Discussion: FOX News

[StorminNorman]

Mine always were.

[imdaly]

My American History class in college was taught by a man from Great Britain. Let's just say we got a VERY interesting perspective of our country's birth. :) I've always been used to hearing "In such-and-such year we did this and we did that", but with him it was always "y'all did this and y'all did that". He LOVED to mock hillbilly slang. :)

[StorminNorman]

In my experience, college political science and history class were complete wastes of money as I learned far more reading Chernows Alexander Hamilton, 1776 and John Adams than I did in all of my American history classes combined.

[Kelly]

Only if its relevant to the class they are teaching.

Well, since most of my classes were things like,

Totalitarian Governments
Foreign Policy
Middle Eastern Politics
Terrorism
Constitutional Law
Political Philosophies

Knowing where the professor was coming from, was very important...

IMO, anytime history, government, economics is involved, I think knowing the bias of the professor is important.

My professors were very open.

It was pretty wild to have an extremely liberal Foreign Policy Professor, teaching from Bush 39's foreign policy...he actually respected the man's foreign policy. Very interesting class...

[DACrowe]

I took a number of history and political science courses (though neither were one of my majors) and not counting distant history--y'know like Middle Ages--I could figure my professors' political persuasions. One, who taught one of the best history courses I took (US Presidents of the 20th Century) was probably a moderate conservative, but he never said. My basic US Government Professor was more than clearly a necocon conservative and the ones I had for International politics courses and the Federal System were most likely liberal. But they did not wear it like a badge because they are trying to teach and not get judged (this is not a class on physical evolution where the teacher has to express at the beginning he is a proponent of evolution).

But when you take something like Media Law or a course on Southern politics in relation to journalism, the professors tend to be much more guarded and intentionally impartial in their presentation. I respect that. When one educates, one should try to be a fair and neutral to a point on some issues.

In contrast, courses dealing more with social theory, had professors that were clearly progressive (where I had two openly liberal professors). Of my four professors who were openly political about their beliefs, they tended to be the ones who had the hardest time communicating and appealing to their students because they built that rift and were not getting a take back.

[dnno1]

I wonder if the dichotomy is the same at say a Bob Jones or Liberty university?

[Kelly]

I can't speak for those, but Baylor University which is a private Southern Baptist University here in Texas has quite a few very liberal professors, I know of one in the foreign language department that is a registered member of the Socialist party here in the US....

I have several friends that graduated from Baylor, and they spoke of several extremely liberal professors in the Social Science Department, and History Department.

[Franklin Richards]

Same with SMU and TCU if you ask me. The religious part of those universities have been a joke to the students and teachers I've known.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Hobodeluxe]

I can't speak for those, but Baylor University which is a private Southern Baptist University here in Texas has quite a few very liberal professors, I know of one in the foreign language department that is a registered member of the Socialist party here in the US....

I have several friends that graduated from Baylor, and they spoke of several extremely liberal professors in the Social Science Department, and History Department.

that's simply the opinion of right wing conservatives. anything to the left of them is considered liberal I'd wager. this country has been tilting to the right ever since the GOP embraced the wingnuts and took over the news media.

Now anyone to the left of Glenn Beck is considered liberal media.

[Kelly]

that's simply the opinion of right wing conservatives. anything to the left of them is considered liberal I'd wager. this country has been tilting to the right ever since the GOP embraced the wingnuts and took over the news media.

Now anyone to the left of Glenn Beck is considered liberal media.

What? :huh::huh: What are you talking about? I'm not talking about their opinion, I'm talking about what the professor talked about in their classes. Every professor that I've spoke of on this issue has GIVEN THEIR POLITICAL VIEW. So I have no clue what you are talking about.

I've had 100's of conversations about this, I don't base any of what I've said on opinion....I've based it on what the professor said. I thought that was fairly clear in my posts.

[Hobodeluxe]

What? :huh::huh: What are you talking about? I'm not talking about their opinion, I'm talking about what the professor talked about in their classes. Every professor that I've spoke of on this issue has GIVEN THEIR POLITICAL VIEW. So I have no clue what you are talking about.

I've had 100's of conversations about this, I don't base any of what I've said on opinion....I've based it on what the professor said. I thought that was fairly clear in my posts.

you said you heard it from others. other conservatives.

[Kelly]

I didn't say they were conservatives...and if the professor says, "I am a member of the Socialist Party" what does it matter if the person he is saying this to is a conservative or liberal. I'm not getting what that has to do with my post? Just because they graduated from Baylor doesn't make them a conservative, any more than graduating from University of Texas makes you a Texan.

My point was simply to say that even colleges considered Conservative, can have Liberal professors......not a big deal really.

[Hobodeluxe]

I didn't say they were conservatives...and if the professor says, "I am a member of the Socialist Party" what does it matter if the person he is saying this to is a conservative or liberal. I'm not getting what that has to do with my post? Just because they graduated from Baylor doesn't make them a conservative, any more than graduating from University of Texas makes you a Texan.

My point was simply to say that even colleges considered Conservative, can have Liberal professors......not a big deal really.

I agree. there are some liberals teaching at Christian universities. but perhaps not as many as the perception is the point I was making. What may seem liberal to to a Southern Baptist might simply be mainstream.

Which professor is a socialist that teaches there?

[Kelly]

I agree. there are some liberals teaching at Christian universities. but perhaps not as many as the perception is the point I was making. What may seem liberal to to a Southern Baptist might simply be mainstream.

Which professor is a socialist that teaches there?

I also did not say that any of my friends were Southern Baptist, I guess there is also the wrong perception that all who go to Baylor are Southern Baptist, rather than simply people wanting to go to a good college.

Let me see if I can find an article on it, it was, for some reason, news worthy a few years back.


And as I said before, I'm not talking about someone's opinion of how they thought a professor taught, I'm talking of conversations in the classroom with the professor talking about their political views.

I may not agree with the professor's ideology, but I respect the fact that some are willing to talk about it in their classrooms.

I was much conservative than I am now, especially in the area of Social issues. Many of my views on Social issues have changed over the years since college. But, even with those conservative views, my favorite professor in the History department was a Socialist. He was proud of it, and had no qualms about saying so....we had great debates. He was a respectful debater, and allowed all views in his classroom. I had him for both semesters of US History and Jazz Age to Nuclear Age, as well as Latin American History. I loved all of those classes.

[DACrowe]

I find there are liberals at every university. UNC, as well as nearby schools like Duke, Wake Forest and most of the UNC system schools (save perhaps for NC State) to be taught by liberally minded--or progressive teachers. Some were incredibly liberal and open about radical left-leaning beliefs (I only had one when I went to school), but there are conservatives at all schools too. And at schools like Duke, there is a largely upperclass Republican student body based on assumptions of wealth protection. State also has a largely conservative body, due to it appealing to engineers and more lower income Republican families (ones that believe in the platforms and less the results like at Duke). But there are liberals there too. UNC is an incredibly liberal campus that was over 80% Democrat for the 2008 election. Yet, I know several Republicans from that school, and a few libertarians, as well.

My point is that where one goes to school does not necessarily dictate how they think. Same goes for where professors teach. UNC or no UNC, economic professors tend to skew libertarian or conservative wherever you go, with the few Kensyians here and there. Don't judge somebody's political persuasions based on their schooling or where they work for that matter.

[Kelly]

I find there are liberals at every university. UNC, as well as nearby schools like Duke, Wake Forest and most of the UNC system schools (save perhaps for NC State) to be taught by liberally minded--or progressive teachers. Some were incredibly liberal and open about radical left-leaning beliefs (I only had one when I went to school), but there are conservatives at all schools too. And at schools like Duke, there is a largely upperclass Republican student body based on assumptions of wealth protection. State also has a largely conservative body, due to it appealing to engineers and more lower income Republican families (ones that believe in the platforms and less the results like at Duke). But there are liberals there too. UNC is an incredibly liberal campus that was over 80% Democrat for the 2008 election. Yet, I know several Republicans from that school, and a few libertarians, as well.

My point is that where one goes to school does not necessarily dictate how they think. Same goes for where professors teach. UNC or no UNC, economic professors tend to skew libertarian or conservative wherever you go, with the few Kensyians here and there. Don't judge somebody's political persuasions based on their schooling or where they work for that matter.


Bingo....

[AG1973]

Why is a liberal college professor a bad thing? Why is being progressive bad? Doesn't liberal mean more open minded? Doesn't conservative mean closed minded?

Why would you want a college professor to be closed minded? Conservatives want to put people in a box and exclude certain boxes.

FOX news actively caters to individuals that agree with their world view and derides those that do not.

[Superman]

Why is a liberal college professor a bad thing? Why is being progressive bad? Doesn't liberal mean more open minded? Doesn't conservative mean closed minded?

Why would you want a college professor to be closed minded? Conservatives want to put people in a box and exclude certain boxes.

FOX news actively caters to individuals that agree with their world view and derides those that do not.I've been trying to figure that one out for years and no one has come up with a rational reason why.

[Addendum]

I've been trying to figure that one out for years and no one has come up with a rational reason why.

Especially since it appears everyone is unhappy with congress :woot:

[StorminNorman]

Why is a liberal college professor a bad thing? Why is being progressive bad? Doesn't liberal mean more open minded? Doesn't conservative mean closed minded?

Why would you want a college professor to be closed minded? Conservatives want to put people in a box and exclude certain boxes.

FOX news actively caters to individuals that agree with their world view and derides those that do not.

No one said a liberal college professor is bad.

Also, liberal in today's day in age has nothing to do with being more open minded and just as conservative doesn't mean close minded.

The classical use of the term "liberal" was derived obviously from "liberty" - the preservation of individual liberty is what use to be defined as Conservative (because it was CONSERVING the Amercan way of life). Conservative has since come to have a strong christian influence that is unfortunate.

"Liberal" today is Progressive - which is nothing but a statist, collectivist modern political philosophy which has no bases in the Constitution and seeks to shred it. Progressive ideology simply doesn't mesh with the vision of the Founders for the Country and that is why there has been a concerted attack on them from the left. That's why kids are taught that this country was merely the creation of hypocritical, white slave owners - ignoring the fact that the creation of America was the most important event in human history.

[DACrowe]

Because the Founders were absolute saints and had no motives when they did things like making the US Senate more powerful than the House and left the Senators to be selected solely by state legislators, when they designed the electoral college or when they came to the 3/5 Compromise.

Look I love the Constitution. I think George Washington was one of our greatest presidents and I think Jefferson, [John] Adams, Franklin, Hamilton and Madison were probably the greatest thinkers we have had in US history and their influences on the Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are immeasurable.

But surely there has to be a middle road. One that teaches the greatness and global significance of their successes and the founding of our country--and one that acknowledges the shortcomings and biases that contributed to it. One that acknowledges the importance of the US Constitution, but is also aware that its non-committal tone to slavery helped contribute to growing unrest in the Union that culminated in the Civil War.

Why must it be American exceptionalism is all or it was all a prelude to our current "socialist, collectivist regime?" I mean I recall my 11th grade AP US History was exceptional and I didn't feel I was stuck on either hyperbole you speak of.

[Majic Walrus]

One that acknowledges the importance of the US Constitution, but is also aware that its non-committal tone to slavery helped contribute to growing unrest in the Union that culminated in the Civil War.

I don't agree with Norm's diagnosis of liberalism as a synonym for an evil progressive movement I think that's neo-con rhetoric designed to paint liberals in a bad light.

However, on your comments. Remember that the Constitution allows for itself to be changed and that it was through the Constitution that slavery was abolished. I think what Norm is getting at is that the principles of the Constitution and what it stands for are more important (and work better) than the ideals espoused by the mainstream liberals in the US.

I have to agree with him.

[Matt Mortem]

I would love it if all these conservatives could sit down and talk with one of the founders. I doubt Jefferson would support the modern day conservative ideal of profit over people

[Majic Walrus]

I would love it if all these conservatives could sit down and talk with one of the founders. I doubt Jefferson would support the modern day conservative ideal of profit over people

You're probably right however I think that the vast majority of our founders would vomit at the looks of things like the Endangered Species Act, The American's with Disabilities Act, The countless environmental protection acts and agencies, the number of unnecessary federal agencies that suck money but serve no useful function and the general attitude of the country's leaders that not only do not inspire in us anything but seem to have no inspiration in themselves beyond re-election.

[Hobodeluxe]

Glenn Beck's New Book. No he's not trying to stir up a new civil war. Nope. No way. But wouldn't it be nice if we just fantasized about it for a while? (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2010/04/beck_novel_depicts_america_sli.html)

[dnno1]

No one said a liberal college professor is bad.

Go talk to Bill O'Reilly. Will he ever leave Ward Churchill alone?

Also, liberal in today's day in age has nothing to do with being more open minded and just as conservative doesn't mean close minded.

The classical use of the term "liberal" was derived obviously from "liberty" - the preservation of individual liberty is what use to be defined as Conservative (because it was CONSERVING the Amercan way of life). Conservative has since come to have a strong christian influence that is unfortunate.

"Liberal" today is Progressive - which is nothing but a statist, collectivist modern political philosophy which has no bases in the Constitution and seeks to shred it. Progressive ideology simply doesn't mesh with the vision of the Founders for the Country and that is why there has been a concerted attack on them from the left. That's why kids are taught that this country was merely the creation of hypocritical, white slave owners - ignoring the fact that the creation of America was the most important event in human history.

Liberal has always meant open minded, free thinking, and progressive even before this country was founded The term goes back to the 14th century. It is the conservative media that is attempting to change the connotation of the word, and you are falling for the hype.

[Kelly]

Well, considering the last Civil War was over State's Rights.....hopefully we are smarter.

[Hobgoblin]

My point was simply to say that even colleges considered Conservative, can have Liberal professors......not a big deal really.

Exactly. I went to a Catholic college for two years and many of the professors were liberal. Others were more conservative. I wouldnt have expected there to be so many liberal teachers there, being it was a school founded by members of the clergy. At Illinois State, I had very liberal professors and very conservative ones.

My point is that colleges and universities always have a diverse group of teachers and students with various philosophies. Thats the way it should be. My personal opinion is that if you want a solidly conservative education, there is always the clergy and the military. I'm sure there arent many liberals there.

Glenn Beck's New Book. No he's not trying to stir up a new civil war. Nope. No way. But wouldn't it be nice if we just fantasized about it for a while? (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2010/04/beck_novel_depicts_america_sli.html)
Beck is stockpiling food and supplies? Jeez, its Y2K all over again, and its just as ridiculous this time. :facepalm:

[DACrowe]

I don't agree with Norm's diagnosis of liberalism as a synonym for an evil progressive movement I think that's neo-con rhetoric designed to paint liberals in a bad light.

However, on your comments. Remember that the Constitution allows for itself to be changed and that it was through the Constitution that slavery was abolished. I think what Norm is getting at is that the principles of the Constitution and what it stands for are more important (and work better) than the ideals espoused by the mainstream liberals in the US.

