse at the job, are lazy, or take time off for maternity leave.

Damn those stupid, underacheiving women!

:rolleyes:

Taft

Roll your eyes all you want. I see it the way it is over here.

I've worked with talented women and talented men. I've worked with men that are just counting the days til retirement, and I've worked with women that just want go home to their kids. I've worked with women that want to squeeze the last penny out of the design, and men that want to eek out the last bit of performance out of it. At the end of the day/project, as long as the job is done, and done well, no one cares if you are a man or a woman.

You just have to look at how many women engineers are being graduated, versus other professions. The numbers just are not there. Sure, women might be 51% of the population, but if they are 25% of the graduating engineering students, you can't possibly expect 51% of engineers to be women.

You start with the ceiling of 25% and work down from there. Thats just simple math. Heck, I remember my undergrad engineering courses. I could count the number of female ungrad student in my class in 2 fingers. The rest, I would say 300 or so in my class are male.

I think that we should protest that almost 100% of strip club lap dancers are women. How about that 'glass ceiling'?

As it is, govt has been trying to 'solve' this non-problem via affirmative action programs. I remember being stopped by a small 5'2" 100lb (120lb with gun, baton and vest) female Santa Clara County sheriff's deputy with a hispanic sounding last name. There is just something wrong with that. Oh wait. She can arrest the other 5'2" 100lb female criminals that are preying on society. :rolleyes:

[Taft]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I've worked with talented women and talented men. I've worked with men that are just counting the days til retirement, and I've worked with women that just want go home to their kids. I've worked with women that want to squeeze the last penny out of the design, and men that want to eek out the last bit of performance out of it. At the end of the day/project, as long as the job is done, and done well, no one cares if you are a man or a woman.

I'm glad the places you work are so open and enlightened. That is not necessarily the case for all areas of employment, however.


You just have to look at how many women engineers are being graduated, versus other professions. The numbers just are not there. Sure, women might be 51% of the population, but if they are 25% of the graduating engineering students, you can't possibly expect 51% of engineers to be women.

You start with the ceiling of 25% and work down from there. Thats just simple math. Heck, I remember my undergrad engineering courses. I could count the number of female ungrad student in my class in 2 fingers. The rest, I would say 300 or so in my class are male.

Why are there less women enrolling in college? Is it because there are less smart, driven and capable women out there? Studies suggest that that is not the case. Studies also suggest that many young girls are "programmed" by their teachers, parents, etc. to think they are bad at math and good at more "womanly" duties. Isn't that a form of oppression?

You have to look at the development of a woman from childhood to her chosen profession to see the whole picture. Bias against women is shown far earlier than the day they go looking for a job.

I think that we should protest that almost 100% of strip club lap dancers are women. How about that 'glass ceiling'?

This is insane. "Women giving lapdances" is a product. There is demand for that product. There is also a demand for "Men giving lapdances." There is disproportionate demand, however, so the availability of the product differs greatly as well.

As it is, govt has been trying to 'solve' this non-problem via affirmative action programs. I remember being stopped by a small 5'2" 100lb (120lb with gun, baton and vest) female Santa Clara County sheriff's deputy with a hispanic sounding last name. There is just something wrong with that. Oh wait. She can arrest the other 5'2" 100lb female criminals that are preying on society. :rolleyes:

Your assumptions here are horrific. "Hispanic sounding last name"??? Are you kidding?? That has to be the biggest stereotype you've broken out yet. Just because she is small doesn't disqualify her from working as a police officer.

There are tests (both physical and written) to determine fitness for service in almost every police department in America. You have no proof she didn't pass those tests. You also have no proof that she is an ineffective police officer. You are making assumptions on the basis of her stature and the ethnicity of her name.

That is shameful.

I'm not saying that women are being totally opressed in our society. Far from it. I'm just saying they aren't treated nearly as equally as they deserve. And while women are not suited as well to certain tasks due to their very biological construction, most modern day tasks do not require a male body's strength and alternate design. This isn't universally true, I know, but for the most part it is. For the vast majority of jobs out there, a woman can do the job as well as a man. Why aren't they employed at about the same rate?

Taft

[Sayhey]

Frohickey, you sure seem pissed about this lapdancing thing! Having never been to a club that offers this kind of entertainment I will have to take your word for the horrible inequality foisted on men by these establishments. Given the demographics of my hometown I sure you could find a club here that employs men.

I'm glad you work at a site where there is no discrimination. For most of us in the rest of the world we don't have it so lucky. I would draw your attention to the lawsuit filed by women employed by Walmart as an example of what goes on in far too many places.

I never said that for equality to be reached that 51% of all jobs in all types of work must be held by women. It is true, however, that where there are still barriers they must be broken. It is also true that part of this process is the encouraging of young women to look to fields that have not traditionally been held by women as areas to explore. That includes many sciences. In far too many fields there is an aspect of male chavaunism in the way we view women who break into new areas such as the military or law enforcement. That too is part of the things that still need to be changed.

[mactastic]

Hehe, I've met some dimnuitive women that are not to be messed with. In fact I got a chance about 2 years ago to spar with a woman who was a world class kickboxer in several weight classes, from about 130 on up to about 155. Fantastic shape too. After 3 rounds I was done. A guy's worst mistake would be to assume she was incapable of defending herself. I know several women like this to various degrees.

