Upload
Login or register

Carthusia

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 21
Date Signed Up:1/29/2010
Last Login:6/28/2016
Location:Texas
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#6351
Highest Content Rank:#17739
Highest Comment Rank:#2485
Content Thumbs: 14 total,  17 ,  31
Comment Thumbs: 6618 total,  7710 ,  1092
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level -13 Content: Sort of disliked → Level -12 Content: Sort of disliked
Comment Level Progress: 3% (3/100)
Level 261 Comments: Pure Win → Level 262 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:2527
Times Content Favorited:3 times
Total Comments Made:1294
FJ Points:6130

  • Views: 1486
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 7 Total: +1
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 12/22/11
    Morbid Chuck Morbid Chuck
  • Views: 668
    Thumbs Up 9 Thumbs Down 10 Total: -1
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 12/22/11
    Message from Admin Message from Admin
  • Views: 361
    Thumbs Up 0 Thumbs Down 7 Total: -7
    Comments: 4
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 02/12/12
    The Pope's Scream The Pope's Scream

latest user's comments

#107 - If the media are so liberal, why did they run the fake ACORN v…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/23/2016 on Sit In -6
User avatar
#192 - mindyourownbusines (06/24/2016) [-]
For the sake of it, let's look at these.

ACORN. The articles you posted note, some facts were misrepresented - but not everything was untrue. One left-source makes hay of a NY Times correction not going far enough - "What exactly would be the hold up?"

The Times article indicates reason for a "hold up" here:
Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes. In Washington, he said the prostitution was to finance his future in politics. A worker for Acorn Housing, warned him to stay away from the brothel lest someone “get wind that you got a house and that your girlfriend is over there running a house of women of the night. You will not have a career.”

FAIR said that in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.” That’s right, but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: “Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law.”


This after the author consulted the same sources as your link, etc.

why run campaign ads? For the money?

"why do they keep covering-up for Wall Street" Because the NY Times didn't sensor a single article by one of their reporters that drew different conclusion than a liberal blog?

Why was Thatcher coverage one sided? Possibly (a) media generally focuses on the positives of the recently deceased except Hitler , (b) the coverage was not as one sided as the 5 excerpts in your source which itself seems limited in opposition materials , and (c) you wouldn't be so concerned if Thatcher was someone you liked.

"why did they ignore proven and admitted GOP election fraud?"
You mean the alleged fraud which (a) was reported on hence all the sources your blogs link back to and (b) worked against Republicans and (c) were seemingly not politically motivated and had all legal charges dropped?
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/colin-small-gop_n_3619396.html

TPP controversy cover-up? You're link just redirected me to the main TPP page, but even there I saw at least 5 mainstream articles linked condemning one "controversial" aspect of the bill.

Why did they ignore the anti-Keystone Pipeline protests? The ones your own source notes received live coverage on CNN and got a 5 page write up in the NY Post along with coverage on PBS, NY Times, and NPR, among other sources. That's probably more media than Glenn Beck's "Restoring Love" rally received with 65,000 people (as opposed to the estimated 20 - 35,000 at this rally, including "religious leaders, climate campaigners and Canadian indigenous rights activists.")

Why was Occupy Wall Street treated worse in the media than the Tea Party?
#1. Was it?
newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/dan-gainor/2014/02/27/5-years-after-7-worst-media-attacks-tea-party
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/tea-party-racist_n_4158262.html
www.nationalreview.com/corner/284228/making-klan-boring-jonah-goldberg

#2. Occupy protests actually got out of hand/resulted in rapes, assault, vandalism and arson with over 7,000 arrests unlike the Tea Party.
www.stpete4peace.org/occupyarrests

Finally, arguing that Jefferson chose a path of political expediency doesn't undermine the arguments he made regarding the constitution.
#106 - If the media are so liberal, where are all the Union-friendly …  [+] (3 new replies) 06/23/2016 on Sit In -5
#164 - ivoryking (06/24/2016) [-]
I don't think you understand how T.V. works.
User avatar
#112 - youregaylol (06/23/2016) [-]
I'm guessing the tactic now is to spam as much text as possible so I wont feel like addressing it all?

Thats fine, I think I can see the trend in your argument.

I'll divide it into parts.
1. If the media is liberal, why do they post things that I think is anti liberal?
a)There are exceptions to every rule. The Nazis were a right wing group that paid homage to several right wing policies, for instance. Nothing is resolute. However, there is a glaring trend toward progressive ideology in the mainstream media
b) The instances that you believe are anti liberal simply aren't. For instance, Wall Street has supported both liberals and conservatives in the US. The Trans Pacific Partnership is opposed and supported by both sides for different reasons, Trump opposes it as well. Also I know for a fact that Occupy was propped up when it was around, the sheer amount of liberal losers shitting on cars and being praised as revolutionaries was nauseating. Your sources are bullshit.