I have to agree with him.

Indeed it was. And I was taught that in my history class. But your argument is because of the 14th and 15th Amendments we should not teach the 3/5 Compromise and the shady, "backroom deals" fought over between New England and Southern state delegates in the writings of the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution?

It is part of our history and should not be ignored. The Civil War can be viewed in many ways as the end to the philosophical Federalism arguments in our country from the Congress of Albany all the way to 1865. There was a great ideological divide and the issue that pushed that to the brink was slavery, which was an important issue to our Founders. If one is to tell the story of America, one needs to illustrate that after the Constitution was signed or even after the Bill of Rights were adopted, there was still huge, pressing tensions about its validity and the role of the Federal government in American life and state sovereignty. This included, most heatedly, the Union's position on slavery.

Teaching that is not an attempt to discredit the Founders. It is educating Americans. They still should teach the amazing value of the document and how it has influenced world politics (mostly for the better) over the last 200 years and created this great social experiment that is still being tweaked and worked on to this day: in search of that "more perfect Union."

As you said, the ability of the Constitution's ability to evolve and change with them is invaluable and should be taught. But I fail to see how a teacher showing some of its initial shortcomings and how it inarguably led to some tragic consequences (war) is a liberal or conservative talking point. Politics shouldn't play role in history. This is historical fact and should be taught, even if it offends one's sense that Americans can do no wrong. Manifest Destiny, trancedentalism and the growth of the American West should also be taught. But should one overlook the tragedies of the Native Americans in this history so as to prevent a black eye for American idealism?

My US History courses also taught about Lincoln suspending habeus corups, instating a draft that led to thousands dead from rioting in New York (many of them black) and arrested, then banished a journalist publishing anti-government articles. By Stormy's logic, I should not have been taught any of that stuff, because it contradicts the image of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator and the warm fuzzy feelings one gets in the Lincoln Memorial. If one talks about WWII, they should not mention Japanese Internment Camps, because it is not part of the popular narrative of the Greatest Generation. However, you can still teach WWII as arguably America's finest hour and the moment where we came together as a nation and stopped the expansion of fascism and tyranny around the world...but it is willful ignorance to ignore some of our mistakes such as with Japanese-Americans or the Isolationist and pro-fascist rhetoric popular in the US during the 1930s.

And that is what Stormy suggests. His love for the Constitution means if anyone points out any shortcomings in the founders', it is progressive revisionism. But if I suggested we remove Lincoln's failings from history books, then he'd be up in arms. He is the one politicizing it. Historians and History teachers should be impartial and report what happened. Not what we wish happened or what American exceptionalists pretend happened.

[StorminNorman]

I can't respond to any of DA's posts at this moment because he deserves decent responses that require more time than I can give right now. I will do so tomorrow when I am back at my computer. (Also, DA, if you wouldn't mind linking me to your response to my essay - I feel like I can finally sit down an rewrite my rebuttal)

Go talk to Bill O'Reilly. Will he ever leave Ward Churchill alone?

Ward Churchill gives liberal professors a bad name. The guy compared the people that died in the WTC to German soldiers involved with the Holocaust.

Liberal has always meant open minded, free thinking, and progressive even before this country was founded The term goes back to the 14th century. It is the conservative media that is attempting to change the connotation of the word, and you are falling for the hype.

It's use in a political setting hasn't held that simple meaning in a long, long time.

[Majic Walrus]

Indeed it was. And I was taught that in my history class. But your argument is because of the 14th and 15th Amendments we should not teach the 3/5 Compromise and the shady, "backroom deals" fought over between New England and Southern state delegates in the writings of the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution?

It is part of our history and should not be ignored. The Civil War can be viewed in many ways as the end to the philosophical Federalism arguments in our country from the Congress of Albany all the way to 1865. There was a great ideological divide and the issue that pushed that to the brink was slavery, which was an important issue to our Founders. If one is to tell the story of America, one needs to illustrate that after the Constitution was signed or even after the Bill of Rights were adopted, there was still huge, pressing tensions about its validity and the role of the Federal government in American life and state sovereignty. This included, most heatedly, the Union's position on slavery.

Teaching that is not an attempt to discredit the Founders. It is educating Americans. They still should teach the amazing value of the document and how it has influenced world politics (mostly for the better) over the last 200 years and created this great social experiment that is still being tweaked and worked on to this day: in search of that "more perfect Union."

As you said, the ability of the Constitution's ability to evolve and change with them is invaluable and should be taught. But I fail to see how a teacher showing some of its initial shortcomings and how it inarguably led to some tragic consequences (war) is a liberal or conservative talking point. Politics shouldn't play role in history. This is historical fact and should be taught, even if it offends one's sense that Americans can do no wrong. Manifest Destiny, trancedentalism and the growth of the American West should also be taught. But should one overlook the tragedies of the Native Americans in this history so as to prevent a black eye for American idealism?

My US History courses also taught about Lincoln suspending habeus corups, instating a draft that led to thousands dead from rioting in New York (many of them black) and arrested, then banished a journalist publishing anti-government articles. By Stormy's logic, I should not have been taught any of that stuff, because it contradicts the image of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator and the warm fuzzy feelings one gets in the Lincoln Memorial. If one talks about WWII, they should not mention Japanese Internment Camps, because it is not part of the popular narrative of the Greatest Generation. However, you can still teach WWII as arguably America's finest hour and the moment where we came together as a nation and stopped the expansion of fascism and tyranny around the world...but it is willful ignorance to ignore some of our mistakes such as with Japanese-Americans or the Isolationist and pro-fascist rhetoric popular in the US during the 1930s.

And that is what Stormy suggests. His love for the Constitution means if anyone points out any shortcomings in the founders', it is progressive revisionism. But if I suggested we remove Lincoln's failings from history books, then he'd be up in arms. He is the one politicizing it. Historians and History teachers should be impartial and report what happened. Not what we wish happened or what American exceptionalists pretend happened.

I would agree with everything that you're saying but I don't see how Norm's statements indicate that we should rewrite the history books to paint ourselves in a perfect light.

He has merely been caught up in the neo-con agenda to turn the Democratic party and this administration into evil socialists. I bet he would love to resurrect McCarthy and start a new search for communists in the US.

However I think the issue at hand is that the Constitution isn't a perfect document but it's a damn good one and the founding principles that are included in the constitution should remain solid and strong. Any political group that tries to move us away from those founding principles has no business being in charge of the country. Everyone in the government should be a supporter of the Constitution because it is the document which gives our country life.

But to defend myself from defending Norm, he has been taken into the camp that seeks to change the connotation of what it means to be liberal and progressive into something that is wrong and I also think he's misunderstood what it means to be a conservative.

I, as a Libertarian, consider myself conservative but that to me describes how the government should be run. Conservatively. Although if you look at the factors that come into play I behave very much like a liberal when it comes to most things and very much like a conservative when it comes to other things.

That is to say that the word "liberal" and the word "conservative" are relative definitions and if you ask any two politicos what those words mean they will give you widely different answers.

[dnno1]

I can't respond to any of DA's posts at this moment because he deserves decent responses that require more time than I can give right now. I will do so tomorrow when I am back at my computer. (Also, DA, if you wouldn't mind linking me to your response to my essay - I feel like I can finally sit down an rewrite my rebuttal).

And mines don't? You should have taken more time to think before you responded to me.

Ward Churchill gives liberal professors a bad name. The guy compared the people that died in the WTC to German soldiers involved with the Holocaust.

You said that no one said that a liberal college professor was bad, and I just gave you an example of a person who has done just that. There is no explaining around it.

It's use in a political setting hasn't held that simple meaning in a long, long time.

It's use in a political setting hasn't changed from what it's original meaning is. It is the right-wing media that is trying to change the public perception of it towards a pejorative.

[Hobodeluxe]

It's use in a political setting hasn't held that simple meaning in a long, long time.


you need to clarify that a bit. it's use among "conservative" political settings hasn't held that meaning in a long,long time.

and not that the "conservative" corporate media hasn't given it every effort to redefine it.

Republicans have a lot of nerve using "conservative" as a descriptive of their governance. From environment to foreign policy to domestic policies they've been anything but.

[Marx]

SENATOR COBURN: 'DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR ON FOX NEWS'
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/coburn-to-town-hall-dont-believe-everything-you-hear-on-fox-news.php?ref=fpa

:up:

[DACrowe]

I would agree with everything that you're saying but I don't see how Norm's statements indicate that we should rewrite the history books to paint ourselves in a perfect light.

He has merely been caught up in the neo-con agenda to turn the Democratic party and this administration into evil socialists. I bet he would love to resurrect McCarthy and start a new search for communists in the US.

However I think the issue at hand is that the Constitution isn't a perfect document but it's a damn good one and the founding principles that are included in the constitution should remain solid and strong. Any political group that tries to move us away from those founding principles has no business being in charge of the country. Everyone in the government should be a supporter of the Constitution because it is the document which gives our country life.

But to defend myself from defending Norm, he has been taken into the camp that seeks to change the connotation of what it means to be liberal and progressive into something that is wrong and I also think he's misunderstood what it means to be a conservative.

I, as a Libertarian, consider myself conservative but that to me describes how the government should be run. Conservatively. Although if you look at the factors that come into play I behave very much like a liberal when it comes to most things and very much like a conservative when it comes to other things.

That is to say that the word "liberal" and the word "conservative" are relative definitions and if you ask any two politicos what those words mean they will give you widely different answers.

I understand that both of you are defending the merits of the Constitution and that is a fair point. But the general assertion, at least by Norm, is that the US Constitution is devalued by liberal and progressive (usually dirty words in his opinion, unless we're speaking of them in abstract classical terms) professors are brainwashing children to despise the Constitution or ignore it by talking about the 3/5 Compromise, elitist devices put in place to maintain the power with the wealthy and educated (which have been removed in later Amendments) and that its blind-eye or reluctance to deal with slavery left a rotting issue ripe for hatred and disagreement between states and states and the Federal government.


I merely contend that you can teach both the relevance, continual and modern importance and significance of the document, as well as the genius of many of the Founders, while noting their shortcomings that played into future American events (such as the Civil War). And you can do this without condemning or discrediting the document.

I feel some are politicizing education. Professors and teachers should teach history, not American exceptionalism. There may be some far-left revisionists who crap on our history, but I find them few and far betwenn; mostly a myth.

And I wouldn't call Norm a McCarthy-ite, as we were not alive in the 1950s and I have no idea how he would act. I would like to think his libertarian streak would oppose the government blackballing and ruining careers, even in the private sector, based on innuendo and lies. But I do not know (after all Glenn Beck is of the same school of thought as McCarthy). But I won't condemn anybody for something that has no evidence in comparison. That would be like comparing Obama...to oh, say, Stalin.


Lastly, you're likely unsurprised my political views are liberal, left, progressive, whatever you would like to call them. I would say I am not far left, nor a socialist. And I prefer pragmatism and careful success in governance as opposed to ideological purity, which defines most of the actual far-left (the ones who are angry there is no Single Payer or that Obama didn't nationalize the banks, which I oppose).

Cheers.

[Majic Walrus]

:up:

[dnno1]

SENATOR COBURN: 'DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR ON FOX NEWS'
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/coburn-to-town-hall-dont-believe-everything-you-hear-on-fox-news.php?ref=fpa

:up:

What he said to his constituents might help CNN's ratings a bit.

[Superman]

SENATOR COBURN: 'DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR ON FOX NEWS'
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/coburn-to-town-hall-dont-believe-everything-you-hear-on-fox-news.php?ref=fpa

:up:It should be "Don't believe ANYTHING you hear on Fox "News".

[StorminNorman]

I would agree with everything that you're saying but I don't see how Norm's statements indicate that we should rewrite the history books to paint ourselves in a perfect light.

He has merely been caught up in the neo-con agenda to turn the Democratic party and this administration into evil socialists. I bet he would love to resurrect McCarthy and start a new search for communists in the US.

:whatever:

Try to defend that statement with any piece of posting on this hype. I dare you.

But to defend myself from defending Norm, he has been taken into the camp that seeks to change the connotation of what it means to be liberal and progressive into something that is wrong and I also think he's misunderstood what it means to be a conservative.

I, as a Libertarian, consider myself conservative but that to me describes how the government should be run. Conservatively. Although if you look at the factors that come into play I behave very much like a liberal when it comes to most things and very much like a conservative when it comes to other things.

That is to say that the word "liberal" and the word "conservative" are relative definitions and if you ask any two politicos what those words mean they will give you widely different answers.

I have never said that being liberal is something wrong. Ever. Hell, my entire point of late has been that it is perfectly okay to hold the views of Progressives - just don't hide your intentions. This is not a question of "right or wrong" but simply identifying the sides.

I can understand how someone can view collectivism as a better idea then individual rights. I just think that if someone holds those views, they should go to a government that is built upon that ideology and don't change the one country that was specifically founded to oppose that viewpoint.

And mines don't?

Not really.

You said that no one said that a liberal college professor was bad, and I just gave you an example of a person who has done just that. There is no explaining around it.

I clearly meant in the context of this conversation. Obviously I would never say that there is no liberal professor worthy of criticism.

It's use in a political setting hasn't changed from what it's original meaning is. It is the right-wing media that is trying to change the public perception of it towards a pejorative.

LOL

you need to clarify that a bit. it's use among "conservative" political settings hasn't held that meaning in a long,long time.

and not that the "conservative" corporate media hasn't given it every effort to redefine it.

Republicans have a lot of nerve using "conservative" as a descriptive of their governance. From environment to foreign policy to domestic policies they've been anything but.

Neo-Conservative Republicans have a lot of nerve using "conservative" as a description of their governance. Obviously there are plenty of Republicans that can proudly claim to be conservative - Ron Paul, for example.

[StorminNorman]

What he said to his constituents might help CNN's ratings a bit.

Like anyone who allows Colbert to change their habits watches Fox News. :huh:

[StorminNorman]

Indeed it was. And I was taught that in my history class. But your argument is because of the 14th and 15th Amendments we should not teach the 3/5 Compromise and the shady, "backroom deals" fought over between New England and Southern state delegates in the writings of the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution?

Why should we not teach the 3/5ths Comrpromise? There was nothing remotely wrong about the 3/5ths compromise. I have also never advocated any sort of censorship regarding this nations history. I'm certainly not embarrased of it. In fact I want our flaws and missteps to be talked about as much as our high steps simply because I don't want us to repeat any of them.

I have no problem with history mentioning the fact Washington owned slaves. I do have a problem with history classes trying to teach that all of our Founding Fathers were hypocritical slave owners.

It is part of our history and should not be ignored. The Civil War can be viewed in many ways as the end to the philosophical Federalism arguments in our country from the Congress of Albany all the way to 1865. There was a great ideological divide and the issue that pushed that to the brink was slavery, which was an important issue to our Founders. If one is to tell the story of America, one needs to illustrate that after the Constitution was signed or even after the Bill of Rights were adopted, there was still huge, pressing tensions about its validity and the role of the Federal government in American life and state sovereignty. This included, most heatedly, the Union's position on slavery.

I agree, the Civil War was the end to Federalism - which is why I consider the Civil War to be one of the greatest political tragedies in American history.

I consider American Slavery to be one of the worst actions in man history if for no other reason that it ruined the credibility of this country from the beginning. It's a shame that our greatest thinkers were Slave Owners and that our greatest men held philosophy that was contrary to American Individual Rights.

My US History courses also taught about Lincoln suspending habeus corups, instating a draft that led to thousands dead from rioting in New York (many of them black) and arrested, then banished a journalist publishing anti-government articles. By Stormy's logic, I should not have been taught any of that stuff, because it contradicts the image of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator and the warm fuzzy feelings one gets in the Lincoln Memorial. If one talks about WWII, they should not mention Japanese Internment Camps, because it is not part of the popular narrative of the Greatest Generation. However, you can still teach WWII as arguably America's finest hour and the moment where we came together as a nation and stopped the expansion of fascism and tyranny around the world...but it is willful ignorance to ignore some of our mistakes such as with Japanese-Americans or the Isolationist and pro-fascist rhetoric popular in the US during the 1930s.

Again, you can't defend this statement at all with any of my posts. I am not remotely compelled to whitewash American history - have you missed any of my rants against Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father whose ideology probably is closest to my own?

I can't for the life of me how you could have come to the conclusion that I am against teaching the flaws of our past leaders. Hell, I think I have said many times on this very forum that Lincoln was a (benevolent? - is that possible?) dictator.

There goes those fuzzy feelings. :dry:

[dnno1]

Not really.

Why that's pretty arrogant of you.



I clearly meant in the context of this conversation. Obviously I would never say that there is no liberal professor worthy of criticism.

And I am certan that DACrowe's statement went beyond this discussion. To say that nobody demonizes them is an understatement, especially when there are thousands of folks that parrot and form their opinions from the comments of the conservative talking heads in the media.



LOL

I am dead serious!




Neo-Conservative Republicans have a lot of nerve using "conservative" as a description of their governance. Obviously there are plenty of Republicans that can proudly claim to be conservative - Ron Paul, for example.

Albeit a conservative, Ron Paul is a Libertarian posing as a Rupublican.

[StorminNorman]

Why that's pretty arrogant of you.

Probably.

And I am certan that DACrowe's statement went beyond this discussion. To say that nobody demonizes them is an understatement, especially when there are thousands of folks that parrot and form their opinions from the comments of the conservative talking heads in the media.I don't think so - but lets pretend it did.

Ward Churchill was not attacked by Bill O'Reilly because he was liberal. He was attacked by Bill because he said some disgusting things that should not be supported by a public university.

Albeit a conservative, Ron Paul is a Libertarian posing as a Rupublican.

Says who?

[Majic Walrus]

:whatever:

Try to defend that statement with any piece of posting on this hype. I dare you.


What neo-cons don't have jokes? :hehe:

[Ocramed]

It should be "Don't believe ANYTHING you hear on Fox "News".

Include MSNBC, and your opinion will carry some weight.

The whole point of Coburn's statement is that you don't get your information from a single source. Furthermore, you have to differentiate opinion shows from news programs. Most people don't seem to get that for some reason.

O.

[Ocramed]

The fascinating about what is "constitutional" is more to do with who is gaming the system than anything. For example, you can make an argument that the Dread Scott Decision that supported the notion of segregation was a form of judicial activism, which made it a point to give individual states the right to discriminate people, regardless of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Also, not all "progressives" were enlightened people. Example: Margaret Sanger, the proponent of the modern reproductive rights for women was a eugenicist and a racist towards black folks. So was Susan B. Anthony (who threw black women under the bus for the right for white women to vote) and Pres. Woodrow Wilson (who not only re-segregated the US military, but was an ardent supporter of the notorious "Birth of a Nation Film"). Bottom line: being constitutional and progressive is only relative to the time that such notions are tested, such as what is going on today with the actions of the Obama Administration, and how the American people in general are responding to them. Such battles have been going on for years, and are likely to continue in the future, as we the citizens wrestle with who we are, and who we want to be. Personally, I believe in a limited form of Federal government, since the states are more suited in addressing the needs of the people living within them.

O.

[Superman]

Some Facts About ACORN or How Fox "News" Lied To You Again.


PT 1
S0B0wxt3XYc

PT 2
IKx-Yvz3iJ8&feature=channel

Now Acorn was not perfect by any stretch of the word but that doesn't change the fact that Fox just flat out lied to it's viewers.... Again.

[Hobodeluxe]

:whatever:

Neo-Conservative Republicans have a lot of nerve using "conservative" as a description of their governance. Obviously there are plenty of Republicans that can proudly claim to be conservative - Ron Paul, for example.

There are a few that are conservative still. but they're a small minority in the party. Oh sure they talk a good game. but look at how many votes the medicare part d thing got. All it was was a drug benefit for senior citizens. and it costs almost as much as Obama's HCR. and a lot of the cost of HCR was patching the donut hole in that plan.

And they put everything they did on the credit card. not pay as you go.
so everything costs more because you have the added interest.
if you go back and look at the deficit under the different administrations for the past 60 yrs or so you'll see that the so called "fiscal" conservatives have been anything but.

you've seen the graphs and charts. the only time you can get republicans to act thrifty is when they aren't in power. they seem to find their fiscal conservatism then. but let them have control and they're worse than the Dems.

[Hobodeluxe]

Some Facts About ACORN or How Fox "News" Lied To You Again.


PT 1
S0B0wxt3XYc

PT 2
IKx-Yvz3iJ8&feature=channel

Now Acorn was not perfect by any stretch of the word but that doesn't change the fact that Fox just flat out lied to it's viewers.... Again.

I can't wait for the civil suits. O'Keefe and Breitbart should be very worried.

[Marx]

JEWISH GROUP LAUNCHES TWITTER PROTEST AGAINST GLENN BECK
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/04/tweet_justice_for_glenn_beck.html?hpid=talkbox1

[DACrowe]

I'll re-enter the debate later. I don't have time at the moment. But I will point out that I watched the first 20 minutes of Mr. Beck's...eh, show yesterday. It was his exposé to "rove Obama is a socialist." Well much of it seems based on damning by association.

And who are the "foundation of his bad associations?" why they are his parents and grandparents. There is no proof the Frank in Obama's book is the famed black communist, so much of the rest is calling his father a communist. I admittedly despite reading Dreams From My Father do not know what Barack Sr.'s political views were, so I cannot commit (albeit he studied economics at Harvard so it does seem dubious by Beck's claims).

But then he keeps saying he is not trying to condemn or attack his parents and family...but that is all he did! He went after his mother for being an atheist or agnostic. He says it with sneering venom. She was of "Critical Theory" which studied all sides, but primarily she was areligious. So, without a shred of evidence he says that MAKES HER A MARXIST! He then goes after his grandparents, because when they moved from Kansas they left a Baptist Church for a Unitarian Church. And based solely on the own prejudices for that church he had growing up from his parents, he declares THEY ARE COMMUNIST MARXISTS!

So....his proof that Obama is a socialist...is mostly based on slanderous and baseless accusations that his dead mother and grandparents who cannot defend their names are in fact Marxists. :facepalm:

He then skips from Obama's first two years of college in LA to him joining Rev. Wright's church around 10 years later as the nail in the coffin of his socialist views. He keeps bemoaning where did he learn about the greatness of our Founders and the Constitution and the (white) American story?

Well...he leaves out that his mother raised him to be a diligent worker and even in Indonesia woke him up before sunrise every morning to give him an English and American education. He leaves out that he gave up many of his more extreme positions when he transferred to Columbia for the last two years of college. He leaves out that Obama may have been influenced by the good of free markets when he worked on Wall Street for the first year after graduation. He leaves out that at Harvard, he specialized in studying the Constitution and until he ran for US Senate, he became a Constitutional Law Professor.

Glenn Beck is such an idiot. His big proof is as baseless lies about his dead family (and bringing up Rev.. Wright) as they are against the President himself. He says "I'm not saying they're a bad person or trying to attack them..." but five minutes later, "Look at who surrounded him, with THESE PEOPLE HE NEVER HAD A CHANCE!"

And then leaves out that Obama actually worked in the heart of the free market for a year and taught the Constitution for 15 years. What an idiot, indeed.

[DACrowe]

Some Facts About ACORN or How Fox "News" Lied To You Again.


PT 1
S0B0wxt3XYc

PT 2
IKx-Yvz3iJ8&feature=channel

Now Acorn was not perfect by any stretch of the word but that doesn't change the fact that Fox just flat out lied to it's viewers.... Again.

I saw that last night. :up:

[dnno1]

I don't think so - but lets pretend it did.

Ward Churchill was not attacked by Bill O'Reilly because he was liberal. He was attacked by Bill because he said some disgusting things that should not be supported by a public university.

And people like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Ann Coulter don't? It seems that these people are protected by their sponsors as well as their 1st Amendment rights. It didn't seem to be the case with Churchill, even though he didn't say anything worse than what those people I mentioned said. The only difference between the two parties are that the former associates with conservatives, while the latter is considered a liberal.



Says who?

The Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1987_442777) (among others). Just for the record, Paul ran for President in 1987 as a libertarian, and his views haven't changed since.

[StorminNorman]

And people like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Ann Coulter don't? It seems that these people are protected by their sponsors as well as their 1st Amendment rights. It didn't seem to be the case with Churchill, even though he didn't say anything worse than what those people I mentioned said. The only difference between the two parties are that the former associates with conservatives, while the latter is considered a liberal.

None of those are employed by the public sector. Churchill is. THAT'S the controversy. Bill would not care if he was employed in the PRIVATE sector.

The Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1987_442777) (among others). Just for the record, Paul ran for President in 1987 as a libertarian, and his views haven't changed since.

LOL, you don't have to tell me about this campaign - my father did media consultation for it (his then-partner, Jay Bryant, was Ron Paul's media consultant for a long time).

Ron Paul's campaign was more an educational stunt than a march for the White House. Ron Paul was a Republican prior to that, and a Republican after.

[Marx]

FOX NEWS: WILL OBAMA NUKE DEAL LEAVE US HELPLESS?
3IFtZnnMyCg

:dry:

...and a mushroom cloud to boot. Stay classy, Fox News.

[dnno1]

None of those are employed by the public sector. Churchill is. THAT'S the controversy. Bill would not care if he was employed in the PRIVATE sector.

Um... free speach does not discern between the public and private sectors. That is not an argument.

LOL, you don't have to tell me about this campaign - my father did media consultation for it (his then-partner, Jay Bryant, was Ron Paul's media consultant for a long time).

Ron Paul's campaign was more an educational stunt than a march for the White House. Ron Paul was a Republican prior to that, and a Republican after.

YrlV0lhfMac

You don't know what you are talking about. I don't know where you are getting your info from, but somebody is lying, and it's not me (and it's not funny at all).

[DACrowe]

Why should we not teach the 3/5ths Comrpromise? There was nothing remotely wrong about the 3/5ths compromise. I have also never advocated any sort of censorship regarding this nations history. I'm certainly not embarrased of it. In fact I want our flaws and missteps to be talked about as much as our high steps simply because I don't want us to repeat any of them.

I have no problem with history mentioning the fact Washington owned slaves. I do have a problem with history classes trying to teach that all of our Founding Fathers were hypocritical slave owners.

I agree. But you implied that slavery, and by extension 3/5 Compromise, are used by untrustworthy progressives to turn future generations against the Founders.


I agree, the Civil War was the end to Federalism - which is why I consider the Civil War to be one of the greatest political tragedies in American history.

I consider American Slavery to be one of the worst actions in man history if for no other reason that it ruined the credibility of this country from the beginning. It's a shame that our greatest thinkers were Slave Owners and that our greatest men held philosophy that was contrary to American Individual Rights.

Indeed. And apparently the only way the South was willing to part with that evil institution, at least in the 19th century, was by Federal enforcement. And at the end of the day the South did secede because they didn't like losing the election for the White House to a man who considers slavery a sin. If that is fair justification for secession, than anytime the Federal government does anything unpopular, or a geographical section of the country loses an election, they have the right to revolt. The Civil War, as painful as it was, is one of America's greatest achievements in terms of the benefits from the Union's success.



Again, you can't defend this statement at all with any of my posts. I am not remotely compelled to whitewash American history - have you missed any of my rants against Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father whose ideology probably is closest to my own?

I can't for the life of me how you could have come to the conclusion that I am against teaching the flaws of our past leaders. Hell, I think I have said many times on this very forum that Lincoln was a (benevolent? - is that possible?) dictator.

There goes those fuzzy feelings. :dry:

You don't remember saying this?

Progressive ideology simply doesn't mesh with the vision of the Founders for the Country and that is why there has been a concerted attack on them from the left. That's why kids are taught that this country was merely the creation of hypocritical, white slave owners - ignoring the fact that the creation of America was the most important event in human history.

That is what spurred my initial reaction. You are purporting that right wing myth in that statement that left, progressives (and apparently all "statists") actively are trying to rewrite American history and discredit the Founders so as to support their socialist, statist agendas. I think that is bollocks, because you can teach the shortcomings of the Founders without discrediting their greatness or great achievements. And I don't think many have. There may be rare exceptions of a few far-left college professors saying that. But the notion that from elementary school through graduate school that any history studied has been revised by leftists to endorse socialism and by implication because of slavery (or the 3/5 Compromise) they are discrediting the Constitution in our students' "fragile little minds." Hence my several retorts.

[DACrowe]

GLENN BECK SAYS OBAMA'S DEAD MOTHER AND GRANDPARENTS WERE MARXISTS AND SURROUNDED BY THEM, "HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004060054

Joe McCarthy lives again.

[Marx]

SEAN HANNITY: 'WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE A PALIN/BACHMANN TICKET?'
ZGy8e7Gk_ak

:dry:

...words cannot truly express how terrifying I find that suggestion to be.

On the other hand, it would gurantee a second Obama term. (And I guess Bachmann has never heard of Geraldine Ferraro.)

[Paradoxium]

SEAN HANNITY: 'WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE A PALIN/BACHMANN TICKET?'
ZGy8e7Gk_ak

:dry:

...words cannot truly express how terrifying I find that suggestion to be.

On the other hand, it would gurantee a second Obama term. (And I guess Bachmann has never heard of Geraldine Ferraro.)Yes, because if Obama fails hard and the alternative is Fail Hard: With a Vengeance, the people might react differently than play along with the BS that is the Demopublican. That and to see the epic reaction of Feminists of the Left persuasion. Oh that alone would be worth it. Their furious rage would be the energy source to fight the energy crisis :awesome:

[Marx]

On one hand, it would gurantee a second Obama term. On the other hand, I find the overwhelming positive reaction to Hannity's question to be incredibly disturbing. The fact that anyone could cheer on these two in a bid for the White House is sickening.

