Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: nathanielmark on June 02, 2004, 09:32:08 AM

Title: Fox News?
Post by: nathanielmark on June 02, 2004, 09:32:08 AM
just curious...
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 02, 2004, 09:56:41 AM
From the broadcasts I've seen they have staked out their territory on the right and aren't ashamed of it.  They will claim to be centrist, but just about everyone claims that.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: nathanielmark on June 02, 2004, 09:57:44 AM
i was just asking because i come across so many people who really believe they are the centrists and everything else is the liberal media.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 02, 2004, 10:01:02 AM
Centrist is the opposite of extreme.  If I believe I am centrist that means I have a reasoned, well informed and moderate stance.  Who wants to believe that they are extremists?
But being a centrist usually means believing that little needs to change in our society.  We just need to tweak it, get the right people in the right positions and everything will be just as good as it can be.  BS.

 
Personally, I am happy to be an extremist.  I find the center very uncomfortable when there is so much suffering in our world. 
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: schoomp on June 02, 2004, 10:10:58 AM
One day for fun, I was watching something on Iraq and switched between the three main news channels to see the difference.  Something along the following lines were what they were saying about the same event:

MSNBC:  The war in Iraq is getting out of control.  Just today, 3 more soldiers died in the war tha Bush got us into.  There are still no wmd's found and Congressional hearings are going on to get to the bottom of this travesty!

FoxNews:  Three soldiers were killed by extremist terrorists today in a blatent act of terriorism.  The war in Iraq is still being found by our men and women of the Armed Forces who are searching for the wmd's that are still being hidden in Iraq.  Democrats again had frequent outbursts in the Congressional hearings.

CNN:  Three soldiers were killed in Iraq in a car bomb.  No one has claimed responsibility yet.  On the Hill, Congressional hearings started on their (something) day with both Republicans and Democrats talking to so and so.


Anytime I've done this (switch between the three stations), it always seems MSNBC=left, FoxNews=right, CNN=more facts than the other two.  Of course, if they are having their news shows hosted by people, then it depends on the person, but just for news it always seems that they are pretty much on those lines.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Todd on June 02, 2004, 10:14:25 AM
"Personally, I am happy to be an extremist.  I find the center very uncomfortable when there is so much suffering in our world."

I agree with you jeff, although we probably stand on opposite sides (judging by the poll results which I assume you participated in).  I personally know that the majority of the media is seriously left wing.  I have talked to people who have been to China and been to Iraq and conditions are much worse and much better, respectively, than the media would have you believe.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: nathanielmark on June 02, 2004, 10:15:50 AM
i consider myself a centrist and think we need drastic change. so i dont think your characterization of a centrist being someone happy with the status quo is necessarily a valid one.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 02, 2004, 10:22:45 AM
i consider myself a centrist and think we need drastic change. so i dont think your characterization of a centrist being someone happy with the status quo is necessarily a valid one.

I can accept that if you'll accept that 'drastic' is somewhat a matter of opinion.  I suspect that your drastic changes might not seem drastic to me.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 02, 2004, 10:25:17 AM
The media is seriously left wing?  Why do the owners of the media tolerate that?

I personally know that the majority of the media is seriously left wing.  I have talked to people who have been to China and been to Iraq and conditions are much worse and much better, respectively, than the media would have you believe.

Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 02, 2004, 10:28:17 AM
Speaking of different sources.  Out of curiousity I looked at Rush Limbaugh's web site when the news of prisoner abuse surfaced.  He had a piece there that said the Democrats were 'manufacturing an issue' out of the abuse.

Hmmmmmmmmm.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: tahoetahoe on June 02, 2004, 10:39:27 AM
The media...left wing?  Are you kidding?  That used to be the case.  Now, approx 80% of the media is owned by 6 right-wing conservative organizations. 

Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Lipper316 on June 02, 2004, 10:51:57 AM
The media...left wing?  Are you kidding?  That used to be the case.  Now, approx 80% of the media is owned by 6 right-wing conservative organizations. 



Yes, that is correct. Actually, one company, (I forget the name) just bought out something like 278 news affiliates throughout the U.S. A right-wing group. Also, a study was done by Harvard University graduate students to see if a liberal bias really exists. The study conducted was based on the Gore/Bush election. Of the mainstream media stories reported (new york times, washington post, etc.) MORE favored Bush. haha, liberal-bias my ass. Right-wing cry-babies.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 02, 2004, 12:18:08 PM
I have to ask again.  Why would media owners tolerate left leaning news?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: daynee on June 02, 2004, 01:25:34 PM
I have to ask again.  Why would media owners tolerate left leaning news?

Would it have anything to do with the entertainment industry/Hollywood being generally liberal?  And if the entertainment industry as a whole is liberal, wouldn't it naturally trickly down to the news media? 

Just a guess...
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 02, 2004, 01:28:50 PM
Imagine your a conservate millionaire (is that redundant?)

You own a media outlet, like a newspaper.  You discover to your dismay that they are following the communist party line.  Do you let them go on their merry way or do you lay down the law?

So if the media is owned by conservatives why do they tolerate alleged left wing news?

I have to ask again.  Why would media owners tolerate left leaning news?

Would it have anything to do with the entertainment industry/Hollywood being generally liberal?  And if the entertainment industry as a whole is liberal, wouldn't it naturally trickly down to the news media? 

Just a guess...
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: tahoetahoe on June 02, 2004, 01:37:12 PM
Hollywood and the media machine are two very different entities.  Don't be confused.  Hollywood does traditionally lean left.  The media machine right now?  Painfully right.  The best example?  Michael Moore...very left, is trying to come out w/ his new movie Fahrenheit 911.  Mirimax, a subsidiary of Disney, was going to distribute the film.  Disney, which oddly now leans right refuses to distributed the film even though they know it will do well.  Why?  Florida Bush told Disney they would pull their tax breaks in Florida if Disney distributes the film.  Of course, every other frickin' country in the world has found a distributor for the movie.  (Look how "free" we are now.)  Meanwhile, conversative lawyers are suing because they want it so a political film cannot come out in an election year.

I would say this is an excellent example of the difference between Hollywood/left and media machine/right.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: daynee on June 02, 2004, 01:41:25 PM
Well, in all honesty, I don't know a lot about news media ownership.  I was venturing a guess on why news media on television can come across as liberal.  Because it's on television, I see it as a branch (however distant) on the Hollywood family tree.  And I believe the Hollywood family tree is pretty liberal. 

Actually, if I was a conservative media-owning millionaire, I'd be concerned about earning more money by running a lucrative business.  If my business can be lucrative by showing so-called "Communist" material, so be it.

It's like a die-hard vegan PETA-supporting attorney working for a firm who represents the fur industry.  You work for the firm, so you do what is best for the firm.  This means representing your client to the best of your ability, whether or not you believe in your client and/or their moral values.

If the attorney can't handle working for a fur industry, the attorney can leave the firm.  If the media mogul can't handle liberal programming, the mogul can sell his or her company.

Imagine your a conservate millionaire (is that redundant?)

You own a media outlet, like a newspaper.  You discover to your dismay that they are following the communist party line.  Do you let them go on their merry way or do you lay down the law?

So if the media is owned by conservatives why do they tolerate alleged left wing news?

I have to ask again.  Why would media owners tolerate left leaning news?

Would it have anything to do with the entertainment industry/Hollywood being generally liberal?  And if the entertainment industry as a whole is liberal, wouldn't it naturally trickly down to the news media? 

Just a guess...
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 02, 2004, 01:41:27 PM
I agree with you.  I think the media is skewed to the right, but there are others who say it is skewed heavily to the left.

To those people I ask, why would the owners of the media tolerate these pinkos journalists?

Hollywood and the media machine are two very different entities.  Don't be confused.  Hollywood does traditionally lean left.  The media machine right now?  Painfully right.  The best example?  Michael Moore...very left, is trying to come out w/ his new movie Fahrenheit 911.  Mirimax, a subsidiary of Disney, was going to distribute the film.  Disney, which oddly now leans right refuses to distributed the film even though they know it will do well.  Why?  Florida Bush told Disney they would pull their tax breaks in Florida if Disney distributes the film.  Of course, every other frickin' country in the world has found a distributor for the movie.  (Look how "free" we are now.)  Meanwhile, conversative lawyers are suing because they want it so a political film cannot come out in an election year.

I would say this is an excellent example of the difference between Hollywood/left and media machine/right.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Section Eight on June 02, 2004, 02:47:09 PM
Jeffjoe – I believe it is because liberalism makes money.  Liberals love to hear their views voiced and conservatives love to hear anything they can argue and attempt to refute.
     In the early stages of ‘yellow journalism’ media moguls learned that the populace enjoyed hearing stories of sensationalism.  The easiest target for sensationalism in this country is the government – hence the attacks on the present administration and past administrations.
     As a republican I do believe that FoxNews is more right-winged, both MSNBC and CNN I see as left-winged.

     As a side note – I believe I must be the only republican on this board!  However, finding a military member, other than Wesley Clark (and 2 year service man John Kerry), who is not a republican is hard to do!

Jason
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: tahoetahoe on June 02, 2004, 02:50:36 PM
A republican w/ the name Section 8???????????
Hm.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Section Eight on June 02, 2004, 02:58:06 PM
Heh, well yeah you got me.  I am actually a crazy, unfit, military member who recently decided they were God!  Actually, I use the name Section Eight because it was the name I used on Socom II (PSX) and well it was easy! ;D

edit- don't confuse section eight with chapter eight either!

Jason
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Lipper316 on June 02, 2004, 03:57:48 PM
Serving in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. Not just a weekend warrior, just got off activation a couple months ago. Not a Republican!!
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 06:49:50 AM
So conservatives who own the media place profits above truth and then other conservatives complain that the media is unfair.  Interesting idea.  This assumes that liberal news makes more money than conservative news.

but the conservatives tell us they represent the majoiry in america.  If that is the case then wouldn't conservative news make even more?

If liberal news makes more money then more liberals watch it and since most americans watch tv it would seem that the majority of americans are liberal.

So which is it?  Conservatives tolerate liberal news because it makes more money because there are more liberals

or this is all a lot of bull and the media is not liberal.



Jeffjoe – I believe it is because liberalism makes money.  Liberals love to hear their views voiced and conservatives love to hear anything they can argue and attempt to refute.
     In the early stages of ‘yellow journalism’ media moguls learned that the populace enjoyed hearing stories of sensationalism.  The easiest target for sensationalism in this country is the government – hence the attacks on the present administration and past administrations.
     As a republican I do believe that FoxNews is more right-winged, both MSNBC and CNN I see as left-winged.

     As a side note – I believe I must be the only republican on this board!  However, finding a military member, other than Wesley Clark (and 2 year service man John Kerry), who is not a republican is hard to do!

Jason
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 07:04:59 AM
I don't know why ppl make such a big deal about this and how colleges are mostly liberal. I'm proud that ppl can form independent decisions even when the media is slanted. The best example of this is the fact that we've had a Republican Congress even when it was believed that the media was mainly liberal.

I still think that the media is mainly liberal. Fox News is about the only example of a right-wing mass media org'z. The Wall Street Journal can hardly be seen as right-wing but more of a centrist paper.

Fox News actually used to be good. Now it is so bad that they polarize everything into "either your w/ us or vs. us." Bill O'Reilly refuses to stop calling French fries as freedom fries until Chirac leaves office (btw this aired last night). This is just garbage news. I predict that Fox News will begin to sink in the rankings w/ this approach to the nominal news.

Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Sosua on June 03, 2004, 07:14:52 AM
My dad (a 30 year veteran) is a huge democrat.  So that theory isn't quite true.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 07:18:00 AM
I was in the army for seven years.  very few GIs even voted as far as I could tell.  that was over 30 years ago, though.

My dad (a 30 year veteran) is a huge democrat.  So that theory isn't quite true.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 07:25:03 AM
My brother is in the Marines. Most of his friends from the Marines didn't vote in the 2000 election. I think this time around the stakes are higher for them and many will. My bro is an indep. Last time he liked Bush best. This time he definitely plans on voting him out since you just can go and start wars w/ a bunch of countries. Everybody knows that's why Bush wants to est. a colony on the moon since pretty soon he'll have destroyed Earth to pieces.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 07:35:51 AM
That's right Giraffe....we're just going around the playground picking fights aren't we?  Maybe you were in South America saving the dung beetle on September 11th, but I remember it all too well.  The fight was started here.  We're finishing it there.  Whether you hide your liberal head under a rock or not, there is a war.  We are in the middle of it and I would rather it be fought in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan than in the streets of Brooklyn or the suburbs of South Carolina. 
No liberal bias?  Liberal bias in US politic discourse refers to slanting and spiking of news stories to promote a liberal agenda and thwart conservative values. To say that this is not the mainstream in today's media is like standing on a tree stump and demanding that a tree never grew there.  It's absurd to say the least.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 07:47:28 AM
Even Bush has stopped saying Saddam is linked to 9/11 since they have not been able to find any evidence. 

Let's stick to facts that we can share and verify.

That's right Giraffe....we're just going around the playground picking fights aren't we?  Maybe you were in South America saving the dung beetle on September 11th, but I remember it all too well.  The fight was started here.  We're finishing it there.  Whether you hide your liberal head under a rock or not, there is a war.  We are in the middle of it and I would rather it be fought in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan than in the streets of Brooklyn or the suburbs of South Carolina. 
No liberal bias?  Liberal bias in US politic discourse refers to slanting and spiking of news stories to promote a liberal agenda and thwart conservative values. To say that this is not the mainstream in today's media is like standing on a tree stump and demanding that a tree never grew there.  It's absurd to say the least.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 07:59:38 AM
I'm sorry...did I miss a fact that can't be verified?  Were we not attacked on Sept. 11th?  Are we not fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 08:06:02 AM
I'm sorry...did I miss a fact that can't be verified?  Were we not attacked on Sept. 11th?  Are we not fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Can you verify that we were attacked by the Iraqis on 9/11?  In other words, can you verify that we are in fact finishing the fight that started in New York by fighting in Iraq?  The Bush administration hasn't been able to and has stopped trying.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 08:14:00 AM
The fighting in Iraq is based on Saddaam NOT cooperating with the sanctions put in place by the UN back in the early 90's.  He was given ample opportunity to prove that he was not a threat and did not have WMDs, but he let his big head get in the way and refused to do so.  With the US just recently being attacked, George Bush took the initiative that Bill Clinton didn't have the balls to and PREVENTED Saddaam from attacking us or anyone else.  Keep in mind, this man wiped out 300,000 people with WMD.  What was stopping him from doin the same to us?  George Bush..that's who.  If you'll remember, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madaam "Notsobright" and there entire crew all agreed that Saddaam was a threat to our nation's security, had and was trying to get more WMDs and must be removed from power.  Did any of those liberals actually DO anything about it?  NO.  Why?  Because as always, a democraps bark is worse than it's bite. 
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 08:17:20 AM
All your sarcasm aside, why did you link 9/11 to Iraq in your earlier posting?

The fighting in Iraq is based on Saddaam NOT cooperating with the sanctions put in place by the UN back in the early 90's.  He was given ample opportunity to prove that he was not a threat and did not have WMDs, but he let his big head get in the way and refused to do so.  With the US just recently being attacked, George Bush took the initiative that Bill Clinton didn't have the balls to and PREVENTED Saddaam from attacking us or anyone else.  Keep in mind, this man wiped out 300,000 people with WMD.  What was stopping him from doin the same to us?  George Bush..that's who.  If you'll remember, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madaam "Notsobright" and there entire crew all agreed that Saddaam was a threat to our nation's security, had and was trying to get more WMDs and must be removed from power.  Did any of those liberals actually DO anything about it?  NO.  Why?  Because as always, a democraps bark is worse than it's bite. 
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 08:27:21 AM
I wasn't being sarcastic.

