Having spent almost 2 years in Iraq, it is my opinion that we are better off for having been there.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
<<< Fox is the Republican outlet >>>[/quote]
This is just not true in the news segments. They have comprehensively covered every single story damaging to the GOP and every single one potentially helpful to Democrats. Every single viewpoint from left to right is actively sought and aired by FOX on every issue. That’s just the way it is. Yes their opinion shows are conservative, but their hard news coverage is largely fair and balanced as they say.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
In all fairness if there was a thread about Keith Olberman and I got on there and trashed him soundly, repudiated his integrity and then let everyone know “But I don’t watch him except for 32 second YouTube clips” it would be completely appropriate for me to be tarred and feathered and run off the forum.
The thread is not about Beck, it is about Fox choosing to cover one large march on Washington (that they were involved in setting up) and failing to provide cover for another large march on Washington that they were not actively involved in setting up.
It just descended into a back and forth about Beck because you guys have a hard on for him and I think he’s a douchebag.[/quote]
The problem with your theory is John Stewart is the crown prince of douce. Fox did cover the gay march in Washington. They even broadcast Lady Ga Ga’s speech. In that moment as I listened to Lady Ga Ga I just knew that I was witnessing history on a magnitude of Abrahams Lincolns Gettysburg address. After such moving oratory by Lady Ga Ga what more did we need to see or hear on that day?
I know that for myself I needed to be alone with my thoughts so I could reflect upon Lady Ga Ga and think about her, the intricacies of lesbian sex and my roommate.
Anyhow John Stewart is a disingenuous jackass because FOX did provide coverage of the march. They just didn’t provide the same amount of coverage that they gave the tea parties. So what? Gays are a minority their issues are not as important to as many people as the issues of the tea parties are. John stewart is a partisan asshole for suggesting the are and you are an idiot for listening to him.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
In all fairness if there was a thread about Keith Olberman and I got on there and trashed him soundly, repudiated his integrity and then let everyone know “But I don’t watch him except for 32 second YouTube clips” it would be completely appropriate for me to be tarred and feathered and run off the forum.
The thread is not about Beck, it is about Fox choosing to cover one large march on Washington (that they were involved in setting up) and failing to provide cover for another large march on Washington that they were not actively involved in setting up.
It just descended into a back and forth about Beck because you guys have a hard on for him and I think he’s a douchebag.
The problem with your theory is John Stewart is the crown prince of douce. Fox did cover the gay march in Washington. They even broadcast Lady Ga Ga’s speech. In that moment as I listened to Lady Ga Ga I just knew that I was witnessing history on a magnitude of Abrahams Lincolns Gettysburg address. After such moving oratory by Lady Ga Ga what more did we need to see or hear on that day?
I know that for myself I needed to be alone with my thoughts so I could reflect upon Lady Ga Ga and think about her, the intricacies of lesbian sex and my roommate.
Anyhow John Stewart is a disingenuous jackass because FOX did provide coverage of the march. They just didn’t provide the same amount of coverage that they gave the tea parties. So what? Gays are a minority their issues are not as important to as many people as the issues of the tea parties are. John stewart is a partisan asshole for suggesting the are and you are an idiot for listening to him.
[/quote]
Well given that douce means sweet or pleasant then not sure what you are trying to say about John Stewart there. Were you on the march by any chance?
Fox news repeatedly screamed on about other stations not covering the tea party marches stating that it was ridiculous that they were not covering marches of that size.
For the Gay march Fox News managed 3 minutes of coverage in the entire day and didn’t even send a reporter, they used the coverage from another station.
The gay marches were about equality, the tea party marches for the most part are about being pissed off that the democrats won an election.
Some of the people on the tea party marches have valid points but they are in the minority.
I don’t give a crap if they ever cover a gay march. It’s the same old same old liberal line. We want more money for our irresponsibility and we want to get married to the same sex so we can get more benefits, but we really don’t want to be married, just say we can be married.
I was at one gay pride weekend event by accident. My sister was graduating from Harvard that weekend. That’s one trip to Boston I wish I didn’t make. 20000 screaming homos complaining about lack of funding for a disease that they brought on themselves by acting like irresponsible pervs and an additional 75,000 clowns dressing in things that should ber reserved for the bedroom.
