Bill O'Reilly-I don't get all the hate.

[MyNameIsBort]

He seems like a fair guy. I've watched the show a few times and don't really know why people hate him.

[SkylineCollapse]

i don't know, man. watch it a few more times then make up your mind. i particularly don't like his interviews--he doesn't seem to really give the "opposing" side a chance to articulate their view.

[thejetstolehome]

because he cuts the mics of people with opposing view points? yea, really fair. :rolleyes:

[MyNameIsBort]

because he cuts the mics of people with opposing view points? yea, really fair. :rolleyes:
do you think silencing someone with an opposing viewpoint is ok? it is his show he can do what he wants.

[thejetstolehome]

do you think silencing someone with an opposing viewpoint is ok? it is his show he can do what he wants.

no i think that's wrong.

and when you call him a "fair guy" and when he's on a network whose tagline is "fair and balanced," yet cuts people off, he's obviously not being fair. it's an abuse of power.

[MyNameIsBort]

no i think that's wrong.

and when you call him a "fair guy" and when he's on a network whose tagline is "fair and balanced," yet cuts people off, he's obviously not being fair. it's an abuse of power.

so do you think this is a fair website? people who have opposing viewpoints are banned here all the time by the staff. the staff silence people they don't like all the time.

[thejetstolehome]

so do you think this is a fair website? people who have opposing viewpoints are banned here all the time by the staff. the staff silence people they don't like all the time.

no i don't think it's fair. i never said it was.

[MyNameIsBort]

no i don't think it's fair. i never said it was.

cool, i was just asking.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Mark Foley (D)


Good mistake there Bill.

[x togepi x]

i and other feel that he is quite disgenious, but so are a lot of commentators regardless of political ideology.

[cantnokdahustle]

Anyone who thinks that Secular Humanism will be the downfall of America is a fucking whack job.

[birdman]

because he cuts the mics of people with opposing view points? yea, really fair. :rolleyes:

PLEEEAAASSSEEEE, he cut off one guy who claimed that 9/11 didnt happen. Anyone else would have cut him off too and most people applauded him for it. I dont like the interviews either, but dont make up flash in the pan comments that arent true.

And besides, I get cut down, critisized, slammed, and I think I got banned once for having opposing viewpoints on this website.

[RomeoAGoGo]

He's a fucking idiot. Are you kidding me?

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

He's a fucking idiot. Are you kidding me?


i think the point of this thread is for you to say why you think that

[cfear]

Mark Foley (D)


Good mistake there Bill.

Haha. That's probably the main reason I strongly dislike Bill O'Reilly. The guy is insanely illogical. I watch his show all the time for laughs, and I've just come to realize that he has no brain. If he did have one he might find a way to put his opinion out there without being an outright asshole. Actually, most commentators should do that.

[captainhampton]

Mark Foley (D)


Good mistake there Bill.

that wasn't O'Reilly's mistake genius. it was foxnews. if they mess up, how does Bill get the blame for that one.

at least Bill is willing to debate people with opposing viewpoints unlike others like keith Olbermann. and for those who actually watch the factor, you would know that Bill criticizes the president all the time and isn't as conservative as you may think.

[birdman]

that wasn't O'Reilly's mistake genius. it was foxnews. if they mess up, how does Bill get the blame for that one.

at least Bill is willing to debate people with opposing viewpoints unlike others like keith Olbermann. and for those who actually watch the factor, you would know that Bill criticizes the president all the time and isn't as conservative as you may think.

Agreed. Most of the time people just listen to what Fat Mike and Sean Penn have to say about Bill OReilly and dont take the time to actually watch the show. I only agree with him about 20% of the time, but he is far from the conservative maniac people make him out to be.

[FallingOut]

I hate that pompus fucker because every time somebody begins to make a point against him, he tells them to "SHUT UP! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!!!"

What a tough guy.

[wesgemm08]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFmVobiv8BU

[Love As Arson]

He puts forth illogical, unsound and generally idiotic arguments to justify his positions, all the while advocating the ideology of "us vs. them" with this culture war garbage by cloaking it as political discourse. In all reality, it is simply a man's paranoid rantings against a world that is changing. McCarthy used these same tactics and the results were abhorrent.

[PAR]

He seems like a fair guy. I've watched the show a few times and don't really know why people hate him.

in your username .... change out the word "bort" with the word "clueless."

yea fix that shit.

[youcomebeforeyo]

that wasn't O'Reilly's mistake genius. it was foxnews. if they mess up, how does Bill get the blame for that one.



Mistake?

Four times in one broadcast of the O'Reilly show is not a mistake. But i'm sure Bill had absolutely no idea.

And yes he is willing to debate people with opposing viewpoints, until they reach a point where we get to "Cut his mic".

I don't like O'Reilly in the sense he tries to paint a picture of an independent and impartial political commentator when his show is packed full of right wing agenda.

I must play Maddox's bingo to the O'Reilly show one day.

[Jason Tate]

He seems like a fair guy. I've watched the show a few times and don't really know why people hate him.
Fake account.

[doomcrs04]

Fair. You mean him thinking that hes better than anyone else who doesn't carry his same views? Sure then hes really fair.

[x togepi x]

at least Bill is willing to debate people with opposing viewpoints unlike others like keith Olbermann. and for those who actually watch the factor, you would know that Bill criticizes the president all the time and isn't as conservative as you may think.

This is a really unfair comparision to make, though I doubt you watch Olbermann's show, so you're taking pot shots for no reason. Anyone who is familar with Countdown realizes that Keith only usually gets about 30 minutes a night to talk about politics. You can't compare that to The Factor, which is an hour long. The rest of Countdown's hour is composed of stories about celebrities and other random crap that Keith doesn't necessarily want to cover, but is forced to by his producers to keep the show going. That's why if you pay attention to how he covers politics, it's completely different than how he covers those celebrity stories, where he becomes really sarcastic.

30 minute debate shows don't work. Just ask the people that ran crossfire. At the time Keith started, MSNBC didn't even want him to be as liberal as he is. He was treading on thin ice with those special comments as it is, until the fan support was huge.

Do you honestly think Bill would debate if he only had 30 minutes to do the same show? I don't, but we'll never know. It's just a stupid comparision to make, especially since Bill's show is basically billed as a debate show, while Keith's is an editorial news show.

They're completely two different styles of tv journalism and you can't slam someone who's probably forced to adopt one style like Keith, versus one who could pick and choose what he does, like Bill O. You have to remember, when Keith came back to MSNBC, he was already in trouble as he had worked for MSNBC before and quit because he didn't agree with the producer's policies. I highly doubt after quitting his first news show rather abrubtly that MSNBC gave him the option of doing whatever he wants. They're not going to let him have a news debate show seeing as they already have Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews doing the same thing.

Debate really doesn't fit into Keith's "i'm going to cover 5 big stories a day in a really indepth way". He wants to make sure you know his opinion, and unlike Bill, Keith admits his bias. You should have watched MSNBC's election coverage where Chris Matthews told Keith he was really biased and Keith agreed but said people wanted to hear that viewpoint.

