Most newspapers are liberal owned
Posted By: Hattie on 2006-07-29
In Reply to: My point WAS sm - MT
So, it's not big suprise. Newspaper circulation is down in this country for several reasons the biggest one being is that they are just mouthpieces for the liberal agenda. The NYT is a huge example, and their circulation is dropping weekly. Like liberal news they refuse to accept that most of the blame is due to the glaring bias they have. The internet has also taken a big bite out of their profits as people who care about news are bypassing newspapers and T.V. to search out their news from the internet. You're right. Ann probably is not batting an eyelash about losing newspapers. They are a dying breed anyway...mostly from political suicide.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Yes they are and the liberal newspapers are doing
@
About newspapers
If newspapers are pro-Bush then why does my hometown newspaper have columns, editorials and cartoons daily that are blatatanly anti-Bush and I live in a very conservative part of the country. I know the editor in my hometown and she is Cindy Sheehan anti-Bush. If you think the NYT is a Bush mouthpiece then I wish you could explain just how, because I can't see it.
Newspapers are not losing
their audience because of ***political suicide***. It is because of the satellite/cable 24/7 coverage of the news on TV and the internet blogs where one can go to hear whatever it is they want to hear, true or not. Most people do not read much anymore as well. There are some really **big** words in the newspapers.
Never thought of newspapers
I've got plenty. I haven't had the time to recycle lately.
Too bad they stopped making Sears catalogs. LOL
I did and I owned up to it . . .
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Not afraid to admit it.
Privately owned board??
Who owns it?? If it is private, why is it on MT Stars along with our company boards, and job hunting boards. I thought it was a part of MT Stars; if not, I don't think it should be here since it is an extremely biased forum. It seems to me to be a venue for a couple of people to espouse their very very conservative views and really that is about all. There is not much civil debate going on. There are only a couple of liberals left who post and most of us stay away a lot of the time because no matter what we say, we will be castigated. There is nothing liberal that is acceptable to this board. The conservatives carry on on their side and when they get tired of that, they come to the liberal side and lambast the liberals. Nothing that is not conservative (one single solitary definition of conservative at that) is acceptable. This has become almost a conservative blog. So, who do I write to to find out how this is run. I think this board ought to be removed from the auspices of MT. It has nothing to do with MT and it is privately owned by extremists. I am going to see what I can find out about ForuMatrix and how one goes about getting things changed. I don't think anything resembling the Drudge Report ought be on a **politics** board that appears on the surface to be all inclusive when it is not.
90% of Wall Street is owned and run by....sm
liberal democrats.
What percentage of homes are owned by
Does anyone have numbers?
WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox.....
"nuf said.
she didn't have a choice....stepfather owned everything
--
Government owned Amtrak did not work
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!
une 1st, 2009 12:45 PM Eastern
PHIL KERPEN: It Didn’t Work for Amtrak and It Won’t Work for GM, Either
By Phil Kerpen
Director, Americans for Prosperity
I cautiously cheered the Obama administration’s announcement 60 days ago that GM was on a path to bankruptcy court, because I was hopeful that it would represent an end to political manipulation of the company and a chance to get a clean balance sheet and a new shot as a private company. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Instead GM heads to bankruptcy court with a prepackaged deal that almost completely politicizes the company, with the U.S. government the new majority shareholder.
———
Expect that, like Amtrak, GM will be government-run and subsidized to the tune of billions of taxpayers dollars for decades to come.
———
Taxpayers were already on the hook for $20 billion of bailouts to GM, and today’s deal puts us on the hook for another $30 billion. Even worse, that $50 billion could be just the tip of the iceberg, because the government is now committed to owning and operating an automobile company that could run massive losses for years, even decades, to come.
Today’s New York Times quotes an administration official saying: “We don’t think that after this next $30 billion, they will need more money, but the fact is there are things you don’t know — like when the car market will come back, and how much Toyota and Honda and Volkswagen will benefit from the chaos.” In other words, who knows how much taxpayers will pay. Sky’s the limit.
