Sorry I'm not a computer guy and don't know how to hot link any this stuff.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU

From Fox News:

The commissioner of New Jersey's Department of Education ordered a review on Friday following the posting of a YouTube video depicting school children singing the praises of President Obama.

In a statement to FOXNews.com, Education Department spokeswoman Beth Auerswald said Commissioner Lucille Davy has directed the school's superintendent to review the matter. Auerswald said Davy wants to ensure that students can celebrate Black History Month without "inappropriate partisan politics in the classroom."

"In addition, it is our understanding the teacher in question retired at the end of the last school year," the statement continued.

Auerswald declined to indicate exactly what the review would entail or possible ramifications.

As critics of the video claimed it amounted to "indoctrination," the tension at B. Bernice Young Elementary School escalated to such a degree Thursday that the school was placed temporarily on lockdown after its principal received death threats over a YouTube video that showed nearly 20 children being taught songs lauding the president, though back-to-school night events continuing as planned Thursday night at the school.

Video of the students at the Burlington, N.J., school shows them singing songs seemingly overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama," repeatedly chanting the president's name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his "great plans" to "make this country's economy No. 1 again."

One song that the children were taught quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."....



Link to the Full Lyrics:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/lyrics-songs-president-obama/

Right out of the playbook!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyN5VL_0XUY

You all are loons...you have Fox News "encouraging" people to lynch Census takers and you are worried about this little shit. White people are really stupid.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

The Right is amazing - 8 years with Watergate (no grounds), 8 yrs of Bush Failure and all they can do is destroy and defame.

Why not admit you are fucking stupid and just not vote rather than follow this bogus Republican non-sense?

Here's the deal. The teacher shouldn't have put a video of kids singing a song on the Internet without the parents' permission.

That's it. There's really no reason to spend all this time and energy huffing and puffing about it. Why doesn't Fox have the courage to take its cameras into a hospital and ask patients if they know how they are going to pay for their medical treatment?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

If you work for the federal govt, you are waging war. therefore, if you get killed, it's just collateral damage. Census takers, post offices,etc...you can not accept your blood money paycheck and not expect bad things to happen to you. I'm not advocating violence, I'm just sayin...be careful out there. A government job isn't a "free ride" or "easy living". You work for a terrorist organization...therefore, expect whats coming

patriot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you work for the federal govt, you are waging
> war. therefore, if you get killed, it's just
> collateral damage. Census takers, post
> offices,etc...you can not accept your blood money
> paycheck and not expect bad things to happen to
> you. I'm not advocating violence, I'm just
> sayin...be careful out there. A government job
> isn't a "free ride" or "easy living". You work for
> a terrorist organization...therefore, expect whats
> coming


Wow, what idiocy. So now you view your friendly neighborhood Mailman/woman as working for "terrorists"?

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the deal. The teacher shouldn't have put a
> video of kids singing a song on the Internet
> without the parents' permission.
>
> That's it. There's really no reason to spend all
> this time and energy huffing and puffing about it.
> Why doesn't Fox have the courage to take its
> cameras into a hospital and ask patients if they
> know how they are going to pay for their medical
> treatment?

Or how about they go to all of the other countries around the world, just to show some whining Americans how fortunate they are to have the great Health care which we currently have.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here's the deal. The teacher shouldn't have put
> a
> > video of kids singing a song on the Internet
> > without the parents' permission.
> >
> > That's it. There's really no reason to spend
> all
> > this time and energy huffing and puffing about
> it.
> > Why doesn't Fox have the courage to take its
> > cameras into a hospital and ask patients if
> they
> > know how they are going to pay for their
> medical
> > treatment?
>
> Or how about they go to all of the other countries
> around the world, just to show some whining
> Americans how fortunate they are to have the great
> Health care which we currently have.


Youd have to go to 3rd world countries to do so.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Since the story involves Fox News, we need to take it down a few notches in order to deal with the REALITY, as opposed to the vitriolic partisan fear mongering.

I would be surprised if Black History Month didn't include some schools discussing a moment in Black History, regardless of how much it roils certain people who just can't stand having a black boss.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 05:19PM by Alias.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You all are loons...you have Fox News
> "encouraging" people to lynch Census takers and
> you are worried about this little shit. White
> people are really stupid.


Vince(1) is an imbecile.