As Eazy-E said "Size ain't ****"

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I never said that for equality to be reached that 51% of all jobs in all types of work must be held by women. It is true, however, that where there are still barriers they must be broken. It is also true that part of this process is the encouraging of young women to look to fields that have not traditionally been held by women as areas to explore. That includes many sciences. In far too many fields there is an aspect of male chavaunism in the way we view women who break into new areas such as the military or law enforcement. That too is part of the things that still need to be changed.

Military, law enforcement, fire fighting. There are lots of jobs where technology cannot always be counted on in the performance of the job. The favorite one is, "An old person trapped in a fire up does not want to be dragged by a 125lb firefighter. They would rather be carried by a 200lb firefighter".

But there are also jobs where every accomodation has already been made. Technology is one of them. Data sheets, programming manuals and computers are not specifically made for a particular gender. Universities teaching these disciplines are open to both genders as well. So why is it that there is an overrepresentation of one gender over another in this field?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Military, law enforcement, fire fighting. There are lots of jobs where technology cannot always be counted on in the performance of the job. The favorite one is, "An old person trapped in a fire up does not want to be dragged by a 125lb firefighter. They would rather be carried by a 200lb firefighter".

But there are also jobs where every accomodation has already been made. Technology is one of them. Data sheets, programming manuals and computers are not specifically made for a particular gender. Universities teaching these disciplines are open to both genders as well. So why is it that there is an overrepresentation of one gender over another in this field?

First of all because the overwhelming culture of the workplace is still male. While there are the occasional Carly Fioras, far more often the upper management is male. And even Carly operates in a man's world. They are still more comfortable handing power off to other males. This will be a very slow process.

Second, even now, women are being conditioned to "hate" math and science, to pursue the domestic arts, and golly gee whiz have the kids. You act as if having kids is a woman-only issue, but there was a man involved somewhere along the line. Just because men don't actually bear the children doesn't mean it isn't a joint effort. Yet it is seen as a sign of weakness in the business world when time off is needed for children. This goes back to the workplace culture. Little accomodation is given to women who have kids (and even less to dads who are the primary caregivers) from the male-dominated workplace culture.

And finally, no there will never be parity in all jobs, but how do you explain the wage gap in jobs where "every accomodation" has been made and women were allowed to work and be theoretically equal with their male counterparts?

[ColoJohnBoy]

Simply stunning, Tazo. Stunning. When I was your age I had only a vague conception of politics, and while I had a few ideas of what I believed was right they certainly weren't as definitive as yours are. It's taken several years of study, political jobs, internships (For a tenured Republican congressman, no less, and volunteering, and a thorough analysis of history for me to absolutely define my beliefs.

But bravo to you! To be only 15 years old and yet have such clearly definied beliefs! I am quite envious of you. I certainly hope they are a result of careful, thorough, and balanced study, and not simply a regurgitation of the views of your parents and others in your community.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Military, law enforcement, fire fighting. There are lots of jobs where technology cannot always be counted on in the performance of the job. The favorite one is, "An old person trapped in a fire up does not want to be dragged by a 125lb firefighter. They would rather be carried by a 200lb firefighter".

But there are also jobs where every accomodation has already been made. Technology is one of them. Data sheets, programming manuals and computers are not specifically made for a particular gender. Universities teaching these disciplines are open to both genders as well. So why is it that there is an overrepresentation of one gender over another in this field?

Frohickey,

mactastic and taft have already responded and dealt with your points, but because you address it to me I will add my two cents to their worthy comments.

I have no problem with physical prerequistes for jobs if they are truly needed. If to be a firefighter, for instance, you have to be able to carry a certain amount of weight to do the job then all men and women who can do so should qualify. The problem is that often these tests are designed to keep people out who can do the job (ie most women). I have noticed many small and overweight firefighters who are male who I would like to know if they could pass such tests. They are old timers who I'm sure bring many other things to the jobs, but the physical prowess you mention isn't one of them. Make the tests fair and reflective of the needs of the job and you'd get a lot of support. Make them to perpetuate an all male bias and you will get a lot of justified flak.

As to the reasons that some fields are still mostly male, I think mactastic's answered it quite well. Tradition and the difficulty in breaking into such fields as an outsider are two very good explanations for the lack of women in these areas. What do you think is the reason? I would hope it is not from any belief in inherent inabilities on the part of women.

[tazo]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
Simply stunning, Tazo. Stunning. When I was your age I had only a vague conception of politics, and while I had a few ideas of what I believed was right they certainly weren't as definitive as yours are. It's taken several years of study, political jobs, internships (For a tenured Republican congressman, no less, and volunteering, and a thorough analysis of history for me to absolutely define my beliefs.

But bravo to you! To be only 15 years old and yet have such clearly definied beliefs! I am quite envious of you. I certainly hope they are a result of careful, thorough, and balanced study, and not simply a regurgitation of the views of your parents and others in your community.

Thanks? I have always been labeled as someone overly-political, and my views are certainly different from my parent's, both of whom are nowhere nearing the approach to becoming a moderate politically :p I have different opinions on different topics and sway to either side of the political spectrum depending on the issue.

Heh thx for taking an interest in my posts Colo...

Let me ask you a question point blank. What is your objection to feminism? As I stated before, it is the idea that women should have political and social equality with men. I can't understand having a problem with that idea.

I have no qualms with the concept of feminism; I think it is great that women want equal rights to men. I just feel that they are already 'there' to some extent. And frankly I have no objection to feminism, just the senseless demonstration of it that vexes me to no end.

And as for the individual a few posts back that said a 100lb police officer should not be discounted due to her physical characteristics: Are you high?

