Anyone willing to call him a "Hitler"?

[j2k4]

Hugo Chavez, I mean...you know, Castro's pal?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/30/wchavez30.xml

[ilw]

hitler is going a bit far, based on that article he's not even up to berlusconi levels of dodginess.

[vidcc]

Gasp..... There are countries outside the USA that are not financially blockading a country "we" don't like.:rolleyes:



I thought conservatives supported closing/refusing licensing of TV channels.

Actually it's just ones they find offensive (too much adult content) and those that they feel have a "liberal bias" don't give republican talking points priority, and it's not called "closing" but instead not funding with public money ;)

I am against government closing any media down for political reasons, I am however wondering what the view would be if a US media outlet was part of or supported a failed attempt to overthrow our government.

No I am not willing to call him "Hitler" and quite frankly I think that the comparison is used inappropriately too often and has diminished the memory of how evil Hitler was. :dry:

[j2k4]

Gasp..... There are countries outside the USA that are not financially blockading a country "we" don't like.:rolleyes:



I thought conservatives supported closing/refusing licensing of TV channels.

Actually it's just ones they find offensive (too much adult content) and those that they feel have a "liberal bias" don't give republican talking points priority, and it's not called "closing" but instead not funding with public money ;)

I am against government closing any media down for political reasons, I am however wondering what the view would be if a US media outlet was part of or supported a failed attempt to overthrow our government.

No I am not willing to call him "Hitler" and quite frankly I think that the comparison is used inappropriately too often and has diminished the memory of how evil Hitler was. :dry:

In case you hadn't noticed, Air America failed of it's own accord, not because of any conservative impulse (financial corruption and insipid content were the largest factors), and PBS and NPR (Bill Moyers' s networks) are in fine shape.

I'll bet you can't/don't/won't give the Dem's Fairness Doctrine a correct read, either.

I'm also betting you will never get an honest handle on what any conservative believes.

So, then:

We'll put you down as a Chavez fan/defender, eh?

[j2k4]

hitler is going a bit far, based on that article he's not even up to berlusconi levels of dodginess.

Berlusconi is gone, I believe, replaced by a really fairminded, uh, replacement. :huh:

All of Italy sighs in relief. :dry:

[ilw]

His replacement is a bit of a non-entity, but whats with the disgruntled smilie? Berlusconi was a corrupt little shit.
Much of Italy did sigh in relief

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

and it's not called "closing" but instead not funding with public money ;)

No, I'm sure it's called closing when the military comes in and take your broadcasting equipment away...

[RTFM]

Anyone willing to call jk24 stupid?

[vidcc]

In case you hadn't noticed, Air America failed of it's own accord, not because of any conservative impulse (financial corruption and insipid content were the largest factors), and PBS and NPR (Bill Moyers' s networks) are in fine shape.

I'll bet you can't/don't/won't give the Dem's Fairness Doctrine a correct read, either.

I'm also betting you will never get an honest handle on what any conservative believes.

So, then:

We'll put you down as a Chavez fan/defender, eh?

What does Air America have to do with anything? (which is still running with new backing). BTW fox lost far more money in it's first years before it found a footing, just their backer had deeper pockets.
I mentioned Adult channels, which conservatives wish taken down and public broadcasting funding, which conservatives wish to stop because they claim public broadcasting has a liberal agenda.

As for Chavez, there are some things I agree with him about and some I disagree.
My post just put a bit of perspective in. The USA would close down any TV station that supported a failed by force government take over . That you may support (or at least not object to) the attempt to have the election process overturned by coup in Venezuela because you disagree with the political doctrines of Chavez is irrelevant to the issue.


On the democratic fairness doctrine I am against political control of the media. I was against the right wing calls for government control of the media when they broke news embarrassing to the administration such as the fact that they are bypassing FISA and listening to American phone calls without warrant, and I am against control of political opinion shows.
I am certainly against government controls on bias.

I just wish the media would do it's job and report accurate news.




I'm also betting you will never get an honest handle on what any conservative believes.

Actually I agree there, because "conservatives" have evolved beyond recognition into many different sub species. Which is kind of ironic because the new species are more hard line against the theory of evolution. True Conservatives are almost extinct.

[vidcc]

and it's not called "closing" but instead not funding with public money ;)

No, I'm sure it's called closing when the military comes in and take your broadcasting equipment away...
:unsure: I agree with what you say, however in the snip you quoted I was talking about "conservatives" wanting to close adult channels and in particular with public funding they wish to de-fund public broadcasting because they think it has a liberal bias.
You appear to have mixed this up with Venezuela.

[Busyman™]

Anyone willing to call jk24 stupid?

Go back to the Lounge.:dry:

[j2k4]

His replacement is a bit of a non-entity, but whats with the disgruntled smilie? Berlusconi was a corrupt little shit.
Much of Italy did sigh in relief

I have a cousin who has lived there for over 20 years, in Rome, Naples and a few other places.

He's told me on several occasions that, in the life of your average Giuseppe, not much ever changes, no matter who's in charge.

He built a 4500 sq. ft. house, then spent 12 years defending it against local thieves before his wife, uh, deprived him of it.



What does Air America have to do with anything? (which is still running with new backing). BTW fox lost far more money in it's first years before it found a footing, just their backer had deeper pockets.
I mentioned Adult channels, which conservatives wish taken down and public broadcasting funding, which conservatives wish to stop because they claim public broadcasting has a liberal agenda.

Air America could rightly be called the Pussy network, but it doesn't have nine lives, I assure you.

Liberal investors have one very important quality in common with their conservative counterparts: they don't like to lose money.

Besides which, NPR/PBS have irrefutably proven programming for the liberal palate can only work with government funding and those tortuous, guilt-mongering money-raising affairs they have every other week.

Foxnews, on the other hand, has proven a solid financial value.

BTW-

Have you any idea what will be named the new Al Franken fiasco.


As for Chavez, there are some things I agree with him about and some I disagree.
My post just put a bit of perspective in. The USA would close down any TV station that supported a failed by force government take over . That you may support (or at least not object to) the attempt to have the election process overturned by coup in Venezuela because you disagree with the political doctrines of Chavez is irrelevant to the issue.

Perspective?

Where? When?

That fact is that such ideas, in the U.S., are discussed in our House and Senate ere they see the light of day...the last U.S. President to get by with that tactic was the guy who freed the slaves.

That you cannot tell the difference between that and the executive fiat of Chavez only emphasizes your lack of reasoning.


On the democratic fairness doctrine I am against political control of the media. I was against the right wing calls for government control of the media when they broke news embarrassing to the administration such as the fact that they are bypassing FISA and listening to American phone calls without warrant, and I am against control of political opinion shows.

I'll keep that in mind...


I am certainly against government controls on bias.

...while I revisit your recent paean to and plea for harsher hate crimes legislation. :whistling


I just wish the media would do it's job and report accurate news.

Have you noticed Foxnews has a "guy-in-the-street", in whose presentation can be seen shots fired, tear-gas released, and general mayhem, while CNN broadcasts from a spot-on-high, well away from the madding crowd.

Nobody else seems to be covering the events.

BTW-

While you've made a point of saying "As for Chavez, there are some things I agree with him about and some I disagree", nowhere did you deign to actually enumerate any misgivings you may feel.

Seriously, though...I don't wonder why.

[Busyman™]

Tbh, conservative "news" show make for better comedy for the simple fact that they are actually serious.

I saw some clip awhile back about comedians looking for material that depended on conservatives. Liberal material like talking about fiscal responsibilty was too boring.:lol:

There are morons that listen to conservative shows for their news coverage and others that listen to be appalled and/or laugh at it.

