This guy couldn't be stretching any more if he was trying to fit a spandex thong over his fat kiester. Went to the "internets" and in 5 seconds got the real information instead of Cenk's typical MSNBC hash job on reality.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031611/content/01125109.guest.html

Rush is quoting some environnut dimwit who is actually called in real life and complained because Japan has done all these wonderful green things, and yet still got hammered by earthquakes. So Rush is laughing at the idiot's opinion and how ridiculous it is. He's not laughing at Japan.

Cenk. Proving again and again that liberal bias is as bad or worse than anything Rush has ever said.

Reality has a well known liberal bias. If you are going to fight the liberals, you must, ipso facto, fight reality.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Totally disagree. MSNBC & Fox are peas in a pod, just on opposite sides of the pod. MSNBC doesn't lie & distort and it's hosts aren't insane? No offense, but only a person who had been braised for decades in the bile of liberal bias could possibly think that.


I dont live in the US, but from my perspective I have watched rightwing broadcasting in the US descend into utterly paranoid absurd nonsense the last 10 or so years, largely because of FOX. From my perspective, and the rest of the world,, FOX isnt even rightwing, its just insane, a network that has basically constructed its own reality that it operates within, in this pseudo-reality Reagan is still the king, False, Christian versions of the Founding Fathers were infallible gods who freed the slaves and Glenn Beck is considered sane.

The same kind of crazyness is found in places like Italy, where Berlusconi owns most of the media. Luckily there are always alternatives in the US, but because FOX have been so successful in setting up the right wing pseudo-reality far into crazy town, the balance point between left and right is now far off to the right. Everything becomes "socialist" in comparison, MSNBC, BBC, AlJazeera,CNN, compared to Fox, these are basically the red army propaganda channel compared to FOX

So which worldview do you think is closer to the truth: One where FOX is plain nuts, or one where the rest of the world are all brainwashed liberal-socialist-marxist-communist-nazi sympathizers?

Think about it.

Take Obama as an example: Now talk to ANY proffesional political analyst in the WORLD, and they would all say that Obama is a Center-leaning Democrat, more to the right than, say JFK or Jimmy Carter, for instance. But because FOX and others has, ever since Obamas campaign started, and perhaps even a bit before that, they have distorted, lied and insinuated systematically for close to 3 years now, and now you'd do extremely well to convince even one person at a tea-party rally that he isnt a reincarnation of Stalin. Just forget about even trying to place him on the political spectrum in america, Fox and friends have made him into a socialist maniac. A SANE analisys of Obama would perhaps land him as a right-center leaning democrat.. Now what does this tell you about how fucked up FOX really is?

KnivesOut?

Ah - my mistake. It was a reference to your comment, BRP.

What they did was to ask an honest question: WHY? it wasnt a pleading whimpering "ooh please dont attack our precious,frail belief/disbelief!" Quite the contrary, they wanted him to elaborate and explain why.

No - I understood quite clearly what they were saying. Their central argument was that it is wrong to impute the harshest condemnation possible on a person when you know next to nothing about them. In other words - exactly what I said... "why are you thinking bad things about us just because we believe something you don't?"

Like your rather arrogant claim that Mark, surely a dedicated Christian if there ever was one, had no idea what "true faith" was, and that you could tell us.

Christ's message in the New Testament is not complicated - and it is wholly void of instances where he marched up to someone he didn't know and told them they were eternally condemned. True Christianity (faith) does not involve such things. The guy was out of line, and out of step with true faith. That's a fact.

Its all based on arbitrary interpretations of mistranslated text, and a good chunk of wishful thinking. Your true faith is probably blasphemy to mark, who knows?

Well - I don't (and didn't) presume to say that I had all the answers. I confined my comments about the caller & hosts to the topic at hand. In the end, I can think of no instances where Christ would have done what the caller did. It is far more likely he would have dropped a fantastic parable that encouraged repentance and good deeds in opposition to just relexively following dogma. In fact the parable of the watchtower comes to mind.