One cannot honestly expect a 100lb female police officer to take down a large brutish drunk alcoholic can you? Or to even remain conducive to a state of intimidation as she pulls someone over for a ticket?

I don't think it is a bad thing at all that women have jobs that they are good at, and that men have the same, and that the two do not necessary intersect. No that does not make me mysogynist or a woman-hater, or sexist, that makes a logical thinker.

No one is afraid of a 100lb woman...Except perhaps the 95lb woman who's back she has her knee pushed into.


-tazo

[zimv20]

Originally posted by tazo

One cannot honestly expect a 100lb female police officer to take down a large brutish drunk alcoholic can you? [...] No one is afraid of a 100lb woman...Except perhaps the 95lb woman who's back she has her knee pushed into.


i'm willing to kick in $50 to fly that women to wherever tazo is so he can say that to her face. and i want the ensuing ass-kicking on video.

[Taft]

Originally posted by tazo

I have no qualms with the concept of feminism; I think it is great that women want equal rights to men. I just feel that they are already 'there' to some extent. And frankly I have no objection to feminism, just the senseless demonstration of it that vexes me to no end.

So what do you call vocal black rights activists? Or vocal environmentalists? Or vocal libertarians? Or rabid conservatives or liberals?

Surely you have an crude and offensive term for each of those groups, as well? Or maybe I can start calling you a stereotypenazi. I think thats fitting.

You know what the word feminazi is? Its an ugly and divisive label you apply to people. Thats called name-calling. Its very childish. Here's a tip for you: just because Rush Limbaugh says something doesn't make it insightful, factual or right.

The sooner you learn that, the better.

And as for the individual a few posts back that said a 100lb police officer should not be discounted due to her physical characteristics: Are you high?

One cannot honestly expect a 100lb female police officer to take down a large brutish drunk alcoholic can you? Or to even remain conducive to a state of intimidation as she pulls someone over for a ticket?

I don't think it is a bad thing at all that women have jobs that they are good at, and that men have the same, and that the two do not necessary intersect. No that does not make me mysogynist or a woman-hater, or sexist, that makes a logical thinker.

No one is afraid of a 100lb woman...Except perhaps the 95lb woman who's back she has her knee pushed into.


-tazo

If you believe so much that a short woman shouldn't be a police officer, then surely you can answer these questions.

What proof do you have that a 100 pound woman would make an ineffective police officer?

Doesn't everyone have to pass a written and physical test to become a police officer?

Since when was the point of being a police officer to instill fear in people and intimidate them? I thought their job was to arrest lawbreakers and keep the peace.

Is there any reason a 100lb woman can't handle a firearm as well as a male?

Aren't there a lot of criminals who are stronger, more athletic, and more skillful fighters than the average male police officer? Should all of our police officers be supermen who can beat the living crap out of any "large brutish alcoholic?"


I dare you! Answer all of those questions honestly!

But guess what, that impossible. Why? Because the opinions you formed were based on a stereotype. They are in a complete disconnect from reality. Not every 100lb woman is weak, timid and fragile. Not every 200 lb male is strong as an ox and ferocious.

Taft

[Taft]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm willing to kick in $50 to fly that women to wherever tazo is so he can say that to her face. and i want the ensuing ass-kicking on video.

Ha!

I just got a flash of some cheesy sitcom where they are learning why stereotypes are bad. Tazo would play the guy who thinks he's got it all figured out and labels every individual that comes his way.

But then he meets someone who breaks the mold, and we all learn a valuable lesson.


I'd kick in another $50 to get video of that fight. I've met a few female Chicago police officers who would fit the bill nicely and would likely be all too willing to show an arrogant young guy the reality of the situation.

Taft

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by tazo
I have no qualms with the concept of feminism; I think it is great that women want equal rights to men. I just feel that they are already 'there' to some extent. And frankly I have no objection to feminism, just the senseless demonstration of it that vexes me to no end.

And as for the individual a few posts back that said a 100lb police officer should not be discounted due to her physical characteristics: Are you high?

-tazo

tazo,
do me a favor and look at my above post in response to Frohickey where I list two areas, wage differentials and political representation, where women are not "already 'there.'" I don't want to give the impression that these are the only two areas that we have as a society in which women are still dicriminated against, but we can start there. Tell me what you think of those numbers in my two quotes. Then please explain to me why people who are trying to change these inequalities "vex" you "to no end"?

As to the abilities of a 100lbs woman to perform the job as a police officer, would you agree that perhaps her qualification for the job should be handled through an individual evaluation of her history on the job, just like her male counterparts, and not by a stereotype of what she can or can't do?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm willing to kick in $50 to fly that women to wherever tazo is so he can say that to her face. and i want the ensuing ass-kicking on video.

Believe me, I know several that are more than capable. Even one who is I think about 16. Underestimating them would be a serious mistake.

[vniow]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm willing to kick in $50 to fly that women to wherever tazo is so he can say that to her face. and i want the ensuing ass-kicking on video.

Hold on, let me lose about ~20lbs...

[tazo]

Jeez ya think I Rodney King the way ya'all are beating on me...:p

To the individual who said police officers are not meant to instill fear:
The idea of the police is that they get respect from people, I don't think anyone would respect someone in a clown costume that asked you for a driver's license and insurance now would you?

I think women ARE capable of being good even great police officers, I just think that for a position such as police officer that is so dependent on a level of respect, that it seems to be a bit foolish to assume that literally anyone can do the job.