I linked an attack on America to Aghanistan and Iraq because Iraq posed an imminent threat. I would be willing to bet that if it came out that we knew that the Afghan's were planning an attack on America and we didn't go over there and stop them, that people would be in an uproar.  It's the same thing in Iraq.  The "war" in Iraq is preventative measure.  I put war in quotes because congress has yet to actually declare it a war..and that's a whole different thread.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 08:29:49 AM
Iraq is linked to the attack on New York because they are a threat?

Let's forget for a minute that that is debatable.  Following this line of logic we need to link North Korea, Syria, Iran, perhaps Pakistan to the world trade center attack along with many other countries.

Yes?

I wasn't being sarcastic.

I linked an attack on America to Aghanistan and Iraq because Iraq posed an imminent threat. I would be willing to bet that if it came out that we knew that the Afghan's were planning an attack on America and we didn't go over there and stop them, that people would be in an uproar.  It's the same thing in Iraq.  The "war" in Iraq is preventative measure.  I put war in quotes because congress has yet to actually declare it a war..and that's a whole different thread.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 08:35:28 AM
If they pose an imminent threat..yes.  Pakistan does not.  Syria. nope.  Iran..not likely since they stopped their production of WMDs (thanks to the war in Iraq).  North Korea...yeah..I would say that they need to be dealt with in the same manner that Iraq was dealt with.  Granted, I thinkt that we have learned a lot from Iraq in how to deal with how to oust a dictator that threatens to destroy us..but Kim Jong should be dealt with.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 08:38:07 AM
So anyone who is a threat can be considered part and parcel with the airliners crashing into the world trade center?

That's an interesting way to look at the world.


If they pose an imminent threat..yes.  Pakistan does not.  Syria. nope.  Iran..not likely since they stopped their production of WMDs (thanks to the war in Iraq).  North Korea...yeah..I would say that they need to be dealt with in the same manner that Iraq was dealt with.  Granted, I thinkt that we have learned a lot from Iraq in how to deal with how to oust a dictator that threatens to destroy us..but Kim Jong should be dealt with.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: tahoetahoe on June 03, 2004, 08:38:12 AM
Jeremy--
Afghanistan: yes, they are harboring terrorists and we linked them to 9-11.
Iraq: we have never proven that they now have WMD.  I agree w/ the earlier post that even your conservative leader has conceded to that.  We argued to the world that we had hard evidence that Iraq had WMD.  It was a lie, plain and simple.  Don't give me a speech either about the risks of faulty intelligence.  Through our own foreign assessments, we have determined that the greatest risks, in terms of actual countries, are Iran and Libya.  By your same logic, we should go in there and strike for "preventative measures."

It wasn't that Clinton didn't have the "balls" to go in (although I question that as being a reason for any military action.) it was that Republican leaders always have the audacity to go it alone.  I like how you highlighted that in the early 90s, Iraq violated the UN Sanctions.  So, let the UN take action.  We have no basis for going it alone.  NONE!

The question you need to ask yourself is do you feel safer now or before these military actions.  I felt much safer before your conservative leader had the nerve to call our actions over there a crusade.  Yeah, that's right...he did.

As a denizen of the world community, I suggest you stop and think a little more about the power of war and why so many Muslims and Middle Easterners in general hate us so much right now.  Why? Because the military is our answer to every question...especially when a Republican is in office. 

I am not saying I disagree w/ taking military action at any point in time.  However, we live in a unique time in global history.  We can develop international coalitions and work with the global community.  Instead, the US takes the "go it alone" method because we think that we have the right or role to run the world.  It is arrogant and embarassing.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 08:43:37 AM
Jeremy, I feel bad for everyone's family who had someone close to them die on 9/11. They were 100% innocent and non-combatants. But honest to God...they US had it coming. The US has propped up puppet dictators all over the world. In Argentina, the US supported a horrible regime that killed over 30,000 ppl. In Chile 9,000 died to Pinochet. All over Latin America 100s of thousands of ppl have died. The Shah in Iran was one of the most horrible regimes. I could go on w/ countless examples. All of these regimes have one thing in common- they were all financed and supported by the US even though none of them were democratic. The US has supported the overthrow of many democratically elected leaders. In fact, when Saddam was first in power the CIA gave him a list of 5,000 names for his death squads to interrogate, which basically means torture and kill (this is from the New York Times...I don't have the name of the article or date). So when you use your figure of how many ppl Saddam killed please take into account that the US Gov't is not innocent either. The answer isn't to dwell on it, just learn your lesson.

The truth is that very few Americans die every year from terrorism, w/ 2001 as the exception. More Americans die annually from bee stings. More die while shoveling snow. I believe that it is less than 40 Americans die annually from terrorism. So to me, spending $92 billion+ (not including Afghanistan) to save 40 ppl is absurd, esp. when there is little proof that having a war in Iraq will actually make us any safer. In fact, it has probably made us more vulnerable and has definitely killed more Americans than if we were to have done nothing. My brother has been to Iraq twice now and everyday he was there I feared for his life. I am proud that he has done good deeds while there, but both of us still believe that they should've never been there in the first place. The war in Afghanistan, however, was 100% justified. If Bush wants to send 130,000 troops there to actually find those responsible for 9/11 so be it.

Also, thank you JJ for pointing out that Saddam had no connection w/ 9/11. It has gotten to the point where over 70% of the American ppl believe that the Bush admin. had to have a press conference and deny that connection.

Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 08:52:22 AM
I am not connecting Saddaam with 9/11.  I never posted anything even close to doing so.  Are you saying since past presidents and administration help fund some dictators, that George Bush is to continue doing the same thing and NOT deal with Saddaam?  How many chances should Saddaam have received before someone finally stood up to him?  I wouldn't trust anything the New York Times wrote..especially since their lead editor came out and admited to reporting a ton of news without ever substantiating the sources.  They are just another National Enquirer to me.  You're right on one thing..the US government may not be 100% fresh and clean..in comparison to Iraq.  I'm sure some things have gone on behind the scenes that we don't know about...but that's just it.  We don't know about them.  Our troops DID find the mass graves of hundres of thousands of people that Saddaam killed.  We have proven that.  Can it be proven that the CIA told Saddaam to kill 5,000 people?  Hardly. 
If everyone wants to stick to fact....let's stick to fact.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 08:58:25 AM
The fact is that even after we knew that Saddam killed his own people with WMD (gas) we continued to support him.  Why didn't we stand up to him then?  Why did Rumsfeld visit Iraq and shake Saddam's hand with the innocent blood of Iraqi's dripping from his grip?

Dubya is still supporting dictators and terrorists, so we haven't learned our lesson.  We are joined at the hip to Pakistan even though they are still on the governments list of countries that support terrorism.  We are working with Syria.  I would guess that money has flowed to them to get their support in the 'war on terror'. 

Stand up to Saddam.  Damn right we should, but not by getting into bed with other terrorists countries.  That just ensures that the battle will go on endlessly.

Dictatorships are wrong in all cases and we should not ally ourselves with them for any reason.  If history has taught us anything it teaches us that picking one devil over the other still sends you to hell.