Hairy Reed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You all are loons...you have Fox News
> > "encouraging" people to lynch Census takers and
> > you are worried about this little shit. White
> > people are really stupid.
>
>
> Vince(1) is an imbecile.


Hairy...you are a cute sound bite.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The Washington Post uncovered that BIG plot....
> now they do nothing.

Alias, is it just me, or does Thurston seem to be uncovering some of his "partisan" roots? He used to be much more "middle of the road" in his responses - lately now he throws the "Fox News" card a lot when trying to diminish an issue.

Too bad that didn't work with Van Jones - who had legitimate issues and yet went unreported by all the other news outlets until he resigned. What, somehow FOX has all this power to derail Obama and his agenda? I mean, if FOX was the only one reporting on the issues and they are so off-base, why would all of this have been a distraction for the Administration (as Van Jones stated as the reason he resigned)? So which is it? Is FOX is an influential news outlet, or are they just irrelevant along with the Washington Times due to their backers? I mean, just because GE is a huge company that has influence in many sectors being addressed by the legislation they are attempting to pass in Congress - NBC, MSNBC and CNBC outlets could not possibly be unduly influenced by corporate interests? Right?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2009 09:50AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias, is it just me, or does Thurston seem to be
> uncovering some of his "partisan" roots? He used
> to be much more "middle of the road" in his
> responses - lately now he throws the "Fox News"
> card a lot when trying to diminish an issue.

No, I have no partisan "roots". You obviously see the world through partisan glasses, though.

Calling Fox News a load of crap does not mean I defend what you view as the antithesis of Fox News. It means I am calling Fox News a load of crap.

> their backers? I mean, just because GE is a huge
> company that has influence in many sectors being
> addressed by the legislation they are attempting
> to pass in Congress - NBC, MSNBC and CNBC outlets
> could not possibly be unduly influenced by
> corporate interests? Right?

Of course they are unduly influenced. But saying something negative about Fox News is not inversely defending another outlet. In fact, that sort of thinking is indicative of the influence that a partisan outlet like Fox News has on the way people interpret reality -- to believe that in order to be "against" one thing, you have to therefore be "for" the opposite. The whole black and white divide and conquer dichotomy thing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

So then if any of the NBC news organizations comment on things regarding health care, or energy (sectors they are heavily invested in) - including criticism of other news outlets - we should dismiss all they say because it is obvious their only motivation can come from a purely corporate interest? I don't see you railing against the other news outlets - yet I know from factual observation that these other outlets have a bias against reporting on almost any issue that is controversial to Obama. Brings to mind this article I just read...

Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Without-Bush-media-lose-interest-in-war-caskets-8310113-62427012.html

Yet - kids are still dying over there. Somehow though the caskets are less important now? Funny. (Edit: And this includes Fox News)

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2009 10:24PM by Registered Voter.

The only party fighting increased involvement in Iraq/Afganistan is the Democratic party. When Obama even dared to suggest not sending more troops recently McSame was on TV railing how it was soooo terrible. The fact is massive right wing conspiracy has the momentum...when FOX "news" sneezes an Obama czar is fired. When their commentators call for riotous townhall meetings...white men show up with guns. If you want anti-war demonstrations...go cry to them. Instead they fill the airwaves with the stupidest issues...kids singing songs... something someone said 20 years ago....on and on with the stupidest news headlines I have ever read.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Thurston if you think you can have a civilized discussion with RV forget it. He is a shark..who can cut and paste thousands of lines of propaganda using less then 10 minutes a day. He is a cut and burn republikan.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So then if any of the NBC news organizations
> comment on things regarding health care, or energy
> (sectors they are heavily invested in) - including
> criticism of other news outlets - we should
> dismiss all they say because it is obvious their
> only motivation can come from a purely corporate
> interest? I don't see you railing against the
> other news outlets -

I don't see people rallying behind the agenda-driven story of the day from the other news outlets. I only see threads started by people who got really angry about whatever injustice Fox News has devoted 30% of their airtime to railing against.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... something someone
> said 20 years ago....on and on with the stupidest
> news headlines I have ever read.

You mean like that article about McDonnell's thesis when he was 34? Wasn't that like 20 years ago? You went on a rampage on that issue didn't you?

You're an idiot lol.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ... something someone
> > said 20 years ago....on and on with the
> stupidest
> > news headlines I have ever read.
>
> You mean like that article about McDonnell's
> thesis when he was 34? Wasn't that like 20 years
> ago? You went on a rampage on that issue didn't
> you?
>
> You're an idiot lol.


The funny thing about that whole "scandal" that people missed was that he was attending PAT ROBERTSON's university.

He would have gotten an F if he had written anything BUT what he wrote.

If that was the only "law school" I could get into, and I really wanted to be a lawyer, I would have written a thesis on how the earth is only 6,000 years old and the fossils are actually fake.

If the only school I could get into to become a lawyer was Teheran University, I'm sure I'd write a paper about how the holocaust is a lie.

What a non-issue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't see people rallying behind the
> agenda-driven story of the day from the other news
> outlets. I only see threads started by people who
> got really angry about whatever injustice Fox News
> has devoted 30% of their airtime to railing
> against.

While I agree with that to some extent - MSM is exacerbating the issue by refusing to cover or investigate issues that they arguably SHOULD be. It lends more credibility to the arguments some of the Fox hosts make. Glenn Beck, while over the top in presentation, has actually garnered a sizable following - and I doubt that many/all of his viewers are O'Reilly viewers.

MSNBC should be the bell-weather if you want to measure the success of reaching partisan audiences if you were to say they represent the opposite numbers on the liberal side. Yet their numbers are anemic compared to Fox, and the daily radio talk show numbers aren't much better for the liberal air waves other than maybe NPR which is subsidized by the Federal Government. You have to wonder if they would still be broadcasting if left to their own devices.

I dunno. Bottom line, there are a lot of people paying attention to Fox these days. John Stossel is leaving ABC to head to Fox - and he has always been a highly respected voice from their network as showing different sides of the story. If you continue to see Fox News covering stories that actually result in changes in the Administration or Congress, you should probably be wondering what the other news outlets are doing wrong.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ... something someone
> > said 20 years ago....on and on with the
> stupidest
> > news headlines I have ever read.
>
> You mean like that article about McDonnell's
> thesis when he was 34? Wasn't that like 20 years
> ago? You went on a rampage on that issue didn't
> you?
>
> You're an idiot lol.


The man still holds those beliefs...the public should know.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ... something someone
> > > said 20 years ago....on and on with the
> > stupidest
> > > news headlines I have ever read.
> >
> > You mean like that article about McDonnell's
> > thesis when he was 34? Wasn't that like 20
> years
> > ago? You went on a rampage on that issue didn't
> > you?
> >
> > You're an idiot lol.
>
>
> The man still holds those beliefs...the public
> should know.

and you're a racist pig, not to mention your sexist comments. why should your opinion mean shit? oh yeah, it doesn't

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ... something someone
> > > said 20 years ago....on and on with the
> > stupidest
> > > news headlines I have ever read.
> >
> > You mean like that article about McDonnell's
> > thesis when he was 34? Wasn't that like 20
> years
> > ago? You went on a rampage on that issue didn't
> > you?
> >
> > You're an idiot lol.
>
>
> The funny thing about that whole "scandal" that
> people missed was that he was attending PAT
> ROBERTSON's university.
>
> He would have gotten an F if he had written
> anything BUT what he wrote.
>
> If that was the only "law school" I could get
> into, and I really wanted to be a lawyer, I would
> have written a thesis on how the earth is only
> 6,000 years old and the fossils are actually
> fake.
>
> If the only school I could get into to become a
> lawyer was Teheran University, I'm sure I'd write
> a paper about how the holocaust is a lie.
>
> What a non-issue.

Exactly.

And his actions and progression of his family since that time clearly shows actions on his part in contradiction to positions he stated in his thesis.