To the individual who said I would play 'someone' in a tv show:
:rolleyes: How the hell else am I supposed to respond? Not everything in life can be equated to the black cop & white cop partner duo ala 'Rush Hour metaphor. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sayhey
tazo,
do me a favor and look at my above post in response to Frohickey where I list two areas, wage differentials and political representation, where women are not "already 'there.'" I don't want to give the impression that these are the only two areas that we have as a society in which women are still dicriminated against, but we can start there. Tell me what you think of those numbers in my two quotes. Then please explain to me why people who are trying to change these inequalities "vex" you "to no end"?

Women can still legally murder their own child without the consent of the father; how is that for discrimination against women? Yeah...I thought so...
:o

Originally posted by Taft

I'd kick in another $50 to get video of that fight. I've met a few female Chicago police officers who would fit the bill nicely and would likely be all too willing to show an arrogant young guy the reality of the situation.

Please...I already had the talk with Maddog and Scared Straight! But perhaps there is still a chance for a teenager with opinions to reform and not be heard per society's norms :(

Originally posted by Taft

So what do you call vocal black rights activists? Or vocal environmentalists? Or vocal libertarians? Or rabid conservatives or liberals?

Surely you have an crude and offensive term for each of those groups, as well? Or maybe I can start calling you a stereotypenazi. I think thats fitting.

You know what the word feminazi is? Its an ugly and divisive label you apply to people. Thats called name-calling. Its very childish. Here's a tip for you: just because Rush Limbaugh says something doesn't make it insightful, factual or right.


I have a crude and offensive term for just about everyone. "...I'm not racist...I hate everyone equally..."

:p

Why the hell does every political debate bring up Rush ****ing limbaugh? What the hell? I have NEVER listened to Rush Limbaugh, and I highly doubt that even had I listened to him in the past despite my having not, that I would spew forth his verbal molestation that plagues the airwaves. I have read excerpts from stuff he has written however, and lets just say that me and him 'don't agree'.

Originally posted by Zimv20
i'm willing to kick in $50 to fly that women to wherever tazo is so he can say that to her face. and i want the ensuing ass-kicking on video.

"...Aww what a big man you are....I'll buy ya a pack of gum...show ya how to chew it..."

Fifty? She is only 100lbs right?
Shouldn't cost much more than...

Guys, maybe you shouldnt be so quick to reach for your mysogynist handgun to shoot me with....

Hold on, let me lose about ~20lbs...

I haven't heard of many intimidating 100lb men...

[vniow]

Originally posted by tazo
I haven't heard of many intimidating 100lb men...

1. I'm not a man.

2. I weigh about ~120lbs thank you very much...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by tazo

Guys, maybe you shouldnt be so quick to reach for your mysogynist handgun to shoot me with....


????

are you a woman?

[tazo]

I am not a man

Ok Ed.

I am a bit confused Zim. Is there a logical question there?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by tazo
I am a bit confused. Is there a logical question there?

if i'm "shooting" someone w/ a misogynist handgun, then that someone must be a woman. otherwise, the term misogynist wouldn't apply.

or did i misunderstand?

[vniow]

Originally posted by tazo
Ok Ed.

Hrm?

[tazo]

Originally posted by zimv20
if i'm "shooting" someone w/ a misogynist handgun, then that someone must be a woman. otherwise, the term misogynist wouldn't apply.

or did i misunderstand?

It was more of a poor reference to political discussion peers labeling me as a mysogynist.

Hrm?

You heard me.

[vniow]

Originally posted by tazo

You heard me.

I heard but I'm not sure I understand...

[tazo]

Originally posted by vniow
I heard but I'm not sure I understand...

Think about it harder then.

[vniow]

Originally posted by tazo
Think about it harder then.

Hmm..still thinking.

If you're trying to insult me I suggest you attempt to do a better job of it.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by tazo
Jeez ya think I Rodney King the way ya'all are beating on me...:p

Women can still legally murder their own child without the consent of the father; how is that for discrimination against women? Yeah...I thought so...
:o

tazo,

I'm not trying to beat on you; I'm trying to have a discussion with you. In order for that to happen it is important to not talk past each other. If we are going to have a discussion about abortion (or in your inflammatory terms "legal murder"), I doubt we are going to get very far. However, the question on the table was about the need for equality of women. In particular, I asked you about inequalities in pay and political representation. You didn't answer the question.

[tazo]

What do you mean political representation? You mean like woman in positions of power? Some of the world's largest companies have female CEOs, just as many of the US senators are female [both of WA St.'s are....]

As for the dollar inequality, I think thats horrible;
If they admittedly do the same job as well as a man they should be paid the same.

If you're trying to insult me I suggest you attempt to do a better job of it.

What do you think?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by tazo

As for the dollar inequality, I think thats horrible;
If they admittedly do the same job as well as a man they should be paid the same.


agreed! the sad thing is, study after study has shown that this is not the case.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by tazo
What do you mean political representation? You mean like woman in positions of power? Some of the world's largest companies have female CEOs, just as many of the US senators are female [both of WA St.'s are....]

As for the dollar inequality, I think thats horrible;
If they admittedly do the same job as well as a man they should be paid the same.

Glad we agree on pay equity. The figures on political representation show that although women make up 51% of our society, they only hold 14% of the seats in Congress. Now do you think that the attempt to change those figures is something that should "vex" you?

As to all those women in position of corporate CEOs, I can only think of a very few, including HP's current CEO. Can you show me statistics that women have made great inroads in corporate boardrooms?

