Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic > Why in the World do people think the Media is Liberal?

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: Why in the World do people think the Media is Liberal? Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
03-04-2010 07:50 PM
Jerry Bransford
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilgoretrout844 View Post
Okay my apologies But the only differance I see is one is plural and one is singular
Thank you but it's not singular vs. plural at all. People is singular, peoples is plural, and people's is possessive. People's... as in belonging to a collective, belonging to the people, etc..

Here's a dictionary definition of people's I found: Used in the possessive in Communist or left-wing countries to indicate that an institution operates under the control of or for the benefit of the people, esp. under Communist leadership): people's republic; people's army.

The use of the word People's usually indicates something to do with socialism or communism in today's world.
03-04-2010 07:45 PM
skeeter YouTube - Glenn Beck Talks About The Bald Communist And Progressives
03-04-2010 07:42 PM
kilgoretrout844 Okay my apologies But the only differance I see is one is plural and one is singular
03-04-2010 07:26 PM
tiny terror The strawmen are thick in this thread.
03-04-2010 06:57 PM
jgano23
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilgoretrout844 View Post
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

So your not for the constitution?
i would prefer it if you sang it like this:
YouTube - The Preamble
03-04-2010 06:49 PM
Jerry Bransford Re-read my first two words, don't try to twist the meaning of what I said.

And "People" is an entirely different word from "People's". There is nothing in what I wrote that I would re-word, I said exactly what & how I meant to say it. I did not use the word "people" in that context in what I wrote, I centered on the word "People's"... a very different word.
03-04-2010 06:47 PM
kilgoretrout844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Bransford View Post
Not necessarily but the word "people's" is commonly used by socialist and communist organizations. People's Paradise, People's Republic of China, people's revolution, People's Daily (the Communist Chinese daily newspaper) etc.

And Zinn's People's History of the United States is exactly that, it was written "through the eyes of working people, rather than political and economic elites". It is a well known socialist-leaning with progressive labor as a central theme and was never intended by Zinn to be anything but that. His book centers around the history of the U.S. as seen by workers & uses that as a way to show that American workers are "oppressed".

That book is not even disguised to be anything but a very left socialist centered history as seen by the workers. There is a lot of history behind the use of the word 'worker' by everybody from communist and socialists like Socialist Workers Party. Even the NAZI term stood for National Socialist German Worker's Party.

If it says Socialist, Worker, or People's anything, it's not going to get my vote or support.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

So your not for the constitution?
03-04-2010 06:33 PM
Jerry Bransford
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilgoretrout844 View Post
I think I misunderstood what you last said. I thought you were jokeing about my forgetting to put the ' in people's. Did you mean useing the term people is a socialist thing?
Not necessarily but the word "people's" is commonly used by socialist and communist organizations. People's Paradise, People's Republic of China, people's revolution, People's Daily (the Communist Chinese daily newspaper) etc.

And Zinn's People's History of the United States is exactly that, it was written "through the eyes of working people, rather than political and economic elites". It is a well known socialist-leaning "history" with progressive labor as a central theme and was never intended by Zinn to be anything but that. His book centers around the history of the U.S. as seen by workers & uses that as a way to show that American workers are "oppressed".

That book was not disguised to be anything but a very left socialist centered history as seen by the workers. There is a lot of history behind the use of the word 'worker' by everybody from communist and socialists like Socialist Workers Party. Even the NAZI term stood for National Socialist German Worker's Party.

