Discussion: FOX News

[Heretic]

I don't care so much about climate change deniers, as much as people who believe millions of scientists world-wide collaborate to create conspiracies to fool the majority of the world for money reasons which make little sense. It's not like they wouldn't get grants and funding anyway. There's tons of scientific ventures concerning the environment which don't need fooling a ton of people to do. =l

Millions dont. A few do, and the rest go off of the official numbers. Even the former head of the UN climate center has admitted on video that he disregarded all temperatures that did not show a warming trend because it skewed the numbers away from warming.

[Paradoxium]

I don't care so much about climate change deniers, as much as people who believe millions of scientists world-wide collaborate to create conspiracies to fool the majority of the world for money reasons which make little sense. It's not like they wouldn't get grants and funding anyway. There's tons of scientific ventures concerning the environment which don't need fooling a ton of people to do. =lThe IPCC data from which EVERYONE looks from is derived from a flawed algorithm. In other words, the programming was poorly done (it was giving out some impossible numbers and they continuously tweaked the code, without regard of the continuity of previous data output). No one within the "consensus" has been able to address it since November. You could argue it doesn't mean AGW doesn't exist. But the evidence of recent arguments are based on flawed data.

It is akin to forcing everyone to debate the origins of life with the bible only. Those who say otherwise (i.e. science) are look downed on as heretics.

[Heretic]

Link?

Here the UN climate panel admits that science didnt back up their ice cap melting idea...
http://www.valuesvoternews.com/2010/01/ipcc-admits-himalayan-glaciers-melting.html
Here Al Gore admits that his guesses were basically just guesses...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2407647/posts
Here the leader of Green Peace admits that...yeah...they just kinda guessed...
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/178-phelim-mcaleer-a-ann-mcelhinney

I will say that I just did a Google search and picked some links...these sites are not where I first read the news...

The point is...a few scientists schemed with the UN to delete cooling evidence, and make up data that showed warming. The rest of the world basis their pinions off of the UN data...and now they ar all backtracking like crazy.

[LouFerignoDemon]

The IPCC data from which EVERYONE looks from is derived from a flawed algorithm. In other words, the programming was poorly done (it was giving out some impossible numbers and they continuously tweaked the code, without regard of the continuity of previous data output). No one within the "consensus" has been able to address it since November. You could argue it doesn't mean AGW doesn't exist. But the evidence of recent arguments are based on flawed data.

It is akin to forcing everyone to debate the origins of life with the bible only. Those who say otherwise (i.e. science) are look downed on as heretics.
I believe you're talking about Dr. Mann's algorithm?

Though, if I recall correctly, several other methods of attempted recall of past temperatures came out with very similar results.

Flawed? True. All scientific hypothesis are when you're not there to directly observe, measure, and report. However, it never means there's no information worth looking at.

[LouFerignoDemon]

Millions dont. A few do, and the rest go off of the official numbers. Even the former head of the UN climate center has admitted on video that he disregarded all temperatures that did not show a warming trend because it skewed the numbers away from warming.
Dr. Watson? He hasn't been the UN head for nearly ten years. Granted, I'd have been roughly 10-14, and so I may have been locked away with tutors, busy graduating, or attending college and missed something like a scientific head of a field I have no interest in skewing information, and then would most likely be asked to step down. If it were after, I could find no evidence of it.

Do you have a link you could please share? I would definitely like to read more on it.
Here the UN climate panel admits that science didnt back up their ice cap melting idea...
http://www.valuesvoternews.com/2010/01/ipcc-admits-himalayan-glaciers-melting.html
Here Al Gore admits that his guesses were basically just guesses...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2407647/posts
Here the leader of Green Peace admits that...yeah...they just kinda guessed...
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/178-phelim-mcaleer-a-ann-mcelhinney

I will say that I just did a Google search and picked some links...these sites are not where I first read the news...

The point is...a few scientists schemed with the UN to delete cooling evidence, and make up data that showed warming. The rest of the world basis their pinions off of the UN data...and now they ar all backtracking like crazy.

The second link was of two parts. One, it was a politician, who's job is literally to bolster his base. Morally wrong? Very much so. However, the set of numbers were originally a raw data interpreted using older methods. Gore simply (and most likely) didn't update his information. Which, in any field, is a bad thing to do, especially when concerning an entire field of science trying to be as accurate and up to date as possible.

However, for the first links, and being a fellow researcher, I can feel the pain of a large organization with little collaboration tackling such a large field which isn't completely stabilized yet. The methods of research and mapping of data are still what is more than less likely it's proto period. However, the IPCC definitely seemed to have screwed up it's peer review, and should be looked at.

However, also as a fellow researcher, omitting data is the quickest way to being caught. Hiding data is different. More than likely, the data was utilizing tricks to show relevant data based on the desired data, presenting data first and foremost about rising temperatures, so that the information regarding points of interest were shown first, with hiding the cooling data until request. Otherwise, if all data were presented, it would possibly take years of review to posit, test, and verify all data within the report. This was most likely done, as the report and values were discovered after the fact, and had to been developed through side discovery, rather than direct data collection.

[Heretic]

Well...they did omit data. It's been admitted on national television.

[LouFerignoDemon]

Do you also have a link for that one? I could not locate any information on that after a quick search. I assume you would have something for that?

[Paradoxium]

I believe you're talking about Dr. Mann's algorithm?

Though, if I recall correctly, several other methods of attempted recall of past temperatures came out with very similar results.

Flawed? True. All scientific hypothesis are when you're not there to directly observe, measure, and report. However, it never means there's no information worth looking at.


No, the HARRY_READ_ME file, Google it up.

It deals with the data processing and modeling functions. The algorithms or codes is wrong, constant edits are made without any documentation to backtrack (on top of stuff being outputted with modified code; like a file from word 3.0, 95, 2000, 2007... without acknowledging which version it originates from.). The database is card base which lends a lot of human error (i.e. same names) and a couple decade old (70s). They have no excuses considering there are free opensource databases which are far more efficient and secure.

No one in the mainstream talked about it. I am talking about MSM supporters and denialists even. I checked, even Fox who had every reason to grasp anything incriminating... didn't report this. It is probably too dry, didn't understand it themselves and purposely ignored it. But it is in the climategate leak, and as far as I am concerned it is THE smoking gun. It would basically force everyone to start from scratch again... and that might not be possible because they got rid of the raw data. Even those who sympathize with AGW, acknowledge dumping the raw data is just bad practice. Jon Stewart had an entire sketch on the stupidity of dumping the raw data. Why would you do this?

It's akin to having a hypothesis, having the procedure written down, apparatus listed and ready to make conclusions.... and they fudged up the apparatus of all things. And I am being generous here, I am ignoring how certain thing are coded - which blatantly biases a certain way.

[LouFerignoDemon]

I honestly see no real problems with the file itself.

Anybody who's worked within a research capacity within the United States government would say the same thing. I shall address the emails most under fire by number descending from earliest to most current.

1) Trick. An extremely common term used amongst many, if not all, scientists to describe how they categorize, prioritize, and otherwise store information for ease of access. This also alludes to some actual techniques used in design, construction and the like.

2) Climate Research journal, and not wanting to post in it. It is very common for scientists to not really desire to post in journals they do not have agreeing views in, particularly in journals who were alleged by other scientists outside of their own office to have bad research. When posting in a controversial journal, you run the risk of people taking your research less seriously. They also may have taken this journal as something of a political journal, and in publishing with them, removed themselves from a more scientific based facility, to a more political scientific based facility, which most scientists who do extensive research do not enjoy.

3) "I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" From Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Generally, I'd find this more of a joke between scientists, as the scientist in question who's having their papers "thrown out" is no more than Michael Mann himself, who is being sent this email like he was someone else entirely. This is most likely a reference to his algorithm which produced a "hockey stick" and was under heavy review and criticism by a few other scientists, and Mann himself. The changing of the peer review is most likely the other researchers take on the actual review itself, and how he probably feels they didn't give a fair, or even substantial review. This is actually common amongst peer reviews, and some colleagues. "The scientist can sometimes be considered a total f*** up if someone incorrectly reviews him that way." Though, if the paper is deemed hurtful to the overall outline of the project in a way that doesn't cause harm to the reviewable data, it's deemed normal to omit the paper as long as it doesn't contain any information or concerns not already covered by the rest of the documentation. (Generally the paper is an interpretation of the project not shared by other scientists, or is considered a "repeat report" basically balling up all the negative, to shine a negative light on the entire project. "With some known radioactive fatal side effects if there is a problem, combined with possible ground exposure if care is not taken, the positives of having a clean nuclear energy source is something of consideration" "Time has proven once and again nuclear energy annihilates communities, lives, and the environment for extremely long periods of time." The second one is basically a negative repeat, without any explanation, of the first view. The second view would be scrapped.) Especially if it's viewed to be of poor quality. However, -if- the document is peer reviewed, verified, and then not seen in the final report, the reviewing scientists will make it known, as documentation will exist of reviewing it, and the scientists who prepared the final report will be asked to account and explain. (God I hate this process, but it's an understandable one.)

4) "I'd rather delete it." Is definitely a very daunting email to send. Generally, it means they don't want their information out there, tying things up, getting into reviews before being ready. Often premature data representation and testing discredits a scientist, and possibly his team, pulling funding and grants. Also, the demand for data from other researchers tends to be harsh, holding up any viable research ongoing. "Hiding" behind a data protection act, also makes sure his data isn't brought up in future inquiries which say, "Well, you say this now, but before..." due to a reassessment of current information and data. (His data might have been older, or incomplete during initial construction of a model. His finished model might be very different. However, if people knew of his older model, they might accuse him of tampering with numbers, despite the fact he would really just be using updated numbers. Despite telling people this, many will still believe he just tampered.)

5) "Can you delete emails" Definitely seems to lead to the idea of deletion of data. It might be something as simple as a joke getting out of hand, or a possible bug in the system from the email, or a tracking software. It might contain sensitive data nobody should have on their system, or it might actually be tampering of data. Generally when this issue is ordered, it's because information people weren't meant to get has been issued via internal email system amongst a campus, and needs to be contained immediately. The information itself is not destroyed in this process, just quarantined back to where it belongs.

6) FOI intrusive and unreasonable. As a fellow researcher, I definitely understand where this is coming from. It's similar to other information requests, in the idea they want your data, and they want it NOW. This is problematic, as most ongoing research isn't complete at phases when bothered to present it. This generally ties up a lot of ongoing research and data collection, because then it turns into meetings of questions, and then it turns into other groups sending in requests, or assistance, or many other types of chatter which really just bogs the entire system to a slow grind. Generally, this is what directors are for, but it doesn't stop it from affecting the whole system. Instead of the slower, steadier method of data collection and proper representation, researchers are asked to get results "F***ing YESTERDAY!" (I've been requested of this before), and so incomplete models are given out, and people take them as the progress and the actually facts of the matter, when generally, they are simply proto-constructs of the final product. ("Remember when we originally thought shore lines are receding by erosion at x%?" "Yeah." "If you let us finish our report, you'd know that they ACTUALLY recede at y%, but it's no matter now, because everybody will assume we tamper with evidence and data, backpedal, and conspire. Thanks for inspiring a whole season of research off our incomplete data.") ANY researcher who deals with semi to highly sensitive, and generally incomplete, information will tell you management intrusion sucks. Badly. Their reasoning tends to be terrible ("We feel that you're not moving fast enough"), their methods tend to be brutal ("Please give us everything related to section 5 of the report, which totally f'ing guts the next week of development."), and their frequency is unreasonable ("See you in three weeks, when we stop production for two weeks, and then complain you're still slow.")

7) Cannot track warming at the moment. This is in relation to most current trends in data. I could easily see this as being a situation where the field technology demand has not met the lab demand. As there are several thought of sources of warming, he may actually be talking about one, or several forms which aren't being collected as vividly as others. This would become a lack of data, as he's unable to track current warming at the moment. This would hurt his research. Nothing devastates a researcher more than coming to a lack of data, due to poor collection of information in the field. Most likely, this isn't really even his fault, as he probably relies on information from other stations and sources.

Oddly, though. Looking through some of the actual source, it's like they're using an older way of archiving and sharing of data. Most likely, a lot of the data has to be interpreted, so it might be just how they communicate, rather than store data.

But I conclude, I really see no real trouble with the emails themselves. I can easily understand how those outside of a high competition, high stress research position can see this as a negative thing, though.

[Paradoxium]

Are we even talking about the same file :huh:? The whole file itself is about the cluster****ing found internally by Harry. You disagree with Harry from the CRU? Come on Miss Gluon why would you get rid of unretainable raw data from decades ago, with this type of buggy undocumented crap? You are in research, and you would know better than that. At least if they do a full scale rewrite, you can reuse it. With the money and political clout they get, they couldn't hire a professional programmer?

[Heretic]

Do you also have a link for that one? I could not locate any information on that after a quick search. I assume you would have something for that?

There was a segment on the show Conspiracy Theory, where in an interview, the former UN head of climatology admitted that they removed all data that pointed to a cooling trend because it didnt match their findings and would skew the temperatures lower. I would look for a clip, but I'm watching a movie right now and dont want to the noise to disturb everyone else in the room.

[LouFerignoDemon]

I do, in fact, know how a good research team works. I've run quite a few.

Like any good research scientist, it's easy to find yourself on the blasted end of any form of review when not all facts are shown. So I easily understand what it's like to deal with vast amounts of outside data from various software programs, re-organize it into usable data compatible with your own programs (Which tend to vary from site to site), and then remove "junk data".

Like I said before, it's easy to see why someone who doesn't do research would see this as tampering, because they've never had to go through years of raw data themselves. Emphasis on years. Generally, grants and funds only last so long, and most of the data provided to them really doesn't offer much in terms of their research. (or more likely, it's a repeat of other people's data given to them over and over and over again). To combat this, examples of data are used to compile a model representing the most common, or high priority, statistic. It would be the equivalent of rather than cataloging every tree in a forest, you simply catalog and test the ones of great importance, set over a parameter of space and environment.

The data itself is most likely out of date, reviewed to more accurate terms, or altogether useless to their research. On any given day, I end up with gigabytes of acceptable cooling and heating temps on several materials concerning a project which hold no bearing over what I do, as there are already measures made concerning them, simply because it's attached or repeated in several other data files. The sheer volume of rewrites, and reorganizations of what is probably now obsolete data would prolong the process of research to such a high degree, it would probably start to upset investors, and other people who utilize their data. Sending on what is most likely useless data is also frustrating. Like I said before with my example on material cooling/heating, I don't really need it. It's useful to one of the people attached to the email, but I myself don't need it. Frustrating since I have to utilize a trick or so before I can use it properly, but understandable. A large volume of information NOBODY needs or wants, forcing people to spend time sorting it out and hiding it, would just piss other research scientists off.

The large problem from all of this, is people are assuming these documents and emails are literally the entirety of their work, when it definitely is not. Three thousand documents, about a thousand emails? Hardly even half of it. A quarter at best. The only thing I can really see them doing wrong was not complying to the laws about FOI.

[LouFerignoDemon]

There was a segment on the show Conspiracy Theory, where in an interview, the former UN head of climatology admitted that they removed all data that pointed to a cooling trend because it didnt match their findings and would skew the temperatures lower. I would look for a clip, but I'm watching a movie right now and dont want to the noise to disturb everyone else in the room.


Understandable. I would greatly appreciate the effort when you have the capability to do so.

However, in terms of admittance on a conspiracy theory program, it's generally held to high skepticism. As a big fan of the Coast myself, I always hear former officers and high ranking key military experts who claim fantastic projects and things which I can comfortably tell you never existed in the capacity shown.

I would very much enjoy reviewing this myself. Or at least passing it to a scientist I know who deals a ton in climate sciences. I'm not particularly qualified, as my field of study is elsewhere.

[Superman]

There was a segment on the show Conspiracy Theory, where in an interview, the former UN head of climatology admitted that they removed all data that pointed to a cooling trend because it didnt match their findings and would skew the temperatures lower. I would look for a clip, but I'm watching a movie right now and dont want to the noise to disturb everyone else in the room.A TV show called Conspiracy Theory about conspiracy theories, That's your source? OK.....:doh:

[Superman]

I do, in fact, know how a good research team works. I've run quite a few.

Like any good research scientist, it's easy to find yourself on the blasted end of any form of review when not all facts are shown. So I easily understand what it's like to deal with vast amounts of outside data from various software programs, re-organize it into usable data compatible with your own programs (Which tend to vary from site to site), and then remove "junk data".

Like I said before, it's easy to see why someone who doesn't do research would see this as tampering, because they've never had to go through years of raw data themselves. Emphasis on years. Generally, grants and funds only last so long, and most of the data provided to them really doesn't offer much in terms of their research. (or more likely, it's a repeat of other people's data given to them over and over and over again). To combat this, examples of data are used to compile a model representing the most common, or high priority, statistic. It would be the equivalent of rather than cataloging every tree in a forest, you simply catalog and test the ones of great importance, set over a parameter of space and environment.

The data itself is most likely out of date, reviewed to more accurate terms, or altogether useless to their research. On any given day, I end up with gigabytes of acceptable cooling and heating temps on several materials concerning a project which hold no bearing over what I do, as there are already measures made concerning them, simply because it's attached or repeated in several other data files. The sheer volume of rewrites, and reorganizations of what is probably now obsolete data would prolong the process of research to such a high degree, it would probably start to upset investors, and other people who utilize their data. Sending on what is most likely useless data is also frustrating. Like I said before with my example on material cooling/heating, I don't really need it. It's useful to one of the people attached to the email, but I myself don't need it. Frustrating since I have to utilize a trick or so before I can use it properly, but understandable. A large volume of information NOBODY needs or wants, forcing people to spend time sorting it out and hiding it, would just piss other research scientists off.

The large problem from all of this, is people are assuming these documents and emails are literally the entirety of their work, when it definitely is not. Three thousand documents, about a thousand emails? Hardly even half of it. A quarter at best. The only thing I can really see them doing wrong was not complying to the laws about FOI.I must say I have enjoyed reading your posts on this subject. It's nice to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Keep it up. :up::yay:

[Paradoxium]

I do, in fact, know how a good research team works. I've run quite a few.

Like any good research scientist, it's easy to find yourself on the blasted end of any form of review when not all facts are shown. So I easily understand what it's like to deal with vast amounts of outside data from various software programs, re-organize it into usable data compatible with your own programs (Which tend to vary from site to site), and then remove "junk data".

Like I said before, it's easy to see why someone who doesn't do research would see this as tampering, because they've never had to go through years of raw data themselves. Emphasis on years. Generally, grants and funds only last so long, and most of the data provided to them really doesn't offer much in terms of their research. (or more likely, it's a repeat of other people's data given to them over and over and over again). To combat this, examples of data are used to compile a model representing the most common, or high priority, statistic. It would be the equivalent of rather than cataloging every tree in a forest, you simply catalog and test the ones of great importance, set over a parameter of space and environment.

The data itself is most likely out of date, reviewed to more accurate terms, or altogether useless to their research. On any given day, I end up with gigabytes of acceptable cooling and heating temps on several materials concerning a project which hold no bearing over what I do, as there are already measures made concerning them, simply because it's attached or repeated in several other data files. The sheer volume of rewrites, and reorganizations of what is probably now obsolete data would prolong the process of research to such a high degree, it would probably start to upset investors, and other people who utilize their data. Sending on what is most likely useless data is also frustrating. Like I said before with my example on material cooling/heating, I don't really need it. It's useful to one of the people attached to the email, but I myself don't need it. Frustrating since I have to utilize a trick or so before I can use it properly, but understandable. A large volume of information NOBODY needs or wants, forcing people to spend time sorting it out and hiding it, would just piss other research scientists off.

The large problem from all of this, is people are assuming these documents and emails are literally the entirety of their work, when it definitely is not. Three thousand documents, about a thousand emails? Hardly even half of it. A quarter at best. The only thing I can really see them doing wrong was not complying to the laws about FOI.The obsolete data you are talking about is temperature recordings of weather stations around the world and percipitation measurements (1901-2006). There is some sun and computer simulation involved as well. This is not a case of cataloging trees, this is the more big fry stuff; it's the backbone.

Here is one example from page 71

COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!"Perhaps the station in question is improperly assigned and did not belong to Australia? Taken from an alternative location? Was it invented out of thin air? Anything? If you dumped the data, you'd at least document it, so you can audit and to quote you "reviewed for accurate terms". But that is impossible now is it? This is just the tip of the ice berg, there is more than 274 pages worth of material.

Again page 17 "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless Why would you do this? Why would you leave this much room for human error?

And yet they continue to reuse this type stuff knowingly it is bad?

If you read it the documentation you'd know HARRY knew it could be salvaged with a rewrite of the code (he explicitly stated in the file). If he had to start over he would do the rewrite.

They simply ported the garbage buggy data from v2.10 for their v3.0. In other words, even if the raw data was sorted and can be reused, it has no integrity at all. This makes no sense. If I enter a set of data in v2.10 to v3.0 with drastically different results how can this considered acceptable? The margin of error is unacceptable.

And look at this:

BBC: UK Climate Code May Be Scrapped (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/climategate-code-computer/2009/12/05/id/337632)

If this didn't leak, the code would not have been scrapped. My argument was not tampering to begin with. It is ineptitude resulting in poor data integrity. It neither debunks or affirms AGW. This is the easier argument to make. :yay:

[LouFerignoDemon]

I must say I have enjoyed reading your posts on this subject. It's nice to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Keep it up. :up::yay:
I'm sure everybody here has thought out their statements, rather than just shooting them out to paper.
The obsolete data you are talking about is temperature recordings of weather stations around the world and percipitation measurements (1901-2006). There is some sun and computer simulation involved as well. This is not a case of cataloging trees, this is the more big fry stuff; it's the backbone.

Here is one example from page 71

Perhaps the station in question is improperly assigned and did not belong to Australia? Taken from an alternative location? Was it invented out of thin air? Anything? If you dumped the data, you'd at least document it, so you can audit and to quote you "reviewed for accurate terms". But that is impossible now is it? This is just the tip of the ice berg, there is more than 274 pages worth of material.

Again page 17 Why would you do this? Why would you leave this much room for human error?

And yet they continue to reuse this type stuff knowingly it is bad?

