OT: Loyola Chicago - Clueless or Biased...or both?

[SFP]

Both sides of the aisle have an agenda of how to further their causes and at the same time inrich their cronies at the expense of hard working Americans. I have zero compassion for either side. :-o

 

[Beninator]

Please Ben... are you going to suggest that the Huffington Post is not one of the premiere ultra-liberal websites in the country?
Their contributors are somewhere left of the Daily KOS.

You are displaying how liberals can't succeed by declaring their real beliefs and have to pretend they are in the mainstream.

And I have never said Mr. Patel shouldn't be allowed to speak....no the only "close-minded" side here, the side suppressing free speech is the liberal administration at Loyola.

First of all let me apologize to you if I was a little too direct with my last post. I have had a roller coaster 2 days!

Declaring real beliefs??? Where did that come from? I consider myself a moderate who will lean liberal with certain beliefs as I think that conservatism is flawed! A link was provided that you stated was labeled as a controversial piece by Dr Patel. Instead I read an article about empowerment, lifting people up, and forgiveness.

Huffington Post Liberal-- certainly has some left leanings I realize that and I don't rely on only one news source to form an opinion. However, IMHO, Faux news is pretending to be a news agency while at the same time blatantly distorting their news across several of their shows. In an earlier post you cited Dan Rather's poor coverage about Bush some years ago.

Well how about the Shirley Sherrod coverage on Faux news? Here is a link from the Rachel Maddow show that displays people on Faux news the day of the controversy and their remarks and coverage the day after the coverage?
IMHO pretty much displays how Faux news distorts their coverage for a right wing agenda. and fwiw I like the Rachel Maddow show but that does not mean that I totally agree with what she says.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/38353774#38353774


Have you done a fact check on Faux news' coverage of the Jones Act recently during the BP oil spill? Their coverage repeatedly hammered away at how the administration should invoke this act as George W Bush did during Katrina. Factcheck.org had an interesting article on how Faux news coverage that week was erroneous as well...

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/

I think that it is safe to say that most conservatives view Faux news as their primary and most of the time only source for news. Have you seen the PIPA poll from the University of Maryland about news viewership and how that affects people's perceptions during the Iraq war? Pretty ****ing for Faux news viewers. The study found that 80% of Faux news viewers had one or more misconception while people who read print media or listed NPR for their media preference had substantially lower percentage of misperceptions. (the chart can be found on page 13 of the following link)
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

I am citing these RECENT examples of distortion by Faux news to illustrate my point that I can not trust an article that has a combination of Faux news and Karl Rove! Another aspect that the Faux news article did not mention is Rove's American Crossroads PAC is already active with 2010 campaigns. Again nothing illegal with the PAC, but I can understand Loyola's decision to ask Rove to speak after the elections.

 

[Beninator]

Both sides of the aisle have an agenda of how to further their causes and at the same time inrich their cronies at the expense of hard working Americans. I have zero compassion for either side. :-o

I can very much agree with this!

 

[ChewaBrave]

Free country - Pull BS stunts, expect BS responses.

Haphazard (definition): Dependent upon or characterized by mere chance. What is mere chance here?

Here's overarching and generalizing - that seems like an out of touch socialist Euro viewpoint to me. Yes, I am generalizing, but I deal with Euros all the time, and this viewpoint is a constant.

Flip the coin - Bradley axes David Axelrod for similar reasons, and replaces him with Dana Perino, citing the points in her speech as relevant to several careers paths offered at BU. What's the reaction? :?:

World English Dictionary
haphazard (h?¦pˈh?¦zəd)

— adv , — adj
1. at random

— adj
2. careless; slipshod

That having been said. regardless of what my viewpoint may or may not be - today, people often times just shout labels at one or other. Both sides do it, its pretty hilarious. Statistically, the numbers seem to point that both liberals and conservatives, aren't all that liberal or conservative. That they lean different directions out from the middle. So the blanket statements made as declarative statements about "liberals" or "conservatives" are actually much further off base, than any "socialist-euro" hogwash you might be pushing on me. In all honestly, you know what 'liberals' want? They want people to be happy, and healthy. You know what 'conservatives' want? They want people to be happy and healthy. The means are different, and small numbers of people (often times at least a little insane mind you) on either side tend to soak up all the light, so we get to the point where we just use labels because it is easier than discussing policy - on either side. Someday, maybe the two central standard deviations of the population will take it all back, mayhaps not.