Creigh Deeds on the other hand seems to have attached to this as the only issue he can use. One of the reasons why he hasn't gotten endorsements by major Democratic players and organizations in the State. The numbers look better for him, but only because some of the moderate numbers are now in the undecided column.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thurston Moore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I don't see people rallying behind the
> > agenda-driven story of the day from the other
> news
> > outlets. I only see threads started by people
> who
> > got really angry about whatever injustice Fox
> News
> > has devoted 30% of their airtime to railing
> > against.
>
> While I agree with that to some extent - MSM is
> exacerbating the issue by refusing to cover or
> investigate issues that they arguably SHOULD be.
> It lends more credibility to the arguments some of
> the Fox hosts make. Glenn Beck, while over the top
> in presentation, has actually garnered a sizable
> following - and I doubt that many/all of his
> viewers are O'Reilly viewers.
>
> MSNBC should be the bell-weather if you want to
> measure the success of reaching partisan audiences
> if you were to say they represent the opposite
> numbers on the liberal side. Yet their numbers are
> anemic compared to Fox, and the daily radio talk
> show numbers aren't much better for the liberal
> air waves other than maybe NPR which is subsidized
> by the Federal Government. You have to wonder if
> they would still be broadcasting if left to their
> own devices.
>
> I dunno. Bottom line, there are a lot of people
> paying attention to Fox these days. John Stossel
> is leaving ABC to head to Fox - and he has always
> been a highly respected voice from their network
> as showing different sides of the story. If you
> continue to see Fox News covering stories that
> actually result in changes in the Administration
> or Congress, you should probably be wondering what
> the other news outlets are doing wrong.


I'll agree with you on one thing MSM certainly did fail reporting on the fraud that got us into Iraq/Afganistan...and of course FOX "News" pushed that. The problem with Fox "news" right now is that it isnt just a "news" organization it is the republikan party. Icant wait to see who they nominate for president. I do make one prediction...they are hoping and praying they can recruit Gen Be-tray-U.S. tHe current group of republikans are all loosers.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> While I agree with that to some extent - MSM is
> exacerbating the issue by refusing to cover or
> investigate issues that they arguably SHOULD be.
> It lends more credibility to the arguments some of
> the Fox hosts make. Glenn Beck, while over the top
> in presentation, has actually garnered a sizable
> following - and I doubt that many/all of his
> viewers are O'Reilly viewers.
>
> MSNBC should be the bell-weather if you want to
> measure the success of reaching partisan audiences
> if you were to say they represent the opposite
> numbers on the liberal side. Yet their numbers are
> anemic compared to Fox, and the daily radio talk
> show numbers aren't much better for the liberal
> air waves other than maybe NPR which is subsidized
> by the Federal Government. You have to wonder if
> they would still be broadcasting if left to their
> own devices.

The difference is that "liberals" tend to not be influenced, more than "educated" into their belief system. Right or wrong, they don't come to their beliefs because of fear and anger. They come to them through that granola world view of "helping the less fortunate" and "social justice" and all that other stuff.



>
> I dunno. Bottom line, there are a lot of people
> paying attention to Fox these days. John Stossel
> is leaving ABC to head to Fox - and he has always
> been a highly respected voice from their network
> as showing different sides of the story. If you
> continue to see Fox News covering stories that
> actually result in changes in the Administration
> or Congress, you should probably be wondering what
> the other news outlets are doing wrong.

They aren't doing anything wrong. They are part of the same machine that Fox News is part of.

The difference is that right now, there is more vitriol, anger, fear, and hatred to be sold by the right wing media. MSNBC pulled the same shit when Bush was in office, though not to the same extent or at least not on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE.

Interestingly, though, "changes in the Administration or Congress" being caused by stories covered by Fox News are really only being caused by Fox News in the minds of people who are told, by Fox News, that they are the champions who caused them.

To those who unplugged from partisanship, events or circumstances cause change, not an agenda driven news outlet. Regardless of how much credit they take in front of their audience.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

Van Jones?

Changes in the Health Care reform issues?

Cap and Trade on skids?

Tea Parties?

9/12?

etc...

Whatever Thurston. I don't believe any of those issues received much of the MSM or other cable outlet focus. What has mainstream media accomplished lately? What have they uncovered lately? Other than leaking CIA documents, or other classified information - not much.

EDIT: MSM is much more interested in championing the cause of Valerie Plame (laughable) who was about as covert as a Air Force One flying over Manhattan then they are about protecting the folks that are truly out there in covert operations trying to protect our country.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2009 11:22PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Van Jones? (A ridiculous issue)
>
> Changes in the Health Care reform issues? (A disservice to the American public)
>
> Cap and Trade on skids? (we'll see..even without cap and trade...going green is moving ahead..allbeit slowly thatks to corporate greed)
>
> Tea Parties? (Quackery...no long term impact...they will be dumped by the republican party as soon as they want to appear as an adult alternative to the democrats)
>
> 9/12?
>
> etc...
>
> Whatever Thurston. I don't believe any of those
> issues received much of the MSM or other cable
> outlet focus. What has mainstream media
> accomplished lately? What have they uncovered
> lately? Other than leaking CIA documents, or other
> classified information - not much.
>
> EDIT: MSM is much more interested in championing
> the cause of Valerie Plame (laughable) who was
> about as covert as a Air Force One flying over
> Manhattan then they are about protecting the folks
> that are truly out there in covert operations
> trying to protect our country.