If it says Socialist, Worker, or People's anything, it's not going to get my vote or support.
03-04-2010 06:19 PM
kilgoretrout844 I think I misunderstood what you last said. I thought you were jokeing about my forgetting to put the ' in people's. Did you mean useing the term people is a socialist thing?
03-04-2010 06:02 PM
kilgoretrout844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Bransford View Post
I dunno but anytime I see the word "Peoples" used as in A People's History of the U.S. I look to see if it was published by The Socialist Workers Party, the Chinese, Cuba, etc.
lol no just my lazy typeing, check it out sometime very good book
03-04-2010 05:25 PM
Jerry Bransford
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilgoretrout844 View Post
If you were interested in any of my favorite historians check out anything by Howard Zinn, specifically A Peoples History Of The United States, one of my favorite books of all time.
I dunno but anytime I see the word "Peoples" used as in A People's History of the U.S. I look to see if it was published by The Socialist Workers Party, the Chinese, Cuba, etc.
03-04-2010 04:39 PM
kilgoretrout844
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
Anyone that subscribes to marxist, socialist, fascist, communist philosophy is by definition, "a pinko". They have no place at the federal level.
States can implement socialist policies, and in fact, I believe we should have some level of safety nets in place at the state and local level but the restrictions on federal authority were put in place for very good reason, we are fools when we allow them to be lifted or ignored.

You're correct that socialism has been creeping into our system for a long time. The progressive movement has been trying to convert us to socialism for more than 100 years and they have never given up, they went under ground for awhile but they're back in force.

Read up on Cloward and Piven. Read Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals. Read up on George Soros.
American Thinker: The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
Will do my friend, I am always up for some new reads. If you were interested in any of my favorite historians check out anything by Howard Zinn, specifically A Peoples History Of The United States, one of my favorite books of all time.

I see your signature is by Ayn Rand, you read much of her stuff? I have the early Ayn Rand, a collection of alot of her early work, read quite a bit of it. I read a book she did the forward in called The ominous parallels, I cant remember who wrote it though.
03-04-2010 12:49 PM
GroceryGrabber The 9th and 10th got added to the Constitution due to fear that the Constitution granted the Federal Government too much power. They were right. But the thing that's interesting to think about is before the current Constition was drafted, the Articles of Confederation granted 0 power to the Feds.

Our Founders would be considered "right wing EXTREMISTS" or "Domestic Terrorists" by today's standards.
03-04-2010 11:49 AM
Hilldweller
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroceryGrabber View Post
better yet. Read The Federalist Papers and get the thought and intent on what our Federal Government is SUPPOSED to look like.
Don't forget that there were some new ideas that popped up around 1865; states' rights were, ummmmm, amended.
03-04-2010 10:42 AM
GroceryGrabber
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
Anyone that subscribes to marxist, socialist, fascist, communist philosophy is by definition, "a pinko". They have no place at the federal level

You're correct that socialism has been creeping into our system for a long time. The progressive movement has been trying to convert us to socialism for more than 100 years and they have never given up, they went under ground for awhile but they're back in force.

Read up on Cloward and Piven. Read Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals. Read up on George Soros.
American Thinker: The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
better yet. Read The Federalist Papers and get the thought and intent on what our Federal Government is SUPPOSED to look like.
03-04-2010 08:50 AM
skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilgoretrout844 View Post
hmmm sorry man not seeing it. Just because someone isnt a straight up goldwater repbulican does not make them a pinko. There have been plenty examples of marxist philosophy in our system for a long long time, and until the soviet union was a threat and communism was a scary bad word, the socialist party in america had quite a following.

Some people agree with what they hear on the news and radio, you agree with some people, probably not the same people I agree with, but I doubt you agree with the same people that I do. Thats America, and I guess we can agree to disagree
Anyone that subscribes to marxist, socialist, fascist, communist philosophy is by definition, "a pinko". They have no place at the federal level.
States can implement socialist policies, and in fact, I believe we should have some level of safety nets in place at the state and local level but the restrictions on federal authority were put in place for very good reason, we are fools when we allow them to be lifted or ignored.

You're correct that socialism has been creeping into our system for a long time. The progressive movement has been trying to convert us to socialism for more than 100 years and they have never given up, they went under ground for awhile but they're back in force.

Read up on Cloward and Piven. Read Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals. Read up on George Soros.
American Thinker: The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
03-04-2010 06:48 AM
kilgoretrout844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Dodgers View Post
Why is it when some one disagrees with a lib it's called "HATE". Get off of it would ya. You want hate? Ask a black man what it was like growing up in the deep south in the 50's and 60's. Or ask a Jew what it was like in Germany in the 40's. Then spout your hate crap. Most people have not got a clue as to what real hate is.