Lastly, Please dont make the false comparison suggesting MSNBC is the "FOX news of the left". Its not. Its biased as hell, but its nothing like fox. It doesnt pretend to be balanced, it doesnt systematically lie and distort and its hosts are not insane conspiracy nuts. Compared to FOX, MSNBC is actually fair and balanced.

Totally disagree. MSNBC & Fox are peas in a pod, just on opposite sides of the pod. MSNBC doesn't lie & distort and it's hosts aren't insane? No offense, but only a person who had been braised for decades in the bile of liberal bias could possibly think that.

RT follows the FOX strategy of extreme bias + visceral indignation, I find it totally off putting.

I have not seen any evidence of RT pushing falsehoods as facts, but thats probably just because of reality's liberal bias.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

“What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence”
This claim has been made several times and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond personal opinion and interpretation. Obama, Frank, Ried, Pelosi, Grayson, Franken, or other liberals make outrageous statements that imply violence on a routine basis.

This claim has been made several times, and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond the mere assertion of your conclusion.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Every major point here is based on interpretation and opinion. “I see… Big lie… Armed insurrection”… There is even a statement of agreement that Bachman DIDN’T mean it ‘that way’. But the comment is held to a different standard than Obama’s. HIS rhetoric is ‘not a lie’, ‘traditional electioneering’, and a ‘transparent metaphor’. Bachman bad; Obama good; Motivation – bias.

Stating your subjective view of my motivation isn't proof that my claims of objective qualitative differences are false.

This is another of my frustrations with the way you conduct yourself here. I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

The burden of proof here is not entirely on me -- you're the one who provided the Obama quote as equivalent to Bachmann's. I think the strongest objection to it is the first one I listed, namely that it's out of context. How do we know whether Obama's meaning was "overwhelm the Republicans with volunteers and ads" and not literally "I want you to bring guns to kill Republicans with" without the context surrounding it?

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Obama's quote was a tick more inciteful than the first, Bachmann's was only a couple ticks less inciteful than the latter. I'm saying the bounds of civil conversation lies inbetween.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I see… So – just to make this clear – calling Obamacare’s rationing a ‘death panel’ where Grandma takes a pain pill and gets end-of-life counseling instead of medicine (Obama said this) is over the top.

Yep. Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said.

The other issue is, you're quoting him waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context:

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is
loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't
going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but
taking the painkiller.

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and
making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,
and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,
that's something we can achieve.

It takes removing the context to make what Obama said sound even remotely sinister. Even then, it's clear he's not saying "I reserve the right to compel doctors to pull the plug on your grandma if she doesn't meet my subjective standards on her value to society".

He's saying that we can pull the plug on paying doctors for performing treatments that have been shown to be medically ineffective, so that doctors don't have a monetary incentive to try to convince patients to undergo treatments they don't really need.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades)

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about? The employer-based insurance system that arose as an "unintended consequence" of FDR's wage controls? The one everyone was happy with, could afford, and never left anyone out?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I’ll be honest. I see this as a classic example of distortion bias. “It’s fine when WE do it because we’re RIGHT, but not when THEY do it because they’re WRONG!”

You say "classic example of distortion bias" as if that's some named phenomena. What you mean to say is that it's a double standard.

But see, you're just asserting that, not making a case for it.

I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful. He didn't say "Republicans are coming to kill you" the way the right often says of Democrats, he merely said "Republicans will leave you for dead."

That's pushing it in my view, but not because I think it runs the risk of sounding like an endorsement of violence against Republicans, but because it's an exaggeration that I think stretches the truth a bit too much.

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own, and a lot of the rhetoric was based on the idea that there is no need to address the issue of people not being able to afford medical care.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people?
1990s Contract With America. Democrats accused Newt Gingrich and the GOP congress of starving children because they wanted to make cuts in education that would have had some impact on school lunch programs.