[MaxOverlord]

I won't call him Hitler because he doesn't rule from the right. I think that is a requirement to be call that name.
Not surprised what Chavez is doing.
Globovision will be next. I'm sure the word 'coup' will come up in that shutdown.
All enemies of The State must go.

[vidcc]

Air America could rightly be called the Pussy network, but it doesn't have nine lives, I assure you.

Liberal investors have one very important quality in common with their conservative counterparts: they don't like to lose money.

Besides which, NPR/PBS have irrefutably proven programming for the liberal palate can only work with government funding and those tortuous, guilt-mongering money-raising affairs they have every other week.

Foxnews, on the other hand, has proven a solid financial value.

BTW-

Have you any idea what will be named the new Al Franken fiasco.

Revisit the station in 10years. Fox failed miserably for the first five.

BTW Al franken Isn't with Air America....didn't you know that?


Perspective?

Where? When?

That fact is that such ideas, in the U.S., are discussed in our House and Senate ere they see the light of day...the last U.S. President to get by with that tactic was the guy who freed the slaves.

That you cannot tell the difference between that and the executive fiat of Chavez only emphasizes your lack of reasoning.

The perspective was that this station supported and encouraged overthrowing an elected government, The point was that if that happened here the same thing would happen to said station. The fact that it's a hypothetical as we haven't had an uprising doesn't matter.






...while I revisit your recent paean to and plea for harsher hate crimes legislation. :whistling Bias in reporting is not the same as violent crimes committed against the individual because of race/religion sexuality etc. Even for you that is a silly argument.



Have you noticed Foxnews has a "guy-in-the-street", in whose presentation can be seen shots fired, tear-gas released, and general mayhem, while CNN broadcasts from a spot-on-high, well away from the madding crowd.

Nobody else seems to be covering the events.

where, when?........what about Iraq? are you suggesting that all those journalist that have been killed worked for fox? :dry:


BTW-

While you've made a point of saying "As for Chavez, there are some things I agree with him about and some I disagree", nowhere did you deign to actually enumerate any misgivings you may feel.

Seriously, though...I don't wonder why.


Then you should also have noticed that I deigned to actually enumerate any agreement I feel. You're not trying to make something out of nothing are you? :rolleyes:

Edit:

I notice other than a bit of name calling and defame by association you have yet to comment on the closing yourself. I of course have already said
I am against government closing any media down for political reasons and you have yet to deny that you favor de-funding public TV or the closure of adult channels.

BTW I hope you were outraged at the military banning our troops from blogging and Youtubing from Iraq.

[ilw]

Interesting side-note, some people suggest that something similar happened in the uk about 15-20 years ago when Thames Television aired a documentary about the SAS gunning down suspected Provisional IRA members in Gibraltar, apparently it pissed off Maggie and after some modifications to the law Thames lost their licence at the next opportunity (although its a lot harder to prove as it was all done more circumspectly).
Just another example of how we're a banana republic with a new lick of paint. Ho-hum

[lynx]

I'm surprised no-one has pointed out that Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera out of existence. I wonder if he was planning to use the condor legion.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jscahill.php?articleid=8148

No doubt someone will complain that it's from an anti-war site, but I can't be bothered to look any deeper. It's easy to find "reasons" to call someone Hitler if you take a moment to look.

[MaxOverlord]

I'm surprised no-one has pointed out that Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera out of existence. I wonder if he was planning to use the condor legion.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jscahill.php?articleid=8148

No doubt someone will complain that it's from an anti-war site, but I can't be bothered to look any deeper. It's easy to find "reasons" to call someone Hitler if you take a moment to look.


Always with the Bush angle,eh?

[j2k4]

Revisit the station in 10years. Fox failed miserably for the first five.

BTW Al franken Isn't with Air America....didn't you know that?


"The Station" won't be around in ten years, and you may bank on the fact... unless it becomes yet another black hole for government largesse.

The Al Franken reference was a joke, vid, though his absence won't help Air America.

It is doomed by the very concept it embodies. ;)

Meanwhile, the rioting continues...

[Busyman™]

Revisit the station in 10years. Fox failed miserably for the first five.

BTW Al franken Isn't with Air America....didn't you know that?


"The Station" won't be around in ten years, and you may bank on the fact... unless it becomes yet another black hole for government largesse.

The Al Franken reference was a joke, vid, though his absence won't help Air America.

It is doomed by the very concept it embodies. ;)

Meanwhile, the rioting continues...

Again, liberal radio is quite boring.

Liberal straight talk is boring. Liberals making fun of conservatives is quite funny.

It's more funny talking about someone who is seriously fucked in the head than talking about someone who is making sense. There's no comedy in it.

I wish someone would post the clip of the comedians for conservatives (or some shit like that).

[MaxOverlord]

"The Station" won't be around in ten years, and you may bank on the fact... unless it becomes yet another black hole for government largesse.

The Al Franken reference was a joke, vid, though his absence won't help Air America.

It is doomed by the very concept it embodies. ;)

Meanwhile, the rioting continues...

Again, liberal radio is quite boring.

Liberal straight talk is boring. Liberals making fun of conservatives is quite funny.

It's more funny talking about someone who is seriously fucked in the head than talking about someone who is making sense. There's no comedy in it.

I wish someone would post the clip of the comedians for conservatives (or some shit like that).


Conservatives=Funny(Fucked in the head.)
Liberals=Boring(Completely Sane.)
Did I understand that correctly?

[Busyman™]

Again, liberal radio is quite boring.

Liberal straight talk is boring. Liberals making fun of conservatives is quite funny.

It's more funny talking about someone who is seriously fucked in the head than talking about someone who is making sense. There's no comedy in it.

I wish someone would post the clip of the comedians for conservatives (or some shit like that).


Conservatives=Funny(Fucked in the head.)
Liberals=Boring(Completely Sane.)
Did I understand that correctly?

Not necessarily.

[vidcc]

Although outnumbered by right wing talk shows there are plenty of liberal talk radio shows that make money and have been around for a while.
There are very few nationally syndicated talk shows of either wing compared to the amount of local.
Air America differs because it's an entire station trying to go national. They are also trying to do it with a sponsorship policy in keeping with their political ideas... environment friendly ethical employment/consumer practice etc. etc. and so a lot of "big business" sponsorship money is unavailable.

Financially viable within an ethical code is not the same as having no audience, no matter how much J2 wishes it so.

The right wing talk shows don't care as long as they get money.

I would add that melanie morgan found out that she can't just say what she likes. She lost a lot of sponsorship money when that guy sent recordings of her shows to the companies that sponsor them via agencies.

[MaxOverlord]

Again, liberal radio is quite boring.

Liberal straight talk is boring. Liberals making fun of conservatives is quite funny.

It's more funny talking about someone who is seriously fucked in the head than talking about someone who is making sense. There's no comedy in it.

I wish someone would post the clip of the comedians for conservatives (or some shit like that).


It's more funny talking(liberal) about someone(conservative) who is seriously fucked in the head than about someone(liberal) who is making sense.
That isn't what you were implying?

[lynx]

I'm surprised no-one has pointed out that Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera out of existence. I wonder if he was planning to use the condor legion.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jscahill.php?articleid=8148

No doubt someone will complain that it's from an anti-war site, but I can't be bothered to look any deeper. It's easy to find "reasons" to call someone Hitler if you take a moment to look.


Always with the Bush angle,eh?Why not?

Are you going to try to defend what he wanted to do?

[MaxOverlord]

Always with the Bush angle,eh?Why not?

Are you going to try to defend what he wanted to do?

If you need me too. My point was you seem to take any topic and turn it into a George Bush expose.
No one gets anything out of constant Bush bashing.
If the point is relevant to the topic then have a wail.
If not than contribute something that advances the original question.
Yours truly,
Max.

[Busyman™]

Again, liberal radio is quite boring.

Liberal straight talk is boring. Liberals making fun of conservatives is quite funny.

It's more funny talking about someone who is seriously fucked in the head than talking about someone who is making sense. There's no comedy in it.

I wish someone would post the clip of the comedians for conservatives (or some shit like that).


It's more funny talking(liberal) about someone(conservative) who is seriously fucked in the head than about someone(liberal) who is making sense.
That isn't what you were implying?

Not necessarily.

For instance, which can you get more comedic material from?

The person talking about balancing the budget or

The person wanting to spend like fuck and also cut taxes

The person that wants to teach the theory of evolution in science class or

The person that wants to teach the Bible....in science class

How about the dick suck of a news station that deliberately put "Mark Foley - Democrat" knowing full well he was Repub?

Man I could go on and on. I say not necessarily cuz there are some libs to make fun of like Jefferson who had all that money in his fridge....and people still supported him....and Republicans defended him (Twilight Zone):wacko:.

I say that people that support some of this stuff are fucked in the head. I like some conservative ideals but neo-cons have seemed to move away from even those.

If you want the Bible taught in science class, you are fucked in head and an idiot. I think someone mixed up faith and hypothesis.

If you support a President that spearheaded the biggest fuck-up in my lifetime, and were outraged over Clinton's dick suck, you are fucked up and if idiots like that end up being a 3/4 majority then the world is fucked.

3000+ soldiers dead, so what....Clinton had his dick sucked.:O

I also don't see many laughable clips from CNN but there is a plethora of them from Faux News (that's the Repub's personal hot mouth).

gBLjtCIi1qE

Btw, I don't buy the Hitler crap either. I also don't buy that Venezuela is democratic or was it ever?).

I think someone brought Bush up due to who brought up Chavez and Hilter (the thread starter). It was kinda sorta loike irony FTW!!

If it was someone else who started the thread, it might have been different. I am no fan of Chavez myself but he gained many fans in the states by selling discounted home heating oil to the poor over here. It may have been propaganda but it was the kind that made a difference in many people's lives.

It is natural to draw parallels. You seemed silent about other folks that were mentioned.

[j2k4]

Air America differs because it's an entire station trying to go national. They are also trying to do it with a sponsorship policy in keeping with their political ideas... environment friendly ethical employment/consumer practice etc. etc. and so a lot of "big business" sponsorship money is unavailable.

And that in turn means they must attempt to appeal to "small business", which has no money to spare, and has generally a more conservative stance than "big business".


Financially viable within an ethical code is not the same as having no audience, no matter how much J2 wishes it so.

Oh yes, it is the same, no matter how much you think I wish it were so.


I would add that melanie morgan found out that she can't just say what she likes. She lost a lot of sponsorship money when that guy sent recordings of her shows to the companies that sponsor them via agencies.

Who is Melanie Morgan?

Is she on Air America? :huh:

[MaxOverlord]

It's more funny talking(liberal) about someone(conservative) who is seriously fucked in the head than about someone(liberal) who is making sense.
That isn't what you were implying?

Not necessarily.

For instance, which can you get more comedic material from?

The person talking about balancing the budget or

The person wanting to spend like fuck and also cut taxes

The person that wants to teach the theory of evolution in science class or

The person that wants to teach the Bible....in science class

How about the dick suck of a news station that deliberately put "Mark Foley - Democrat" knowing full well he was Repub?

Man I could go on and on. I say not necessarily cuz there are some libs to make fun of like Jefferson who had all that money in his fridge....and people still supported him....and Republicans defended him (Twilight Zone):wacko:.

I say that people that support some of this stuff are fucked in the head. I like some conservative ideals but neo-cons have seemed to move away from even those.

If you want the Bible taught in science class, you are fucked in head and an idiot. I think someone mixed up faith and hypothesis.

If you support a President that spearheaded the biggest fuck-up in my lifetime, and were outraged over Clinton's dick suck, you are fucked up and if idiots like that end up being a 3/4 majority then the world is fucked.

3000+ soldiers dead, so what....Clinton had his dick sucked.:O

I also don't see many laughable clips from CNN but there is a plethora of them from Faux News (that's the Repub's personal hot mouth).

gBLjtCIi1qE

Btw, I don't buy the Hitler crap either. I also don't buy that Venezuela is democratic or was it ever?).

I think someone brought Bush up due to who brought up Chavez and Hilter (the thread starter). It was kinda sorta loike irony FTW!!

If it was someone else who started the thread, it might have been different. I am no fan of Chavez myself but he gained many fans in the states by selling discounted home heating oil to the poor over here. It may have been propaganda but it was the kind that made a difference in many people's lives.

It is natural to draw parallels. You seemed silent about other folks that were mentioned.


Ya know BusyMan you make it very hard for me to even want to discuss things with you when you Constantly use such gutter language.
Calling people names. Elevating yourself above anyone who doesn't think like you. It's all so ridiculous I'm not sure how to even approach it.

[Busyman™]

Not necessarily.

For instance, which can you get more comedic material from?

The person talking about balancing the budget or

The person wanting to spend like fuck and also cut taxes

The person that wants to teach the theory of evolution in science class or

The person that wants to teach the Bible....in science class

How about the dick suck of a news station that deliberately put "Mark Foley - Democrat" knowing full well he was Repub?

Man I could go on and on. I say not necessarily cuz there are some libs to make fun of like Jefferson who had all that money in his fridge....and people still supported him....and Republicans defended him (Twilight Zone):wacko:.

I say that people that support some of this stuff are fucked in the head. I like some conservative ideals but neo-cons have seemed to move away from even those.

If you want the Bible taught in science class, you are fucked in head and an idiot. I think someone mixed up faith and hypothesis.

If you support a President that spearheaded the biggest fuck-up in my lifetime, and were outraged over Clinton's dick suck, you are fucked up and if idiots like that end up being a 3/4 majority then the world is fucked.

3000+ soldiers dead, so what....Clinton had his dick sucked.:O

I also don't see many laughable clips from CNN but there is a plethora of them from Faux News (that's the Repub's personal hot mouth).

gBLjtCIi1qE

Btw, I don't buy the Hitler crap either. I also don't buy that Venezuela is democratic or was it ever?).

I think someone brought Bush up due to who brought up Chavez and Hilter (the thread starter). It was kinda sorta loike irony FTW!!

If it was someone else who started the thread, it might have been different. I am no fan of Chavez myself but he gained many fans in the states by selling discounted home heating oil to the poor over here. It may have been propaganda but it was the kind that made a difference in many people's lives.

It is natural to draw parallels. You seemed silent about other folks that were mentioned.


Ya know BusyMan you make it very hard for me to even want to discuss things with you when you Constantly use such gutter language.
Calling people names. Elevating yourself above anyone who doesn't think like you. It's all so ridiculous I'm not sure how to even approach it.

Mmk, sub in have weird illogical thinking for fucked in the head and had fellatio performed on him for dick sucked.

And sorry, I calls it like I see it. There is no wiggle room for outrage on Clinton's flandering but support for 3000+ of our soldiers dead. There is no wiggle room for Bible study in science class. It is utterly stupid and to see people actually serious about such things, makes them look crazy.

