Why do people on the left only discuss bad news

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
From what I have heard on NPR (know for it's wacko liberal slant), they don't even count troops who die on the way to the hospital in Germany. So the numbers of deaths we see are only those who have actually perished on Iraqi soil. The numbers are very skewed. I doubt we even have a vague idea of exactly how many US soldiers have died because of wounds they suffered fighting this war. :(

Oddly enough, i quit listening to NPR because it seemed too right-leaning. Constantly interviewing religious types, religious oriented discussions, too much conservative talk for me. I wonder how ANYONE can refer to NPR as liberal after listening to it. :confused: Nothing against you Sheik, i am aware that the right likes to refer to NPR as liberal. Again, :confused:
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I would recommend that most of you refrain from sailing or any kind of watercraft activity after seeing so many completely miss the boat in regards to Crimson's remark.

His point was Amurikkka is wealthy. He forgot that wealthy is relative. Worse yet, he was trying to compare US income to third world income. Now WHO "missed the boat?"
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I would recommend that most of you refrain from sailing or any kind of watercraft activity after seeing so many completely miss the boat in regards to Crimson's remark.

His point was Amurikkka is wealthy. He forgot that wealthy is relative. Worse yet, he was trying to compare US income to third world income. Now WHO "missed the boat?"
No. You and others are ignoring that his point was that wealth (and being poor) is relative.

America. The only country in the world where being poor means you only have one car instead of two.

And just as an FYI, 30% of "poor" families in the US are two car families.

 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: DanJ
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
From what I have heard on NPR (know for it's wacko liberal slant)
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Average rate per misperception:
Fox: 45%
CBS: 36%
CNN: 31%
ABC: 30%
NBC: 30%
Print Media: 25%
NPR/PBS: 11%

So yea, NPR is probably the crazy one. Since its viewers are the most outside of reality...oh wait no, that'd be the opposite.

The PIPA report is like kryptonite to the neocons. No wait, that would assume that they were "Supermen".
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: DanJ
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
From what I have heard on NPR (know for it's wacko liberal slant)
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Average rate per misperception:
Fox: 45%
CBS: 36%
CNN: 31%
ABC: 30%
NBC: 30%
Print Media: 25%
NPR/PBS: 11%

So yea, NPR is probably the crazy one. Since its viewers are the most outside of reality...oh wait no, that'd be the opposite.

The PIPA report is like kryptonite to the neocons. No wait, that would assume that they were "Supermen".

The PIPA is worth no more that a piece of sh1tter paper. I find it hilarious that some of you still think that "study" holds water. :p

CsG
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: DanJ
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
From what I have heard on NPR (know for it's wacko liberal slant)
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Average rate per misperception:
Fox: 45%
CBS: 36%
CNN: 31%
ABC: 30%
NBC: 30%
Print Media: 25%
NPR/PBS: 11%

So yea, NPR is probably the crazy one. Since its viewers are the most outside of reality...oh wait no, that'd be the opposite.
The PIPA report is like kryptonite to the neocons. No wait, that would assume that they were "Supermen".
But they dismiss it like it never existed. They can't handle the truth.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: DanJ
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
From what I have heard on NPR (know for it's wacko liberal slant)
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Average rate per misperception:
Fox: 45%
CBS: 36%
CNN: 31%
ABC: 30%
NBC: 30%
Print Media: 25%
NPR/PBS: 11%

So yea, NPR is probably the crazy one. Since its viewers are the most outside of reality...oh wait no, that'd be the opposite.

The PIPA report is like kryptonite to the neocons. No wait, that would assume that they were "Supermen".

The PIPA is worth no more that a piece of sh1tter paper. I find it hilarious that some of you still think that "study" holds water. :p

CsG

I'd trust a study written by a 3rd grader over anything that comes out of your King's Castle of Propaganda.
 

DanJ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
3,509
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: DanJ
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
From what I have heard on NPR (know for it's wacko liberal slant)
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Average rate per misperception:
Fox: 45%
CBS: 36%
CNN: 31%
ABC: 30%
NBC: 30%
Print Media: 25%
NPR/PBS: 11%

So yea, NPR is probably the crazy one. Since its viewers are the most outside of reality...oh wait no, that'd be the opposite.
The PIPA report is like kryptonite to the neocons. No wait, that would assume that they were "Supermen".
The PIPA is worth no more that a piece of sh1tter paper. I find it hilarious that some of you still think that "study" holds water. :p

CsG
And why exactly do you feel that way? Because it makes the right's propoganda machine look bad?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
no more that a piece of sh1tter paper.