Good on them then.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Similarly in 2010, Alan Grayson accused the GOP of starving children and women, and selling people into slavery for black market organs because they wanted to stop the fourth extension of unemployment.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But this is a great teaching moment. This is the origin of your bias. You – Netrunner – AGREE with Grayson. So when he says, “GOP is starving children”, you don’t have a problem with it. You agree with him - so when Grayson is incendiary and egregious in his rhetoric you give it a pass as ‘electioneering’ or ‘metaphor’ or a ‘joke’.

Actually no. Here's an alternative hypothesis: When someone says "So and so is murdering babies", I think it's inciteful. I don't think it's a joke, I don't think it's a metaphor, and I think you better back up your claim.

If you can't, I think you've done something wrong by saying it.

If you can, I think you've probably done something good.

"Cap and trade will be the end of freedom as we know it." Can't be backed up.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

"George W. Bush ordered the torture of Guantanamo detainees" is true, by his own admission.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I can see both sides of the debate. I disagree with liberals, but I can mentally grasp their OPINION (even if I reject it) that the conservative method (smaller government, private solutions) ‘takes away’ from social programs. So when liberals get vociferous, I am willing to cut them a little slack.

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all. I also don't think you are willing to actually engage in any sort of reasonable discussion about their criticism of the right, either. For example:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.
So – is leftist rhetoric intentionally done to rile up the crazies so they’d physically intimidate conservatives? You know – stuff like the threats against Ann Coulter that caused a college speech to be cancelled. Or when a liberal man bit off a guy’s finger because he disagreed about healthcare. Or when liberal Amy Bishop killed her co-workers. Liberal Joseph Stack flew a plane into the IRS. Liberals destroyed radio towers in Seattle. Liberals torched Hummer dealerships. Liberals beat up a conservative black man at a Tea Party. A liberal brought bombs to an RNC meeting. Liberals attacked police in Berkley. Liberals threw rocks at animal researchers. Liberals stood outside polling stations with nightsticks. A liberal shot up the Discovery Channel. A liberal said, “You’re dead!” to a Tea party leader. Liberals made death-threats against Palin. Liberals made death threats & assassination movies about Bush. A liberal shot up the war memorial. And let us not overlook the fact that Loughner is a 9/11 truther and that the left is the source for that particular 'rhetoric'.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

In case that all by itself wasn't enough:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either.
[snip]
[Y]ou can find the sources for ALL the examples of liberal violence I listed above. I’ve got the links for EVERY one of them and dozens more, but I don’t go around assuming you're an intellectual cripple that can't find them. Nor do I want to play dueling link banjos here. I extend the courtesy in an online discussion of not forcing the other guy to cite every freaking thing they say because 99 times in 100 the source just gets attacked and ignored anyway.

So what do you think you've done with the combination of these paragraphs?

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

That's not winning an argument, that's refusing to present one because you're so prejudiced you don't think you need to when dealing with people like me.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I typically don’t jump in a thread until intolerant liberal rhetoric has already reared its ugly face. Liberal intolerance is there before I say a single word. So I don’t care a fig about the leftist vitriol I get, because it is generally only a continuance of the intolerance that was there before I showed up. They don't hate 'me'. They hate the fact that I have dared to hold a mirror up on own intolerance. What they really want to be doing is feeling self-righteous as they spew intolerance at things they hate. Ol' Winstonfield popping up and spoiling the fun wasn't in their plan, and they react badly. Boo hoo.
But you are specifically accusing ME of being vitriolic. I stridently reject that position. I do no more than calmly, fairly, and accurately present an opposing point of view. I may do it sarcastically. I may point out hypocrisy. But I attack philosophies and public figures – not Sifters. Therefore the personal vitriol against myself is unwarranted and unjustified. I bring no vitriol or intolerance to the table here. The only vitriol and intolerance that exists is directed towards me.