Oh, and by the way, California like Washington has two US senators who are women. However, unlike your enlightened state we have not elected a woman governor.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
unlike your enlightened state we have not elected a woman governor.

yeah, and you're about to elect a misogynist.

[tazo]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Glad we agree on pay equity. The figures on political representation show that although women make up 51% of our society, they only hold 14% of the seats in Congress. Now do you think that the attempt to change those figures is something that should "vex" you?

As to all those women in position of corporate CEOs, I can only think of a very few, including HP's current CEO. Can you show me statistics that women have made great inroads in corporate boardrooms?

Oh, and by the way, California like Washington has two US senators who are women. However, unlike your enlightened state we have not elected a woman governor.

On the CEO issue, isnt the CEO of ebay female? I thought I read about that.

Here are some links about female CEOs & executives:
http://www.darwinmag.com/read/060100/net_ewomen.html
http://www.lsj.com/news/business/030810_ceos_1e-3e.htm
lhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_17/b3729116.htm
http://www.factmonster.com/spot/womenceo1.html

It is clear that there is a representation of women as corporate execs, despite that representation being minimal in comparison to that of their male counterparts.

And I don't believe I said that equality for women is something that vexes me. What annoys me is someone who would be labeled a feminist, and insists that men are the devil, only on the planet to mistreat women, and to take away job opportunities for them, etc. That is vexing to me; not equal rights for women.

However I feel that like other minorities, women have many freedoms and opportunities that the average caucasian male does/can not partake in.

However that is another discussion....

[vniow]

Originally posted by tazo
However I feel that like other minorities, women have many freedoms and opportunities that the average caucasian male does/can not partake in.


Err...I hope you know that there's a higher percentage of women vs. men in America which does not make us a 'minority' so to speak...

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by tazo
On the CEO issue, isnt the CEO of ebay female? I thought I read about that.

Here are some links about female CEOs & executives:
http://www.darwinmag.com/read/060100/net_ewomen.html
http://www.lsj.com/news/business/030810_ceos_1e-3e.htm
lhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_17/b3729116.htm
http://www.factmonster.com/spot/womenceo1.html

It is clear that there is a representation of women as corporate execs, despite that representation being minimal in comparison to that of their male counterparts.

And I don't believe I said that equality for women is something that vexes me. What annoys me is someone who would be labeled a feminist, and insists that men are the devil, only on the planet to mistreat women, and to take away job opportunities for them, etc. That is vexing to me; not equal rights for women.

However I feel that like other minorities, women have many freedoms and opportunities that the average caucasian male does/can not partake in.

However that is another discussion....

tazo,

a quick google search finds this page that claims out of the 966 largest corporations only 10 have women as CEOs.

link (http://www.alternativehealthtalk.com/CEO_list_women.htm)

I can't vouch for the list accuracy, but if true that is far below even the worrisome percentage of Congressional representation. I think in all these stats we find very real evidence of barriers to full equality for women. The elimination of those barriers and others like them is what feminism is all about. I know you have said you have no problem with feminism, but you have also stated that in regards to equality that you, "just feel that they are already 'there' to some extent." I think these figures show that is not the case.

As to your problems with feminists who think men are the devil, it would be helpful if you had an example of who you are speaking about. I think you could find many who would support you, if that is the perspective of someone you have a problem with. In the abstract it becomes only a "straw man" (woman?) who it is easy to discredit.

I think the confusion of your views comes when you use terms like "feminazi" and contrast feminism with what you perceive as limitations towards the rights of men. If you really support the ideas of equality, perhaps a change of rhetoric might help others realize what your views are.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
yeah, and you're about to elect a misogynist.

zim, I hope not! I think the recall will fail, but if I'm wrong I'm still hopeful that Bustamante will beat out Arnold.

[Taft]

Originally posted by tazo
To the individual who said police officers are not meant to instill fear:
The idea of the police is that they get respect from people, I don't think anyone would respect someone in a clown costume that asked you for a driver's license and insurance now would you?

Being the 'individual' who made the point, I'll respond...

The "idea" of the police is not to command respect. It is to enforce our laws and arrest lawbreakers. A certain amount of respect may be required in order to accomplish this, but I think a handgun accomplishes this quite nicely, don't you? I don't care if a guy is 3'2" or 6'10". If he's got a gun pointed at me, I tend to listen to the guy.

Also, I notice you didn't answer most of the question that I asked. I'll repeat them, in case you missed.

What proof do you have that a 100 pound woman would make an ineffective police officer?

Doesn't everyone have to pass a written and physical test to become a police officer?

Since when was the point of being a police officer to instill fear in people and intimidate them? I thought their job was to arrest lawbreakers and keep the peace.

Is there any reason a 100lb woman can't handle a firearm as well as a male?

Aren't there a lot of criminals who are stronger, more athletic, and more skillful fighters than the average male police officer? Should all of our police officers be supermen who can beat the living crap out of any "large brutish alcoholic?"

I think women ARE capable of being good even great police officers, I just think that for a position such as police officer that is so dependent on a level of respect, that it seems to be a bit foolish to assume that literally anyone can do the job.

Thing is, not just anybody can become a police officer in most cities. This whole 100lb woman thing started with a comment Frohicky made while speaking about a personal experience of his. In his post, Frohicky made it clear that this woman shouldn't be a police officer and made two implied assumptions: 1) the woman's stature proved she wasn't a capable police officer 2) her gender and ethnicity were the only reason she got the job in the first place.