Fox "news" is due for a scandal...I can feel it...I cant wait.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Van Jones?
>
> Changes in the Health Care reform issues?
>
> Cap and Trade on skids?
>
> Tea Parties?
>
> 9/12?
>
> etc...
>

Exactly. Like I said:

"Interestingly, though, "changes in the Administration or Congress" being caused by stories covered by Fox News are really only being caused by Fox News in the minds of people who are told, by Fox News, that they are the champions who caused them.

To those who unplugged from partisanship, events or circumstances cause change, not an agenda driven news outlet. Regardless of how much credit they take in front of their audience."


> Whatever Thurston. I don't believe any of those
> issues received much of the MSM or other cable
> outlet focus. What has mainstream media
> accomplished lately? What have they uncovered
> lately? Other than leaking CIA documents, or other
> classified information - not much.
>
> EDIT: MSM is much more interested in championing
> the cause of Valerie Plame (laughable) who was
> about as covert as a Air Force One flying over
> Manhattan then they are about protecting the folks
> that are truly out there in covert operations
> trying to protect our country.


Are they really still harping on about something that happened in 2004?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Fox "news" is due for a scandal...I can feel
> it...I cant wait.

Pop your popcorn now! It's gonna happen any day now!

LOL.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To those who unplugged from partisanship, events
> or circumstances cause change, not an agenda
> driven news outlet. Regardless of how much credit
> they take in front of their audience."

Van Jones was not covered at all by MSM. Drudge and Fox were about the only places you heard about it.

Look at the Chicago newspapers and their online press once in a while. I do. Interesting stories they have (and had) up there that never got covered by MSM, yet they were very relevant to events elsewhere.

Global warming. MSM seems to be on the march in lockstep with Gore and the UN. Pretty scary that they can't find the time to do anything more in-depth to try and educate the public on the real issues, or how much cap and trade legislation would cost them in money and jobs.

No - sorry, your mantle of being "non-partisan" doesn't ring entirely true. Fox may be conservative and tend to harp on certain subjects, but they were the only ones (besides Drudge) that even gave a rats ass about the corruption at the UN with Oil for Food and other programs. MSM has failed miserably over the last decade - no doubt. The difference is, Fox has never made any lie of their conservative bias - they promote "Fair and Balanced" with the OBVIOUS caveat that they are heavily conservative. MSM and other outlets are extremely biased in the topics they cover, and how they cover the issues and present them - then try to feign innocence in their bias. I watch FOX in the morning for reasons I have pointed out before - occasional clips of Beck or O'Reilly I see on YouTube (which many times I verify by viewing real clips not pushed by MediaMatters.org (an organization absolutely left-biased and trying to shape the anti-Fox conversation). But you tend to take a hard line on anything Fox might report on, and yet give the rest of the media a pass on the things they don't even discuss that ARE relevant. And I am not talking about videos of kids chanting "Obama is great" songs.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2009 11:57PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thurston Moore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To those who unplugged from partisanship,
> events
> > or circumstances cause change, not an agenda
> > driven news outlet. Regardless of how much
> credit
> > they take in front of their audience."
>
> Van Jones was not covered at all by MSM. Drudge
> and Fox were about the only places you heard about
> it.
>
> Look at the Chicago newspapers and their online
> press once in a while. I do. Interesting stories
> they have (and had) up there that never got
> covered by MSM, yet they were very relevant to
> events elsewhere.
>
> Global warming. MSM seems to be on the march in
> lockstep with Gore and the UN. Pretty scary that
> they can't find the time to do anything more
> in-depth to try and educate the public on the real
> issues, or how much cap and trade legislation
> would cost them in money and jobs.
>
> No - sorry, your mantle of being "non-partisan"
> doesn't ring entirely true. Fox may be
> conservative and tend to harp on certain subjects,
> but they were the only ones (besides Drudge) that
> even gave a rats ass about the corruption at the
> UN with Oil for Food and other programs. MSM has
> failed miserably over the last decade - no doubt.
> The difference is, Fox has never made any lie of
> their conservative bias - they promote "Fair and
> Balanced" with the OBVIOUS caveat that they are
> heavily conservative. MSM and other outlets are
> extremely biased in the topics they cover, and how
> they cover the issues and present them - then try
> to feign innocence in their bias. I watch FOX in
> the morning for reasons I have pointed out before
> - occasional clips of Beck or O'Reilly I see on
> YouTube (which many times I verify by viewing real
> clips not pushed by MediaMatters.org (an
> organization absolutely left-biased and trying to
> shape the anti-Fox conversation). But you tend to
> take a hard line on anything Fox might report on,
> and yet give the rest of the media a pass on the
> things they don't even discuss that ARE relevant.
> And I am not talking about videos of kids chanting
> "Obama is great" songs.