As far as elevating myself, maybe so in a sense. You may have thought some of Hitler's ideals nutty. So do I.

I would like a person to justify some of these things like Bible study in science class. It is hard for me not to back them in a corner about it but I am willing to listen. Maybe tell me how Mitt Romney is any better than John Kerry. Maybe tell me about N'Orleans. Mmk the locals fucked up so let's let part of the US drop of the face of the earth, the Prez can't pull rank or step on any toes.

[lynx]

Busy, sometimes it's better to butt out.

I was going to enjoy seeing him try to defend action that J2 was trying to get defined as Hitler-like. :lol:

The right hand not knowing what the right hand is doing is always fun to watch.

[Busyman™]

Busy, sometimes it's better to butt out.

Eh? I wasn't trying to do a team up, ya know.

I talks me own shite, so to speak.:ermm:

[j2k4]

Busy, sometimes it's better to butt out.

I was going to enjoy seeing him try to defend action that J2 was trying to get defined as Hitler-like. :lol:

The right hand not knowing what the right hand is doing is always fun to watch.

Well, now you've just gone and lost me.

Have you become a Bush fan at all (at all).

[MaxOverlord]

Busy, sometimes it's better to butt out.

I was going to enjoy seeing him try to defend action that J2 was trying to get defined as Hitler-like. :lol:

The right hand not knowing what the right hand is doing is always fun to watch.


If you bothered to read my initial post you would see I would not defend Chavez's actions.
I said I wasn't willing to call him Hitler.
Before you make a statement try knowing what your talking about.
Neither will I call Bush or any other leader on the Planet Hitler-like.
If you need a history lesson on what Hitler did compared to what leaders today are doing open a book.

[bigboab]

Busy, sometimes it's better to butt out.

I was going to enjoy seeing him try to defend action that J2 was trying to get defined as Hitler-like. :lol:

The right hand not knowing what the right hand is doing is always fun to watch.

Well, now you've just gone and lost me.

Have you become a Bush fan at all (at all).

Not a bush fan, more a Constant Gardener.:rolleyes:

[MaxOverlord]

Ya know BusyMan you make it very hard for me to even want to discuss things with you when you Constantly use such gutter language.
Calling people names. Elevating yourself above anyone who doesn't think like you. It's all so ridiculous I'm not sure how to even approach it.

Mmk, sub in have weird illogical thinking for fucked in the head and had fellatio performed on him for dick sucked.

And sorry, I calls it like I see it. There is no wiggle room for outrage on Clinton's flandering but support for 3000+ of our soldiers dead. There is no wiggle room for Bible study in science class. It is utterly stupid and to see people actually serious about such things, makes them look crazy.

As far as elevating myself, maybe so in a sense. You may have thought some of Hitler's ideals nutty. So do I.

I would like a person to justify some of these things like Bible study in science class. It is hard for me not to back them in a corner about it but I am willing to listen. Maybe tell me how Mitt Romney is any better than John Kerry. Maybe tell me about N'Orleans. Mmk the locals fucked up so let's let part of the US drop of the face of the earth, the Prez can't pull rank or step on any toes.


You lack of compromise is truely Un-American.
How about a bible class instead of bible in science class. Would you be for that? Probably not.
If your thinking scientifically you should understand that science is what is used to prove much of what the bible says.
Don't confuse science class with teaching evolution and I wont confuse it with teaching creationism..k?
I wouldn't defend Romney.
As far as N'Orleans. That was a purely sickening happening. But lets consider the fact that it was built in a bowl in the middle of hurricane central with a lake above it. That being said I'll agree the Gov. completely lost face in N'Orleans. Maybe if it wasn't such a sludge of a Gov. something could get done.
I've had family over in Afghanistan. I know what it feels like..mmk.
And for a final time I Would Not Compare Anyone To Hitler.
Maybe Rosie....:D

[Busyman™]

Mmk, sub in have weird illogical thinking for fucked in the head and had fellatio performed on him for dick sucked.

And sorry, I calls it like I see it. There is no wiggle room for outrage on Clinton's flandering but support for 3000+ of our soldiers dead. There is no wiggle room for Bible study in science class. It is utterly stupid and to see people actually serious about such things, makes them look crazy.

As far as elevating myself, maybe so in a sense. You may have thought some of Hitler's ideals nutty. So do I.

I would like a person to justify some of these things like Bible study in science class. It is hard for me not to back them in a corner about it but I am willing to listen. Maybe tell me how Mitt Romney is any better than John Kerry. Maybe tell me about N'Orleans. Mmk the locals fucked up so let's let part of the US drop of the face of the earth, the Prez can't pull rank or step on any toes.


You lack of compromise is truely Un-American.
How about a bible class instead of bible in science class. Would you be for that? Probably not.

Of course not. Not in public school.:dry: Why would Bible class need to be there at all? Do intend to have a philosophy class? Well that would involve more than just the Bible. I learned about Shintoism, Confucianism (sp?), Judaism, etc. in one class but it wasn't biology.

Is it a Christian school? Well by all means....Bible away.

All this stuff is pretty cut and dry.

If your thinking scientifically you should understand that science is what is used to prove much of what the bible says.

The Bible doesn't prove anything in science though.

Don't confuse science class with teaching evolution and I wont confuse it with teaching creationism..k?

The theory of evolution has a basis in science. The Bible does not.

I wouldn't defend Romney.

....and he seems like a stand up guy.

As far as N'Orleans. That was a purely sickening happening. But lets consider the fact that it was built in a bowl in the middle of hurricane central with a lake above it. That being said I'll agree the Gov. completely lost face in N'Orleans. Maybe if it wasn't such a sludge of a Gov. something could get done.

The problem wasn't just the governor though. After a local fuck up, it took 5 days, 5 DAYS! for outside help. Then I sat and watched as the President came to town....with the food (of course). He had a crying girl on his shoulder and manuevered her (while she cried) for a photo-op.

Sickening indeed. I do not blame Bush for Katrina happening. That would be mad.

I've had family over in Afghanistan. I know what it feels like..mmk.
And for a final time I Would Not Compare Anyone To Hitler.
Maybe Rosie....:D

I wouldn't compare Chavez to Hitler either.

I have a number of childhood friends, family of friends, and simple acquaintances in Iraq. I know some of them have fought in battle before. I think it's more sting for myself and their family to know that they shouldn't be there. Mind you, there could be any number of crap skirmishes that wouldn't know about that be just as much bullshit as Iraq.

We know this is bullshit and a huge vat of it at that.

Underneath it all, I have been told that moral is low by just a handful of soldiers although they will do as told. I have been told also that most don't want to speak their mind (against this crap) aloud for obvious reasons. Tbh, I don't think soldiers should do that for reporters. Luckily family (& some friends) get the story and that's who counts.

Btw, certain compromises are corrupt. Sometimes there is a right way and a wrong way.

I fail to see why Christian Bible study should be afforded special status in public school. "Cuz a lot of people want it" ain't good enough. Those lot of poeple could be morons.

[MaxOverlord]

I wouldn't compare Chavez to Hitler either.

I have a number of childhood friends, family of friends, and simple acquaintances in Iraq. I know some of them have fought in battle before. I think it's more sting for myself and their family to know that they shouldn't be there. Mind you, there could be any number of crap skirmishes that wouldn't know about that be just as much bullshit as Iraq.

We know this is bullshit and a huge vat of it at that.

Underneath it all, I have been told that moral is low by just a handful of soldiers although they will do as told. I have been told also that most don't want to speak their mind (against this crap) aloud for obvious reasons. Tbh, I don't think soldiers should do that for reporters. Luckily family (& some friends) get the story and that's who counts.

