See here. The analysis says Fox was more for McCain than the other networks. That's obvious from the numbers. MSNBC had 7 negative stories for every positive one for McCain, but four positives for every negative for Obama. There is no way to explain that away as not being left-leaning. Meanwhile, Fox's numbers weren't quite so lopsided.
But Fox, when comparing its own coverage of the candidates, was itself slightly biased towards Obama with the same negative coverage, but more positive and neutral coverage for Obama. In other words, Fox wasn't right-leaning, Fox was only less left-leaning than the other networks.
So I was wrong: Fox doesn't provide a balance. The whole thing is tilted to the left.
Yeah, and Dan Rather still thinks the forged memos are authentic. CBS flat-out lied that the documents had been authenticated and that the source was unimpeachable. Just a little lie to help Kerry in the 2004 election. But they got caught.
Did you know that in today's poll, 51% believe the media was in the tank for Obama, only 7% for McCain, only about 30% said they were unbiased? Remember, this is just after the same public voted Obama into office by over 50%, so you do have Obama voters admitting the media was biased for their candidate.
That 7% was probably looking at Fox, but the 51% was looking at the left-leaning media that you think always tells you the unbiased truth.
All administrations and all congresses. The problem is somehow the blame in the public mind got shifted solely to the Republicans no matter how dirty Democratic hands were.
Biden said he'll be tested and will have to make some tough decisions, and we'll have to trust him because that he's right won't be immediately apparent.
So I'll stand behind him at least as well as Biden and other Democrats stood behind Bush with his tough decisions.
What you and others mentioned, but go back to Carter to lay the groundwork by ordering banks to make loans to people who would not normally get loans because they are poor or financially irresponsible. After that every administration, and every congress, built on it with its own mistakes.
Couple it with corporate greed and ACORN pressuring for bad loans even harder, you have a perfect storm that took 30 years to build.
It's what they say to disown any black person who has distinguished him or herself, like Powell and Rice. This way they can still claim oppressed status even with blacks achieving some of the highest offices in the country. Meanwhile, those Uncle Toms are out there achieving the American dream just as any of them could have.
But it is still one right-leaning network to several left-leaning ones, so you can rest secure that your leftist propaganda will be pushed on TV more than the rightist propaganda.
They just don't identify as such, and the public doesn't either. I can see this in my own family. Also look at Tiger Woods, only one-quarter black yet the black community sees him as black.
It seems that many blacks themselves have adopted the Jim Crow "one drop of blood" rule, at least when it's convenient.
Here's an article about a bill to legalize the reimportation of drugs.
Notice the side for cheaper imported/reimported drugs says it ends subsidies and the side against it says it will import other countries' price controls. Both sides are stating the same thing -- we subsidize the price controls of other countries. The only difference is one side wants the subsidies to continue, while the other wants it to end.
The problem is that if it ends that outlet for the violation of the laws of economics ends.
1. Government tells banks to make risky loans to people they normally wouldn't loan to.
2. People take those loans in massive numbers.
3. The loans go into default, ruining the banks.
That is the solid connection, the Law of Unintended Consequences operating on yet another well-meaning social experiment. The situation was made worse by greedy businessmen, ACORN bullying, a housing bubble and both parties resisting tighter regulation. Unfortunately on the latter, the tighter regulation is basically fixing a problem the government started in the first place, but repealing that would have been called racist.
And, yes, I can blame the poor and fiscally irresponsible for their part in this mess. If you can't afford a house and don't have the financial reserve and fiscal responsibility to keep it, don't try to buy one! I guess it's too much common sense to ask for.
I wasn't even talking about generics. I'm talking name-brand available cheaper in price-controlled countries than here. That's kind of sad/funny when you see the drug company ads convincing you not to buy them because they may not be safe, but what you buy from that Canadian pharmacy was made by that same drug company.
They have more numbers than the rich. The government enacted the law to get banks to loan them money. ACORN was a culprit, staging demonstrations and sit-ins to try to force banks to make risky loans.
Then with that foundation and regulatory scheme in place some greedy businessmen figured out they could make lots of money convincing poor people (or just people with poor fiscal responsibility) to take these risky loans and passing the risk on to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other institutions who had to show the they had so many of these loans on the books to get the government off their backs. Meanwhile, the likes of Bush, McCain and especially Ron Paul were raising alarms, but nobody, especially the paid-off Democrats like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, was listening.