[Paradoxium]

Well considering a chunk of the audience are probably partisans, they would cheer if it was a monkey with underpants on its head, as long as the monkey is a Republican.

[Marx]

Well considering a chunk of the audience are probably partisans, they would cheer if it was a monkey with underpants on its head, as long as the monkey is a Republican.

The Religious Right would be supportive of a Palin/Bachmann ticket...but I can't imagine the majority of the Republican Party being supportive of it.

[StorminNorman]

Um... free speach does not discern between the public and private sectors. That is not an argument.

Bill was not advocating removing Churchill's ability to speak, only that he should have been fired from Colorado - a public university. Free Speech does not protect you from consequences.

YrlV0lhfMac

You don't know what you are talking about. I don't know where you are getting your info from, but somebody is lying, and it's not me (and it's not funny at all).

I was not questioning the notion that Paul has a libertarian philosophy - I object to the notion that he is mere "posing as a Republican" as if such a philosophy cannot exist within the Republican Party.

The fact is that Ron Paul HAS been a life long Republican, and a proud one at that.

[dnno1]

Bill was not advocating removing Churchill's ability to speak, only that he should have been fired from Colorado - a public university. Free Speech does not protect you from consequences.

The fact remains that he criticized and attracted Churchill for his liberal views. He hasn't done that to people like Glen Beck or Ann Coulter (and they are conservatives).

I was not questioning the notion that Paul has a libertarian philosophy - I object to the notion that he is mere "posing as a Republican" as if such a philosophy cannot exist within the Republican Party. Heck, instead of getting on Lou Dobbs, he gave him a softball interview.

The fact is that Ron Paul HAS been a life long Republican, and a proud one at that.

You weren't questioning at all. You stated that Ron Paul was a Republican before and after he ran as a Libertarian, and I showed where he has stated that he is. The fact that you have libertarian philosophies should be a clue that one is actually a Libertarian. I am not convinced. I still contend to the notion that Ron Paul is a Libertarian posing as a Republican.

[Kelly]

IF PELOSI is out of the Speaker of the House position by the end of this year....then bring on Obama for another term...

ALL I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS, is Pelosi giving up that damn gavel. I'm not saying she can't be the rep from San Francisco, she represents them well, she is exactly what they want and deserve....but as Speaker of the House, she is craptastic.

[DACrowe]

Palin/Bachmann in 2012?

GO FOR IT!!

Have I ever steered you wrong before GOP? Run on "REPEAL" for 2010 and "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST/TERRORIST/MUSLIM/MEANIE" for 2012.

Yay!

[dnno1]

Bachman/Palin overdrive.

[Hobodeluxe]

FOX NEWS: WILL OBAMA NUKE DEAL LEAVE US HELPLESS?
3IFtZnnMyCg

:dry:

...and a mushroom cloud to boot. Stay classy, Fox News.

Jon Stewart had a good piece on this last night (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty)

[chaseter]

It is stupid to have enough nukes to destroy the world 10 times over. However, thinking that Russia is going to decrease their nukes while we decrease ours is extremely naive and extremely idiotic.

[Kelly]

I am all for a decrease in Nukes...what I don't understand was the reasoning behind putting forth to the world that we are taking Nukes off the table. They didn't need to know that....its not like we were going around the world twirling our nukes through our fingers as we discussed foreign policy.

[Marx]

I am all for a decrease in Nukes...what I don't understand was the reasoning behind putting forth to the world that we are taking Nukes off the table. They didn't need to know that....its not like we were going around the world twirling our nukes through our fingers as we discussed foreign policy.

I believe Obama has said that nukes are off the table when dealing with countries that do not have them. (With the most obvious exception to that being Iran.)

[Alex The Great]

FOX NEWS: WILL OBAMA NUKE DEAL LEAVE US HELPLESS?
3IFtZnnMyCg

:dry:

...and a mushroom cloud to boot. Stay classy, Fox News.
Didn't they read the ****ing bill?

I'm not gonna try to explain. John Stewert did it for me.
GLENN BECK SAYS OBAMA'S DEAD MOTHER AND GRANDPARENTS WERE MARXISTS AND SURROUNDED BY THEM, "HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004060054

Die Please!
SE 'WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE A PALIN/BACHMANN TICKET?'

No, I would not
IF PELOSI is out of the Speaker of the House position by the end of this year....then bring on Obama for another term...

ALL I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS, is Pelosi giving up that damn gavel. I'm not saying she can't be the rep from San Francisco, she represents them well, she is exactly what they want and deserve....but as Speaker of the House, she is craptastic.
All I want for christmas is for Pelosi to blink :o
Jon Stewart had a good piece on this last night (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty)
Yep, he kicked that ass
It is stupid to have enough nukes to destroy the world 10 times over. However, thinking that Russia is going to decrease their nukes while we decrease ours is extremely naive and extremely idiotic.
Ummm.....Russia is one of America's biggest allies. Hell, one of the most important. And other than the Georgia fiasco, Russia is no longer bat**** insane. And besides, Russia must comply, they know that the US can kick their sorry asses. America has already done it twice (Space Race, Cold War)



Oh and also, 3 nukes bombed Japan into sexual confusion. 1500 can do plenty :awesome:

[chaseter]

So we are best buddies with Russia? If they knew that we could kick their ass, why would they want to pull down their pants and bend over for us? Do you even realize the way our relationship with Russia works?

[Alex The Great]

So we are best buddies with Russia? If they knew that we could kick their ass, why would they want to pull down their pants and bend over for us? Do you even realize the way our relationship with Russia works?
That's how it goes for most countries, with you guys. Why else do we (Canada) "help" out on every ****ing war that goes down. We were reluctant to go with you guys on Iraq but we eventually came in after you all got pissed.


Yeah, I changed the subject, but whatever. I just want Fox News to go away :csad:

[chaseter]

I will guarantee you that Russia will not cut down on their nukes and programs as much as we do and as much as this administration hoped or thought they would.

Our relationship with Russia is currently an enemy of our enemy is our friend sort of deal. Russia doesn't trust us and for us to trust Russia is stupid. They aren't the UK. The UK and the US, now they are die hard buds.

[chaseter]

I will guarantee you that Russia will not cut down on their nukes and programs as much as we do and as much as this administration hoped or thought they would.

Our relationship with Russia is currently an enemy of our enemy is our friend sort of deal. Russia doesn't trust us and for us to trust Russia is stupid. They aren't the UK. The UK and the US, now they are die hard buds.

[dnno1]

I will guarantee you that Russia will not cut down on their nukes and programs as much as we do and as much as this administration hoped or thought they would.

Our relationship with Russia is currently an enemy of our enemy is our friend sort of deal. Russia doesn't trust us and for us to trust Russia is stupid. They aren't the UK. The UK and the US, now they are die hard buds.

This is from the U.S. Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3183.htm#relations):

U.S.-RUSSIA RELATIONS
The United States and Russia share common interests on a broad range of issues, including counterterrorism and the drastic reduction of our strategic arsenals. Russia shares our basic goal of stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. The Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, launched in 1992 to facilitate dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union, was renewed in 2006 until 2013. At the 2006 G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, the U.S. and Russia announced the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism to keep terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials. We are working with Russia to bring Iran's nuclear programs into compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rules and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737, 1747, and 1803. On North Korea, Russia is a participant in the Six-Party Talks aimed at the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Russia also takes part in the Middle East Peace Process "Quartet" (along with the UN and the EU). Russia now interacts with NATO members as an equal through the NATO-Russia Council but without veto power over NATO decisions. During the past several years, Russia has intensified its efforts to combat trafficking in persons. We are cooperating in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Despite this cooperation, there remain areas in which the U.S. and Russia disagree, including over Moscow’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and assertion of “privileged interests” in Eurasia. The Obama administration is seeking ways to improve our bilateral relations and enhance cooperation by focusing on areas of mutual interest, while managing areas of disagreement.

In addition to this, several major U.S. based corporations do busisness with the Russian Federation, and the International Space Station is currently being ressuplied by Russian made Soyuz spacecraft. I do not see how this could be possible if our relationship with Russia is as enemies. Furthermore, you self proclaimed guarantee that the Russians will not comply with the treaty is worthless at best. The previous START treaty, which expired last year, had a verification regime in place to ensure that both parties were in compliance. As of December 5 of last year (2009) the U.S. had performed 659 inspections (of Russian facilities) to Russia's 481 (of U.S. facilities). The current New START Treaty (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf) will implement a similar verification regime as the previous treaty (see Article X of the treaty). In conclusion, you're full of it.

If you havent noticed, the cold war has been over for more than 20 years now, and we have good relationships with the Russian Federation. It's time to wake up and start living in the present.

[Hobodeluxe]

One of Glenn Beck's proud patriots (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/09/2010-04-09_faults_fox_for_sons_pelosi_threats.html)

[chaseter]

This is from the U.S. Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3183.htm#relations):



In addition to this, several major U.S. based corporations do busisness with the Russian Federation, and the International Space Station is currently being ressuplied by Russian made Soyuz spacecraft. I do not see how this could be possible if our relationship with Russia is as enemies. Furthermore, you self proclaimed guarantee that the Russians will not comply with the treaty is worthless at best. The previous START treaty, which expired last year, had a verification regime in place to ensure that both parties were in compliance. As of December 5 of last year (2009) the U.S. had performed 659 inspections (of Russian facilities) to Russia's 481 (of U.S. facilities). The current New START Treaty (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf) will implement a similar verification regime as the previous treaty (see Article X of the treaty). In conclusion, you're full of it.

If you havent noticed, the cold war has been over for more than 20 years now, and we have good relationships with the Russian Federation. It's time to wake up and start living in the present.

Ohhh yes, post a quote from a US official. That proves that Russia is going to cut down on their arsenal and stop development of new nuclear weapons:whatever: That proves that they have our best interests at heart.:whatever: We have a better relationship with Russia, not a great one. Thank god you aren't Secretary of State, believing everything at face value. Also, the UN and NATO are probably two of the currently most useless organizations on this planet. The bad guys don't adhere to them while we still try to play by those rules. Lets give North Korea some more UN sanctions...that'll stop them:awesome::dry: Lets give Iran some UN sanctions!:awesome::dry:

It is time to start living in the present. Ya know, the present where you said no one in the middle or lower class would see a tax increase.:doh:

[DACrowe]

It is stupid to have enough nukes to destroy the world 10 times over. However, thinking that Russia is going to decrease their nukes while we decrease ours is extremely naive and extremely idiotic.

Ha. So, true. Only an idiot would sign a a treaty to decrease nuclear weapons concurrently with Russia. Only a real jackass, a complete schmuck would think that is a good idea. I guess Obama has to join these assclowns who did the same thing now.

http://meaningfuldistractions.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/richard-nixon4.jpg

http://www.fadedgiant.net/assets/images/reagan_ronald_photo_4_lrg.gif

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bpv/images/7/73/George_H_W_Bush.jpg

Look at that pantheon of liberal, lefty loons with their socialist agendas Obama is joining by signing nuclear reduction or restriction treaties with Russians! The only thing worse would have been if he had done it when they were Soviets, but nobody would be that stupid to...oh wait.


[note sarcasm]

[dnno1]

Ohhh yes, post a quote from a US official. That proves that Russia is going to cut down on their arsenal and stop development of new nuclear weapons:whatever: That proves that they have our best interests at heart.:whatever: We have a better relationship with Russia, not a great one. Thank god you aren't Secretary of State, believing everything at face value. Also, the UN and NATO are probably two of the currently most useless organizations on this planet. The bad guys don't adhere to them while we still try to play by those rules. Lets give North Korea some more UN sanctions...that'll stop them:awesome::dry: Lets give Iran some UN sanctions!:awesome::dry:

It is time to start living in the present. Ya know, the present where you said no one in the middle or lower class would see a tax increase.:doh:

These are the parties of whom the deal is with. Do you know of anyone else who would have better information? Look, I have worked with people who travel back and forth to Russia, and I have worked with Russians alongside me on projects. How can that be if we were enemies? Please stop the nonsense and talk what you know.

[AG1973]

We have (just the U.S.) enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet and all civilization 100-times over. How many more do we need? What is wrong with reducing stock-piles so that non-state actors can't get their hands on a nuke?

What is wrong with saying that we will not use nukes on non-nuclear states other than Iran or North Korea?

Why is working toward peace and reducing the number of nuclear weapons that can be used a bad thing?

[Superman]

We have (just the U.S.) enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet and all civilization 100-times over. How many more do we need? What is wrong with reducing stock-piles so that non-state actors can't get their hands on a nuke?

What is wrong with saying that we will not use nukes on non-nuclear states other than Iran or North Korea?

Why is working toward peace and reducing the number of nuclear weapons that can be used a bad thing?It has nothing to do with reducing the number of nuclear weapons, If a Republican president had been the one doing this you wouldn't hear a word from the Right.

This is all about Who is making the deal. The Right decided over a year ago that no matter what Obama did they was going to fight it. Even if it was something that they normally would agree with had it been a Republican president.

These people don't care about the country. All they care about is power and who has it.

[AG1973]

It has nothing to do with reducing the number of nuclear weapons, If a Republican president had been the one doing this you wouldn't hear a word from the Right.

This is all about Who is making the deal. The Right decided over a year ago that no matter what Obama did they was going to fight it. Even if it was something that they normally would agree with had it been a Republican president.

These people don't care about the country. All they care about is power and who has it.

Supes, You hit the nail on the head. I was hoping for a reasonable response from the right and an argument that was not based on just because Obama did it.

[chaseter]

Ha. So, true. Only an idiot would sign a a treaty to decrease nuclear weapons concurrently with Russia. Only a real jackass, a complete schmuck would think that is a good idea. I guess Obama has to join these assclowns who did the same thing now.


Look at that pantheon of liberal, lefty loons with their socialist agendas Obama is joining by signing nuclear reduction or restriction treaties with Russians! The only thing worse would have been if he had done it when they were Soviets, but nobody would be that stupid to...oh wait.


[note sarcasm]

So why do we need to keep signing treaties? What happened to all those lefty loons agreements with the Russians?

Treaties are fine, and us reducing nukes so that we don't have enough to destroy the Earth 100 times over is fine. But if you honestly believe that the Russians are going to follow the treaty agreement then you are naive. I would even bet you that we don't follow it to the 'T'. Every person has something in their back pocket. That is how you run a damn country. You don't live in a hippy world where everyone is friends and everybody trusts each other.

[chaseter]

It has nothing to do with reducing the number of nuclear weapons, If a Republican president had been the one doing this you wouldn't hear a word from the Right.

This is all about Who is making the deal. The Right decided over a year ago that no matter what Obama did they was going to fight it. Even if it was something that they normally would agree with had it been a Republican president.

These people don't care about the country. All they care about is power and who has it.

But we can blame Bush right:huh:

[Addendum]

Blame our ancestors for inventing government

[Kelly]

My early ancestors just ran around killing people...


