To act as if the entire argument for gun ownership rests upon this principle is ignorant. Have you read "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott? The evidence provided in that study is the crux of the anti-gun control argument. If so, you probably also know that nobody has ever done a study as big as the one he did and been able to disprove his thesis. Anyways, I don't know how this turned into a "liberal media" discussion, but let me explain what I see as "liberal media." Anyways, the people of Iraq DID try to rise up against Saddam after the Gulf War, but they were massacred.
Liberal media exists because the vast majority of journalists are liberal, and like any other human being, their personal spin influences the words they use in reports. It's not some big, grand conspiracy, it just happens. I mean, look at all of the newspapers that compared this war to Vietnam one week in, it was as if the authors were looking for nostalgia or something. Using terms like "bogged down" and "ferocious fighting", etc, gives people the impression the war is going badly, when it's pretty clear that the opposite is true. Let me give you an example: Over 10 years, in a nexis-lexis search of the L.A. Times, the term "hardline conservative" was used 79 times, while "hardline liberal" was used twice. This isn't because the staff is consciously trying to make conservatives look bad, they just naturally see conservatives as being hard line. And anyone trying to argue that the New York Times isn't a liberal paper is as dazed and confused as anyone that claims that Fox News is "balanced". In 1992, 89% of journalists in Washington D.C. voted for Clinton. Now, are you going to tell me that they were able to completely ignore those feelings when they report on things like welfare, abortion, and tax cuts?
Media bias is no longer an issue now that Fox News exists. People are turning to Fox in droves, while the major networks lose ratings. In radio, conservatives have been massively succesful, while liberals haven't been able to draw flies. Now with O`Reilly destroying anything on CNN, the same looks to be occuring on T.V.
Don't worry, the bleeding hearts and class action lawyers are almost finished driving us smokers into bankruptcy; they are now debating if they should take on the gun industry, fast food industry, the alcohol industry, or possibly mother nature for killing 30 last winter. I hope they go after guns, lets drive them evil barbarians further underground. That would save our government of having to break their back on keeping records of who owns what. Personally, I will fell safe and secure if this becomes a reality, we have been forced to cancel our last 15 recitals of Kum Bi Ya at the White Oaks Boys Club due to the fear of handguns and Legionerrs disease (Another group of barbarians they should go after).
Does anybody remember when I posted a whole bunch of links diproving the theory of the "liberal media?" If remember one of the sites had a quote from Patrick Buchanan(!) saying that he knew there wasn't a liberal bias. The majority of major media outlets in this country are owned by something like 12 (porbbaly less now) conglomerates. Now, this alone is enough proff for me. Since when are multi-national corporations known for their liberal views? For further proof, check out www.mediachannel.org. The founder of the site wrote a very good book on the subject called "The Media Monopoly."
The vast majority of journalists are liberal on social issues, and fairly conservative on economic ones. The whole "media is liberal" idea is based on a poll conducted years ago, in which most journalists polled said they voted Democratically. While voting for Democrats hardly makes one a liberal, this was somehow translated in a liberal bias, as if they can't do their job because of who they voted for. Furthermore, as I said about 3 sentences ago, a more recent poll (which I believe was in one of the links I provided ages ago) revealed that journalists are pretty much in tune with the majority of the conutry, being slightly liberal on social issues and slightly more conservative on economic ones.
And while the "the rest of the world sees American Conservatives as crazy" comment was a bit harsh, it does not justify ignoring his point. In America, the "middle ground" is conservative. This is a conservative country.
In 1992, 89% of journalists in Washington D.C. voted for Clinton.
Do you think this might reflect the fact that 89% of D.C. residents voted for Clinton?
It's silly to poll people, whoever they may be, in a heavily Democratic area and be surprised if they're Democrats. Someone needs to conduct a poll of the reporters for the Birmingham Post-Herald or the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle to see how they voted.
It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, not racist, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, 20% Black, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage, and not a Hipster.
EDIT: Goddamn frames. You can navigate through the site or just trust me: 85.19% for Clinton in 1996, 84.67% for Clinton in 1992. I take full responsibility for being 4% off there.
D.C.'s so democratic, I didn't even feel bad for voting for Nader in 2000.
(edited by MoeGates on 10.4.03 1509) It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, not racist, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, 20% Black, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage, and not a Hipster.
Yes, except that oil's already been earmarked for China, so how exactly does that solve this problem? Not to mention the fact that we've got, by the most generous estimates, about thirty days worth of oil up there anyway.