On the American scale of left to right, CNN leads the charge to the left...FoxNews is middle-of-the-road (this should elicit cackles from the left, but undeniably Fox has more liberal voices than any of the MSM has conservative).

Case-in-Point...Eason Jordan, CNN head-honcho, was recently forced to resign because the conservative media held his feet to the fire about an allegation he made about American military INTENTIONALLY murdering journalists...This type of mentality pervades American media elites.

Your circles are mistaken, unless their perception is coming from a hard-line Marxist-Leninist perspective.

Fox is middle of the road?! I've heard them accused of a lot of things, but never that! Even the most hardcore right-leaning people I know would still consider Fox firmly planted right of centre.

I ask this honestly and seriously, not sarcastically - where is your position on the spectrum, if you're considering fox middle of the road?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. When any person is too far to the left or right, they can't view the spectrum objectively. Being dead-centre isn't much use either. Is it so hard to have one foot on either side of the fence, and see the valuable points of different perspectives?

(and why do these discussions always end up being left vs right? :D)

The first line of Muls signature should explain everything.

Good points and I try to do as you suggest and view things from both sides but at times its difficult. I still vote for the person who is best and not a straight ticket.

The Dems jumping on the party bandwagon during the Roberts hearings is a good example. When Teddy/Kerry/Hilary start their bs is usually when I get tired of the mele and turn the tube off. Have rarely heard anything come out of their mouth that is anything other than rubberstamping Howard Dean's rampant meanderings...

JoeA

The rest of the media is so far to the left that, yes, FoxNews appears right of centre...If your gauge is American media, you are right...But facts is facts...FoxNews has more liberals than any of the major networks (whose viewership still eclipses Fox) have conservatives.

So, it looks like you still missed the point.

Parts of Congress want to put restrictions on the internet -- making the US position somewhat similar to that of the EU. The conservatives in the house and senate want restrictions on access and anonymity. Individuals in both houses want taxation on Internet intrastate sales.

Very true, facts are facts, however, as I think we've all adequately demonstrated in this thread, labeling someone liberal or conservative is largely a matter of perspective and opinion. So while you may be correct that Fox employs more of what you would consider to be liberal, others may consider those very same people conservatives. It's all a matter of perspective.

I guess that's really what my point is - that of perspective, which is why there's not much point in debating the issue. While you may consider American media to be left of centre, I would venture to say the majority of the rest of the western world would consider them very much to the right.

I think most people in the US and the rest of the world would agree that the US, on the whole, is more politically conservative than pretty much any other first-world country, (with the possible exception of the UK) so it stands to reason that the average American viewpoint of their media would consider it further to the left, while most of the rest of the world would consider it more to the right. Both sides can be correct - it's all a matter of perspective.

On the road for his October 20 World News Tonight, Peter Jennings slanted a story against Ohio's black Republican Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, who "made a number of decisions regarding election law which have made other black leaders angry." Jennings snarkily summarized how Blackwell decided "that provisional ballots for people who showed up at the wrong polling station, or without an ID, would only be good at three locations. The Democrats sued him. A federal judge overruled him. Mr. Blackwell is appealing. Democrats say it's Republican trickery."

ABC's Peter Jennings relayed Democratic complaints about Ohio's attempt to stop Election Day fraud.

Three days later, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Blackwell, but ABC didn't report that. ABC has been less concerned about potential election fraud in Ohio, even though Sunday's Columbus Dispatch reported that "Ohio's voter registration rolls are dirty, containing more than 122,000 apparent duplicates." Sunday's World News Tonight skipped that bombshell, but anchor Terry Moran introduced yet another story about Democrats' "concern" that "in the key state of Ohio many of their votes could go uncounted."

MRC



Dan Rather, although not fired for his overt acts of criminal conspiracy to affect an election, was forced into the background (under silent applause by the left I am sure) for his attempt to slander Bush before the election in 2004.

Media Bias?...Left wing media bias?...Sure does make FoxNews look pure as the driven objective snow if you ask me.

Video (Evan Thomas admitting left media bias)

Right, Evan, precisely why John Kerry did so good...He would have lost those 15 points had the media been objective about their reporting...Fox looking better and better, huh Christien?

I totally agree...This begs the question, is this right justification of America ("right" as defined by the Founding Fathers) what is elementally that which makes this country great, or is it our slow creep left?...If I look to the past examples of left governments, I would have to say, no, leftism will be and is the beginning of our end.