To be frank, you're delusional about why people get mad at you. People would respond differently if you tried to actually make an argument for what you believe, instead of just telling people they're wrong and/or evil, that it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and there's no point in trying to deny it. You just did that to me here with your litany of supposed liberal crimes against humanity, with the follow-up that sources don't matter because any questioning of the veracity of your sources is proof of the dread liberal bias.

Another example: I gave 4 different reasons why I think the Bachmann and Obama quotes aren't equal. 4 distinct reasons that could all be examined and definitively addressed without making this about me personally. Instead you chose to ignore them, and accuse me of using a double standard.

If you want to show that I am engaged in a double standard, you need to make that case. You need me to define exactly what my standard is, and then show that I'm inconsistently applying it. To prove an overall bias, you need many examples where I've done so. You didn't even try to do any of that. You just leveled it as a personal attack.

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made. Think Geometry proofs, or science papers. Do they just say "The sum of the internal angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, and anyone who disagrees with me is just doing so because they hate mathematicians!" or do they lay out a proof that clearly states the assumptions and the deductive steps they followed to reach their conclusion?

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.

1. somehow they attributed this to "anti-americanism", like they hear from their right wing radios that democrats/liberals/lefties/socialists are always screaming about how terrible everything american is and burning flags, somehow in their brains un-nationalism=nationalism=fascism.

4. clinton and obama also increased military spending. we fought tons of proxy wars under the clinton administration and obama has just shifted the focus from iraq to afghanistan. and i can't argue that. they're right. even though they completely skimmed over 8 years of hyper-patriotism.

7. TSA porno-scanners. obama reauthorized the patriot act. also, can't argue with them, except theyre still ignoring the last 8 years.

8. so they're mormons, and historically, the government has interfered with the church. they see the whole prop 8 fiasco as modern day proof of that. and government is trying to legislate for the church, not the other way around.

9. no, corporate power is not protected. this socialist administration is infriging on them and the epa wants to bankrupt all the businesses.

10. unions are the enemy. nurses unions are the reason all of the hospitals in california are in trouble. labor unions are evil. theyre the mafia. blah blah blah. labor unions are fascist organizations funding the obama administration to take out the middle class. this list has a liberal bias.

11. obama killed all the student loans. there is no more access to student loans anywhere, eventhough i am currently living off of student loans. also, academia is where terrorist sympathizers hide out. which explains why her 2 most liberal children are working on graduate degrees in liberal things like physics and disability studies. and her conservative children didn't go to college. my brother and i are really the close minded fascists. if you point out my moms graduate degrees she says she got it during the clinton administration then she went and got a job with it outside of education. unlike my brother and i who don't actually have real jobs. even though my brother works for the military and the military pays for his education. nothing makes any sense.

12. they related this one to the ex con that works for my stepdad. he's finally off drugs and making an honest living and obama won't take his ankle bracelet off probably because he is a white non-violent offender. i'm not even sure what that has to do with the topic, but thats the anecdote they shared with me.

most of what they say doesnt make any sense to me. and vice versa. but i find if i break things down into really small individual issues then we agree like... climate change isnt man made... but it is bad for the planet to dump all of our trash in the ocean and bury toxic waste and cut the tops off all the mountains and burn things into the atmosphere. .... but there is not such thing as global warming.

or our border with mexico is a huge security risk and people in el paso are terrified of the drug wars raging in juarez and we need to deport all the undocumented workers and close our border for good until mexico sorts their shit out.
but women and children who flee from mexico are refugees and should be treated as such.

even when we talk about anarchism, they like anarchism. but if you were to say i was left wing and had radical leanings... they'd freak the fuck out.