 
I am not connecting Saddaam with 9/11.  I never posted anything even close to doing so.  Are you saying since past presidents and administration help fund some dictators, that George Bush is to continue doing the same thing and NOT deal with Saddaam?  How many chances should Saddaam have received before someone finally stood up to him?  I wouldn't trust anything the New York Times wrote..especially since their lead editor came out and admited to reporting a ton of news without ever substantiating the sources.  They are just another National Enquirer to me.  You're right on one thing..the US government may not be 100% fresh and clean..in comparison to Iraq.  I'm sure some things have gone on behind the scenes that we don't know about...but that's just it.  We don't know about them.  Our troops DID find the mass graves of hundres of thousands of people that Saddaam killed.  We have proven that.  Can it be proven that the CIA told Saddaam to kill 5,000 people?  Hardly. 
If everyone wants to stick to fact....let's stick to fact.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 09:04:13 AM
Who continued to support him after we knew that he killed thousands?  US?  Don't think so.
It's true that when you pick the lesser of two evils, you're still picking evil....but you're talking about past administrations.  I'm talking about the current president..George W. Bush.  Look...Rumsfeld definitely has issues and should probably not be in power, but lets stick to the issue at hand. 
We are forced to abide with Pakistan and their little man of a leader because of Osucky Bin Ladin.  He's in Pakistan and in order for us to ever dream of capturing him, we have to abide by Pakistans law.  They don't pose an imminent threat to us, so what lesson have we not learned?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: tahoetahoe on June 03, 2004, 09:05:31 AM
So, Jeremy...what news sources do you trust?  Or maybe you follow the lead of your conservative leader who says he doesn't like to read newspapers...they are too biased.  He gets his information for his advisors.  (I am sure his advisors aren't biased!   :D)  Poor Diane Sawyer had to keep a straight face when he said this in an interview. 

All anyone can do is read as many sources of information as they can and extrapolate what is happening in the world.  There are hundreds of books and articles on the CIAs subversive techniques in Latin American countries.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 09:07:11 AM
Check your facts.  We knew about the killing of the Kurds and we still supported him.

No, I'm talking about the current administration.  We are in bed with several terrorist nations. 

Who continued to support him after we knew that he killed thousands?  US?  Don't think so.
It's true that when you pick the lesser of two evils, you're still picking evil....but you're talking about past administrations.  I'm talking about the current president..George W. Bush.  Look...Rumsfeld definitely has issues and should probably not be in power, but lets stick to the issue at hand. 
We are forced to abide with Pakistan and their little man of a leader because of Osucky Bin Ladin.  He's in Pakistan and in order for us to ever dream of capturing him, we have to abide by Pakistans law.  They don't pose an imminent threat to us, so what lesson have we not learned?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: schoomp on June 03, 2004, 09:07:19 AM
I'm really surprised that out of all the countries listed that could cause problems with the US, no one mentioned Saudi Arabia.  If we were going to go in and attack a country - why not that one?  Many of the 9/11 terrorists were from... Saudi Arabia.  Yes, Saddam gassed his own people, but guess what - Saudi Arabia lets their women and female children be treated terribly and no one says anything and that is 50% of the population about - not the small number that Saddam gassed.  When you look at Al Qaeda, many of the members are Saudi.  When you here about terrorist attacks, they are happening in Saudi.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 09:10:49 AM
Hmmm .   Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and used his family wealth to finance terror.  Hmmmmmm.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 09:12:23 AM
Jeremy, you have NO IDEA how much the US Gov't tries to cover up. Please read the book Body of Secrets by Bamford. In it, it describes countless plots by the US Gov't, better said Pentagon. Operation Northwoods during the Kennedy Admin. was a whole plot to gather support to overthrow Castro. It called for the sinking of friendly Cuban refugee ships, bombings in Miami and DC, blowing up the space ship of John Glenn, civil plane hijackings by Cubans,and even getting a group of college students bound for Jamaica on Spring Break to charter a plane from a CIA aviation company (of course that is held secret). The plane however is a drone that flies over Cuba and sends out a pre-recorded message that says the plane is under attack from Cuban MiGs and then explodes in mid air. This transmission would be recovered by the Int'l Civil Aviation Org'z in the Western Hemisphere so that they can tell the press and the US Gov't what happened to the plane.

All of this was supposed to strike up public support to go to war w/ Cuba.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 09:12:58 AM
I'm sure there are techniques used in Latin American countries..but what does that have to do with "5,000" people that the CIA told Saddaam to kill?

I get my news from trust worthy news organizations...liberal and conservative alike.  Then I make my best judgement call based on factual reprentations of truth.

Diane Sawyer is a puppet for the liberal attack machine, so she can laugh all she wants and be demeaning, disrepectful and belittling to the President to the United States.  That's her deal.  I'm sure she was just grinning from ear to ear when Bill Clinton asked what the definition of "is" is.  Right. 
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 09:16:45 AM
So, Jeremy...what news sources do you trust?  Or maybe you follow the lead of your conservative leader who says he doesn't like to read newspapers...they are too biased.  He gets his information for his advisors.  (I am sure his advisors aren't biased!   :D)  Poor Diane Sawyer had to keep a straight face when he said this in an interview.

That's hillarious!

Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Sosua on June 03, 2004, 09:17:18 AM
Quote
Who continued to support him after we knew that he killed thousands?  US?  Don't think so.

You're ignoring the time that Saddam REALLY used his WMDs.  They were used maybe once or twice against rebellions afterwards, but he let loose the dogs of war in the Iraq/Iran war.  Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed or maimed by his chemical weapons.  What did we do? 

(http://www.guerrillanews.com/images/newswire/crudevision_wire.jpg)

Rumsfeld shook his hand and we gave him our super weather sattelite data so he would know when to use them for maximum effect.  Our hands are not clean in the Iraq WMD situation.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 09:19:45 AM
Then Donald Rumsfeld should be removed.  If he knew that Saddaam killed thousands and yet shook his hand, in essence saying he had no problem with it, then he should be removed from power.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: tahoetahoe on June 03, 2004, 09:20:04 AM
Nice pic!
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: M2 on June 03, 2004, 09:20:35 AM
Does "Fox News" seem like an oxymoron to anyone else?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 09:21:17 AM
China is one of the best cases. The US has normal trading relations w/ a communist regime which has threatened Taiwan and Japan on numerous occassions. China's human rights record is appalling. The CCP has probably indirectly killed more Chinese w/ their policies of a one-child, jail punishments for opium, hard labor punishments, and failed plans like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

I actually think that the US is sometimes too tough w/ China, esp. when it comes to trade. However, China could seriously attack Taiwan if Chen Shui Bien keeps provoking them, in which case, the US has promised to protect Taiwan.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 09:25:18 AM
To get more on the topic of this thread, check out the latest Drudge headline:
"Newsroom conservatives are a rare breed:
In national news outlets, only 7 percent of journalists call themselves conservative. Does that deepen a trust gap?"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0603/p02s01-usgn.html


Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: tahoetahoe on June 03, 2004, 09:25:38 AM
giraffe2005---where do you get this crazy information........... BOOKS?!?

j/k....good point!!!!!!!!   ;)
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Sosua on June 03, 2004, 09:27:56 AM
That may be true, Jer, but the newsroom bias doesn't always go into effect.  Most people would consider NPR a liberal network, but it turns out that on their political stories, they have bias of over 60% conservative sources.  Biases go both ways.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 09:29:52 AM
I'm sure there are techniques used in Latin American countries..but what does that have to do with "5,000" people that the CIA told Saddaam to kill?

Jeremy, it's the same technique. The CIA in Operation Condor gathered the list of names for the Latin American countries and passed it on. Even though person X would be wanted in Argentina since his brother's wife's uncle was a suspected liberal or anti-American, person X could be detained in Chile, Brasil, Bolivia, you name it, without having commited a single crime. Sure the Latin American gov'ts were trying to track these ppl, but really it was the CIA who did most of the work.