I don't give a pass to the MSM. Though I do think it's odd that you consider Fox to be outside the MSM.

The reason you haven't heard me criticize the non Fox News channels is because nobody is marching in lock-step with whatever agenda is being pushed that day, whatever "outrage" they report over and over again that day. That isn't happening.

It's funny, because until about 3 months ago, I never considered this, but now I sort of view Fox News as a voluntary form of the little speaker in every North Korean's home. It pipes in the party line 24 hours a day. It cannot be turned off, and it keeps the people aligned towards anti-americanism, and the bunker mentality that is needed to protect the regime.

Fox is basically doing the same thing, and people voluntarily listen to the party message because they fear the imminent destruction of all of their values and beliefs if the "other" succeeds.

Fox is not CONSERVATIVE. By any measure of the word. Fox is ultra-right-wing extremist, with a heavy dose of neoconservatism. Think Trostky and Strauss.

A real conservative, free of the propoganda from Fox, would know that they are actually not conservative in the classical sense.


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

Critics of Strauss accuse him of being elitist, illiberalist and anti-democratic. Shadia Drury, in Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999), argues that Strauss inculcated an elitist strain in American political leaders linked to imperialist militarism, Neoconservatism and Christian fundamentalism. Drury argues that Strauss teaches that "perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them." Nicholas Xenos similarly argues that Strauss was "an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense, a true reactionary. According to Xenos, Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism."[22]

Strauss has also been criticized by certain conservatives. According to Claes Ryn, the "new Jacobinism" of the neoconservative philosophy, a philosophy which Ryn attributes to Strauss, is not "new, it is the rhetoric of Saint-Just and Trotsky that the philosophically impoverished American Right has taken over with mindless alacrity. Republican operators and think tanks apparently believe they can carry the electorate by appealing to yesterday’s leftist clichés


-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2009 12:19AM by Thurston Moore.

"and it keeps the people aligned towards anti-americanism, and the bunker mentality that is needed to protect the regime. "

????

anti-Americanism? LOL

Thurston, sometimes you amaze me.

And your analogy for the party-line thing is BS. You assume then that people who watch Fox or follow any of their stories follow them in lock step. Much like folks that say all people that listen to Limbaugh are just drones. The problem with that theory is two-fold. One, a lot of non-conservative, non-republican people watch and listen to both sources. Two, you would have to assume they are stupid or non-thinking. I believe you have bought into point 2.

As has been pointed out many times, just because a person can claim a college education, and maybe an advanced degree.. that does not EQUAL massive intelligence or common sense. Nor does it mean that they are correct on every subject. Maybe in lab sciences that can perform and produce repeatable, and predictable results they could claim superiority assuming they had those advanced degrees - but that does not qualify them as an expert on all subjects. Financial wizards certainly don't seem to have a full grasp of how the financial industry works, even with their advanced degrees - although obviously they should have a better understanding then a layman. Again - that doesn't mean they have a better understanding or are more intelligent on areas outside their specific field.