so their values and morals are mostly intact, and theyre mostly just like mine... we just use different languages and theyre not worried about atrocities that happen in other places.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Wow, that's nuts. How did they spin 1, 4 and 7-12? >> ^peggedbea:
omg! i've actually gone through this exact list with her and her husband before and the most bizarre thing happened - they attached every single point to "liberals". the phenomenon here is that the language has been changed. the world "liberal" is no longer derived from the word "liberty". it simple means "ugly nazi fascist death monsters"
and the word "liberty" now means "liberty in christ".
i shoplifted a copy of "the overton window" over the summer and read it aloud to my friends, the entire thing is chocked full of doublespeak. the introduction itself is almost entirely doublespeak. and sometimes i read articles on fox's website, or the drudge report or whatever for fun. it's loaded with doublespeak. almost every article uses some device to change the meaning of language. it's brilliant.
one of my best friends brother is a linguist at UF. i'm pretty sure when those boys come back to texas for christmas we're going to have a serious discussion about this.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Have you tried explaining to her what fascism is?
Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3

Well, y'know. They have to give their ideas a fighting chance. Since reality has a well-known liberal bias...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Is this guy really being held up by the left as some sort of Big Thinker? You know he advocates torture for terrorists, right? As do I.


You really have a strange worldview. To you, "The Left" is the entire part of the world that discusses things, read books, write articles, critizise religion and dogma, thinks critically, disagrees internally and just plain THINKS, isnt it?( in addition to being all Stalin-supporters, naturally)

Your thoughts mirrors exactly Stephen Colberts rule of thumb: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"

To me, Sam Harris is a thinker, but its not because I'm "on the left" or because he is, its because he fucking thinks. I dont really care if he cheers for Sarah Palin, if his ideas are interesting and good, they are interesting and good. Why the fuck does every thinking person need to conform to your idea of some "leftist agenda"?

The use of torture is to me a question with a weird property: Its difficult to answer in principle, but easier to answer in reality. The ticking bomb example has probably never happened in real life, probably never will. The other thing is that if it ever happens, torture probably wouldn't work: imagine you had like 1 hour till the bomb goes, you got the bad guy, and start torturing, whats to stop him from giving in after 15 minutes, only to give a false address, and have the police waste another 45 minutes?

So basically I disagree with Harris on the torture question, so there you have it, qm: leftists commies disagree! its like Hitler and Stalin all over! (Except Hitler was a rabid right wing loon, but who cares, thats just in liberally biased reality.)

So you may breathe easier, I do not endorse the murder of this woman, but recognize her sociopathy will exist as long as she does. Most of the peeps furious at the idiot would not kill her, even if the State gave us permission to pull the trigger, but do not doubt their rage is real.

Humans are barely rational. To some people, cats and dogs are their "children". If the pet owners had caught the idiot in the act and beaten the crap out of her, I would be hard-pressed to convict what could be considered a "crime of passion". If they actually killed her...I dunno.

As for providing a 'conservative counterpoint' to the sift, I say what needs to be said with no concern for the outcome. People don't comment on the internet to challenge their own ideas, even if it happens from time to time.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Every day we are subjected to story after story of vile scum getting away with all manner of crimes. Too often it's actually worse for society when they are captured alive and carted off to be treated like kings, defended by an army of parasitic lawyers as a reward for breaking in to someone's house or business or physically assaulting the elderly or children, and that's just local news, ignoring the usual cadre of dick-tators/Illuminati or whomever stands in for "the forces of evil" on a global scale.
There is no moral confusion about this vid. This a crime people understand on a fundamental level, a cruel act towards a defenseless animal. There are billions of instances like this, most perhaps far worse. The cat represents ALL those abused animals and unfortunately for this idiot, she now represents ALL those human vermin that abuse animals and get away with it, except she got caught.
As for my own words:
Let us consider that we are all partially insane. It will explain us to each other; it will unriddle many riddles; it will make clear and simple many things which are involved in haunting and harassing difficulties and obscurities now.
- Mark Twain
A world where a human would get euthanized for putting a cat in a bin would be a special kind of hell. Any act that causes suffering to another being, whether its human or cat (or a cow?, or a rat? Where do you draw the line?) could fit your criteria. And what about emotional trauma? Plenty of suffering and damage is inflicted without ever laying a finger on another. Furthermore, you can't just neat and tidily remove a person from existence. What about all the people who love and depend on that person?
While it's vastly different than the policies of Hitler and Stalin, any practical attempt at applying your ideology would make you a greater tyrant and a greater enemy of freedom than all the Hitler and Stalins of the world combined. Like most of your posts, you're not providing a conservative counter balance to the liberal bias of the Sift. Your ideas are just so ridiculous that it only alienates your position.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Every day we are subjected to story after story of vile scum getting away with all manner of crimes. Too often it's actually worse for society when they are captured alive and carted off to be treated like kings, defended by an army of parasitic lawyers as a reward for breaking in to someone's house or business or physically assaulting the elderly or children, and that's just local news, ignoring the usual cadre of dick-tators/Illuminati or whomever stands in for "the forces of evil" on a global scale.
There is no moral confusion about this vid. This a crime people understand on a fundamental level, a cruel act towards a defenseless animal. There are billions of instances like this, most perhaps far worse. The cat represents ALL those abused animals and unfortunately for this idiot, she now represents ALL those human vermin that abuse animals and get away with it, except she got caught.
As for my own words:
Let us consider that we are all partially insane. It will explain us to each other; it will unriddle many riddles; it will make clear and simple many things which are involved in haunting and harassing difficulties and obscurities now.
- Mark Twain