You could even make the claim that Keith does debate those he doesn't agree with via his Worst Person in the World segment. People have ample opportunity to respond to that, and when they do, he often responds right back. Debate doesn't have to be two people in the same room at the same time.

But hey, Bill really debates the issues? He never addresses what Keith has to say on his show about Bill. Everytime Keith makes a criticism of the factor, Bill goes "oh yeah? well I have higher ratings so I win"

and for the record, Bill cuts people off merely for saying Keith Olbermann's name. That's not really journalistic integrity. It happened on his radio show.

[captainhampton]

This is a really unfair comparision to make, though I doubt you watch Olbermann's show, so you're taking pot shots for no reason. Anyone who is familar with Countdown realizes that Keith only usually gets about 30 minutes a night to talk about politics. You can't compare that to The Factor, which is an hour long. The rest of Countdown's hour is composed of stories about celebrities and other random crap that Keith doesn't necessarily want to cover, but is forced to by his producers to keep the show going. That's why if you pay attention to how he covers politics, it's completely different than how he covers those celebrity stories, where he becomes really sarcastic.

30 minute debate shows don't work. Just ask the people that ran crossfire. At the time Keith started, MSNBC didn't even want him to be as liberal as he is. He was treading on thin ice with those special comments as it is, until the fan support was huge.

Do you honestly think Bill would debate if he only had 30 minutes to do the same show? I don't, but we'll never know. It's just a stupid comparision to make, especially since Bill's show is basically billed as a debate show, while Keith's is an editorial news show.

They're completely two different styles of tv journalism and you can't slam someone who's probably forced to adopt one style like Keith, versus one who could pick and choose what he does, like Bill O. You have to remember, when Keith came back to MSNBC, he was already in trouble as he had worked for MSNBC before and quit because he didn't agree with the producer's policies. I highly doubt after quitting his first news show rather abrubtly that MSNBC gave him the option of doing whatever he wants. They're not going to let him have a news debate show seeing as they already have Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews doing the same thing.

Debate really doesn't fit into Keith's "i'm going to cover 5 big stories a day in a really indepth way". He wants to make sure you know his opinion, and unlike Bill, Keith admits his bias. You should have watched MSNBC's election coverage where Chris Matthews told Keith he was really biased and Keith agreed but said people wanted to hear that viewpoint.

You could even make the claim that Keith does debate those he doesn't agree with via his Worst Person in the World segment. People have ample opportunity to respond to that, and when they do, he often responds right back. Debate doesn't have to be two people in the same room at the same time.

But hey, Bill really debates the issues? He never addresses what Keith has to say on his show about Bill. Everytime Keith makes a criticism of the factor, Bill goes "oh yeah? well I have higher ratings so I win"

and for the record, Bill cuts people off merely for saying Keith Olbermann's name. That's not really journalistic integrity. It happened on his radio show.


I think he doesn't mention his name ever because it would only help Olbermann's ratings. I have watched Countdown many times, he sure spends a lot of time trashing O' Reilly. O'Reilly is winning in the ratings easily, so he knows getting in a name calling match with Olbermann would only benefit Olbermann.

and if Keith is going to sit there and trash Bill and trash the Bush administration, he should have the guts to bring someone with a conservative perspective on the show to debate him. I'd like to see that. in fact, i think his show would get better ratings if he did that. O'Reilly invites people who hate him all the time, and a lot of the times they accept his invitation. and it turns into good television and an occasional good debate when Bill does let them voice their opinion without interrupting.

[x togepi x]

I think he doesn't mention his name ever because it would only help Olbermann's ratings. I have watched Countdown many times, he sure spends a lot of time trashing O' Reilly. O'Reilly is winning in the ratings easily, so he knows getting in a name calling match with Olbermann would only benefit Olbermann.

and if Keith is going to sit there and trash Bill and trash the Bush administration, he should have the guts to bring someone with a conservative perspective on the show to debate him. I'd like to see that. in fact, i think his show would get better ratings if he did that. O'Reilly invites people who hate him all the time, and a lot of the times they accept his invitation. and it turns into good television and an occasional good debate when Bill does let them voice their opinion without interrupting.

Do you read my posts? I explained why Keith doesn't often have conservatives on his show. There's not enough time, it's really unnecessary as he's on the same network as Scarbrough, he's forced to cover things he doesn't want to cover. he also doesn't frame his news show as a debate show, as i pointed out, so i can't see why you're whining that he has no conservatives, when he readily admits to being biased, unlike Bill who says he doesn't spin, which is full of shit.

They have two completely different styles of editorializing. You can't compare them like you are. That's like saying that Led Zepplin is a way better punk band than The Clash. It makes no fucking sense.

Since you claim to watch often, i'm sure you've noticed that Keith rarely has anyone outside of MSNBC's own analysts on the show (aside from comedians starving for airtime), which could actually mean that he doesn't have the budget to invite people to his show. I especially think this is true since a third of his show is usually random shit he pulled of the internet.

But yeah, you're right. Keith has no guts, that's why he's been doing special comments that almost got him fired. It takes a whole lot more to do what Keith does, criticizing the government on a tv network owned by general electric, a major player in the military industrial complex, and it does for Bill, who works on Fox News which has most of the same views on politics as he does.

Why hasn't Bill invited Keith to his show if he's such a great commentator and Keith isn't? it'd probably be a stupid debate since bill would cry that keith is "slandering him" and then put him on the same list as his racist anti-french boycott or the newspapers people shouldn't read because they beat up on poor poor bill o'reilly. (it's especially ironic since Bill likes to play up this macho tough guy facade, but then whines when someone calls him out about it)

Like i said before, if Keith's producers didn't make him do stories about stupid celebrities, we might actually see some kind of debate on his show. His hands are tied in those regards. Even now, he has less freedom to do what he wants than Bill does.

Unless Keith gets a whole hour to do political news, you can't complain that he doesn't have debate on his shows. Like I said, 30 minute debate shows are not very good and the heads of studios realize that. that's why crossfire got cancelled.

but, way to parrot a Bill O. talking point with your first paragraph. Like i said in my post, Bill O'reilly's only response to Keith is "look at me! i have higher ratings", even though Keith's show is rapidly catching Bill's in general ratings, as well as sometimes beating it in certain target areas, especially in the number of people who tune in and continue to watch for the entire hour.

why do you think two talking heads debating each other is soo good? Think critically for a change. Keith frames himself as one journalist giving one viewpoint in the news. It's up to you to see if you buy that viewpoint or not. Having a stupid conservative like Bill debate a stupid liberal like someone from the DNC doesn't really teach us anything about politics because they're both just parroting the talking points of their side.

[open mind]

He puts forth illogical, unsound and generally idiotic arguments to justify his positions, all the while advocating the ideology of "us vs. them" with this culture war garbage by cloaking it as political discourse.

i was gonna say somthing to this effect but you beat me to it.

[Authentik]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62bfe_5sQ4I

[dw1003]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62bfe_5sQ4I

Incredible video. Thanks for sharing. Bill O'Reilly is an asshole.

[dw1003]

Agreed. Most of the time people just listen to what Fat Mike and Sean Penn have to say about Bill OReilly and dont take the time to actually watch the show. I only agree with him about 20% of the time, but he is far from the conservative maniac people make him out to be.