Fox is as much a propaganda machine as MSNBC, and some parts of CNN and other MSM outlets and shows (Stephanopolous comes to mind as an example). Your argument seems to be that people who follow Fox are drones. Conservative, religious, whatever. You run around with that quote from the biographer of Buckley like some kind of "truth" - yet I doubt many folks that post here would look at Buckley as anything other than an ultra conservative. Vince would no doubt be rejoicing his death also. Clinton speaks of a "right-wing conspiracy" - Soros is clearly involved in funding much of the left-wing conspiracy - yet he gets little mention. There is bias in the media - on both sides. What happens is folks need to figure out their own path based on what they KNOW, and try to understand the things they hear second-hand. Not much of that going on these days on the left.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "and it keeps the people aligned towards
> anti-americanism, and the bunker mentality that is
> needed to protect the regime. "
>
> ????
>
> anti-Americanism? LOL
>
> Thurston, sometimes you amaze me.
>

And sometimes you disappoint me. Do you really think that North Korea doesn't pipe in anti-americanism on that little speaker in every North Korean's home?

Oh, you got so caught up in defending Fox News that you thought I was saying Fox News is anti-american. I'm sorry, I thought you were not so reactionary.

> And your analogy for the party-line thing is BS.
> You assume then that people who watch Fox or
> follow any of their stories follow them in lock
> step. Much like folks that say all people that
> listen to Limbaugh are just drones. The problem
> with that theory is two-fold. One, a lot of
> non-conservative, non-republican people watch and
> listen to both sources. Two, you would have to
> assume they are stupid or non-thinking. I believe
> you have bought into point 2.

Actually, yes, people who devote undue amounts of time watching Fox News, or only get their news from Fox News are, in fact, marching in lock-step.

That cable channel is a propoganda machine.


>
> As has been pointed out many times, just because a
> person can claim a college education, and maybe an
> advanced degree.. that does not EQUAL massive
> intelligence or common sense. Nor does it mean
> that they are correct on every subject. Maybe in
> lab sciences that can perform and produce
> repeatable, and predictable results they could
> claim superiority assuming they had those advanced
> degrees - but that does not qualify them as an
> expert on all subjects. Financial wizards
> certainly don't seem to have a full grasp of how
> the financial industry works, even with their
> advanced degrees - although obviously they should
> have a better understanding then a layman. Again -
> that doesn't mean they have a better understanding
> or are more intelligent on areas outside their
> specific field.
>

You're right. Advanced degrees actually indicate specialists, not general knowledge. In fact, geniuses tend to not have advanced degrees. Einstein never had one. Advanced degrees tend to limit and channel intelligence into a specific train of thought.

> Fox is as much a propaganda machine as MSNBC, and
> some parts of CNN and other MSM outlets and shows
> (Stephanopolous comes to mind as an example). Your
> argument seems to be that people who follow Fox
> are drones. Conservative, religious, whatever. You
> run around with that quote from the biographer of
> Buckley like some kind of "truth" - yet I doubt
> many folks that post here would look at Buckley as
> anything other than an ultra conservative. Vince
> would no doubt be rejoicing his death also.
> Clinton speaks of a "right-wing conspiracy" -
> Soros is clearly involved in funding much of the
> left-wing conspiracy - yet he gets little mention.
> There is bias in the media - on both sides. What
> happens is folks need to figure out their own path
> based on what they KNOW, and try to understand the
> things they hear second-hand. Not much of that
> going on these days on the left.

Not much of that going on these days on the right, either.


People like Vince would consider Buckley to be ultra-right-wing for the same reasons that people who absorb all the ultra-right vitriol would consider anyone who isn't marching to their tune cannot be conservative.

Buckley and Will are true conservatives. Kristol (both william and irving) are not true conservatives. They are liberals who adopted the conservative cloak in order to perpetuate their trotskyite beliefs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2009 12:45AM by Thurston Moore.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "and it keeps the people aligned towards
> > anti-americanism, and the bunker mentality that
> is
> > needed to protect the regime. "
> >
> > ????
> >
> > anti-Americanism? LOL
> >
> > Thurston, sometimes you amaze me.
> >
>
> And sometimes you disappoint me. Do you really
> think that North Korea doesn't pipe in
> anti-americanism on that little speaker in every
> North Korean's home?
>
> Oh, you got so caught up in defending Fox News
> that you thought I was saying Fox News is
> anti-american. I'm sorry, I thought you were not
> so reactionary.
>

Honestly I don't care much if I "disappoint" you. I don't worry that you might somehow think less of me - because honestly I think you like to play the "detached centrist" but in reality you are anything but.