The same is going on today in Iraq, Aghanistan, and Pakistan. Most of the ppl detained are detained just because they breathed.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 09:36:36 AM
btw, Operation Northwoods was signed off by Sec. of Defense McNamara, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lemnitzer, and Pres Kennedy. Kennedy later went soft and backed out and preferred the Bay of Pigs approach instead.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 09:36:49 AM
I just don't buy it.  I don't believe that the CIA would be tracking down people simply because they were "anti-american".  What is your source?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 09:42:30 AM
Here's your connection b/w Iraq and Al Qaeda.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 09:46:07 AM
Here's your connection b/w Iraq and Al Qaeda.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

And I can give you ten links to say there is not.  If there is a link why does dubya avoid the topic?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 09:46:56 AM
Jeremy, the first site is an encyclopedia. I hope that this is trustworthy enough for you. Most of the good stuff is in books but they're usually in Spanish and would do you little good. The next site is from George Washington Univ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010306/
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 09:48:10 AM
That may be true, Jer, but the newsroom bias doesn't always go into effect.  Most people would consider NPR a liberal network, but it turns out that on their political stories, they have bias of over 60% conservative sources.  Biases go both ways.

that 'news' is from drudge who brags about his far right stance.  not exactly balanced.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 09:49:52 AM
Read your history books.  The US government has been investigating and incarcerating citizens for 'anti-American' speech and action since World War I.

I just don't buy it.  I don't believe that the CIA would be tracking down people simply because they were "anti-american".  What is your source?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 09:57:34 AM
WOW...what's all this "lets attack Jeremy" crap?!!?  Don't for one second underestimate my intelligence or think that I'm so naive as to believe the crap you've been putting out on this thread.  You can take your liberal, left winged, "I hate Bush", "conservatives are a bunch of morons" and shove it.  At no point have I questioned your intellect in the manner that you (Giraffe) have mine.  Yes, encyclopedias are a viable source of information, so the next time you're sitting on the pot squeezing one off while you read A-Z, see if you can find "cocky" in it.  I'm betting it reads as follows:  Cocky - adj. cock·i·er, cock·i·est ;overly self-confident or self-assertive, one might be referred to as "Giraffe205".
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 10:05:12 AM
I'm sorry that you feel you are being attacked.  I didn't think I was questioning your intelligence.  I was merely testing your suppositions in the same way I would expect anyone to test mine.

There is a history of the government investigating and punishing unAmerican speech and activity.  The Alien and Sedition Act was the first example.  The House Committee on UnAmerican Activities is another.  Notice though that there is no official or legal definition of unAmerican activities.


WOW...what's all this "lets attack Jeremy" crap?!!?  Don't for one second underestimate my intelligence or think that I'm so naive as to believe the crap you've been putting out on this thread.  You can take your liberal, left winged, "I hate Bush", "conservatives are a bunch of morons" and shove it.  At no point have I questioned your intellect in the manner that you (Giraffe) have mine.  Yes, encyclopedias are a viable source of information, so the next time you're sitting on the pot squeezing one off while you read A-Z, see if you can find "cocky" in it.  I'm betting it reads as follows:  Cocky - adj. cock·i·er, cock·i·est ;overly self-confident or self-assertive, one might be referred to as "Giraffe205".
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 10:06:25 AM
At least if I can dish it, I can take it. And Jeremy you're quite wrong. I don't hate Bush. I dislike any admin. that tries to go to war under false pre-texes, ie. Kennedy, LBJ, it could go on. The point is that you can't dwell on things like this or else you'll be angry your whole life. It does little good. W/ that in mind, it serves as a useful purpose to know one's history and learn your lessons from this. I think that it's important to hold admin's accountable for their actions. You have to take the good w/ the bad. Sure Clinton did horrible things too, but he mainly moved our country in the right direction. If it is overwhelming bad for our country, then vote them out.

The problem is that most of the time the public does not really know what's going on. The truth only comes out later after *&^% hits the fan. Look at the case of the Iranian man (I don't know his name) who is possibly linked to Iranian intelligence and gave us all our "irrefutable, 100% accurate intelligence about Iraq (it's the same used in Powell's UN speech). It pretty much looks like the US did Iran one big favor by getting rid of Saddam for them. Who knows, when more info comes out perhaps we can modify our views to reflect new evidence.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 10:09:01 AM
I have to add my two cents.  Too often criticism of Bush are dismissed in two ways.

1) You just hate Bush. 

2) Well, the Democrats did it, too.


Neither one addresses the issues.  Do not confuse my questions about the Bush boys with agreement with the Democrats.  I agree with giraffe.  Violence, especialy war, should not be undertaken lightly or with questionable purposes, regardless of the political party or country.

At least if I can dish it, I can take it. And Jeremy you're quite wrong. I don't hate Bush. I dislike any admin. that tries to go to war under false pre-texes, ie. Kennedy, LBJ, it could go on. The point is that you can't dwell on things like this or else you'll be angry your whole life. It does little good. It's great to know one's history and learn your lessons from this. I think that it's important to hold admin's accountable for their actions. You have to take the good w/ the bad. Sure Clinton did horrible things too, but he mainly moved our country in the right direction. If it is overwhelming bad for our country, then vote them out.

The problem is that most of the time the public does not really know what's going on. The truth only comes out later after *&^% hits the fan. Look at the case of the Iranian man (I don't know his name) who is possibly linked to Iranian intelligence and gave us all our "irrefutable, 100% accurate intelligence about Iraq (it's the same used in Powell's UN speech). It pretty much looks like the US did Iran one big favor by getting rid of Saddam for them. Who knows, when more info comes out perhaps we can modify our views to reflect new evidence.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 10:09:53 AM
I'm sorry.....what did I "dish"?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 10:10:26 AM
And trust me. The truth always comes out b/c there will always be outlets for both conservatives and liberals as long as both conservatives and liberals exist. So if liberals have stuff to hide, then the conservatives will definitely cover it while the liberals downplay it and vice versa.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 10:14:03 AM
You dish your posts is what I mean. There is a record of what you have said. I only feel bad that there weren't other ppl chiming in to support your argument. It really would be much better since others may know different things or elaborate on your comments.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 10:14:11 AM
I'm sorry.....what did I "dish"?

You seem to be avoiding the point.  You're argument that someone's criticism of Bush is invalid because they hate Bush, which may or may not be true, does not address the criticism itself.

Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 10:17:53 AM
I'm not avoiding the point.  That was part of his arguement.  That I can dish it but can't take it. That was in response to my post when he blatently questioned my intelligence.


Critic Bush all you want...I don't care.  At not point have I made the arguement "that someone's criticism of Bush is invalid because they hate Bush, which may or may not be true."
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 10:22:20 AM
What does you ability to dish or take it have to do with the criticism of Bush?

I think you're still avoiding the points against Bush.

You don't seem to want to accept widely documented facts like the government investigating anti-american activity.

It looks like you retreated to an emotional response of accusing others of attacking you rather than deal with the points raised.

I'm not avoiding the point.  That was part of his arguement.  That I can dish it but can't take it. That was in response to my post when he blatently questioned my intelligence.


Critic Bush all you want...I don't care.  At not point have I made the arguement "that someone's criticism of Bush is invalid because they hate Bush, which may or may not be true."
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 10:23:02 AM
First off, I'm a 20-yr-old girl, not a man. Of course, you didn't know that so no offense taken. Secondly, I didn't question your intelligence. I just wrote that I hope that you could trust an encyclopedia for accuracy and fairness. I'm not sure what studies have been done about the political background of their editors or whatnot, but I can't assume that you'll accept the source given.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 10:29:21 AM
You're right...I had no idea.  I assumed you were male and I would be wrong for doing so.  Sorry.
I took your comments to be sarcastic in meaning..and I still do.  I tend to be sarcastic at times, so I believe that I have the innate ability to determine and sniff out sarcasm.  I've always viewed encycolopedias to be a non-partisan source of information.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 10:37:02 AM
Giraffes are all males.  I know this because I've seen all the giraffe movies ever produced.


Encyclopedia?  I think they are as subject to slanted views as any other information source.  It all depends on the editors and publishers.  Which do you use?  Online or paper?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: sarmstrong806 on June 03, 2004, 10:39:04 AM
All the other major media outlets have been so long slanted left, that when people get fair coverage they think it is right wing propaganda.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Todd on June 03, 2004, 10:42:18 AM
Man where do you guys get the time?  I would love to help you Jeremy, but I simply can't post but once every other day or so.

