Before Any of You Pull that Lever...

[Dementia_Madness]

Actually Ncvol, IF you are honest  It's NOT that FOX is "Fair and Balanced" simply that they are MORE-SO than the rest, in the end they lean as much to the left than to the right on many issues, don't believe me their golden child is O'Reilly... Fox may be "more conservative" than msnbc, but then again so is CNN.  I dont entirely agree with this article...but it is somewhat right in some ways.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/10/21/How-Liberal-Bias-Made-Fox-News-the-GOP-Network.aspx#page1

[Fox] seemed more conservative than it was in the beginning because the rest of the media tilted left.

So in the end we can judge by comparison...it's not that FOX is actually ultra conservative....it's simply the ULTRA left view that dominates MOST of the OTHER Main Stream media  outlets gives it that appearance. I disagree that the media has shifted that much to the middle... but I do see that FOX is not completely in the middle either and therefore cannot be truly fair and balanced...it leans right...so is slightly unbalanced. The alternative is not even close.

[Dementia_Madness]

My point was more about this sense of faith Gingrinch has implied that he now has, but he never mentions it. Santorum stands up there and tells people he's a Christian. Romney stands up there and tells people he's a Mormom. Paul doesn't say much about it either. If you can't proclaim the faith you have for fear of not getting more votes, that says a lot about a person too.

How many times has Obama proclaimed his "faith", how many churches has he stood in front of, how often has he made arguments based on HIS Christian faith? Does that change how you feel about him? Proclaiming faith is EASY...Charles Manson could proclaim faith in Christ... If people have to continually tell me they are a Christian, there is a problem there. I am not defending Newt, nor am I saying I support him or will vote for him....but I would prefer him not proclaim Christ a thousand times a day, and then turn around and show the world that he is an Obama-ish self-righteous humanist, a liar, or a thug, that does nothing to glorify God, and only serves as a stumbling block to others.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

It's NOT that FOX is "Fair and Balanced" simply that they are MORE-SO than the rest, in the end they lean as much to the left than to the right on many issues,

 

DM and I simply do not live on the same planet. I'm not sure where he lives, but it isn't Earth. 

[NCVol]

Actually Ncvol, IF you are honest  It's NOT that FOX is "Fair and Balanced" simply that they are MORE-SO than the rest, in the end they lean as much to the left than to the right on many issues, don't believe me their golden child is O'Reilly... Fox may be "more conservative" than msnbc, but then again so is CNN.  I dont entirely agree with this article...but it is somewhat right in some ways.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/10/21/How-Liberal-Bias-Made-Fox-News-the-GOP-Network.aspx#page1

So in the end we can judge by comparison...it's not that FOX is actually ultra conservative....it's simply the ULTRA left view that dominates MOST of the OTHER Main Stream media  outlets gives it that appearance. I disagree that the media has shifted that much to the middle... but I do see that FOX is not completely in the middle either and therefore cannot be truly fair and balanced...it leans right...so is slightly unbalanced. The alternative is not even close.

You're hilarious.  The article is by Bruce Bartlett, adviser to Reagan.  And he perfectly makes my point:  

Unfortunately, over time, this has created a bubble in which conservatives are shielded from facts that contradict their worldview or hear them only when accompanied by a commentary that explains them away. This is why crazy conservative ideas continue to circulate long after they have been definitively refuted. The myth that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, for example, still continues to be believed by many conservatives despite the release of his birth certificate by the state of Hawaii.

During the time Fox has been on the air, it has transformed from a balanced network that gave equal time to conservative news and other viewpoints to one that is primarily just conservative. In the beginning it seemed more conservative than it was because the rest of the media tilted left. Thus just being in the center of the political spectrum put one to the right of the major media.

Partly because of Fox, however, the major media shifted more toward the middle than they used to be. This led Fox to move further to the right to maintain the space between itself and its competitors. Consequently, it has ceased being fair and balanced and is, essentially, the Republican news network.

But at least we finally agree on something!!!  

The final conclusion is a zinger!  

I think it’s dangerous for democracy when so many members of one political party self-propagandize themselves by walling themselves off from any view or fact other than those they already know and believe. But there's no easy remedy. Bringing back the fairness doctrine is a bad idea and the First Amendment protects Fox’s right to present whatever news it feels like, with whatever bias it wants. But just because something is permissible doesn’t make it right.

[Sasquatch]

I left MSM in there, which would cover ABC, but Fox isn't generally considered part of it by GOPers.  They're fair and balanced, the rest of the media is librul and obviously biased. 

You do realize that it has been "scientifically" proven by Satoshi Kanazawa that the media is liberal and controlled by liberals don't you? 

Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives.  Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions.  The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints.  Liberals do control the media...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

[NCVol]

I'm not getting in that debate.  My own view is conservatives are primarily distinguishable as authoritarians... leaders or followers.   

I mean, seriously, the best way to appeal to the modern conservative is to be a bombastic, uncompromising, my way or the highway, I'm right, you're wrong, yeah I said it! F all you other people, a$$, 24-7.  You'll sell books, win votes, win debates and especially win the undying affection of the GOP base!  Just listen to 15 minutes of right wing radio and you'll see what I mean! 

"YOU LIE!" 

HELL YEAH here's some money JOE!!!   

Newt gets this - heck, he probably won S.C. by tar feathering John King when he lobbed that softball about his open marriage to open that debate. 

[CD]

Need we present the long and bloody history of leftist authoritarianism?

[Charleston]

Newt gets this - heck, he probably won S.C. by tar feathering John King when he lobbed that softball about his open marriage to open that debate. 

Newt won SC by attacking the liberal media and Obama's policies.  Something no one else in the Reblican establishment will not do and still have not after 2 more debates this week.  King made the mistake and opened the door and Blitzer was in charge last night. 

Romney, his new debate instructor, and the establishment in the Republican party appear to have Florida wrapped up unless some new mudd is thrown onto Romney this weekend or Santorum drops out.  If Santorum drops out, I believe his 11% of the Floridian votes will go to Newt since he has campaigned as a conservative Christian. 

Also, Rush Limbaugh is a Floridian and will vote in this primary.  He will let his listeners know who he is voting for next week before the election on his show.  Since Rush despises McCain and McCain is for Romney, I can see him voting for Santorum or Newt. I think it would be a cold day in Hell before he voted for Romney.  It will be interesting to see if his radio voice has the powerful influence some believe it has and if it can impact a voting public.
   

[NCVol]

Need we present the long and bloody history of leftist authoritarianism?

I think the topic is interesting, but I don't think it's a good one to debate.  The way I'd use authoritarianism, by definition, the leaders and followers are right wingers, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a political philosophy such as liberal or conservative as we use those terms, since those terms essentially have little meaning. So to debate it we'd have to define "leftist" and conservative, and authoritarian etc., and then argue whether the Nazi's (there's socialist right there in the name!!) were right wingers or leftists, etc. 

But if anyone's actually interested, here's John Dean of Watergate fame talking specifically about the authoritarian Newt Gingrich.  There's part 1 and 2 as well.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070925.html

Here's a book length discussion http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[CD]

Gee, NCVol, you don’t accept, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., as leftists in the Left’s Hall of Fame (Shame)? I do. You don’t think Communism is a leftist ideology? I do. (We won’t mention Hitler and the Nazi’s. Most leftists are a bit touchy about that National Socialist thing (though you mentioned it)).

“The way I'd use authoritarianism, by definition, the leaders and followers are right wingers, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a political philosophy such as liberal or conservative as we use those terms, since those terms essentially have little meaning. So to debate it we'd have to define "leftist" and conservative, and authoritarian etc., and then argue whether the Nazi's (there's socialist right there in the name!!) were right wingers or leftists, etc.” - NCVol

Wow! That is one heluva attempt at obfuscation. But like a pretzel, it twists and turns, and is full of holes. Too many to address all at once.

So let’s start with this : “by definition, the leaders and followers [of authoritarianism] are right wingers”. By whose “definition”? Not by any credible definition I have ever heard or read.

Then you follow that doozy with, “but that doesn't necessarily equate to a political philosophy such as liberal or conservative as we use those terms, since those terms essentially have little meaning.” Well, then, who and what are the “right-wingers” that you just said were “by definition” the leaders and followers of authoritarianism? It must logically follow that the term “right-winger” “essentially has little meaning”. But if so, then how can your “definition” have any meaning at all?

Sorry, but that post of yours is a real jewel of leftist doublespeak, clearly intended to blur the bloody history of leftist authoritarianism by implying that, well, it’s very difficult to be clear about that whole bloody leftist authoritarian thing because, see, the terms are so muddled, and we really need to define what “is” is first.

Nope. It is all well and good to academically analyze fine differences between Leftist, Progressive, Socialist, Communist (Democrat), etc. But they all belong to the same genus, and they are all ultimately authoritarian and bloody in time. But even if they were not bloody (which they certainly are), anyone with an ounce of understanding of Liberty would soundly and roundly reject them, by whatever label they choose at a particular time, in a particular place.

And you close with something about the “authoritarian” Newt Gingrich? Are you serious? Good heavens, sir! My Catholic school nun teachers were “authoritarians” in that sense! Believe me! But neither Newt nor Sister Mary Elizabeth has anything to do with the topic at hand. Well, it was another go at changing the subject, right?