2. It looks like you got most of this drivel from 2 websites. I am not "proving your point" by pointing out that your sources are retarded. The claims of those two sites are simply wrong. It looks like the equivalent of a huffington post blog. Someone on the far left claiming the media is right wing does not make the media right wing. 7% of journalists are republicans. That statistic, not anecodotal evidence like you're providing, says it all.

3. As I said all you have is anecdotes. You or this "fair" site not seeing union guests does not mean they dont exist. Also liberals invest as well, George Soros is a prime example.

I'm not going to go one by one clicking every link to every blog. The "questions" you ask are ridiculous. The media routinely portrays the tea party as the new KKK with no evidence, they back Obamas liberal war in syria right now, they shit on Paul Ryan 24/7.

Notice how all of your "sources" are either youtube or liberal blogs. You're basically pointing to every crazy you can find online and representing their opinions, or at least the opinions you credit to them, as fact.

There is no evidence in any of these. No stats, no polls, no nothing. You copy and pasted a manifesto you found on the DailyKos.
User avatar
#202 - masanori (06/24/2016) [-]
Well done lad. A right smack down that was. Pleasure to read.
#93 - Then who?  [+] (3 new replies) 06/23/2016 on Sit In -1
User avatar
#116 - atusek (06/23/2016) [-]
Me. I'll go ask every household in the country after my tendies are done
#143 - anon (06/24/2016) [-]
you'll do it? I thought you said no Bias? so far it seems like you are hard fast for everyone having a gun..

we could at least Start with letting the CDC do their job, but NRA stop that. It's like there's something to hide..
User avatar
#158 - atusek (06/24/2016) [-]
Yes because I seriously intended to visit every person in th3 country after I finished the tendies i got from my good boy points. The cdc as a federal agency can be easily controlled by an agenda. An independent private company should do so unaffiliated with the govt or media and publish their detailed methods as well to attempt to be as impartial as possible
#91 - Coming from a liberal, there really is no such thing a Corpora…  [+] (7 new replies) 06/23/2016 on Sit In -7
User avatar
#97 - youregaylol (06/23/2016) [-]
Oh wow, a liberal claims that there is no liberal media bias. That really helps your argument.

Actually i was wrong. 9% of journalists aren't republicans. 7% are.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/republicans-media-bias-claims-boosted-by-scarcity-/

Saying "nu uh" isn't an argument. Corporations run the media, most media members are liberal. The corporate liberal media. These are facts.

lol then who the fuck is the writer of the declaration of independence and the most important founding father?

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." - Thomas Jefferson, commenting on the case
User avatar
#107 - Carthusia (06/23/2016) [-]
If the media are so liberal, why did they run the fake ACORN voter fraud stories & the faked ACORN video stings, then virtually ignore it when ACORN was vindicated and proven innocent of both?
mediamatters.org/research/2010/06/01/breitbart-falsely-suggests-acorn-employees-help/165572
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLn4Jz9gN2w&feature=related
fair.org/media_criticism/nyt-and-the-acorn-hoax/
mediamatters.org/research/2010/03/02/breitbart-confirms-he-was-duped-by-okeefe-and-t/161084
www.bradblog.com/?p=7755
www.bradblog.com/?p=7759

If the media are so liberal, then why do the "liberal" TV stations gladly air tons of liberal-bashing campaign ads by right-wing groups?

If the media are so liberal, why do they keep covering-up for Wall Street and hiding the rampant criminality there?
www.alternet.org/story/156070/how_the_new_york_times_hides_the_truth_about_wall_street%27s_catastrophic_misdeeds?akid=9024.202122.zi6e7Y&rd=1&t=15

If the media are so liberal, why was their coverage of right-winger Margaret Thatcher's controversial legacy so fawning and one-sided?
fair.org/uncategorized/who-gets-to-remember-margaret-thatcher/
fair.org/uncategorized/on-thatcher-whats-the-difference-between-pbs-fox-news/

If the media are so liberal, why did they ignore proven and admitted GOP election fraud?
www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/gop-voter-registration-scandal-widens-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges?akid=9567.202122.nB_Qgd&rd=1&src=newsletter730596&t=8&paging=off
www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.html
www.salon.com/2013/03/06/florida_finds_evidence_of_voter_fraud_in_gop_tied_firm/
www.bradblog.com/?p=8514

If the media are so liberal, why is there a virtual news blackout of the Trans-Pacific Partnership controversy?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Controversy

If the media are so liberal, why did they virtually ignore the biggest climate change rally in US history on Februray 17?
fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/media-and-the-keystone-march/
Since then, I've seen plenty of right-wing guests on the news urging Obama to approve Keystone and criticizing him for delaying it (even just this morning on MSNBC, with zero argument from the host!), but nobody to explain why there's a huge movement against it.

If the media are so liberal, why do they treat far-right views as mainstream?
www.alternet.org/story/140450/wake_up_america%2C_the_media_treat_far-right_views_as_mainstream

If the media are so liberal, why was coverage of Occupy Wall Street mostly hostile or dismissive?
(Find me ANY example where CNN treated the Tea Party this harshly:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCiAG7LF7Q4 )
From Henry A. Giroux: "Missing from both the dominant media and state and national politics was any attempt to critically engage the issues the protesters were raising, not to mention any attempt to dialogue with them over their strategies, tactics, and political concerns."
I could go on and on...

And if you try to argue that all my sources above are themselves "liberally biased", you'd just be proving my point. If the truly liberal alternative media are the only ones pointing these things out, then obviously the mainstream corporate media isn't very liberal, is it?

Oh, and by the way, Jefferson Flip-flopped on his philosophy of strict contructionism when bought the Louisiana Purchase from France. I don't recall that power being specifically laid out in the constitution, do you? That is but one example of his backpedaling.
www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/sample-essays/flip-flopper-thomas-jefferson-from/
User avatar
#192 - mindyourownbusines (06/24/2016) [-]
For the sake of it, let's look at these.

ACORN. The articles you posted note, some facts were misrepresented - but not everything was untrue. One left-source makes hay of a NY Times correction not going far enough - "What exactly would be the hold up?"

The Times article indicates reason for a "hold up" here:
Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes. In Washington, he said the prostitution was to finance his future in politics. A worker for Acorn Housing, warned him to stay away from the brothel lest someone “get wind that you got a house and that your girlfriend is over there running a house of women of the night. You will not have a career.”

FAIR said that in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.” That’s right, but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: “Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law.”


This after the author consulted the same sources as your link, etc.

why run campaign ads? For the money?

"why do they keep covering-up for Wall Street" Because the NY Times didn't sensor a single article by one of their reporters that drew different conclusion than a liberal blog?

Why was Thatcher coverage one sided? Possibly (a) media generally focuses on the positives of the recently deceased except Hitler , (b) the coverage was not as one sided as the 5 excerpts in your source which itself seems limited in opposition materials , and (c) you wouldn't be so concerned if Thatcher was someone you liked.

"why did they ignore proven and admitted GOP election fraud?"
You mean the alleged fraud which (a) was reported on hence all the sources your blogs link back to and (b) worked against Republicans and (c) were seemingly not politically motivated and had all legal charges dropped?
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/colin-small-gop_n_3619396.html

TPP controversy cover-up? You're link just redirected me to the main TPP page, but even there I saw at least 5 mainstream articles linked condemning one "controversial" aspect of the bill.

Why did they ignore the anti-Keystone Pipeline protests? The ones your own source notes received live coverage on CNN and got a 5 page write up in the NY Post along with coverage on PBS, NY Times, and NPR, among other sources. That's probably more media than Glenn Beck's "Restoring Love" rally received with 65,000 people (as opposed to the estimated 20 - 35,000 at this rally, including "religious leaders, climate campaigners and Canadian indigenous rights activists.")

Why was Occupy Wall Street treated worse in the media than the Tea Party?
#1. Was it?
newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/dan-gainor/2014/02/27/5-years-after-7-worst-media-attacks-tea-party
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/tea-party-racist_n_4158262.html
www.nationalreview.com/corner/284228/making-klan-boring-jonah-goldberg

#2. Occupy protests actually got out of hand/resulted in rapes, assault, vandalism and arson with over 7,000 arrests unlike the Tea Party.
www.stpete4peace.org/occupyarrests

Finally, arguing that Jefferson chose a path of political expediency doesn't undermine the arguments he made regarding the constitution.
User avatar
#106 - Carthusia (06/23/2016) [-]
If the media are so liberal, where are all the Union-friendly news shows? I see lots of pro-big business & pro-investor shows. Where are the shows for worker interests? And, other than MSNBC, where are the pro-Union guests? I see lots of guests making the pro-corporate, anti-union arguments. Where are all the union defenders in the "liberal" media?
fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/labor-almost-invisible-on-tv-talk/

If the media are so liberal, why do they keep focusing on debt/deficit/austerity and not the arguments against austerity that all the liberal economists are making?