As far as defending Fox News, sure - I will defend them to some extent. I don't buy into everything they sell. But I believe they are more honest in their "biased" reporting on topics (in particular the daytime/morning folks) then many of the other outlets that keep pushing how unbiased they are. I listen to Joe Scarborough on the radio in the morning. But comparing Fox to North Korea is laughable. There is no choice in NK. Fox News isn't some kind of drug - but Fox does present information on issues folks are interested in and care about (their viewership tells the story). MSM pays the issues no attention or glosses over them, or push the party line on the left (global warming). What was noticeably funny was as soon as Obama was in office, all the main channels started pushing really hard on the green agenda. It was very noticeable. I guess the FCC must have mandated new rules on programming requirements for licensing. There is no comparison to NK news in the US thank God - yet.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2009 01:04AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Honestly I don't care much if I "disappoint" you.
> I don't worry that you might somehow think less of
> me - becuase honestly I think you like to play the
> "detached centrist" but in reality you are
> anything but.

You're right. I am anything but a detached centrist. I'm not a centrist, and I'm not a leftist, and I'm not a rightist.

I don't buy into the divide and conquer strategy. I believe all parties are corrupt, and none of them serve the american people anymore. Whether they ever did, I don't know, but they definitely do not now.

To be a centrist, I would have to buy into half of the right's ideology, and half of the left's. But the problem with that is that there is no legitimacy to either side anymore. The crap they serve up to their "base" is just crap to keep the base supporting them. The right spews forth about abortion and gay marriage and illegal aliens, and people vote for them. The left spews forth about abortion and gay marriage and immigration and global warming, and people vote for them.

It's all about the votes. It has nothing to do with the people casting those votes. The parties know where the money comes from (and they both get their money from the same people, in the end. see bank bailout, see defense contractors, see big oil, see big pharma, see, basically, corporate money.)

>
> As far as defending Fox News, sure - I will defend
> them to some extent. I don't buy into everything
> they sell. But I believe they are more honest in
> their "biased" reporting on topics (in particular
> the daytime/morning folks) then many of the other
> outlets that keep pushing how unbiased they are. I
> listen to Joe Scarborough on the radio in the
> morning. But comparing Fox to North Korea is
> laughable. There is no choice in NK. Fox News
> isn't some kind of drug - but Fox does present
> information on issues folks are interested in and
> care about (their viewership tells the story). MSM
> pays the issues no attention or glosses over them,
> or push the party line on the left (global
> warming). What was noticeably funny was as soon as
> Obama was in office, all the main channels started
> pushing really hard on the green agenda. It was
> very noticeable. I guess the FCC must have
> mandated new rules on programming requirements for
> licensing. There is no comparison to NK news in
> the US thank God - yet.


The green agenda was being pushed long before Obama took office.

To be honest, Obama has been quite silent and absent in that regard. Whatever that bullshit cap'n trade bill meant, he's only been towing the line that was long ago cast.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2009 01:10AM by Thurston Moore.

You missed trial lawyers - they are big money also.

EDIT: Regarding the green agenda - not anywhere near as overt. There were some kids shows on recycling and how everyone should be an environmentalist and corporations are bad polluters. I saw those before... no I am talking about commercials on all sorts of "green" agenda items. I agree there was green before he was elected, but afterward it was like a spigot opened full blast and we were seeing it for months in ads, on daytime shows on NBC, ABC, CBS... etc. That was when I stopped watching them entirely.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2009 01:24AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You missed trial lawyers - they are big money
> also.
>

Did I mention Unions? and PACS? Sorry, I didn't mean to leave anyone out. It's just such a long list, before it gets to "the people" in terms of representation.

> EDIT: Regarding the green agenda - not anywhere
> near as overt. There were some kids shows on
> recycling and how everyone should be an
> environmentalist and corporations are bad
> polluters. I saw those before... no I am talking
> about commercials on all sorts of "green" agenda
> items. I agree there was green before he was
> elected, but afterward it was like a spigot opened
> full blast and we were seeing it for months in
> ads, on daytime shows on NBC, ABC, CBS... etc.
> That was when I stopped watching them entirely.

If I owned a solar panel company, I would ride the wave. During Bush's terms, I would have less to gain in buying 30 second spots on TV. But, during Obama's term(s) I would have a lot to gain from being a "green energy" startup or whatever.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

wrong thread (TM)? are you ok?

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 06:04PM by Alias.

I have to agree, Thurston Moore has seemingly gone to the left. This must only mean one thing....He is dating a new liberal chick.