Yet for some reason Democrats only remember the greedy businessmen, not the Democrats who laid the foundation.
Doctors have closed up shop in states and moved to others because baseless malpractice suits are so rampant they can't afford the malpractice insurance.
Yet when Republicans want tort reform the Lawyer industry backed Democrats stop it.
It's why the pharma companies paid Congress to make importing them illegal, and they have ads trying to convince us that it's dangerous to buy them from Canada. I'm talking the exact same drug, exact same ingredients, exact same brand, cheaper in Canada than here.
Otherwise we'd be importing our price-restricted drugs and not buying them here, which would close that one outlet the drug companies have for their profits.
Carter hardly had time to fix all the problems left over by LBJ and Nixon
You mean the Democrat LBJ who went full-blown in Vietnam based on a lie? The Republican Nixon who immediately started trying to get us out of that Democrat mess? Of course that's the same Nixon who otherwise vastly expanded the federal government, with the associated negative effects you allude to. One reasons Republicans have been screwing up lately is that they act like Democrats, thinking more government intervention is the solution, even where government intervention helped cause the problem (see current financial bailout).
Anyway, Carter apparently had plenty of time to make the problems much worse, with the help of a Democratic Congress.
People go on and on about how great Reagan was
Now just imagine if Reagan had a Republican Congress through it all.
Clinton cut government waste and turned the economy around
After he got a Republican Congress.
Carter was a successful president who did much good for the country
Yes, double-digit inflation, high unemployement, 21%+ interest rates, and a third of the 60s economic growth. I'd really like to see your definition of successful.
Bush Jr. was terrible, worse than Reagan
And he did it with a Republican Congress. Thank you for bolstering my argument.
The socialized systems put price caps on drugs, so the drug companies charge Americans more to make up for it. If America had price caps too there would be no outlet for this violation of the laws of economics, and new drugs would become scarce.
So we already pay for socialized medicine in America, just not ours.
Slashdot Mirror
And I can keep doing it with so much karma to burn.
Replacement, no.
See here. The analysis says Fox was more for McCain than the other networks. That's obvious from the numbers. MSNBC had 7 negative stories for every positive one for McCain, but four positives for every negative for Obama. There is no way to explain that away as not being left-leaning. Meanwhile, Fox's numbers weren't quite so lopsided.
But Fox, when comparing its own coverage of the candidates, was itself slightly biased towards Obama with the same negative coverage, but more positive and neutral coverage for Obama. In other words, Fox wasn't right-leaning, Fox was only less left-leaning than the other networks.
So I was wrong: Fox doesn't provide a balance. The whole thing is tilted to the left.
Ostrich. If you don't like the numbers, they must be lying.
Specifically, it was 51% of unaffiliated voters who said they were biased to Obama. Only half of Democratic voters said they were unbiased.
But Fox is outnumbered by CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC.
Yeah, and Dan Rather still thinks the forged memos are authentic. CBS flat-out lied that the documents had been authenticated and that the source was unimpeachable. Just a little lie to help Kerry in the 2004 election. But they got caught.
Did you know that in today's poll, 51% believe the media was in the tank for Obama, only 7% for McCain, only about 30% said they were unbiased? Remember, this is just after the same public voted Obama into office by over 50%, so you do have Obama voters admitting the media was biased for their candidate.
That 7% was probably looking at Fox, but the 51% was looking at the left-leaning media that you think always tells you the unbiased truth.
I have to suck it up and admit I failed myself.
All administrations and all congresses. The problem is somehow the blame in the public mind got shifted solely to the Republicans no matter how dirty Democratic hands were.
Biden said he'll be tested and will have to make some tough decisions, and we'll have to trust him because that he's right won't be immediately apparent.
So I'll stand behind him at least as well as Biden and other Democrats stood behind Bush with his tough decisions.
Congress, both under Republican and Democratic control, didn't care.
What you and others mentioned, but go back to Carter to lay the groundwork by ordering banks to make loans to people who would not normally get loans because they are poor or financially irresponsible. After that every administration, and every congress, built on it with its own mistakes.
Couple it with corporate greed and ACORN pressuring for bad loans even harder, you have a perfect storm that took 30 years to build.
It's what they say to disown any black person who has distinguished him or herself, like Powell and Rice. This way they can still claim oppressed status even with blacks achieving some of the highest offices in the country. Meanwhile, those Uncle Toms are out there achieving the American dream just as any of them could have.
