NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, if the media is so damn liberal, you'd think they'd have done a better job (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-29-2005/0004240417&EDATE=) of letting the public know just how full of crap the lead up to the war in Iraq turned out to be.
ROCHESTER, N.Y., Dec. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- More than four years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, many U.S. adults still believe some of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq, which have now been discredited,
according to a new Harris Poll. For example:

-- Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein had "strong links to Al Qaeda."
-- Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11."
-- Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded."
-- Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis."
The good news is that the numbers are down from last year. Oh hurrah.

This is not my liberal media. Thanks for the US-centrism, again, though.

What are you Canadian to? This place looked all Yankee to me.

This is not my liberal media. Thanks for the US-centrism, again, though.
Sorry. I'll change the title. In my defense, however, I can only say that I'm under the impression that the US is the only place where there's an accusation of a liberal bias in the overall media.

Oh hey you're one of the poobahs.

Funny how stupid such a large segment of the population can be...

Funny how stupid such a large segment of the population can be...
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Sorry. I'll change the title.

I was just razzing, even though we are just transitioning into European day time. Sort of bad timing to direct US threads directly.

In my defense, however, I can only say that I'm under the impression that the US is the only place where there's an accusation of a liberal bias in the overall media.

I can't say, even though it is much more common here for news papers to profess political leanings openly, which leads to everyone knowing that "this is the Social Democrat rag", and that's the "Liberal toilet paper" (i.e. proper liberal, not the US kind), and that's the "Conservative mouth piece" and so on. Kind of hard to accuse of bias when the bias is apparent and stated so that you can make your own mind up.

I can't say, even though it is much more common here for news papers to profess political leanings openly, which leads to everyone knowing that "this is the Social Democrat rag", and that's the "Liberal toilet paper" (i.e. proper liberal, not the US kind), and that's the "Conservative mouth piece" and so on. Kind of hard to accuse of bias when the bias is apparent and stated so that you can make your own mind up.
Can I tell you how much I would love it if we just did that in the US? Goddamn, it would make things so much easier. But we have this myth of the objective journalist that's been taught in j-schools for the last god-knows-how-long and it just refuses to die.

PRNewswire - "We tell your story to the world"

Can I tell you how much I would love it if we just did that in the US? Goddamn, it would make things so much easier. But we have this myth of the objective journalist that's been taught in j-schools for the last god-knows-how-long and it just refuses to die.

Objectivity in reporting is still expected, but it is realised that that is a feat difficult to accomplish, so openness is better.

This of course does not apply to columns and op-ed pieces, where the heavier the bent, the better! ;)

Sorry. I'll change the title. In my defense, however, I can only say that I'm under the impression that the US is the only place where there's an accusation of a liberal bias in the overall media.

There exist liberals in the USA ?

There exist liberals in the USA ?

Yeah, they're around here somewhere. Most of the time we hide them under beds, when we have visitors around. It insures that they're good liberals. Neither seen nor heard. :p

I wish they would get thrown in the Iraq war, the less mindless sheep the better.

There are many different types still in the US. When we run low we just import more from other countries. The problem with the US is that the Religious Reich thinks they have taken over the Republikan party, when in actuality big money still runs it. Hopefully next election we won't have the same people in power.

Sorry. I'll change the title. In my defense, however, I can only say that I'm under the impression that the US is the only place where there's an accusation of a liberal bias in the overall media.Nah, that accusation has slopped over north of the border too, and it is now flung about with great abandon in Canada. This arrow is frequently flung at the CBC, but hits other media as well, even though the National Post and the Sun line of newspapers (and recently Macleans!) have quite the Conservative bias.

-- Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis."

This is the one that baffles me most.

The words 'saudi hijackers' were all over the news after the attacks. It took a few months before Bush decided to make up excuses about Iraq.

Look, we know Saddam helped plan the attacks. This is just the liberal media trying to change history again just to attack Bush. Don't you liberals have any ideas? Why is it just attack attack attack?

Look, we know Saddam helped plan the attacks. This is just the liberal media trying to change history again just to attack Bush. Don't you liberals have any ideas? Why is it just attack attack attack?
I hope thats text-based sarcasm.