Now, he didn't come out and say either of these things, but I believe both of those statements to be implications from his writing.

Again, I ask: aren't there tests, both written and physical, that police officers are required to take to enter the force? What proof does anyone here have that this 100lb woman didn't pass those tests or is otherwise an unfit police officer?

To the individual who said I would play 'someone' in a tv show:
:rolleyes: How the hell else am I supposed to respond? Not everything in life can be equated to the black cop & white cop partner duo ala 'Rush Hour metaphor. :rolleyes:

Again, thanks for taking the time to identify me by name. :rolleyes:

And about this? I was kidding.

Women can still legally murder their own child without the consent of the father; how is that for discrimination against women? Yeah...I thought so...
:o

I love the rhetoric you use here. Murder? Please. Way to infuse emotion into an already exploded argument.

Abortion is a completely legal procedure designed to give a woman control over her own body. You may not like it and have rational arguments against it, but you have never once made those arguments here. Rather you judge other people, scoff (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=507264) at the misfortunes of the pro-choicers, and inflame the argument with divisive rhetoric. I'm willing to debate you, but only if you are willing to focus on a civil argument and rational and logical arguments instead of emotional ones.

As to this issue, I agree there needs to be protections for the father in situations like this. Depending on the father's relationship with the mother and the particulars of the specific conception, I agree that the father should have a say in the fate of the fetus. This, however, shouldn't extend to one night stands, rapes, and other such circumstances.


Why the hell does every political debate bring up Rush ****ing limbaugh? What the hell? I have NEVER listened to Rush Limbaugh, and I highly doubt that even had I listened to him in the past despite my having not, that I would spew forth his verbal molestation that plagues the airwaves. I have read excerpts from stuff he has written however, and lets just say that me and him 'don't agree'.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Rush either coined the term 'feminazi' or popularized it. The reason the term is so offensive and people react so bitterly to it is that it has been employed so regularly by pundits prone to vicious and hateful attacks, like Mr. Limbaugh. Even if you don't mean to be offensive, the term's past and the fact that the word 'nazi' makes up half the word make it a very inflammatory word.

You are playing with fire.

Taft

[Daveman Deluxe]

Again, I ask: aren't there tests, both written and physical, that police officers are required to take to enter the force?

A couple of years ago, two female Navy pilots crashed their aircraft while attempting landings on aircraft carriers. Both had credentials allowing them to pilot aircraft, yet looking over their training records showed that both should have washed out. They had only been given credentials because their officers had been pressured into doing so in order to meet a quota.

As it regards police officers and fire fighters, I am in favor of women attempting to work in these fields. That said, standards of performance must be upheld equally for both genders. I was reading in Readers Digest that while male firefighters are usually required to be able to carry a two-hundred-pound person out of a building, women are often only required to carry somebody that weighs 125 pounds. That is poor policy that has probably led to no small number of deaths. I weigh 170 pounds and I would hate to die in a fire because a woman that can't carry more than 125 pounds was chosen over a man that can carry two hundred pounds, simply because she's a woman. That said, I would most assuredly be perfectly happy to be rescued by a woman that can indeed carry two hundred pounds.

[mactastic]

Ya, the other convienent stereotype here is that all women either are, or want to be 100 lbs. Most of the women I know are at least 25% above that. Would it matter if the woman was 5'10 and a muscular 145?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
As it regards police officers and fire fighters, I am in favor of women attempting to work in these fields. That said, standards of performance must be upheld equally for both genders. I was reading in Readers Digest that while male firefighters are usually required to be able to carry a two-hundred-pound person out of a building, women are often only required to carry somebody that weighs 125 pounds. That is poor policy that has probably led to no small number of deaths. I weigh 170 pounds and I would hate to die in a fire because a woman that can't carry more than 125 pounds was chosen over a man that can carry two hundred pounds, simply because she's a woman. That said, I would most assuredly be perfectly happy to be rescued by a woman that can indeed carry two hundred pounds.

The problem with these tests is that (1) often they are not indicative of the skills necessary for the job and (2) they are only entrance requirements (ie those who are already on the job do not have to be able to pass the test.) If the requirements are really reflective of the kinds of skills necessary for a job, I agree everybody should have to meet them. Too often they are designed to keep women, who can do the job well, out of consideration.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Sayhey
The problem with these tests is that (1) often they are not indicative of the skills necessary for the job and (2) they are only entrance requirements (ie those who are already on the job do not have to be able to pass the test.) If the requirements are really reflective of the kinds of skills necessary for a job, I agree everybody should have to meet them. Too often they are designed to keep women, who can do the job well, out of consideration.

Yeah, and what about all those overweight firefighters and policemen out there? I would much rather have a 5'2" 100 pound woman come to my assistance than a 300 pound, out of shape male.

[Neserk]

The problem isn't that CNN is biased one way or FOX the other way... the problem is that our government which is suppose to allow Freedom of the Press is forcing censorship by saying that those who oppose the war/president are unpatriotic. To which I like to respond:

Theodore Roosevelt
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)

[Neserk]

But bravo to you! To be only 15 years old and yet have such clearly definied beliefs! I am quite envious of you.

OYE! All 15 year olds have clearly defined beliefs... it is part of being fifiteen! It is around 19-20 that we truly start to question our beliefs and take ownership in new beliefs...

I can't believe an adult would worship a 15 year old for being a 15 year old...