Just to set something straight, and I hope we can at least all agree on most points: (Definitions from Cambridge)

Marxism is Socialism on steroids, it is far left of center, control of government is through fiat, yada yada yada (a social, political and economic theory which is based on the writings of Karl Marx)

Socialism is left wing, government providing for all aspects of private life, give from the rich to enrich the poor (the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs)

Democracy is the voice of the people and will move left and right of center over time and is not achievable on a large basis (though we all wish to live in an Icelandic styled society) (the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves)

Republics are generally right of center, central governments generally run by the people (most of "Western Civilization" whether a "Democracy" or a "Constitutional Monarchy") (a country without a king or queen, usually governed by elected representatives of the people and a president)

Lenninism is complete control of society by government and is a dictatorship (supposedly enlightened dictatorship) and is extreme in nature. This form of government has more in line with a right wing than a left wing nature (the former USSR, China to an extent, Cuba) (the social, political and economic principles and theories developed from Marxism by the Russian politician V.I. Lenin, supporting direct rule by workers)

Theocracy is generally control of the government by a religious group, not necessarily the majority belief, or government designed to follow a set of religious beliefs. This would be Iran and how most of the world sees Israel and views the direction the US heading (a country that is ruled by religious leaders)

Main Entry: Le·nin·ism
Pronunciation: 'le-n&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Lenin; especially : the theory and practice of communism developed by or associated with Lenin
- Le·nin·ist /-nist/ noun or adjective
- Le·nin·ite /-"nIt/ noun or adjective

MerriamWebster.com

This jives with practice, perhaps not theory, but the end results are more important than the label.

Hmm, interesting point. I think "right" as defined by the founding fathers is most definitely what *made* the US a great country, but I think that's been distorted over the years, and not for the best. In some ways the spirit has been weakened, which is probably what you're referring by the "slow creep left", and in some ways it's been strengthened, but in all ways distorted. (does that make any sense? :) )

My knowledge of American history is simply not good enough to agree or disagree with your reference to past leftist governments, nor to argue the finer points of the media references you made above. Suffice it to say that when I look at my own country's historical governments, there is no clear divide between liberal and conservate when determining who the good ones were. There have been plenty of good and bad liberal and conservative governments.

Chew on this, I think it is absolutely brilliant...

Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian, he was widely known in his time and was professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University in the late 18th century.

The quotation is from the 1801 collection of his lectures:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage."

Heh, that's awesome. I can see the logic in the path he's traced, but I can't think of any countries who've actually completed the cycle, and I can think of a few who've stopped halfway through. I'm assuming you're saying the US is in the last stage, hanging at dependency and headed towards bondage, but I can't really see it happening, despite all the dire predictions of some people...

I couldn't agree more with the general principal that democracy will be subverted by the voters, but I don't think it's because of loose fiscal policy. While that certainly contributes to it, the opposite, tight fiscal policy, won't solve democracy's problems. Rather, apathy and stupidity are probably democracy's biggest enemy. An uninformed and/or apathetic public with votes can be a dangerous thing. A public that can be suckered into voting through slick advertising campaigns paid for by lobbyists is a dangerous thing. When the voting public stops thinking critically about the democratic process and their leaders, democracy ceases to function properly.

If we look at the old world powers, at one time it was the Vikings, Mongols and Turks. Then it moved up to the English, Germans, Spanish and French. Pre WW2 the Japanese controled the Pac Rim and while they are a force these days its nothing like it was.

Post WW2 there was really the Americans and Soviet Union and now its pretty much the Americans but the Chinese will continue to grow. I still feel that we will fight a war with China in my lifetime and its outcome may either transform the world or totally destroy it.

Not to say that the Europeans are not still powerful but if they had not joined together as the EEC they would have been in much worse shape than they are now.

Its very interesting to watch the progression of the world and countries involved in its path.

Joe A

Ya, I have thought a lot about the China threat. They are communists, so surely world domination factors in to their aspirations. I think the PRC has realized, like Hitler did, that you cannot beat capitalism so you might as well use it to your advantage. They are doing this quite successfully, albeit with slave labor (that didn't work too well with Stalin's Russia). The seeds of capitalism, however, have taken root and at one point or another the natives are going to get restless and revolt against the communist dictatorship and this is when the proverbial will start to hit the made in China fan.

Perhaps to distract the people and mobilize them they will orchestrate a crisis and demonize America. They may force our hand and we will have no choice but to react militarily. They have no moral compass other than man-made reason, so I think they are capable of any kind of evil; I put nothing past them. The question is what will their move be?...I would imagine their ideal strategy would be to somehow orchestrate an economic collapse for America and the world and then begin a slow methodical takeover, one strategic interest at a time...Lets say they do and this Chinese imperialist conquest forces our hand--we fire nukes!...We lose...They have, what?...1.5ish billion people?...Lets say we take out 50 to 500 million of their people?...So what...this would be a good thing for them.

Is Tim American? That might explain his perspective on matters non American.

Clearly you have. A brilliant analysis. However, you must give credit to the late Peter Sellers. You have after all, borroweed heavily from his insightful and prescient documentary, Dr Strangelove.

You had me until your "humor"...

The fact is, there would be no internet as we know it without Gore. (see Gore's High Performance Computing Act)

Theres nothing humorous about flagrant use of misinformation.

Getting back to the original issue, the US should not give up one ounce of control over ICANN. The last thing we need is UN comitees running the ****** internet.

You can have my DNS root server when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. :mad: