I disagree with the entire conception of a liberal "bias". There definitely seem to be more liberal-minded people here, and liberal political videos fare much better than conservative ones, but that doesn't make Videosift "biased", it just means it's a community that's largely populated with liberals.

As far as your response on #2, that's a pretty flimsy justification for trying to assert that the entirety of liberals don't work and are dependent on government, and refuse to take responsibility for their lives.

As far as having a sense of humor, I can most certainly take a joke, but conservatives say this kind of deeply insulting, ridiculously bigoted and prejudicial shit all the time, and then try pass it off as some sort of joke. They seem happy enough to say it without an ounce of mirth when they think they're safely ensconced in a conservatives-only setting.

>> ^deedub81:

#1 is true "on videosift" as I asserted. I stand behind that statement. Nothing wrong with it, just the way it is. Do you disagree?
#2 The reason why this stereotype exists is because lower-income voters (those with a household income of fewer than $30,000 per year) lean HEAVILY to the left and favor the democrat party by a margin of 17 points.
My original comment was completely tongue-in-cheek, playing on the stereotypes about a liberal bias and lazy welfare loafers but you looked right past it and accused me of being shortsighted myself. You obviously don't have a sense of humor when it comes to politics. I'll be more careful in the future.

#1 is true "on videosift" as I asserted. I stand behind that statement. Nothing wrong with it, just the way it is. Do you disagree?

#2 The reason why this stereotype exists is because lower-income voters (those with a household income of fewer than $30,000 per year) lean HEAVILY to the left and favor the democrat party by a margin of 17 points.

My original comment was completely tongue-in-cheek, playing on the stereotypes about a liberal bias and lazy welfare loafers but you looked right past it and accused me of being shortsighted myself. You obviously don't have a sense of humor when it comes to politics. I'll be more careful in the future.
>> ^NetRunner:

Oh, I agree, they're not completely uniform, but most of the time it's just a difference in intensity, rather than some substantively unique outlook on the world.
In the narrow scope of my earlier comment, I was defining conservative as believing in one or more of the fairytales the social group known as "conservatives" like to tell themselves. You espoused two:

1. That "liberal bias" exists.
   
2. That liberals are lazy lieabouts who don't work for a living.
   

Oh, I agree, they're not completely uniform, but most of the time it's just a difference in intensity, rather than some substantively unique outlook on the world.

In the narrow scope of my earlier comment, I was defining conservative as believing in one or more of the fairytales the social group known as "conservatives" like to tell themselves. You espoused two:

1. That "liberal bias" exists.
   
2. That liberals are lazy lieabouts who don't work for a living.
   

Reality has a liberal bias. It's a well-known internet fact, since Abraham Lincoln first wrote it on usenet in misc.facts.
>> ^deedub81:

Question: The reason why there are WAY more liberal biased videos on videosift is.....
A) ...that there are simply more liberals than conservatives in the US.
B) ...that Romney was right about the 47% and they spend fewer hours actually working and contributing to society, therefore, they're online more often.

Everyone knows, facts have a liberal bias.

The truth has a well known liberal bias, eh?

>> ^shinyblurry:

You've all been had:
http://videosift.com/video/MSNBC-Caught-Doctoring-Clip-From-Romne
y-Ryan-Rally
If you want proof of liberal bias in the media, there it is.


So the people at a Romney rally are so stupid they don't even know how to chant correctly, something any number of completely drunk footie fans are able to do every match.

You've all been had:

http://videosift.com/video/MSNBC-Caught-Doctoring-Clip-From-Romney-Ryan-Rally

If you want proof of liberal bias in the media, there it is.

reductio ad hitlerum.

Oh no no, no liberal bias here. Not at all.

Firstly he isn't giving any credit to Hitler. He may have been able to phrase it better though. eg "the Germans back in WW2 etc". Secondly, even if he had been giving any kudos to Hitler what does it fucking matter if the context is sound. Hitler was great at speeches. Doesn't mean I subscribe to the contents of those speeches.

There is plenty of REAL things to disagree with Romney on. We don't need to invent absurd ones that detract from the actual issues.

In other news - "Is Obama a muslim?"

This guy who? The guy who doesn't understand what "Liberal" means?

Not sure who you're referring to.

The Left in this country doesn't exist at the top level.

That's hard to believe with Obama in the Red House and Congress under taxocrat control since 2006.

Which is why everything that occupy accomplished isn't reported on. And yeah I know you're going to say "They didn't accomplish anything" you believe that because you don't actually know the facts of the situation. You would if their was a Left Wing bias in the media.

Well, here's your chance. List 3 things the occupoopers accomplished. Hope these achievements outweigh the chaos, drug-dealing, rapes and deaths it caused, plus the expense of keeping society safe from these trust fund barbarians and other nogoodniks












>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The liberal bias exists enough for this guy to have noticed it in his 30 years at CBS.
Are we counting NPR and PBS? Moyers and Suzuki selling Left on the taxpayer dime?
Chomsky? No thanks. It's hard to believe a wealth redistribution socialist who protects his own assets with a trust.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
FOX reveals the rest of the media for what they are and have been from the start: propagandists for taxocrats and left-wing dogma. And that's not counting the fools in hollywood.
The whole 'Liberal is to "WHAT bias?" as Fish is to "WHAT water?"' will not be rehashed here.
Koppel and Friends failed the American people before there was even a FOX. They lost the trust (and ratings) through their own betrayal of objective journalism.