Do you think the politiking of the war has anything to do with their morale?
I'd be interested to know why their morale is low. Is it because they don't believe they should be there,body count(I hate that term by the way),or because of the media never showing achievement over there?

There are justifications for war. The lines have been so blurred as to the current reasons why we are in Iraq I'm not sure too many(other than the uber-hawkish) could really make an argument without thinking they knew it was not quite right.

I do get tired of the Vietnam parallels as well. Taken in context I find it hard to find hardly a reasoning for calling it by that name. Of course each persons view of history is distorted by those who make up history.

I do wish you are your friends in Iraq well and hope they come home safe.

There was a woman on The Washington Journal the other day who said all this "I support the troops but not the war is a bunch of crap."
She said she had a bumper-sticker that said "I support the War but not the Troops." Thought that was pretty good.

We must Always support the troops.

[Busyman™]

I wouldn't compare Chavez to Hitler either.

I have a number of childhood friends, family of friends, and simple acquaintances in Iraq. I know some of them have fought in battle before. I think it's more sting for myself and their family to know that they shouldn't be there. Mind you, there could be any number of crap skirmishes that wouldn't know about that be just as much bullshit as Iraq.

We know this is bullshit and a huge vat of it at that.

Underneath it all, I have been told that moral is low by just a handful of soldiers although they will do as told. I have been told also that most don't want to speak their mind (against this crap) aloud for obvious reasons. Tbh, I don't think soldiers should do that for reporters. Luckily family (& some friends) get the story and that's who counts.

Do you think the politiking of the war has anything to do with their morale?
I'd be interested to know why their morale is low. Is it because they don't believe they should be there,body count(I hate that term by the way),or because of the media never showing achievement over there?

1)The media is always showing achievement over there. I believe it's a great point and counterpoint that both sides are shown. By the body count though, the achievement pales in comparison.

2)They believe shouldn't be there. As do, I believe, most of the public and congress.

3)They also don't like the body count. How could they?

There are justifications for war. The lines have been so blurred as to the current reasons why we are in Iraq I'm not sure too many(other than the uber-hawkish) could really make an argument without thinking they knew it was not quite right.

There are justifications for me robbign a bank too. The lines haven't been blurred. There is a before reason and an after reason. The before reason was completely wrong and the after reason is cleaning up the mess we've created/administration saving face.

I do like when I hear, "We went into Iraq to get Al Qaeda." Nooooo, Al Qaeda is there nowwww because of us.

I do get tired of the Vietnam parallels as well. Taken in context I find it hard to find hardly a reasoning for calling it by that name. Of course each persons view of history is distorted by those who make up history.

Yeah I think Vietnam was a more worthy fight. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, that was more worthy a fight than this crap we are in.

I do wish you are your friends in Iraq well and hope they come home safe.

There was a woman on The Washington Journal the other day who said all this "I support the troops but not the war is a bunch of crap."
She said she had a bumper-sticker that said "I support the War but not the Troops." Thought that was pretty good.

We must Always support the troops.

Look at the bold.

I agree I support the troops. Basically I think like the troops think, get the job done so they can get their asses home.

[MaxOverlord]

Do you think the politiking of the war has anything to do with their morale?
I'd be interested to know why their morale is low. Is it because they don't believe they should be there,body count(I hate that term by the way),or because of the media never showing achievement over there?

1)The media is always showing achievement over there. I believe it's a great point and counterpoint that both sides are shown. By the body count though, the achievement pales in comparison.

2)They believe shouldn't be there. As do, I believe, most of the public and congress.

3)They also don't like the body count. How could they?

There are justifications for war. The lines have been so blurred as to the current reasons why we are in Iraq I'm not sure too many(other than the uber-hawkish) could really make an argument without thinking they knew it was not quite right.

There are justifications for me robbign a bank too. The lines haven't been blurred. There is a before reason and an after reason. The before reason was completely wrong and the after reason is cleaning up the mess we've created/administration saving face.

I do like when I hear, "We went into Iraq to get Al Qaeda." Nooooo, Al Qaeda is there nowwww because of us.

I do get tired of the Vietnam parallels as well. Taken in context I find it hard to find hardly a reasoning for calling it by that name. Of course each persons view of history is distorted by those who make up history.

Yeah I think Vietnam was a more worthy fight. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, that was more worthy a fight than this crap we are in.

I do wish you are your friends in Iraq well and hope they come home safe.

There was a woman on The Washington Journal the other day who said all this "I support the troops but not the war is a bunch of crap."
She said she had a bumper-sticker that said "I support the War but not the Troops." Thought that was pretty good.

We must Always support the troops.

Look at the bold.

I agree I support the troops. Basically I think like the troops think, get the job done so they can get their asses home.


The bold was a joke. She was trying to make the point that to her both were asinine statements.
I think the reasons have been blurred. People bought the war in the beginning because of WMD's.
Now we've got a hundred and one explanations why we are there..in that respect I think they've been blurred..that's what I meant.
By justification I meant for example...Hitler(there's that name again). Pearl Harbor...etc. These are legitimate reasons to raise the troops.
If you can give me a station that gives a balance between achievement and deaths,car bombs,etc..I'd like to know.

[Busyman™]

Look at the bold.

I agree I support the troops. Basically I think like the troops think, get the job done so they can get their asses home.


The bold was a joke. She was trying to make the point that to her both were asinine statements.

:blushing: Oh. I do support the troops though....getting their asses home.

I think the reasons have been blurred. Some people bought the war in the beginning because of WMD's.

Fixed

Now we've got a hundred and one explanations why we are there..in that respect I think they've been blurred..that's what I meant.

There three reasons I can come up with.

1) Admin saving face. They are at the point of no return. They stop, they admit defeat. They keep going, they can say, "Well the jobs not done".

2) Fighting the terrorism we created which leads to....

3) Helping the Iraqi people get on the feet after we destroyed what semblence of infrastructure they had.

Did I do ok?

By justification I meant for example...Hitler(there's that name again). Pearl Harbor...etc. These are legitimate reasons to raise the troops.

Agreed. We were actually attacked. I wish we'd isolate ourselves more and if the falls on it's butt, so be it....well I guess we can't in the nuclear age. Trouble will find you anyway.

If you can give me a station that gives a balance between achievement and deaths,car bombs,etc..I'd like to know.

That's currently impossible. I'd say CNN does a decent job but I don't watch it or Faux News a lot.

I don't see the spin that I see on Faux. Sometimes you can't balance a boat load of troops dying with the fact that troops retook a city.

Which one do you think happens more often?

Faux sugarcoats and lies and then calls it fair and balanced. This goes back to what I said earlier. Sometimes people are just wrong and sometimes it's an 80 - 20 split and that's as balanced as it can be....even if it goes against your point of view.

[MaxOverlord]

The bold was a joke. She was trying to make the point that to her both were asinine statements.

:blushing: Oh. I do support the troops though....getting their asses home.

I think the reasons have been blurred. Some people bought the war in the beginning because of WMD's.

Fixed

Now we've got a hundred and one explanations why we are there..in that respect I think they've been blurred..that's what I meant.

There three reasons I can come up with.

1) Admin saving face. They are at the point of no return. They stop, they admit defeat. They keep going, they can say, "Well the jobs not done".

2) Fighting the terrorism we created which leads to....

3) Helping the Iraqi people get on the feet after we destroyed what semblence of infrastructure they had.

Did I do ok?

