Why did you choose the side you're on?

Accurate. Left from an American standpoint.

Well even then I disagree that it's left. But that's to be expected Foxfyre calls Fox "fair and balanced". I do not consider any editorializing in news media balanced.

Anywho, I don't watch news, I read it.

Wiggler.
<friendly emoticon>

FOX is just more fair and balanced... to us.

So what you have just implied by the phrase "to us" that it is neither of those things, but in fact quite biased.

Craven, I'm not sure what you are saying here. Explain please.

Sophia,

This has been an education to me too. Some that I had pegged as the angry liberals in this forum have dispelled that by explaining where they are coming from. And I have appreciated that.

I am hoping some of the conservative leaning members in the forum will chime in here and give a bit of their story too.

To hobitbob's statement that FOX must be biased:

Yep. That's what I think.

I think they are all biased--and I'm thankful at least one of them is biased toward the right.

(edited--Confused Craven with hobitbob

It is not class warfare I'm espousing. Rich and poor could be in harmony with a whole new attitude of cooperation. But there is a class warfare all too many conservatives are pushing. It follows a natural split that has been present since the nation's inception. In all fairness, many liberals are pushing it too. Republican politicians seem particularly vicious to me. And then Republicans have gotten married in with this neocon thing and gotten off in the bushes with their international lack-of-diplomacy that has us fighting everywhere with little organized thought and sad results. There are lots of reasons why I am on the liberal side.

Its just so easy to say. They lean right, on the whole. Why is it so hard for others to admit almost all other news orgs lean left?

Perhaps because they don't?

nimh--
I also thought roverroad's comments were in the same vein as the other's I characterized. There may be more, but I'll stop at three.

I think you sold me short in how I came to assessment earlier.

This sentence of mine didn't seem to get that much of your attention:
I can understand reasoned explanations of why one chooses a political party--but this?

Certainly, this shows I know there are reasoned explanations. Looks like you were looking for an excuse to jump--and really didn't have one.

As to the rich and poor issue; I draw a distinction between the simply rich and many huge corporations. The huge corporations draw support from both sides of the aisle, depending on who's in power. When I castigate the rich, this is who I mean, though. Which is why I prefer Ralph Nader in my heart over the other candidates.

America is well to the right. So what you consider left, is what much of the world considers right. You call CNN left, and most of the world calls it right This is because you are on the right of a nation that one the whole is already to the right.

I was most certainly NOT looking for an excuse to jump - if anything, the opposite. Your post totally surprised me - just came out from leftfield, after what I thought had been a thoughtful and nicely anecdotal thread. It was like unexpectedly getting a bucket of cold water over you - hence my rather emotional reaction. (Too emotional, I admit, for which my apologies).

I did scroll back thru the thread before replying to you, tho, to check what you might have gotten it from. I didnt see anyone but Wilso proclaim that conservatives were simply greedy, and liberals were, conversely, presumably, charitative - of course, that was before Sparky posted, huh. I dont think Edgar did so and he actually went out of his way to say Wilso was wrong, about the thirties. I had also counted several other thoughtful posts here.

Perhaps its my tendency to just kinda overlook the posters I dont take seriously. The main division I experience on the board is that between serious posters and those who just say whatever they feel at the moment, no arguments - and I just dont count those when judging either political side of the debate. It is silly to judge "the conservative mind" on the basis of Italgato or cjhsa (or Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan), and its silly to judge "the liberal mind" on the basis of pistoff, Titus or Wilso (or Barbra Streisand or Micheal Moore). To do that, to me, comes across as looking for an excuse to "jump", i.e., bash liberals.

Thats a good point, actually. Sometimes I think the pretense of neutrality is worse than having a variety of explicited biases. At least you know the bias you get, and you're free to get a variety of 'em. For example, CNN would probably annoy me less if it just profiled itself as "the American news channel", instead of claiming to speak in the name of some objective global neutrality.

Just putting a few quotes together. Don't mind me. No offense intended to anyone.

I read over my "statement of purpose" and I don't see how anyone could say all it's about is "greedy" Republicans. A lot more was implied than me saying I don't like greed.

You are right, EB.
I was coming back to apologize after reading back myself. It stuck in my head about you never watching FOX, but having a negative opinion--and I made the mistake of assigning you some other statement.

I am very sorry. I was wrong about what you said.
My sincere apologies.

(And, I'm glad to be wrong, as well.)

Aw, we can still be friendly on here. I ain't holding a grudge.

You're very gracious.

Yeah, you're right. I had overlooked that. I see that Titus posted here as well, I'm sure his view wasn't nuanced either. And Pistoff posted a long excerpt from a party program, I think.

So basically, what you have, I guess, is a bunch of thoughtful posts and personal anecdotes from a handful of leftwing posters - and a bunch of black-and-white simplicity from a handful of other leftwing posters.

It was still your call on what conclusions about "the liberal mind" to arrive to, based on that. But I admit to glossing over the stuff that would lead to a negative impression.

I hope (or try) to do the same when it comes to rightwingers. If I end up failing to do so, I can still assure you that my opinion of what conservatism is about, in the end, is not based on what omsigdavid posts.

(edited to make more sense)