Left wing propaganda


Love Kathy Bates, certainly in the roll of Harriot Korn. I did like the show but found myself watching it to see how far David E. Kelley, (the show's creator,) would go with his leftist propaganda. Just like in his "Boston Legal", he continues to outdo himself in pushing his liberal views via a TV show. Every episode had a liberal vs a conservative position, with Kelley making the conservative viewpoint look ridiculous while the liberal position was glorified.

reply

Every episode had a liberal vs a conservative position, with Kelley making the conservative viewpoint look ridiculous


Wow. I didn't know that Harry's Law is a reality show!

reply

Reality, no, but this is a message board allowing people to talk about the shows they watch. Politically motivated, yes. I had the same trouble with Boston Legal. Loved the show and characters but he was always on the other side of my views. Don't get me wrong, I watched every episode of every season and was sad to see it go. It is hard for those of us with conservative leanings to see our views portrayed by idiots and idiots only when watching David E Kelly shows. He also makes wonderful arguments for the liberal option and the way he wrong Alan's character on BL was wonderful.

reply

It is hard for those of us with conservative leanings to see our views portrayed by idiots and idiots


I see you watched the Republican debates, then.

reply


hahahaha.... REALLY????

Have you heard YOUR Representatives like Michele Bachmann
talk???

MANY on the right ARE idiots.... This is why it is easy to portray them as such....
I'm not saying ALL are..... BUT, FAR too many are and that is NOT good for the US
government.....

XOXO JAG

Just a Gurl from Seattle, living in Sweden

reply

Had the same problem, opposite pole with 24 which seemed like a weekly ad to do exactly what Dick Cheny might think is best without question. I read somewhere that the pentagon asked them to clean it up because they were getting too many volunteers that thought this is the way things are really done. Judging by some of things that have and likely will be happening the volunteers were not that far off.

CB

Good Times, Noodle Salad

reply

That's because the conservative viewpoint is almost always pretty ridiculous. That is why conservatives are always seeing a "left wing bias." Facts tend to make the conservative viewpoint look pretty foolish!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

it practically burns them like sunlight on a vampire.

Ouch!!

Olivia: Lavender?
LaVander:It's LaVANder.Do I look like a damn flower to you?? -Law and Order: SVU

reply

I realize that the truth hurts, but for conservatives, it practically burns them like sunlight on a vampire.


Exactly. The reason most conservatives are intellectual lightweights is because they insist on a low-fact diet.

As Colbert says, "the problem with the universe is that reality has a well-known liberal bias."

reply

The thing I love about Harry's Law is that it DEFINITELY pushes a liberal agenda and it does it in a typical leftist way. 'Sure, all the FACTS in the case point to my client's guilt, but doesn't it FEEL wrong to convict him? It's society's fault, not his.'

reply

A valid issue, which brings up one of the points the show often makes and which frequently winds up being a springboard for discussion around our dinner table.

Victor Kugler and Johannes Kleiman were both arrested, convicted without trial, and placed on “death row” but wound up in a labor prison instead. Miep Gies and Bep Voskuijl escaped arrest, but could have been arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for the same capital crime.

All four were undeniably guilty of a crime punishable by death by the law that was in effect at the time; there is absolutely no question about their guilt or about the law. What is in question is whether or not their actions should have been a crime.

I served over two decades in the military, and I’m a pretty “rules conscious” individual. I often wonder whether, if they had gone to trial and I had been on their jury, I would have followed the law and convicted them, or followed my conscience and acquitted them because the law was unjust.

Yes, there situation is very different from that of a ghetto youth on trial for assault. But the two examples are not discrete situations; they are simply points at some distance from each other on a continuum – the question is where we draw the line on that continuum to convict the offender or to convict the law. So, whether or not I agree with the points the show makes, I often find those points to be thought-provoking.

And no, I’m not going to make you do a Google search for the foreign names – Kugler, Keiman, Gies, and Voskuijl were the primary members of the group of Dutch citizens who hid Anne Frank and her families from the Nazis in Amsterdam during WWII – a crime against the Reich punishable by death.

reply

Your analogy is askew as our legal system is based on justice and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Good try, but again, the leftist agenda uses spin to prove their stance because reality and facts won't.

reply

Your analogy is askew as our legal system is based on justice and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Good try, but again, the leftist agenda uses spin to prove their stance because reality and facts won't.

Say, what?

No the analogy is not askew, the point is that simply because something is against the law, doesn’t make it just (unless you define just as what is the law). Try violating some sort of harboring statue and then tell us that because ‘our legal system is based on justice and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ that it would be different. You’re naive to think that anyone harboring Japanese in the US would have not faced legal prosecution.



-
Could you perhaps say more explicitly what it is you're trying to be wrong about.--Dr Adequate

reply

... our legal system is based on justice and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.