If you read it the documentation you'd know HARRY knew it could be salvaged with a rewrite of the code (he explicitly stated in the file). If he had to start over he would do the rewrite.

They simply ported the garbage buggy data from v2.10 for their v3.0. In other words, even if the raw data was sorted and can be reused, it has no integrity at all. This makes no sense. If I enter a set of data in v2.10 to v3.0 with drastically different results how can this considered acceptable? The margin of error is unacceptable.

And look at this:

BBC: UK Climate Code May Be Scrapped (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/climategate-code-computer/2009/12/05/id/337632)

If this didn't leak, the code would not have been scrapped. My argument was not tampering to begin with. It is ineptitude resulting in poor data integrity. It neither debunks or affirms AGW. This is the easier argument to make. :yay:

Actually, allegedly a ton of the information came from a lot of Australian sources, but the "It didn't open until 1962" is an inaccurate statement. It wasn't saying it was recorded in 1962, it was 1962's data that was entered into the system in 2006.

Apparently, there was more than one resource incoming, upon reviewing the data, they utilized 13 other stations for data. (sources always vary, and generally will borrow from one source or another. Whether the original source shares all of it's info is left to subject. However, COBAR decided to share what info it had with the CRU scientists).

However, rewriting a code will take more time and resources than what they have, and it is EXTREMELY common to simply add and subtract code as they did. Agreed, they didn't do it as efficiently, but it's probably not really their fault, and more the fault of equipment and software provided to them. It is common to see several research labs inventing their own coding to make data work better in existing systems, especially if their previous code gave them no room to enter new data.

To say they dumped data, without actually being able to review their data, is a little heavy handed. I haven't seen their actual final presentation reports, which would most likely include adverse data which is unaccountable as an entire separate report, used as an invitation for more data concerning it, possibly building a new report project. Data which cannot be read, or valued would be accounted for as well, but not used. Whenever you file a proper report, you always make note and documentation of corrections, inaccuracies, or lack of confidences across them. Generally there are several pages of notes explaining this as well. However, this is only for a formal preparation by the lab itself, and not its sources, which it would have no control over.

I'm a little confused. Harry seems to have a great trouble organizing the information on how it's best usable for him or the team. Reviewing some of his notes and information itself looks a lot to me like he just decided to pick up a ton of the raw data they either have gone through, are going through, or have not gone through, and is trying to organize it himself. Along the way, he's writing a ton of new organization codes. Codes which would most likely already exist for panels to review later on if the data has already been sorted. It definitely shows a lot of repeating station information, and just information in general. I would allege the information itself is more in a raw state, possibly semi processed by eliminating all data which deals outside of the parameters (such as other countries). The algorithm is most likely in its developmental phase. Also, not all useless data has been sorted out. He seems to make a conclusion a few times of taking out information, due to lack of confidence in its domain. I would honestly say that most of the information in the report probably went unused, as there seems to be some repeating information (You want a good chunk of information to match, but you don't want repeating lines of useless data, which this report seemed to contain. To refine it: You enjoy matching data, when it's from more than one source talking about a single area. You don't like repeating data, when it seems like multiple areas are identical, when they shouldn't be), and a lot of information which didn't seem to match up. (Which is fine in its own right, since it implies coverage in an area nobody else covers, you just have to be careful about that.)

Most of the time, it seems he's more confused about the organization of several databanks and how to extract the information in a useful, readable format, rather than confused about his fellow scientists sorting it (it looks like at least one other has worked somewhat in it). Which data was good data to use, and anger towards nonstandard data formats.

However, leaking or not, the code most likely would've undergone two or three revisions anyway, if it wouldn't work at all. Generally because a peer review journal will say, "Well, it...works, after a fashion. However, it looks like a ransom note put together through magazines, and it doesn't fill us with confidence they truly grasp the entirety and importance of the data they are dealing with."

However, for using the data? Most likely, it isn't all bad data. Remember when I said before you have to sort through to weed out useful data from junk data, it looks like he's in mid process of this. Most likely, he's reviewing a block of data yet to be sifted through.

The tampering comment wasn't made directly to you, it was brought up by Heretic in the form of "bias" scientific reporting. Bias implies you wish to show only the information you are willing to show them, which would then mean you have to tamper with it. I apologize if it seemed I accused you of believing of data tampering. But to finish the point, you couldn't alter a fact, peer review it, and have the 12 or so journals who would undergo the process also share the bias and keep a secret. For that to happen, the results would have to be tampered with, which would get caught.

This Harry's stream of thought is difficult to read. It's almost like he wants someone to think he's chief scientist around there, and the data collectors he's dealing with are morons he himself could easily replace, or educate like the students he probably deals with. It looks sorta less like someone doing their job, and more like someone writing a journal about their job and personal feelings in it. Not entirely though. I can easily understand his frustration. The more data sources and topics you deal with, it multiplies the difficulty and time needed to work and adjust numbers accordingly.

But to conclude on it, most likely they have a ton of data to go through, and most likely, a ton of data the suppliers themselves had to organize. It is a common function, especially in same country labs, to trade information to one another, and sometimes not all information goes through. In this case, as he's just a data sorter, he would ultimately report this to the other scientists (who most likely aren't software engineers themselves, and so generally pump data to sorters to fix for them), and they would request further information.

I do agree this wouldn't provide evidence for or against AGW, as it really just looks like data yet to be applied in many ways. However, without the final report, and complete peer reviews for all reports within the presentation, it is difficult to claim if they either used good data, bad data, and if their applications were sound and clear, or even if the collection methods used were poor or not. It seems to me like any other research you work with: You have a few good stations of collection, and the rest aren't all that strong.

[VampElvis]

I have to wonder if peer review is still effective when i see the likes of Hendrich and Suk publish for years before they are called to account.

[LouFerignoDemon]

There's multiple reasons, really.

Everything from being nice (because they need publication for degrees), to allowing a publication that's just barely good enough to pass muster. While a little dubious, the information is credible enough for publishing for people to consider or elaborate on. Generally in situations like these, they do offer a piece after alerting the reader about not reflecting the views or quality of the journal.

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'm no scientist (don't even play one on TV), but when we have politicians actively trying to implement legislation that will directly affect a person's net worth (taxes ect) then I would prefer not to have account for things like what Paradoxium brought up. Many people in the US are already being robbed of large percentages of their substance every year as is. And these types of situations always give rise to new forms of "generating revenue" whether it be done privately or under the direction of the government.

[Marx]

BECK: WE SHOULD SHOOT CAPTURED TALIBAN LEADER 'IN THE HEAD'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/glenn-beck-on-captured-ta_n_464482.html

[bell110]

lol, just read that title as Olbermann is calling him the worst person in the world.

Coincidence or divine fate?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

He got the name of the group wrong as well, I believe.

And since I'm talking about Beck, he got owned by Maddow last night, again. I'm not sure how he does it, but he makes contradicting himself almost a form of art. I think he's just a dude that's simply winging it on the fly. If they got in a fist fight though, I'd have $100 on Maddow. No, no...make that $200.

[Marx]

MICHELLE OBAMA TO APPEAR ON 'HUCKABEE'
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/02/17/huckabee-gets-michelle-obama-on-fox.html

[dnno1]

He got the name of the group wrong as well, I believe.

And since I'm talking about Beck, he got owned by Maddow last night, again. I'm not sure how he does it, but he makes contradicting himself almost a form of art. I think he's just a dude that's simply winging it on the fly. If they got in a fist fight though, I'd have $100 on Maddow. No, no...make that $200.

It might be shots and she would drink him under the table.

[VampElvis]

MICHELLE OBAMA TO APPEAR ON 'HUCKABEE'
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/02/17/huckabee-gets-michelle-obama-on-fox.html

Makes since - he's a big advocate of get off your fat, lazy, ample buttocks and start moving and that seems to be MO's cause du jour.

[Kelly]

Yeah, he did a big "kudos" to her on his show not long ago about that...

[Paradoxium]

I'm sure everybody here has thought out their statements, rather than just shooting them out to paper.


Actually, allegedly a ton of the information came from a lot of Australian sources, but the "It didn't open until 1962" is an inaccurate statement. It wasn't saying it was recorded in 1962, it was 1962's data that was entered into the system in 2006.

Apparently, there was more than one resource incoming, upon reviewing the data, they utilized 13 other stations for data. (sources always vary, and generally will borrow from one source or another. Whether the original source shares all of it's info is left to subject. However, COBAR decided to share what info it had with the CRU scientists).

However, rewriting a code will take more time and resources than what they have, and it is EXTREMELY common to simply add and subtract code as they did. Agreed, they didn't do it as efficiently, but it's probably not really their fault, and more the fault of equipment and software provided to them. It is common to see several research labs inventing their own coding to make data work better in existing systems, especially if their previous code gave them no room to enter new data.

To say they dumped data, without actually being able to review their data, is a little heavy handed. I haven't seen their actual final presentation reports, which would most likely include adverse data which is unaccountable as an entire separate report, used as an invitation for more data concerning it, possibly building a new report project. Data which cannot be read, or valued would be accounted for as well, but not used. Whenever you file a proper report, you always make note and documentation of corrections, inaccuracies, or lack of confidences across them. Generally there are several pages of notes explaining this as well. However, this is only for a formal preparation by the lab itself, and not its sources, which it would have no control over.

I'm a little confused. Harry seems to have a great trouble organizing the information on how it's best usable for him or the team. Reviewing some of his notes and information itself looks a lot to me like he just decided to pick up a ton of the raw data they either have gone through, are going through, or have not gone through, and is trying to organize it himself. Along the way, he's writing a ton of new organization codes. Codes which would most likely already exist for panels to review later on if the data has already been sorted. It definitely shows a lot of repeating station information, and just information in general. I would allege the information itself is more in a raw state, possibly semi processed by eliminating all data which deals outside of the parameters (such as other countries). The algorithm is most likely in its developmental phase. Also, not all useless data has been sorted out. He seems to make a conclusion a few times of taking out information, due to lack of confidence in its domain. I would honestly say that most of the information in the report probably went unused, as there seems to be some repeating information (You want a good chunk of information to match, but you don't want repeating lines of useless data, which this report seemed to contain. To refine it: You enjoy matching data, when it's from more than one source talking about a single area. You don't like repeating data, when it seems like multiple areas are identical, when they shouldn't be), and a lot of information which didn't seem to match up. (Which is fine in its own right, since it implies coverage in an area nobody else covers, you just have to be careful about that.)

Most of the time, it seems he's more confused about the organization of several databanks and how to extract the information in a useful, readable format, rather than confused about his fellow scientists sorting it (it looks like at least one other has worked somewhat in it). Which data was good data to use, and anger towards nonstandard data formats.

However, leaking or not, the code most likely would've undergone two or three revisions anyway, if it wouldn't work at all. Generally because a peer review journal will say, "Well, it...works, after a fashion. However, it looks like a ransom note put together through magazines, and it doesn't fill us with confidence they truly grasp the entirety and importance of the data they are dealing with."

However, for using the data? Most likely, it isn't all bad data. Remember when I said before you have to sort through to weed out useful data from junk data, it looks like he's in mid process of this. Most likely, he's reviewing a block of data yet to be sifted through.

The tampering comment wasn't made directly to you, it was brought up by Heretic in the form of "bias" scientific reporting. Bias implies you wish to show only the information you are willing to show them, which would then mean you have to tamper with it. I apologize if it seemed I accused you of believing of data tampering. But to finish the point, you couldn't alter a fact, peer review it, and have the 12 or so journals who would undergo the process also share the bias and keep a secret. For that to happen, the results would have to be tampered with, which would get caught.

This Harry's stream of thought is difficult to read. It's almost like he wants someone to think he's chief scientist around there, and the data collectors he's dealing with are morons he himself could easily replace, or educate like the students he probably deals with. It looks sorta less like someone doing their job, and more like someone writing a journal about their job and personal feelings in it. Not entirely though. I can easily understand his frustration. The more data sources and topics you deal with, it multiplies the difficulty and time needed to work and adjust numbers accordingly.

But to conclude on it, most likely they have a ton of data to go through, and most likely, a ton of data the suppliers themselves had to organize. It is a common function, especially in same country labs, to trade information to one another, and sometimes not all information goes through. In this case, as he's just a data sorter, he would ultimately report this to the other scientists (who most likely aren't software engineers themselves, and so generally pump data to sorters to fix for them), and they would request further information.

I do agree this wouldn't provide evidence for or against AGW, as it really just looks like data yet to be applied in many ways. However, without the final report, and complete peer reviews for all reports within the presentation, it is difficult to claim if they either used good data, bad data, and if their applications were sound and clear, or even if the collection methods used were poor or not. It seems to me like any other research you work with: You have a few good stations of collection, and the rest aren't all that strong.Given how the data is crowed on as the most bestest in teh worldz; the funding they get; the prestige they get; how it is relied on so much; the economic justification this is used for (the most important for me)... this justifies greater and more exceptional precision and data integrity. Even if they need to take more time. Other organizations of somewhat comparative prestige who compile data of such importance are not as lax. The 70s card-esque database is still too mind boggling for me, the margin of error of that alone is unacceptable.

You have stuff like this:

From page 98-99
What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ...

Come on. This is nuts.

[LouFerignoDemon]

The first two quotes seem to be references to the sources of information, as the numbers probably don't make sense to him, and the program used by the stations probably allow for direct data input, rather than data extraction, or the interpretations given are always in forms of estimates. Given how the data would begin to duplicate itself. However, he goes on to make the statement anybody comparing the codes will notice the problem.

The last quote seems to be him letting a single station become multiple stations, making all information appear on paper. "Allow bad databases" which may be incomplete, corrupted, mistranslated.

Like I said a few times before, the guy is obviously trying to sort information, and doesn't seem to be having a lot of personal success. Granted, he's working a weekend, so he's probably not happy to begin with. If the data we see here is what ends up on the final report, the ENTIRE lot of scientists should be fired for putting up what is ultimately a ridiculous amount of obviously unsorted data, which can't be used by anybody.

Like I said to someone else, we don't have the report. Basing the entire argument on an incomplete set of files and going on to say a single data sorter is the mastermind behind a conspiracy to lie about Global Warming is a little premature. We really just don't have the information we need.

This sorta reminds me of a professor I once had when he said, "Beaumont, whenever you deal with a situation where you don't have everything laid out before you, you're dealing with the world of conjecture. In this world, it'll be easy to draw lines which may or may not exist. It is your duty in the field to build upon this data without the skewed eye of personal bias until you build enough resource to either point the report in the right direction, or complete the report and have the direction before you." I went on to ask, "When do I know I have enough?" his response was, "When you can add a variable of any value wherever you want in the missing data, but the end result is the same."

I do, however, agree with your last statement. I'm sure Harry agrees as well. If I were looking at the incomplete data, and was asked to sort it over two days, I'd also state how nuts it would be. I might use harsher language though.

Also, CRU is obviously not spectacularly funded. Their database seems to be a little older. However, given the demand for their job, time isn't their ally. Ever. There's acceptable drag (which he admits the project being nearly a year late), and then there's, "You've literally had more than enough time to produce some results, we're pulling your funding." If they decided to fudge the numbers to get funding, they'd be found out upon peer reviews. If discovered, the jail time, fines, law suits, and all that follows wouldn't be worth it. There's panels of presentations simply to make sure funding keeps going, granted, but results are ultimately wanted. They can spend forever on the project, and never be absolutely quantitatively perfect. No scientist ever is. And it's a two edged sword. They do it quickly, they screwed something up. They take too long, not only did they screw something up, they don't know how to fix it. They did it just right? The numbers are a lie. For research scientists in such a controversial field, I really do feel for them. They're subject to far more public scrutiny than other fields. Hell, detractors in my field sometimes have me where I wish I could run over some of them with my car. (If only it wouldn't hurt my car. :o )

And, I don't think this data is "crowed on" as the best data in the world. It would have to be in use to be considered anything at all, other than just "data to be sorted, reported, and applied."

[Marx]

Did anyone see 'The Daily Show' last night? John Stewart ripped apart Fox News' 'balance'. I'd post the video but there is a censor bypass in the video. :csad:

[DACrowe]

I saw the whole episode. While I thought it was funnier when he tried to "comfort" Mitt Romney on being Gore to Palin's Bush, I do agree that tearing Fox a new one is a civic duty at this point. Palin goes on the Tonight Show and says she went to Fox News for unbiased and unopinionated journalism? They deserve the ripping. I especially liked the part where Jon pointed out that instead of interviewing four seniors in a rich retirement home living off of socialized medicine, perhaps they could have asked the minimum wage-paid custodians, the part-time working single mother receptionist or AMA-card carrying doctor. Instead of finding people who regurgitate Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity's talking points.

Very good episode. Very good.

[gap5ewl]

So Umm..what the hell happened last night on Glenn Beck??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100310/us_time/08599197098200 In the course of his remarkable rise from cable sideshow to Fox News superstar, Glenn Beck has never really faced a serious challenge.

To a man and woman, his opponents only made him stronger, strengthening his every-guy-against-the-world image and putting some meat on the bones of his near paranoid ravings about dark forces aligning against liberty, and himself. When cornered, he only became more vulnerable, more tearful and, at least to his fervent followers, more likable. (See pictures from a day in the life of Glenn Beck.)

But on Tuesday night, Beck faced a foe unlike any other, a pasty, disgraced former one-term Democratic Congressman from New York, Eric Massa, who had resigned only hours earlier amid an ethics inquiry into allegations he had groped and sexually harassed some of his male employees over the years. Massa, who has maintained that his main reason for not running for re-election in the fall is a recurrence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, arrived in the Fox studios with an X-ray of his own chest and a photo album of pictures from his Navy service that, he announced, "looks like an orgy in Caligula." "I'm going to show you a lot more than tickle fights," Massa told Beck, leaving the host, for a precious moment, speechless.

Massa had come on Fox to out-Beck Glenn Beck. Armed with the very same weapons - a deep sense of victimhood, outrage at the powers that be and remarkable personal candor - the representative delivered a dizzying confessional. He admitted to sexless groping and tickling of his staff, sending inappropriate text messages and otherwise failing to behave like a Congressman should, all as he made his case that his fellow Democrats had really gone after him because of his previous no vote on health care reform. "I can't fight this. I can't fight cancer," Massa announced, in a classic stream of consciousness ramble. "I can't fight the White House. I can't fight the Democratic Party." (Read TIME's cover story, "Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?")

Beck, who is used to controlling the gravitational force of victimhood around him, kept interrupting to point out that he was a bigger target of even greater forces than Massa. "I have two unauthorized biographies coming out against me in the spring," Beck said at one point. Minutes later, Beck went even further. "Do you realize my family is at stake?" he said. "You've got a little scandal with your children in college. I've got one for all time now, because I am not going to resign. I'm not going to back down. I have come to a place where I believe at some point the system will destroy me."

But Beck could not compete with the oddity of the sympathy card Massa kept pulling. He appeared frustrated that Massa wasn't revealing any more sinister plots afoot in the nation's capital, and he got visibly annoyed when Massa tried to take some measure of responsibility for his actions and attempted to walk back some of his more heated rhetoric against White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

And to make things worse, when Massa turned from discussing his own woes to the machinations of Washington, he offered ideas that have no place in Fox News's tightly regulated framework. Massa suggested that Beck and other Americans demand "campaign finance reform" to curb the corruption on Capitol Hill. Beck, who has called such proposals "a huge mistake," put his hand over his mouth, as if he were holding back an upset stomach. Massa, who has opposed the Obama health reform because it is not liberal enough, told Beck that he should stop calling people names like "socialist" and "communist." "You can be a progressive and be a fiscal conservative," Massa then explained, as Beck lost control of his own program.

In the past Beck's opponents, as serious people who operate by the regular order of public debate, have played it straight and posed little challenge. When the White House came after him, he produced a bit of videotape that painted its communications director as an agent of Chairman Mao. (She wasn't.) When a liberal group, Color of Change, sparked an ad boycott of his show, he organized a public campaign that pressured the group's co-founder, Van Jones, to resign from government service. (He did.) Beck even battled Bill O'Reilly, the network's reigning king of self-importance, to a sort of schoolyard draw in regular sparring matches on their respective shows. (Read a Q&A with Glenn Beck.)

But in Massa, Beck found a sort of liberal doppelgÄnger, a mesmerizing train wreck of a man who was impossible to undercut in the classic fashion. To many conservative allies of Beck, it probably didn't come as too much of a surprise. In recent days, prominent Republicans like Bill Kristol had expressly warned Beck and others about coming to Massa's defense just because he was alleging dirty tricks by the Obama White House. "We shouldn't get into the business of being pro-Massa just because we are antihealth care," Kristol said Monday on Fox. The ruling talk-radio king, Rush Limbaugh, spent much of Tuesday making clear that he would not be tied to Massa, after spending much of Monday praising Massa's revelations about Democratic Party politics. "Anybody who embraces this guy is in big trouble," Limbaugh said.

The Massa controversy came as the Republicans have been grappling with the question of just how far to go in attacking Obama and Democrats. Many conservatives were critical of a cartoonish, ugly line of attack the Republican National Committee pushed in a campaign memo, and Liz Cheney was scolded for suggesting that lawyers who had represented terror detainees shouldn't be allowed to occupy high-ranking positions at the Justice Department.

But Beck, who thrives on publicity stunts and controversy, could not resist engaging with Massa. On Tuesday morning, during his radio show, Beck compared the Democrat to both a mobster wanting to testify against John Gotti and a potential Soviet spy wanting to "cross over to our side." The conservative blogger Michelle Malkin called into the show to tell Beck he was making a mistake. "This guy deserves 60 minutes of our time, really?" Malkin asked.

Beck would not budge. But as those 60 minutes came to an end Tuesday afternoon, the rabble-rouser seemed to recognize that he had fallen into a trap. The Beck big top has room for only one carnival barker at a time. "I think I have wasted your time," Beck said, staring into the camera at an audience he once spent weeks telling about fanciful FEMA prison camps. "I think this is the first time I have wasted an hour of your time."

I saw something on the news about it. Pretty wtf lol.

[StorminNorman]

Massa should never of been a Congressman - he's not cut out for it. The guy looked awful on Beck. Beck was trying to get blood from a stone.

Beck's handling of Massa, though, was absolutely brilliant.