The Tea parties are about Congress and the President spending like drunken sailors and reigning in socialism. Getting back to what our founding father’s wrote in that funny little constitution thing.
Gay parades were being covered 20 years ago while I was living in ND. They aren’t even news any more. A march on Washington by any group even vaguely conservative is news.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Fox is the Republican outlet and every other media outlet is the arm of the Obama administration.
I don’t believe this at face value. Again, I think it’s more that people have become so complacent with the softball standard that the major outlets (sans FOX) apply to Liberal (for lack of a better term) political positions that FOX stands out so much.
It’s the old ‘boil a dog slowly’. People have been slowly boiling and accepting CBSNBCABCPBSCNNMSNBC as gospel not realizing how long they’ve been immersed and desensitized. It’s the Voice of Saruman for sure (some will get the reference).
Along comes FOX with an ounce of questioning and all of a sudden people are screaming that they’re covering for Republicans.
It’s sad, really. It’s just a perpetuated myth that FOX is ‘right biased’, only because the rest of the media so skewed the other way.
One simply needs to look a few weeks back at the Van Jones and ACORN (non)coverage to see the latest example of how most media exclude real depth in reporting-- these were just 2 recent examples. The last election (non)coverage of Democrats was dispicable (and the bias well documented).
It really nullifies the premise of this thread (which, incidentally feeds a hunch that I have that most people really do take their political cues from Jon Stewart).[/quote]
Well said.
I think a lot of people are missing the point of The Daily Show. It is a parody making fun. Stop taking it so seriously
[quote]Valor wrote:
Having spent almost 2 years in Iraq, it is my opinion that we are better off for having been there.[/quote]
How is one connected to the other?
All that that could make you say is that the Iraqis are better off now.
[quote]
I think a lot of people are missing the point of The Daily Show. It is a parody making fun. Stop taking it so seriously[/quote]
“A poll released earlier this year by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 21 percent of people aged 18 to 29 cited “The Daily Show” and “Saturday Night Live” as a place where they regularly learned presidential campaign news.”
…well apparently some people ARE taking it seriously.
[quote]Valor wrote:
Having spent almost 2 years in Iraq, it is my opinion that we are better off for having been there.[/quote]
Having spent 14 months in Iraq, it is my opinion that we are not better off for being there and that we should have never been there to begin with.
Never having been to Midway Island in my life it is my opinion that we are better off for having won that battle.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Never having been to Midway Island in my life it is my opinion that we are better off for having won that battle.[/quote]
Not relevant, but thank you for your input.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Never having been to Midway Island in my life it is my opinion that we are better off for having won that battle.
Not relevant, but thank you for your input.[/quote]
I had 2 uncles and several acquaintances who were in Vietnam. My mother’s brother believed that it was a righteous fight. My father’s sister’s husband was converted into an America hating ultra liberal radical as a result of his involvement. The views of the people I’ve known who were over there range from full supporters who still lament it’s tactical mismanagement to at least one like my still ultra leftist uncle.
The point is, being in theater no more makes one an authority on the politics involved than having cancer makes one a doctor. People tend to see what they want to see. This thread is yet another example. You were in Iraq and think it was a mistake. The other guy was also deployed there and doesn’t.
I always listen when people have had experiences I haven’t, but it’s foolish to assume that that in itself makes them necessarily any more authoritative than any other informed thinking person. In fact, sometimes the detached objectivity of not having to joust with the personal aspect puts one in a better position to analyze if done judiciously.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I always listen when people have had experiences I haven’t, but it’s foolish to assume that that in itself makes them necessarily any more authoritative than any other informed thinking person. In fact, sometimes the detached objectivity of not having to joust with the personal aspect puts one in a better position to analyze if done judiciously.[/quote]
I agree with this, which is why I responded to Valor the way I did.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I always listen when people have had experiences I haven’t, but it’s foolish to assume that that in itself makes them necessarily any more authoritative than any other informed thinking person. In fact, sometimes the detached objectivity of not having to joust with the personal aspect puts one in a better position to analyze if done judiciously.
I agree with this, which is why I responded to Valor the way I did.
[/quote]
Fair enough.