By justification I meant for example...Hitler(there's that name again). Pearl Harbor...etc. These are legitimate reasons to raise the troops.

Agreed. We were actually attacked. I wish we'd isolate ourselves more and if the falls on it's butt, so be it....well I guess we can't in the nuclear age. Trouble will find you anyway.

If you can give me a station that gives a balance between achievement and deaths,car bombs,etc..I'd like to know.

That's currently impossible. I'd say CNN does a decent job but I don't watch it or Faux News a lot.

I don't see the spin that I see on Faux. Sometimes you can't balance a boat load of troops dying with the fact that troops retook a city.

Which one do you think happens more often?

Faux sugarcoats and lies and then calls it fair and balanced. This goes back to what I said earlier. Sometimes people are just wrong and sometimes it's an 80 - 20 split and that's as balanced as it can be....even if it goes against your point of view.


Why does the war have to be trivialized into being "the administrations war?"
I consider this an American war...maybe we part ways there.
Did I hear you right saying your somewhat of an isolationist?

In order to find an even balance of Good/Bad you'd have to find a truly bipartisan outlet...and that will never happen.
It is funny that the slogan "We report You decide." is so well received.
I always found it funny they had to make that apparent...get me?

Your three reasons are sufficient(I'm sure if we wanted two we could come up with 10 or 20 more.)
Regarding an earlier point you made about Al Qaeda being in Iraq only because we are currently there. I understand what you are saying but the fact that matters now is just that...they are there.
I say take the fight where it is at.

Did we not choose the battlefield?
I think that is a huge military point that no one ever makes.
As far as finishing the job.. the main goal is obviously to stabilize the country.

There is no easy answer-as there never is to war.
I do think Iraq was the wrong choice at the wrong time.
I do however realize the dire consequences of a defeat at the hands of Al Qaeda..especially on Muslim land.

[Busyman™]

That's currently impossible. I'd say CNN does a decent job but I don't watch it or Faux News a lot.

I don't see the spin that I see on Faux. Sometimes you can't balance a boat load of troops dying with the fact that troops retook a city.

Which one do you think happens more often?

Faux sugarcoats and lies and then calls it fair and balanced. This goes back to what I said earlier. Sometimes people are just wrong and sometimes it's an 80 - 20 split and that's as balanced as it can be....even if it goes against your point of view.


Why does the war have to be trivialized into being "the administrations war?"
I consider this an American war...maybe we part ways there.

Well I see things from more than one point of view. If we pull out, it means failure for the Bush admin. Sure it's an American loss.

Did I hear you right saying your somewhat of an isolationist?

Yes and no. I wish we wouldn't spearhead every fucking thing is all. Let some other country do that for a change. Our business dealings would lead to foreign politics anyway.

In order to find an even balance of Good/Bad you'd have to find a truly bipartisan outlet...and that will never happen.
It is funny that the slogan "We report You decide." is so well received.
I always found it funny they had to make that apparent...get me?

I disagree. A report is a report. It is what happened. Partisan comes in when there is spin, lies, and over/under reporting. There are numerous occasions of this at Faux News. Dan Rather screwed up on 60 Minutes. A good show to watch is Hardball. Chris Mathews backs anyone into a corner.

Now I agree with you when balanced means bipartisan on an opinion show.

Your three reasons are sufficient(I'm sure if we wanted two we could come up with 10 or 20 more.)

I disagree....just those 3.

Regarding an earlier point you made about Al Qaeda being in Iraq only because we are currently there. I understand what you are saying but the fact that matters now is just that...they are there because we brought them there.
I say take the fight where our military started it.

Fixed

Did we not choose the battlefield?
I think that is a huge military point that no one ever makes.
As far as finishing the job.. the main goal is obviously to stabilize the country.

There is no easy answer-as there never is to war.
I do think Iraq was the wrong choice at the wrong time.
I do however realize the dire consequences of a defeat at the hands of Al Qaeda..especially on Muslim land.

You do understand that everyone fighting us isn't Al Qaeda, right?

Some of these folk are Iraqis that just look at us as foreign invaders.

Are you from Arizona, perchance?

[MaxOverlord]

Why does the war have to be trivialized into being "the administrations war?"
I consider this an American war...maybe we part ways there.

Well I see things from more than one point of view. If we pull out, it means failure for the Bush admin. Sure it's an American loss.

Did I hear you right saying your somewhat of an isolationist?

Yes and no. I wish we wouldn't spearhead every fucking thing is all. Let some other country do that for a change. Our business dealings would lead to foreign politics anyway.

In order to find an even balance of Good/Bad you'd have to find a truly bipartisan outlet...and that will never happen.
It is funny that the slogan "We report You decide." is so well received.
I always found it funny they had to make that apparent...get me?

I disagree. A report is a report. It is what happened. Partisan comes in when there is spin, lies, and over/under reporting. There are numerous occasions of this at Faux News. Dan Rather screwed up on 60 Minutes. A good show to watch is Hardball. Chris Mathews backs anyone into a corner.

Now I agree with you when balanced means bipartisan on an opinion show.

Your three reasons are sufficient(I'm sure if we wanted two we could come up with 10 or 20 more.)

I disagree....just those 3.

Regarding an earlier point you made about Al Qaeda being in Iraq only because we are currently there. I understand what you are saying but the fact that matters now is just that...they are there because we brought them there.
I say take the fight where our military started it.

Fixed

Did we not choose the battlefield?
I think that is a huge military point that no one ever makes.
As far as finishing the job.. the main goal is obviously to stabilize the country.

There is no easy answer-as there never is to war.
I do think Iraq was the wrong choice at the wrong time.
I do however realize the dire consequences of a defeat at the hands of Al Qaeda..especially on Muslim land.

You do understand that everyone fighting us isn't Al Qaeda, right?

Some of these folk are Iraqis that just look at us as foreign invaders.

Are you from Arizona, perchance?



Towards your Al Qaeda question. I'll assume your kidding.
Some do see us as foreign invaders...agreed.
No. Not from AZ. Not a big Johnny fan either.

I'll accept your fixing of my military statement.

All reporting is partisan in this respect.
The human element always filters news.
The reporters opinion will undoubtedly enter into the report whether intentional or not.
It is only natural to present things as you(the reporter) sees them.
This means applying things taught in school..which is deeper still considering the bias he or she's teacher has.
Is one religious or not.
Does ones thought pattern lean left or right.
The way the reporter processes the news themselves is a biased filter which in turn is presented to you or me.
You undoubtedly have favorite reporters or journalist...no?
Is it not because of the way they present the news?

[Busyman™]

You do understand that everyone fighting us isn't Al Qaeda, right?

Some of these folk are Iraqis that just look at us as foreign invaders.

Are you from Arizona, perchance?



Towards your Al Qaeda question. I'll assume your kidding.

Somewhat, yes

Some do see us as foreign invaders...agreed.
No. Not from AZ. Not a big Johnny fan either.

I'll accept your fixing of my military statement.

All reporting is partisan in this respect.
The human element always filters news.
The reporters opinion will undoubtedly enter into the report whether intentional or not.
It is only natural to present things as you(the reporter) sees them.
This means applying things taught in school..which is deeper still considering the bias he or she's teacher has.
Is one religious or not.
Does ones thought pattern lean left or right.
The way the reporter processes the news themselves is a biased filter which in turn is presented to you or me.
You undoubtedly have favorite reporters or journalist...no?
Is it not because of the way they present the news?

No and no. For instance when I saw a report about some school district voting to have creationism taught in schools, the report was completely unbiased. The facts were presented (what happened) then interviews with boths sides were presented. There were parents for it and parents against it.