Actually it will be rehashed here. The "Liberal Bias" does not exist in any study that has been done about it. What has been found is a bias for the State, and War, and a defense of what America does regardless of consequences.
Pick up some Chomsky QM.


This guy who? The guy who doesn't understand what "Liberal" means? The Left in this country doesn't exist at the top level. Which is why everything that occupy accomplished isn't reported on. And yeah I know you're going to say "They didn't accomplish anything" you believe that because you don't actually know the facts of the situation. You would if their was a Left Wing bias in the media.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The liberal bias exists enough for this guy to have noticed it in his 30 years at CBS.
Are we counting NPR and PBS? Moyers and Suzuki selling Left on the taxpayer dime?
Chomsky? No thanks. It's hard to believe a wealth redistribution socialist who protects his own assets with a trust.


>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
FOX reveals the rest of the media for what they are and have been from the start: propagandists for taxocrats and left-wing dogma. And that's not counting the fools in hollywood.
The whole 'Liberal is to "WHAT bias?" as Fish is to "WHAT water?"' will not be rehashed here.
Koppel and Friends failed the American people before there was even a FOX. They lost the trust (and ratings) through their own betrayal of objective journalism.

Actually it will be rehashed here. The "Liberal Bias" does not exist in any study that has been done about it. What has been found is a bias for the State, and War, and a defense of what America does regardless of consequences.
Pick up some Chomsky QM.



This guy who? The guy who doesn't understand what "Liberal" means? The Left in this country doesn't exist at the top level. Which is why everything that occupy accomplished isn't reported on. And yeah I know you're going to say "They didn't accomplish anything" you believe that because you don't actually know the facts of the situation. You would if their was a Left Wing bias in the media.

The liberal bias exists enough for this guy to have noticed it in his 30 years at CBS.

Are we counting NPR and PBS? Moyers and Suzuki selling Left on the taxpayer dime?

Chomsky? No thanks. It's hard to believe a wealth redistribution socialist who protects his own assets with a trust.





>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
FOX reveals the rest of the media for what they are and have been from the start: propagandists for taxocrats and left-wing dogma. And that's not counting the fools in hollywood.
The whole 'Liberal is to "WHAT bias?" as Fish is to "WHAT water?"' will not be rehashed here.
Koppel and Friends failed the American people before there was even a FOX. They lost the trust (and ratings) through their own betrayal of objective journalism.

Actually it will be rehashed here. The "Liberal Bias" does not exist in any study that has been done about it. What has been found is a bias for the State, and War, and a defense of what America does regardless of consequences.
Pick up some Chomsky QM.

There's a reason America doesn't trust the mainstream media anymore and it not just one organization:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx?ref=image

Yes, Fox has an obvious conservative bias and most of the other networks have an obvious liberal bias. If you want proof of a liberal bias, watch the Univision forum interview with President Obama:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81470.html

Contrasting it to the softball interviews he usually gets, it's amazing to watch the president get grilled like that. Amazing because if you've been relying on the mainstream press for your information, you have forgotten what real journalism looks like. It's also proof positive of the free ride that President Obama has been getting since 2008. Yes Fox News is guilty of the very same thing on the other side of it.

But it's almost criminal when you consider how the mainstream press has been carrying water for President Obamas narrative about the video being the cause of the Libyan embassy attack, when it was obvious from the start it was a terrorist attack. I think they've been suppressing the story so as not to damage his re-election chances. What I mean by that is they didn't want to tread on the campaign narrative of President Obama being some kind of foreign policy giant, and that he had the Muslim problem solved. Obviously he hasn't solved that problem, and killing Osama Bin Laden didn't defeat Al Qeada. His systematic withdrawal of American influence from the region has left a power vacuum that groups like the Muslim brotherhood and Hezbollah have been more than happy to fill. Coupled with the Iranian nuclear threat and the failure of the sanctions to stop them, you have an unmitigated disaster on foreign policy, but out of the mainstream press you hear not a peep. If any of this happened under Bush the press would have murdered him but in this case they are running defense because they want to keep their guy in office. Considering all of this I don't think they have much credibility left.

>> ^quantumushroom:

FOX reveals the rest of the media for what they are and have been from the start: propagandists for taxocrats and left-wing dogma. And that's not counting the fools in hollywood.
The whole 'Liberal is to "WHAT bias?" as Fish is to "WHAT water?"' will not be rehashed here.
Koppel and Friends failed the American people before there was even a FOX. They lost the trust (and ratings) through their own betrayal of objective journalism.


Actually it will be rehashed here. The "Liberal Bias" does not exist in any study that has been done about it. What has been found is a bias for the State, and War, and a defense of what America does regardless of consequences.

Pick up some Chomsky QM.