CsG


Just like anything you post. Get a grip. Why don't you go troll hannity forums and give
the GOP propaganda here a rest.

Seriously, why can you not post without trying to stir up sh1t with dishonesty, can we get a ban on this fool? You are as tired as your lies and distractions.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
For every report such as PIPA, there are many other sides to the same story.

They claim the media is out of touch and overly Liberal Democrat.

If the media is Liberal Democrat and only reports sensational stories and Bush slamming, then it could be concievable that Liberals are short sighted and fascinated by doom and gloom.

I think that they (networks) need to sell their pieces. Sensationalism sells more than does boredom and feel-good stories. Give me a train wreck any day over discussions on school board voting rules!!!
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71

For every report such as PIPA, there are many other sides to the same story.

They claim the media is out of touch and overly Liberal Democrat.

If the media is Liberal Democrat and only reports sensational stories and Bush slamming, then it could be concievable that Liberals are short sighted and fascinated by doom and gloom.

I think that they (networks) need to sell their pieces. Sensationalism sells more than does boredom and feel-good stories. Give me a train wreck any day over discussions on school board voting rules!!![/quote]


"I'd bet that if you hooked Dan and Tom and Peter up to a lie detector and asked them if there's a liberal bias on their newscasts, they'd all say ?no? and they'd all pass the test....That leaves one other possibility. Messrs. Rather, Brokaw and Jennings don't even know what liberal bias is. I concede this is hard to believe, but I'm convinced it's why we keep getting these ridiculous denials....The problem is that Mr. Rather and the other evening stars think that liberal bias means just one thing: going hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. But real media bias comes not so much from what party they attack. Liberal bias is the result of how they see the world.... And it is this inability to see liberal views as liberal that is at the heart of the entire problem. This is why Phyllis Schlafly is the conservative woman who heads that conservative organization but Patricia Ireland is merely the head of NOW. No liberal labels necessary. Robert Bork is the conservative judge. Laurence Tribe is the noted Harvard law professor.... Conservatives must be identified because the audience needs to know these are people with axes to grind. But liberals don't need to be identified because their views on all the big social issues -- from abortion and gun control to the death penalty and affirmative action -- aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with at all their reasonable dinner parties in Manhattan and Georgetown...." ? Former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Wall Street Journal op-ed, "On Media Bias, Network Stars Are Rather Clueless," May 24, 2001.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
The identifying of the reporters and jouralists as liberals or conservatives is absolutely useless. Do you think that any reporter or journalist could just go and and give an op-ed, shy of a Fox "journalist" of course, and not have it be reviewed in advance by someone above them?

Show me another study that has station owners, editors-in-chief and the other higher-ups that are actually dictating what gets on the air or in print and you would find the numbers to be dramatically opposite.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

America. The only country in the world where being poor means you only have one car instead of two.

And just as an FYI, 30% of "poor" families in the US are two car families.

What percentage of those cars are in good working condition? What percentage are reliable? What percentage were manufactured in the past five years? What percentage are clunkers?

Do these people own their own decent homes or do they rent cruddy little apartments? Can they afford health insurance and dental procedures? Can they afford decent food and clothing? What kind of debt do they have?

Can they find work that allows them to achieve and to create wealth to the best of their abilities, or are many of them underemployed?

I'll grant you that a great many people are poor because they've acted self-destructively or irrationally (drug use, having children they cannot afford, etc.). But on the otherhand, a great many people are poor because the economy does not support enough solid middle class jobs for all of the people who have the ability and desire to work them.

For example, consider the plight of the bright college graduate who ended up unemployed during the Bushcession and who can only find menial labor jobs for near minimum wage.

Consider the MBA who's over 50 and who cannot find a decent job because he suffers from massive amounts of age discrimination and rejections due to his being "overqualified".

Consider the poor guy who worked hard all his life to obtain good grades, who graduated from a good college with a professional degree, but who graduated into a horrific employment market. As a result he ends up working out-of-field for a couple years and thus becomes unemployable because of discrimination against the unemployed and those who work out-of-field, losing most of the value of his educational investment.

What if someone just doesn't have good interviewing people skills in spite of having tremendous work ethic and productive ability?