[dnno1]

Massa should never of been a Congressman - he's not cut out for it. The guy looked awful on Beck. Beck was trying to get blood from a stone.

Beck's handling of Massa, though, was absolutely brilliant.

His appology to the viewers for wasting their time was priceless. I wish he would cancel his show. Does he have sponsors anymore?

[Addendum]

At least Beck and I finally agree about something. Although I think his show is a waste of time, no matter who he interviews.

[StorminNorman]

His appology to the viewers for wasting their time was priceless. I wish he would cancel his show. Does he have sponsors anymore?

Having the second highest ratings on the largest cable network typically leads to sponsors.

[Superman]

So Umm..what the hell happened last night on Glenn Beck??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100310/us_time/08599197098200

I saw something on the news about it. Pretty wtf lol.Beck, And the Right wingers if we tell the truth here, Thought he'd found the motherload with Massa. He thought Massa was going to tell him all the Dems "Dirty Little Secrets" and give him ammo to go after Obama and Rahm Emanuel and like always Beck ended up looking like a fool. Massa turned out to be a nut who had 0% creditability.

The look on Beck's face when he realized booking Massa was a big mistake was priceless.:lmao:

[StorminNorman]

Beck, And the Right wingers if we tell the truth here, Thought he'd found the motherload with Massa. He thought Massa was going to tell him all the Dems "Dirty Little Secrets" and give him ammo to go after Obama and Rahm Emanuel and like always Beck ended up looking like a fool. Massa turned out to be a nut who had 0% creditability.

The look on Beck's face when he realized booking Massa was a big mistake was priceless.:lmao:

Booking Massa wasn't a mistake, Beck's interview showed us who Massa was. No one else could have done that.

No other guy on TV would have booked Massa for an hour and given him a thorough look through.

The great thing about Beck is that everyone knew it was possible that he was going to through him off the show at any point during it. He had alternative guests lined up in case he decided this guy was a useless scumbag during the first 15 minutes.

If it wasn't for the Beck interview, the story would still be going on. 7 and 15 minute interviews wouldn't have destroy Massa. Beck did.

I don't understand why liberals are using this as ammo against Beck. I mean...what did he do wrong here? I mean...he based his political opinion show around the political headline of the day and got the interview EVERYONE wanted.

The fool!? :huh:

[Marx]

I think the issue with Beck (and others who have now turned on Massa) is that he piggybacked and used the Massa situation as a way to attack Obama. That being said, I'm glad that Massa has been shown for what he truly is. If it came at the hands of Beck, then so be it.

[StorminNorman]

I think the issue with Beck (and others who have now turned on Massa) is that he piggybacked and used the Massa situation as a way to attack Obama. That being said, I'm glad that Massa has been shown for what he truly is. If it came at the hands of Beck, then so be it.

Wasn't the Massa situation all about attacking Obama? I mean who cares when an unknown, idiotic congressman resigns? That seems to be happening every other week these days.

The "Massa Situation" was the accusations he made about Emanuel and being forced out for disagreeing with the President of Health Care. Not his "tickle fights".

[Superman]

I think the issue with Beck (and others who have now turned on Massa) is that he piggybacked and used the Massa situation as a way to attack Obama. That being said, I'm glad that Massa has been shown for what he truly is. If it came at the hands of Beck, then so be it.Exactly. All day the day before Beck built-up the Massa interview as being the "Be All-End All" proof he's been looking for of Obama's "Evilness" and like always when it comes to Beck it just made him look like an idiot.

Now the Beck fans are trying to spin it like Beck's some kind of hero for exposing Massa, A man whom the Dems had already exposed days before as being a creep, Congressional ethics investigations anyone?... But we needed Beck to show us the truth about Massa.... Please. :whatever:

Now the Right are going to try to turn this around and blame Obama for Massa being a creep, A man who they was all too eager to praise and believe just days before for going against Obama's health care plan.

It all comes back to trying to get Obama any way they can. If they can't use Massa one way then they will do it another.

It's all funny really. The more they try the more foolish they look. :hehe:

[Marx]

Wasn't the Massa situation all about attacking Obama? I mean who cares when an unknown, idiotic congressman resigns? That seems to be happening every other week these days.

The "Massa Situation" was the accusations he made about Emanuel and being forced out for disagreeing with the President of Health Care. Not his "tickle fights".

The 'Massa Situation' started out as 'I'm retiring due to health reasons'. Then it became 'Pelosi and Reid are trying to force me out because I don't support the President.' Then it became 'the President's Chief of Staff tried to bully me naked in the congressional showers'. Then it became about him 'living with five congressional interns'. Then it became 'yeah, I groped male staffers'. Then it became 'yeah, I groped male staffers...but it was never sexual.' Now it's just one big jumbled mess of lies and contradictions.

People like Beck and others within the GOP clung to 'Pelosi and Reid are trying to force me out' and spun that into 'Obama is sending out his minions to destroy me'. When these same people realized what a nut Massa is, they turned on him.

[Mystirious]

Much as I hate to break the infamous "Godwin's Law" I'll say now that Fox News is what you'd get if Goebbel's was put in charge of a news station. Nothing but propaganda and hatred, designed to pander to the lowest common denominator and brainwash the ignorant masses into marching to the tune that their paymasters want them to

Every time I hear pretty much ANYTHING about Fox News I thank god that I don't live in America

[dnno1]

Having the second highest ratings on the largest cable network typically leads to sponsors.

Last I checked (http://stopbeck.com/dropped-sponsors/), he has lost 120 of them (:hehe:). So much for having great ratings.

[Kelly]

I'm amazed at some around here that watch Fox enough to know that Beck built up this guest. Kinda surprising actually...

[Kelly]

Last I checked (http://stopbeck.com/dropped-sponsors/), he has lost 120 of them (:hehe:). So much for having great ratings.

I think that has more to do with the sponsors not agreeing, or wanting to be associated with his show more than ratings. Ratings has nothing to do with the sponsors leaving...that is pretty obvious.

[VampElvis]

...... 'living with five congressional interns'. Then it became 'yeah, I groped male staffers'. Then it became 'yeah, I groped male staffers...

Just looking at that makes me wonder if he was being groomed to replace Barney Frank!:wow:

[dnno1]

I think that has more to do with the sponsors not agreeing, or wanting to be associated with his show more than ratings. Ratings has nothing to do with the sponsors leaving...that is pretty obvious.

Eventually when you lose enough sponsors, you have no money to put on your show. Now Mr. Beck is pissing off his Christian viewers:

qQcrM4HQQyg

[Superman]

Eventually when you loose sponsors, you have no money to put on your show. Now Mr. Beck is pissing off his Christian viewers:

qQcrM4HQQygThis should be fun to watch.:hehe:

[Timstuff]

Bill Nye the Science Guy is being interviewed on Fox right now explaining Russia's attempts to control the weather in Moscow! :D

[StorminNorman]

Eventually when you lose enough sponsors, you have no money to put on your show. Now Mr. Beck is pissing off his Christian viewers:

qQcrM4HQQyg


Beck's right that "Social Justice" IS an integral part of Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, etc. and all other forms of statism.

An outside force (like a government) enforcing Social Justice is evil (or fits my perception of the concept of evil).

One's self choosing to work towards some notion of "social justice" is not.

Jesus advocated the latter, not the former.

[Addendum]

Or perhaps it's simply a case of the author(s) using a character to express their viewpoint

[Paradoxium]

It seems to me Beck is trying to ape Hayek but in a (probably) less eloquent way. Look up "The Mirage of Social Justice".

[StorminNorman]

Or perhaps it's simply a case of the author(s) using a character to express their viewpoint

That's redundant. If you believe in Jesus - then you believe in the authenticity of the Bible. If you don't believe in Jesus - then you automatically hold the above mentioned view.

It seems to me Beck is trying to ape Hayek but in a (probably) less eloquent way. Look up "The Mirage of Social Justice".

Just pulled it up on Google Books. Thanks for the advice.

[Addendum]

That's redundant. If you believe in Jesus - then you believe in the authenticity of the Bible. If you don't believe in Jesus - then you automatically hold the above mentioned view.

But the "authenticity" of the bible relies on circular reasoning.

[StorminNorman]

But the "authenticity" of the bible relies on circular reasoning.

Again, pointing out the ridiculously obvious. :huh:

[AG1973]

Beck's right that "Social Justice" IS an integral part of Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, etc. and all other forms of statism.

An outside force (like a government) enforcing Social Justice is evil (or fits my perception of the concept of evil).

One's self choosing to work towards some notion of "social justice" is not.

Jesus advocated the latter, not the former.

I'm sorry state sanctioned racial segrigation is wrong, Jim Crow laws were wrong, job descrimination based on color is wrong. It was not evil for the government to pen laws to correct those practices...

[Addendum]

Again, pointing out the ridiculously obvious. :huh:
And it's a big deal because...

[StorminNorman]

I'm sorry state sanctioned racial segrigation is wrong, Jim Crow laws were wrong, job descrimination based on color is wrong. It was not evil for the government to pen laws to correct those practices...

Those are not examples of "Social Justice". Not how the term is used in this context at least.

[The Overlord]

Having the second highest ratings on the largest cable network typically leads to sponsors.

Except he is an idiot who says stupid things and most companies don't like controversy, have you seen what companies show commercials on Beck's airtime? Companies like these get air time: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/colbert-mocks-glenn-becks_n_494651.html

I think companies like one are cons and run by con artists, so Beck is filling is ad space with con men. Yeah, that doesn't reflectly badly on him. :whatever:

As for ratings, I don't see I why should care, the content of his show is still stupid and considering how well Transformers 2 did, I think I have lost all confidence in the general public ability to tell the difference between quality and crap.

[dnno1]

Beck's right that "Social Justice" IS an integral part of Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, etc. and all other forms of statism.

An outside force (like a government) enforcing Social Justice is evil (or fits my perception of the concept of evil).

One's self choosing to work towards some notion of "social justice" is not.

Jesus advocated the latter, not the former.

Then with your logic, the government shouldn't be adamant about overturning Roe v. Wade or refining the Hyde Ammendment like some social conservatives and Republicans would like to do. Judicial activism should be a definite no no and we should be weary of folks like members of the Green Party, Bart Stupak, and Sara Palin according to what you have just stated. Furthermore, this is a goverment, by the people, for the people, based on human rights and equality (which is what social justice is all about), so if you try to implicate a govenment whose charter is to care for its people (a precept of the consitution) as evil, you are basically implying that we all are evil, and that's not totally true (not all of us are).

It looks like you are reading too deep into this that you are disguising the facts with some abscure phlosphy that doesn't make sense at all. Glen Beck indicated on air that we should turn in any individual, like a priest or a preacher if they said anything about social justice. This flies in the face of what you are trying to assert that the individual trying to work towards socal justice as not being evil (Beck basically said we had we had to turn him in because he must be). You are such an appologist, it is silly.

[Marx]

FOX NEWS 'SPLIT' OVER BECK?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/fox-news-divided-over-gle_n_499055.html

[Marx]

OBAMA TO APPEAR ON FOX NEWS FOR INTERVIEW
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/obama-to-sit-down-with-fox-news-host-bret-baier-tomorrow.php?ref=fpa

[Matt Mortem]

Jon Stewart did nothing but rip Glenn Beck his whole show tonight. It was almost uncomfortable to watch

[Kelly]

FOX NEWS 'SPLIT' OVER BECK?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/fox-news-divided-over-gle_n_499055.html

Yeah, I was a little surprised myself that O'Reilly did those gigs with Beck. It has been evident to me, and I've mentioned here that on a few occasions when Beck was on O'Reilly that he did not agree AT ALL with Beck's take on some things. Even tonight, or last night, can't remember which it was, I only watched a portion each night, O'Reilly questioned Beck's thought process on the "quit your church if you hear the words social justice" crapola. He questioned him pretty extensively on that, and Beck back peddled on his statement.

Beck is scared to death of O'Reilly and O'Reilly loves making fun of Beck. I guess if that is a solid relationship, ok....

[Oddzball]

Those are not examples of "Social Justice". Not how the term is used in this context at least.

Those ARE examples of social justice. What they aren't is part of the straw man definition you guys apply to the term "Social Justice" merely to try and win stupid political points.

[StorminNorman]

Yesterday the opening of Beck's show was amazing. It was one of the most accurate assessments of the problems of today I have seen.

[The Overlord]

Yesterday the opening of Beck's show was amazing. It was one of the most accurate assessments of the problems of today I have seen.

But since he is an entertainer, shouldn't we not take anything he says seriously and ignore anything he has to say?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[StorminNorman]

But since he is an entertainer, shouldn't we not take anything he says seriously and ignore anything he has to say?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I treat him like I treat Jon Stewart.

[VampElvis]

Beck is scared to death of O'Reilly and O'Reilly loves making fun of Beck. I guess if that is a solid relationship, ok....
O'Reilly's something like 6'5, I'd be a little worried too!


But since he is an entertainer, shouldn't we not take anything he says seriously and ignore anything he has to say?
Blind hogs, acorns, etc.

[Matt Mortem]

I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around why "Social Justice" is a bad thing. I could have sworn it was good. Does anyone know what the **** Beck is talking about?

[Addendum]

About this in particular or just anything in general

[Matt Mortem]

I know what Social Justice is, I just can't figure out Becks rhetoric about it. He gets crazier by the minute. WTF is he honestly talking about?

[Addendum]

I don't think anyone knows

[Lighthouse]

Jon Stewart is my hero.

[Majic Walrus]

I treat him like I treat Jon Stewart.

I listen to Beck in my car sometimes so that I can get duly angry when necessary but more and more he sounds to me to be completely inane. The problem with Beck isn't that he's bat**** crazypants, the problem is that very few people perceive him as an entertainer.

The difference between Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck is that Stewart's show is on COMEDY CENTRAL, not a news station and Stewart freely and openly admits to being a comedic slant on news stories. His pieces are entertaining, funny, and sometimes set the brain a-workin'.

Beck however comes off purposefully as a news man on a news network who asks his viewers to participate fervently in the political system and to take action. Stewart's only concern realistically is that people tune in tomorrow and very rarely does he encourage anything beyond that.

So I'm happy that you treat Beck like you treat Jon Stewart. I wish that more people did that and I wish that Beck were honest about his motives as 1.) An entertainer, primarily and 2.) A conservatively slanted comedy act.

Because let's face it. If you can't laugh your ass off at Beck then you've got issues.

[StorminNorman]

But see, I treat Jon Stewart with far more respect than I treat Keith Olberman or Sean Hannity.

I consider Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly to be the best anchors on TV - the fact he (Stewart) is a comedian and on Comedy Central is irrelevant to me.

I don't view Beck as a clown, I view him as an interesting political opinion who understands the problems of this country far better than most on TV whose opinion I value more than most on TV.

[DACrowe]

I'm not sure how one can claim Beck understands the problems facing our nation or the world. Everything is so black and white to him. It is all either black or white. Patriotic or communist. He only seees, or at least presents his vision as, a world divided between good and evil. And he just puts his foot in his mouth so, so, soooooooo many times.

Abandon churches with social justice?

Healthcare an affront to God?

Obama has a deep seeded hatred for white people and white culture (yet he won't define what white culture is)?

We're further left than the Soviet Union and Obama is hiring Maoists to turn us into the People's Republic of China?

All progressives and liberals want to do is control everything we ever do and Teddy Roosevelt betrayed the founders' view?

Obama is going to take "your gun?"

FEMA is preparing concentration camps (as in death camps like in the Third Reich)?

Sarah Palin is the only person who can save our country?

His interview with Massa was going to decide the future course of the United States' destiny?


He is either an over exaggerating grifter or nuts.


***

The epic Jon Stewart video...


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-18-2010/conservative-libertarian

[Marx]

I'm not sure how one can claim Beck understands the problems facing our nation or the world. Everything is so black and white to him. It is all either black or white. Patriotic or communist. He only seees, or at least presents his vision as, a world divided between good and evil. And he just puts his foot in his mouth so, so, soooooooo many times.

Abandon churches with social justice?

Healthcare an affront to God?

Obama has a deep seeded hatred for white people and white culture (yet he won't define what white culture is)?

We're further left than the Soviet Union and Obama is hiring Maoists to turn us into the People's Republic of China?

All progressives and liberals want to do is control everything we ever do and Teddy Roosevelt betrayed the founders' view?

Obama is going to take "your gun?"

FEMA is preparing concentration camps (as in death camps like in the Third Reich)?

Sarah Palin is the only person who can save our country?

His interview with Massa was going to decide the future course of the United States' destiny?


He is either an over exaggerating grifter or nuts.


***

The epic Jon Stewart video...


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-18-2010/conservative-libertarian

:lmao:

I :heart: Jon Stewart.

[StorminNorman]

I'm not sure how one can claim Beck understands the problems facing our nation or the world. Everything is so black and white to him. It is all either black or white. Patriotic or communist. He only seees, or at least presents his vision as, a world divided between good and evil. And he just puts his foot in his mouth so, so, soooooooo many times.

Abandon churches with social justice?

Fine with me.

Healthcare an affront to God?

Not his quote.

Obama has a deep seeded hatred for white people and white culture (yet he won't define what white culture is)?

Was a bad line.

We're further left than the Soviet Union and Obama is hiring Maoists to turn us into the People's Republic of China?

I think Obama is hiring Maoists - though I don't think his vision is China.

All progressives and liberals want to do is control everything we ever do and Teddy Roosevelt betrayed the founders' view?

Both are yes. I don't think most liberals and progressive actively want to control everything we do - they just don't realize that's what they advocate. His points about Teddy are spot on.

Obama is going to take "your gun?"

Probably.

FEMA is preparing concentration camps (as in death camps like in the Third Reich)?

He debunked it, not supported it.

Sarah Palin is the only person who can save our country?

Was that a quote?

His interview with Massa was going to decide the future course of the United States' destiny?

If Massa had dirt to bring down Rahm Emanuel - it would have been. Beck admitted the interview was a waste of time, and did so during the show - so what's the complaint here?

The epic Jon Stewart video...


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-18-2010/conservative-libertarian

Jon Stewart doesn't get it either.

[Kane52630]

^ well I think he knows that

*cough* check out my avy lol *cough*

[Majic Walrus]

But see, I treat Jon Stewart with far more respect than I treat Keith Olberman or Sean Hannity.

I consider Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly to be the best anchors on TV - the fact he (Stewart) is a comedian and on Comedy Central is irrelevant to me.

I don't view Beck as a clown, I view him as an interesting political opinion who understands the problems of this country far better than most on TV whose opinion I value more than most on TV.

But see that's just it, you don't view Beck and Stewart in the same regard then. Because Stewart is, for all intents and purposes a "clown" and so is Beck. To say that either of them have valuable political input of themselves is frankly sad.

My point is that nothing that Beck or Stewart say should be taken at face value. I think that Stewart's fans know this and I think that Beck's fans do not.

[Kelly]

I think that Beck's fans are stupid, and Stewart's fans are smart.

I think that Stewart's fans are stupid, and Beck's fans are smart.

I think that Beck is a conservative and Stewart is a liberal.

blah....blah......blah....blah....blah.....

They both have a place in the realm of Political discourse, they both have their positives and negatives, and they both have been right and wrong.

I can say the same thing about Katie Couric and Shepherd Smith...well, no actually I can't because I don't if Shepherd is leans left or right.

[The Overlord]

I treat him like I treat Jon Stewart.

I like Jon Stewart, but he is on Comedy central, that by its nature means he shouldn't be taken that seriously.

Glenn beck is on a news channel, not a comedy channel. It seems like people want to give Beck all the power of a journalist, with none of the responsibilities.

And if Beck is just an entertainer, how does that make him different from the Hollywood elites that right wingers say use their celeb status to promote their views?

I think that Beck's fans are stupid, and Stewart's fans are smart.

I think that Stewart's fans are stupid, and Beck's fans are smart.

I think that Beck is a conservative and Stewart is a liberal.

blah....blah......blah....blah....blah.....

They both have a place in the realm of Political discourse, they both have their positives and negatives, and they both have been right and wrong.

I can say the same thing about Katie Couric and Shepherd Smith...well, no actually I can't because I don't if Shepherd is leans left or right.

Ah but you are ignoring one little fact, the medium is the message.

Jon Stewart is on a comedy channel, the medium means his message should not be taken seriously.

Glenn Beck is on a news channel, the medium should mean he is a serious journalist, but then he claims he is an entertainer, but then he demands to be taken seriously. That makes him an infotainer, I loathe infotainers.


Blind hogs, acorns, etc.

So what, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

What about when Beck said the NFL is socialist? Is that something we are supposed to take seriously?

[StorminNorman]

I like Jon Stewart, but he is on Comedy central, that by its nature means he shouldn't be taken that seriously.

Glenn beck is on a news channel, not a comedy channel. It seems like people want to give Beck all the power of a journalist, with none of the responsibilities.

I thought Fox News was an opinion channel, not a news channel? Or does that change depending on the point you are trying to make?

Again, I treat Jon Stewart seriously - the fact he is on Comedy Central is irrelevant. The network a person is on, or a show is on, has no real impact on my opinion of the show itself or the person itself. I don't see why it should.

I don't think anyone watching Fox News sees Beck as anything other than a guy with an opinion - they don't confuse his show as anything other than Beck's take on things.

And if Beck is just an entertainer, how does that make him different from the Hollywood elites that right wingers say use their celeb status to promote their views?

:doh: Beck's a political entertainer, just like Michael Moore. I think Beck has far greater integrity, intelligence and talent than Moore, but they are similar in the fact that they owe their relevancy to politics - thus it's far different than, say, Matt Damon.

Personally I don't care when anyone uses any status they have earned for anything they wish.

Ah but you are ignoring one little fact, the medium is the message.

Jon Stewart is on a comedy channel, the medium means his message should not be taken seriously.

Glenn Beck is on a news channel, the medium should mean he is a serious journalist, but then he claims he is an entertainer, but then he demands to be taken seriously. That makes him an infotainer, I loathe infotainers.

But how many times do YOU mention something Jon Stewart says.

You are such a flaming hypocrite when you say "I loathe infotainers" and yet quote Jon Stewart. You don't hate "infotainers" you hate the opinions of people like Beck and Limbaugh.

What about when Beck said the NFL is socialist? Is that something we are supposed to take seriously?

The NFL is as socialist as a private entity can be. There are salary caps, salary ceilings, regulation of trade, collective bargaining agreements, redistribution of wealth, etc. You can't start a new team and join the league, trying to compete.

You compare the NFL to say FIFA and it is significantly more "socialist". In Soccer, if you don't perform - you are kicked out of the league (replaced by a team that has earned it), there is a lot more freedom buying and selling your resources (players) and far less regulation from a league standpoint.

[DACrowe]

Fine with me.



Not his quote.



Was a bad line.



I think Obama is hiring Maoists - though I don't think his vision is China.



Both are yes. I don't think most liberals and progressive actively want to control everything we do - they just don't realize that's what they advocate. His points about Teddy are spot on.



Probably.



He debunked it, not supported it.



Was that a quote?



If Massa had dirt to bring down Rahm Emanuel - it would have been. Beck admitted the interview was a waste of time, and did so during the show - so what's the complaint here?


Jon Stewart doesn't get it either.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. ;)

But for the record he did say in his underwhelming interview (even for him, when she couldn't name a founder for a minute and then could only remember George Washington). He pulled out his journal and read that he wrote the night before that he thinks she may be the only person who may be able to save our country and pull it out of disaster (presumably Obama's socialism) and wondered "if she is strong enough" to do it. :rolleyes:

For the record, I think we saw the coming of Glenn Beck nearly 40 years ago in this, only this iteration was a little more logical or had some slightly better advice than Beck does...

tDWtZ3xRMb0

[StorminNorman]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. ;)

But for the record he did say in his underwhelming interview (even for him, when she couldn't name a founder for a minute and then could only remember George Washington). He pulled out his journal and read that he wrote the night before that he thinks she may be the only person who may be able to save our country and pull it out of disaster (presumably Obama's socialism) and wondered "if she is strong enough" to do it. :rolleyes:

I think I remember that. Wasn't Beck's best moment.

[DACrowe]

SEAN HANNITY SCAMS SLAIN AMERICAN SOLDIERS' CHILDREN OUT OF MILLIONS OF CHARITY DOLLARS?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/

This story is blowing up on the blogosphere and you can bet next week MSNBC will be on it like white on rice. I also expect some serious print investigation. This is a blogger , so you should take it with a grain of salt. But she has some extensive research and if it is true, his Freedom Concerts for children of dead soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan to go to college, as well as aide to severely injured and crippled soldiers is a scam to pay for his planes, hotels, cars, vacations, etc. She reports that only about 20% of revenue has been going to families. And in the last several years it has gone under 10% and 5%, respectively. If this is true, he is finished and could be facing criminal charges.

But for now, this is an "if" story.

[StorminNorman]

I would love this.

[DACrowe]

Really. Do explain.

[StorminNorman]

I hate Sean Hannity.

[Marx]

SEAN HANNITY SCAMS SLAIN AMERICAN SOLDIERS' CHILDREN OUT OF MILLIONS OF CHARITY DOLLARS?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/

This story is blowing up on the blogosphere and you can bet next week MSNBC will be on it like white on rice. I also expect some serious print investigation. This is a blogger , so you should take it with a grain of salt. But she has some extensive research and if it is true, his Freedom Concerts for children of dead soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan to go to college, as well as aide to severely injured and crippled soldiers is a scam to pay for his planes, hotels, cars, vacations, etc. She reports that only about 20% of revenue has been going to families. And in the last several years it has gone under 10% and 5%, respectively. If this is true, he is finished and could be facing criminal charges.

But for now, this is an "if" story.

Wow...if that is true...

[Kelly]

Big wow....if its true...

[Schlosser85]

Not saying it's true....but no one has much reason to be shocked if it is.

[Kelly]

No, I actually would be shocked.....I may not agree with his political stance, or his ability to be a douche....but this is a whole different thing. He has never done anything to make anyone think that this has been a farce.

[bell110]

Those are not examples of "Social Justice". Not how the term is used in this context at least.

Well, those are examples of social justice. Beck was just stupid in using the term out of context to prove a dumb point.

O'Reilly's something like 6'5, I'd be a little worried too!

Man, f' that. I always thought O'Reilly used his hight to intimidate people. That and shouting down people. I think people really need to stand up to him more on his show.

That's redundant. If you believe in Jesus - then you believe in the authenticity of the Bible. If you don't believe in Jesus - then you automatically hold the above mentioned view.

I believe in Jesus, but I don't believe bible is literal. To believe the bible is literal, I think, is naive.

[Kelly]

Man, f' that. I always thought O'Reilly used his hight to intimidate people. That and shouting down people. I think people really need to stand up to him more on his show.

Vamp was being sarcastic, and people stand up to O'Reilly almost nightly on his show. People he works for stand up to him, ex: Megan Kelly, Geraldo, Professor Marc Lemont Hill (probably the biggest liberal I have ever seen) always stands up to him on issues.

For some reason, I doubt that you watch his show on a weekly basis...

[Paradoxium]

Unfortunately many charities are like this. Usually 10% gets to the victims and a lot of it goes into "management fees". This is something I point out to many people in the past. You have to do you homework if you are serious, or better yet, do the work yourself if you want to see it get done.

[bell110]

Vamp was being sarcastic, and people stand up to O'Reilly almost nightly on his show. People he works for stand up to him, ex: Megan Kelly, Geraldo, Professor Marc Lemont Hill (probably the biggest liberal I have ever seen) always stands up to him on issues.

For some reason, I doubt that you watch his show on a weekly basis...

I don't watch him weekly, but I've seen enough. The only person that I've ever seen get back into O'Reilly's face is Geraldo.

[Kelly]

Then you've missed quite a few others...

[DACrowe]

It was a funeral march on Fox tonight.

[Marx]

It was a funeral march on Fox tonight.

I was wondering how they treated the vote...not surprising with all of the 'doom and gloom' armageddon talk coming from GOP members of congress and the ridiculous actions of the tea partiers.

[StorminNorman]

I was wondering how they treated the vote...not surprising with all of the 'doom and gloom' armageddon talk coming from GOP members of congress and the ridiculous actions of the tea partiers.

It would be inappropriate to react to a national disaster any other way.

[Kelly]

On Glenn Beck, but I haven't seen a death march on any of the actual news on Fox...they are interviewing from both parties.

Looks like a regular day with a big news item. Meaning, that is what they are talking the most.

[Kelly]

Sean Hannity, Freedom Alliance Refute Attack That Blogger Based on Unnamed Source Citing Unnamed 'Guy' (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63176)

[Marx]

Sean Hannity, Freedom Alliance Refute Attack That Blogger Based on Unnamed Source Citing Unnamed 'Guy' (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63176)

My anti-virus says that I cannot go to that site...what is the link about?

[Kelly]

Both conservative talk-radio host Sean Hannity and a charity for wounded veterans that he supports refuted a posting by a blogger who cited an unnamed source who, in turn, cited an unnamed "guy" at Fox News Channel in suggesting that the charity used some of its donations to pay lavish expenses supposedly incurred by Hannity.

The Freedom Alliance, which raises money to help wounded veterans and fund scholarships for the children of slain soldiers, issued a statement (http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/freedom_alliance_response.pdf) saying the allegations by blogger Debbie Schlussel were “false and malicious.” The charity (http://www.freedomalliance.org/) further said that Hannity “pays for all his own transportation, hotels, and all related expenses for himself and his family and friends and staff,” and that he “does not use any Freedom Alliance Funds or [Freedom] Concert funds in any way, period.”

In a statement e-mailed to CNSNews.com, Hannity said: “The statement posted by the Freedom Alliance is 100% truthful and accurate. I have NOT taken a single penny from the Freedom Alliance or from concert sales EVER! I pay all the travel costs for my staff, family and me, and I have personally donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the FA and military charities. I have done this because providing scholarship money for children of slain heroes is a cause I truly believe in and am passionate about.”

In her Mar. 18 blog (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/), Schlussel described the Freedom Alliance charity and the Freedom Concerts--the latter help raise money for the charity and are promoted and attended by Hannity--as “all a huge scam,” and she entitled her article (http://%20http//www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/), “Sean Hannity’s Freedom CONcert Scam.”

In the blog, Schlussel, who is a Detroit-based attorney, said that among the money raised by Freedom Alliance, “millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style.”

Schlussel further said that she received a written message in February 2009 from “a well-known conservative writer, about a friend at FOX News,” who claimed that more money generated by the concerts would go to help the children of the charity “if Hannity did not demand – and get – use of a Gulfstream 5 plane to fly him and his family/entourage to the concerts.”

The unnamed source, citing an unnamed "guy" at Fox News Channel, went on to say that Freedom Concert charity money is used to pay for “a ‘fleet’ (that’s the word the guy used) of either Cadillac or Lincoln SUVs for him [Hannity] and his family/entourage. The promoter apparently values Hannity’s star demands at well over $200,000 per event. The source says he heard that Oliver North pulled Hannity aside at one of the concerts and told him that this had to stop. But that may mean that, from now on, Hannity has to fly on a G4 instead of a G5, gets only a few luxury SUVs, and two or three suites.”

Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North (Ret.) is the founder and honorary chairman of the Freedom Alliance.

The Freedom Alliance denounced the allegations by Schlussel in its Mar. 18 statement (http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/freedom_alliance_response.pdf), calling them an “outrageous slander” against Hannity and noting that the Alliance “has never provided planes, hotels, cars, limos, or anything else to Sean.”

The Alliance also disclosed that Hannity “has contributed $100,000 to the Wounded Warriors Foundation, over $200,000 to the Freedom Alliance, and over tens of thousands of dollars to other military charities and individuals.”

CNSNews.com asked Debbie Schlussel in an e-mail, “What source do you have to show that the Freedom Alliance or the Freedom Concerts paid any of Sean Hannity’s expenses in relation to the charity work the Alliance and the Concerts performed?”

CNSNews.com also asked Schlussel if she were relying on the unnamed source of February 2009 for the allegations against Hannity, and whether she would name the source, the “well-known conservative writer.”

Schlussel responded: “As you know, my main source for all of this are the tax forms from 2006-2008. The tax forms don't lie, but Freedom Alliance does. And the charity, if it were honest, would disclose all of its expenses and to whom they were paid. They have yet to do so.”

“I have much more on this scam, including confirmation of the Oliver North/Sean Hannity conversation about what was being billed to the Freedom Concerts, and will be writing about it on my site with more and more facts in the coming days, in several stories I'm writing on this,” said Schlussel. “You can read it there.”

Schlussel did not name the source who sent her the message citing the unnamed "guy" at Fox News who claimed that Hannity had run-up big expenses on the tab of the Freedom Concerts, and the tax forms in question do not disclose in itemized detail who received money for expenses. But both the Freedom Alliance and Sean Hannity have flatly denied the unsourced and unsubstantiated claims by Schlussel.

Further, Freedom Alliance President Thomas P. Kilgannon told CNSNews.com that if the expenses were itemized, they would only confirm what the organization and Hannity have already said.

“The only thing we provide to Sean is our thanks and gratitude for the help and support he gives to the troops and to our organization,” said Kilgannon.

The Freedom Alliance (http://www.freedomalliance.org/) is a non-profit, charitable group that honors and encourages military service. It raises money through the Freedom Concerts and from direct solicitation to support wounded veterans and help provide scholarships for the children of slain soldiers. It also holds many “Support Out Troops” events each year and operates a “Leadership Academy” for high school students interested in military service.

[Kelly]

Debbie Schlussel’s response to Freedom Alliance’s post in their defense:
In fact, the Freedom Alliance “response” doesn’t answer any of the questions I raised and goes on to lie more. They don’t address why they gave a triple amputee only $200—and in fact there are many of these examples provided in their tax return addendum, but I only cited a few for brevity’s sake. They also lie and claim that they gave a lot more money to charity b/c they categorize it as “program expenses.” But I’m sorry—calling $3 million in consulting fees, printing, and postage “program expenses” doesn’t change the fact that it still went to their cronies, not to a fund and not the soldiers who only got on average less than $900 apiece. It also doesn’t change the fact that out of the money spent (I didn’t use the money they claim they raised for their scholarship fund) the vast majority goes to those kinds of expenses.
Also, the “scholarship fund” is really a war chest for something else. We’ve been at war since 2001, when we went into Afghanistan, and we’re winding down in Iraq. Unless the kids were born in 2001 or thereafter, many of these kids are in college now and Freedom Alliance is giving them a pittance toward their college tuition, while they continue to build this massive warchest. With a giant multi-million dollar fund, why aren’t they giving the kids a free, complete ride to college? And how many kids of deceased troops will there be in the future? Enough to exhaust a multi-million dollar fund? Doubtful.


Moreover, because they hoarded millions of dollars, their returns show the fund shrunk by several million dollars with bad investments and market losses. That money could have put these kids through college for the entire time. What’s their excuse for the soldiers with no limbs and with severe burns? Are they waiting for two decades from now when technology is better? $165 for a soldier who is blind and his face blew up? No excuse for that. Their “response” is simply a non-response and an attempt to cover up the fraud.

[Paradoxium]

What kind of Antivirus you have Marx? :huh:

[voyzovrezon]

from Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003230020)

David Frum:
"Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox"

[redfirebird2008]

I couldn't find the Glenn Beck thread (did we get rid of it?), so here goes:

http://www.salon.com/news/glenn_beck/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/03/22/beck_lewis

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

[Marx]

I couldn't find the Glenn Beck thread (did we get rid of it?), so here goes:

http://www.salon.com/news/glenn_beck/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/03/22/beck_lewis

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

:facepalm:

Beck needs to get a clue, and fast.

and yeah, Beck's thread was merged with this one.

[redfirebird2008]

:facepalm:

Beck needs to get a clue, and fast.

and yeah, Beck's thread was merged with this one.


Beck owes Lewis an apology. But I'm sure he won't give him one. Lewis darn near died while engaging in civil rights protests.

[Tally Man]

Anybody else catch the daily show tonight? It was just one giant slam against beck and his show. Probably one of the best daily shows I've ever seen them do.

[bell110]

It's funny, because if Beck was active during the civil rights era, he would be totally against it.

[StorminNorman]

I couldn't find the Glenn Beck thread (did we get rid of it?), so here goes:

http://www.salon.com/news/glenn_beck/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/03/22/beck_lewis

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

God, this is a lot to do about nothing. The fact that Lewis happened to be apart of the Civil Rights movement does not lessen the obvious frace when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are waltzing through DC as if on parade and compare it to the Civil Rights movement.

Please, this is ridiculous.

Anybody else catch the daily show tonight? It was just one giant slam against beck and his show. Probably one of the best daily shows I've ever seen them do.

I saw it and it was terribly weak, IMO. I expect more from Stewart.

It's funny, because if Beck was active during the civil rights era, he would be totally against it.

You can't even begin to defend that statement.

[redfirebird2008]

God, this is a lot to do about nothing. The fact that Lewis happened to be apart of the Civil Rights movement does not lessen the obvious frace when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are waltzing through DC as if on parade and compare it to the Civil Rights movement.

Please, this is ridiculous.





Watch the video. Look at the photo. Listen to his words. He is referring to the group in the photo "locking arms." He was criticizing the entire group in the photo, not just Pelosi and Reid. Mr. Lewis was part of that group. Don't cherry-pick to exclude Mr. Lewis when Beck himself chose not to do it while speaking on the matter and pointing at the photograph in question. Hell, he even motioned specifically at Mr. Lewis to show him "locking arms" with Pelosi. Beck stuck his foot in his mouth on this one. I'm surprised you are defending it.

[Tally Man]

I saw it and it was terribly weak, IMO. I expect more from Stewart.

I thought it was pretty good considering what he had to work with. Though its not something I'd like them to do too often because the daily show corespondents are probably the best part of that show these days.

[DACrowe]

God, this is a lot to do about nothing. The fact that Lewis happened to be apart of the Civil Rights movement does not lessen the obvious frace when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are waltzing through DC as if on parade and compare it to the Civil Rights movement.

Please, this is ridiculous.



I saw it and it was terribly weak, IMO. I expect more from Stewart.



You can't even begin to defend that statement.

You may hate the grandstanding that was that march (I thought it was slightly amusing). But it was done in response to Lewis and Clyburn (Civil Rights activists from the '60s), being called the N-word by racist idiots in that same crowd the day before. Lewis was beat within an inch of his life for simply walking for equal rights.

And then Beck mocks them and claims he is the defender of civil rights activists. That, at the very least, showed willful idiocy and ignorance. Given that he has appointed himself as the defender of "white culture" from the president who has a "deep seeded hatred for white people," I doubt that Beck even cares much about minorities (as he makes fun of them for being lazy) and never seems to point to Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, Abigail Duniway, Susan B. Anthony, or any non-white men in his "great Americans" list.

For the record I saw the segment, he made a number of historical errors.

-He said the Gettysburg Address united the US during the time of hardship of the Civil War. Well, ignoring the fact that half the US was in midst of seceding and trying to dissolve the Union, even those who were willfully governed by Lincoln did not think much of the speech. It was considered poor by journalists at the event and got a lukewarm response.

-He also talked about the flag raising of Iwo Jima was done by brave men under fire. They were brave men, but it was not under fire.

-He also said this healthcare bill was hatched by (presumed) hippy socialists in college during the 1960s. He then accusingly demands to the camera where was Obama during the 1960s and who was he hanging out with at school? That could have been a strong culture war declaration, if not for the fact that Obama was born in 1961 and was 8 when college "hippy" protestors metaphorically put a flower in a gun barrel at Kent State in 1970 (which Beck also mocked). Obama went to college durn "Morning in America" in Reagan's heyday.

:facepalm:

What an idiot. Really.

[Superman]

You may hate the grandstanding that was that march (I thought it was slightly amusing). But it was done in response to Lewis and Clyburn (Civil Rights activists from the '60s), being called the N-word by racist idiots in that same crowd the day before. Lewis was beat within an inch of his life for simply walking for equal rights.

And then Beck mocks them and claims he is the defender of civil rights activists. That, at the very least, showed willful idiocy and ignorance. Given that he has appointed himself as the defender of "white culture" from the president who has a "deep seeded hatred for white people," I doubt that Beck even cares much about minorities (as he makes fun of them for being lazy) and never seems to point to Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, Abigail Duniway, Susan B. Anthony, or any non-white men in his "great Americans" list.

For the record I saw the segment, he made a number of historical errors.

-He said the Gettysburg Address united the US during the time of hardship of the Civil War. Well, ignoring the fact that half the US was in midst of seceding and trying to dissolve the Union, even those who were willfully governed by Lincoln did not think much of the speech. It was considered poor by journalists at the event and got a lukewarm response.


-He also talked about the flag raising of Iwo Jima was done by brave men under fire. They were brave men, but it was not under fire.

-He also said this healthcare bill was hatched by (presumed) hippy socialists in college during the 1960s. He then accusingly demands to the camera where was Obama during the 1960s and who was he hanging out with at school? That could have been a strong culture war declaration, if not for the fact that Obama was born in 1961 and was 8 when college "hippy" protestors metaphorically put a flower in a gun barrel at Kent State in 1970 (which Beck also mocked). Obama went to college durn "Morning in America" in Reagan's heyday.

:facepalm:

What an idiot. Really.You know what's funny and sad about the Gettysburg Address stuff? It's that the people who Beck is talking to, White rural southerners, They know this Civil War stuff. They know that Lincoln's speech was a flop at the time he made it. They know it didn't unite the country, If they know anything they know the Civil War history, But they will just go alone with whatever Beck says and ignore the facts that they already know.

It just proves that these people don't care about facts as long as they can make the Dems and Obama look bad. They will let Beck lie to them, They will lie to themselves just because they can't stand the thought that they lost.

People who watch Fox are not looking for the news or facts, They just want confirmation that that black guy in the White House is the bad guy and Fox is all to happy to give it to them.:whatever:

[redfirebird2008]

People who watch Fox are not looking for the news or facts, They just want confirmation that that black guy in the White House is the bad guy and Fox is all to happy to give it to them.:whatever:


I would say anyone relying on cable news networks in general (not just Fox but the others too) is not looking for facts. They are looking to be entertained in one way or another.

[StorminNorman]

Watch the video. Look at the photo. Listen to his words. He is referring to the group in the photo "locking arms." He was criticizing the entire group in the photo, not just Pelosi and Reid. Mr. Lewis was part of that group. Don't cherry-pick to exclude Mr. Lewis when Beck himself chose not to do it while speaking on the matter and pointing at the photograph in question. Hell, he even motioned specifically at Mr. Lewis to show him "locking arms" with Pelosi. Beck stuck his foot in his mouth on this one. I'm surprised you are defending it.

Yes - I get that. He WAS criticizing the entire group of people. I don't think the simply because Lewis was apart of the Civil Rights movements changes anything about Beck was saying. His past deeds do not change the arrogance displayed in passing this bill - it was the arrogance that Beck was criticizing.

I thought it was pretty good considering what he had to work with. Though its not something I'd like them to do too often because the daily show corespondents are probably the best part of that show these days.

If Beck was a loon, wouldn't he have MORE to work with? I haven't watched a lot of Glenn Beck, maybe an episode a month, until last week. I have started to watch Beck daily and I must say, his show has been stellar. I do not know if it has always been this good, but I am starting to believe that Beck is not nearly as bad as I thought he was.

You may hate the grandstanding that was that march (I thought it was slightly amusing). But it was done in response to Lewis and Clyburn (Civil Rights activists from the '60s), being called the N-word by racist idiots in that same crowd the day before. Lewis was beat within an inch of his life for simply walking for equal rights.

Really? I had not heard that being the reason for the march.

And then Beck mocks them and claims he is the defender of civil rights activists. That, at the very least, showed willful idiocy and ignorance. Given that he has appointed himself as the defender of "white culture" from the president who has a "deep seeded hatred for white people," I doubt that Beck even cares much about minorities (as he makes fun of them for being lazy) and never seems to point to Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, Abigail Duniway, Susan B. Anthony, or any non-white men in his "great Americans" list.

:whatever: Ah yes, Beck the great racist. Beck's focus is on the founding - it just so happens the founders were white men. There is nothing to support the accusation that Beck is racist.

For the record I saw the segment, he made a number of historical errors.

-He said the Gettysburg Address united the US during the time of hardship of the Civil War. Well, ignoring the fact that half the US was in midst of seceding and trying to dissolve the Union, even those who were willfully governed by Lincoln did not think much of the speech. It was considered poor by journalists at the event and got a lukewarm response.

-He also talked about the flag raising of Iwo Jima was done by brave men under fire. They were brave men, but it was not under fire.

I think both criticisms are iffy. For one, the reaction to the Gettysburg Address was not uniformly poor - it was praised by Lincoln supporters while criticized by those who opposed him (surprise surprise). The Gettysburg Address was the most iconic moment of the Civil War - a war about keeping the country united. The fact the speech didn't change the world overnight is irrelevant to the point he was making.

-He also said this healthcare bill was hatched by (presumed) hippy socialists in college during the 1960s. He then accusingly demands to the camera where was Obama during the 1960s and who was he hanging out with at school? That could have been a strong culture war declaration, if not for the fact that Obama was born in 1961 and was 8 when college "hippy" protestors metaphorically put a flower in a gun barrel at Kent State in 1970 (which Beck also mocked). Obama went to college durn "Morning in America" in Reagan's heyday.

:facepalm:

What an idiot. Really.

Who taught Obama? What were his major political mentors? 1960's progressives groomed Obama.

People who watch Fox are not looking for the news or facts, They just want confirmation that that black guy in the White House is the bad guy and Fox is all to happy to give it to them.:whatever:

So those that watch Fox are racist. :huh: Awesome :up:

[redfirebird2008]

Yes - I get that. He WAS criticizing the entire group of people. I don't think the simply because Lewis was apart of the Civil Rights movements changes anything about Beck was saying. His past deeds do not change the arrogance displayed in passing this bill - it was the arrogance that Beck was criticizing.






He shouldn't have brought up the Civil Rights thing if he was going to bust out with a "How dare you" criticism against Lewis.

[VampElvis]

I've watched his show only a few times, but I've listened to his radio show a good bit (though not in the last couple of months). Like a lot of others, Beck at his core has some good insight. But he takes it to the outlandish extreme and that, coupled with his emotional investment, often lead him down ridiculous paths of non sequitur. Or maybe he talks so fast his tongue gets in the way of his eye teeth and he can't see what he's saying.

[DACrowe]

Yes - I get that. He WAS criticizing the entire group of people. I don't think the simply because Lewis was apart of the Civil Rights movements changes anything about Beck was saying. His past deeds do not change the arrogance displayed in passing this bill - it was the arrogance that Beck was criticizing.

It was just the way he did it, saying they are nothing compared to the real Civil Rights activists and shows an image of the Greensboro sit-ins. But he fails to recognize or possibly know that one of them was a Civil Rights activist, which at the very least is funny and worthy of mocking.


Really? I had not heard that being the reason for the march.

I recall one of the Congressmen said after the march to the cable news people it was a last minute decision to show the Tea Partiers they're not intimidated by the malice, insults or size. That is why Pelosi made sure Lewis was right next to her (as he was called the N-word by that group the day before). Now technically speaking, they were in no danger unlike the actual Civil Rights marches--but for better or worse they were making a statement. I actually think it is telling that in 1960 those marches were of protestors who were going to get physically beaten by the government for doing so. Today, they are on the inside of government and the racists are on the outside looking in with contempt. So it does paint an interesting contrast of how our nation has changed in 40-50 years.


:whatever: Ah yes, Beck the great racist. Beck's focus is on the founding - it just so happens the founders were white men. There is nothing to support the accusation that Beck is racist.

He is obsessed with the Founders (and defended the 3/5 Compromise as a good thing once, if I do recall), but when he jumps ahead in history he'll rattle off on how great Lincoln was. Or Armstrong on the moon. Or Patton in WWII. Or Reagan to a lesser extent. I still don't think he has ever talked about a great African-American or woman on his show though (Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann do not count).


I think both criticisms are iffy. For one, the reaction to the Gettysburg Address was not uniformly poor - it was praised by Lincoln supporters while criticized by those who opposed him (surprise surprise). The Gettysburg Address was the most iconic moment of the Civil War - a war about keeping the country united. The fact the speech didn't change the world overnight is irrelevant to the point he was making.

Well it was a great American moment. I'd say the actual battle of Gettysburg was the definitive moment of the war. But this was right up there. But he talked about it as a moment that would unite all Americans instantly, and as you pointed out--it wasn't taken as anything that special until years later. It has a great legacy and looking back we can be in awe of it, but at the time it wasn't the event that Beck described.



Who taught Obama? What were his major political mentors? 1960's progressives groomed Obama.

Perhaps. But that wasn't Beck's question. He asked what Obama was doing in the 1960s and who he went ot school with. I don't think he was talking about elementary school. And the backhanded insult to the Vietnam protestors and the imagery of Kent State was poor taste, to say the least. Especially for a man who prides himself about leading the fight against big government, you know.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The Beck bit Jon Stewart did was ballsy. I liked it.

The edits were too obvious, and that chalk board seemed wonky. But, overall it was funny I thought.

As for the Hannity thing...I didn't know blogs were so important. It's still a little amazing to me how a blog post can catch eyes like that, much less make some headlines. If the blog was about the life and times of Bruce Willis or something, I'd understand.

[Tally Man]

If Beck was a loon, wouldn't he have MORE to work with? I haven't watched a lot of Glenn Beck, maybe an episode a month, until last week. I have started to watch Beck daily and I must say, his show has been stellar. I do not know if it has always been this good, but I am starting to believe that Beck is not nearly as bad as I thought he was.

I was referring more to the subjects of beck's continued rantings not his mental health. If they were to parody that then they'd get at least 3 seasons worth of material. :o

[SentinelMind]

I couldn't find the Glenn Beck thread (did we get rid of it?), so here goes:

http://www.salon.com/news/glenn_beck.../22/beck_lewis

Just because one of the participants was a civil rights activist 40 years doesn't negate the arrogance and ignorance of all the Congressmen who support the bill for for comparing the healthcare bill to Civil Rights Act of 64. Just other day Jesse Jackson also compared the bill to Civil Rights Act.

[Marx]

Jesse Jackson is a media whore...he'll say anything to get on tv. (He and Al Sharpton do nothing but turn everything in a race argument.)

[redfirebird2008]

Just because one of the participants was a civil rights activist 40 years doesn't negate the arrogance and ignorance of all the Congressmen who support the bill for for comparing the healthcare bill to Civil Rights Act of 64. Just other day Jesse Jackson also compared the bill to Civil Rights Act.

Ironic that you bring up ignorance. Beck was ignorant as hell to make that comparison while screaming "how dare you" at Lewis.

[DACrowe]

Just because one of the participants was a civil rights activist 40 years doesn't negate the arrogance and ignorance of all the Congressmen who support the bill for for comparing the healthcare bill to Civil Rights Act of 64. Just other day Jesse Jackson also compared the bill to Civil Rights Act.

I don't know about Jackson. But Jim Clyburn, a Congressman from South Carolina, said that the night of the passage in his following speech. He was also a Civil Rights activist who marched in 1960 to white racists. He said the environment was similar when he went to work on Saturday and Tea Partiers called him a ******.

Like or hate the comparison, do realize that Civil Rights was part of the progressive accomplishments between 1932-1965 (which coincidentally led to the greatest era of American growth and prosperity in history) including the New Deal, the GI Bill, Civil Rights and Medicare.

The country hasn't done something like that in decades. This bill is the first since Reagan where the government is actually trying to benefit and help the middle and lower classes, as opposed to the wealthy and upper class that has benefitted from "trickle-down economics" being the name of the game until...well this week.

So there is some apt comparison.

[Kelly]

Wow, and the only ones that are actually paying for itself is Civil Rights and the G.I. Bill to a degree.....cool.....hope this bill compares in that way at least.

[DACrowe]

So, I guess I am a sucker for punishment--out of morbid curiosity I turned to Fox for the first time since Monday to see if they are at least criticizing the more extreme Tea Partiers for their language and violent threats.

For the five minutes I watched of O'Reilly, he and Dennis MIller *****ed about the health care law helping lazy people. And then defended Anne Coulter from the loony left and their "violent" protest. Not a peep about death threats, vandalism or Tea Partiers using racial slurs.


So an hour later I turn to Sean Hannity in mid show--BIG MISTAKE. On it he and two conservatives from their business channel and The NY Daily News were DENYING THAT RACIAL SLURS WERE USED ON SATURDAY AND IT WAS MADE UP BY DEMOCRATS TO SMEAR THE TEA PARTY, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE TEA PARTIERS ARE RIGHT. Further, they LEGITIMIZED THE DEATH THREATS BY SAYING THEY RUINED THIS COUNTRY AND WE SHOULDN'T FEEL SORRY FOR THEM FOR "A FEW ANGRY VOICE MAILS."

I was so furious I wanted to throw my remote at the TV. How is the right handling the perpetuation of violence on Fox News? They're pretending it doesn't exist and continuing with the hate and fearmongering. :mad:

Anyway, below is a link to a sample of close to 50 death threats/hate mail that Stupak received from the right. I wonder if this was all made up too? :whatever:

http://parsleyspics.blogspot.com/2010/03/stupaks-voice-mails-aint-so-friendly.html

[Marx]

Please tell me your kidding DA...

[StorminNorman]

Honestly, I find it just as plausible that it was made up as it was real. It wouldn't be the first time. I mean, there is absolutely no recorded evidence of it - and there was plenty of recordings done.

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/did-the-media-muff-story-on-racist-tea-party-protestors/

It certainly wouldn't be the first time the media misreported on a Tea Party racism story.

[Superman]

Honestly, I find it just as plausible that it was made up as it was real. It wouldn't be the first time. I mean, there is absolutely no recorded evidence of it - and there was plenty of recordings done.

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/did-the-media-muff-story-on-racist-tea-party-protestors/

It certainly wouldn't be the first time the media misreported on a Tea Party racism story.Yes, The media and the Dems are making it all up.:whatever:

Stop playing ignorance, It's beneath even you.

[DACrowe]

Honestly, I find it just as plausible that it was made up as it was real. It wouldn't be the first time. I mean, there is absolutely no recorded evidence of it - and there was plenty of recordings done.

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/did-the-media-muff-story-on-racist-tea-party-protestors/

It certainly wouldn't be the first time the media misreported on a Tea Party racism story.

Please, Norm. Don't be that guy. This is smug dishonest Sean Hannity territory. Three different black Congressmen were called the "N word." They have plenty to complain about against the Tea Party. To pretend they made it up is reviling. They had no reason to lie and two of them were in the Civil Rights movement. They don't BS about things like that. Don't put up a conspiracy theory scenario. Three Congressmen were called ******s and to say "Well you don't have audio" is as slimy a tactic as when defense lawyers say "there is no proof she said, 'no.'"

Don't go there. Please.

[Marx]

With all of the talk about threats to Democrats and reports of violence, you would think that would be the top story of every major news organization...but it's not. Guess what has been the top story on FOXNews.com all day today?

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7043/foxnewsfrontpage.png

That's right. :whatever:

[Alex The Great]

You know, i'm all for a news station that has a specific political view, but FOX News just takes it too far. I was bored one day and decided to tune to FOX News, to see if all the talk about them being a bunch of right wing snobs were true. Sean Hannity was interviewing some dude, and at the end he said "Thank you senator (Insert Name Here. I Think he was a republican), I, along with America, hope Obama is voted out in 2012 :yay:". Really? All of America wants him gone? 51% of the country voted him in you nut! I immediatley changed the channel, and watched Phineas and Ferb.

[Kelly]

Um, yeah, that's surprising from Sean???

They have a Conservative Commentary show (Beck), 2 Independent Commentary shows (O'reilly and Greta) a Republican Commentary show (Hannity) and a Democrat Commentary show (Geraldo)....

THESE SHOWS LOOK AT THE ISSUES AND GIVE THEIR OPINIONS, THAT IS WHAT THERE SHOW IS FOR...and they can do this without the government looking over their shoulder because these news stations are privately owned.

They all are going to give their opinions because they are commentary shows, they are not reporters.

You would never hear a reporter on one of the news shows like Shephard Smith, Brett Baird, Chris Wallace, say that....

[Kelly]

With all of the talk about threats to Democrats and reports of violence, you would think that would be the top story of every major news organization...but it's not. Guess what has been the top story on FOXNews.com all day today?

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7043/foxnewsfrontpage.png

That's right. :whatever:

Umm, no....that hasn't been the top news story on anything on TV....

Cavuto 3-4 no mention of the above, extensive talk on the threats to Dems and Repubs.
I skip Beck...
Brett Baird 5-7 no mention of the above, extensive talk on the threats to Dems and Repubs.
Shepherd Smith 6-7 no mention of the above, extensive talk on the threats to Dems and Repubs.
O'Reilly 7-8 no mention of the above, extensive talk on the threats to Dems and Repubs.
I skip Hannity...
I'll watch Greta from 9-10...

[DACrowe]

You can have an opinion show without be so incendiary or dishonest. For example Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, even Fox's own Greta Van Sustran. But Hannity, Beck their morning show (and to a lesser degree, O'Reilly) just spew talking points not based on reality or give half-truths that are biased to promote their agenda and the narrative of the network.

And then the news side of Fox still presents that agenda, just more subversively. "America Live" with the pretty sorority blonde presents "both sides," by interviewing four white elderly people at a retirement home where they are coaxed wit hquestions like "Do you like the government shoving healthcare down your throat when over 70% of the country is opposed to it," and the old people (already with socialized medicine) just parrot what they're asked. Do they talk to the minimum wage or part-time workers there who could need it? No. AMA supports healthcare reform yet Fox News can't find one doctor who supports it to the army of doctors they have saying no?

Just the way they present it. I saw Jon Stewart (another great opinion guy, if you will) just point out how the news side shows the Tea Party rallies in D.C. in long sweeping steady cam and stationary dolly shots and speak of them as patriots and concerned citizens. When they showed a pro-healthcare rally, it is shot not in HD video Stewart joked it was on a cell phone camera) and it was handheld and shaky,reminding subconsciously viewers of unrest in a war scene or Iran or somewhere overseas in the way it is shot. All the while the reporter ponders if they're doing it for attention and really care about reform?


Pretty much from beginning to end it is dishonest as it is all a narrative and most of their opinion shows still skew facts.

[Marx]

That's weird because I watched Brett Baird at 5:00 that was never mentioned....I watched Shepherd at 6:00 that was never mentioned, and I just finished watching O'Reilly that was not mentioned. I won't be watching Hannity, I turn him off and move over to Bloomberg at 8:00 p.m.

...and you also should have noticed that I said FOXNEWS.COM. :up:

[Kelly]

Ahh yes, I was about to say....that hasn't been mentioned even in passing.



And we SHOULD do a lot of things, but seldom do....

[Marx]

I just found it amusing (or pathetic, I haven't made up my mind on the right word choice yet) that a 'news' organization's top story on their website has nothing to do with the most important news of the week. Instead, their top story was a texas town's uproar over a gay play.

[Kelly]

I challenge those of you that are giving an opinion without really ever watching these shows...

Watch O'Reilly, Greta and Geraldo for a week or two, each night, for an extended period of time.

I won't challenge you to watch Beck or Hannity, that's asking too much I know.

But watch the others, and then give an educated opinion after having watched these programs on a regular basis for a week or two....then I will be happy to discuss these shows with you.

[Majic Walrus]

I challenge those of you that are giving an opinion without really ever watching these shows...

Watch O'Reilly, Greta and Geraldo for a week or two, each night, for an extended period of time.

I won't challenge you to watch Beck or Hannity, that's asking too much I know.

But watch the others, and then give an educated opinion after having watched these programs on a regular basis for a week or two....then I will be happy to discuss these shows with you.

It's on like Donkey Kong.

[DACrowe]

I've watched O'Reilly (and Hannity in Beck) quite a bit before out of curiosity. I gave Van Sustren credit as being a fair opinion show and I put O'Reilly on the line as of the last three years (during the first term of Bush he was a flag waving hothead who spread some pretty outrageous lies about his opponents). I think O'Reilly is much more subversive as an opinion guy. He comes off as an independent (which he is) and a moderate (which he may be), but he ultimately uses all the same talking points about actual policy or events that Hannity does. He just adds a question mark afterwards as if he is unsure and tries to act like an arbiter to his guests, but interrupts if he disagrees and if they anger him he turns red.

He puts on the facade of impartiality or moderate and fair. And compared to Hannity, Beck, Cauvuto, Fox and Friends and half his guests (Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller, etc.) He is. But he still pushes the Fox News narrative and uses the same talking points and criticisms. He just doesn't do it like a smug douche like Hannity and he doesn't spout the most outrageous crap about tyranny and socialism like they do. But he leaves that interpretation of Obama and the Dems (as socialists ruining our country on the march towards the contradictory fascism) entirely open for his audience to infer.

But Van Sustren is solid opinion show.

[Kelly]

For those that take up the challenge....please do not interpret my challenge as I'm going to prove you wrong....that's not it at all, I would really rather discuss these shows with people that have actually watched them more than here and there. If they say things that you disagree with then let's discuss them, I may just agree with you....if you catch them in a lie, let me know, give me the source.....I certainly want to watch them in an intelligent way as well.

[Kelly]

But he leaves that interpretation of Obama and the Dems (as socialists ruining our country on the march towards the contradictory fascism) entirely open for his audience to infer.

Actually DA, O'Reilly was just recently slammed by Rush because he refuses to call Obama a Socialist. So I have to differ with you on that particular issue. Rush's slam was just this week actually.

http://radioviceonline.com/oreilly-obama-not-a-socialist-just-president-johnson-on-steroids/

[DACrowe]

sure. How about tonight's O'Reilly Factor? They replay it at 12 and you can DVR it if you're not staying up.

[Kelly]

Go for it, he talks with Ann on this one about what happened in Canada, be ready she's being the usual Ann...lol

[Majic Walrus]

Hell yes. I'm faaar to excited for this.

[DACrowe]

Okay. And send me that Rush clip, please.

[DACrowe]

Okay, so I just watched Bill O'Reilly and the first 10-20 minutes of Hannity afterwards, my thoughts.

-O'Reilly begins the show doing what he loves to do best. Talking about himself. To be fair he pointed out apparently yesterday that the IRS will be the law enforcement after 2014 to fine (or tax) you if you do not have health insurance. Wiener dodged the question and Bill-O spent the first 5 minutes rubbing it Wiener's face. Well done, Bill, I like the add "As usual, we're right."

-Then to the show's disadvantage Laura Inghrim(sp?) comes on who is someone who compared healthcare reform to the Holocaust. So, I am not much of a fan. Surprise, surprise I was disgusted to see them regurgitate Republican talking points from Eric Cantor that the left is making a big deal out of the death threats and who cares. They don't mention propane tanks, children death threats, coffins, nooses, broken-in windows, or Oklahoma City bombing anniversary marches. Instead, the only actual attack that gets any description is the scary story of Cantor's own office getting shot through. Instead of condemning the environment on hate on both sides (didn't Beck just say today that they want you to kill them?), they insist it is a molehill and trivialize it like Cantor and the GOP are trying to do today (as opposed to just condemning it).

I liked O'Reilly's sense of humor about Obama making fun of the crazies. Inghrim(sp?) after faking a yawn calls him immature (huh?) and repeats GOP talking points about how partisan and unpopular the bill was and how rude he is to do it to Republicans (as opposed to GOP Congressmen shouting 'You lie' and 'Baby killer," I suppose). :whatever: To be fair to Bill-O, this woman is a harpy and a hypocrite. BTW she flat out lied about the bill not covering children. Way to spread misinformation (where is the self-righteous anger at half-truths, Bill? You let Wiener have it and here, not a peep). I'm sure if he gets a more rational guest on things will go better. Wait who's next? Ah, shennanigans.

-He introduces Ann Coulter as the most important story of the night? Reeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaalllllllly?!?!?!-----Well actually call me flabbergasted that was a solid interview. They were respectful to each other (not a surprise) and stayed mostly on point with each stating their opinion. I do not know how accurate Coulter's description of what happened is (as she does tend lie, quite a bit), but at face value as an interview other than defending the "Camel" comment and making a joke that if Arabs didn't fly we wouldn't need airport security....well it was her valid points. And I don't think she should have been shouted off, which if it was in the US I would consider an abuse of her First Amendment right. I'd only add that I find it hilarious they describe these protestors as loony left and think that a state Canadian attorney sending her a letter incited "violence," but in the segment earlier he allowed Inghrim paint the Tea Partiers as peaceful non-violent activists and that the idea that someone shouting "baby killer" or "You lie," (not to mention her own BS--LIKE THE HOLOCAUST COMPARISON) were completely unrelated to the death threats and violent incidents this week.

-Okay, Megyn Kelly is on talking about something to do with investigating the White House for corruption or scandal. There's a shock, though she raises a good point and---dang, look at those arms. She must work hard to tone them? She must be required in contract to where tight-ish sleeveless sweaters because she's been wearing them every day since getting her own show (even in the clips where there's snow on the window behind her). And she's talking about something-- and the segment's over. Huh?


-Glenn Beck's on. Wow, he is scared ****less of O'Reilly isn't he? O'Reilly keeps making jokes about him being a ham and propagandist. What is he going to get ratings next from? Enough with Nazi Germany? Nice, Bill. Y'know Beck is kind of funny when he is too scared to say anything that is too BS (though his obsession with spanking is getting unnerving). I must say, Beck does realize that financial reform and another Jobs Bill is what's up to bat next, right? Immigration is still a way's off, while Financial Regulation goes up for debate on the floor in two weeks.

Sum up: The only really infuriating bit was at the beginning with Inghrim. But he stayed off news-y stories after that. It was just letting Coulter give a surprisingly restrained sob story, some rumor mill from Megyn Kelly and then a bunch of superfulous stuff with Beck and culture war stuff. Still, it was better than 15 minutes of Sean Hannity. He went further and said that the Dems are making up the violence as a distraction from healthcare all together and there is no violent rhetoric (even when he had Steele on who a few days ago said we should put Nancy Pelosi in front of a firing line). And from what I can tell the only mention of Obama's victory lap was an aside about the Democratic mayor of Iowa City not supporting healthcare. At least Bill-O can laugh at the jokes.

[Superman]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan are the only Republicans I can watch without wanting to throw something at the TV and scream YOU LIE!!

I disagree with almost everything they say, Although I have found myself agreeing with them from time to time, But at least they don't regurgitate the GOP talking points like EVERYBODY on Fox does. They have their own opinion, I just don't agree with their opinion.

[StorminNorman]

But he leaves that interpretation of Obama and the Dems (as socialists ruining our country on the march towards the contradictory fascism) entirely open for his audience to infer.

There is nothing contradictory about the cries of fascism. The Progressive movement IS a fascist movement. Not Hitler fascist, not Mussolini fascist - but still fascist.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

You mean how you kinda have to forcibly drag people sometimes for things to change? Even if for the better?

I can see what you mean if that's what your saying.

O'Reily really isn't so bad. I disagree with him alot, but on alot of other things I can see where he's coming from. The people he has on on a regular basis are the problem, which I find he disagrees with most of the time. I don't really like him, I still think he's a douche...but he ain't so bad. Maybe he's on some medication or something to control the Hulk within? Cause he used to seem like a raving lunatic before.

[DACrowe]

He has certainly mellowed. And as I did in my, retrospectively, too long episode analysis...he ain't so bad. But he does leave it open for his audience to think the worst and has right wing nuts and GOP apologists and fabricators on and never corrects them when they lie or make a faulty talking point. When a liberal or Democrat tries it, he shouts them down and spends the next two episodes rubbing it in their face. So, he subversively keeps the narrative and Fox agenda going.

And Stormy:

One cannot be a Marxist, Maoist, Soviet-styled communist, Nazi, socialist and fascist.

These things are all contradictory (and total bollocks). He's a fascist, as in canceling elections, martial law, bonafied-dictator fascist? To quote Jon Stewart: "When the government starts rounding the opposition and wealthy up on the trains...I'll speak out."

:rolleyes:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I don't think he was using it in the literal term. I think he's just trying to say that sometimes, people need to have the pill shoved down they're throat. The pill is good for them, but it still needs to happen.

I think that's what he meant, but hey he might surprise me.

These terms have kinda become just empty words nowadays, though. People use the term Nazi like it's a cute title.

And there's nothing at all cute about it.

[Kane52630]

-Okay, Megyn Kelly is on talking about something to do with investigating the White House for corruption or scandal. There's a shock, though she raises a good point and---dang, look at those arms. She must work hard to tone them? She must be required in contract to where tight-ish sleeveless sweaters because she's been wearing them every day since getting her own show (even in the clips where there's snow on the window behind her). And she's talking about something-- and the segment's over. Huh?



:funny: my thoughts exactly

[StorminNorman]

He has certainly mellowed. And as I did in my, retrospectively, too long episode analysis...he ain't so bad. But he does leave it open for his audience to think the worst and has right wing nuts and GOP apologists and fabricators on and never corrects them when they lie or make a faulty talking point. When a liberal or Democrat tries it, he shouts them down and spends the next two episodes rubbing it in their face. So, he subversively keeps the narrative and Fox agenda going.

And Stormy:

One cannot be a Marxist, Maoist, Soviet-styled communist, Nazi, socialist and fascist.

These things are all contradictory (and total bollocks). He's a fascist, as in canceling elections, martial law, bonafied-dictator fascist? To quote Jon Stewart: "When the government starts rounding the opposition and wealthy up on the trains...I'll speak out."

:rolleyes:

Obama is a fascist. A fascist government does not require the canceling of election and martial law, nor a dictator. Obama is not a Hitler or a Mussolini.

[Addendum]

Obama is just Obama

[bell110]

There is nothing contradictory about the cries of fascism. The Progressive movement IS a fascist movement. Not Hitler fascist, not Mussolini fascist - but still fascist.

Is he Bush fascist?

[StorminNorman]

No. Neoconservative Fascism is completely different, far less practical, intelligent and dangerous.

Using military war to generate nationalistic feelings simply cannot work in the modern age. That's why Progressives have been so smart to utilize domestic wars. No dead bodies on TV, but with all of the benefits.

[Kelly]

Okay, so I just watched Bill O'Reilly and the first 10-20 minutes of Hannity afterwards, my thoughts.

-O'Reilly begins the show doing what he loves to do best. Talking about himself. To be fair he pointed out apparently yesterday that the IRS will be the law enforcement after 2014 to fine (or tax) you if you do not have health insurance. Wiener dodged the question and Bill-O spent the first 5 minutes rubbing it Wiener's face. Well done, Bill, I like the add "As usual, we're right."

-Then to the show's disadvantage Laura Inghrim(sp?) comes on who is someone who compared healthcare reform to the Holocaust. So, I am not much of a fan. Surprise, surprise I was disgusted to see them regurgitate Republican talking points from Eric Cantor that the left is making a big deal out of the death threats and who cares. They don't mention propane tanks, children death threats, coffins, nooses, broken-in windows, or Oklahoma City bombing anniversary marches. Instead, the only actual attack that gets any description is the scary story of Cantor's own office getting shot through. Instead of condemning the environment on hate on both sides (didn't Beck just say today that they want you to kill them?), they insist it is a molehill and trivialize it like Cantor and the GOP are trying to do today (as opposed to just condemning it).

I liked O'Reilly's sense of humor about Obama making fun of the crazies. Inghrim(sp?) after faking a yawn calls him immature (huh?) and repeats GOP talking points about how partisan and unpopular the bill was and how rude he is to do it to Republicans (as opposed to GOP Congressmen shouting 'You lie' and 'Baby killer," I suppose). :whatever: To be fair to Bill-O, this woman is a harpy and a hypocrite. BTW she flat out lied about the bill not covering children. Way to spread misinformation (where is the self-righteous anger at half-truths, Bill? You let Wiener have it and here, not a peep). I'm sure if he gets a more rational guest on things will go better. Wait who's next? Ah, shennanigans.

-He introduces Ann Coulter as the most important story of the night? Reeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaalllllllly?!?!?!-----Well actually call me flabbergasted that was a solid interview. They were respectful to each other (not a surprise) and stayed mostly on point with each stating their opinion. I do not know how accurate Coulter's description of what happened is (as she does tend lie, quite a bit), but at face value as an interview other than defending the "Camel" comment and making a joke that if Arabs didn't fly we wouldn't need airport security....well it was her valid points. And I don't think she should have been shouted off, which if it was in the US I would consider an abuse of her First Amendment right. I'd only add that I find it hilarious they describe these protestors as loony left and think that a state Canadian attorney sending her a letter incited "violence," but in the segment earlier he allowed Inghrim paint the Tea Partiers as peaceful non-violent activists and that the idea that someone shouting "baby killer" or "You lie," (not to mention her own BS--LIKE THE HOLOCAUST COMPARISON) were completely unrelated to the death threats and violent incidents this week.

-Okay, Megyn Kelly is on talking about something to do with investigating the White House for corruption or scandal. There's a shock, though she raises a good point and---dang, look at those arms. She must work hard to tone them? She must be required in contract to where tight-ish sleeveless sweaters because she's been wearing them every day since getting her own show (even in the clips where there's snow on the window behind her). And she's talking about something-- and the segment's over. Huh?


-Glenn Beck's on. Wow, he is scared ****less of O'Reilly isn't he? O'Reilly keeps making jokes about him being a ham and propagandist. What is he going to get ratings next from? Enough with Nazi Germany? Nice, Bill. Y'know Beck is kind of funny when he is too scared to say anything that is too BS (though his obsession with spanking is getting unnerving). I must say, Beck does realize that financial reform and another Jobs Bill is what's up to bat next, right? Immigration is still a way's off, while Financial Regulation goes up for debate on the floor in two weeks.

Sum up: The only really infuriating bit was at the beginning with Inghrim. But he stayed off news-y stories after that. It was just letting Coulter give a surprisingly restrained sob story, some rumor mill from Megyn Kelly and then a bunch of superfulous stuff with Beck and culture war stuff. Still, it was better than 15 minutes of Sean Hannity. He went further and said that the Dems are making up the violence as a distraction from healthcare all together and there is no violent rhetoric (even when he had Steele on who a few days ago said we should put Nancy Pelosi in front of a firing line). And from what I can tell the only mention of Obama's victory lap was an aside about the Democratic mayor of Iowa City not supporting healthcare. At least Bill-O can laugh at the jokes.


Just one point, it wasn't a lawyer that sent her the letter, it was the VP of Canada....

Dear God, I didn't tell you to watch Hannity...lol

[DACrowe]

.Thanks. It was still very hypocritical, imo. And yes, Hannity is painful to watch. More so than Beck. Beck is so wacky there is the tiniest bit of entertainment. Hannity is just a smug douche.

But did I mention Megyn Kelly? She seems a bit of a Republican snob, but dang. Fox loves the blondes, but this must be their favorite given all the airtime she is now getting

[Kelly]

She's not getting anymore airtime than she did before....she simply isn't onscreen with Bill Hemmer anymore she's by herself simply different hours. She has been on O'reilly with Kelly's Court segments for years.

And also, (CNN just likes Brunettes, no difference they are all very intelligent women)those blonds you are talking about, could kick your ass in the court room, they range from Corporate lawyers to Defense Attorneys, to Prosecutors (which is what Megan was...) :cwink:

[DACrowe]

Oh I think I could handle Gretchen Carlson in debate or court considering her experience is from being a former Miss America. ;)

They may be some tough, smart women. But other than Kelly (who is one of the most photogenic, coincidentally) they are forced to play the role of sidekick or subservient to the men on the network and that is too bad. Like when Carlson claims she had to "google the word czar."

SNL said it best in this pretty funny sketch:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/126485/saturday-night-live-fox-news-cold-open

funny and unfortunately true about how Fox uses some of their talent, sadly.

[Kelly]

Oh I think I could handle Gretchen Carlson in debate or court considering her experience is from being a former Miss America. ;)

They may be some tough, smart women. But other than Kelly (who is one of the most photogenic, coincidentally) they are forced to play the role of sidekick or subservient to the men on the network and that is too bad. Like when Carlson claims she had to "google the word czar."

SNL said it best in this pretty funny sketch:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/126485/saturday-night-live-fox-news-cold-open

funny and unfortunately true about how Fox uses some of their talent, sadly.

She's a commentator, not a reporter...

As far as playing subservient? Carlson, maybe....I have no idea, I don't watch the morning show.......they give me a headache.

On the left side of this screen are the weekend partners in crime....I can assure you NEITHER of those women are subservient to the men they partner with...

http://www.foxnews.com/americasnewshq/index.html


In fact, Julie Banderas pretty much runs America's HQ on Saturdays and Sundays. I became a fan of hers when she wiped a lady from that disgusting Westboro Baptist Church over the coals....she let her have it....It's on YouTube....it's a beautiful thing.

SORRY you'll have to go yourself....there are words we don't allow on here. But please go and watch.... this lady starts slamming scripture at her and Julie goes right back at her with her scripture....its wild...I've NEVER seen anything like it on the news.

Google Julie Banderas interviews Westboro baptist church....she goes to town on her.

BTW, I believe Julie Banderas is Jewish...

During the week, Martha MacCallum who took Megan's place with Bill Hemmer has been partnered with a couple of guys and nothing weak about her with the guys either.

[The Overlord]

No. Neoconservative Fascism is completely different, far less practical, intelligent and dangerous.

Using military war to generate nationalistic feelings simply cannot work in the modern age. That's why Progressives have been so smart to utilize domestic wars. No dead bodies on TV, but with all of the benefits.

Obama never got a 3 year free ride like Bush did, really , how many people questioned anything in the run up to the Iraq war?

Also is Norway fascist?

[Kelly]

ALSO, on Fox News there's a late show called Red Eye, but its kind weird....I've only watched it a few times...they get kinda raunchy on there though, it gives you a different side of the reporters when they interview them on there.

[StorminNorman]

Obama never got a 3 year free ride like Bush did, really , how many people questioned anything in the run up to the Iraq war?

Also is Norway fascist?

I have to admit I do not know much about Norwegian civics. You are clearly making a point, so describe to me why I would consider Norway fascist.

[imdaly]

Obama never got a 3 year free ride like Bush did, really , how many people questioned anything in the run up to the Iraq war?

Are you kidding me??

Do you not remember the 2000 Election results/recounts/etc??

People were questioning and damning him before he was even sworn in!

[Marx]

Are you kidding me??

Do you not remember the 2000 Election results/recounts/etc??

People were questioning and damning him before he was even sworn in!

Losing the popular vote and being appointed President by the Supreme Court has that effect...

[The Overlord]

Are you kidding me??

Do you not remember the 2000 Election results/recounts/etc??

People were questioning and damning him before he was even sworn in!

But from 2002 to 2005 he got a free ride, almost no one questioned him in the build up to the war in 2003.

I have to admit I do not know much about Norwegian civics. You are clearly making a point, so describe to me why I would consider Norway fascist.

Well Norway has a big welfare state and high tax rates, but is still is a democracy. So I'm asking are they fascist to you?

It seems like you are using socialism and fascism as interchangeable terms, which is just silly.

Let's look at basic definitions of these two ideologies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Fascism is an ultra nationalist ideology, socialism is not, Fascism has no problem promoting the majority race above all others to promote stronger identity, while a socialist wouldn't agree with that. Fascism has far more tolerance for private enterprise, Socialism is based on economic collectivism, not ethnic identity like fascism.

Socialism and fascism are two different things, unless Obama is an ultra nationalist, he's not a fascist.

[DACrowe]

From about 9/11 until the 2004 presidential election Bush had a pretty easy ride. On Fox he was Captain America. On the other news networks he was the unquestioned president in time of war. In the 2004 election it is when much of the country started questioning him and the nnews media finally started investigating him (and were called hatchet jobs and propaganda by Fox. Oh the rich irony 4-5 years later!).

But Bush did win the re-election and it wans't until Katrina that he just completely collapsed in popularity.

[AG1973]

Obama is a fascist. A fascist government does not require the canceling of election and martial law, nor a dictator. Obama is not a Hitler or a Mussolini.

You are wrong sir Obama is not even close to beinf fascist here is a discription of what feascism really is:

Fascism, is a radical (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Political_radicalism) and authoritarian (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Authoritarianism) nationalist (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Nationalism) political ideology (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Ideology). Fascists seek to organize a nation (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Nation) on corporatist (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Corporatism) perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy.[ Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Far_right) of the conventional left-right political spectrum (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Left-right_politics), although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Organicism) community that requires strong leadership, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Regeneration), spirit and vitality (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Vitalism).

They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Individualism). In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Ontological_pluralism) is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Totalitarianism) state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.

They advocate the creation of a single-party state (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Single-party_state). Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.

Fascists support a "Third Way (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Third_Position)" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Individualism) of laissez-faire capitalism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Laissez-faire) and the severe control of state socialism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/State_socialism). They present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Class_conflict) to secure national solidarity. They blame capitalism and liberal democracies (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Liberal_democracy) for creating class conflict while accusing communists (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Communism) of exploiting the concept.

Supporters of the ideology accuse liberalism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Liberalism) — as a bourgeois (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Bourgeois) movement — and Marxism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Marxism) — as a proletarian (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Proletariat) movement — for both having created anarchy (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Anarchy) through support of democracy (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Democracy), Freemasonry (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Freemasonry), materialism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Materialism), plutocracy (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Plutocracy), positivism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Positivism) and rationalism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Rationalism). They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly running a nation, and that a merit-based aristocracy (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Aristocracy) of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence.

If you don't belive me here is the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[AG1973]

And I would also like to add that if President Obama was a Fascist he would have ordered our military to open fire on tea party protesters. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Sara Palin, among others would have been locked up or killed for treason. Any white person in the country would have been forcibly placed in concentration camps.

Fascism is too strong of a term to throw around. Truth be told Bush's admisnistration was closer to fascism than President Obama's.

[Kelly]

So, why is it too harsh for one, considering all the things that you just mentioned he would do IF he were Facist....why is closer to Bush than Obama?

BTW, I agree he is not a Facist, but neither was Bush to any extent, IMO.

So, I'm curious why is one closer than the other?

[The Overlord]

So, why is it too harsh for one, considering all the things that you just mentioned he would do IF he were Facist....why is closer to Bush than Obama?

BTW, I agree he is not a Facist, but neither was Bush to any extent, IMO.

So, I'm curious why is one closer than the other?

Well neither of them are fascists, but if you want to play devil's advocate, one could argue Bush played nationalism card more often Obama did and again a feature of fascism is ultra nationalism.

[StorminNorman]

Well neither of them are fascists, but if you want to play devil's advocate, one could argue Bush played nationalism card more often Obama did and again a feature of fascism is ultra nationalism.

Funny you mention that. Have you read Rahm's book?

It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...

Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community...These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs.

[StorminNorman]

You are wrong sir Obama is not even close to beinf fascist here is a discription of what feascism really is:

Fascism, is a radical (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Political_radicalism) and authoritarian (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Authoritarianism) nationalist (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Nationalism) political ideology (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Ideology). Fascists seek to organize a nation (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Nation) on corporatist (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Corporatism) perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy.[ Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Far_right) of the conventional left-right political spectrum (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Left-right_politics), although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Organicism) community that requires strong leadership, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Regeneration), spirit and vitality (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Vitalism).

They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Individualism). In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Ontological_pluralism) is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Totalitarianism) state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.

They advocate the creation of a single-party state (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Single-party_state). Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.

Fascists support a "Third Way (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Third_Position)" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Individualism) of laissez-faire capitalism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Laissez-faire) and the severe control of state socialism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/State_socialism). They present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Class_conflict) to secure national solidarity. They blame capitalism and liberal democracies (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Liberal_democracy) for creating class conflict while accusing communists (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Communism) of exploiting the concept.

Supporters of the ideology accuse liberalism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Liberalism) — as a bourgeois (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Bourgeois) movement — and Marxism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Marxism) — as a proletarian (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Proletariat) movement — for both having created anarchy (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Anarchy) through support of democracy (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Democracy), Freemasonry (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Freemasonry), materialism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Materialism), plutocracy (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Plutocracy), positivism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Positivism) and rationalism (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Rationalism). They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly running a nation, and that a merit-based aristocracy (http://forums.superherohype.com/wiki/Aristocracy) of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence.

If you don't belive me here is the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I will just copy and paste from an essay I did on the matter to better explain my point:


Of course, Obama is neither. Outside of the auto industries, the government isn’t taking over the means of production or taking over business. Even the auto industries are not “state-run” in the same way a communist government takeover would be. A socialist government wouldn’t mandate private insurance.

Let me throw another definition – Statism:

Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.

That sounds more like Obama. It’s easy to see that both socialism and communism stem from statism. Statism is economic philosophy advocated by all collectivist ideologies. Allow me to define collectivist:
A political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution, an emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity.

It’s also clear that statism has been the modern economic trend since World War II, if not before. It’s fingerprints are all over the New Deal, the election of the Labour Party following WWII, the Europe Union and the communist takeovers of Latin America.

No one man played a bigger role in increasing the role the government had in economics than Franklin Roosevelt. His new deal brought in an overwhelming overhaul of government regulations and he had ambition for a 2nd Bill of Rights including: The Right to Healthcare, the Right to a Decent Home and the Right to an Education. He is the grandfather of the modern Democratic Party and the American Progressive movement.

FDR was also a big believer in a specific school of economic thought dubbed Keynesian Economics:
Named for economist John Maynard Keynes. An economic theory which advocates government intervention, or demand-side management of the economy, to achieve full employment and stable prices.

Not only did FDR subscribe to his beliefs, he was a friend to Lord Keynes. The economist gave advice to the President after started to relish being the bully of businessmen, telling him “You could do anything you would like with them (the businessmen) if you would treat them not as wolves or tigers, but as domestic animals by nature, even though they have been badly brought up and not trained as you would wish.”

FDR did not heed his words, but Lyndon B. Johnson did. He brought us the gigantic social overhaul dubbed “The Great Society”. These men understand that they cannot eliminate businessmen in America (a prerequisite of a true socialist utopia), so they seek to control them – like “domestic animals”.
This rejection of state ownership of resources and production, but support of control of resources and production is not socialist, nor communist but fascist. Fascism:

A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

The definition of fascism is a bit different than that of socialism or communism because no form of government calls itself fascist anymore. Hitler and Mussolini have turned the word “fascist” into the most offensive and vile form of political ideology imaginable. Just as it’s hard to use the word swastika without provoking Nazism, it’s hard to use the word fascism. Before WWII – many political groups described proudly themselves as fascist.

Obviously Progressives are not advocating Fascism as defined above; however let’s extend our analysis of the term beyond Webster’s Dictionary.

PoliticsDefined.com tells us that the word fascism comes from “fascio, which may mean, "bundle," as in a political or militant group or a nation, but also from the fasces (rods bundled around an axe), which were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates.”

The site goes on to say, “the philosophical pretext to the literal fascism of the historical Italian type believes the state's nature is superior to that of the sum of the individual's comprising it, and that they exist for the state rather than the state existing to serve them. The resources individuals provide from participating in the community are conceived as a productive duty of individual progress serving an entity greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore all individual's business is the state's business, the state's existence is the sole duty of the individual.”

This is the philosophical foundation of fascism: the belief that individuals have a duty to serve the state.
Hitler and Mussolini took that and turned it into the most brutish, insane extreme.

While I have my complaints about Progressives – they aren’t comparable to Hitler or Mussolini. They are not only far more respectable, they are far more intelligent.

Fascist governments in the past used wars to promote nationalism and tighten their control; in America, violence has never succeeded in making a political statement. Fascist governments in the past usually point to past national glory to further themselves; in America, only by destroying pride in our liberty minded Founders could fascism ever take hold. Fascist governments in the past usually try to use force to destroy political opponents; in America, we have two political parties.

We have seen a concentrated effort to solve these uniquely American problems. Wars of military strength have been replaced with domestic wars: the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, Global Warming. Some would argue the War on Terror belongs, but that obviously comes from an entirely different political spectrum.

To override the Founders, we have seen a high focus placed upon slavery in American history. The Founders most celebrated in class? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. All slave owners. Names like Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and John Adams are historical footnotes, in spite of their tremendous efforts placed at destroying the institution. Instead of focusing on the importance of the Founders in terms of forwarding political enlightenment and human rights, we focus on their hypocrisy. Going into 12 Grade, I knew all about Harriet Tubman – but nothing about Alexander Hamilton, the man who essentially built the government we have today.

Their solution for the last problem was made clear over the weekend. The answer to “one party rule” in Progressive Fascism is consensus rule. Spitting in the face of federalism, the choice to use reconciliation and bribery to squeak out a piece of legislation featuring no support from the other party IS one party rule. When we allow ourselves to be ruled simply by having 50%-plus-one is the day we become a one party country.

If I was asked to describe Progressive Fascism I would do so as:

A modern political philosophy and movement that exalts society above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government ruled by consensus which exalts control over the economy through regulation while allowing private ownership.

Now there are some who will have no problem with a Progressive Fascism government – and I think it’s okay to have that opinion. It easy to understand the attraction to an ideology that believes businesses should be controlled by the government so they can dictate how much of their profits should go to the betterment of society. But we shouldn’t hide behind and away from words or terms – and we must stop misusing them.

[The Overlord]

Funny you mention that. Have you read Rahm's book?

I was merely playing devil's advocate though, you really can't prove that Rahm's book dictates policy, can you?

To further play devil's advocate, who has played the nationalism card more often, the Bush government and its supporters or the Obama government and its supporters? Care to vist the neo con website? Or let's check out these quotes: http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/03/convenient_patr.html


It seems like the party, the GOP used the definition of fascism you described during the Bush years, exulting the society over the individual:

http://www.slate.com/id/2106109/

Obama never got the same free ride Bush got from 2002 to 2005.

And groups like fox News support this, they deride government power when Dems use and support it when the GOP does it?

How is the GOP not fascist according to your own logic and if it is, why would support them?

It seems like your fascism is not only incorrect, its riddled with double standards and contradictions.

[StorminNorman]

I was merely playing devil's advocate though, you really can't prove that Rahm's book dictates policy, can you?

To further play devil's advocate, who has played the nationalism card more often, the Bush government and its supporters or the Obama government and its supporters?

I think it's fairly even. Obama's talked about how his Administration is going to save the world and made all of his issues "moral" issues - which to me sounds like nationalism.

As far as proving that Rahm's book dictates policy - do you think Rahm Emmanuel dictates policy? Or at least influences it? Since the book is his ideas, words and opinions - it's fair to use. Especially when you combine it with Obama's been promoting similar ideas.

[Tally Man]

I think it's fairly even. Obama's talked about how his Administration is going to save the world and made all of his issues "moral" issues - which to me sounds like nationalism.

Nationalism generally involves the identification of an ethnic identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity) with a state.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Gellner_1983-pp6-7-0) The subject can include the belief that one's nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation) is of primary importance.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Smith_1993-p72-1) It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures.

:huh:

[Kelly]

Well neither of them are fascists, but if you want to play devil's advocate, one could argue Bush played nationalism card more often Obama did and again a feature of fascism is ultra nationalism.

I think that simply depends on what end of the spectrum you align yourself with....you ask 10 different people, and you will probably get a partisan answer depending on their ideology.

Also, there is a major difference between nationalism as in pride of your country, and ultra nationalism.....it depends on if you add palingenesis with that nationalism and then you could definitely equate that with fascism to a degree....

Here is the thing, when looking at Nationalism in Bush's time, you would probably see an extreme patriotism....maybe more depending on your opinion.

Already in Obama's Administration we are seeing a definite desire to have a "national rebirth" of sorts in changing some areas of our government in an extreme way.

So, if you went with that, then one could say that Obama is leading us towards fascism since palingenesis can lead to ultranationalism and possible fascism...also, for all practical purposes we have a one party government at the moment. NOW, we can blame the people for that....lol, if blame is necessary. So that is another factor.

Again, who is more one way or the other, is going to change from person to person.

As I said before, I do not think either are fascist, I'm just throwing theory out there....

[Kelly]

Nationalism generally involves the identification of an ethnic identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity) with a state.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Gellner_1983-pp6-7-0) The subject can include the belief that one's nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation) is of primary importance.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Smith_1993-p72-1) It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures.

:huh:

That is ethnic nationalism, there are all types of nationalism....we are talking more of a civic nationalism...

[Tally Man]

That is ethnic nationalism, there are all types of nationalism....we are talking more of a civic nationalism...

Of which I found no mention of what SN just alluded to in terms of what the Obama administration is doing.

Look I get it that people don't like what Obama's doing. But he's not a fascist and these attempts to paint him as such involve stretching one's imagination to the extreme.

[Kelly]

Of which I found no mention of what SN just alluded to in terms of what the Obama administration is doing.

Look I get it that people don't like what Obama's doing. But he's not a fascist and these attempts to paint him as such involve stretching one's imagination to the extreme.

It is inferred in our discussion of Nationalism...we are talking of all types in how these two administrations evolved throughout their years in office....we are talking about political policy, radical changes in political policy...

[Tally Man]

It is inferred in our discussion of Nationalism...we are talking of all types in how these two administrations evolved throughout their years in office....we are talking about political policy, radical changes in political policy...

See that's not what I was pointing out in the quote I had from SN. I was trying to figure out how the things SN said actually were considered nationalism, which I still haven't found anything including the categories he's mentioned. If he's going to say something sound's like nationalism when it really doesn't, I'd just like to know where he's getting his stuff from.

[Kelly]

Well, if you are talking about Obama, some could say that his policy is a manifestation of a desire for a "rebirth of the nation" which is an element of palingenesis which could lead to ultranationalism and later fascism.

Some could say that Bush's push of extreme patriotism, or at least those that agree with him, and called anyone else that went against his policies as unpatriotic, could lead to a form ultranationalsim, and in that way lead to fascism.....and possibly his patriot act leading that direction, but much of that was continued with the Obama Administration....so, I guess both are headed that direction...

I'm not saying either are, or were headed that direction, just throwing theory...

[The Overlord]

I think it's fairly even. Obama's talked about how his Administration is going to save the world and made all of his issues "moral" issues - which to me sounds like nationalism.

So if the GOP did the same thing as Obama on this issue, then why do you support them? It seems like your definition of fascism (which isn't fascism) where the society is exulted over the individual was used during the Bush administration, so why do support the party that let that happen?

By your own logic, not mine, the GOP is a fascist party, that's your logic at play, not mine.


As far as proving that Rahm's book dictates policy - do you think Rahm Emmanuel dictates policy? Or at least influences it? Since the book is his ideas, words and opinions - it's fair to use. Especially when you combine it with Obama's been promoting similar ideas.

I doubt Obama merely defers to Rahm in all things.

And really was Cheney's neo con policy to use a disaster in increase the scope the Executive branch's power, is not fascism according to your own definition?

I think that simply depends on what end of the spectrum you align yourself with....you ask 10 different people, and you will probably get a partisan answer depending on their ideology.

Also, there is a major difference between nationalism as in pride of your country, and ultra nationalism.....it depends on if you add palingenesis with that nationalism and then you could definitely equate that with fascism to a degree....

Here is the thing, when looking at Nationalism in Bush's time, you would probably see an extreme patriotism....maybe more depending on your opinion.

Already in Obama's Administration we are seeing a definite desire to have a "national rebirth" of sorts in changing some areas of our government in an extreme way.

So, if you went with that, then one could say that Obama is leading us towards fascism since palingenesis can lead to ultranationalism and possible fascism...also, for all practical purposes we have a one party government at the moment. NOW, we can blame the people for that....lol, if blame is necessary. So that is another factor.

What about when the GOP controlled all 3 branches of government from 2002 to 2006?


Again, who is more one way or the other, is going to change from person to person.

As I said before, I do not think either are fascist, I'm just throwing theory out there....


The problem is Norm's article mentioned that a government in America can no longer successfully use an war or international policy to gain influence over society and stifle opposition.

But yet Bush got a free ride from 2002 to 2005, Obama got the standard Presidential honeymoon and that's it.

So who was more successful in controlling the society?

[Tally Man]

Well, if you are talking about Obama, some could say that his policy is a manifestation of a desire for a "rebirth of the nation" which is an element of palingenesis which could lead to ultranationalism and later fascism.

Some could say that Bush's push of extreme patriotism, or at least those that agree with him, and called anyone else that went against his policies as unpatriotic, could lead to a form ultranationalsim, and in that way lead to fascism.....and possibly his patriot act leading that direction, but much of that was continued with the Obama Administration....so, I guess both are headed that direction...

I'm not saying either are, or were headed that direction, just throwing theory...

Oh I understand that Kel, I'm just saying it takes quite a bit of a leap of logic to jump from one point to the other at this point. I mean we could say that the types of conservative views we see now could lead to a theocracy, or that the types of libertarian views we are hearing about could lead to anarchy. But that requires some pretty huge generalizations and really doesn't do anything in terms of the discourse. If people want to argue against Obama's policies I think that's fine. But if things start getting to the part where people are calling him a facist, I tend to shy away from even getting involved in such conversations.

[Kelly]

I do think that Rahm is to Obama as Cheney was to Bush.


If I were Biden, I'd be pissed....*wink*

[DACrowe]

I will just copy and paste from an essay I did on the matter to better explain my point:

It was an interesting read and you have some good points about statism and its influence (as well as Kensyian economics) on FDR and LBJ, as well as the modern Democratic Party. The role it plays in progressive ideology going all the way back really to Lincoln. And it misses the individualistic influences of Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau whose civil disobedience was the crux of the Civil Rights movement, the anti-war movements and the obsession with individuals' civil liberties that the right generally overlooks (such as yourself).

However, I still think you make some real leaps in your logic. You really do assume that Obama does what he does because he believes the institution of government is superior to the individuals' rights. Or rather, as you say, that people serve the government as opposed to believing the government serves the people. The fact that you authoritatively state that Obama (and by extension Democrats and liberals) are more interested in empowering the Federal government over helping its citizens is an unfounded fallacy that you use to vindicate your thesis that the president and his party are fascists.

I think you oversimplify them and their motives. Otherwise anytime the government imposes almost any tax or law with punishment that restricts someone's freedom (such as, say, hate speech) then it is a form of fascism, because to protect most citizens it is restricting a few rights to a point. Your politicization of motive about healthcare turns it into a conspiracy theory about a power grab for the state and does not even consider that it is trying to protect the well being of its citizens.

You also should not use reconciliation as a crux of your argument. Not just because healthcare was already law before it was used, but you also tend to suggest that it was used right off the bat by an arrogant majority party. It also ignores the historical context and realities of the situation of Obama having the Senate Finance Committee spend over six months trying to woo Republicans and formed a bill more conservative than the Republican Heritage Foundation's alternative in 1993 or the one signed into law by GOP Governor Mitt Romney. Unless they too were all progressive fascists. After all you lump George H. W. Bush's "War on Drugs" and George W. Bush's "War on Terror" in with progressive agendas like "War on Poverty."

Unless you are saying both parties are fascists. After all, you speak of European fascism relying on nostalgia and romanticization of past glory to rile up its support. Is that not a Republican tactic? Such as Bush constantly drawing on comparisons to Lincoln's leadership in the Civil War to excuse his reduction of civil liberties for the good of the state's security? Or the fact that the most popular conservative movement in the country right now is named after a past glory from the birth of our nation? These broad generalizations can also be applied to the right.


P.S. You didn't learn about John Adams and Alexander Hamilton in high school? Man that sucks. To be fair John Jay and Madison we glanced over. But when I did 11th grade history (though it was at the college level) they both got a lot of consideration. Surprisingly though, Benjamin Franklin was overlooked from what I recall.

[Alex The Great]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan are the only Republicans I can watch without wanting to throw something at the TV and scream YOU LIE!!

I disagree with almost everything they say, Although I have found myself agreeing with them from time to time, But at least they don't regurgitate the GOP talking points like EVERYBODY on Fox does. They have their own opinion, I just don't agree with their opinion.
Agreed. Another Republican I like is McCain. The speech he made after the election increased my respect for him greatly. Idiots in the McCain crowd were booing :dry:

[Kelly]

McCain 2000 > McCain 2008

[Alex The Great]

McCain 2000 > McCain 2008
I was a first grader in 2000, so I have no idea what he was like back then :o

[AG1973]

So, why is it too harsh for one, considering all the things that you just mentioned he would do IF he were Facist....why is closer to Bush than Obama?

BTW, I agree he is not a Facist, but neither was Bush to any extent, IMO.

So, I'm curious why is one closer than the other?

I never said Bush was a fascist. My assertion was that Bush's administration was closer to being fascist that president Obama's.

Ultra Patriotism after 911, "you are either with us or against us", U.S. occupation and war in Iraq, unilateral action regardless of world oposition, liberals branded as un-American, among other things.

I do not think that Bush was or is a fascist but I do think he was closer to that part of the political spectrum than Obama.

[StorminNorman]

So if the GOP did the same thing as Obama on this issue, then why do you support them? It seems like your definition of fascism (which isn't fascism) where the society is exulted over the individual was used during the Bush administration, so why do support the party that let that happen?

An appeal to nationalism isn't the only definition of fascism. I wouldn't throw Bush into the same vat as Obama because Bush was more bipartisan.

By your own logic, not mine, the GOP is a fascist party, that's your logic at play, not mine.

Which is why I want to change the GOP. The GOP should be about the free market and reduction of government size - that's what I want to see the party turn into.

I doubt Obama merely defers to Rahm in all things.

LOL, the fact you are now trying to downplay the important Rahm Emmanuel has on Obama's administration is cute (and predictable).

How about Obama quotes like this:

"I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year...We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities."

Doesn't that sound a little bit like what Rahm is saying?

Or Obama's interest in a Civilian Security Force?

Tt2yGzHfy7s

And really was Cheney's neo con policy to use a disaster in increase the scope the Executive branch's power, is not fascism according to your own definition?

Of course. Just a far more obvious branch of it.

What about when the GOP controlled all 3 branches of government from 2002 to 2006?

The mere control of all three branches is not fascist nor necessarily a problem given appropriate leadership.

The problem is Norm's article mentioned that a government in America can no longer successfully use an war or international policy to gain influence over society and stifle opposition.

But yet Bush got a free ride from 2002 to 2005, Obama got the standard Presidential honeymoon and that's it.

So who was more successful in controlling the society?

Bush got a free ride from 2001 to 2003. Obamas honeymoon would have been far bigger if he didn't do so much to screw up before hand. His entire Presidency has been a :doh: on so many levels.

[Marx]

I was a first grader in 2000, so I have no idea what he was like back then :o

John McCain was respectable in 2000.

[Kelly]

McCain was a strong, independent candidate in 2000, he was a weak, follower in 2008.

I campaigned for him in 2000, I voted against him in 2008.

[Excel]

McCain was a strong, independent candidate in 2000, he was a weak, follower in 2008.

I campaigned for him in 2000, I voted against him in 2008.

This is true. In mid 2007, there was a part of me that felt the 2000 McCain would be an excellent match with a liberal congress.

Then he became a true Republican.

[Kelly]

This is true. In mid 2007, there was a part of me that felt the 2000 McCain would be an excellent match with a liberal congress.

Then he became a true Republican.

Um, no....:whatever:

that is not what I said, meant, inferred, just no...


2000 McCain would not have voted for TARP, a liberal Congress would have...just one example.

[DACrowe]

An appeal to nationalism isn't the only definition of fascism. I wouldn't throw Bush into the same vat as Obama because Bush was more bipartisan.



Which is why I want to change the GOP. The GOP should be about the free market and reduction of government size - that's what I want to see the party turn into.



LOL, the fact you are now trying to downplay the important Rahm Emmanuel has on Obama's administration is cute (and predictable).

How about Obama quotes like this:



Doesn't that sound a little bit like what Rahm is saying?

Or Obama's interest in a Civilian Security Force?

Tt2yGzHfy7s



Of course. Just a far more obvious branch of it.



The mere control of all three branches is not fascist nor necessarily a problem given appropriate leadership.



Bush got a free ride from 2001 to 2003. Obamas honeymoon would have been far bigger if he didn't do so much to screw up before hand. His entire Presidency has been a :doh: on so many levels.

I would like to see you respond to my thoughts on your essay.

But as for what you're saying here, you do realize that you could be twisting words. Obama says he wants to make it possible for most high school students to do 50 hours of community service. That is not an admirable goal in your opinion. And the way you frame it, justifies your point. You seem to insinuate that he is going to make it mandatory for high school graduations and diplomas. But that is absurd. He is merely trying to give students the opportunities in their high schools to be able to do that and encourage them to do so. It will help their community, but further make them more appealing and competitive to college and university admissions offices. And you twist it into a form of government fascism making the citizens serve big brother. This is very misleading.

As for Obama's presidency being a :doh: we shall see. Americans love winning and they love results. Healthcare's popularity is changing and if he can get more done this year and next year, we shall see if it is a failure or just a failure to conservatives who automatically oppose anything proposed by a Democrat....including a healthcare bill that is rooted in conservative ideology and practices from the likes of the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich's 1993 Republican caucus and Mitt Romney's governorship in Mass.

You have to see the cries of fascism and socialism as cynical self-serving politics by the right that blew up in their face or you must condemn Romney (a guy you like) and the "Contract with America" Republicans you admire as socialists and fascists as well. :dry:

[DACrowe]

Um, no....:whatever:

that is not what I said, meant, inferred, just no...


2000 McCain would not have voted for TARP, a liberal Congress would have...just one example.

I really think TARP was poorly designed and Wall Street's best interests were protected by Hank Paulson and the representatives on the Hill, but some form of that bill would have passed with bipartisan support like it did in any form of Congress. They all remembered the lessons of the Depression and every economist in the world was screaming.

But the way it was done that they could use it to give out bonuses, golden parachutes and companies that should have failed like AIG, as well as comapnies that didn't really need a bailout like Goldman Sachs, shows terrible execution. But massive government assistance in that time of emergency was required. One would hope it also would have taught both sides that we should make sure that banks and hedge funds don't get that powerful again and that the last 30 years of deregulation of investment banks was a mistake....<Looks at the Capitol as it prepares for its next big debate>....guess not.

[Kelly]

I really think TARP was poorly designed and Wall Street's best interests were protected by Hank Paulson and the representatives on the Hill, but some form of that bill would have passed with bipartisan support like it did in any form of Congress. They all remembered the lessons of the Depression and every economist in the world was screaming.

But the way it was done that they could use it to give out bonuses, golden parachutes and companies that should have failed like AIG, as well as comapnies that didn't really need a bailout like Goldman Sachs, shows terrible execution. But massive government assistance in that time of emergency was required. One would hope it also would have taught both sides that we should make sure that banks and hedge funds don't get that powerful again and that the last 30 years of deregulation of investment banks was a mistake....<Looks at the Capitol as it prepares for its next big debate>....guess not.

TARP really entrenched me as an Independent....I have dug down deep in that title... I don't know if Kay Bailey will be running for re-election when her time comes up in a few years...I know Gene Green is coming up for re-election....one is Republican, one is Democrat, they both voted for TARP, I worked with both campaigns....I will be voting against both in their next elections, because of TARP. I will be working against anyone that voted for TARP, Cap and Trade, or the Stimulus/Spending package. If they voted for any of those three, I will be working within the Teaching Organizations that I am a member of, and giving money to the opposition.

[DACrowe]

I can understand TARP and even cap and trade (which hasn't happened yet). Stimulus seems like a bad choice to torpedo though. I know you hate government spending, but our economy would be a lot worse if 2 million more people were affecting the job loss rates and increasing fear and destroying any credit-lending in the process (thereby screwing us up even more). I will never get why so many people think keeping dozens of states from going bankrupt and 2 million people employed or contracted was the end of the world. Most economists of any political persuasion's biggest complaint about the stimulus was it was way too small. But somehow Sean Hannity won the message war on that.

[Excel]

Um, no....:whatever:

that is not what I said, meant, inferred, just no...


2000 McCain would not have voted for TARP, a liberal Congress would have...just one example.

I didnt say he would become a Democrat :huh:

But McCain back in his days as a true maverick would have been able to work a liberal congress today imo, something I do not think any other Republican candidate could have effectively done.

[dnno1]

I can understand TARP and even cap and trade (which hasn't happened yet). Stimulus seems like a bad choice to torpedo though. I know you hate government spending, but our economy would be a lot worse if 2 million more people were affecting the job loss rates and increasing fear and destroying any credit-lending in the process (thereby screwing us up even more). I will never get why so many people think keeping dozens of states from going bankrupt and 2 million people employed or contracted was the end of the world. Most economists of any political persuasion's biggest complaint about the stimulus was it was way too small. But somehow Sean Hannity won the message war on that.

Especially when to of their heroes have already said that deficits do not matter.

[Matt Mortem]

Quick question: Why do the right say the left are turning us fascist when Fascism is on the right hand side of the spectrum? Doesn't make sense to me

[Kelly]

I don't understand why either side is calling either side fascists, I don't get that...

[dnno1]

I'm still trying to figure out why this website is so slow that it makes people double post. The need to do something about that.

[Matt Mortem]

I don't understand why either side is calling either side fascists, I don't get that...
I agree. It's stupid. Fascism seems to be a fun word to throw around when your party of choice isnt in office. People need to get off it

[bell110]

Quick question: Why do the right say the left are turning us fascist when Fascism is on the right hand side of the spectrum? Doesn't make sense to me

Because the right can't admit that anything negative can be considered on the right.

[imdaly]

Because the liberal "left" and the conservative "right" aren't really "left" and "right", but more "up" and "down".

[StorminNorman]

I would like to see you respond to my thoughts on your essay.

But as for what you're saying here, you do realize that you could be twisting words. Obama says he wants to make it possible for most high school students to do 50 hours of community service. That is not an admirable goal in your opinion. And the way you frame it, justifies your point. You seem to insinuate that he is going to make it mandatory for high school graduations and diplomas. But that is absurd. He is merely trying to give students the opportunities in their high schools to be able to do that and encourage them to do so. It will help their community, but further make them more appealing and competitive to college and university admissions offices. And you twist it into a form of government fascism making the citizens serve big brother. This is very misleading.

Obama hired Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff. Rahm Emanuel believes that we need a " A new social contract — universal citizen service, universal college access, universal retirement savings, and universal children's health care — that makes clear what you can do for your country and what your country can do for you. "

Obama's word there are not indicating a move to this sort of social contract - I agree 100%. But Obama's words sound in agreement to Emanuel's and his act of hiring Rahm Emanuel, in spite of what I believe is an extremely radical proposal, is placing support for that idea.

So many posters bash the GOP for not going out of it's way to publicly condemn any reported (uncorroborated) report of Tea Party violence and racist, but it's okay to HIRE a man who believes the government has the right to call for universal citizen service.

As for Obama's presidency being a :doh: we shall see. Americans love winning and they love results. Healthcare's popularity is changing and if he can get more done this year and next year, we shall see if it is a failure or just a failure to conservatives who automatically oppose anything proposed by a Democrat....including a healthcare bill that is rooted in conservative ideology and practices from the likes of the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich's 1993 Republican caucus and Mitt Romney's governorship in Mass.

You have to see the cries of fascism and socialism as cynical self-serving politics by the right that blew up in their face or you must condemn Romney (a guy you like) and the "Contract with America" Republicans you admire as socialists and fascists as well. :dry:

Healthcare may not be the issue it is now in November, but not because the bill isn't awful (it's fail in a bun), but because it was designed specifically to avoid immediate political consequences.

And the thing is I agree 100% that the cries of socialism and fascism by many on the right ARE cynical and self-serving. I think Glenn Beck is one of the few genuine critics who attack on that level.

And I have always loved Romney as a candidate (was never as in love about his policy and has fallen far out of love as I have learned economics over the past year), but he is dead due to Healthcare.

I have never had any problem criticizing Republicans.

As to your response, I read it - typed a response one night and suffered Hype lock out before posting. I have been waiting to find the will to do so.

[StorminNorman]

Quick question: Why do the right say the left are turning us fascist when Fascism is on the right hand side of the spectrum? Doesn't make sense to me

Fascism is only considered "right" because it doesn't advocate government control of resources. Instead fascism advocates the government having all the benefits of control, but still allowing private property.

You know, kinda like how Democrats don't want to nationalize certain industries, just control them.

I don't understand why either side is calling either side fascists, I don't get that...

It's important to call a spade a spade. I am not calling the "left" fascist - I am calling Saul Alinsky Progressives (like Obama, Rahm, Hillary) fascist. People like Kucinich is not a Progressive, he is a socialist.

I agree. It's stupid. Fascism seems to be a fun word to throw around when your party of choice isnt in office. People need to get off it

See, that's exactly the opposite of what I am going for.

For example, why is fascism an insult? Why? Because it's an "evil political ideology"? Before WWII, there were all sorts of "fascist" parties all throughout the world. Are you telling me that free people volunteered to join some cartoon villain-esk world domination plot? REALLY?

Just as calling someone a "communist" no longer means he actually believes in communism but is simply a political insult, calling someone a "fascist" no longer has anything to do with fascism.

Progressives are actually utilizing the fact that fascism has such a negative connotation to avoid being labeled as such. After all, if you believe fascism is really limited to the ideology of Mussilini and Hitler - you are never going to realistic compare Rahm Emanuel to Adolf Hitler.

[DACrowe]

Obama hired Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff. Rahm Emanuel believes that we need a " A new social contract — universal citizen service, universal college access, universal retirement savings, and universal children's health care — that makes clear what you can do for your country and what your country can do for you. "

Obama's word there are not indicating a move to this sort of social contract - I agree 100%. But Obama's words sound in agreement to Emanuel's and his act of hiring Rahm Emanuel, in spite of what I believe is an extremely radical proposal, is placing support for that idea.

So many posters bash the GOP for not going out of it's way to publicly condemn any reported (uncorroborated) report of Tea Party violence and racist, but it's okay to HIRE a man who believes the government has the right to call for universal citizen service.

Perhaps. Emmanuel has some personally far left and extremely progressive views. But he was hired more to be Obama's "bad cop" or enforcer in closed door meetings. In any case, whatever they may both personally believe, they have not governed as such. The HCR law, as I pointed out, is basically the recommendation of the Heritage Foundation of the 1990s that also inspired the Congressional GOP alternative in 1993--that they completely forgot about after retaking Congress in 1994--and the Romney bill. Now that there is no public option, the bill is rather moderate in how it reforms by merely adding a list of regulations to the market, but requiring 95% of people to be insured to make up for the private sector's potential losses.

The banking reform he is pushing is far from the far left "progressive" designs that basically want to nationalize the major banks or have them so tied under red tape that they operate like a government bureaucracy. The bills Obama is pushing are pretty moderate in the reform (though the concept of finance reform is inherently liberal so the right will attack that, like healthcare reform, in principle).

In education he is offering in terms of community services all carrots and no sticks. They may be far left progressives, but thus far they have been pushing moderate reforms (though immigration and Cap and Trade will end that trend, whenever they get a lot of attention and start moving).


Healthcare may not be the issue it is now in November, but not because the bill isn't awful (it's fail in a bun), but because it was designed specifically to avoid immediate political consequences.

And the thing is I agree 100% that the cries of socialism and fascism by many on the right ARE cynical and self-serving. I think Glenn Beck is one of the few genuine critics who attack on that level.

And I have always loved Romney as a candidate (was never as in love about his policy and has fallen far out of love as I have learned economics over the past year), but he is dead due to Healthcare.

I have never had any problem criticizing Republicans.

As to your response, I read it - typed a response one night and suffered Hype lock out before posting. I have been waiting to find the will to do so.

I agree. Well not with HCR being fail in a bun, but almost everything else. ;)

The GOP is best served by focusing on the economy and they'll probably figure that out before October. If they don't they are courting disaster. As of right now though Karl Rove and Frank Luntz are saying run on "repeal," which will blow up in their face, because as you say several benefits come into practice by September. When that happens running on repeal will be a losing argument unless you're courting only Tea Partiers. And Mitt Romney is dead in the water. Romneycare will be to him what a "Yes" vote on Iraq was to Hillary Clinton in 2008. But...I hope Palin isn't y'all's Obama. While I think he could mop the floor with her in a debate or contrast...I don't trust America enough to feel it's worth the risk for her to run for president. :oldrazz:

Oh and I'm not so sure Beck believes Obama is Hitler, crossed with Stalin, inspired by Mao and descended from Dracula like he pretends. But you never know, I guess.

[DACrowe]

I just watched the first half of tonight's O'Reilly Factor. I mean it is a conservative opinion show, so him and talking blonde head ganging up on Colmes (who made poor points, to be fair) was not a surprise.

However, I was shocked, absolutely shocked at O'Reilly trying to make the anger and outbursts on the left as comparable or, surprisingly, worse than the Tea Party. O'Reilly himself said that the "Tea Parties have been very mellow."

To help prove this point he had a video list of left outrage in this country....Well the first one took place in Canada (the Ann Coulter incident), but it was outrageous. Next were two incidents of liberal protestors interrupting speeches made by Karl Rove (ranting about Iraq and outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent) and Sarah Palin, who just laugh and make fun of liberals afterwards. Lastly there was one of Louis Farrakhan. Far be it for me to defend Farrakhan, but to be fair he merely pointed out how there are white Christians who are praying that Obama dies and are drawing Hitler moustaches on his face and how hypocritical it is of them. Well...both of those things happened. The first was given in a sermon from an evangelical pastor in Wyoming or somewhere out west and the latter can be found at any Tea Party.

But moving on, those first ones make it, in Bill-O's eyes, worse than the Tea Party and right conservative activism. He then criticized "the networks" (presumably NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and MSNBC) for not covering these stories enough. The HYPOCRISY WAS RANK. He claims there is no evidence of hatred on the right or video evidence (refusing to mention that the spitting was on tape in that segment), but further failing to see the irony. What about the NINE MILITIA NUTJOBS WHO ARE ON THE FAR RIGHT PLANNING TO KILL COPS?! Bill-O didn't mention them ONCE on his show. What about the propane tanks getting cut? What about bricks through windows? All he can get is somebody shouting at a Sarah Palin event? Well here's one better: what about the people in the Congressional gallery trying to disrupt the Healthcare proceedings last week to the cheers of the GOP? You think a liberal "loon" interrupting Sarah Palin is bad? What about a Republican Congressman calling his president a liar or another calling a colleague a baby killer?

They are not comparable. And Bill-O who is quick to constantly point out "leftist loons" doesn't even talk about the most egregious stuff on the right painting a false portrait of the left is angry hippies and lesbians while the right are peaceful God fearing patriots. The hypocrisy in this false portrait he painted for his viewers was revolting.

Also, I like how he automatically assumes that the students protesting student loan hikes in California (isn't protesting against the government a good thing to Bill-O?) are all a bunch of liberals based on nothing but his own prejudices. Yet, in the same breath he hates Colmes calling people who may have used the "N" word Tea Partiers, because he first has no video evidence (so it must not have happened :whatever: ), but even if he did, there is no proof they were members of the Tea Party.

So, CNN is evil for not covering Anne Coulter getting booed out of a Canadian college, but Bill-O is the spitting image of integrity for not even mentioning the right wing militia that was trying to kill cops?

It would be so :facepalm:

If it wasn't that most of his viewers don't see right through the hypocrisy he was spewing. So frustrating.

[Kelly]

Or you are looking through totally liberal sunglasses and can't see that there is hypocrisy on both sides...

And I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Bill as far as the mainstream media and how they have covered this stuff.....They have those same sunglasses you have.

Sure, he has a strong conservative slant, totally agree, and I disagree with alot that he says....but sorry, I have agreed, and will continue to agree with him that ABC, NBC, AND CBS are tools for the left, ESPECIALLY NBC...is Fox a tool for the right, damn sure looks like it, but at least I can see **** on both sides of the fence.

[DACrowe]

Okay, well I saw the first segment at 11 pm that I had missed in the first 5 minutes. I will admit I was wrong (to a degree) and put my foot squarely in my mouth. He did mention the militias, as well as the crazy conservative wingnut group the Westboro Church, in the first 5 minutes of his show.

I just came in and missed the first 5 minutes but watched the last 50-55 minutes. He apparently used the militias into a segway into his hatred for lefty "loons." And it was fair to a degree. But the amount of coverage is still, I personally find, dishonest. 5+ minutes on the militias and then 20-30 minutes on the "scary left" and the "mellow Tea Parties." So, it creates an uneven picture....or if you're like me and miss the top of the hour, you didn't realize he even spoke about the actual news of the day (crazy right wing militia on fringe wanting to kill cops were arrested).

***

And Kel, I"m not saying there isn't al liberal slant on other networks (MSNBC is almost as bad as Fox imo, but to the left), but I really don't see how you can compare "Code Pink" disrupting a Karl Rove speech with somebody cutting a propane tank to a family's house, militias wanting to kill cops or even just a Republican Congressman calling a colleague a baby killer on the House floor. It is apples to oranges. There is a fringe left movement that painted Bush to look like Hitler. But they were never made mainstream by "liberal media" or supported like Fox hypes the Tea Parties and it never got to the point where Democratic leaders were fanning the flames by calling Dick Cheney a war criminal on the Senate floor, for example.

As for Fox as a whole. Look, I agree MSNBC slants hard left. The other networks work hared to control it (especially the broadcasting networks--NBC, not MSNBC, and ABC) but there can be a bit of a slant from the reporters' own interests or presentation.

But Fox is a completely different animal. They just aren't slanted or biased, they skew the facts. They report half-truths and innuendo and will openly ignore stories that hurt the narrative and agenda they are pushing. They just don't slant the news, they manipulate it to support a pre-conceived larger story. David Frum, a Bush speech writer who came up with the "Axis of Evil" ideas, said it very clearly that "For years, we thought Fox worked for us, but now we're realizing we're working for Fox."

The Washington Republicans and conservatives (which Frum is part of) consider Fox a Republican agenda outlet, only he is critical of it because he thinks the likes of Beck and Hannity are starting to take away the message from GOP leaders. But I think it sums up what Fox is to everyone in the industry.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

When you guys say Mainstream media...what do you mean? Does it include local news? Or just basic cable news? Or cable news? Newspapers? Blogs?

Would Fox News count as a part of the mainstream media? The ratings they take in would seem to indicate that the majority number of people, which I always thought was the definition of mainstream, watch they're channel.

[bell110]

Or you are looking through totally liberal sunglasses and can't see that there is hypocrisy on both sides...

And I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Bill as far as the mainstream media and how they have covered this stuff.....They have those same sunglasses you have.

Sure, he has a strong conservative slant, totally agree, and I disagree with alot that he says....but sorry, I have agreed, and will continue to agree with him that ABC, NBC, AND CBS are tools for the left, ESPECIALLY NBC...is Fox a tool for the right, damn sure looks like it, but at least I can see **** on both sides of the fence.

What about CNN and HLN? Fox et al. consider those to be part of the "left" as well. And I have to ask myself, are they really? Maybe the problem isn't the five OTHER networks, maybe it's Fox. And of course, apply that thought to newspapers as you will.

When you guys say Mainstream media...what do you mean? Does it include local news? Or just basic cable news? Or cable news? Newspapers? Blogs?

Would Fox News count as a part of the mainstream media? The ratings they take in would seem to indicate that the majority number of people, which I always thought was the definition of mainstream, watch they're channel.

They are THE mainstream media. It's really like P. Diddy complaining about mainstream music. It's all just lip service to their base, kind of like all the "real America" talk. It's really annoying how O'Reilly boasts about his and Fox's ratings. I'm too tired to think about it right now, but yeah, the problem lies with Fox.

[MRExposure]

Of course the other networks have a bias too.

MSNBC is obviously very liberal.

But they do have that Morning Joe guy who's a major conservative.

How many BIG liberal commentators does Fox have?

And Fox CONSTANTLY lets their agenda slip into their "straight" news.

If the media is covering one thing and not the other (like the nine guys who were part of a Christian militia being arrested, but not covering some protestor at a Palin speech)... don't you think its because one thing is more important than the other?

Fox news really isn't in a position to accuse other networks of bias and hypocrisy when Fox news is number 1 in doing it.

I remember very speficically how on Fox and Friends, they did not mention ONCE the threatening calls democrats were getting, they did not play the recordings.

The very next day, they have republicans on talking about the threatening calls they are getting, getting one of those calls played. And more than that, they're allowing these republicans the space to BLAME the democrats for these threatening calls.

It's actually pretty sickening, the game Fox news plays.

Fox news holds a tremendous amount of power over the republican party, too. Look at David Frum, a conservative fired from his job just for criticizing Fox news, and criticizing how they have been in charge of how the republican party came to the table with the healthcare debate.

[bell110]

But really, how much of a bias does the other networks have? I'd say the worst offender is MSNBC, but I wouldn't call them "very" liberal. The only "liberal" part of their programing is their opinion block. And if you weigh MSNBC's big three (Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow) and Fox's big three (O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck), I think Fox totally has them beat in regard to amount of bias. At least MSNBC's three are rational, intelligent people. O'Reilly is a blowhard, Beck is a lunatic, and Hannity is just bitter. I think I should add the obligatory IMO here.

But back to aligations of bias, Fox thinks all other media is in the pocket for the left. That doesn't even make sense to me. If you are going to be bias, why aren't more networks bias to the right? After all, as Fox proves being the #1 cable news network, that's where the money is. What do the other networks gain from leaning to the left? Rhetorical question; the answer is, they don't. They just don't favor the right. I really think that in the mind of a conservative, if you don't agree with conservative ideology, you are automatically a liberal. (Again, IMO)

Also to the same point, conservatives love to point out that most of America consider themselves at least moderate conservative, or right center or whatever. Than why does it seem, or do they make it seem, like the entertainment industry swings so far to the left? How does the mainstream media and entertainment industry that is on such an extreme left (as Fox likes to pretend) survive in a decidedly conservative country?

[Paradoxium]

From a purely abstract business and economic POV, you don't really need to have a majority audience/consumer base to survive. So long as you have a high converting niche market.

[bell110]

That's true, but if you are going to be bias, might as well make the most of it.

[MRExposure]

But really, how much of a bias does the other networks have? I'd say the worst offender is MSNBC, but I wouldn't call them "very" liberal. The only "liberal" part of their programing is their opinion block. And if you weigh MSNBC's big three (Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow) and Fox's big three (O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck), I think Fox totally has them beat in regard to amount of bias. At least MSNBC's three are rational, intelligent people. O'Reilly is a blowhard, Beck is a lunatic, and Hannity is just bitter. I think I should add the obligatory IMO here.

But back to aligations of bias, Fox thinks all other media is in the pocket for the left. That doesn't even make sense to me. If you are going to be bias, why aren't more networks bias to the right? After all, as Fox proves being the #1 cable news network, that's where the money is. What do the other networks gain from leaning to the left? Rhetorical question; the answer is, they don't. They just don't favor the right. I really think that in the mind of a conservative, if you don't agree with conservative ideology, you are automatically a liberal. (Again, IMO)

Also to the same point, conservatives love to point out that most of America consider themselves at least moderate conservative, or right center or whatever. Than why does it seem, or do they make it seem, like the entertainment industry swings so far to the left? How does the mainstream media and entertainment industry that is on such an extreme left (as Fox likes to pretend) survive in a decidedly conservative country?

I completely agree, and I think there's plenty of evidence to back up your position, and a total lack of evidence that the media (besides Fox) is really in the tank for the left wing idealology.

I think the same mentality is applied when some on the right wing say that the schools are liberal. And people will think that literally because say, a school teaches evolution and not creationism. That doesn't mean the school is liberal and trying to indoctrinate children into a liberal idealology. The simple fact is that evolution has many facts backing it up, and the established facts refute creationist theories.

[Alastor]

^I have heard the "liberal college professor" argument before. Out of all the profs I have had in my 5 (shaddup :)) years in college, I never had ONE openly liberal prof, let alone one that constantly spewed some communist/liberal talking points. The head of my department always came off as pretty conservative to me, and he was one of my favorite teachers...he was kinda a dick tho.

[Kelly]

Really? Oh hell, I had open communists, socialists, most were liberal democrats in my history and government classes, and a good number in my criminal law classes leaned more towards the conservative side.

Hell my Totalitarian Government professor fought in the German Army in WWII....but he hated Hitler.

[Franklin Richards]

Most of my profs were good old fashion Southern Democrats.

Sometimes I think I'm the only one of those left. :D


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Paradoxium]

My personal pet theory is a lot of academics would like to think they can influence or mold the world in some (positive) way. Thus their more statist leanings. Who would like to admit in some circumstances even a government is unable to par down (say a recession) ? Who would like to admit it is impossible to prevent some wrongs, ills or evils? Who would like admit that in doing so they might actually make things worse? Different interests of control, different approach to control... same controlling attitude.

[Alastor]

Hell my Totalitarian Government professor fought in the German Army in WWII....but he hated Hitler.

That's really cool, I would have loved to have had that class...I had this great prof for Russian History that grew up in the Soviet Union, but loved rock n' roll and American culture. He had a cover band that did all the American rock from the 60's and 70's, and eventually got out to go to school in England. He was definitely my favorite prof (didn't hurt that'd he would play Zeppelin during tests).

[Franklin Richards]

Whoah... did Dox try to get a second account or something?


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[bell110]

I've never known the political leanings of any of my college professors. But, I've never gone to any fancy college so, IDK.

It is kind of suspicious that people label most college professors as liberal. As well as most scientists. As well as most people that don't admit America is God's gift to human kind.

[Paradoxium]

Whoah... did Dox try to get a second account or something?


:doom: :doom: :doom:What :huh:

[bell110]

My personal pet theory is a lot of academics would like to think they can influence or mold the world in some (positive) way. Thus their more statist leanings. Who would like to admit in some circumstances even a government is unable to par down (say a recession) ? Who would like to admit it is impossible to prevent some wrongs, ills or evils? Who would like admit that in doing so they might actually make things worse? Different interests of control, different approach to control... same controlling attitude.

I don't get that. It's obvious that you can not prevent wrong, ills or evils. It's a fact of life. I don't know about your professors, but I've never seen any of mine try to say you could.

[Paradoxium]

Are you talking about MRExposure? Who the hell is he, why he get banned so quickly

[SsM]

Are you talking about MRExposure? Who the hell is he, why he get banned so quickly


Your avy vanished?

[bell110]

Huh?

[Paradoxium]

I don't get that. It's obvious that you can not prevent wrong, ills or evils. It's a fact of life. I don't know about your professors, but I've never seen any of mine try to say you could.
They never did :huh:

I just said pet theory.

Some of the profs I had didn't try hide their political beliefs, there was no implying. It went like "I am a ****ing bleeding heart liberal". Or "I am a socialist". I do commend them for being honest about it.

[Paradoxium]

Your avy vanished?
I couldn't decide what to use. So I removed it. :woot:

[Marx]

Are you talking about MRExposure? Who the hell is he, why he get banned so quickly

MRExposure wasn't a newbie. :ninja:

[StorminNorman]

I completely agree, and I think there's plenty of evidence to back up your position, and a total lack of evidence that the media (besides Fox) is really in the tank for the left wing idealology.

PEW Research finds Fox News had fairest coverage of 2008 election. (http://www.journalism.org/node/13436#fn1)

[Scourge2099]

^I have heard the "liberal college professor" argument before. Out of all the profs I have had in my 5 (shaddup :)) years in college, I never had ONE openly liberal prof, let alone one that constantly spewed some communist/liberal talking points. The head of my department always came off as pretty conservative to me, and he was one of my favorite teachers...he was kinda a dick tho.
I only had two leftist professors so far. My English 1A professor , who's a commie and my Film 1 professor , who's a liberal hippy type.

[DACrowe]

In college, I had dozens of professors. Of them, few were openly political. None ever endorsed a particular politician or stated their ideology (save for three). Two were economic professors who were openly libertarian (which is on the right side of this ideological rift, in all honesty) and another was a far-left liberal who may have been a socialist, but he never said, so I cannot say. I had about a dozen professors who were very open-minded and progressive, so likely liberal--but they never openly stated their politics, so what can you say? One of my cultural theorists taught Marxism as a valid theory to study societal norms and popular culture influences. But she didn't seem to actually endorse it herself.

I find it odd when a professor openly states their politics. And the three who did, were three of my worst. Though it is not surprising when two were libertarians. :oldrazz:

I jest, I jest.

[StorminNorman]

Personally, I find it odd when a professor doesn't openly state their politics. I prefer knowing what bias I am getting so I can evaluate objectively.

[Obi-Ron]

Only if its relevant to the class they are teaching.