In 1971, Amtrak was created, the Nixon administration said, “It is expected that the corporation would experience financial losses for about three years and then become a self-sustaining enterprise.” The Obama administration now claims that GM will be a publicly traded company again in six to 18 months. Expect that, like Amtrak, GM will be government-run and subsidized to the tune of billions of taxpayers dollars for decades to come.
The worst part is that government entities are run according to political, not economic, considerations. Every decision—about dealerships and plant closings, about suppliers, about which vehicles to build—will have to pass the Washington tests of political and environmental correctness.
Saab, Saturn, Hummer, and Pontaic will be shuttered. At least nine plants will close. These changes might make economic sense. But with government calling the shots, we will never be sure why certain plants were closed and others were spared.
The Obama administration’s big announcement on fuel-economy standards a couple of weeks ago and the president’s endless drumbeat that Detroit needs to make smaller and lighter cars and stop making trucks and SUVs is proof positive of this theory. Trucks have big margins, and could be a path to profitability. GM does need to find a way to make money on smaller cars, too, but does anyone really have confidence that being overseen and run by government bureaucrats will make that more likely to happen? Instead expect some government-by-committee to turn out vehicles with a Yugo-like design that nobody will want to buy and that taxpayers will end up subsidizing heavily.
General Motors was once an icon of American capitalism, but is now an exemplar of outright government control of a major industry, something completely un-American. Someone alert Karl Marx—we have government ownership of the means of production.
The legendary GM President Charles “Engine Charlie” Wilson was famous for saying in 1953: “For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.”
Today President Obama echoed those sentiments, ending his speech by saying that he hopes that once again what is good for General Motors will be good for the United States of America. We can only hope that he is wrong! — that somehow, what’s being done to GM will not spread to the rest of our country and its economy. That somehow, we will resist the inexorable pull of endless bailouts and government control if we are to restore the free market system that made our country great.
The same person owns this board who owned it when it was on MTStars. sm
She has made herself known on this board several times and stated her rules. There are not many conservatives who post anymore either, Lurker, because of the whip lashing we took from liberals over the years. But do you see us whining about that all over the place? I don't think so. You can't follow the rules, because the rules do not apply to you. FormMatrix is a host for ths board, but the same person still administrates it. I wish you WOULD talk to her and stop with all of this. You come on our board and post and you always have. There have been some pretty egregious things said here over the years about the President, some of which probably should have been investigated by the FBI.
It is an agency created by Congress, but is privately owned. sm
The stocks are owned by member banks, and they are private corporations. Every penny of income tax collected goes to private lenders for interest only on the national debt.
Quote from the Grace Commission report: "100% of what is collected is absorbed
solely by interest on the Federal Debt ...
all individual income tax revenues are gone
before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."
I'll be PERFECTLY clear. MTStars is a PRIVATELY owned
website that contains posts made by the public. Because it is PRIVATELY owned, we reserve the right to operate the site how we see fit. If you have specific questions or concerns about this, you can email me directly at admin@mtstars.com.
Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch
same owner of Fox Noise
The so called liberal media is not so liberal anymore...sm
Case and point Fox News is the #1 media outlet via ratings and hardhitting conservative anchors, pundits, and journalists. Other than Hardball, I don't know of another mainstream show that puts the liberal point of view out there and checks this administration and their policies.
liberal hit piece by a liberal deep thinker....
x
Well...if it puts Obama in a good light, it is probably owned by George Soros. nm
nm
Corporation owned media does not bash Bush, they bash those that bash Bush.sm
Google Bush and vote fraud and there is tons of information about how many Americans 'voted' for Bush. Poor us and poor troops.
I am neither liberal nor the other.
I am a human being on this planet tired of hearing you whine.
hardly. I am on the liberal
board posting for fellow liberals. I am unconcerned about the reactions elicited from posters on the wrong site for their views.
No one said anything about a liberal rag....
could you post a link? Thanks.