Open your eyes to hard reality. There are a great many hard working, ambitious, moral people out there who end up living in genteel poverty in spite of their work ethic and productive ability. (On the otherhand, you can find people of lesser ability but good interviewing and schmoozing skills perhaps who earn upper middle class wages in spite of their lack of ability and work ethic.) The hard truth that many people wish to evade is that in today's American society, in today's depressed employment market, meritocracy is often a myth and often people do not get what they deserve.

Of course, if you want to believe that we have a meritorcracy as a matter of dogma or religious faith, well, then keep drinking the Kool-Aid. It's far easier to make the blanket generalization that people get what they deserve than it is to ask difficult, probing questions that often carry unpalatible implications. It's easier to pretend that your nation and it's economy are a prosperous cuckoo-cloud world than it is to face the hard reality that it's headed towards third world nationhood.

It's easier to maintain the belief that your own success was based 100% on your own effort, virtue, and ability than it is to consider how luck and the avoidance of bad luck played a large role. Consider how lucky you are to have had your personality develop so that you could naturally get people to like you during the interview process and so that you would have the right demeanor and say the right things almost naturally. People of much greater ability probably didn't get the same job simply because they didn't have the right kind of interpersonal chemistry during the interview even though they would have done a spectacular job had they been hired. Consider how lucky you are that your employer didn't go out of business or engage in mass layoffs at the beginning of the recession. Consider how lucky you are to have decent looks, a decent voice, and to not be bald (a member of the good looks lucky sperm club) and how that affected your ability to obtain employment.

Horror stories about how good people with ability and work ethic have suffered during the past couple years abound up and down the Internet. You don't have to look very hard. Try the Wall Street Journal's Career Journal website and read the stories from people over age 50. Lots of college-educated people are having trouble, including those with professional degrees and advanced degrees. Wake up and see reality.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Well said, WhipperSnapper. By the way, IIRC, Chicken is still in school, as are many of the more prolific Bushies. It's easy to make generalizations about the disadvantaged when one is still nestled within the ivory tower.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

America. The only country in the world where being poor means you only have one car instead of two.

And just as an FYI, 30% of "poor" families in the US are two car families.

What percentage of those cars are in good working condition? What percentage are reliable? What percentage were manufactured in the past five years? What percentage are clunkers?

Do these people own their own decent homes or do they rent cruddy little apartments? Can they afford health insurance and dental procedures? Can they afford decent food and clothing? What kind of debt do they have?

Can they find work that allows them to achieve and to create wealth to the best of their abilities, or are many of them underemployed?

I'll grant you that a great many people are poor because they've acted self-destructively or irrationally (drug use, having children they cannot afford, etc.). But on the otherhand, a great many people are poor because the economy does not support enough solid middle class jobs for all of the people who have the ability and desire to work them.

For example, consider the plight of the bright college graduate who ended up unemployed during the Bushcession and who can only find menial labor jobs for near minimum wage.

Consider the MBA who's over 50 and who cannot find a decent job because he suffers from massive amounts of age discrimination and rejections due to his being "overqualified".

Consider the poor guy who worked hard all his life to obtain good grades, who graduated from a good college with a professional degree, but who graduated into a horrific employment market. As a result he ends up working out-of-field for a couple years and thus becomes unemployable because of discrimination against the unemployed and those who work out-of-field, losing most of the value of his educational investment.

What if someone just doesn't have good interviewing people skills in spite of having tremendous work ethic and productive ability?

Open your eyes to hard reality. There are a great many hard working, ambitious, moral people out there who end up living in genteel poverty in spite of their work ethic and productive ability. (On the otherhand, you can find people of lesser ability but good interviewing and schmoozing skills perhaps who earn upper middle class wages in spite of their lack of ability and work ethic.) The hard truth that many people wish to evade is that in today's American society, in today's depressed employment market, meritocracy is often a myth and often people do not get what they deserve.

Of course, if you want to believe that we have a meritorcracy as a matter of dogma or religious faith, well, then keep drinking the Kool-Aid. It's far easier to make the blanket generalization that people get what they deserve than it is to ask difficult, probing questions that often carry unpalatible implications. It's easier to pretend that your nation and it's economy are a prosperous cuckoo-cloud world than it is to face the hard reality that it's headed towards third world nationhood.

It's easier to maintain the belief that your own success was based 100% on your own effort, virtue, and ability than it is to consider how luck and the avoidance of bad luck played a large role. Consider how lucky you are to have had your personality develop so that you could naturally get people to like you during the interview process and so that you would have the right demeanor and say the right things almost naturally. People of much greater ability probably didn't get the same job simply because they didn't have the right kind of interpersonal chemistry during the interview even though they would have done a spectacular job had they been hired. Consider how lucky you are that your employer didn't go out of business or engage in mass layoffs at the beginning of the recession. Consider how lucky you are to have decent looks, a decent voice, and to not be bald (a member of the good looks lucky sperm club) and how that affected your ability to obtain employment.

Horror stories about how good people with ability and work ethic have suffered during the past couple years abound up and down the Internet. You don't have to look very hard. Try the Wall Street Journal's Career Journal website and read the stories from people over age 50. Lots of college-educated people are having trouble, including those with professional degrees and advanced degrees. Wake up and see reality.

Good post WS

"It's easier to pretend that your nation and it's economy are a prosperous cuckoo-cloud world than it is to face the hard reality that it's headed towards third world nationhood."

Like I said though, Republicans "pretend" on purpose because it doesn't affect them.

You weren't in here before the Election when they were swearing up and down that wages are going up, now of course after the Election all you see is stories of how Companies slashing wages and benefits.

I don't see the Republicans in here still swearing up and down that wages are going up anymore.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

America. The only country in the world where being poor means you only have one car instead of two.

And just as an FYI, 30% of "poor" families in the US are two car families.

It's a bitch when 2 people have to go to work with only one car. Most of the poor people around here have 3 junkers sitting around so that when one breaks down they still have 2 cars to get to work in.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

America. The only country in the world where being poor means you only have one car instead of two.

And just as an FYI, 30% of "poor" families in the US are two car families.

It's a bitch when 2 people have to go to work with only one car. Most of the poor people around here have 3 junkers sitting around so that when one breaks down they still have 2 cars to get to work in.

And many of the working poor right here in NJ -- one of the richest states in the USA -- are driving those junkers without insurance because they can't afford it and they can't afford to miss a paycheck. All because they don't earn a living wage. While CEOs make millions in pay, millions in bonuses, and millions more when they retire with their golden parachutes.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: DanJ
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: DanJ
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
From what I have heard on NPR (know for it's wacko liberal slant)
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Average rate per misperception:
Fox: 45%
CBS: 36%
CNN: 31%
ABC: 30%
NBC: 30%
Print Media: 25%
NPR/PBS: 11%

So yea, NPR is probably the crazy one. Since its viewers are the most outside of reality...oh wait no, that'd be the opposite.
The PIPA report is like kryptonite to the neocons. No wait, that would assume that they were "Supermen".
The PIPA is worth no more that a piece of sh1tter paper. I find it hilarious that some of you still think that "study" holds water. :p

CsG
And why exactly do you feel that way? Because it makes the right's propoganda machine look bad?
You hit the nail on the head. It is not flattering to the Bush flock; therefore, it is crap. Fortunately, Americans are waking up, and the ranks of the faithful are shrinking.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
PIPA is not only very damnning to them but scares the sh1t out of em too, remember after the election when TLC had a slanderous remark about the pipa study as his sig? FOR MONTHS....

oh man my sides are splitting :laugh:

We should make a whole new PIPA thread, americans need to see the ignorance even though it is too late....maybe they will think twice next time before getting duped by fox and whatever other republican-shill media they watch.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: DanJ
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: DanJ
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
From what I have heard on NPR (know for it's wacko liberal slant)
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Average rate per misperception:
Fox: 45%
CBS: 36%
CNN: 31%
ABC: 30%
NBC: 30%
Print Media: 25%
NPR/PBS: 11%

So yea, NPR is probably the crazy one. Since its viewers are the most outside of reality...oh wait no, that'd be the opposite.
The PIPA report is like kryptonite to the neocons. No wait, that would assume that they were "Supermen".
The PIPA is worth no more that a piece of sh1tter paper. I find it hilarious that some of you still think that "study" holds water. :p

CsG
And why exactly do you feel that way? Because it makes the right's propoganda machine look bad?
You hit the nail on the head. It is not flattering to the Bush flock; therefore, it is crap. Fortunately, Americans are waking up, and the ranks of the faithful are shrinking.

My stance on the pipa survey has nothing to do with the right's propaganda machine. It has to do with the left's. They take questions that are left open to interpretation and then take the "results" and proclaim X, Y, and Z. Some of which may be close and others could lead to the wrong impression. But hey, you keep reading your pipa bible if you wish. I'm sure it'll help you in '06 and '08 :laugh:

CsG