[Neserk]

I have no qualms with the concept of feminism; I think it is great that women want equal rights to men. I just feel that they are already 'there' to some extent. And frankly I have no objection to feminism, just the senseless demonstration of it that vexes me to no end.


ahhh... to live in your world... when Women are making the same amount of money as men and and are no longer treated as objects then *maybe* we will have acheived equality...

[Neserk]

And I have yet to hear of any masculinists.....



Hon, that is because in almost every cultures males dominate.. the status-quo is "masculinists."

The problem with being 15 is that you haven't lived long enough to know these things... I'd be embarassed to say what I thought about the world as a 15 year old... OTOH there is a reason why minors aren't held responsible for their actions in the same ways adults are ;)

[Neserk]

Lets say, for a moment, that there is a liberal bias in the media.

Then why the hell are we getting to see all this Yahoo for Bush and war? If the media is so liberal they should be condemning it! Oh, that is right. Bush has intimidated them all into keeping their mouths shut. That is how this thread started in the first place!

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Neserk
OYE! All 15 year olds have clearly defined beliefs... it is part of being fifiteen! It is around 19-20 that we truly start to question our beliefs and take ownership in new beliefs...

I can't believe an adult would worship a 15 year old for being a 15 year old...

Neserk,

Welcome to the boards! I see you have discovered our friend tazo. If you read some more of the old threads you will find that ColoJohnBoy was being very sarcastic in his response to tazo. Anyway, like your stuff and welcome again.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Neserk,

Welcome to the boards! I see you have discovered our friend tazo. If you read some more of the old threads you will find that ColoJohnBoy was being very sarcastic in his response to tazo. Anyway, like your stuff and welcome again.

Thanks for the heads up :) And for the welcome. I was searching for info on the Bush/FOX News ties and came across this thread.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by vniow
Err...I hope you know that there's a higher percentage of women vs. men in America which does not make us a 'minority' so to speak...

The reason women are a minority even though we make up 51% of the population is because we are less powerful than the minority males species.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Neserk
The reason women are a minority even though we make up 51% of the population is because we are less powerful than the minority males species.

Miss V's point was that women are an oppressed majority, not a minority. However, your point is well taken. I'm assuming you mean less powerful physically on average.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by mactastic
Miss V's point was that women are an oppressed majority, not a minority. However, your point is well taken. I'm assuming you mean less powerful physically on average.

Historically women are less powerful socially, physically, financially, etc. Even though in numbers women out number men they are still considered a minority. Before long white/caucasions will be a minority number wise but I don't imagine they will have lost much power.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Neserk
Historically women are less powerful socially, physically, financially, etc. Even though in numbers women out number men they are still considered a minority. Before long white/caucasions will be a minority number wise but I don't imagine they will have lost much power.

While biology and genetics may determine that women are physically less powerful on average than men, if you go back far enough in history, many societies were matriachal. So socially, financially, etc can be reversed. And force is not the only way to make men listen... :p

Lysistrata (http://www.theatredatabase.com/ancient/aristophanes_005.html)

[Neserk]

And force is not the only way to make men listen... :p




LOL... my husband insists it is more about speed, leverage, and surprise... he is 6'2" and 200 lbs, I'm 5'1" and 110 lbs...

[Neserk]

Sorry guys for my oopsies... it is obviously the result of jumping into a forum where I have to read everything literally and don't know people... be patient with me! I'll get better :D

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Neserk
LOL... my husband insists it is more about speed, leverage, and surprise... he is 6'2" and 200 lbs, I'm 5'1" and 110 lbs...

Well, he's right as far as control of someone's body goes. To quote the diminuitve Eazy-E "Size ain't $***" However, physical control is not the only kind there is...

[Neserk]

Originally posted by mactastic
However, physical control is not the only kind there is...

very true...

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Neserk
I was searching for info on the Bush/FOX News ties and came across this thread.

Did you see this? (http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html)

or this? (http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html)

[Neserk]

Originally posted by mactastic
Did you see this? (http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html)

or this? (http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html)

thanks! I'll forward them :)

[derinda]

Fox News reports both positive and negative on the Iraq war, while CNN will just televise the death and destruction. I watched CNN last nit about Afghanistan by Christiane Amanpour and how they are still suffering even though Al Queada is gone? I can't count how many time I heard the phrase "they still don't have". What a shame.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by derinda
Fox News reports both positive and negative on the Iraq war, while CNN will just televise the death and destruction. I watched CNN last nit about Afghanistan by Christiane Amanpour and how they are still suffering even though Al Queada is gone? I can't count how many time I heard the phrase "they still don't have". What a shame.

Sorry, but one night watching CNN doesn't give you a whole lot of credibility about the overall network biases.

Perhaps a look at this study (http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html) is in order.
Since the invasion of Iraq began in March, official voices have dominated U.S. network newscasts, while opponents of the war have been notably underrepresented, according to a study by FAIR.

Starting the day after the bombing of Iraq began on March 19, the three-week study (3/20/03-4/9/03) looked at 1,617 on-camera sources appearing in stories about Iraq on the evening newscasts of six television networks and news channels. The news programs studied were ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume, and PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.*
Nearly two thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1.
The FAIR study found just 3 percent of U.S. sources represented or expressed opposition to the war. With more than one in four U.S. citizens opposing the war and much higher rates of opposition in most countries where opinion was polled, none of the networks offered anything resembling proportionate coverage of anti-war voices. The anti-war percentages ranged from 4 percent at NBC, 3 percent at CNN, ABC, PBS and FOX, and less than 1 percent--one out of 205 U.S. sources--at CBS.