My point exactly -- that's why juries vote their consciences and not necessarily the facts or the law. Thanks for supporting my original contention.


Unfortunately, I can't respond to your final sentence because there nothing meaningful in it to which to respond. Semantically, it parses into "I believe this is true because I said it and therefore convinced myself." Present some of the "reality" and "facts" to which you refer and we can discuss it.

reply

our legal system is based on justice

No lawyer would say that. Our legal system is a set of laws that (sometimes) tries to approximate justice. If a law is unjust, no judge would directly disregard it. Juries have that option, though. Only the Supreme Court will overturn a law. And that only on constitutional, not equity, grounds. The only place you get justice from a judge is small claims court.

reply

Granted, granted. But that's the thing, not everything can be completely pragmatic. A criminal commits a crime like theft, but it is a theft based on the need for survival. The fact is society is screwed up as it stands. Let the record show that I was a former conservative, but the fact is now it's primarily the ultra-right getting the press, getting the power, and they have views I entirely oppose while moderate lefts I can agree with.
I don't support the 'I deserve it, gimme' ideals of the bulk of the OWS groups, but I do support those genuinely screwed by the system, by the government (both Former POTUS Bush and current Obama) and their tax cuts of big businesses and 'trickle down economics' (shown not to work under Reagan) and the government handouts to those businesses that would have (and should have been allowed to) gone under, coupled with the social welfare that's wasted on those with no actual intention to proactively search for a job.
All that said, it's a crime of necessity when you literally cannot afford to support your family within the law, and when laws are unjust, overly restrictive, when there is no way to truly uphold these laws other than imposing stronger laws, it is the people's duty to rebel. I'm no anarchist, I'm no 'bleeding heart liberal', I'm no 'closed-minded conservative' either, I find people on both sides reprehensible. I support government, I disagree with the government as it stands, and I believe that partisans who throw around party titles and refuse to cooperate for the betterment of the citizens they represent, but rather the benefit of their own pocketbooks, need to be thrown out of office because it screws over our nation, it screws over our economy, and it will eventually lead to a meltdown. Remember the deal a few months back, when the debt ceiling needed to be raised, as it has done time and time again, yet it was deadlocked for such a length? This is where partisanship gets us, this is where loyalty to parties, to colors and mascots gets us, this is where non-cooperation because of our hard-drawn party lines gets us, and this is why our first constitutional president warned against a two party system. And permanent alliances like the UN and NATO, but that's another topic.
Look, again, I'm no sympathizer with those in the OWS who could better themselves, but instead want to protest and get handouts, but when businesses that should have failed because of laissez-faire economics get a handout we don't give to our own citizens, when a corporation is treated better than a person, the nation has it's priorities certainly beyond *beep* up.
I'll leave you with this, the government as it stands is a few steps shy of 1770s England, and the men we now call patriots, those who performed the Tea Party, those who drafted the Declaration, they were certainly more rebellious against what they saw as an unfair system than what we have on our hands now.

You call it immature, Chris Hansen calls it "catching a predator", I call it...The Super Troll

reply

Yeah. Those who think that the conservative opinions David E Kelley bags on (the portion of conservative ideals that are about taking away people's rights and doggedly followng laws like mandatory sentencing like there can be no exceptions) are the a-holes here. Thanks for clearing that up.

Kelley doesn't attack EVERY conservative ideal, but if you live your life speaking in HUGE generalizations and follow that as political dogma, I guess you can let the premise of this thread pass. Then you can get all whiny and huffy when people point out that the only others who deal ONLY (read that word. "only") in HUGE generalizations are effing bigots.

reply

That's why conservatives hate facts. Facts prove that conservatives are stupid which all of us Liberals already knew.

reply

I'm neither conservative nor liberal but I had to chime in on this one. Liberals are the ones that eschew fact. That is one of the more annoying and outstanding aspects of them. They tend to deal more with emotion whereas conservatives may be too dependent on logic, a lot of times to their detriment.

Your post actually proves my point. You people don't even know why you are the way you are.

reply

That's why Fox hates facts right? Liberals use polls and facts to reinforce points with the exception to gun control and illegal immigration, those are the only 2 topics that Liberals think on emotion. Hey, you just keep regurgitating your channel 8 propaganda BS, nothing I say will change your stupid illogical fallacies anyways.

reply

Welcome to Hollywood.

reply

I think HL show's the other point of view better than BL did.

"I won't be held down by who I used to be"

reply

It's not propaganda, it's just clumsy writing. I don't think Kelley aims to propagate any agenda, it's just too biased to be realistic.

Honestly, I'm a lefty and the show is so heavy handed, every episode makes me want to join the NRA and the Republicans just in reaction to the Schpiel

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I know what you mean!
Fox is so easy to digest and doesn't leave me feeling as concerned as a real news program.

reply

Lol, since when did Fox do news?

reply