Look, we know Saddam helped plan the attacks. This is just the liberal media trying to change history again just to attack Bush. Don't you liberals have any ideas? Why is it just attack attack attack?
Who's the "we" you're referring to? Are you more than one person? Not to quibble unduly, but referring to one's self as "we" is usually reserved for Royalty.

Who's the "we" you're referring to? Are you more than one person? Not to quibble unduly, but referring to one's self as "we" is usually reserved for Royalty.

The "we" I'm talking about are the people who see past all this ravishonist history the press have been spewing out. The "we" who still care about America and keeping Americans safe from those who want to take over our country.

Nah, that accusation has slopped over north of the border too, and it is now flung about with great abandon in Canada. This arrow is frequently flung at the CBC, but hits other media as well, even though the National Post and the Sun line of newspapers (and recently Macleans!) have quite the Conservative bias.


On behalf of the handful of Americans who still know how to think for themselves, I apologize.

The "we" I'm talking about are the people who see past all this ravishonist history the press have been spewing out. The "we" who still care about America and keeping Americans safe from those who want to take over our country.


We who can't spell, we who wear tinfoil hats...

The "we" I'm talking about are the people who see past all this ravishonist history the press have been spewing out. The "we" who still care about America and keeping Americans safe from those who want to take over our country.
You're serious ! You're actually serious. You buy into the Maoist view the Bush administration has toward science and the media ? I have some advice for you that i hope you'll take.

Do not use the internet ever again. Ever.

The "we" I'm talking about are the people who see past all this ravishonist history the press have been spewing out. The "we" who still care about America and keeping Americans safe from those who want to take over our country.

Hmmm my farce alarm is going off......

A farce shouldnt never be carried over two posts, it's bad form i tell you ! I might drop a monocle in horror.

Hmmm my farce alarm is going off......

Yes, a nation named "Shrubinia" just doesn't seem to be a hardcore supporter of GWB.

Hmmm my farce alarm is going off......
The Dark Side of the Farce, surely.

We who can't spell, we who wear tinfoil hats...

Oh wow. Way to attack my points there, buddy. You really put me in my place.

See! No ideas, just attack attack attack. And you wonder why no one believes you're liberal lies.

Oh wow. Way to attack my points there, buddy. You really put me in my place.

See! No ideas, just attack attack attack. And you wonder why no one believes you're liberal lies.
You havn't made any points.

*Sniff*


I smell troll

Darn Jolt. Nothing worse than sitting and waiting while your post slowly evaporates. Well, other than getting impatient and ending up with a double-post, that is. Here's what I'd wanted to post about ten minutes ago:

Oh wow. Way to attack my points there, buddy. You really put me in my place.

See! No ideas, just attack attack attack. And you wonder why no one believes you're liberal lies.
Well, your notion seems to borrow from my original stated intent: quibble, quibble, quibble. Know what?

It's untenable past a certain point.

Darn Jolt. Nothing worse than sitting and waiting while your post slowly evaporates. Well, other than getting impatient and ending up with a double-post, that is. Here's what I'd wanted to post about ten minutes ago:


Well, your notion seems to borrow from my original stated intent: quibble, quibble, quibble. Know what?

It's untenable past a certain point.

oh yeah? How about this. When I search google for "Iraq linked to Al Qaeda" I get 490 hits. When I search for "Iraq not linked to Al Qaeda" I get a two results.

linked: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22iraq+linked+to+Al+Qaeda%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

not linked: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22iraq+not+linked+to+Al+Qaeda%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Explain that, big shot!

linked: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22iraq+linked+to+Al+Qaeda%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

not linked: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22iraq+not+linked+to+Al+Qaeda%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Explain that, big shot!

Maybe because "not linked to Al-Qaeda" isn't as grammatically correct?

Explain this:

Jesus Was Gay: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22jesus+was+gay%22 12,400 hits

Jesus Wasn't Gay: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22jesus+wasn%27t+gay%22 456 hits

Apparently, Jesus is gay?

Explain this:

Jesus Was Gay: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22jesus+was+gay%22 12,400 hits

Jesus Wasn't Gay: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22jesus+wasn%27t+gay%22 456 hits

Apparently, Jesus is gay?


That actually clears up a lot for me.

That actually clears up a lot for me.

I guess I'm doing God's work...Shrubinia has inspired me.