If the media are so liberal, why did they ignore the 2011 Tar Sands protests in DC and the hundreds of arrested protesters, including a renowned NASA scientist?

If the media are so liberal, why have they completely ignored the controversy surrounding the drilling of the Alberta Tar Sands?

If the media are so liberal, why did they parrot Bush's link between Iraq & 9/11, and his claim that Iraq still had WMD's, while ignoring the many experts who could disprove these claims?

If the media are so liberal, why did they cheerlead us into the Iraq war, while censoring those who opposed it?

If the media are so liberal, why did they virtually ignore the largest anti-war protest in the history of mankind on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003, but have since given plenty of mostly uncritical coverage of much smaller Tea Party protests?
Here’s a typical CNN segment on the Tea Party. It’s 3+ minutes of free promotion w/o any criticism:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHwdn1bi7_E

If the media are so liberal, why did they give so much free publicity to Paul Ryan's "brave", "heroic" budget plan,
fair.org/uncategorized/time-paints-paul-ryan-as-deficit-slashing-superhero/
...while they ignored the Progressive Caucus's People's Budget?

If the media are so liberal, why did even Bush's own press secretary think the media was too deferential to him?
www.salon.com/2008/05/28/mcclellan_6/


#164 - ivoryking (06/24/2016) [-]
I don't think you understand how T.V. works.
User avatar
#112 - youregaylol (06/23/2016) [-]
I'm guessing the tactic now is to spam as much text as possible so I wont feel like addressing it all?

Thats fine, I think I can see the trend in your argument.

I'll divide it into parts.
1. If the media is liberal, why do they post things that I think is anti liberal?
a)There are exceptions to every rule. The Nazis were a right wing group that paid homage to several right wing policies, for instance. Nothing is resolute. However, there is a glaring trend toward progressive ideology in the mainstream media
b) The instances that you believe are anti liberal simply aren't. For instance, Wall Street has supported both liberals and conservatives in the US. The Trans Pacific Partnership is opposed and supported by both sides for different reasons, Trump opposes it as well. Also I know for a fact that Occupy was propped up when it was around, the sheer amount of liberal losers shitting on cars and being praised as revolutionaries was nauseating. Your sources are bullshit.

2. It looks like you got most of this drivel from 2 websites. I am not "proving your point" by pointing out that your sources are retarded. The claims of those two sites are simply wrong. It looks like the equivalent of a huffington post blog. Someone on the far left claiming the media is right wing does not make the media right wing. 7% of journalists are republicans. That statistic, not anecodotal evidence like you're providing, says it all.

3. As I said all you have is anecdotes. You or this "fair" site not seeing union guests does not mean they dont exist. Also liberals invest as well, George Soros is a prime example.

I'm not going to go one by one clicking every link to every blog. The "questions" you ask are ridiculous. The media routinely portrays the tea party as the new KKK with no evidence, they back Obamas liberal war in syria right now, they shit on Paul Ryan 24/7.

Notice how all of your "sources" are either youtube or liberal blogs. You're basically pointing to every crazy you can find online and representing their opinions, or at least the opinions you credit to them, as fact.

There is no evidence in any of these. No stats, no polls, no nothing. You copy and pasted a manifesto you found on the DailyKos.
User avatar
#202 - masanori (06/24/2016) [-]
Well done lad. A right smack down that was. Pleasure to read.
#87 - My point is that plenty of state and judges are all too will t…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/23/2016 on Sit In 0
#108 - anon (06/23/2016) [-]
So my point is again; what do you want congress to do? Make another federal law to enforce things that states already should be enforcing but aren't?
#86 - >not nothing you tell me will make me think 85% of people a…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/23/2016 on Sit In 0
#140 - anon (06/24/2016) [-]
the way pro gun people see black and white in "against guns" vs for guns is ridiculous. people here and everywhere just assume that if you dont want criminals or the mentally ill to have guns you want to take all guns away.
keep doing your thing buddy
#82 - >This is what annoys me. You are being willfully …  [+] (9 new replies) 06/23/2016 on Sit In -7
#83 - youregaylol (06/23/2016) [-]
No, there really isn't. No gun law changes entering a gun show. There is no gun show loophole. This is about banning the private firearms market. These are facts, nothing contradicts them.