Tbh, the only time I really get filtered news like that is from Faux. I think people like Faux becasue they tell them what they want to hear. They massage their conservative base. The shit they do is unethical. The very fact that they have Ann Coulter regularly on the show amazes me.

[MaxOverlord]

It was unbiased from your perspective. Just as Fox is biased in your perspective.
I don't know how many times I can say this without sounding like a broken record(already do).
Individual filters lead to biased or unbiased.

Put in another light.

Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. William Shakespeare


On a completely unrelated issue...I'm now hoping for a Spurs/Pistons finals.

[Busyman™]

It was unbiased from your perspective. Just as Fox is biased in your perspective.
I don't know how many times I can say this without sounding like a broken record(already do).
Individual filters lead to biased or unbiased.

Put in another light.

Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. William Shakespeare


On a completely unrelated issue...I'm now hoping for a Spurs/Pistons finals.

You can point bias can't you? You do know what neutral sounds like, right.

If I simply state what happened like, "The school voted 10 - 1 to teach creationism in school" that is unbiased.

It's like telling the box scores of a game.

Now when I saw the report on TV about the school district, I thought they were morons....simply put.

Sometimes what happens leads to an opinion.

Faux has been biased and ridiculously so. They actually make the effort to spin shit and it's really comical. No really.....

[MaxOverlord]

It was unbiased from your perspective. Just as Fox is biased in your perspective.
I don't know how many times I can say this without sounding like a broken record(already do).
Individual filters lead to biased or unbiased.

Put in another light.

Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. William Shakespeare


On a completely unrelated issue...I'm now hoping for a Spurs/Pistons finals.

You can point bias can't you? You do know what neutral sounds like, right.

If I simply state what happened like, "The school voted 10 - 1 to teach creationism in school" that is unbiased.

It's like telling the box scores of a game.

Now when I saw the report on TV about the school district, I thought they were morons....simply put.

Sometimes what happens leads to an opinion.

Faux has been biased and ridiculously so. They actually make the effort to spin shit and it's really comical. No really.....


What if I said "Fox isn't biased in my opinion?" That would make me a moron,right?
What if I said "Keith Olbermann is?"
What if I said anything on Fox news would be biased in your opinion.
Why is that?

If you thought the same way the reporters on Fox did you wouldn't call them biased would you?
If you were a big fan of Olbermann(who by the way has his degree in sports journalism)
you would also say he is not biased.

If you know of someone who simply reports the news without some sort of remark,whether its tonal,or facial,or whatever,than let me know.
News reporting has become completely politically motivated.
The news channels are into an agenda now.

Your attempt to be "independent" is noted.
Unfortunately you have not convinced me your thoughts are.
Your ideas are biased by the news you watch...no?
Why is that?

It's a very simple concept.
Your thoughts are only a reflection of other peoples input.
You filter which ones you chose to use to represent your opinion..when its not really an opinion at all.

Tell me something you know(other than personal) that someone didn't know before you did.
We are all filtered all the time.

[Busyman™]

You can point bias can't you? You do know what neutral sounds like, right.

If I simply state what happened like, "The school voted 10 - 1 to teach creationism in school" that is unbiased.

It's like telling the box scores of a game.

Now when I saw the report on TV about the school district, I thought they were morons....simply put.

Sometimes what happens leads to an opinion.

Faux has been biased and ridiculously so. They actually make the effort to spin shit and it's really comical. No really.....


What if I said "Fox isn't biased in my opinion?" That would make me a moron,right?
What if I said "Keith Olbermann is?"
What if I said anything on Fox news would be biased in your opinion.
Why is that?

If you thought the same way the reporters on Fox did you wouldn't call them biased would you?
If you were a big fan of Olbermann(who by the way has his degree in sports journalism)
you would also say he is not biased.

Of course I would. One can see bias if it's written on paper. It has shit to do with like or dislike. I'll throw a liberal under the bus in a minute.

See there's a difference between a person with a strong mind and a sheep. I can like what someone is saying and still know they are biased. I like some of stances Bill O' Reilly has on many issues.

If you know of someone who simply reports the news without some sort of remark,whether its tonal,or facial,or whatever,than let me know.
News reporting has become completely politically motivated.
The news channels are into an agenda now.

Your attempt to be "independent" is noted.
Unfortunately you have not convinced me your thoughts are.
Your ideas are biased by the news you watch...no?
Why is that?

I'll tell you this. Many times if I hear about a story second hand, the person telling me wll inject their own bias in their voice and facial expression. I listen to the facts and may not feel the same way. Look at the organ donor game show thread. It was presented as if it was so disgusting. Needless to say I was not as disgusted as everyone else in the thread. Yeah I'm one independent mofo. I'm black yet am not a "black defender" unless it's warranted. I like liberal and conservative ideals. Pro-choice/Anti gay marriage/Pro-gun ownership but pro gun control/anti-Iraq war/pro-welfare reform/pro-immigration reform/pro-business/pro-affirmative action with more rules.......there's more but I go into that another time.
It's a very simple concept.
Your thoughts are only a reflection of other peoples input.
You filter which ones you chose to use to represent your opinion..when its not really an opinion at all.

Tell me something you know(other than personal) that someone didn't know before you did.
We are all filtered all the time.

I can agree on that. You form an opinion about anything by what facts are presented. If new facts pop-up, you opnion can change.

For instance, if it was reported that a husband murdered his wife, you may think the husband is scum. Later it might be reported that the husband didn't do it but it was the wife's lesbian lover. The opinion would change then.
That's not bias though.

Purposely misrepresenting the facts or lying is another story though.

Also, many times reporters have no facial expressions. I don't see them frown when it's a bad story. I might see them smile for an upbeat story.

[MaxOverlord]

I've heard of the organ donor show. In t.v there are no rules for taste anymore.
I'm pretty much immune to anything that people are willing to do for money or ratings or power or whatever anymore.
It's what I call the Sickness of the World. Sickness as in incurable.

It's a very troubling thing to know(individual perception again) that there are no places to go where
one can get "the truth" anymore.
We can get what we like or want to hear.
We can maybe get a taste of reality.

It's easy for me to say "stay the course" or "finish the job."
I don't have to wake up to blood and my buddies guts displayed before me.
No sane person could be in favor of war for war's sake.

I just wish the left and right would do something besides worry about even numbered years.
The concept of "service" in the political realm is dead and gone IMO.

[Busyman™]

I've heard of the organ donor show. In t.v there are no rules for taste anymore.
I'm pretty much immune to anything that people are willing to do for money or ratings or power or whatever anymore.
It's what I call the Sickness of the World. Sickness as in incurable.

It's a very troubling thing to know(individual perception again) that there are no places to go where
one can get "the truth" anymore.
We can get what we like or want to hear.
We can maybe get a taste of reality.

It's easy for me to say "stay the course" or "finish the job."
I don't have to wake up to blood and my buddies guts displayed before me.
No sane person could be in favor of war for war's sake.

I just wish the left and right would do something besides worry about even numbered years.
The concept of "service" in the political realm is dead and gone IMO.

Sorry bud, I get what I need and filter the bullshit myself.

I do agree with your last sentence though.

I think more ethics rules should be put in congress. A lot of corrupt behavior is exhibited right in front of our face....and it's legal.

[MaxOverlord]

I've heard of the organ donor show. In t.v there are no rules for taste anymore.
I'm pretty much immune to anything that people are willing to do for money or ratings or power or whatever anymore.
It's what I call the Sickness of the World. Sickness as in incurable.