I think I get it: They hate success.
By being right-leaning, Fox IS the balance.
But it is still one right-leaning network to several left-leaning ones, so you can rest secure that your leftist propaganda will be pushed on TV more than the rightist propaganda.
They just don't identify as such, and the public doesn't either. I can see this in my own family. Also look at Tiger Woods, only one-quarter black yet the black community sees him as black.
It seems that many blacks themselves have adopted the Jim Crow "one drop of blood" rule, at least when it's convenient.
Here's an article about a bill to legalize the reimportation of drugs.
Notice the side for cheaper imported/reimported drugs says it ends subsidies and the side against it says it will import other countries' price controls. Both sides are stating the same thing -- we subsidize the price controls of other countries. The only difference is one side wants the subsidies to continue, while the other wants it to end.
The problem is that if it ends that outlet for the violation of the laws of economics ends.
1. Government tells banks to make risky loans to people they normally wouldn't loan to.
2. People take those loans in massive numbers.
3. The loans go into default, ruining the banks.
That is the solid connection, the Law of Unintended Consequences operating on yet another well-meaning social experiment. The situation was made worse by greedy businessmen, ACORN bullying, a housing bubble and both parties resisting tighter regulation. Unfortunately on the latter, the tighter regulation is basically fixing a problem the government started in the first place, but repealing that would have been called racist.
And, yes, I can blame the poor and fiscally irresponsible for their part in this mess. If you can't afford a house and don't have the financial reserve and fiscal responsibility to keep it, don't try to buy one! I guess it's too much common sense to ask for.
I wasn't even talking about generics. I'm talking name-brand available cheaper in price-controlled countries than here. That's kind of sad/funny when you see the drug company ads convincing you not to buy them because they may not be safe, but what you buy from that Canadian pharmacy was made by that same drug company.
The Patriot Act was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president.
They have more numbers than the rich. The government enacted the law to get banks to loan them money. ACORN was a culprit, staging demonstrations and sit-ins to try to force banks to make risky loans.
Then with that foundation and regulatory scheme in place some greedy businessmen figured out they could make lots of money convincing poor people (or just people with poor fiscal responsibility) to take these risky loans and passing the risk on to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other institutions who had to show the they had so many of these loans on the books to get the government off their backs. Meanwhile, the likes of Bush, McCain and especially Ron Paul were raising alarms, but nobody, especially the paid-off Democrats like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, was listening.
Yet for some reason Democrats only remember the greedy businessmen, not the Democrats who laid the foundation.
Selling their drugs cheap in price-controlled countries while charging us to keep up profits is a subsidy. We pay to keep their drug prices low.
Better to get little money than none at all, especially if that foreign country decides to manufacture your drug itself despite your patents.
Doctors have closed up shop in states and moved to others because baseless malpractice suits are so rampant they can't afford the malpractice insurance.
Yet when Republicans want tort reform the Lawyer industry backed Democrats stop it.
It's why the pharma companies paid Congress to make importing them illegal, and they have ads trying to convince us that it's dangerous to buy them from Canada. I'm talking the exact same drug, exact same ingredients, exact same brand, cheaper in Canada than here.
Otherwise we'd be importing our price-restricted drugs and not buying them here, which would close that one outlet the drug companies have for their profits.
You mean the Democrat LBJ who went full-blown in Vietnam based on a lie? The Republican Nixon who immediately started trying to get us out of that Democrat mess? Of course that's the same Nixon who otherwise vastly expanded the federal government, with the associated negative effects you allude to. One reasons Republicans have been screwing up lately is that they act like Democrats, thinking more government intervention is the solution, even where government intervention helped cause the problem (see current financial bailout).
Anyway, Carter apparently had plenty of time to make the problems much worse, with the help of a Democratic Congress.
Now just imagine if Reagan had a Republican Congress through it all.
After he got a Republican Congress.
Yes, double-digit inflation, high unemployement, 21%+ interest rates, and a third of the 60s economic growth. I'd really like to see your definition of successful.
And he did it with a Republican Congress. Thank you for bolstering my argument.
The socialized systems put price caps on drugs, so the drug companies charge Americans more to make up for it. If America had price caps too there would be no outlet for this violation of the laws of economics, and new drugs would become scarce.
So we already pay for socialized medicine in America, just not ours.