A world where a human would get euthanized for putting a cat in a bin would be a special kind of hell. Any act that causes suffering to another being, whether its human or cat (or a cow?, or a rat? Where do you draw the line?) could fit your criteria. And what about emotional trauma? Plenty of suffering and damage is inflicted without ever laying a finger on another. Furthermore, you can't just neat and tidily remove a person from existence. What about all the people who love and depend on that person?

While it's vastly different than the policies of Hitler and Stalin, any practical attempt at applying your ideology would make you a greater tyrant and a greater enemy of freedom than all the Hitler and Stalins of the world combined. Like most of your posts, you're not providing a conservative counter balance to the liberal bias of the Sift. Your ideas are just so ridiculous that it only alienates your position.

>> ^Mashiki:

What are you talking about? The parent companies of NBC, CBS and ABC all do the same thing. The only difference is they're happily lying to your face about it.


Bzzt. Completely wrong. First, this is all a matter of public record, both on the part of Fox, and the parent companies of the other three major networks.

Second, there's a big difference on the partisan split (and total amount) of money being spent. According to CNN, we're looking at numbers like this:

News Corp (owner of Fox): $1,074,700 to Republicans, $105,500 to Democrats
(91% to Republicans)

GE (owner of NBC/MSNBC): $410,100 to Republicans, $688,900 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

Viacom (owner of CBS/Comedy Central): $64,000 to Republicans, $108,700 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

Disney (owner of ABC): $95,000 to Republicans, $110,500 to Democrats
(46% to Republicans)

Time Warner (owner of CNN): $41,500 to Republicans, $70,500 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

But wait, you're saying, doesn't this go to show there's a liberal bias in all other forms of media? No, not really. It's pretty normal for companies to tilt their spending to the party in power, especially when they hold the White House, and large majorities in both chambers of Congress.

You can identify partisan organizations by the way they always lean toward one party, regardless of their level of control over congress, or merely by the naked one-sided nature of the tilt (like 91%!). In the case of News Corp, you have both.

Oh, and a final point about the quantity of contributions. I'd note that while GE's total donation amount is comparable to News Corp's, GE isn't just a media organization, it's also a major manufacturer, and a defense contractor. If you compare them to just the pure media companies, you see that News Corp donated nearly ten times as much just to the Republican party as the next largest media company's total spending on campaign contributions.

>> ^poolcleaner:

education is a liberal plot !!


I know, especially because reality has a well-known liberal bias!

"This is not a 'tax-payer bailout' for two reasons. First, it is not a bailout. Second, it is not tax-payer funded."

I *knew* facts had a liberal bias.

Reality and history have a liberal bias, so such a journalist would be severely disadvantaged from the outset.

See Conservapedia for confirmation.