I agree with organizations being easily manipulated by corporate interests. The fact that 6 companies can own 90% of US media and convince the uneducated and the scared to give up their rights through misinformation and fear is ridiculous. Liberal media outlets should stop taking billions of dollars from their corporate overlords and stop pushing a progressive agenda on the american people. Only 9% of journalists identify as a republican. It's a shame that there is a monopoly on information in this country, liberals and their corporate fascism should be held accountable.

Ahhh no, the constitution is not a living document and the founders didn't mean it as such. Thats historical revisionism. Since the second amendment only covers muskets the first amendment should only cover newspapers, maybe then we can start shutting down these leftist media demagogues, huh.
User avatar
#91 - Carthusia (06/23/2016) [-]
Coming from a liberal, there really is no such thing a Corporate Liberal Media. Most media is either right leaning or centrist to a fault. Most radio talk shows (especially in the 90's and early 2000's) were conservative, and they often drew the largest number of listeners. Rush Limbaugh at his height drew somewhere in the neighborhood of 13 million daily listeners, and he was just one of literally THOUSANDS of conservative talk shows. If anything the media has a Conservative bias.

>the constitution is not a living document and the founders didn't mean it as such

lol, then what the fuck is Marbury v. Madison?

User avatar
#97 - youregaylol (06/23/2016) [-]
Oh wow, a liberal claims that there is no liberal media bias. That really helps your argument.

Actually i was wrong. 9% of journalists aren't republicans. 7% are.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/republicans-media-bias-claims-boosted-by-scarcity-/

Saying "nu uh" isn't an argument. Corporations run the media, most media members are liberal. The corporate liberal media. These are facts.

lol then who the fuck is the writer of the declaration of independence and the most important founding father?

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." - Thomas Jefferson, commenting on the case
User avatar
#107 - Carthusia (06/23/2016) [-]
If the media are so liberal, why did they run the fake ACORN voter fraud stories & the faked ACORN video stings, then virtually ignore it when ACORN was vindicated and proven innocent of both?
mediamatters.org/research/2010/06/01/breitbart-falsely-suggests-acorn-employees-help/165572
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLn4Jz9gN2w&feature=related
fair.org/media_criticism/nyt-and-the-acorn-hoax/
mediamatters.org/research/2010/03/02/breitbart-confirms-he-was-duped-by-okeefe-and-t/161084
www.bradblog.com/?p=7755
www.bradblog.com/?p=7759

If the media are so liberal, then why do the "liberal" TV stations gladly air tons of liberal-bashing campaign ads by right-wing groups?

If the media are so liberal, why do they keep covering-up for Wall Street and hiding the rampant criminality there?
www.alternet.org/story/156070/how_the_new_york_times_hides_the_truth_about_wall_street%27s_catastrophic_misdeeds?akid=9024.202122.zi6e7Y&rd=1&t=15

If the media are so liberal, why was their coverage of right-winger Margaret Thatcher's controversial legacy so fawning and one-sided?
fair.org/uncategorized/who-gets-to-remember-margaret-thatcher/
fair.org/uncategorized/on-thatcher-whats-the-difference-between-pbs-fox-news/

If the media are so liberal, why did they ignore proven and admitted GOP election fraud?
www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/gop-voter-registration-scandal-widens-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges?akid=9567.202122.nB_Qgd&rd=1&src=newsletter730596&t=8&paging=off
www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.html
www.salon.com/2013/03/06/florida_finds_evidence_of_voter_fraud_in_gop_tied_firm/
www.bradblog.com/?p=8514

If the media are so liberal, why is there a virtual news blackout of the Trans-Pacific Partnership controversy?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Controversy

If the media are so liberal, why did they virtually ignore the biggest climate change rally in US history on Februray 17?
fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/media-and-the-keystone-march/
Since then, I've seen plenty of right-wing guests on the news urging Obama to approve Keystone and criticizing him for delaying it (even just this morning on MSNBC, with zero argument from the host!), but nobody to explain why there's a huge movement against it.

If the media are so liberal, why do they treat far-right views as mainstream?
www.alternet.org/story/140450/wake_up_america%2C_the_media_treat_far-right_views_as_mainstream

If the media are so liberal, why was coverage of Occupy Wall Street mostly hostile or dismissive?
(Find me ANY example where CNN treated the Tea Party this harshly:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCiAG7LF7Q4 )
From Henry A. Giroux: "Missing from both the dominant media and state and national politics was any attempt to critically engage the issues the protesters were raising, not to mention any attempt to dialogue with them over their strategies, tactics, and political concerns."
I could go on and on...

And if you try to argue that all my sources above are themselves "liberally biased", you'd just be proving my point. If the truly liberal alternative media are the only ones pointing these things out, then obviously the mainstream corporate media isn't very liberal, is it?

Oh, and by the way, Jefferson Flip-flopped on his philosophy of strict contructionism when bought the Louisiana Purchase from France. I don't recall that power being specifically laid out in the constitution, do you? That is but one example of his backpedaling.
www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/sample-essays/flip-flopper-thomas-jefferson-from/
User avatar
#192 - mindyourownbusines (06/24/2016) [-]
For the sake of it, let's look at these.

ACORN. The articles you posted note, some facts were misrepresented - but not everything was untrue. One left-source makes hay of a NY Times correction not going far enough - "What exactly would be the hold up?"

The Times article indicates reason for a "hold up" here:
Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes. In Washington, he said the prostitution was to finance his future in politics. A worker for Acorn Housing, warned him to stay away from the brothel lest someone “get wind that you got a house and that your girlfriend is over there running a house of women of the night. You will not have a career.”

FAIR said that in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.” That’s right, but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: “Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law.”


This after the author consulted the same sources as your link, etc.

why run campaign ads? For the money?

"why do they keep covering-up for Wall Street" Because the NY Times didn't sensor a single article by one of their reporters that drew different conclusion than a liberal blog?

Why was Thatcher coverage one sided? Possibly (a) media generally focuses on the positives of the recently deceased except Hitler , (b) the coverage was not as one sided as the 5 excerpts in your source which itself seems limited in opposition materials , and (c) you wouldn't be so concerned if Thatcher was someone you liked.

"why did they ignore proven and admitted GOP election fraud?"
You mean the alleged fraud which (a) was reported on hence all the sources your blogs link back to and (b) worked against Republicans and (c) were seemingly not politically motivated and had all legal charges dropped?
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/colin-small-gop_n_3619396.html

TPP controversy cover-up? You're link just redirected me to the main TPP page, but even there I saw at least 5 mainstream articles linked condemning one "controversial" aspect of the bill.

Why did they ignore the anti-Keystone Pipeline protests? The ones your own source notes received live coverage on CNN and got a 5 page write up in the NY Post along with coverage on PBS, NY Times, and NPR, among other sources. That's probably more media than Glenn Beck's "Restoring Love" rally received with 65,000 people (as opposed to the estimated 20 - 35,000 at this rally, including "religious leaders, climate campaigners and Canadian indigenous rights activists.")

Why was Occupy Wall Street treated worse in the media than the Tea Party?
#1. Was it?
newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/dan-gainor/2014/02/27/5-years-after-7-worst-media-attacks-tea-party
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/tea-party-racist_n_4158262.html
www.nationalreview.com/corner/284228/making-klan-boring-jonah-goldberg

#2. Occupy protests actually got out of hand/resulted in rapes, assault, vandalism and arson with over 7,000 arrests unlike the Tea Party.
www.stpete4peace.org/occupyarrests

Finally, arguing that Jefferson chose a path of political expediency doesn't undermine the arguments he made regarding the constitution.
User avatar
#106 - Carthusia (06/23/2016) [-]
If the media are so liberal, where are all the Union-friendly news shows? I see lots of pro-big business & pro-investor shows. Where are the shows for worker interests? And, other than MSNBC, where are the pro-Union guests? I see lots of guests making the pro-corporate, anti-union arguments. Where are all the union defenders in the "liberal" media?
fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/labor-almost-invisible-on-tv-talk/

If the media are so liberal, why do they keep focusing on debt/deficit/austerity and not the arguments against austerity that all the liberal economists are making?

If the media are so liberal, why did they ignore the 2011 Tar Sands protests in DC and the hundreds of arrested protesters, including a renowned NASA scientist?

If the media are so liberal, why have they completely ignored the controversy surrounding the drilling of the Alberta Tar Sands?

If the media are so liberal, why did they parrot Bush's link between Iraq & 9/11, and his claim that Iraq still had WMD's, while ignoring the many experts who could disprove these claims?

If the media are so liberal, why did they cheerlead us into the Iraq war, while censoring those who opposed it?

If the media are so liberal, why did they virtually ignore the largest anti-war protest in the history of mankind on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003, but have since given plenty of mostly uncritical coverage of much smaller Tea Party protests?
Here’s a typical CNN segment on the Tea Party. It’s 3+ minutes of free promotion w/o any criticism:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHwdn1bi7_E

If the media are so liberal, why did they give so much free publicity to Paul Ryan's "brave", "heroic" budget plan,
fair.org/uncategorized/time-paints-paul-ryan-as-deficit-slashing-superhero/
...while they ignored the Progressive Caucus's People's Budget?

If the media are so liberal, why did even Bush's own press secretary think the media was too deferential to him?
www.salon.com/2008/05/28/mcclellan_6/


#164 - ivoryking (06/24/2016) [-]
I don't think you understand how T.V. works.
User avatar
#112 - youregaylol (06/23/2016) [-]
I'm guessing the tactic now is to spam as much text as possible so I wont feel like addressing it all?

Thats fine, I think I can see the trend in your argument.

I'll divide it into parts.
1. If the media is liberal, why do they post things that I think is anti liberal?
a)There are exceptions to every rule. The Nazis were a right wing group that paid homage to several right wing policies, for instance. Nothing is resolute. However, there is a glaring trend toward progressive ideology in the mainstream media
b) The instances that you believe are anti liberal simply aren't. For instance, Wall Street has supported both liberals and conservatives in the US. The Trans Pacific Partnership is opposed and supported by both sides for different reasons, Trump opposes it as well. Also I know for a fact that Occupy was propped up when it was around, the sheer amount of liberal losers shitting on cars and being praised as revolutionaries was nauseating. Your sources are bullshit.

2. It looks like you got most of this drivel from 2 websites. I am not "proving your point" by pointing out that your sources are retarded. The claims of those two sites are simply wrong. It looks like the equivalent of a huffington post blog. Someone on the far left claiming the media is right wing does not make the media right wing. 7% of journalists are republicans. That statistic, not anecodotal evidence like you're providing, says it all.

3. As I said all you have is anecdotes. You or this "fair" site not seeing union guests does not mean they dont exist. Also liberals invest as well, George Soros is a prime example.

I'm not going to go one by one clicking every link to every blog. The "questions" you ask are ridiculous. The media routinely portrays the tea party as the new KKK with no evidence, they back Obamas liberal war in syria right now, they shit on Paul Ryan 24/7.

Notice how all of your "sources" are either youtube or liberal blogs. You're basically pointing to every crazy you can find online and representing their opinions, or at least the opinions you credit to them, as fact.

There is no evidence in any of these. No stats, no polls, no nothing. You copy and pasted a manifesto you found on the DailyKos.
User avatar
#202 - masanori (06/24/2016) [-]
Well done lad. A right smack down that was. Pleasure to read.
#78 - That's fine. But keep in mind, the point of argument is not vi…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/23/2016 on Sit In +1
User avatar
#80 - numbmind (06/23/2016) [-]
I'm aware, not nothing you tell me will make me think 85% of people are against guns i assume the same with anything i tell you , if that was the case congress would be 85% democrat represented. However i will tell you just cause i don't agree with the democrats doesn't mean i don't think gun control could be better, i just think they are going about it the wrong way. Anybody can be the on fly list for absurd things, it is a broken system also. www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html?_r=0
User avatar
#142 - vinskinator (06/24/2016) [-]
it's not "against guns" it's a desire to make universal background checks and stop mentally ill from purchasing guns. completely different. the terrorist watch list being linked I'm not sure about, due process is needed but ti only affects about 1000 Americans 0.0003% and there are other ways to handle it, like just notifying fbi that they bought the gun so they can watch more closely

twist, I'm a gun owner! and I love my glock but fuck if criminals can buy one if the background check takes more than 3 days or if they go to a gun show.. Its not all black and white
User avatar
#88 - Greevon (06/23/2016) [-]
I think it's ridiculous as well. Our problems are not guns, it's guns being in the hands of terrorists and crazy people.

What kind of basis could gun control use that would have prevented the attack in Orlando though? Or at least made it harder for him to arm his attack as well as he did? I don't have a clue.
User avatar
#86 - Carthusia (06/23/2016) [-]
>not nothing you tell me will make me think 85% of people are against guns

Good, because I never said that. I said the 85% of Americans support the legislation that the Democrats are proposing.

>just cause i don't agree with the democrats doesn't mean i don't think gun control could be better

You're absolutely right, it can be done much better than it currently is. I think you and just disagree on the methods the Democrats are currently pursuing. Yes, perhaps this is not the best way to go about it, however understand that many of those congressmen have been trying to pass legislation like this for years or even decades, with little to no progress to show. So what we're seeing here, in my opinion, is a logical and civil reaction to the obstruction they have faced for so long.

>Anybody can be the on fly list for absurd things, it is a broken system also.

Now, on this, I think you and I are in agreement. I absolutely think that there are a number of people who are on the No-Fly list simply because they have voiced some rather "uncouth" political opinions online. I think one should have to right to know when and if they are placed on that list, how one is placed on that list, and what one can do in order to get off that list. That being said it does serve a purpose that in this day and age is a necessary "evil." Progress on reforming this rather inept system is also greatly limited by obstruction from conservative (mainly GOP, but also some Democratic) congressmen.
#140 - anon (06/24/2016) [-]
the way pro gun people see black and white in "against guns" vs for guns is ridiculous. people here and everywhere just assume that if you dont want criminals or the mentally ill to have guns you want to take all guns away.
keep doing your thing buddy
#77 - lol, it's also against FEDERAL LAW to posses and sell Marijuan…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/23/2016 on Sit In +1
#81 - anon (06/23/2016) [-]
And places that sell pot in those states still get raided on the regular for selling marijuana.

Federal law > State law

So what was the point in your mentioning of felons in the first place? Do you want Congress to sign another federal law that states you can't sell guns to felons so that some states can ignore them too?
User avatar
#87 - Carthusia (06/23/2016) [-]
My point is that plenty of state and judges are all too will to defy federal law, especially under the pretext of "muh, 2nd amendment."
#108 - anon (06/23/2016) [-]
So my point is again; what do you want congress to do? Make another federal law to enforce things that states already should be enforcing but aren't?
#73 - Picture  [+] (7 new replies) 06/23/2016 on Sit In 0
User avatar
#75 - numbmind (06/23/2016) [-]
You aint gonna change my mind just like i aint gonna change yours, i will agree to disagree, but something tells me that isn't good enough for you...
User avatar
#78 - Carthusia (06/23/2016) [-]
That's fine. But keep in mind, the point of argument is not victory, but progress.
User avatar
#80 - numbmind (06/23/2016) [-]
I'm aware, not nothing you tell me will make me think 85% of people are against guns i assume the same with anything i tell you , if that was the case congress would be 85% democrat represented. However i will tell you just cause i don't agree with the democrats doesn't mean i don't think gun control could be better, i just think they are going about it the wrong way. Anybody can be the on fly list for absurd things, it is a broken system also. www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html?_r=0
User avatar
#142 - vinskinator (06/24/2016) [-]
it's not "against guns" it's a desire to make universal background checks and stop mentally ill from purchasing guns. completely different. the terrorist watch list being linked I'm not sure about, due process is needed but ti only affects about 1000 Americans 0.0003% and there are other ways to handle it, like just notifying fbi that they bought the gun so they can watch more closely

twist, I'm a gun owner! and I love my glock but fuck if criminals can buy one if the background check takes more than 3 days or if they go to a gun show.. Its not all black and white
User avatar
#88 - Greevon (06/23/2016) [-]
I think it's ridiculous as well. Our problems are not guns, it's guns being in the hands of terrorists and crazy people.

What kind of basis could gun control use that would have prevented the attack in Orlando though? Or at least made it harder for him to arm his attack as well as he did? I don't have a clue.
User avatar
#86 - Carthusia (06/23/2016) [-]
>not nothing you tell me will make me think 85% of people are against guns

Good, because I never said that. I said the 85% of Americans support the legislation that the Democrats are proposing.

>just cause i don't agree with the democrats doesn't mean i don't think gun control could be better

You're absolutely right, it can be done much better than it currently is. I think you and just disagree on the methods the Democrats are currently pursuing. Yes, perhaps this is not the best way to go about it, however understand that many of those congressmen have been trying to pass legislation like this for years or even decades, with little to no progress to show. So what we're seeing here, in my opinion, is a logical and civil reaction to the obstruction they have faced for so long.

>Anybody can be the on fly list for absurd things, it is a broken system also.

Now, on this, I think you and I are in agreement. I absolutely think that there are a number of people who are on the No-Fly list simply because they have voiced some rather "uncouth" political opinions online. I think one should have to right to know when and if they are placed on that list, how one is placed on that list, and what one can do in order to get off that list. That being said it does serve a purpose that in this day and age is a necessary "evil." Progress on reforming this rather inept system is also greatly limited by obstruction from conservative (mainly GOP, but also some Democratic) congressmen.
#140 - anon (06/24/2016) [-]
the way pro gun people see black and white in "against guns" vs for guns is ridiculous. people here and everywhere just assume that if you dont want criminals or the mentally ill to have guns you want to take all guns away.
keep doing your thing buddy
[ 1273 Total ]