It's a very troubling thing to know(individual perception again) that there are no places to go where
one can get "the truth" anymore.
We can get what we like or want to hear.
We can maybe get a taste of reality.

It's easy for me to say "stay the course" or "finish the job."
I don't have to wake up to blood and my buddies guts displayed before me.
No sane person could be in favor of war for war's sake.

I just wish the left and right would do something besides worry about even numbered years.
The concept of "service" in the political realm is dead and gone IMO.

Sorry bud, I get what I need and filter the bullshit myself.

I do agree with your last sentence though.

I think more ethics rules should be put in congress. A lot of corrupt behavior is exhibited right in front of our face....and it's legal.


Why do I get the distinct feeling that what I say and what you hear are two completely different things?

[Busyman™]

Sorry bud, I get what I need and filter the bullshit myself.

I do agree with your last sentence though.

I think more ethics rules should be put in congress. A lot of corrupt behavior is exhibited right in front of our face....and it's legal.


Why do I get the distinct feeling that what I say and what you hear are two completely different things?

Only you know that, MO. You talk about the news being so bad that you can't the truth. Well, if there is an outright lie than of course. However, there is no vast left-wing conspiracy on the truth. You have fuck ups like Dan Rather's on Bush's service in the Coast Guard which an outright lie. You don't get crap like that often.

[j2k4]

I think more ethics rules should be put in congress. A lot of corrupt behavior is exhibited right in front of our face....and it's legal.

Yeah.

Ironic, isn't it? :whistling
















Alright, I'll bite-

Who would you have make these ethics rules? :rolleyes:

[MaxOverlord]

Why do I get the distinct feeling that what I say and what you hear are two completely different things?

Only you know that, MO. You talk about the news being so bad that you can't the truth. Well, if there is an outright lie than of course. However, there is no vast left-wing conspiracy on the truth. You have fuck ups like Dan Rather's on Bush's service in the Coast Guard which an outright lie. You don't get crap like that often.



My point was the blatant abuse of knowledge.
I don't have a personal problem with filtering the BS.

The question is where to go to get an unbiased view.....again.
It is a question. That's all.

I'll ask you this. Do you think Dan Rather knew it was a lie while reporting it?
It doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. It's men being men positioning themselves for dominance.

This is a good point towards what the Libs. don't seem to understand.
Human Nature.
You can't fix things with more government and regulations on the people.

[Busyman™]

Only you know that, MO. You talk about the news being so bad that you can't the truth. Well, if there is an outright lie than of course. However, there is no vast left-wing conspiracy on the truth. You have fuck ups like Dan Rather's on Bush's service in the Coast Guard which an outright lie. You don't get crap like that often.



My point was the blatant abuse of knowledge.
I don't have a personal problem with filtering the BS.

The question is where to go to get an unbiased view.....again.
It is a question. That's all.

I'll ask you this. Do you think Dan Rather knew it was a lie while reporting it?

No. However, I think he knew it was the possibly of it being a lie and didn't bother double-checking his source by verifying the truth. To me that is a travesty especially when making such allegations against the President.

It doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. It's men being men positioning themselves for dominance.

This is a good point towards what the Libs. don't seem to understand.
Human Nature.
You can't fix things with more government and regulations on the people.

What does that have to do with truth in the media?

I'm not saying add laws with regard to the media.

Please explain.

Also yeah some things do need regulation. This is not a free-for-all or the wild, wild west.

[MaxOverlord]

My point was the blatant abuse of knowledge.
I don't have a personal problem with filtering the BS.

The question is where to go to get an unbiased view.....again.
It is a question. That's all.

I'll ask you this. Do you think Dan Rather knew it was a lie while reporting it?

No. However, I think he knew it was the possibly of it being a lie and didn't bother double-checking his source by verifying the truth. To me that is a travesty especially when making such allegations against the President.

It doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. It's men being men positioning themselves for dominance.

This is a good point towards what the Libs. don't seem to understand.
Human Nature.
You can't fix things with more government and regulations on the people.

What does that have to do with truth in the media?

I'm not saying add laws with regard to the media.

Please explain.

Also yeah some things do need regulation. This is not a free-for-all or the wild, wild west.


I was only bleeding one point into another.
Whether you believe in a left or right conspiracy is only true as far as it is at it's base a struggle for dominance....which in turn is human nature.
Truth in media will be spun to whatever side you want to have dominance.

The Fairness Doctrine,for example,is a regulation the Dems want to impose on what they perceive as a right wing dominance of the airwaves.
This has nothing to do with "Fairness."

In a free market society such as ours demand drives supply.
There happens to be a much much larger demand for conservative voices on the airwaves........the Dems call this "UnFair."
Enter the Fairness Doctrine.

They know they can't win in an open debate of ideas so they must "level the playing field." More Regulations....
Do you see where I'm going with this?

And yes this is a free-for-all.
It's individual pursuance of perfection and growth as related to ones idea of freedom and achievement.

[Busyman™]

What does that have to do with truth in the media?

I'm not saying add laws with regard to the media.

Please explain.

Also yeah some things do need regulation. This is not a free-for-all or the wild, wild west.


I was only bleeding one point into another.
Whether you believe in a left or right conspiracy is only true as far as it is at it's base a struggle for dominance....which in turn is human nature.
Truth in media will be spun to whatever side you want to have dominance.

The Fairness Doctrine,for example,is a regulation the Dems want to impose on what they perceive as a right wing dominance of the airwaves.
This has nothing to do with "Fairness."

In a free market society such as ours demand drives supply.
There happens to be a much much larger demand for conservative voices on the airwaves........the Dems call this "UnFair."
Enter the Fairness Doctrine.

They know they can't win in an open debate of ideas so they must "level the playing field." More Regulations....
Do you see where I'm going with this?

And yes this is a free-for-all.
It's individual pursuance of perfection and growth as related to ones idea of freedom and achievement.

Oh I understand why the Fairness Doctrine is there. From what I gather, he with the most money would win. I dunno how fair the Fairness Doctrine actually is though.

On one side, you have some young bright up-and-comer running for office. On the other you have the established politician that's been on TV before and can afford to run numerous personal attack ads thoroughly crushing any voice the young up-and-comer has. The established politician is bankrolled by big business.

Funny you said something about demand for conservative voices. I rather hear neo-cons too when many of the current ones talk much shit....and I think that's the reason. I'm laughing or saying, "I can't believe people believe that shit" but at the same time there are people that go. "Hey he's got a point."

Is it fair to stifle the demand, probably not.

Should the most money automatically mean a bid to the White House? No

Should there be a levelled playing field? Probably. How it's done is debatable.

I personally don't want Dems or Repubs ruling. I want it balanced.

[Biggles]

Chavez is a tad too fond of pro-Government street rallies for my taste and I am not entirely convinced all his economic policies are sound. However, he is a genuinely popular politician who has a big support base and was elected as fairly as many around the world and a lot more fairly than most. Nor, to my knowledge, has he any desire to wipe any specific race from the face of the planet or invade any other country - so I think I will hold on the Hitler comparison.

He wouldn't be my choice of leader but I respect the Venezuelans right to choose him and I have no doubt he is a lot better than many previous Central and S American leaders.

[vidcc]

It is funny that the slogan "We report You decide." is so well received.
I always found it funny they had to make that apparent...get me?


If it was more than just a slogan it would be what we need, however for us to be able to decide.............................the reporting has to be accurate.

As it stands, much like the "fair and balanced" slogan, it's meaningless.


I mean, if even their slogans aren't accurate ;)