JFK was NOT liberal
Yes, he was a Dem, but nothing even like the so-called centrists. But Obama--we're talking as far left las one can go! Be careful what you wish for! His #1 liberal rating in the Senate should be enough. Don't forget Biden is #3, with Ted Kennedy #2.
Those of you who make, say, double my salary, then you can give half of it to me. Fear not, Obama will make sure that happens. For all the bi%ching on this board about lost wages, that should be reason enough to NOT vote for the man who was a Senator only150 days or something like that. Community agitator is another subject, and not a pretty one, either.
PBS has gone very liberal..............
Any federal funding should not be allowed with one-sided reporting. LIBERAL IDIOTS!
If they cannot have real interviews with REAL people, don't use my money to fund lame brain idiots!
Oh...and the liberal
Obama butt kissing media doesn't spin things at all. Oh please! Give me a break.
Shall we not forget that Immelt who head GE also runs NBC and he told them no Obama bashing. I'm sure you are getting fair and balanced news from them, huh?
I am not a liberal..........nm
nm
a far-liberal would probably be someone
who lives in the woods, is homosexual/lesbian, who is pro-life, marries a same-sex person, etc.....all in the same person.
Liberal values?
You asked about the values of liberals, so here goes ... at least from this liberal's perspective. I value people's inherent ability to make decisions about their own lives, barring medical issues preventing same (i.e., mental incapacity). I live by the Golden Rule. I value the choice for people to practice whichever faith they choose ... or none at all ... and really mean it! I accept people and their differences from the "norm". I believe 2 consenting adults with the required mental capacity should be allowed to marry - with no litmus test. And I sure don't care what people do in their own bedrooms as long as it is between consenting adults. Most importantly, I value the principles set forth by the Constitution of the United States since, first and foremost, I am an American.
That about sums it up. I hope it helps!
Liberal, my tailfeathers...
...I can't even watch MSNBC anymore - if that's what conservatives think is "liberal" TV then the definition of "liberal" must be that they don't entirely siphon their news out of Scotty McClellan's shorts. And they have Olberman.
I admire your fortitude MT ME - I had to turn off my TV about a year ago. I keep up with Faux News on the Newshounds website but that's as close as I can stand to get, lol. I am hoping hard for the early successful launch of Independent World Television (no corporate funding or advertising and it'll be coming from Canada)but that's a ways off. I totally miss 24-hour NEWS like CNN was when it first started. Thank God for blogs!
get off the liberal board
Why must you conservatives continue to post here? We dont want you or your ideology posted here..Bush is to fault, for gosh sakes, he even admitted it..in his pea brain he kind of realizes he was wrong in his response..
Gt, I know and like and get along with many liberals.. You are not a liberal,
x
Same old liberal blather...
we're for the little guy... blah blah blah. The big wig Democrats don't a crap about the little guy, only his vote. If the woes of the lower class working stiffs could be fixed, they'd have been fixed already. A Democrat has been in office along enough in the last 40 years to do that, but it never gets done. Not in 8 yrs of Clinton, or anybody before him. You know why? Because the plight of the poor isn't the government's fault. It's not the rich man's fault either. But nobody wants to say what the problem is for fear of hurting somebody's feelings. Or better yet, if they problem were actually fixed, who would the Democrats get to vote for them? They NEED there to be racism, and poverty, and inequality (imagined or real). It's really quite sad.
get off the liberal board
Can you not read English? Get off the liberal board, fool..bye bye..get out of here..
Some humor for my liberal
http://folksongsofthefarrightwing.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
Neither liberal or any other persusian here. TI
I won't apologize in this instance. Antisemites always rub me the wrong way. Shal-alu Shalom Yerushalim
It's clearly the LIBERAL media
It's okay to trash Clinton but don't touch St. Ronnie. Besides, the producer is a friend of Rush,
so clearly it's fact based....uh huh.
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006/09/liberal-media-strikes-again.html
I can't classify myself as liberal but...
I'm so totally not a conservative either. Just wanted to make a new post saying GREAT re-format of the old board! Me likie!