 I know the media is liberal; in fact most history books are even liberal.  But then I have a huge bias, and I lean so far to the right I have probably fallen off the cliff.  Let's put it this way, I believe people are inherently evil (myself included).  Therefore unless talking to people who acknowledge this fact, I take a hard look at their motives before believing them.  It is a relatively simple matter to quote a conservative in support of liberal views (or visaversa).  Facts are very easy to manipulate into a desired viewpoint.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 10:42:35 AM
All the other major media outlets have been so long slanted left, that when people get fair coverage they think it is right wing propaganda.

I wish we could go back to the old days when news outlets did not pretend to be unbiased.  They took a stand, told everyone they were taking a stand and dared anyone to disagree.  Kinda like the adversarial system of justice. 

If you wanted balance in your news, you read more than one paper.

By the way, I think you're full of it. IMHO The media is not slanted to the left.  IMHO
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: dsong02 on June 03, 2004, 10:46:28 AM
Giraffes are all males.  I know this because I've seen all the giraffe movies ever produced.


weird.  so how to they 'get it on' and pop out baby giraffes?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 10:50:00 AM
the cartoonist just draws another one.

Giraffes are all males.  I know this because I've seen all the giraffe movies ever produced.


weird.  so how to they 'get it on' and pop out baby giraffes?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: dsong02 on June 03, 2004, 10:51:43 AM
the cartoonist just draws another one.

Giraffes are all males.  I know this because I've seen all the giraffe movies ever produced.


weird.  so how to they 'get it on' and pop out baby giraffes?

wheres the fun in that?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 11:04:37 AM
Man where do you guys get the time?  I would love to help you Jeremy, but I simply can't post but once every other day or so.

 I know the media is liberal; in fact most history books are even liberal.  But then I have a huge bias, and I lean so far to the right I have probably fallen off the cliff.  Let's put it this way, I believe people are inherently evil (myself included).  Therefore unless talking to people who acknowledge this fact, I take a hard look at their motives before believing them.  It is a relatively simple matter to quote a conservative in support of liberal views (or visaversa).  Facts are very easy to manipulate into a desired viewpoint.


I'm actually sitting at my desk at work having the only semi-intelligent conversation I can.  The people I work with are more concerned about their hair spray and what shoes they're buying next then what's going on in the world.  Maybe I should do something productive...I have a million files staring at me..calling me names...Yeah..I need to get to them now.  My posts will slowly be fading in quantity.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 11:07:33 AM
Are you saying that hair spray is not important?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 11:19:59 AM
Are you saying that hair spray is not important?
Well, that depends.  Are we talking about hairspray in relation to a mullet?  If so, then hair spray is not important.

Jeez....I can really smell it now.  Man..that's some strong stuff.  I wonder if they would be mad if I lit a file on fire and threw it into their cubicle?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 12:41:22 PM
Today is my day off. I just came back from sun bathing. I'll probably go work out soon. It kills me to think that I'm spending my day off inside on a beautiful day posting, but I do it b/c I actually like posting about interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 12:42:35 PM
JeffJoe, I know your only kidding. There is such a thing as a female giraffe.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 12:57:07 PM
What?  Does Disney know about this?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: dsong02 on June 03, 2004, 12:58:11 PM
JeffJoe, I know your only kidding. There is such a thing as a female giraffe.

thats the last time i trust an old man from tennessee.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 12:59:09 PM
JeffJoe, I know your only kidding. There is such a thing as a female giraffe.
No there isn't.  Giraffes are asexual.
okay...just kidding.
sunbathing huh?  It's a torrential downpour where I am.  No sun for me...plus, I have to work..so no fun either.  Anyone in here work full time and go to school full time or am I the only masochist? 


Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 01:02:39 PM
I just graduated in May. But before that I used to take 6 classes/semester and work 35 hours/wk. It sucked balls, but oh well. I'm still at the same job, being a teller, and I absolutely can't wait for the day to come when I put in my two weeks and go off to LS.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 01:04:08 PM
I just graduated in May. But before that I used to take 6 classes/semester and work 35 hours/wk. It sucked balls, but oh well. I'm still at the same job, being a teller, and I absolutely can't wait for the day to come when I put in my two weeks and go off to LS.

the tellers at my bank don't do that
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 01:05:02 PM
LOL! The customers can just be so demanding sometimes.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Sosua on June 03, 2004, 01:05:31 PM
It's a full service bank.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 01:10:08 PM
It's a full service bank.

full service, oh, yeah
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 01:11:48 PM
I just graduated in May. But before that I used to take 6 classes/semester and work 35 hours/wk. It sucked balls, but oh well. I'm still at the same job, being a teller, and I absolutely can't wait for the day to come when I put in my two weeks and go off to LS.

I work at a bank as well....it sucks.  I work on the mortgage side though, so I don't have to actually come in contact with any customers.  I would seriously hurt some of these people if I had to see them.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: L1 on June 03, 2004, 01:17:30 PM
Honest to God, some ppl drive me nuts. No, you can't use your Blockbuster Card as your ID. Oh...and when I ask "How'd you like that back?" please don't say, "I'll take it any way I can get it and I'm not talking about money" b/c you're not funny and you're not slick.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 01:38:13 PM
Honest to God, some ppl drive me nuts. No, you can't use your Blockbuster Card as your ID. Oh...and when I ask "How'd you like that back?" please don't say, "I'll take it any way I can get it and I'm not talking about money" b/c you're not funny and you're not slick.

Oh, but that's such a classic pick up line.  I bet the guy had a mullet too.
I'm glad there are tellers on the front line...that way I won't be arrested for assaulting some moron.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: nick538 on June 04, 2004, 08:04:52 AM
It's funny. There was never any complaint from liberals about "biased" news until Fox started killing CNN and the networks in ratings. Ratings are powered by the people and the ratings indicate that viewers enjoy Fox's news presentations. Sure, Bill O'Reilly is a pompous windbag but he's honest and fun to watch. It's also fun to watch Alan Colmes get abused by Sean Hannity. And the Fox women? My God, how I love Jane Skinner! Fox, by the way, is a subsidary of News Corp. which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the lone conservative owner in Hollywood. Here are the other owners:

CNN: Owned by Time-Warner, fairly liberal. Founded by Ted Turner, wacko-pinko commie liberal.

MSNBC: Joint venture between Microsoft and GE. Will not rock the boat. Too many customers and shareholders to answer to.

ABC: Owned by Disney, which by the very nature of it's family programming history and family themed parks is a fairly conservative outfit. Of course, most people aren't aware that Disney owns ABC and so the network provides a liberal slant. It's also dead last in the ratings. Go figure.

NBC: Owned by General Electric. In terms of evening programming and profitability, this is the best. It's news ogranization however, is left alone and provides a moderate to liberal viewpoint. The news operation is the retarded stepchild of the programming division. In terms of the Big 3 networks, NBC is the best.

CBS: The original network is okay with it's news operation, fairly liberal. The TV division, after years of slugglish operations, has turned a corner. Owned by Viacom, owner of Paramount, Blockbuster, and Infinity Broadcasting, among others. This is the company that brings you MTV, VH-1, and Howard Stern. Does have Letterman. Middle of the pack.

Fox news is clearly the most efficient and well-run network in America. It provides a slightly conservative viewpoint but DOES allow liberal voices to have a say. Some, like Colmes, are minor celebrities.

FOX NEWS: AMERICA'S NEWS NETWORK OF CHOICE!

GOD BLESS JANE SKINNER AND LAURIE DHUE!
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 04, 2004, 08:24:48 AM
People have been complaining about the bias on CNN for years, although it would appear it did not reach your ears.

Time-Warner liberal?  I'd love to see your definition of liberal.


It's funny. There was never any complaint from liberals about "biased" news until Fox started killing CNN and the networks in ratings. Ratings are powered by the people and the ratings indicate that viewers enjoy Fox's news presentations. Sure, Bill O'Reilly is a pompous windbag but he's honest and fun to watch. It's also fun to watch Alan Colmes get abused by Sean Hannity. And the Fox women? My God, how I love Jane Skinner! Fox, by the way, is a subsidary of News Corp. which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the lone conservative owner in Hollywood. Here are the other owners:

CNN: Owned by Time-Warner, fairly liberal. Founded by Ted Turner, wacko-pinko commie liberal.

MSNBC: Joint venture between Microsoft and GE. Will not rock the boat. Too many customers and shareholders to answer to.

ABC: Owned by Disney, which by the very nature of it's family programming history and family themed parks is a fairly conservative outfit. Of course, most people aren't aware that Disney owns ABC and so the network provides a liberal slant. It's also dead last in the ratings. Go figure.

NBC: Owned by General Electric. In terms of evening programming and profitability, this is the best. It's news ogranization however, is left alone and provides a moderate to liberal viewpoint. The news operation is the retarded stepchild of the programming division. In terms of the Big 3 networks, NBC is the best.

CBS: The original network is okay with it's news operation, fairly liberal. The TV division, after years of slugglish operations, has turned a corner. Owned by Viacom, owner of Paramount, Blockbuster, and Infinity Broadcasting, among others. This is the company that brings you MTV, VH-1, and Howard Stern. Does have Letterman. Middle of the pack.

Fox news is clearly the most efficient and well-run network in America. It provides a slightly conservative viewpoint but DOES allow liberal voices to have a say. Some, like Colmes, are minor celebrities.

FOX NEWS: AMERICA'S NEWS NETWORK OF CHOICE!

GOD BLESS JANE SKINNER AND LAURIE DHUE!

Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: tahoetahoe on June 04, 2004, 08:44:04 AM
You LOVE Fox News?  Yikes.  They take the same approach to news as they do to football.

I have to say, without being at all sarchastic...I am impressed that you think Fox is slightly conservative.  Because, as a liberal, I find it insanely right.  I mean no insults here.  The political spectrum is an amazing thing.  I think its way too conservative and it sounds like you don't find it conservative enough.  Although, w/ regard to the point about Fox having liberals...I think 9 times out of 10, they just bring liberals on to yell at them and beat on them. 

One point for conservatives: you don't have to YELL to be heard.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Sosua on June 04, 2004, 09:07:20 AM
Quote
Sure, Bill O'Reilly is a pompous windbag but he's honest and fun to watch.

LOL.  Look into the Bill O'Reilly Peabody/Polk award mess if you want to see how far his honesty goes.

Colmes isn't liberal.  He's a moderate, and a wussy one at that.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 04, 2004, 09:30:27 AM
Quote
Sure, Bill O'Reilly is a pompous windbag but he's honest and fun to watch.

LOL.  Look into the Bill O'Reilly Peabody/Polk award mess if you want to see how far his honesty goes.

Colmes isn't liberal.  He's a moderate, and a wussy one at that.

I've looked into it.  It was a slip of the tongue if anything.  Just like a lliberal (referring to Al "I'm a tool" Frankin) to blow something so minute out of proportion.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Sosua on June 04, 2004, 09:45:08 AM
A slip of the tongue in more than 3 separate occasions, all verified by Lexis-Nexis?

*edit*

Besides, he wasn't even with Inside Edition (or whatever show it was) when it won.  He had left a year before then.  So he didn't even win the Polk.  He wasn't on the show then.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Lipper316 on June 04, 2004, 10:19:29 AM
Somewhat related to this discussion, I like Al Franken's analogy of conservatives and liberals love for America.

Conservatives love America how babies love their mommy and daddy. Mommy and Daddy do no wrong. They are always right. If they do something, surely they know best.

Liberals love America how adults love their parents. Deep-down they love their parents, however they take into account opposing views. Sometimes they know their parents are wrong.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Lipper316 on June 04, 2004, 10:29:15 AM
It seriously blows my mind how intelligent, logical people defend our preseident. He blatanly lied about WMD in Iraq, about ties to bin laden. and now its all about freeing the Iraqi people. Now he blames intelligence failures.

Some other wonderful things our president has done:

1) introduced a bill that would not tax dividends earned on stocks. Wow, how do rich people earn their money. Oh thats right, they invest their millions and live on the earnings. So basically, no taxes for the rich.

2) bi-partisan campaign reform. basically wanted to change where parties can get their funds during an election. This would allow only the richest of the rich be able to sustain a competative campaign. Oh wait, thats you George Bush.

Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 04, 2004, 10:31:47 AM
Oh, but today he announced he is willing to help the investigation into the leak of the identity of the CIA agent.

Imagine.  The prhesident of the US is willing to do his legal duty and responsibility of cooperating with a criminal investigation.  Isn't just wonderful?

It seriously blows my mind how intelligent, logical people defend our preseident. He blatanly lied about WMD in Iraq, about ties to bin laden. and now its all about freeing the Iraqi people. Now he blames intelligence failures.

Some other wonderful things our president has done:

1) introduced a bill that would not tax dividends earned on stocks. Wow, how do rich people earn their money. Oh thats right, they invest their millions and live on the earnings. So basically, no taxes for the rich.

2) bi-partisan campaign reform. basically wanted to change where parties can get their funds during an election. This would allow only the richest of the rich be able to sustain a competative campaign. Oh wait, thats you George Bush.


Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: bobfett33 on June 04, 2004, 10:45:45 AM
All I can say is:

http://www.radgeek.com/gt/2001/03/22/tom_tomorrow.html
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Lipper316 on June 04, 2004, 11:29:57 AM
All I can say is:

http://www.radgeek.com/gt/2001/03/22/tom_tomorrow.html

LOL!! I Love It!
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: nathanielmark on June 04, 2004, 11:35:36 AM
thats right on the money.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Jeremy on June 04, 2004, 11:51:39 AM
All I can say is:

http://www.radgeek.com/gt/2001/03/22/tom_tomorrow.html

As much as I like O'Reilly, he does have a huge ego....kudos.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 04, 2004, 08:12:00 PM
Is it just me or does it make everyone sick when 'journalist' interview each other as if they were the news makers?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: nathanielmark on June 04, 2004, 08:20:49 PM
i guess, at least on this board, people are more aware of reality then i thought.  i was of the impression that most people did believe fox news was evenhanded news coverage.  which it is clearly not.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Todd on June 05, 2004, 08:43:53 AM
Two days later, man I had to go back two pages to find my post.  Would someone please look at the voting records of journalists of all sorts?  I have heard they vote Dem for the most part, if this is true them my comment about motives (again you'll have to go back two pages) takes on great significance.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 05, 2004, 11:25:18 AM
You're saying the voting record of journalists is an indication of the news slant?

Who sets the tone, gives the news direction and fires and hires these journalists?

And when you do work for your boss, who's views do you keep in mind before delivering a product, his or yours?


Using the voting pattern of journalists to determine the slant just won't work.  There are too many other factors.  It's just not that simple.

Two days later, man I had to go back two pages to find my post.  Would someone please look at the voting records of journalists of all sorts?  I have heard they vote Dem for the most part, if this is true them my comment about motives (again you'll have to go back two pages) takes on great significance.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Lipper316 on June 05, 2004, 12:24:02 PM
I think its pretty much done. Fox News is crap. To get real news without bias, visit the london guardian website.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 05, 2004, 07:28:34 PM
I think its pretty much done. Fox News is crap. To get real news without bias, visit the london guardian website.

the Guardian really deals it out.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Todd on June 06, 2004, 09:51:44 PM
Motives man, if you vote Dem are you going to go out hunting for a story making Republicans look good?  How much effort will you really put into locating that obscure source that will make the guy you plan on voting for lose points in the polls?  When I questioned motives, I questioned all motives, including the owners' motives.  What owner wants even half of his journalists seriously peeved at them?  They want to make money and if doing so means they can only slightly control the stories they print then they say so be it.  The first time they try to editorialize a piece into their perferred slant they'll have freedom of the press lawsuits and publicity up to the eyeballs.  Lawsuits cost money, we are all potential lawyers we know this.  Oh wait this board is about Fox News being too conservative...

Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: jgruber on June 07, 2004, 07:07:36 AM
And if you do what you suggest how long will you keep your job?  It's called self-censoring

Motives man, if you vote Dem are you going to go out hunting for a story making Republicans look good?  How much effort will you really put into locating that obscure source that will make the guy you plan on voting for lose points in the polls?  When I questioned motives, I questioned all motives, including the owners' motives.  What owner wants even half of his journalists seriously peeved at them?  They want to make money and if doing so means they can only slightly control the stories they print then they say so be it.  The first time they try to editorialize a piece into their perferred slant they'll have freedom of the press lawsuits and publicity up to the eyeballs.  Lawsuits cost money, we are all potential lawyers we know this.  Oh wait this board is about Fox News being too conservative...


Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: bobfett33 on June 07, 2004, 04:07:33 PM
The Guardian is good, I"ll admit.

But my news source of choice for the past three years (since 9/11, pretty much) has been London's The Independent - news.independent.co.uk.

I've actually heard that the consensus is that they're a "conservative" paper, but I think this is mostly referring to economic matters.  Their international news coverage seems to be incredibly informative and unbiased.  Plus, their Middle East correspondent is Robert Fisk, an absolutely amazing and hard-hitting journalist.   I was fortunate enough to have dinner with him a couple of years ago!
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: ->Soon on August 21, 2006, 11:28:58 AM
is there even any question?

they are so biased they have some of there own people quitting.

and the shame is, it works!
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: dividebyzero on August 21, 2006, 11:35:15 AM
Last week, I was *fortunate* enough to catch a brief interview with an evangelical pastor, who in the span of three or so minutes managed to say that:

1) Islam is evil.
2) Katrina was the result of Buddhism.
3) That although governments are obligated to defend their citizens, that Israel should've "turned the other cheek".

They call it "balancing", I call it allowing complete crackpots on national T.V.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: ->Soon on August 21, 2006, 11:36:33 AM
the shame is, theres so many crackpots that watch it and take it as the gospel.

its like were living in 2 different worlds...
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: dividebyzero on August 21, 2006, 11:40:03 AM
Fortunately for myself, I've spent so much time being angry about it that I've worn myself out. Now I'm blissfully apathetic.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: ->Soon on August 21, 2006, 11:41:40 AM
after a few yrs, your apathy will be replaced by anger again...
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: obamacon on August 21, 2006, 12:03:43 PM
Fox News is about as skewed to the right as CNN and MSNBC are to the left. I don't watch it anymore because it isn't interesting not because of any bias issues (which to anyone listening critically are easy to identify). In fact, with the exception of Brit Hume there isn't anything on the channel worth watching on a regular basis (I'm excluding special events of course). On the other hand, CNN & MSNBC are equally worthless most of the time as are the nightly news broadcasts of NBC, CBS and ABC. The sole exception (and one of the only reasons I watch television news anymore) is PBS. Jim Lehrer is the best anchor in the news business, and his show single-handedly redeems what is an otherwise uninteresting field of broadcast news.

the shame is, theres so many crackpots that watch it and take it as the gospel.

This isn’t a Fox News phenomenon.
http://www.dailykos.com/
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Einstein on August 21, 2006, 12:49:02 PM
I love how the ad on the side of my screen says

"is fox news fair and balanced?"  from www.pollingpoint.com

goes perfect with this thread..
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: ->Soon on May 22, 2007, 03:06:43 PM
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Homer_Simpson_brainwashed_by_Fox_programming_0521.html
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 26, 2007, 08:26:41 PM
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Homer_Simpson_brainwashed_by_Fox_programming_0521.html

can't quite agree with you on that one...fox creates sometimes simple scenarios to address complex issues...consider the viewer...a pre-fabricated conspiracy to distract liberal dems and bait conspiracy theorists...so is the simpsons a liberal-minded show placed in a conservative outlet or a conservative manipulated show to distract the liberal audience.

remember the congress woman who slapped the security officer?  who was released from iraq?  do you remember what was going on with an independent counsel at the time?

prestidigitation or an indignant press...you choose to change the channel in either case. ;)
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: ->Soon on June 11, 2007, 07:33:36 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_en_tv/ap_on_tv_fox_s_war

War takes up less time on Fox News
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: ->Soon on October 21, 2007, 07:28:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3kI8LNTqNo
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 21, 2007, 09:17:33 PM
cnn and fox and msnbc ALL are corporate "pop" news...so if you blast one...blast them all.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: ->Soon on October 22, 2007, 06:05:00 AM
fox doest even pretend to be fair or balanced, so they get the top award.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: TJDevlin on October 27, 2007, 07:10:26 PM
Yo da blue, where do you get your facts from? You can not be objective to one news channel without being objective to other  news channels of the same family (by family I mean conservative). 
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: ->Soon on November 16, 2007, 06:49:18 PM
http://cliffschecter.bravenewfilms.org/blog/18867-fox-news-porn

;D
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Julie Fern on November 20, 2007, 04:53:45 PM
Yo da blue, where do you get your facts from? You can not be objective to one news channel without being objective to other news channels of the same family (by family I mean conservative).

any idiot can see false news for what is.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: yoyodawg on November 20, 2007, 05:42:33 PM
Yo da blue, where do you get your facts from? You can not be objective to one news channel without being objective to other news channels of the same family (by family I mean conservative).

any idiot can see false news for what is.

You're over 19 thousand POSTS! Ha! Loser. You can't actually go to lawschool and post 19 thousand times can you? Ha!
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Julie Fern on November 21, 2007, 04:53:44 AM
julie smell something fetid.

republicanism!
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 01, 2007, 07:24:24 PM
Yo da blue, where do you get your facts from? You can not be objective to one news channel without being objective to other news channels of the same family (by family I mean conservative).

any idiot can see false news for what is.

You're over 19 thousand POSTS! Ha! Loser. You can't actually go to lawschool and post 19 thousand times can you? Ha!


well...you can actually sell lsat prep tests to make a living...

is that same as going to law school?


one of the best advertisers for fox news is that limpbrained child, keith oldfatman...on msnbc...wow...bill maher take note...this guy gets looneytoons...he is the best advertisement for someone on another channel....go figure
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Julie Fern on December 03, 2007, 04:16:52 PM
that anything like being illegal alien who blow repugs for living?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: bridget_jones on December 03, 2007, 04:54:55 PM
Most other news outlets are left wing, designed to blind the masses. How come nobody ever mentions that?
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Julie Fern on December 03, 2007, 06:44:54 PM
because they not want be seen retarded rightwing nutjob like you.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Julie Fern on December 04, 2007, 04:44:13 AM
yeah, cnn just dripping with liberals.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: yoyodawg on December 05, 2007, 03:09:08 PM
because they not want be seen retarded rightwing nutjob like you.

Like how CNN smoothly handled the Clinton campaign plant (the General who asked the Don't ask don't tell question) on the Rebulican Youtube debate? Nice job of fact checking there Anderson Cooper and CNN. Funny how that story didn't get any coverage outside of the Glen Beck show on CNN or CNN.com. Imagine if Foxnews would have done the same thing on a Democrat debate.

Oh that's right, the Democrats won't debate on Foxnews because they're scared Fox will do the exact same thing CNN did to the Republicans.
Title: Re: Fox News?
Post by: Julie Fern on December 05, 2007, 06:13:13 PM
back to your cartoons.