While the percentage of Americans opposing the war was about 10 times higher in the real world as they were on the nightly news (27 percent versus 3 percent), their proportion of the guestlist may still overstate the degree to which they were able to present their views on U.S. television. Guests with anti-war viewpoints were almost universally allowed one- sentence soundbites taken from interviews conducted on the street. Not a single show in the study conducted a sit-down interview with a person identified as being against the war.

Anti-war sources were treated so fleetingly that they often weren’t even quoted by name. While 80 percent of all sources appearing on the nightly news shows are identified by name, 42 percent of anti-war voices went unnamed or were labeled with such vague terms as “protester” or “anti-war activist.” Only one leader of an anti-war group appeared as a source: Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice, a New York-based organizer of anti-war marches, appeared on a March 27 CNN segment in a one-sentence soundbite from an on-the-street interview.
In terms of their guestlists, the television outlets studied by FAIR were more alike than different: All had a heavy emphasis on official sources, particularly current and former U.S. military personnel; each featured a large proportion of pro-war voices; and none gave much attention to dissenting voices.

But these trends were more or less pronounced on different shows. The outlet with the smallest percentage of U.S. sources who were officials (60 percent) and the largest percentage of U.S. sources who were anti-war (4 percent) was NBC Nightly News, despite the network's ownership by General Electric, a significant military contractor.

The highest percentage of officials among U.S. sources (75 percent) and the lowest number of U.S. anti-war voices (one--a soundbite from Michael Moore's March 24 Oscar speech) was CBS Evening News. The show's anchor, Dan Rather, had openly declared the partisanship of his coverage (Larry King Live, 4/14/03):

Look, I'm an American. I never tried to kid anybody that I'm some internationalist or something. And when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition of "win" may be. Now, I can't and don't argue that that is coverage without a prejudice. About that I am prejudiced.


PBS's NewsHour also had a relatively low percentage of anti-war voices--perhaps because the show less frequently features on-the-street interviews, to which critics of the war were usually relegated.

Though Fox News Channel frequently engaged in overt cheerleading for the war and is on record as considering itself a pro-war news outlet (Baltimore Sun, 4/2/03),Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume had fewer U.S. officials than CBS (70 percent) and more U.S. anti-war guests (3 percent) than PBS or CBS. Eighty-one percent ofFox’s sources were pro-war, however, the highest of any network. CBS was close on the Murdoch network’s heels with 77 percent. NBC featured the lowest proportion of pro-war voices with 65 percent.
Emphasis mine.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic

Perhaps a look at this study (http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html) is in order.


thanks for posting that.

seems the facts, once again, indicate the media is anything BUT liberal.

[Taft]

Originally posted by mactastic
Sorry, but one night watching CNN doesn't give you a whole lot of credibility about the overall network biases.

Perhaps a look at this study (http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html) is in order.

Emphasis mine.

Good find! There is so much research out there which points to the increasing "conservatization" of our news outlets. I find it laughable that a lot of conservative dittoheads still consider themselves the put down upon party in the media.

Do you guys remember when Bill O'Reilly went on Fresh Air on NPR, then claimed that the whole interview was a "hatched job" and walked off the set? The whole tirade was rife with "leftist media" conspiracies.

Here is the link to the audio of that interview: http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1459090.html

So how do people like Bill O'Reilly sell this image of the leftist media so well? How are they so effective? Recent research shows that there isn't a significant bias to the left, yet we continue to hear the likes of O'Reilly and Coulter successfully infecting minds with these lies. How do you counter this kind of propoganda?

Taft

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Taft
How do you counter this kind of propoganda?


with facts. though that's shown itself to be woefully ineffective on this forum, in "real life", and on the national scene.

[Taft]

Originally posted by zimv20
with facts. though that's shown itself to be woefully ineffective on this forum, in "real life", and on the national scene.

Exactly.

So how can propaganda be effectively countered? I increasingly think the answer to this question is a very important part of cleaning up politics in this country. The only problem is that no-one seems to know the answer.

Taft

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Taft
Exactly.

So how can propaganda be effectively countered? I increasingly think the answer to this question is a very important part of cleaning up politics in this country. The only problem is that no-one seems to know the answer.


i always come back to the same thing -- people are largely stupid and greedy.

it's mean, i know, but i see it ALL THE TIME. better education is needed to reverse our culture of stupidity and selfishness.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i always come back to the same thing -- people are largely stupid and greedy.

it's mean, i know, but i see it ALL THE TIME. better education is needed to reverse our culture of stupidity and selfishness.

We are indeed stupid and greedy. We are also honest, intelligent, and fair. And I'm talking about the same people. It all depends on what you appeal to in the complex nature of what makes up mass psychology. It is clear that fear and patriotic symbols do work to some degree. My experience around work like the war in Vietnam, civil rights, anti-apartheid, etc. is that if people are given the facts and a reasonable alternative they will choose fairness and justice all the time.

[mactastic]

No wonder FAUX news viewers are the most misinformed. I was just watching them, and they reported "Chemical weapons found in Iraq". On the TV they make no mention of any qualifying statements, and their web site currently screams "Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq Mortar Shells". Not until you get a few paragraphs into the story do you find that they appear to have been abandoned over 10 years ago, and not to be a part of any current or ongoing weapons program. So I'm sure all the people watching will assume this is the "conclusive proof" that Greg Jarret is claiming it is right now. And this is with only the preliminary test reports in, final results won't be available for 2 more days. Fair and Balanced indeed!