Liberal: A definition.
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. 2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.
Can someone please define *liberal* for me, please?....(sm)
I have asked this question before and did not get any answers, thought I would try again. On another board I got slammed for saying Obama was a liberal. Okay, if he is not, why isn't he? I don't want a dictionary definition, I would like to know, you who post here, how do you define liberal? How do you define yourselves, your political leaning...I am NOT trying to pick a fight, and I will not comment on the answers. I would really, really like to know, and what better place to find out than the liberal board?
Define Liberal
American Heritage Dictionary:
lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. #
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
5. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
6. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
7. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
8. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
Define Liberal
That's about it, actually. That would be me. I can echo liberal democrat's sentiments too other than the democrat part. In my opinion only, "Leftist" is a term applied to people who do not agree with all conservative views, and is applied by conservatives. I would consider some of my views conservative, such as my own views on illegal immigration and fiscal responsibility, yet I have been called a leftist. Go figure.... They seem to think it is an insult I suppose.
Okay....when you say *I can echo liberal ...
Democrat's sentiments too other than the democrat part* what do you mean by that? What sentiments do you mean? For instance...this board is the *liberal* board...are Democrats liberals by liberals' definition? No? If not, what is difference? Why would a liberal say Obama is not liberal? What about him is not liberal? That is pretty confusing to me...just trying to learn.
As to *leftist,* I thought, and maybe mistakenly...applied to the far left wing of the Democratic party. I also thought, and apparently mistakenly...that Democrats were liberals...and obviously that is not true, because I was jumped on by referring to Obama as a liberal. I would be interested to know what about Obama does not classify him as liberal...
Who cares if you are liberal
This is the liberal board, no one asked you whether you wanted to be a liberal or democrat..Great..we dont need you, the majority of the country and world are left leaning and liberal..Go back to the conservative board and live your happy little insulated unrealistic life..dont bash the posters on this board because they state they are proud to be democrat or leftist or liberal..that is what this board is for..the liberal board, i.e., it is for liberals.
WELL there are certainly NO liberal Democrats
running for president...
Obviously the liberal mindset is...
.....beyond your understanding. Very few liberals "tolerate" the war in Iraq. Most of us probably find it "intolerable." Just as many of us become nauseated by the right-winger(s) posting on this board under the pretense of "I just want to understand your position better" when the actual intent is to mock and belittle. "Liberal" also does not denote naive fool and you are fooling no one with your disingenous posts, hence the nausea you produce. I believe part of the quality of liberalism is to be accepting of others' lifestyles, belief systems, race, color, creed, etc. but it is not to accept or tolerate cruelty, bigotry, hatred, violence, etc. This is such a basic concept I can't believe I'm explaining it!!
GOD bless.....even the liberal
:)
Isn't this a liberal site?
Why are you posting here? You're the furthest thing from a "liberal" I've seen in a long time.
How liberal or conservative are you...sm
Take a quiz. You might be surprised, I know I was. I am an independent, who through the years, have become more conservative. However, I'm surprised I even have any liberal views anymore. Interesting stuff.
Put aside your differences, have some fun, and see what you find about yourself.
http://www.blogthings.com/howliberalorconservativeareyouquiz/
My political profile is:
Overall 80% conservative, 20% liberal
Social issues: 100% conservative, 0% liberal
Personal responsibility: 50% conservative, 50% liberal
Fiscal issues: 100% conservative, 0% liberal
Ethics: 50% conservative, 50% liberal
Defense and crime: 100% conservative, 0% liberal
You describe yourself as a liberal, right?
nm
It's not just liberal politicians.
It's politicians in general. They're all so crooked they have to be screwed into the ground when they die. It's wrong to call prostitution the oldest profession because it's actually politicians that hold that title, although they are similar fields - they both screw people for money.
You can put lipstick on a mean liberal, and it's still a...
mean liberal....good grief, go to bed already.
You're a broken record, record, record....
Oh, this must be "lastworditis" poster.....right?????
Good grief, Charlie Brown
|