Eat shit and die. I'm tired of your useless fucking posts, you're an incredible idiot.

[captainhampton]

Eat shit and die. I'm tired of your useless fucking posts, you're an incredible idiot.

except he was right. Bill is much closer to the middle than you think, if you watched the show on a consistent basis you'd know that.

[dw1003]

except he was right. Bill is much closer to the middle than you think, if you watched the show on a consistent basis you'd know that.

I've read two of his books. eat a dick... apparently you already are... Bill O'Reilly's

[captainhampton]

I've read two of his books. eat a dick... apparently you already are... Bill O'Reilly's

eat a dick? eat shit and die? nice arguments there. you read 2 books huh? so what? do you watch his show on a consistent basis? he criticizes the president a lot. he isn't as conservative as most make him out to be. that is birdman's point and he is correct.

[dw1003]

eat a dick? eat shit and die? nice arguments there. you read 2 books huh? so what? do you watch his show on a consistent basis? he criticizes the president a lot. he isn't as conservative as most make him out to be. that is birdman's point and he is correct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbwDtAIu8xg

[thejetstolehome]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbwDtAIu8xg

ZbwDtAIu8xg

fixed?

edit: i see you edited it to have just the link. when i first quoted the post it was a mess haha.

[captainhampton]

O'Reilly destroyed Letterman both times. He made Letterman look like an uninformed and ignorant fool. Letterman said "90 percent of what you say is crap" and then said he's never watched the Factor ever. cmon Dave resorted to name calling, he had no arguments to back up his name calling.

[wesgemm08]

eat a dick? eat shit and die? nice arguments there. you read 2 books huh? so what? do you watch his show on a consistent basis? he criticizes the president a lot. he isn't as conservative as most make him out to be. that is birdman's point and he is correct.

HAHA, who would have figured you watched Bill O'Reilly on a constant basis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIVnwYGU9Qo

[captainhampton]

HAHA, who would have figured you watched Bill O'Reilly on a constant basis.

haha ok i laughed a little there. i actually like Hannity better. i'm sure that suprises you.

[thatwasamoment]

oMg OrIeLy iS AwEsoMe!11

[mikeford]

lIwuERHbMgE

[dw1003]

O'Reilly destroyed Letterman both times. He made Letterman look like an uninformed and ignorant fool. Letterman said "90 percent of what you say is crap" and then said he's never watched the Factor ever. cmon Dave resorted to name calling, he had no arguments to back up his name calling.

letterman is a comedian.

O'reilly is an asshole.

you're a dick.

[captainhampton]

letterman is a comedian.

O'reilly is an asshole.

you're a dick.

the name calling really helps your arguments. way to argue the content of their interviews.

[dw1003]

HAHA, who would have figured you watched Bill O'Reilly on a constant basis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIVnwYGU9Qo

haha great video!

[thatwasamoment]

someone is all over oreilly's nuts

[captainhampton]

someone is all over oreilly's nuts

here's the points i'm trying to make
-he's not as conservative as people make him out to be
-he made David Letterman look like a fool

yeah man i'm all over his nuts. why don't you add something intelligent to the conversation.

[dw1003]

the name calling really helps your arguments. way to argue the content of their interviews.

because you're such a fluent expositor on all things O'rielly.

[dw1003]

here's the points i'm trying to make
-he's not as conservative as people make him out to be
-he made David Letterman look like a fool

yeah man i'm all over his nuts. why don't you add something intelligent to the conversation.

here's the points I'm trying to make
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

shouldn't you be on the young republicans message board.

what the fuck are you doing at AP.net?

[captainhampton]

you make such great arguments. thanks for taking the time to make intelligent responses to my points.

[dw1003]

you make such great arguments. thanks for taking the time to make intelligent responses to my points.

stupid threads deserve stupid responses.

[thejetstolehome]

cable news sucks.

/thread.

[x togepi x]

Bill O'reilly= racist.

He made a big deal about Ludacris being picked up as a Pepsi spokesperson because of Ludacris's "bad values", and yet didn't make a similar criticism of The Osbournes.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

David Letterman > Bill O.

[XpunkXroutineX]

:thumbdwn:

check out this book:

The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox New's Channel's Bill O' Reilly (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=114)

[youcomebeforeyo]

here's the points I'm trying to make
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

shouldn't you be on the young republicans message board.

what the fuck are you doing at AP.net?

Dude.

I agree with you on O'Rielly but you're posting like a douchebag.

[open mind]

Dude.

I agree with you on O'Rielly but you're posting like a douchebag.

ahh.......truthiness......

[captainhampton]

:thumbdwn:

check out this book:

The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox New's Channel's Bill O' Reilly (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=114)

or should I go to the Bill O Reilly lies website. maybe you should visit olbermannwatch.com

anyways, you don't watch the show very much do you? do you really think Bill leans far to the right?
do you think he actually receives talking points from the White House like Dan Rather claimed?

[thejetstolehome]

Dude.

I agree with you on O'Rielly but you're posting like a douchebag.

i would say he's doing it just to sound like O'Rielly to prove a point but he's posting like this in another thread, too.

[mikeford]

or should I go to the Bill O Reilly lies website. maybe you should visit olbermannwatch.com

anyways, you don't watch the show very much do you? do you really think Bill leans far to the right?
do you think he actually receives talking points from the White House like Dan Rather claimed?

it is a fact that fox news anchors get a memo at the beginning of the day with the talking points for that day. many of these memos have leaked in full. as in there are scans of them. stop being an idiot.

[captainhampton]

it is a fact that fox news anchors get a memo at the beginning of the day with the talking points for that day. many of these memos have leaked in full. as in there are scans of them. stop being an idiot.

from the white house? prove it.

[KidLightning]

no i think that's wrong.

and when you call him a "fair guy" and when he's on a network whose tagline is "fair and balanced," yet cuts people off, he's obviously not being fair. it's an abuse of power.
from what i understand of the "fair and balanced" tagline is that it's kind of tongue-in-cheek and is supposed to mean that the conservative spin they have balances out the general "liberal bias" most people claim exists in the media.

[mikeford]

ps http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/mikeford/umad1dx.gif

[The Revisionist]

U Mad U Mad

[birdman]

stupid threads deserve stupid responses.

Wow, and you think that I am ignorant of other cultures?

[Mula225]

from what i understand of the "fair and balanced" tagline is that it's kind of tongue-in-cheek and is supposed to mean that the conservative spin they have balances out the general "liberal bias" most people claim exists in the media.

There is a liberal bias in the media..granted, i can't speak for all sources, but i live in ny and newspapers for instance (dailynews, times, newsday) all lean to the left (understandably so..)

i like o'reilly..he makes me laugh.

the end

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

There is a liberal bias in the media..granted, i can't speak for all sources, but i live in ny and newspapers for instance (dailynews, times, newsday) all lean to the left (understandably so..)

i like o'reilly..he makes me laugh.

the end


the new york times is a fiction novel disguised as a newspaper

[Mula225]

the new york times is a fiction novel disguised as a newspaper

haha, fair enough.

[mikeford]

the new york times is a fiction novel disguised as a newspaper

get the fuck out of my country.

[thatwasamoment]

the new york times is a fiction novel disguised as a newspaperkeep telling yourself that

[XpunkXroutineX]

and check out Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (http://www.outfoxed.org/)

[preppyak]

the name calling really helps your arguments. way to argue the content of their interviews.

here's the points i'm trying to make
-he's not as conservative as people make him out to be
-he made David Letterman look like a fool

yeah man i'm all over his nuts. why don't you add something intelligent to the conversation.
That point is true...but your other one is quite far off. O'Reilly, in his "moderate" moments finds them in such stupid, absurd points that they can hardly be called useful. And just because he criticizes the administration doesn't mean he's a moderate...granted, it shows he has more intelligence than some people give him...but it speaks nothing of his political viewpoint, because we all know the administration itself is past fucked...

Glenn Beck is another of these ass hats who parades as "moderate", and he does the same thing, he takes the conservative stand point on 90% of the issues, cuts off guests who question him, and then has his Jerry Spring moment where he ties it all up. The issues I've watched him be "moderate" on were things Entertainment Weekly would cover, not political. And even then, he spent an entire show on Happy Feet...like it truly has any bearing on our political spectrum...

[fenderkid212]

Are you fucking serious? you like bill O'Reilly?
:dunce:

[preppyak]

There is a liberal bias in the media..granted, i can't speak for all sources, but i live in ny and newspapers for instance (dailynews, times, newsday) all lean to the left (understandably so..)

i like o'reilly..he makes me laugh.

the end
Wrong...in fact, if anything, there is a conservative bias in the media. Think about who owns the news stations and papers...rich white men...conservatives. What we see in the reporting has a liberal slant, but 90% of the issues are conservative issues (war, foreign policy, energy, etc). When was the last time education, or anything in the traditional liberal spectrum headlined on CBS, or Fox. Think of what headlines every night...the War in Iraq, Foreign Oil, Terrorism, the list goes on, these are not major party issues of the traditional Democratic party, and if you think they are, you are a moron.

Here is a visual for you, to understand it. While what we see from that smaller spectrum is that most of the stories seem liberally covered, but the reality is that within the actual spectrum of total coverage, even the most liberal coverage of the issues is still only moderating at best.

Actual Spectrum
Liberal---------------------------Moderate--------------------------Conservative
---------------------------------[CBS/ABC/CNN----------Fox]--------------------

Perceived Spectrum
Liberal---------------------------Moderate--------------------------Conservative
------------[CBS/ABC/CNN------------------Fox]-----------------------------

While what we see from the perceived spectrum is that most of the stories seem liberally covered, but the reality is that within the actual spectrum of total coverage, only most liberal coverage of the issues is truly liberal. What you get is an overly defensive media, where the journalists have to become incredibly liberal to cover the stories the way they feel they should, and a misinformed public who takes that as poor media coverage, and not overt media censorship from the owners to begin with. They function as gatekeepers and keep important liberal stories from even happening.

Now, my drawings of those spectrum's are based on books I have read on the topic, and my general perception of the media coverage. They are not exact, and the reality is maybe CNN/ABC/CBS are a little more liberal than I have them drawn, but the reality is that they are not these ultra-liberal spin zones that people make them out to be, if anything, they are moderate compared to Fox. Then again, I doubt anyone in opposition will take the time to respond to this, so, why bother explaining it more

[preppyak]

from what i understand of the "fair and balanced" tagline is that it's kind of tongue-in-cheek and is supposed to mean that the conservative spin they have balances out the general "liberal bias" most people claim exists in the media.
Maybe it is intended that way, but the people on the network wield it as a sword in their arguments...so, if anything, their intentions fail like the tagline

[captainhampton]

NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN all lean left. the majority of the newspapers lean left. the Hollywood television and film industry leans left, the music industry leans left. don't try to say there is a conservative bias.

did you ever think that the reason The War in Iraq, oil, and terrorism get headlines is because they ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES. it's not because there is a conservative bias.

[preppyak]

NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN all lean left. the majority of the newspapers lean left. the Hollywood television and film industry leans left, the music industry leans left. don't try to say there is a conservative bias.

did you ever think that the reason The War in Iraq, oil, and terrorism get headlines is because they ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES. it's not because there is a conservative bias.
Really...that our education system is failing isn't a big issue? That No Child Left Behind is a joke isn't a big issue. Our economy should be the biggest issue every day, and yet it's usually a back page thing. Where is the Stock Market report... 4th or 5th section of the paper at best...where are the headlines about Iraq...front page every day. They are in fact equally important to are well being, if the economy not more so, but because a conservative media decides it is better to hear about issues they can provide safety for, they cover those with priority.

You see, you can say they lean left...but you have to prove it...and you can't. I can PROVE that the major sources are owned by conservative men, who have a pending interest in the party. True, those stations lean left...but they are only finding a liberal view in a conservative world. I can show you a spectrum made by a host of people who worked in the industry for years...

Think about it...The War in Iraq was not an issue in 2001 (post-September), until it was MADE an issue in 2002 by the news, and then all of the sudden we are in war. And yet, the fact that we didn't actually make a connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda was almost entirely not reported by the media...wouldn't a "liberal" media be all over that. I mean, they barely even got to harp on the WMD-misqueue before we became "freedom fighters".

The talking points are entirely conservatively based...the issues are as well...call it liberal if you want in your mind...but if you want to criticize my statements, PROVE it to me

Edit: I just found the book...Bias by Bernald Goldberg...who, is in fact, the very reason we even discuss "media bias". He was shunned from CBS for even mentioning it, but wait...they are liberal...why would they do that if the bias is in fact favoring the networks coverage?

I spent an entire semester examining this...and the reality is that the media's "bias" is if anything negated by it all, that the ownership being conservative and the reporters liberal creates a sort of moderation...though still a vaguely conservative slant...and it only shows through when both owner and reporter are conservative (see Fox for examples).

You see, O'Reilly is far from moderate...very, very far

[clandestine330]

read sweet jesus i hate bill o'reilly. obviously, with a title like that, its going to be biased. but it proves how out of touch he is with reality, and how much spin he puts on the news on a daily basis

[captainhampton]

Really...that our education system is failing isn't a big issue? That No Child Left Behind is a joke isn't a big issue. Our economy should be the biggest issue every day, and yet it's usually a back page thing. Where is the Stock Market report... 4th or 5th section of the paper at best...where are the headlines about Iraq...front page every day. They are in fact equally important to are well being, if the economy not more so, but because a conservative media decides it is better to hear about issues they can provide safety for, they cover those with priority.

You see, you can say they lean left...but you have to prove it...and you can't. I can PROVE that the major sources are owned by conservative men, who have a pending interest in the party. True, those stations lean left...but they are only finding a liberal view in a conservative world. I can show you a spectrum made by a host of people who worked in the industry for years...

Think about it...The War in Iraq was not an issue in 2001 (post-September), until it was MADE an issue in 2002 by the news, and then all of the sudden we are in war. And yet, the fact that we didn't actually make a connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda was almost entirely not reported by the media...wouldn't a "liberal" media be all over that. I mean, they barely even got to harp on the WMD-misqueue before we became "freedom fighters".

The talking points are entirely conservatively based...the issues are as well...call it liberal if you want in your mind...but if you want to criticize my statements, PROVE it to me

and if you can find where I said those aren't important issues please let me know?

if you don't think national security, terrorism, and the war are our most important issues, than you are naive and ignorant.

[preppyak]

and if you can find where I said those aren't important issues please let me know?
did you ever think that the reason The War in Iraq, oil, and terrorism get headlines is because they ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES. it's not because there is a conservative bias.
You said they weren't the most important...which is exactly the point...only the "most important" issues get coverage, not all of the important ones. A truly objective media would cover them all with weigthed time...instead we get the same Iraq story, the same Middle East violence story, and the same "Oil is at this price" story, followed with a nice feel good thing.

Can you explain to me why we should care about Israel and Palestine more than we should care about our own Stock Market, or our own education system in the amount we cover them in the news?

We shouldn't...simply put...at best their should be equal weight, though I personally feel our domestic policy should take precedent in that case.


if you don't think national security, terrorism, and the war are our most important issues, than you are naive and ignorant. I think they are no more important than our education system and our economic status...so, "most important", no, I guess I am naive and ignorant. They are pressing issues that need coverage...true, but not the only ones, and that is mostly what they get on a show like CBS Headline NEws, or on an O'Reilly show.

I mean, it must be great to live in a world where a media that almost completely ignores domestic issues important to every American is in fact, a liberal media...amazing really. Seems to contradict the traditional balance of liberal/conservative

[preppyak]

Check out the CBS News page...if it weren't for Christmas stories...there would be a total of 3 domestic stories.

Donald Trump...and his american flag
Something about trains and railroad traffic
A killing in a Fla Mall

The rest is all "My child is in Iraq for Christmas" stories, things that humanize the war and bring sympathy and support for it. What liberally biased media would use that form of coverage?

Edit: And I think my point is a little muddied here...I'm not saying that there is a ridiculous conservative bias...in fact, my point is more that the media is more moderate in general, with a vague hint of conservative issues (though, 60% of Americans are conservative, so, I'd expect that)...and that it is not this ultra liberal entity where Fox represents moderate in any sense. In fact, if any station shows bias, it is Fox News who has the most of it

[captainhampton]

You said they weren't the most important...which is exactly the point...only the "most important" issues get coverage, not all of the important ones. A truly objective media would cover them all with weigthed time...instead we get the same Iraq story, the same Middle East violence story, and the same "Oil is at this price" story, followed with a nice feel good thing.

Can you explain to me why we should care about Israel and Palestine more than we should care about our own Stock Market, or our own education system in the amount we cover them in the news?

We shouldn't...simply put...at best their should be equal weight, though I personally feel our domestic policy should take precedent in that case.

I think they are no more important than our education system and our economic status...so, "most important", no, I guess I am naive and ignorant. They are pressing issues that need coverage...true, but not the only ones, and that is mostly what they get on a show like CBS Headline NEws, or on an O'Reilly show.

I mean, it must be great to live in a world where a media that almost completely ignores domestic issues important to every American is in fact, a liberal media...amazing really. Seems to contradict the traditional balance of liberal/conservative

well to start off, the reason you see newspapers headlined with the War in Iraq and Terrorism on the front page is money. they want to sell more papers, and you sell more papers that way than having articles about eduacation. that's the simple answer.

same thing with TV-on any show they want to talk about issues that can spark a lively debate and help them get more ratings and more money. talking about the economy won't get ratings.

it's not a liberal/conservative thing. Foreign Policy is not a conservative issue, it is an issue. Education is not a liberal issue, it is an issue. So, your argument that there is a conservative bias because the papers have headlines about the War and TV coverage is about the war is not valid. it is not because there is a conservative bias, it is because they are the issues that the people care about the most.

and just because some of these places are owned by conservative men doesn't equal a conservative bias. It is who delivers the news. The fact is that most of the newspaper writers write from a liberal point of view, most of the television anchors report from a liberal point of view, the music we hear is from a liberal perspective. The media we consume is from a liberal perspective and we rarely see views from a conservative perspective, and that is why there is a liberal bias.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

get the fuck out of my country.


i was joking because of the several scandals that have occured there

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

keep telling yourself that


read above

but thanks for the advice

[preppyak]

it's not a liberal/conservative thing. Foreign Policy is not a conservative issue, it is an issue. Education is not a liberal issue, it is an issue. So, your argument that there is a conservative bias because the papers have headlines about the War and TV coverage is about the war is not valid. it is not because there is a conservative bias, it is because they are the issues that the people care about the most.
Actually, to be honest, Americans only care about issues they are informed about, and the way they are informed is from media...so, your last point is backhanded at best. The fact that their is an electoral college is a direct relation to that...our founding fathers saw our lack of information as an issue...much as they probably would in this issue of "bias" today.

And yes, it is a liberal/conservative thing...in a sense that the way we use conservative/liberal is a Democrat v Republican thing. No, in the true meaning of liberal, they aren;t those issues, but in the true meaning of liberal, a "liberal" media is exactly what we want. Liberal media would stress the importance of freedom in the world...and why is that an issue? Especially when it champions liberal democracy

No, the "liberal/conservative" slant is a direct relation to how we have shifted their meaning to party politics, and the accusation of a liberal media is that of one controlled by Democratic policies...which it is very much not.

Democratic politics do not focus on foreign policy, or energy, or military issues in the same way that Republican politics do...instead they focus on more internal domestic issues, which is my contention as the things that don't get covered.

Edit: To further that, using liberal in it's true sense...we always talk about "free press", which is very much in the definition of liberal. A liberal media would be one that is capable of reporting issues without restriction from either party or government, which I think is also an ideal, not a problem...which is why I feel that when you label it "liberal or conservative" media, you mean "democrat or republican"

and just because some of these places are owned by conservative men doesn't equal a conservative bias. It is who delivers the news. The fact is that most of the newspaper writers write from a liberal point of view, most of the television anchors report from a liberal point of view, the music we hear is from a liberal perspective. The media we consume is from a liberal perspective and we rarely see views from a conservative perspective, and that is why there is a liberal bias. Journalists are puppets for the owners...ask any journalist, they get 0 freedom to report stories early in their career. They are told by their editor what to report, and their editor is told by the papers ownership what issues they want to focus on. In that sense, only a small window of actual news is covered, and what is left out is a function of what is called "gate keeping", if an issues is never given a chance to be covered, it is because of that function. Thus, an owner's viewpoints become those of a paper, even if a journalist bashes an issue, because only those issues are being covered. And those in the major spectrum, like a Katie Couric, so rarely question major issues with a strength to make it noticeable, and when they do, they get moved or fired.

The American public cannot be outraged at our education system if they know nothing about it's flaws...there is a tangible example of gate keeping and how it makes a HUGE issue, the very future of our nation's knowledge, and makes in a nothing issue. And the fact that their even are editor's, who are direct forms of gate keeping, furthers the thought that certain issues are shaded from view. If a journalist had true freedom to report, they would only need an assistant to correct grammar/spelling and all would be fine...but such is not the case

Again, my point isn't that democratic or liberal issues never get covered...they do, just not always with the same volume as moderate and conservative/republican ones...at least not in recent memory (like the last 3-4 years). So, the media then becomes kind of moderate in taht sense, and only a station that endorses both owner and reporter on the same side shows through as being "biased".

It is why so many people who don't adhere to Fox's programming see it as an issue of their bias...because they show a very noticeable slant. And that was really the issue that started this in the first place

[preppyak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62bfe_5sQ4I
wow...not surprised sadly...but, good to see someone point it out

[x togepi x]

NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN all lean left. the majority of the newspapers lean left. the Hollywood television and film industry leans left, the music industry leans left. don't try to say there is a conservative bias.

did you ever think that the reason The War in Iraq, oil, and terrorism get headlines is because they ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES. it's not because there is a conservative bias.

I want proof that NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC lean left, since media matters has a field day with these networks.

documented proof please from an objective source (that means no conservative blogs).

Until you prove that, I'm still going to claim that the major newspapers and stations stay right down the center, as being left/right would lose them viewers, and they care more about money than they do about the news since this is a business.

[preppyak]

I want proof that NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC lean left, since media matters has a field day with these networks.

documented proof please from an objective source (that means no conservative blogs).

Until you prove that, I'm still going to claim that the major newspapers and stations stay right down the center, as being left/right would lose them viewers, and they care more about money than they do about the news since this is a business.
Well, that's the thing is that in questioning objectivity, it's virtually impossible because you take a subjective approach to it.

The only way you might be able to show bias is the # of times certain issues come up, and for how long, and then a long computation of those elements...and even that would be flawed.

So, I think because of that, saying that their is truly a bias is entirely a personal thing...and both sides can be explained, which usually ends up with the debate going nowhere but in circles. I think that the only places you can say show consistent bias is blogs, a site like a Move-on.org, and something like Fox News that extra step. Because it is a case where either Fox is moderate, and the others are left leaning, or, Fox isn't moderate...and I truly believe it's the latter

[Mula225]

You see, you can say they lean left...but you have to prove it...and you can't. I can PROVE that the major sources are owned by conservative men, who have a pending interest in the party. True, those stations lean left...but they are only finding a liberal view in a conservative world.


We do not live in a conservative world. (abortion, stem cell research, same sex marriage, etc.) You are mistaken if you don't believe that the new york papers lean left..new york is dominated by liberals..it should come as no suprise that most writers/editors are infact democrat!

[Mula225]

NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN all lean left. the majority of the newspapers lean left. the Hollywood television and film industry leans left, the music industry leans left. don't try to say there is a conservative bias.


word.

[thejetstolehome]

I want proof that NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC lean left, since media matters has a field day with these networks.

documented proof please from an objective source (that means no conservative blogs).

Until you prove that, I'm still going to claim that the major newspapers and stations stay right down the center, as being left/right would lose them viewers, and they care more about money than they do about the news since this is a business.

word.

We do not live in a conservative world. (abortion, stem cell research, same sex marriage, etc.) You are mistaken if you don't believe that the new york papers lean left..new york is dominated by liberals..it should come as no suprise that most writers/editors are infact democrat!

same sex marriage is legal in how many states? abortion still isn't widely accepted in the united states and stem cell cell research is still a very touchy subject. the fact that our foriegn policy is conducted the way it is and that the PATRIOT Act exists shows that this place isn't exactly too liberal.

[Mula225]

same sex marriage is legal in how many states? abortion still isn't widely accepted in the united states and stem cell cell research is still a very touchy subject. the fact that our foriegn policy is conducted the way it is and that the PATRIOT Act exists shows that this place isn't exactly too liberal.

All of those issues are on the rise! As far as our foriegn policy and the patriot act (joke)..it might have had a little something to do with a guy named dubya..when liberals are back in office, things will change..

[preppyak]

We do not live in a conservative world. (abortion, stem cell research, same sex marriage, etc.) You are mistaken if you don't believe that the new york papers lean left..new york is dominated by liberals..it should come as no suprise that most writers/editors are infact democrat!
Congratulations...you PROVED nothing.

What you told me was something I had already acknowledged and shown to be non issues.

Stem Cell Research...when was the last time that was hit with a large media buzz outside of Michael J Fox...or abortion for that matter. Same sex marriage isn't an issue of marriage but "family values"...which is how Republicans have termed the issue, and thus how it is covered. The fact that these issues get no press is a function not of poor liberal writers, but of conservative control of the issues through ownership. Look to any New York times, the domestic issues are minimal in that paper, and they focus heavily on foreign policy issues in their op-eds.

And don't tell me it's because "people care more about those issues"...people care more about those issues because that is what is covered, and thus they are the only issues they can care more about. 90% of people know nothing about stem cell research, so of course it is not a hotly debated topic, nobody knows how to debate it. People may say how they feel, but it is completely unsupported and unintelligent debate.

60% of our population is Republican (or conservative if you will), and the major issues that get covered are not the ones you mentioned...so, your contention that we don't live in a conservative world seems wrong, and if not wrong, then at least certainly not right. My thing all along is that there is truly a negligible slant in the media, where the two sides balance, and only in a case of an extreme liberal blog or an extreme conservative network like Fox do we truly see slant.

And thus, why "fair" and "balanced" are hilarious terms

[cageofcrickets]

We do not live in a conservative world. (abortion, stem cell research, same sex marriage, etc.) You are mistaken if you don't believe that the new york papers lean left..new york is dominated by liberals..it should come as no suprise that most writers/editors are infact democrat!

the issues you mentioned are only issues BECAUSE of conservative pushes to either make them illegal or seem wrong. without the media coverage based on pushes in the white house and washington, no one would really care all that much.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

the issues you mentioned are only issues BECAUSE of conservative pushes to either make them illegal or seem wrong. without the media coverage based on pushes in the white house and washington, no one would really care all that much.


You just proved the point
A world that wouldnt care all that much about those things you listed, is certainly not a conservative one. Those things exist because we dont live in a conservative world. If it were a conservative world they would already be illegal or "wrong" as you say

[Mula225]

The only point I was trying to make was that New York papers were dominated by liberals. Who cares if the topics are hot right now? The fact is..those issues are more so supported by liberals, and are all on the rise. People know enough about SCR, that it goes hand in hand with abortion. Chances are if you don't support abortion, your not gonna support scr! The same sex marriage debate is a bit useless..couples have already had the ability to get a civil union; so why not let them get married?

To cageofcrickets..have you ever seen an abortion video? If not, I suggest you do. People are usually pretty perceptive..they can tell what's right or wrong without "pushes" from the white house. :rolleyes:

[x togepi x]

The only point I was trying to make was that New York papers were dominated by liberals. Who cares if the topics are hot right now? The fact is..those issues are more so supported by liberals, and are all on the rise. People know enough about SCR, that it goes hand in hand with abortion. Chances are if you don't support abortion, your not gonna support scr! The same sex marriage debate is a bit useless..couples have already had the ability to get a civil union; so why not let them get married?

To cageofcrickets..have you ever seen an abortion video? If not, I suggest you do. People are usually pretty perceptive..they can tell what's right or wrong without "pushes" from the white house. :rolleyes:

You only think newspapers are "dominated" by liberals because they're not conservative enough for you.

I've seen an abortion video. Tons of them. I'm still pro-choice.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

The only point I was trying to make was that New York papers were dominated by liberals. Who cares if the topics are hot right now? The fact is..those issues are more so supported by liberals, and are all on the rise. People know enough about SCR, that it goes hand in hand with abortion. Chances are if you don't support abortion, your not gonna support scr! The same sex marriage debate is a bit useless..couples have already had the ability to get a civil union; so why not let them get married?

To cageofcrickets..have you ever seen an abortion video? If not, I suggest you do. People are usually pretty perceptive..they can tell what's right or wrong without "pushes" from the white house. :rolleyes:


there is a lot of stem cell research that doesnt have to do with abortion

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

The same sex marriage debate is a bit useless..couples have already had the ability to get a civil union; so why not let them get married?

Very few states grant the ability for same-sex couples to get a civil union. Many states have already passed ammendments explicitly prohibiting such recognition from being extended to same-sex couples. I guess you would probably thing the debate was more useful if (a) it were your rights that were being abrogated, or (b) you knew what the fuck you were talking about. Since, apparently, neither of those things are true, I can understand your ambivalence.

[preppyak]

The same sex marriage debate is a bit useless..couples have already had the ability to get a civil union; so why not let them get married?
Three states can legally grant civil unions...and NJ's are not recognized by the federal government I know. California is not listed due to it's current legal status

Arizona is the only state to not pass a constitutional amendment, yet their is still a ban in their state statutes.

It is very, very far from "legal" to have a civil union even, let alone marriage...please be informed before you speak


People know enough about SCR, that it goes hand in hand with abortion. Chances are if you don't support abortion, your not gonna support scr! I wish you could appreciate the irony of that statement...

Stem cell research is the path to find cures to diseases that perhaps can only be solved genetically...abortion and cloning are minute in the scale.

Edit: Even on the Wikipedia page...which is usually the broadest and most simplistic view of the argument, they are capable of mentioning that the issue is far greater than that. If you want to actually "know enough" about the issue, start there and follow some of the links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_research

I mean, I know NOTHING about SCR, and even I am capable of knowing you are dead wrong
Very few states grant the ability for same-sex couples to get a civil union. Many states have already passed ammendments explicitly prohibiting such recognition from being extended to same-sex couples. I guess you would probably thing the debate was more useful if (a) it were your rights that were being abrogated, or (b) you knew what the fuck you were talking about. Since, apparently, neither of those things are true, I can understand your ambivalence.
Exactly

[MotionIsntMeaning]

I dislike Bill O'Reilly for the same reasons I dislike Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and others: they are extremely close-mided and blinded by their political affiliation.

People seem to believe that every issue is black or white, and that their party has the solution to all issues. The bitching that goes on back and forth is ridiculous. America, much like the rest of the world is growing increasingly divided. You are either democrat or republican, rich or poor, christian or muslim, 'good' or 'evil'.....

[preppyak]

I dislike Bill O'Reilly for the same reasons I dislike Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and others: they are extremely close-mided and blinded by their political affiliation.

People seem to believe that every issue is black or white, and that their party has the solution to all issues. The bitching that goes on back and forth is ridiculous. America, much like the rest of the world is growing increasingly divided. You are either democrat or republican, rich or poor, christian or muslim, 'good' or 'evil'.....
Well, being wrong (or just not being right) is an incredibly scary thing. It is comforting to always have the answer.For me I know, it's been rough going through college because I don't know everything (like in HS), and I'm not always the smartest, and sometimes the answer just isn't there.

Especially for a topic like politics, taking a black and white approach, always having the answer, makes you look like a moron (you mentioned the perfect people). Which is interesting, because, the talking heads on TV are always supposed to have the answer. In that way, our media is completely fucked, and taht is completely outside of bias. I believe that, not bias, is the biggest issue with the media, because to be objective, sometimes you have to not "have the answer", but that doesn't sell ads.

Edit: Which in an odd way kind of makes me feel like a jackass for me asking people to"prove" their was a bias, but, it was more to make a point...that if you can't place an exact on a topic, maybe it isn't that way

[Mula225]

I've seen an abortion video. Tons of them. I'm still pro-choice.

Congratulations!

[Mula225]

Very few states grant the ability for same-sex couples to get a civil union. Many states have already passed ammendments explicitly prohibiting such recognition from being extended to same-sex couples. I guess you would probably thing the debate was more useful if (a) it were your rights that were being abrogated, or (b) you knew what the fuck you were talking about. Since, apparently, neither of those things are true, I can understand your ambivalence.

Thanks for the update. I never claimed that it was widely accepted..but where civil unions are allowed, I feel marriage should also be.

Ambivalence..big word!

Would you like a cookie??

[Mula225]

Three states can legally grant civil unions...and NJ's are not recognized by the federal government I know. California is not listed due to it's current legal status

Arizona is the only state to not pass a constitutional amendment, yet their is still a ban in their state statutes.

It is very, very far from "legal" to have a civil union even, let alone marriage...please be informed before you speak

Massachusetts is the only state that officially allows same-sex marriage. The gov't does not recognize NJ's, Vermont's, or Conn's civil unions..although they are offered. Then there's also Cali, Hawaii, and Maine which allow domestic partnerships. Just because it's not acknowledged by the government..it doesn't make it any less real to the people involved.

Look ten years back..i'd say we've come a long way, wouldn't you? It's onnnnnnnnn the rise..

I'll respond to the 2nd part tom..it's 7am, and i'm in no shape to be making coherent arguments.

[thejetstolehome]

Massachusetts is the only state that officially allows same-sex marriage. The gov't does not recognize NJ's, Vermont's, or Conn's civil unions..although they are offered. Then there's also Cali, Hawaii, and Maine which allow domestic partnerships. Just because it's not acknowledged by the government..it doesn't make it any less real to the people involved.

Look ten years back..i'd say we've come a long way, wouldn't you? It's onnnnnnnnn the rise..

I'll respond to the 2nd part tom..it's 7am, and i'm in no shape to be making coherent arguments.

but you should also be looking at it this way--if this country were truly a liberal society, don't you think all those states would straight up allow gay marriages without any of the stupid euphamisms? if this country were truly liberal, don't you think there'd be some sembelence of support for a huge, nation-wide push for gay civil rights? most congressmen and women who are for gay marriage are almost "afraid" to come out in support of gay marriage for fear of losing their seat come election time.

[preppyak]

Massachusetts is the only state that officially allows same-sex marriage. The gov't does not recognize NJ's, Vermont's, or Conn's civil unions..although they are offered. Then there's also Cali, Hawaii, and Maine which allow domestic partnerships. Just because it's not acknowledged by the government..it doesn't make it any less real to the people involved.
Well, the point of marriage from their standpoint is the ability to care for their lover in case of emergency...which, if the government doesn't recognize it, is not even achieved. If one partner is dying, it should be their husband that decides that fate if that is what they wish, but, a civil union that isn't recognized doesn't allow them to do that.

Marriage, as an institution, does not prove that you love somebody, or in any way legitimize that love, that is something entirely internal. What marriage does is allow you to legally rely on that person in cases where legal authority is needed. I need look at the divorce rate in our nation to make that point

To me, an unrecognized civil union would be like the government allowing women to vote, and then taking their ballots and burning them before they count them. Yes, it may make the women feel good that she can finally vote, but, when she finds out it meant nothing more than she previously had, what does it actually do but make her feel betrayed by her government? And in reality, it is actually far less real than marriage...both in terms of things like emergency care and in things like preparing taxes.

Progress, yes, there has been some progress in terms of governmental action, but in terms of the American populations acceptance of the topic, we are as polarized and misinformed as ever.

PS: I did not know the exact legalities in states, so I quick Wikipedia'd them to make my point, which was more that not every state grants them, rather, that almost none do. Thank you for clarifying the exacts of it for me though

[preppyak]

I think that is the point many people miss in the gay marriage issue...so little of it is whether or not they are truly accepted for their beliefs...they would love for that to happen, but, whether or not they will is sketchy.

I think most people who want civil unions/marriage want only the ability to claim the same kind of dependency a married couple does. Thirty years from now when their lover dies, they want the ability to decide where the body goes, and where the property goes, and if it comes down to a tough decision like "pulling the plug", they want the ability, like any married couple, to assume that responsibility for someone who they have been with for all that time instead of some distant blood relative who may not have seen them in 10 years.

It is more a general want to be granted the same rights, good or bad (being married doesn't neccesarily make you money on tax returns, in fact, it can hurt you from what I know of tax law), that any other couple would. They really aren't asking for special privileges in that sense...so, it always confuses me why it is such a hateful issue?

I mean, we have such adoption issues, and we would have couples who would want to raise a child, but can't birth one, why have we not seen the possibility there? And if the problem is that the child of a gay couple is more likely to be gay, and not produce children, then maybe that is a good thing, seeing as we seem to be stretching our population limit thin as it is already

How it comes down to "family values" always blows my mind...and my problem with the issue is less gay v straight than it is a limit on freedom. For us to truly be embracing the concept of "freedom" as a nation, there are some things we have to accept even if we dislike them

/long-winded and often confusing rant

[rocktometal]

I think that is the point many people miss in the gay marriage issue...so little of it is whether or not they are truly accepted for their beliefs...they would love for that to happen, but, whether or not they will is sketchy.

I think most people who want civil unions/marriage want only the ability to claim the same kind of dependency a married couple does. Thirty years from now when their lover dies, they want the ability to decide where the body goes, and where the property goes, and if it comes down to a tough decision like "pulling the plug", they want the ability, like any married couple, to assume that responsibility for someone who they have been with for all that time instead of some distant blood relative who may not have seen them in 10 years.

It is more a general want to be granted the same rights, good or bad (being married doesn't neccesarily make you money on tax returns, in fact, it can hurt you from what I know of tax law), that any other couple would. They really aren't asking for special privileges in that sense...so, it always confuses me why it is such a hateful issue?

I mean, we have such adoption issues, and we would have couples who would want to raise a child, but can't birth one, why have we not seen the possibility there? And if the problem is that the child of a gay couple is more likely to be gay, and not produce children, then maybe that is a good thing, seeing as we seem to be stretching our population limit thin as it is already

How it comes down to "family values" always blows my mind...and my problem with the issue is less gay v straight than it is a limit on freedom. For us to truly be embracing the concept of "freedom" as a nation, there are some things we have to accept even if we dislike them

/long-winded and often confusing rant

Here is my stand. Homosexuals choose to be gay, they put themselves in that situation with a member of the same sex and off they go. i beleive their is a small minority of people out their with biological problems (some of them caused by modern science and the wrong hermone medication) who are indeed homosexual by birth, however most people choose to "experiment" for whatever reasons and some adopt homosexuality and use it as a release for emotional instabilites ( quick note here, i think everyone is emotionally instably to some degree-I am emotionally unstable, so is my sister, my co-workers at work, etc).
In the long wrong I feel homosexuality is a sin, just like getting drunk, masterbation, pornography, adultery, murder, etc. Of course all of us have sinned at some point, and indulged in something we shouldn't. Nevertheless, I have no desire to increase someone's ability to sin, by making it seem alright.

[preppyak]

I decided not to respond to the "homosexuals chose to be gay" part, because I, nor does science, truly know enough about the topic for it to be debated yet

In the long wrong I feel homosexuality is a sin, just like getting drunk, masterbation, pornography, adultery, murder, etc. Of course all of us have sinned at some point, and indulged in something we shouldn't. Nevertheless, I have no desire to increase someone's ability to sin, by making it seem alright.
So, alcohol, cigarettes, any vice that would lead us to sin should be outlawed...correct?

So here is my greater question...is your belief alone that homosexuality is a sin enough to ban gay marriage? Even if a majority of Americans "believe" gay marriage is morally wrong, is it correct to ban something based on personal belief, and not an objective approach instead?

I think the danger in all of this is that it has been turned into a religious issue, which it is not. Those issues that I spoke about a few posts back have nothing to do with your religion...if anything, they are economic for the most part. When we decide to go to war, do we sit there and think of the sin? Not really...we think of global impact, we think of troops lost, we think of tangible benefits. When we decide on tax cuts, do we think of the sin? No... What about Education, or Foreign Trade...no again. Why religion has any bearing on this debate, when it has practically none in other debates in American culture is beyond me. Marriage isn't even a religious institution at it's foundation...seeing as until recently, it was largely an economic tool...and a tool to assert power.

What I am saying is that, you thinking it is a sin bears nothing on the actual matter of gay marriage, thus why I asked my first question. Do you think it is a sin to smoke? Yes...but, due to economics we allow it, and only when medical knowledge told us otherwise did we change our opinion slightly. The moral-religious argument on cigarettes and alcohol are practically non-existent, even though they destroys more families than gay marriage ever could. So, the fact that gay marriage has somehow become a religious issue is absurd to me, because at the heart of the matter it is truly not one, but, because it is hard to argue against the economic and political benefit of gay marriage, they turned it into a religious issue.

I understand your moral objection to it...but, that does not mean that objection should decide someone else, who does not share those views', livelihood.

[preppyak]

For example, I notice in your profile you are listed as a Mormon, so, this issue should make a lot of sense to you.

For a long time, Mormons were persecuted and restricted from areas for their beliefs, beliefs that did not coincide with popular opinion. Now, as a member of that persecuted group, can you honestly stand there and say that a majority moral opinion on a group should decide public policy? If so...you would understand if your rights were taken away because Mormon beliefs are not the majority belief...and you would accept that fate...which, I don't believe is true.

It is not accidental that church and state are separated, because the powerful emotions generated by faith can easily be misplaced into political conviction, and it can ruin an otherwise well premised government.