You wanted facts to back up the liberal media....here ya go:
Reform vs. Amnesty (the words that are used is filtered in by the bias the writer has...again, maybe not on purpose, but this is the way they think as well as everyone around them)
On 47 occasions, reporters matter-of-factly used the positive adjective "reform" to describe the Senate bill, but only twice did reporters refer to it as "amnesty."
This seems like it is not important, but it is pushing the Democrat agenda my using the terms Dems want used...it does matter
Friday, June 29, 2007
TV’s Paltry, Left-Leaning Immigration News
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
...by the bias the writer has...again, maybe not on purpose...
That's the problem Game. There was a time when reporters strove to be non-biased.
Now they just don’t give a shit, as long as they get a pat on the back by one of the more popular empty heads at the next cocktail party.
Game,
The editors and producers are all so liberal, that NOTHING else gets on the air.
It is a closed club that the Libs want to keep. There won't be any fairness under their "Fairness Doctrine".
Amnesty is when you're allowed to bring back your overdue liberary books without paying a fine, or to pay your overdue taxes without going to jail.
What was in that bill was not amnesty. Opponents called it that, because it made it easier to argue against it. In other words, they spun it.
But if you want straight reporting on the issue, you should expect the reporters call it what it is, not what it gets spun as.
Jay, don't cloud the discussion with facts. Let pcd and game have a pity party and whine about the big, bad leftist media that seeks to destroy conservatives at every turn.
Those are the rules of this adolescent game.
jay
Well I guess, technically you're correct. You have to be charged with a crime before “amnesty” can take place.
Just out of curiosity, how would you label the pardon of a criminal act that was never officially charged, when there’s proof a criminal act occurred?
anon,
There's no pity party. In case (or obviously) you weren't paying attention, we won this battle.
And rightly so, I might add.
anon didn't add anything, just the hate and name calling liberals love to use...and I am using anon's specific post as proof...not a generality...worthless post that wasted 10 seconds of my life
Actually, I don't think you technically have to be charged with a crime to be granted amnesty. Anybody know what happened when draft evaders were granted amnesty after the Viet Nam war? I don't know that everyone of them had been charged with a crime.
But I digress. Amnesty is a pardon. Amnesty requires no penalty, no consequences. No bill that I have heard about pardons anybody without a fine and other consequences.
Let's see if I can make it easy for you. Let's say you can't find a legal parking space where you work and you keep getting parking tickets until you have 100 citations. You can't renew your car's registration because of all the tickets so you have to drive illegally. You could go to court and clog up the process by asking for a trial for each and everyone of them. Or you could ask the court for mercy and hope the judge pardons all your tickets without paying a fine. That's amnesty.
Or you could make a deal with the DA, pay 25 cents on the dollar in fines and go to traffic school.
That's not amnesty. That's a practical solution that makes you legal, makes you pay a penalty, and doesn't clog up the legal system.
Like I said before...I care about securing the border first...this other stuff can come later
If you don't stop people from getting in here, it doesn't matter what you do with the people who are already here...there will be 12 million more in 20 years
So sorry jim,
I was merely going by the dictionary definintion of amnrsty.
But its very enlightning to know that you compare trafic tickets with illegal entry into our country.
Keep talking, your digging your own pit.
Where is your dictionary does amnesty include paying a fine and meeting conditions?
I can't believe that anyone would think I was equating or comparing traffic tickets with illegal entry into our country. Actually, I do believe that, because it is a typical tactic used to blow off a simple illustration of a concept when that concept is counter to your world view. A great way to dance around the point.
As far as the articles go, the proper reference to the bill has to be "reform" because that's how it's pitched by it's sponsors, including Bush. Since we have a bad opinion of the bill, it only seems like bias in this case (regarding the use of the term "reform" over "amnesty".) But to be fair, you can't really call the use of that term "bias" because objectively, it's the proper word to use.
Whether or not the bill IS amnesty or not is a technicality. It is not amnesty technically speaking. But it does have the benefit of amnesty in it's less than painful degree of punishment. All things considered, the illegals are doing nothing more onerous or uncomfortable than a legal alien. If you measure pain-in-the-ass for pain-in-the-ass, the illegals have still gotten off fairly scott-free for the crime of illegal entry. So there is a sense of amnesty in the end.
Do legal aliens have to pay a $5,000 fine in order to earn citizenship?
"So there is a sense of amnesty in the end." A sense of amnesty?
"Do legal aliens have to pay a $5,000 fine in order to earn citizenship?"
I don't know, Jimmy. But one poster at another blog commenting on the subject claimed she paid twice that in legal fees to gain citizenship here. You honestly think it's an easy, trouble-free painless procedure? What freakin' government entity allows for that? Path to citizenship for illegals? There already exists such a path. It begins somewhere south of the border. GET BACK IN LINE!
"What freakin' government entity allows for that? Path to citizenship for illegals? There already exists such a path. It begins somewhere south of the border. GET BACK IN LINE!"
I'd have to say I agree with this assessment.
Post a Comment