You disagree with me you're a "hater". Waaaaa grow up for crying out loud.
I did not mean to use hate in the same context as your thinking, perhaps complain "waaaa" is more what i was looking for.... I dont take bickering in politics on either side to seriously. I know what my values are are, and what I think is right. I respect everyones opinion and belive it to be very valid, and would never tell anyone to grow up for what they belive in. All I was doing was trying to defend the fact that there is just as much conservitive media and there is liberal. I could be wrong, I never ride that high of a horse, skeeter showed me so pretty good facts I have not seen before and my stance on what I said earlier might have changed somewhat. I know my history I dont need a crash course from you on the oppression of peoples throughout time
03-04-2010 05:58 AM
GroceryGrabber I don't understand why ppl complain "this newspaper I'd Leftist" or "this news channel is way Conservative." yeah. Fox is right of center. So? MSNBC is left of center. Each channel or news paper is bias for the most part.

I usually watch Fox News. I'm Libertarian, so I agree with lots of what's being said, except the religious/Pro-Life stuff. That's why I watch it. Although I do like to check out MSNBC every once and awhile just to look at what the Socialists are thinking lol!

As for the anti-gun stuff that started this...face it, that's how the Left is. They're like that with everything. The Right is starting to get involved too. They just want control of everything. "you can't have this, you can't do that, no buying this, tax that, blah blah blah" the government loves making choices for you, and try to protect you from yourself.
03-04-2010 12:58 AM
Manolito I have been reading the news from England and Australia. It is interesting to see a different perspective. I am glad I have choices. I think a little shift to the right would be good for the country but that seems to be a natural progression as one gets older. I live in California in a county that issues CCW permits and Nevada is a must issue state and I can't find a single article to support shootings have gone up with the increase in permits. The second ammendment is clear if you note the comma after the word Malitia.
I see a lot of similarities between off road discussions and weapons discussions. When I ask the other side to show me damage done by Jeeps and not a single instance has been presented only emotional opinions. I don't think the Government should be allowed to take away our right to public lands or weapons. Just my $.02
Bill
03-03-2010 11:51 PM
debruins I read somewhere that more people between the ages of 18-25 get there news from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report than any other news shows. This, according to the article, is because they are not biased towards a particular side, but rather tell the funny bits of the news. There is no everyone is going to die! scare tactics that regular media uses, and no bias towards liberal or conservative.
not sure if that is accurate or if it is because they are funny but thats what the article said.
03-03-2010 11:37 PM
Duck Dodgers
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilgoretrout844 View Post
I get a kick out of the people who hate on the "liberal media" then go put on sean hannity for some real news...give me a break.
Why is it when some one disagrees with a lib it's called "HATE". Get off of it would ya. You want hate? Ask a black man what it was like growing up in the deep south in the 50's and 60's. Or ask a Jew what it was like in Germany in the 40's. Then spout your hate crap. Most people have not got a clue as to what real hate is.

You disagree with me you're a "hater". Waaaaa grow up for crying out loud.
03-03-2010 10:07 PM
kilgoretrout844 hmmm sorry man not seeing it. Just because someone isnt a straight up goldwater repbulican does not make them a pinko. There have been plenty examples of marxist philosophy in our system for a long long time, and until the soviet union was a threat and communism was a scary bad word, the socialist party in america had quite a following.

Some people agree with what they hear on the news and radio, you agree with some people, probably not the same people I agree with, but I doubt you agree with the same people that I do. Thats America, and I guess we can agree to disagree
03-03-2010 09:40 PM
skeeter I'm not saying the media leans towards the administration. I'm saying there is an obvious liberal bent to the media.
Marxism, socialism, communism, progressivism. birds of a feather flock together.
It has nothing to do with any particular racial or national group, it's a political philosophy.
It has nothing to do with some grand conspiracy in most cases, although the soviets were quite open in saying they would take us over from the inside by taking over our schools and media.
03-03-2010 09:22 PM
kilgoretrout844 Well I will give it to you, you are doing your homework Let me give you the upper hand for a minute, and lets say most of the media is this big left wing conspiracy....Why?