The Celts are great story-tellers, great drinkers and great fighters - with a liking for single combat, after which the victor proudly displays the severed head of his opponent. Soon they begin to trouble their very different neighbours, the sober and disciplined Romans.
Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa84#ixzz0tQ2k102 n



But aside from that....this is a really good essay on Reagan's Policy on Nuclear Weapons.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/President-Reagans-Legacy-and-US-Nuclear-Weapons-Policy

[DACrowe]

So why do we need to keep signing treaties? What happened to all those lefty loons agreements with the Russians?

Treaties are fine, and us reducing nukes so that we don't have enough to destroy the Earth 100 times over is fine. But if you honestly believe that the Russians are going to follow the treaty agreement then you are naive. I would even bet you that we don't follow it to the 'T'. Every person has something in their back pocket. That is how you run a damn country. You don't live in a hippy world where everyone is friends and everybody trusts each other.

What happened? Well--um....they worked?


Nixon's Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Agreement of 1970 limited the number of strategic ballistic missile launchers to where they exist today and provided for a cap on construction of nuclear submarines built in that era. Many consider this the beginning of cooling the tensions between the two super powers during the Cold War and began the process that ended with the Berlin Wall falling. It was at least the talks that ended us from ever reaching a Cuban Missile Crisis-level fiasco again and is one of Nixon's greatest triumphs.


Jimmy Carter extended SALT under his administration. In 1982 Ronald Reagan proposed a SALT III, which eventually became START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). It fell through due to an arms race Reagan began, but once Gorbachev came to power, he came back to the table with Reagan. Reagan suggested to the Soviets that they concurrently disarm and dismantle ALL nuclear weapons. Gorbachev balked, but negotiations began again to dismantle at least 1/3 of weapons.

The treaty was ratified in 1991 under George Bush Sr.'s watch and it led to the dismantling of one-third of nuclear weapons at that point. We went from 2,200 nuclear warheads, until it finally ended last year, to 1,500 nuclear warheads each, while also limiting ICBM and nuclear submarines on both sides.

Obama's "New Start" is an extension by primarily lowering the amount of nuclear warheads from about 1,500 apiece to 1,000 each.

Where's the problem again?

I guess if this was a hippy commune, then Reagan must have been the king of the hippy in the 1980s, then.

[dnno1]

So why do we need to keep signing treaties? What happened to all those lefty loons agreements with the Russians?

Treaties are fine, and us reducing nukes so that we don't have enough to destroy the Earth 100 times over is fine. But if you honestly believe that the Russians are going to follow the treaty agreement then you are naive. I would even bet you that we don't follow it to the 'T'. Every person has something in their back pocket. That is how you run a damn country. You don't live in a hippy world where everyone is friends and everybody trusts each other.

Because the treaties are for a limited time. I would not doubt that the Russians would comply with this treaty because they have complied with the previous ones and thus there is no reason to belive that they wouldn't. This is not really about trust either since both countries will verify that each other is in compliance.

[Alex The Great]

^ leh snapz :awesome:

[Kelly]

What?

[dnno1]

But we can blame Bush right:huh:

For leading the country into a war based on a lie and (with the help of his fellow Republicans) almost destroying the world's economy, yes.

[Alex The Great]

What?
I was posting in regards to DA's post :o

[Superman]

Well once again Bill O'Reilly lied to his viewers 2 nights in a row....:whatever:


O'Reilly digs in, falsely claims Coburn didn't have his facts in line

For the second night in a row, Bill O'Reilly denied Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) accurate statement that Fox has pushed the falsehood that under the health care reform legislation individuals can be sent to jail for not having health insurance. Earlier in the day, Neil Cavuto contradicted O'Reilly, noting that "a number of Fox personalities had made that comment."

Even after Cavuto's comments, O'Reilly still falsely claiming Coburn was incorrect

O'Reilly: Coburn "didn't really have his facts in line." On the April 14 edition of his Fox News show, O'Reilly, falsely claimed that in his interview with Coburn the previous night, on his April 13 show, Coburn "didn't really have his facts in line," referring to O'Reilly's admonishment that Coburn doesn't "know anybody on Fox News -- because there hasn't been anyone -- that said people will go to jail if they don't buy mandatory insurance." O'Reilly also told Coburn on April 13: "[W]e researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody has ever said it. So it seems to me is what you did was you used Fox News as a whipping boy when we didn't qualify there. ... [Y]ou were wrong to do that, Senator, with all due respect."

Cavuto contradicted O'Reilly: "I've researched this, and a number of Fox personalities had made that comment." On the April 14 edition of Your World, Cavuto responded to Sen. Tom Coburn's criticism of Fox News by admitting to Coburn that regarding the jail-time falsehood: "You're quite right, I've researched this and a number of Fox personalities had made that comment."

Indeed, Fox has relentlessly pushed the jail-time falsehood. As Cavuto noted, several Fox News personalities made the claim. These personalities include Glenn Beck, Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, Andrew Napolitano, and Greta Van Susteren, as well as Fox News' website Fox Nation and a Fox & Friends on-screen caption.

Under reform law, no "criminal ... penalties" for failure to have health insurance coverage

JCT: "Non-compliance with" the insurance mandate "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties." The Joint Committee on Taxation stated in its analysis of the revenue provisions of the Senate health care reform bill and the health care reconciliation bill that "individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential [health insurance] coverage in 2016 are subject" to a fee, but that "[n]on-compliance" with that provision "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties."

Earlier versions of reform legislation provided for "criminal penalties" only for those who refused to pay the fee. Both the House and the Senate versions of health care reform required individuals to be covered by a minimum level of health insurance or pay a monetary penalty. A November 2009 letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation on the House health care bill stated that individuals who did not have such coverage and refused to pay the fine would be subject to "civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance." The committee's letter explains that the tax code provides penalties to prevent tax evasion of any sort: "The Code provides for both civil and criminal penalties to ensure complete and accurate reporting of tax liability and to discourage fraudulent attempts to defeat or evade tax." [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]


http://mediamatters.org/research/201004140083




Now I'm not a fan of "The Ed Show", I think he goes way over the top way to aften, But this is the only video I could find that shows the Fox "Personalities" saying that you would go to jail all in one place so...

XGuvD9uMWlU

Now explain to me again why people watch Bill O'Reilly or Fox "News" in general. :whatever:

[DACrowe]

Ha. I saw Bill-O's interview with Couburn and knew that had to be BS and waited for the video montages to start popping up. Thanks. I hope Stewart does something with this.

Bill O'Reilly caught bold-faced lying about the integrity of his network....again.

Some things never change. And Fox lying about its own propaganda is one of those unchanging things, truly.

[Marx]

'FOX & FRIENDS' COMPARES 'MUSLIM CRESCENT' IN NUCLEAR SUMMIT LOGO TO MUSLIM FLAGS (video included)
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004140003 (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004140003)

:facepalm:

[Ahura Mazda]

That is extremely stupid and maybe they should also look at the symbolism of an atom intead of trying to relate it to the crescent moon.

[Hobodeluxe]

cost is the best reason to destroy these weapons. it costs a lot of money to maintain these things and guard them.

[El_Citrus]

Jon Stewart did a great bit on Fox News' idiocy, comparing their logo with the diagonal spotlights to the Japanese Empire flag.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

A decrease in nukes is a bad idea; we're always going to be sticking our noses where they don't belong--like dogs do with peanut butter--and decreasing our nuke count is about the cruelest thing we could do. The reason is, without nukes there's no quick death. We'll meet our ends by bullet, blade or battlehammer. Or whatever our latest enemy utilizes.

So nukes offer a quicker, painless death from our enemies and to them. So they are more humane if you look at it from that perspective.

[Kelly]

I don't think the draw down of nukes is bad, but I think doing that at the same time that you are talking about taking nukes off of the table in foreign policy....was pretty dumb.

I'm glad for the draw down of nukes.

[chaseter]

Because the treaties are for a limited time. I would not doubt that the Russians would comply with this treaty because they have complied with the previous ones and thus there is no reason to belive that they wouldn't. This is not really about trust either since both countries will verify that each other is in compliance.
How smart is it to write a treaty of peace for a limited time. Genius right? Here is another odd thing about life...you can hide stuff:dry: Trust the government right? Put all your faith in the government right? We don't need inspectors, the Russians are clean cut.

^ leh snapz :awesome:

You didn't even know about taxation without representation...leh snapz:huh::o

[Nivek]

Daily Show vs. Bernie Goldberg & Fox News, part 2 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-20-2010/bernie-goldberg-fires-back)

I don't understand why they try to play a battle of wits with Jon. Or, even worse yet, mock the Daily Shows audience!

[chaseter]

I don't understand why either side wants to be childish and act that way. I respect John more than most of the hacks on Fox News but his little war against Fox is old and it is ruining his show.

[DACrowe]

Yeah I saw that last night on TDS. All I could think is, "Dang. Fox News just got bent over the table and took it from Jon....again."

I mean they really should be used to it. Fox is in such a wonderful position that anytime someone calls them out for their BS, hypocrisy or misinformation, they know most of their viewers will discredit the criticism if Bill-O or his ilk use the words "liberal media elite."

With that said, when it comes to a battle of wits, rhetoric or facts--every time they go up against Jon Stewart they come out looking like idiots to everyone else. The way it should be.

[Nivek]

Well, if Fox just dropped the "Fair and Balanced" angle, I'm sure they wouldn't be singled out as much. But who are we kidding, they will continue to be bias unless press/ media get's regulated.

[Kane52630]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=335957

[StorminNorman]

Well, if Fox just dropped the "Fair and Balanced" angle, I'm sure they wouldn't be singled out as much. But who are we kidding, they will continue to be bias unless press/ media get's regulated.

Yes, we can be sure that regulation would keep things unbiased.

SARCASM REACHING LEVELS OF 9000!

[chaseter]

Well, if Fox just dropped the "Fair and Balanced" angle, I'm sure they wouldn't be singled out as much. But who are we kidding, they will continue to be bias unless press/ media get's regulated.

And MSNBC's slogan is "Your Source for News." What's your point:huh: Their slogan for the 2008 Presidential election was: "The Power of Change." What does that say:huh:

[Hobodeluxe]

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb33/hobodeluxe/fc1ecd53.jpg

[Hobodeluxe]

And MSNBC's slogan is "Your Source for News." What's your point:huh: Their slogan for the 2008 Presidential election was: "The Power of Change." What does that say:huh:


it doesn't say Fair and Balanced. and MSNBC has several hours of conservative programming in the mornings. it doesn't go liberal until 5pm with the first running of Hardball. So even if they did say "fair and balanced" it would be far more truthful than Fox's claim.

You don't see MSNBC out promoting code pink or other leftist rallies either.

but go ahead and generalize. it doesn't require thinking.

p.s. I thought MSNBC's slogan was "your place for politics" ?

[chaseter]

Ahhh yes. 'Your Source for News' means anybody's source for news. Except for the fact that the source of news comes from a leftist perspective. And 'The Power of Change' has no meaning behind it.:dry: It goes liberal after 5pm. When do you think the vast majority of working people get home to watch the news?

And uhhhh they promote the DNC.

Fox News isn't hard right commentators 24/7. They have news shows as well.

I just love some of the extreme bias in here. Defend MSNBC but attack Fox News...tis hilarious.

[Marx]

Well, if Fox just dropped the "Fair and Balanced" angle, I'm sure they wouldn't be singled out as much. But who are we kidding, they will continue to be bias unless press/ media get's regulated.

It would certainly help if FOX News dropped 'Fair and Balanced'. They are anything but, and it is incredibly insulting to viewers to play yourself off that way.

[DACrowe]

As Jon Stewart says, even though there is a liberal bias in other medias (MSNBC being a bit extreme), Fox News is a way, way, too big overreaction to it.

NBC Nightly News, ABC News, CBS News and CNN arguably have a liberal viewpoint that they try to purge. Fox News is practically a propaganda network. MSNBC is almost as bad as Fox, but until MSNBC defends racism, violence and actually forms "Code Pink" rallies while having their daily news filled with as loaded questions and fear-mongering images as Megyn Kelly does, Fox still is the worst by far.

[Hobodeluxe]

the idea that everyone but Fox has a liberal slant is wrong.
it would be like me saying everyone right of MSNBC was right wing.
blanket generalizations are seldom correct.
and don't fool yourself Chaseter. Fox "news" is just as slanted as their commentary.
from what they decide to report on or not to the position their anchors take.

as for the conservative programming time slots early morning drivetime has a big viewership too.
people getting up and sending the kids to school,getting ready for work or those who work other shifts than the day shift.

then there's Fox's advocacy. The support candidates. Their hosts fund raise for them. The hosts push their PACS on their shows.


When Fox has a 5 hour block of liberal programming in the morning and you see Olbermann out on the stump with some candidates get back to me and we'll talk about balance.

[chaseter]

I know Fox News is slanted...I never said otherwise:dry:

Fox supports candidates but every single other media outlet across the nation supported Obama:o MSNBC had a raging ***** for Obama just as Fox had a raging one for Sarah Palin.

I am tired of hearing all this whining about Fox News. Don't watch them. They are biased you bet your ass. But there are plenty of liberal media outlets doing the exact same thing with pundits spouting off biased dribble as well.

So MSNBC has a 5 hour block of conservative programming in the morning?

[Marx]

The issue isn't that FOX News is incredibly slanted to the right. The issue is that they put everything through a Republican spin machine and hide behind a banner of 'fair and balanced'. If they dropped the 'fair and balanced' crap, they might be taken a little more seriously.

[Hobodeluxe]

I know Fox News is slanted...I never said otherwise:dry:

Fox supports candidates but every single other media outlet across the nation supported Obama:o MSNBC had a raging ***** for Obama just as Fox had a raging one for Sarah Palin.

I am tired of hearing all this whining about Fox News. Don't watch them. They are biased you bet your ass. But there are plenty of liberal media outlets doing the exact same thing with pundits spouting off biased dribble as well.

So MSNBC has a 5 hour block of conservative programming in the morning?


So which MSNBC hosts have political action committees?
Which have been campaigning with candidates at their rallies?
Which have charities set up that they make millions off of pushing certain political candidates?

you say they're the same prove it.

and yes MSNBC has conservatives on from 5:30am to 9am Morning Joe.
then they have Mrs. Alan Greenspan for an hour. so 4.5 hours. and Dylan Ratigan is more of a libertatian capitalist but believes in regulation.

[Alex The Great]

I loved John's response to Fox News. It was Pure 100% Concentrated Genius.



As usual, FOX News, one of the biggest news companies in the country, is beaten by a show on Comedy Network. As it should be :up:

[chaseter]

So it is bad to campaign at their rallies but you can publicly support them on your news show??? That damn Fox goes one step ahead again. I mean the people at those rallies probably never watched their tv show right?

[Hobodeluxe]

So it is bad to campaign at their rallies but you can publicly support them on your news show??? That damn Fox goes one step ahead again. I mean the people at those rallies probably never watched their tv show right?

yeah I think it's an order of magnitude difference to go out and actively campaign and raise money for them. (and yourself) and just having them on your show.


oh and did you see the latest example (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/21/fox-news-to-gibbs-does-bi_n_546803.html) of Fox news "hard news division" that they claim is separate from their opinion/activist division?

[DACrowe]

MEGYN KELLY TELLS HOWARD STERN SHE WOULD "F" BILL O'REILLY AND KILL GLENN BECK
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/megyn-kelly-on-howard-ste_n_544936.html

I saw Bill-O make a joke to Kelly when I flipped by tonight about Howard Stern. I was shocked to see this article when I googled it. The whole (long) interview is on youtube. I listened to a chunk of it. I think she is still a very unfair, biased journalist and she seems a bit...sorority-ish....but I listened to the chunk of the interview. She is pretty smart and classy and was a good sport with Howard Stern spending all of the time I listened fantasizing about her having sex. I still think she is too partisan to be a fair reporter, but she handled herself very well when she went into the broadcasting sewer.

With that said, yes he gave her the classy game "Marry one, **** one and kill one" with her choices being the big three on Fox News: Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

She chose Hannity for having the most money. And by default she seemed to choose Bill-O over Glenn to ****. At least Glenn got the axe. Irrelevant, but interesting and should create some tension behind the scenes at Fox (apparently, according to the interview she and Brit Hume were unfairly smeared by a co-worker in a scandal).

Is it me or is Fox News like a Greek house from the sounds of it? Oh well, it is entertaining.

[bell110]

Well, a couple of nights ago, I saw (not heard) on Glenn Beck, the banner asking why America can't unite like they did in the 60's. I wasn't around in the 60's, but weren't conservatives against the civil rights movement? And didn't they demonize the lazy liberal hippies that marched against the Vietnam war? I don't think the 60s are the best example of unity among Americans. Then again, he had Ted Nugent as a commentator, so I guess I'm hilariously out of touch.

[DACrowe]

Well they united against the hippy movement when they reelected Richard Nixon in 1972...otherwise I don't get it. The right was united in hatred of the left with its Civil Rights, Medicare and then liberal youth protests of government over the unjust Vietnam War. Protesting the war united the Southern racists with the rest of conservative America.

But likely Beck is just talking out of his arse, as usual.

[DACrowe]

Well they united against the hippy movement when they reelected Richard Nixon in 1972...otherwise I don't get it. The right was united in hatred of the left with its Civil Rights, Medicare and then liberal youth protests of government over the unjust Vietnam War. Protesting the war united the Southern racists with the rest of conservative America.

But likely Beck is just talking out of his arse, as usual.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

And MSNBC's slogan is "Your Source for News." What's your point:huh: Their slogan for the 2008 Presidential election was: "The Power of Change." What does that say:huh:

So "Fair and Balanced" doesn't mean anything? Maybe they mean they're network execs diet or something?

[bell110]

But that was the problem. His banner read why can't "America" be united like it was in the 60's. Plus he had someone from the civil rights movement on his panel, along with Ted Nugent. Because when I think about American unity, like everybody, I think the Damn Yankees.

[chaseter]

So "Fair and Balanced" doesn't mean anything? Maybe they mean they're network execs diet or something?

It does mean something, it means that Fox News and MSNBC are partisan hacks that spread misinformation to support a biased agenda. To continually whine in here about Fox News while watching MSNBC is incredibly moronic. To even stand by and defend MSNBC and complain about Fox is exponentially moronic.

[Addendum]

So is whining about TV channels. That's why you got a remote

[chaseter]

Well it seems some people can't quit watching Fox News as much as they hate it.

[Hobodeluxe]

It does mean something, it means that Fox News and MSNBC are partisan hacks that spread misinformation to support a biased agenda. To continually whine in here about Fox News while watching MSNBC is incredibly moronic. To even stand by and defend MSNBC and complain about Fox is exponentially moronic.

The corporate media wants to keep us divided. Fighting amongst ourselves instead of looking at the big picture. They don't want us to realize how they're selling us out. the only way they win is if we don't pay attention to them and keep fighting ourselves. We are too strong to be conquered from without before first being conquered from within.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

It does mean something, it means that Fox Newshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/#) and MSNBC are partisan hacks that spread misinformation to support a biased agenda. To continually whine in here about Fox News while watching MSNBC is incredibly moronic. To even stand by and defend MSNBC and complain about Fox is exponentially moronic.


What misinformation has MSNBC spread, though? Are you talking about the oppossing opinons at prime time? We've seen countless examples in this thread of "mistakes" on FOX NEWS' part. You want to defend Fox News and say they were honest mistakes? Fine, but I just haven't seen examples of the same thing happening on the other side. So, in that respect...no they are not the same. Fox News is alot bigger and gets alot more viewers, so doesn't more responsibility fall on they're lap? I don't really know, but that's an argument I've heard.

As for the "whiners" you yourself don't even need to get inside this thread to be annoyed by anyone. Feel free to get out, and not have your eyes hurt by these words.

[Hobodeluxe]

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb33/hobodeluxe/d91262ae.jpg

Another week, another handful of ethical scandals that should permanently sink Fox's claim of being a legitimate news organization.
To recap: Last week, they gave us twin scandals starring Fox News stalwarts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. "Furious" Fox News execs pulled (http://mediamatters.org/research/201004150087) Sean Hannity from his planned show filming/fundraiser for the Cincinnati Tea Party after numerous news veterans and watchdogs called foul (http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201004140052).
O'Reilly spent last week reminding us of his willful ignorance by repeatedly falsely asserting that "no one" on Fox promoted the falsehood that "jail time" was a penalty for not buying insurance under the health care reform bill. He was outrageously wrong (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004160081).
Though Howard Kurtz reported (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004180013) that Fox plans to "keep a tighter rein on Hannity and others" in the wake of the tea party scandal, we remain skeptical. Fox has a long history (http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/201004200034) of promising change in the wake of damaging ethics scandals, then failing to deliver on those promises.
Indeed, despite cancelling Hannity's tea party event, Fox News has yet to cancel a planned appearance (http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201004190040) by Fox Business host John Stossel at a paid event for a nonprofit organization with very close ties to the energy industry. If history is any indicator, Fox will hold its breath and hope that everyone forgets about the Stossel fundraiser.
Of course, this being Fox News, Stossel's planned fundraiser wasn't even the cable channel's biggest ethics scandal this week.
While a great deal of attention has deservedly been given to Rupert Murdoch's statement (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1 WzM4ytF48g) that Fox News "shouldn't be promoting the tea party," the rest of his comment -- "or any other party" -- is equally notable. So, how's Fox's supposedly frowned-upon promotion of that "other party" -- the GOP -- going? In a word: lucratively.
As we detailed last week, Fox News hosts and contributors have raised millions of dollars for Republican candidates and causes using (http://mediamatters.org/research/201004160056) PACs, 527s, and 501(c)(4) organizations.
In a follow-up report this week, we detailed the massive scope (http://mediamatters.org/research/201004210012) of Fox's fundraising for the GOP:
In recent years, at least twenty Fox News personalities have endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or causes, or against Democratic candidates or causes, in more than 300 instances and in at least 49 states. Republican parties and officials have routinely touted these personalities' affiliations with Fox News to sell and promote their events.
In their defense, they did miss Wyoming.
Were Fox an actual news organization that cared about journalistic standards, all of these ethics scandals would be excellent fodder for its weekly media criticism show, Fox News Watch. Unfortunately, as we noted (http://mediamatters.org/research/201004180019) last weekend, they ignored the O'Reilly and Hannity scandals in favor of such pressing stories as media coverage of the new Oprah bio. Forthcoming coverage of the Fox Newsers' fundraising seems unlikely.
Media Matters reporter and senior editor Joe Strupp pointed out (http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201004220032) that while Fox News Watch was once a source of legitimate media criticism, the show has increasingly transformed into yet another megaphone for GOP talking points. Strupp quoted former Fox News Watch host Eric Burns (no relation to Media Matters President Eric Burns) saying: "The show was getting to be more and more of a struggle to do fairly. There was a progression of interference to try to make the show more right-wing. I fought very hard against it."
As Media Matters President Eric Burns pointed out (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004210065) on MSNBC this week, "When you have a famed, well known Republican hitman -- Roger Ailes -- running a news network, this is what you're going to get."
Fox News has a slightly different take, however. As Fox News Watch put it in the promo for its segment (http://mediamatters.org/research/201004180019) on Ailes' new ratings high, "Fairness plus balance equals success."
Take note, CNN.

[Shifty]

But that was the problem. His banner read why can't "America" be united like it was in the 60's. Plus he had someone from the civil rights movement on his panel, along with Ted Nugent. Because when I think about American unity, like everybody, I think the Damn Yankees.

Same deal with Sean, Bill and Glenn wishing America went back to how it was when they were kids. All three decades, 50s to 70s, were still ****** and no better than today but when you're a boy everything seems fine.

[Kelly]

I liked the 70's....disco music sucked, but other than that....it was a good time.

[Addendum]

I liked the 70's....disco music sucked, but other than that....it was a good time.
Even though I was born in '78, I have to side with Jello

3_0ZipyHVcA

[Superman]

I liked the 70's....disco music sucked, but other than that....it was a good time.Best time of my life was in the 70s. :up:

[Superman]

Even though I was born in '78, I have to side with Jello

3_0ZipyHVcA78 was a great year, I turned 10 and Superman The Movie came out.:woot:

[Golgo-13]

Not really a Fox fan, but i watched Glenn Beck the other day out of mere curiosity; this guys paranoia is truly entertaining!

[Hobodeluxe]

heh this is funny. Glenn Beck stole Dave Foley's shtick. (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0430/glenn-beck-kids-hall/?success)

[ChrisBaleBatman]

It's pretty amazing to see the similiarties.

[Hobodeluxe]

Megan Kelly demonstrates how network censorship works. (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/megyn-kelly-gives-nice-demonstration)

[Superman]

Anyone see "Back In Black" on the Daily Show last night? Lewis Black ripped Beck a new one. It was funny as hell.:hehe:

[bell110]

Wow, that Megan Kelly thing was absurd. I loved the look on Josh Silver face. He looked so frustrated.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'm not sure if she was talking about net neutrality, or if that's just where the debate went...but her claim that nobody knows what net neutrality is seems strange to throw out there.

[Paradoxium]

The net neutrality schitck is incredibly misleading as a title. It's not neutral (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/murphy/why-net-neutralitys-not-neutral-at-all/1806) it's utter bulslhit. It's corporatism. This is why even someone like Ron Mr. Libertarian Paul is against it.

[Hobodeluxe]

The net neutrality schitck is incredibly misleading as a title. It's not neutral (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/murphy/why-net-neutralitys-not-neutral-at-all/1806) it's utter bulslhit. It's corporatism. This is why even someone like Ron Mr. Libertarian Paul is against it.

it does add a certain level of protection. it's not perfect. nothing is. especially laws. but it keeps ISPs from tiering the net. and of course some providers would have lower rates for their own services. this would push their subscribers into their parent media companies' other sites. the big fish would take over the net more then they have and if you wanted an alternative they'll make you pay for it.

take for example comcast. they would let you have access to the NBC Universal and MSNBC content cheap but if you wanted Fox news or CNN it might cost you a bit more per month.

[Paradoxium]

it does add a certain level of protection. it's not perfect. nothing is. especially laws. but it keeps ISPs from tiering the net. and of course some providers would have lower rates for their own services. this would push their subscribers into their parent media companies' other sites. the big fish would take over the net more then they have and if you wanted an alternative they'll make you pay for it.

take for example comcast. they would let you have access to the NBC Universal and MSNBC content cheap but if you wanted Fox news or CNN it might cost you a bit more per month.
Big fish?

If you study the monopolies that occur in this industry, it is a result of corporatist legislation/subsidies.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060523/1919258.shtml

Get rid of these "favors" then we talk, because I am pretty certain this would be unnecessary if this happens. But the government is too busy being corrupt. And why should anyone have any faith in corruption. My solution cuts at the root, this papers it and opens the door to all sorts of idiocy.

Less on what it intends to do and more what actually happens.

[Marx]

BRIT HUME: 'WHERE'S THE OIL?'
rpSi9Bqufq4

:dry:

[Superman]

BRIT HUME: 'WHERE'S THE OIL?'
rpSi9Bqufq4

:dry:That's it Brit, Act like Rush and defend the Oil Companies. What a tool. :whatever:

[Nivek]

My god, if it was any other network, I think the dullard would be shown the door.

[Kane52630]

BRIT HUME: 'WHERE'S THE OIL?'
rpSi9Bqufq4

:dry:

Oil? B**** you cookin? / Chappelle
:hehe::hehe:


I couldnt find a suitable thread for this so Ill put it here

Its been pissing me off and TYT got it right on the money
LqTicZ2UJYg

[Carcharodon]

BRIT HUME: 'WHERE'S THE OIL?'
rpSi9Bqufq4

:dry:This guy is either intentionally bending the truth or really has little to no understanding of what he's talking about.

While it's TRUE that under normal circumstances natural oil seeps are responsible for far more oil leakage than those caused by drilling activity (one reason I was a supporter of off-shore drilling), these events don't by any means constitute normal circumstances. This is a virtually unprecedented failure of the system, with consequences to match, and therefore his argument is childish and idiotic...at best.

**** this tool.

[Hobodeluxe]

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u199/mganczewski/FoxNewsFairAndBalanced2006.jpg

No slight too petty. (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005240010)

[Hobodeluxe]

The future of Fox news (http://www.theonion.com/video/semiliterate-former-gold-prospector-given-own-cabl,17408/)

[BlackLantern]

I still like the "Idiocracy" version of Fox News

[redfirebird2008]

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly got called out today by a Republican Congressman on the House floor. Hilarious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAAzcg0i5uw

The highlights of his rant:



"I don't know who the pinheaded weenie is at Fox News who decided to put that story together."
"I don't know what they're doing at Fox News but they should stop smoking it and get back to reporting the facts."

[Kelly]

Does anyone have a link to the bill that he is speaking of????? I'd like to read it for myself.

[redfirebird2008]

Does anyone have a link to the bill that he is speaking of????? I'd like to read it for myself.


No kidding. I actually think Fox was probably right on it, but at the same time I agree with his assessment of Kelly. She is a pinhead, but then again so are 99% of the pundits on TV. :oldrazz:

[chaseter]

HAHA he said weenie.

[redfirebird2008]

Glenn Beck is such a hypocritical douche.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005280025

[8wid]

Glenn Beck is such a hypocritical douche.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005280025

That's absolutely disgusting :barf:. Someone needs to make fun of his kids, and damn would they be excellent targets :awesome:.

[Alex The Great]

Glenn Beck is such a hypocritical douche.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005280025
Sick Bastard :down

[Kelly]

Glenn Beck is such a hypocritical douche.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005280025

I totally agree.....

Beck is a jerk...

But, I have to say that that part of Obama's little media bone was vomit inducing as well.

[redfirebird2008]

I totally agree.....

Beck is a jerk...

But, I have to say that that part of Obama's little media bone was vomit inducing as well.


Lame indeed. Nevertheless, Beck screams about never attacking politicians' kids and then turns around and pulls a Letterman/Palin scenario.

[Kelly]

Beck is a dumb ass, and not worth my time.

[redfirebird2008]

Beck has apologized.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/41247/

At least he realized it was stupid. And yes, he should have known better given his own preaching on this very issue. :p

[Addendum]

He's just sorry he got caught

[Marx]

Glenn Beck is such a hypocritical douche.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005280025

He grandstands about politicians' children being off limits...then he pulls this crap?

:facepalm:

He's just sorry he got caught

Pretty much.

[redfirebird2008]

He grandstands about politicians' children being off limits...then he pulls this crap?

:facepalm:





The grandstanding and smearjob were literally just a day apart. :doh:

And I agree that he's primarily just sorry about the controversy. From what I can tell, the skit was scripted. The fact that he did it just a day after going on a rant about leaving families out of politics is either a sign of a complete disconnect for him on a day-to-day basis or he simply was lying the first time around. You make a speech like that about leaving the kids alone, and then you script a pretty insulting skit directed at a politician's kid. There's no logic in it, as usual with Beck. :hehe:

[Oddzball]

This guy is either intentionally bending the truth or really has little to no understanding of what he's talking about.


**** this tool.

Well, I for one refuse to degrad fence posts chunks of rocks and potted plant IQs by comparing Mr. Hume's alleged intelligence to theirs.

[Oddzball]

Beck has apologized.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/41247/

At least he realized it was stupid. And yes, he should have known better given his own preaching on this very issue. :p

As Olbermann noted, Beck reiterated the charge while supposedly apologizing.

[Kelly]

OMG, Greta is going to be on 'This Week on ABC. A FOX NEWS PERSON on an ABC Sunday morning show........I'm shocked....lol

[Marx]

...should be interesting.

[Kelly]

It was an excellent discussion on the Arizona Immigration Law....there aren't many that can debate her on that, she probably has done more research on it, and knows more of the legalities of it than Greta. She did good, she's so respectful, it's really enjoyable to watch her debate, she's not snarky which is a nice change.

[Marx]

FOX NEWS HOST COMPARES HER JOB TO THE PRESIDENCY
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/gretchen-carlson-compares_n_624093.html

:lmao:

[StorminNorman]

Doucey is the only one with any intelligent on Fox and Friends. Brian means well, and is a really nice guy - he let my brother interview him for a school project - but he's not all that bright. It amazes me that Gretchen has the intelligence to get to work every morning.

[Dr. Evil]

Jane Skinner, the wife of NFL Commissioner Roger Goddell has left Fox News.

[Marx]

Doucey is the only one with any intelligent on Fox and Friends. Brian means well, and is a really nice guy - he let my brother interview him for a school project - but he's not all that bright. It amazes me that Gretchen has the intelligence to get to work every morning.

:oldrazz:

[Heretic]

That's too bad...

It did seem that Skinner was being phased down the rankings of news babes for some reason. I thought she was better than most of their cast...

[Dr. Evil]

That's too bad...

It did seem that Skinner was being phased down the rankings of news babes for some reason. I thought she was better than most of their cast...

She left citing family reasons:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jane-skinner-leaving-fox-news-ive-decided-to-take-a-break-from-this-business/

[Heretic]

The loss of Skinner just means that Fox will not start scouting for her replacement at various Hawaiian Tropic pageants around the country.

[Kelly]

The loss of Skinner just means that Fox will not start scouting for her replacement at various Hawaiian Tropic pageants around the country.


Wow, those women have Political Science degrees from Syracuse, law degrees from Albany, Juris Doctorate with honors from Florida State University College of Law, Honors graduates from Stanford, and Oxford College, Law professors, Rhodes Scholars?....damn I am impressed with that pageant....I wouldn't have imagined.

[Dr. Evil]

Well, when Jane's husband is the commissioner of the number one professional sports league in the United States, somebody's going to have to stay home and watch the kids. This is a smart decision for her.

[Heretic]

Wow, those women have Political Science degrees from Syracuse, law degrees from Albany, Juris Doctorate with honors from Florida State University College of Law, Honors graduates from Stanford, and Oxford College, Law professors, Rhodes Scholars?....damn I am impressed with that pageant....I wouldn't have imagined.

More trolling??? Do you ever get sick of violating this sites rules, or is this just a temporary thing??

And by the way...I was clearing joking. I get harassed in one thread for being a Fox News shill that never says anything bad about them, and trolled in another for making a joke about them having hot chicks as anchors. The least you guys could do is pick ONE incorrect thing to accuse me of.

besides...I never said that Fox News anchors were not educated...merely that Skinner's replacement would be. You took offense to that and argued a point for women I was not even talking about.

Your obsession with trolling me is rather stupid. You should seek help.

[Kelly]

Fox News thread, I just sited the degrees of the female Fox reporters and news anchors. Is that not on topic? I think it is...

[Heretic]

Fox News thread, I just sited the degrees of the female Fox reporters and news anchors. Is that not on topic? I think it is...

The topic you were responding to was Jane Skinner's replacement. Your response was to cite the accomplishments of women NOT replacing Jane Skinner.

So, your post's only purpose was to go after me...unless you think that Fox News will fire one of their current employees only to rehire them immediately...in which case they would be replacing themselves, not Skinner.

[Matt]

Get over yourself. Kel is the last person who would troll.

[Kelly]

No, actually it was to make the point that their history of hiring shows women of excellent education, therefore MY opinion is they will continue in that vein of education....

[Heretic]

They also tend to hire hot chicks...hence my joke.

I know...my humor is revolutionary, and no one has ever realized that Fox and other networks hire attractive women to report the news...but it is groundbreaking realizations like this that make me so valuable here.

[Kelly]

And we are so thankful.....truly.

[Hobodeluxe]

Well you know being a Fox News Host is JUST LIKE being the president. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-23-2010/mcchrystal-s-balls---honorable-discharge)

[Kelly]

FOX NEWS HOST COMPARES HER JOB TO THE PRESIDENCY
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/gretchen-carlson-compares_n_624093.html

:lmao:

Well you know being a Fox News Host is JUST LIKE being the president. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-23-2010/mcchrystal-s-balls---honorable-discharge)


You slow Joe.....:cwink:

[Kelly]

Get over yourself. Kel is the last person who would troll.


No, I think I trolled back in '75 one time.:cwink:

[Marx]

Well you know being a Fox News Host is JUST LIKE being the president. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-23-2010/mcchrystal-s-balls---honorable-discharge)

Welcome to the conversation Hobo. :oldrazz:

[Hobodeluxe]

Doucey is the only one with any intelligent on Fox and Friends. Brian means well, and is a really nice guy - he let my brother interview him for a school project - but he's not all that bright. It amazes me that Gretchen has the intelligence to get to work every morning.


bwahaha. Those hosts share a brain like the Stygian witches share an eye.

[Hobodeluxe]

Welcome to the conversation Hobo. :oldrazz:

ah I didn't go back a page or so to get caught up. my bad.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb33/hobodeluxe/35fb6bc4.jpg


I think Brian is taking this whole teabagging thing too literally. He must have had Gretchen Google it.

[Marx]

FOX NEWS' KILMEADE WONDERS WHAT ROBOTS ARE THINKING AND WHAT IS TAKING OBAMA SO LONG TO PLUG THE OIL LEAK
vpeY3069Ia8

:dry:

[imdaly]

Apparently sarcasm isn't one of your strong points.

[Marx]

Was he being sarcastic on both points? It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he were completely serious.

[Kelly]

I know that some like myself cannot stand Glenn Beck, but I have to applaud him on his show Friday. I've been watching his Friday shows because they have been centered on our Founding Fathers, and I was interested to hear the professors and historians that he has as guests. This past Friday was solely on the impact of the black population in the 13 colonies and the founding of our nation. It was very well done, and very interesting.


1kTo8HZ_z4Y Part 1

U1FqR0Buvv4 Part 2

N4WjL_RdLB8 Part 3

wBHggGjcUDA& Part 4

I would encourage anyone to put aside any bias, disgust, hate, whatever...lol that you may have against Beck, and take a look at the videos I've placed above.

[Marx]

MIKE HUCKABEE TO GET ANOTHER SHOW
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/01/the-huckabee-show-mike-hu_n_632414.html

[Kelly]

Dear lord his show is so freaking boring....and then when he gets that band with him, its embarrassing. He's also really putting the weight back on.....I watched the other night when he had Raquel Welch on, and damn he's headed right back where he began.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/07/01/new-wonder-woman-loses-patriotic-costume/#


New Wonder Woman Loses Patriotic Costume in Favor of 'Globalized' Duds


****in' aye...

[Matt]

I always found it strange that ancient Amazonian armor would be decorated like the American flag.

[StorminNorman]

Well America has been the closest thing to the Justice League since WWII, so it kinda makes sense.

[Hobodeluxe]

wtg Fox. (http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/07/01/arlington_police_investigate_threats_over_pledge_v ote/)

[Hobodeluxe]

Well America has been the closest thing to the Justice League since WWII, so it kinda makes sense.

heh. really? what wars have we "won" since then? Stalemate in Korea.
Defeat in Nam. We blew the Cuba invasion. Iraq and Afghanistan will not be considered as successes I don't think considering the goals achieved. We simply installed puppet regimes that will be very expensive to keep propped up and what does the American taxpayer benefit?

We funded death squads in central and so America. We funded and trained bin Laden in his early career. We sold junk all over the world causing a huge financial crisis.

We turned our back on the holocaust in Africa.

JLA? yeah right. More like the Watchmen.

[bell110]

I love the comments section of that story.

[Carcharodon]

Well America has been the closest thing to the Justice League since WWII, so it kinda makes sense.From here on out I'm going to start calling you "Stretch Armstrong."

[StorminNorman]

How am I being facetious? Was the Justice League not guilty of many sins while also being the greatest source of justice in the world?

[Hobodeluxe]

How am I being facetious? Was the Justice League not guilty of many sins while also being the greatest source of justice in the world?

maybe the Max Lord headed JLA. Other than during his tenure the JLA was always honorable in their actions. with some possible collateral damage.

But the US military too often has had civilian leaders and top brass with agendas. Mostly making money for the contractors that pay them a lot of money to do their bidding. Is there anyone here that doesn't believe the oil men and military contractors running things for a decade didn't land us where we're at today?

[Carcharodon]

How am I being facetious?Nobody said you were. :huh:

Was the Justice League not guilty of many sins while also being the greatest source of justice in the world?It's cute that you consider America to be the "greatest source of justice in the world". If it is, that isn't saying much for the world.

[Hobgoblin]

Glenn Beck Fakes Crying with Vicks?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8CELJn_wlY

To be fair, he's doing it for a photoshoot, not for his show. Still, who is to say he doesnt do it for his show?

[imdaly]

Glenn Beck Fakes Crying with Vicks?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8CELJn_wlY

To be fair, he's doing it for a photoshoot, not for his show. Still, who is to say he doesnt do it for his show?

Well I suppose that if he was able to cry on que on his show he wouldn't need Vicks to cry for a photoshop...

[Kelly]

Nah, Its pretty obvious when he's pretending and when he's not. There are a lot of reasons to bash Beck, this isn't one of them.

The reason he is so scary is because he truly believes what he is saying.

I have to say though, I've enjoyed the historians he has had on on his Friday shows. They've been very interesting.

[Hobodeluxe]

Nah, Its pretty obvious when he's pretending and when he's not. There are a lot of reasons to bash Beck, this isn't one of them.

The reason he is so scary is because he truly believes what he is saying.

I have to say though, I've enjoyed the historians he has had on on his Friday shows. They've been very interesting.

it's propaganda. he wanted people to think he needed Vicks to tear up.
so that when he does it on his show they think he's sincere.

[Kelly]

uh, yeah...ok.

[bell110]

Nah, Its pretty obvious when he's pretending and when he's not. There are a lot of reasons to bash Beck, this isn't one of them.

The reason he is so scary is because he truly believes what he is saying.

I have to say though, I've enjoyed the historians he has had on on his Friday shows. They've been very interesting.

I wish he had historians with opposing views.

[Hobgoblin]

Beck at it again.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017307014




Topics: Celebrity Buzz, Television
Anne Lu - Celebrity News Service News Writer

Los Angeles, CA (CNS) - Hindu groups are still seething over Glenn Beck's disparaging remarks about India's River Ganges. Although the political commentator has already apologized, upset Hindus are still pursuing their complaint to the Federal Communications Commissions.

Last week, on his Fox News opinion show, the commentator said that the South Asian nation's sacred river sounds like a disease.

He said, "One big river they have there, that sounds like a disease. Come on it does. I mean if somebody said, I am sorry, you have a really bad case of Ganges."

He also took aim at India's healthcare system, saying healthcare there costs a lot cheaper than in the U.S. because the money from medical fees go to doctors who studied at Harvard rather than "Gajra Raja medical school."

He offered a passing apology this week, saying, "By the way, the name of the river in India, Ganges, I said last week that it sounded like a disease, did not mean to offend anybody."

There was no formal statement or press release from Fox News or its parent News Corporation regarding Beck's remarks.

Bhavna Shinde of Forum for Hindu Awakening has filed a formal complaint to the FCC against Fox News and News Corporation for Beck's comments, which they believe denigrated their religion.

The American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI) said they are disappointed with Beck's "careless reference" to the quality of Indian medical schools.

USINPAC (US-India Political Action Committee) chairman Sanjay Puri also condemned the conservative political commentator's "derogatory comments." He said Beck ridiculed India's heritage and mocked their medical education system in a bid to "advance his view on domestic health reform."

Meanwhile, Universal Society of Hinduism president Rajan Zed urges Fox News and News Corporation to release a formal statement on the matter and put in policies and procedures in place to assure this kind of "denigration" would not happen anymore.

[Superman]

I'm not sure where this should go but since Fox was just as guilty of spinning this lie as Andrew Breitbart I guess I'll post it here...



USDA reconsiders employee ouster over race remarks

WASHINGTON – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday he will reconsider the department's decision to oust a black employee over racially tinged remarks after learning more about what she said.

Vilsack issued a short statement early Wednesday morning after Shirley Sherrod, who until Tuesday was the Agriculture Department's director of rural development in Georgia, said she was pressured to resign because of her comments that she didn't give a white farmer as much help as she could have 24 years ago.

Sherrod said her remarks, delivered in March at a local NAACP banquet in Georgia, were part of a larger story about learning from her mistakes and racial reconciliation, not racism, and they were taken out of context by a blogger who posted only part of her speech.

Vilsack's statement came after the NAACP posted the full video of Sherrod's comments Tuesday night.

"I am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner," Vilsack said.

The Obama administration's move to reconsider her employment was an absolute reversal from hours earlier, when a White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said President Barack Obama had been briefed on Sherrod's resignation after the fact and stood by the Agriculture Department's handling of it.

But growing calls for the administration to reconsider the decision put pressure on Vilsack, who stressed that the decision to ask for her resignation was his alone.

The NAACP, which initially condemned Sherrod's remarks and supported her ouster, later said she should keep her job. The civil rights group said it and millions of others were duped by the conservative website that posted partial video of her speech on Monday.

The white farming family that was the subject of the story also stood by Sherrod and said she should stay.

"We probably wouldn't have (our farm) today if it hadn't been for her leading us in the right direction," said Eloise Spooner, the wife of farmer Roger Spooner of Iron City, Ga. "I wish she could get her job back because she was good to us, I tell you."

As Sherrod reached out to media to plead her case and more people came to her defense, the administration faced criticism that officials nervous about racial perceptions overreacted to her comments and made her a political sacrifice amid dueling allegations of racism between the NAACP and the tea party movement.

In the clip posted on BigGovernment.com, Sherrod described the first time a white farmer came to her for help. It was 1986, and she worked for a nonprofit rural farm aid group. She said the farmer came in acting "superior" to her and she debated how much help to give him.

"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with helping a white person save their land," Sherrod said.

Initially, she said, "I didn't give him the full force of what I could do" and only gave him enough help to keep his case progressing. Eventually, she said, his situation "opened my eyes" that whites were struggling just like blacks, and helping farmers wasn't so much about race but was "about the poor versus those who have."

The two-minute, 38-second clip posted Monday by BigGovernment.com was presented as evidence that the NAACP was hypocritical in its recent resolution condemning what it calls racist elements of the tea party movement. The website's owner, Andrew Breitbart, said the video shows the civil rights group condoning the same kind of racism it says it wants to erase. Biggovernment.com is the same outfit that gained fame last year after airing video of workers at the community group ACORN counseling actors posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend.

In his original statement on the matter Tuesday morning, Vilsack said he had accepted Sherrod's resignation and stressed that the department had "zero tolerance for discrimination." Later in the day, after Sherrod spoke to the media about the intention of her comments, Vilsack sent out a second statement that said the controversy surrounding Sherrod's comments could, rightly or wrongly, cause people to question her decisions as a federal employee and lead to lingering doubts about civil rights at the agency, which has a troubled history of discrimination.

Sherrod said officials showed no interest in listening to her explanation when she was asked to resign. She said she was on the road Monday when USDA deputy undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her and told her to pull over and submit her resignation on her Blackberry because the White House wanted her out.

"It hurts me that they didn't even try to attempt to see what is happening here, they didn't care," Sherrod said. "I'm not a racist. ... Anyone who knows me knows that I'm for fairness."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_usda_racism_resignation;_ylt=Ah039M.HmQNWvHneQS GRLsCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTN1NXIwczYzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMT AwNzIxL3VzX3VzZGFfcmFjaXNtX3Jlc2lnbmF0aW9uBGNjb2Rl A21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNARwb3MDMQRwdANob21lX2Nva2 UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA3VzZGFyZWNvbnNp ZA--


The White House should have known better than to trust that a Right Wing blogger or Fox would tell the truth about anything. This woman should not have been fired and she should get her job back.

[Marx]

Considering the tape was intentionally edited to look like something it wasn't...

[Soundwave]

Yet more cowardice by the Obama administration. Very disappointing. :csad:

[Hobodeluxe]

Murdoch ,Ailes and Beck almost added some more liberal notches to their gun the other day.

You just can't go pushing people's buttons the way they do. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/20/886030/-I-was-right-about-the-would-be-cop-killer-and-FOX-News)

[Superman]

White House apologizes to ousted Ag worker
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_usda_racism_resignation;_ylt=AuDludbsi9kug5g4Ra bQKXCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNxanZnbXQwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMT AwNzIxL3VzX3VzZGFfcmFjaXNtX3Jlc2lnbmF0aW9uBGNjb2Rl A21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNwRwdANob21lX2Nva2 UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDd2hpdGVob3VzZWFw

[imdaly]

I'm not sure where this should go but since Fox was just as guilty of spinning this lie as Andrew Breitbart I guess I'll post it here...



USDA reconsiders employee ouster over race remarks

WASHINGTON – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday he will reconsider the department's decision to oust a black employee over racially tinged remarks after learning more about what she said.

Vilsack issued a short statement early Wednesday morning after Shirley Sherrod, who until Tuesday was the Agriculture Department's director of rural development in Georgia, said she was pressured to resign because of her comments that she didn't give a white farmer as much help as she could have 24 years ago.

Sherrod said her remarks, delivered in March at a local NAACP banquet in Georgia, were part of a larger story about learning from her mistakes and racial reconciliation, not racism, and they were taken out of context by a blogger who posted only part of her speech.

Vilsack's statement came after the NAACP posted the full video of Sherrod's comments Tuesday night.

"I am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner," Vilsack said.

The Obama administration's move to reconsider her employment was an absolute reversal from hours earlier, when a White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said President Barack Obama had been briefed on Sherrod's resignation after the fact and stood by the Agriculture Department's handling of it.

But growing calls for the administration to reconsider the decision put pressure on Vilsack, who stressed that the decision to ask for her resignation was his alone.

The NAACP, which initially condemned Sherrod's remarks and supported her ouster, later said she should keep her job. The civil rights group said it and millions of others were duped by the conservative website that posted partial video of her speech on Monday.

The white farming family that was the subject of the story also stood by Sherrod and said she should stay.

"We probably wouldn't have (our farm) today if it hadn't been for her leading us in the right direction," said Eloise Spooner, the wife of farmer Roger Spooner of Iron City, Ga. "I wish she could get her job back because she was good to us, I tell you."

As Sherrod reached out to media to plead her case and more people came to her defense, the administration faced criticism that officials nervous about racial perceptions overreacted to her comments and made her a political sacrifice amid dueling allegations of racism between the NAACP and the tea party movement.

In the clip posted on BigGovernment.com, Sherrod described the first time a white farmer came to her for help. It was 1986, and she worked for a nonprofit rural farm aid group. She said the farmer came in acting "superior" to her and she debated how much help to give him.

"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with helping a white person save their land," Sherrod said.

Initially, she said, "I didn't give him the full force of what I could do" and only gave him enough help to keep his case progressing. Eventually, she said, his situation "opened my eyes" that whites were struggling just like blacks, and helping farmers wasn't so much about race but was "about the poor versus those who have."

The two-minute, 38-second clip posted Monday by BigGovernment.com was presented as evidence that the NAACP was hypocritical in its recent resolution condemning what it calls racist elements of the tea party movement. The website's owner, Andrew Breitbart, said the video shows the civil rights group condoning the same kind of racism it says it wants to erase. Biggovernment.com is the same outfit that gained fame last year after airing video of workers at the community group ACORN counseling actors posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend.

In his original statement on the matter Tuesday morning, Vilsack said he had accepted Sherrod's resignation and stressed that the department had "zero tolerance for discrimination." Later in the day, after Sherrod spoke to the media about the intention of her comments, Vilsack sent out a second statement that said the controversy surrounding Sherrod's comments could, rightly or wrongly, cause people to question her decisions as a federal employee and lead to lingering doubts about civil rights at the agency, which has a troubled history of discrimination.

Sherrod said officials showed no interest in listening to her explanation when she was asked to resign. She said she was on the road Monday when USDA deputy undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her and told her to pull over and submit her resignation on her Blackberry because the White House wanted her out.

"It hurts me that they didn't even try to attempt to see what is happening here, they didn't care," Sherrod said. "I'm not a racist. ... Anyone who knows me knows that I'm for fairness."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_usda_racism_resignation;_ylt=Ah039M.HmQNWvHneQS GRLsCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTN1NXIwczYzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMT AwNzIxL3VzX3VzZGFfcmFjaXNtX3Jlc2lnbmF0aW9uBGNjb2Rl A21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNARwb3MDMQRwdANob21lX2Nva2 UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA3VzZGFyZWNvbnNp ZA--


The White House should have known better than to trust that a Right Wing blogger or Fox would tell the truth about anything. This woman should not have been fired and she should get her job back.


48e7lY2VJwA

[Superman]

Nevermind...

[Marx]

I'm sorry...but I only got as far as 'I want to show you two words that make all the difference in the world...Glenn Beck...hmm'.

[imdaly]

I'm sorry...but I only got as far as 'I want to show you two words that make all the difference in the world...Glenn Beck...hmm'.

The irony of you judging this video by only a snippet of what the person says and ignoring what comes immediately afterwards is not lost on me.

[Marx]

The irony of you judging this video by only a snippet of what the person says and ignoring what comes immediately afterwards is not lost on me.

The irony of you seemingly painting me as all of those who prematurely called for Sherrod's dismissal when I never even commented on it until after the whole tape was released is not lost on me either. :cwink:

[Paradoxium]

I heard around the blogosphere, Beck was defending Sherrod. That said I am not wasting 10 minutes worth of video bandwidth.

[Marx]

I heard around the blogosphere, Beck was defending Sherrod. That said I am not wasting 10 minutes worth of video bandwidth.

Yeah, that's my understanding as well. I just can't stomach Glenn Beck.

[Kelly]

Yeah he did...it was stupid for EVERYONE, the Administration, Fox, and others that went with this story to not watch the entire video, but the biggest idiots are the NAACP who had the entire video the entire time and STILL called for her firing, and THEN blamed their mistake on Fox News. *sighs*

[Hobodeluxe]

while the administration is to blame. and believe me this is not the first time they've reacted in knee-jerk fashion trying to push back against the right wing media's projection that Obama is a racist. it's no excuse for Breitbart,Fox News and the rest for not doing their jobs as responsible journalists.

Oh wait. They're not responsible journalists. They're partisan political operatives who just happen to have a cable network to push their agenda. Which in this case is the tried and true Southern Strategy they've been using since the late 60's. And that is to scare whitey. To convince him that the black people are coming to take your stuff.

Fox News presents: Negrophobia (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/38353636#38353636)

[Superman]

Yeah he did...it was stupid for EVERYONE, the Administration, Fox, and others that went with this story to not watch the entire video, but the biggest idiots are the NAACP who had the entire video the entire time and STILL called for her firing, and THEN blamed their mistake on Fox News. *sighs*How do you know the NAACP had the video the whole time?

[Marx]

Yeah he did...it was stupid for EVERYONE, the Administration, Fox, and others that went with this story to not watch the entire video, but the biggest idiots are the NAACP who had the entire video the entire time and STILL called for her firing, and THEN blamed their mistake on Fox News. *sighs*

How do you know the NAACP had the video the whole time?

I heard that they did as well.

[StorminNorman]

How do you know the NAACP had the video the whole time?

Because it was an NAACP event.

What's even more interesting is the fact that Sherrod made several other statements that were either A. Guilty of demonstrating racist sentiments and B. Partisan comments unfitting of a Federal employee - and no one in the media (outside of select people, like O'Reilly - who did apologize) seem to care.

This is the equivalent of apologizing to a man who just stole a tv because you arrested him for auto theft.

[Kelly]

And I didn't understand the big uproar over O'Reilly, his coverage that night was about 30 seconds long. He spent more time on it apologizing than he did covering it in the first place.

[Kelly]

How do you know the NAACP had the video the whole time?

It was an NAACP event in that city and they (that chapter of the NAACP) are the ones that taped it.

Source: NPR (Heard on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:22 p.m., as I was driving home on I 10 East in Houston, Texas)

[Superman]

It was an NAACP event in that city and they (that chapter of the NAACP) are the ones that taped it.

Source: NPR (Heard on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:22 p.m., as I was driving home on I 10 East in Houston, Texas)You know, Come to think of it you're right, It was a NAACP meeting wasn't it.

Good catch.:up:

[Kelly]

Well, every once in awhile my glove hits the ball. lol

[Hobodeluxe]

You know, Come to think of it you're right, It was a NAACP meeting wasn't it.

Good catch.:up:

it was not edited by the NAACP though. that was Breitbart and his minions.

[Marx]

Breitbart has yet to publicly apologize. :down

[dnno1]

And I didn't understand the big uproar over O'Reilly, his coverage that night was about 30 seconds long. He spent more time on it apologizing than he did covering it in the first place.

4myDujeRuTg

It might have only taken him about 30 seconds to appologize but the several minutes afterward where he went after her again is what the uproar is all about.

[Alastor]

Well, he gets better ratings than shows on MSNBC, so who cares right?

[Superman]

Well, he gets better ratings than shows on MSNBC, so who cares right?Ratings don't make him right.

[Kelly]

it was not edited by the NAACP though. that was Breitbart and his minions.

Oh, I'm not excusing what Breitbart did, but the fact that the NAACP WAS THERE, and HAD THE ACTUAL VIDEO, and they still allowed their spokesperson to call for her firing is just stupid, and then blame Fox, is even more stupid.

You can't slam Fox for pushing the Tea Party agenda, and tell people they are pretty much Satan and then blame them because all you used as your source was 30 seconds on Bill O'Reilly to make your decision to go on the media and give your ok for the firing of someone that should not have been fired, when YOU YOURSELF HAVE THE EVIDENCE in your hands.

That is pure stupidity.

Everyone already knows what Breitbart has done in the past, Fox was stupid, right along with the NAACP, but the difference between the 2 is that the ONLY SOURCE that Fox had was Bretbart's version of the video, the NAACP had the ACTUAL version of the video, yet came to the same conclusion that Fox did.......so who is MORE STUPID. Hell the NAACP should be apologizing all over the place. As far as Breibart apologizing? yeah right....

[Marx]

Ratings don't make him right.

Exactly.

Oh, I'm not excusing what Breitbart did, but the fact that the NAACP WAS THERE, and HAD THE ACTUAL VIDEO, and they still allowed their spokesperson to call for her firing is just stupid, and then blame Fox, is even more stupid.

You can't slam Fox for pushing the Tea Party agenda, and tell people they are pretty much Satan and then blame them because all you used as your source was 30 seconds on Bill O'Reilly to make your decision to go on the media and give your ok for the firing of someone that should not have been fired, when YOU YOURSELF HAVE THE EVIDENCE in your hands.

That is pure stupidity.

Everyone already knows what Breitbart has done in the past, Fox was stupid, right along with the NAACP, but the difference between the 2 is that the ONLY SOURCE that Fox had was Bretbart's version of the video, the NAACP had the ACTUAL version of the video, yet came to the same conclusion that Fox did.......so who is MORE STUPID. Hell the NAACP should be apologizing all over the place. As far as Breibart apologizing? yeah right....

When they falsely parade around under the guise of 'fair and balanced' when they are anything but, yes I can. They should act more like a news organization, not a propaganda machine.