The media is no differant today than it was is 2005 2000 or 1995? So if you are trying to say the media leans towards the presidential administration its fairly obvious thats not the case.

Who runs the networks that these shows are aired on? All the networks mentioned earlier except for fox are owned by jewish americans...and I will not touch that subject. Fox however owned by Rupert Murdoch a known conservitive, has numerous shareholders, one being prince Al-Waleed bin Talaal of the royal family of Saudi Arabia..wont touch that one either. What does all that mean? I dont know, I will not speak of some secreat plot by isreal to brainwash us all, and the saudi connection with fox?? I dont believe any of that conspiricy. I think its just smart investors, as jews, and rich saudi's are known to be, buying stakes in companys.

If the media is putting out this leftist message what is their agenda and who is pulling the strings?? back to you lol
03-03-2010 08:27 PM
skeeter While print is still alive I definitely wouldn't say it's well. Readership is down dramatically and the usual phrase is "main stream media". I wouldn't call internet blogs or even news rags "main stream".
But why don't we look at polls of news people...

Media Bias 101: What Journalists Really Think -- and What the Public Thinks About the Media
03-03-2010 07:54 PM
kilgoretrout844 media stretches further than just the idiot box and airwaves, print is still alive and well, and while there are plenty of obviously liberal print journalism, there is plenty thats conservitive....wall street journal, washington times, new york post. Online you will find many such as the drudge report, world net daily and, newsmax. I dont see where abc and cnn are overly liberal, I wouldnt say they are right winged either just pretty much in the middle.
03-03-2010 07:54 PM
jpdocdave
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Bransford View Post
It's a fact that Chicago's homicide rate actually increased after the gun ban went into effect and continues to be higher.
and to reciprocate, what are the statistics in conceal carry areas?
03-03-2010 07:48 PM
Jerry Bransford
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdocdave View Post
as far as the topic of the article goes i get to hear it everyday living in a suburb of chicago. and the mayor is whining everyday and has been as long as i can remember to keep gun control and expand on it. he is all for the "ban" and what boggles my mind is this unconstitutional "ban" has been in place for 28 yrs????

do criminals care if hand guns are illegal?? actually maybe they do, since they prefer unarmed victims, they most likely prefer the ban as well. every morning on the news a gun went off somewhere, and there should be more gun control, i am not exaggerating.

i used to think there is just a lack of common sense in our government, but i think its more than that, they know what they're doing.
It's a fact that Chicago's homicide rate actually increased after the gun ban went into effect and continues to be higher.
03-03-2010 07:40 PM
skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilgoretrout844 View Post
I realize these people are not true unbiased newcasters (though im sure there are people who do not). They are however part of the American media. Being a commentator is just as much being a part of the media as being on the nine oclock news. My point I was trying to get across is to call the media liberal is wrong, there is just as much conservitive media as there is liberal.
NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX broadcast, liberal. Programming as well as news.

FOX news, fairly conservative though they generally have liberals on for counterpoint...not aware of any others outside of AM radio so I'm not seeing the balance you do.
Am I missing something?
03-03-2010 07:38 PM
kilgoretrout844
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdocdave View Post
as far as the topic of the article goes i get to hear it everyday living in a suburb of chicago. and the mayor is whining everyday and has been as long as i can remember to keep gun control and expand on it. he is all for the "ban" and what boggles my mind is this unconstitutional "ban" has been in place for 28 yrs????

do criminals care if hand guns are illegal?? actually maybe they do, since they prefer unarmed victims, they most likely prefer the ban as well. every morning on the news a gun went off somewhere, and there should be more gun control, i am not exaggerating.

i used to think there is just a lack of common sense in our government, but i think its more than that, they know what they're doing.

I agree man, the day guns are banned the only people that will have them is the people who were not supposed to have them in the first place.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41 PM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC