LMAO...I apologize in advance, but Glenn Beck crying over sappy 1970s commercials and creating sap-strewn analogies out of teen-age curfew violations is just priceless.

Or was he talking about the Redskins?

I love his forceful recovery from the temptations of tears...too fuckin funny!




______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

He's crying about life not being like a commercial from the 70s? I've got a clue for Beck, I lived in the 70s. The 70s sucked, too. We loved the commercials in the 70s because they were nothing like our everyday lives. What fucking planet does this guy live on?

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

"you smell like pot, somebody spilled beer on you, and its now 2 am, longgggggggggggg past curfew"...(snifff...sobb....jerking upright to fight off the tears)

I LOLed Pepsi out my nose.

He's priceless!

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Re: Tears for Fears new
Posted by: WashingTone-Locian ()
Date: October 18, 2009 06:02PM


He's crying about life not being like a commercial from the 70s? I've got a clue for Beck, I lived in the 70s. The 70s sucked, too. We loved the commercials in the 70s because they were nothing like our everyday lives. What fucking planet does this guy live on?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy some Meade !


+1

---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo

What a fucking cry baby! Are all Republicans bying into this shit?

Wow, Times of Your Life was a top 100 for 12 weeks starting Feb 1976. Gerald Ford was our President. Why was Gerald Ford, a non-elected president serving? Well, because two years before, Nixon resigned the office of the presidency on August 9, 1974.

So why Gerald Ford?

Wasnt there a Vice President elected with Nixon - sure but on October 10, 1973, Spiro Agnew became the second Vice President to resign the office. Unlike John C. Calhoun, who resigned to take a seat in the Senate, Agnew resigned and then pleaded no contest to criminal charges of tax evasion, part of a negotiated resolution to a scheme wherein he was accused of accepting $29,500 in bribes during his tenure as governor of Maryland. Agnew was fined $10,000 and put on three years' probation.

I was a kid back in those 'simpler times' Beck is crying like a big baby about. Even as a kid it was obvious the grown-ups were totally fucking things up. Oh did I mention we had 5% annual inflation and 8% unemployment?

You fucking morons that think beck is smart or knowledgeable are seriously, well, fucking morons.

Oh yea, TV was 5 channels total so asshole Beck would have been shoveling his bullshit in the local bar to a couple fellow addicts not millions of dumbasses...

So Agnew was a tax evader also. Funny how today's tax evaders get to pay their (much larger) tax evasions off and it is business as usual.

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:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Agnew was a tax evader also. Funny how today's
> tax evaders get to pay their (much larger) tax
> evasions off and it is business as usual.


oh so you are saying Beck is sad because we are not prosecuting politicians like Agnew - I didnt get that from the video...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2009 10:19PM by dono.

No - I didn't forget the bribes. For some reason you want to gloss over the fact that today's politics is nothing but a bunch of bribes. Look at the folks lately "caught" with money in freezers and such. Yet no one forced them to resign - matter of fact they were going to make them a committee chairman. I am sure what Agnew did back then was very similar to what goes on today - just they hide it better. Charlie Rangel is a great example - should he stay in office?

It seems that Beck hits a nerve with folks on the other side. I don't watch his show, but I find it funny how you all follow his tearful moments with glee. Do you watch his entire show so that you really know what he was talking about, or do you just catch the soundbites promoted by dimwits like Olbermann or the folks at Media Matters? They are both good at making clips to slant opinions.

In any case, I didn't ignore Nixon - I was merely focusing on the bribe part of the subject. You can do a history going way back to the Revolutionary War on political fuck-ups. But truly, as time and media progress, values seem to degrade. Maybe you should look at the Romans and see how they progressed, and why, to get an idea of where we might be headed as far as degradation of society. But then again, they don't really teach much real history these days.

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

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So Agnew was a tax evader also. Funny how
> today's
> > tax evaders get to pay their (much larger) tax
> > evasions off and it is business as usual.
>
>
> oh so you are saying Beck is sad because we are
> not prosecuting politicians like Agnew - I didnt
> get that from the video...

Couple of edits there huh - no, I wasn't commenting on Beck's video at all in my original reply, merely your comment.

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

Goddammit, Reggie, go derail someone ELSE's thread, ya big old boring fuck-nozzle!

Shit, I had some high-quality teary ribald humor to share with all of FFXU, and here you come, taking a HUGE shit all over it.

Damn, man, you just have NO self-control, do ya?

LOL, yes,thats right...a 4 minute Beck segment is just soooooooooo out of context. Would 10 minutes of straight Beck-sian idiocy satisfy you? 15 minutes? Just tell me what constitutes "proper context" for you. Please.

You should run for office, Reggie. Seriously. It'd be pretty easy to pick you out of the crowd, all right. And you'd get fucking crushed at the polls.

[ Now commence over-posting your blubbery ass off--we'll all tune out for 12 hours so you can feel all self-important and shit. ]

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No - I didn't forget the bribes. For some reason
> you want to gloss over the fact that today's
> politics is nothing but a bunch of bribes. Look at
> the folks lately "caught" with money in freezers
> and such. Yet no one forced them to resign -
> matter of fact they were going to make them a
> committee chairman. I am sure what Agnew did back
> then was very similar to what goes on today - just
> they hide it better. Charlie Rangel is a great
> example - should he stay in office?
>
> It seems that Beck hits a nerve with folks on the
> other side. I don't watch his show, but I find it
> funny how you all follow his tearful moments with
> glee. Do you watch his entire show so that you
> really know what he was talking about, or do you
> just catch the soundbites promoted by dimwits like
> Olbermann or the folks at Media Matters? They are
> both good at making clips to slant opinions.
>

The problem is that the politicians who were getting caught a few years ago wasn't an issue to people who are making it an issue today.

You're right to compare Agnew to more modern times, but, when you bring up Fox News enemies like Media Matters, or ACORN, or whatever organization is currently being railed against by pundits, it just makes people dismiss your arguments. Because they get tired of hearing the exact same, almost rote statements over and over again.

Politicians are dirty, on both sides. Both sides bow down to the same interests, in the end. The real problem is this partisan mentality among voters, that allows "their" politician a free pass while "the other side" is demonized for the same actions.

The whole damn thing is rotten, and it didn't just start being rotten on Jan 20th 2009 (or after the dems took the majority in the legislature in 2006).

The hatred and vitriol now is a stark contrast to the complacency and apologist rhetoric, pre-2006. That can only come from one place, a very partisan place.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 10/18/2009 11:04PM by Thurston Moore.

Hey Thurston.

Seriously, get a grip. You start ranting about partisan this, and partisan that. Sorry if I point out an inconvenient truth for you that you then have to come in and try to defend the galaxy of politicians from potential partisan commentary.

You tend to get on your high horse every time anyone makes any kind of comparison that happens to reflect badly on the left. Well, sorry to pop your bubble yet again, but if they do they crime, they need to be treated the same way in my book. So if it is not ok for one side to take bribes or fail to pay their taxes, or hire illegal immigrant nannies, then the media needs to focus equally on either side. If someone wants to have an affair, or play footsie in a bathroom, or run a brothel from their home - they all need to be treated as criminals if that is the issue. Congress and the President are not above the law. They all need to be held accountable, but folks on the left seem to love electing their crack dealers (Marion Barry), and yet they will burn a conservative at the stake if they hold a view contrary to theirs that does the same thing.

Based on the current level of approval for the current Congress, they all need to be flushed down the toilet - every one of them, and we should hold new elections for the lot. Change the election rules so all the contribution money goes into one lump pool to pay for all candidates or something. All this money being pulled into elections has done nothing but totally corrupt the entire process.

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 10/18/2009 11:16PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Thurston.
>
> Seriously, get a grip. You start ranting about
> partisan this, and partisan that. Sorry if I point
> out an inconvenient truth for you that you then
> have to come in and try to defend the galaxy of
> politicians from potential partisan commentary.
>

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goddammit, Reggie, go derail someone ELSE's
> thread, ya big old boring fuck-nozzle!
>
> Shit, I had some high-quality teary ribald humor
> to share with all of FFXU, and here you come,
> taking a HUGE shit all over it.
>
> Damn, man, you just have NO self-control, do ya?
>
> LOL, yes,thats right...a 4 minute Beck segment is
> just soooooooooo out of context. Would 10 minutes
> of straight Beck-sian idiocy satisfy you? 15
> minutes? Just tell me what constitutes "proper
> context" for you. Please.
>
> You should run for office, Reggie. Seriously. It'd
> be pretty easy to pick you out of the crowd, all
> right. And you'd get fucking crushed at the
> polls.
>
> [ Now commence over-posting your blubbery ass
> off--we'll all tune out for 12 hours so you can
> feel all self-important and shit. ]

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
Attachments:

Does anyone have any doubt that if Glenn Beck had to read all the Reggie-Rants, that he'd spontaneouslyu burst into deep racking sobs of grief?

That's how most of us feel.

Fuck!

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

You seem to have missed that I was not supporting the left (where in my comment did I defend ANY politician from ANY party?), I was saying it is hypocritical to have spent the majority of the last decade ignoring or defending the right and now saying "if it was okay to prosecute the right, the media has to step up and do the right thing now".

The same source for this idea was saying it was a vast-left-wing conspiracy, or even "traitorous" just a few short years ago. Now they hope that nobody will remember that they were bashing anyone who dared suggest that gay senators should resign for having sex with underage pages or for being arrested for soliciting sex in airport bathrooms.

Corrupt liberals deserve the same punishment as corrupt conservatives.

BUT, the more important issue of note is how partisan everyone has become. Nobody seems to see it that way until it is "the other" politician. When it is "their" politician being "persecuted", they see it an entirely different way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone have any doubt that if Glenn Beck had
> to read all the Reggie-Rants, that he'd
> spontaneouslyu burst into deep racking sobs of
> grief?
>
> That's how most of us feel.
>
> Fuck!

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
Attachments:

RV, can you go one thread without acting like a menopausal bitch?

You need to stop reading "tone" into my comments. I am not angry, but it clearly appears that you are.

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

FF seems to be the one having a menopausal melt down at the moment.

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:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You need to stop reading "tone" into my comments.
> I am not angry, but it clearly appears that you
> are.


I can feel your rage and bitterness seeping through the site.

Right. That's why you battle personally with Vince and 400 "anony-trollies" daily.

Cause you're not "angry".

LOL @ "menopausal bitch". Pretty good description of ya, Regis-tard.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Angry Old Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You need to stop reading "tone" into my
> comments.
> > I am not angry, but it clearly appears that you
> > are.
>
>
> I can feel your rage and bitterness seeping
> through the site.

The only thing you are feeling is yourself. You obviously have no clue how or what I am feeling. Maybe you should spend less time trolling and more time worrying about yourself.

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

RV, do you own any firearms? If so, please stay away from any malls or school campuses until you cool off. Seriously, you are having a manic moment.

Angry Old Man Wrote:

> I can feel your rage and bitterness seeping
> through the site.


It hurts him greatly when one of his favorite heros, the Beck-ster, gets impaled publically for being a HUGE douchebag. It's like a personal insult to him.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right. That's why you battle personally with Vince
> and 400 "anony-trollies" daily.
>
> Cause you're not "angry".
>
> LOL @ "menopausal bitch". Pretty good description
> of ya, Regis-tard.

Well, in Vince's case if it was just me having issues with his comments that would be one thing. I just happen to be his most vocal detractor. As for the anony-trollies, they seem to favor your point of view (except when Inka is around) so I can see why you don't care too much what they are doing unless he is around.

But yeah, look in the mirror FF - you fit the bill.

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

Angry Old Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV, do you own any firearms? If so, please stay
> away from any malls or school campuses until you
> cool off. Seriously, you are having a manic
> moment.

See, you really have no clue.

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

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Angry Old Man Wrote:
>
> > I can feel your rage and bitterness seeping
> > through the site.
>
>
> It hurts him greatly when one of his favorite
> heros, the Beck-ster, gets impaled publically for
> being a HUGE douchebag. It's like a personal
> insult to him.

Don't you have some sausage to make FF? Seriously, your little "acting out" here is kind of pathetic.

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 10/18/2009 11:39PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As
> for the anony-trollies, they seem to favor your
> point of view


I don't read FF's political arguments, so I can't say I am in favor of his point of view. I just find the angry old troll crusader (you RV) to be an amusing person.

Well, keep on believing that. Glad to amuse you.

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

Actually, Reggie, the last several weeks you haven't even bothered with Vince's comments, preferring instead to just call him names and post stupid Gravis-rip off pics in response to anything he posts (or all the other "anony-trollies" that you insist he is, even flying in the face of obvious evidence)

Trust me, I'm not here to defend Vince, he deserves all the feedbck he asks for. You have a massive hardon for him though, doncha?

And let's face it, the immense "man-love" you have for Gravis is pretty amusing, too. You GO, big guy!

All that aside, you remain the biggest fucking bore on the entire board, with an amusing need to have the LAST POST, on every subject, every thread, every time. You poor, unappreciated IRL "menopausal bitch", you.

And my most sincere apologies for making fun of your favorite FOX celebrity. I'm so ashamed. Really I am.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2009 11:51PM by fairfaxdude.

Ah yes, the "last comment" argument. I believe Vince uses that one a lot also.

Seriously FF, my "hard-on" for Vince pales in comparison to the one you have for inkahootz, and lately for me. While I am flattered, you can seriously take your man-love elsewhere.

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

Oh hey, and good for you FF - you started a thread. While maybe not an original thought at least you actually started a topic for once. Even if it was another "bash someone for behavior beneath the great FF" comment.

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:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Seriously FF, my "hard-on" for Vince pales in
> comparison to the one you have for inkahootz, and
> lately for me.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah yes, the "last comment" argument. I believe
> Vince uses that one a lot also.

I have no idea wtf this means. I'm sure its weak and lame.
>
> Seriously FF, my "hard-on" for Vince pales in
> comparison to the one you have for inkahootz, and
> lately for me. While I am flattered, you can
> seriously take your man-love elsewhere.

Let me explain the difference for you (take notes if you need):

Ink-tard is merely a ridiculous caricature of a quasi-human being. All of his traits would simply be ignored, if it wasn't so hilarious to poke him with a sharp stick and watch the ensuing fireworks. I've even told him that several times--he just can't control himself.

YOU, on the other hand, are just a typical boring post-hog. You think your opinions actually matter, and that your "research" and "quote-box" exactitude actually changes someones mind here. And you over-post to the point of creating huge waves of partisan bullshit that has to waded through to even SEE the other posts. I can't tell you the times many of us just send notes back and forth, HOPING that your fucking keyboard just breaks. If only for 24 hours, PLEASE GOD, just SHUT THE FUCK UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!


See the difference? Gawd, I hope so. Thanks for reading.

Now post a gif, accuse me again of "man-love", and go suck some BMOC ass. Enjoy.

EDIT: OMG, even your insults (below) are fucking LAME! STOP!

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2009 12:05AM by fairfaxdude.

Oh, poor trollie. Keep up the good work.

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
Attachments:

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ah yes, the "last comment" argument. I believe
> > Vince uses that one a lot also.
>
> I have no idea wtf this means. I'm sure its weak
> and lame.
> >
> > Seriously FF, my "hard-on" for Vince pales in
> > comparison to the one you have for inkahootz,
> and
> > lately for me. While I am flattered, you can
> > seriously take your man-love elsewhere.
>
> Let me explain the difference for you (take notes
> if you need):
>
> Ink-tard is merely a ridiculous caricature of a
> quasi-human being. All of his traits would simply
> be ignored, if it wasn't so hilarious to poke him
> with a sharp stick and watch the ensuing
> fireworks. I've even told him that several
> times--he just can't control himself.
>
> YOU, on the other hand, are just a typical boring
> post-hog. You think your opinions actually matter,
> and that your "research" and "quote-box"
> exactitude actually changes someones mind here.
> And you over-post to the point of creating huge
> waves of partisan bullshit that has to waded
> through to even SEE the other posts. I can't tell
> you the times many of us just send notes back and
> forth, HOPING that your fucking keyboard just
> breaks. If only for 24 hours, PLEASE GOD, just
> SHUT THE FUCK
> UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!
>
>
> See the difference? Gawd, I hope so. Thanks for
> reading.
>
> Now post a gif, accuse me again of "man-love", and
> go suck some BMOC ass. Enjoy.

Quite the wah fest for you tonight FF. Must be realllly boring at home tonight.

But yeah, I think the anger is definitely on the other side of the fence here. Might want to tell your troll friend he needs to get his mood sniffer checked. It seems to be just sniffing up your ass at the moment.

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
Attachments:

RV has referenced or addressed Vince in 653 posts.

RV's first post ever on FFXU was directed at Vince.

RV's first post after his five month hiatus was directed at Vince.

In the past 24 hours, RV has referenced Vince 11 times.

Hopefully RV never finds out Vince's real life identity. I think he has box of ammunition reserved for Vince. Fucking nutjob.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BUT, the more important issue of note is how
> partisan everyone has become.

Twas ever thus. Things were fiercely partisan from the beginning of the American
political scene, and through decade after decade until now.

It is human nature.

You cannot change human nature. I mention this because I detect that some such
change is an implied premise of your argument. To the extent any solution to the
problem of partisanship depends on such change, however, it will fail.

Solution: design a system that takes account of human nature, specifically "factions".

Which is what we've done. See: Federalist Papers, US Constitution.

On the basis of this system, the US has done quite well for quite some time.

But nothing lasts forever (or so history would suggest).

It could all fall apart in the next 10 years, or perhaps the next 5.

Or it could go on for another hundred.

Magic 8-Ball say: Time will tell.

Therefore: Don't worry, be happy.

We'll all be dead before you know it.

Only our virtual scribbles will live on, forever, on FU's servers.

Yes, that's it. I ovbiously want to find Vince's secret hide out!

Lol you are so lame with your conspiracy BS. But keep on - it is entertaining to see. BTW - fail on the search again. You really do suck at that.

My first post EVER was directed at the topic:

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/112090/112193.html#msg-112193

The fact that Vince had posted before me did not mean my comment was directed at him. If you actually had any grasp of reading comprehension that would be obvious to you.

Again - the only paranoid folks here - well trollie, it seems to be YOU.

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

LOL at the denial. You addressed both Vince and the OP's topic in one run on post.

So what caliber do you have selected for Vince? I doubt your limp wrists could handle anything above a .380

Krapp's Last Post Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thurston Moore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BUT, the more important issue of note is how
> > partisan everyone has become.
>
> Twas ever thus. Things were fiercely partisan
> from the beginning of the American
> political scene, and through decade after decade
> until now.
>
> It is human nature.
>
> You cannot change human nature. I mention this
> because I detect that some such
> change is an implied premise of your argument. To
> the extent any solution to the
> problem of partisanship depends on such change,
> however, it will fail.
>

No, the premise of my argument is that there is a very well-honed piece of machinery that is in fact TAKING ADVANTAGE of this human nature, and is amplifying things to a point where things are way out of hand.

Alex Jones was about the best comparison of this, from the 2001-2009 time period, where some on the left got angry about the Bush Admin's policies and actions. But that was an opposition fringe that didn't suck in the more reasonable liberal or democratic population.

This time around, the opposition fringe has a media empire of talk radio, blogs and Fox News Channel to actually suck in otherwise reasonable people into their partisan anger and vitriol.

We are reaching a crescendo here. Fox News, being a business, is really just doing this for ratings and to further Rupert's agenda, but it could very well also lead much worse.

Besides, the main point about anything I say politically is that this whole two-party facade is really only serving to pull the wool over our eyes. Neither party supports or defends the people. We're out in the cold as far as they are concerned, and they treat us like puppets who they can manipulate with fear and uncertainty and doubt, while they both walk hand in hand to whatever end they are seeking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

You seem to know a lot more about guns then I do. Vince asked me once and I told him - I don't own a gun. While I advocate for gun owner's rights, I have never decided to own a gun. Not that I can't - I just choose not to.

You really do have a completely incorrect assumption base in dealing with me.

Read the post again. I didn't speak to Vince at all - the first person I directly responded to was FUND.

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

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, the premise of my argument is that there is a
> very well-honed piece of machinery that is in fact
> TAKING ADVANTAGE of this human nature, and is
> amplifying things to a point where things are way
> out of hand...
> We are reaching a crescendo here.

Maybe. The phenomena of mass media has changed the calculus, and we could be
spiraling upwards towards a crescendo that will blow everything apart.

That is indeed a possibility.

> Besides, the main point about anything I say
> politically is that this whole two-party facade is
> really only serving to pull the wool over our
> eyes. Neither party supports or defends the
> people. We're out in the cold as far as they are
> concerned, and they treat us like puppets who they
> can manipulate with fear and uncertainty and
> doubt, while they both walk hand in hand to
> whatever end they are seeking.

And I think you've suggested elsewhere that a multi-party system is a solution to
this? Well, in brief, I don't think it is. I think such a multi-party system
would present as many, albeit somewhat different problems as the current system.

But who knows, I could be wrong. There's a first time for everything ;)

Thurston - while Murdoch has a conservative agenda, he certainly does not "control the airwaves". That sort of smacks of the greater lunatic fringe theories. Sure, cable has a big audience for him, and Rush and these others get a large following on talk radio, but NPR and MSM still gets a larger share of the audience. Not to mention the liberal rags and newspapers of record.

There is definitely a liberal bent to MSM and other cable channels. It is obvious from the topics they choose to cover or not. And NOT is the main tactic. NBC has been pushing the corporate (military/industrial) point of view for a lot longer then Fox has been around - if anyone is out for the corporate culture it is them. I don't see NBC and Fox on the same wavelength when it comes to reporting the news.

The one thing Murdoch does allow for is folks who think a bit of Nationalism is a good thing. Not to the point of fascism, but certainly we should be proud of the US and what it has stood for. The MSM seems to be on the globalist agenda, and I am sorry, but I am not ready to let the UN dictate what we do here in the US. There are too many interests there that are inimical to US interests, and no amount of kumbaya is going to make me believe they will do anything but attempt to gut the US (as they are already doing) to push their globalist agenda. Today though it seems the MSM is firmly in control of one set of global agenda folks, and that worries me more then Fox trying to tell folks they should have pride in their 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 10/19/2009 12:42AM by Registered Voter.

All good points.

However, Murdoch is the quintessential globalist.

He is a corporatist, as are most republicans no matter how much they wrap themselves around the flag and god and good christian values.

(as are most democrats.)

Both parties have long ago had a sit-down and they agree on the same basic ideals, but maybe disagree on some of the finer points of how to go about achieving them.

But, they also use really meaningless "issues" to keep all of us fighting against each other over stuff like abortion, or gay marriage or gun control, or illegal immigration, etc.

None of those things really affect our lives. They serve as distractions. What really matters is manufacturing being shipped overseas to communist and totalitarian countries, real wages being stagnant if not falling over the past 40 years, sovereignty being ceded through trade agreements (Bush and Clinton both signed these things).

I mean, it feels good to get all worked up that "the pussy liberals" want to liberalize health care, and that the "stupid republican meatheads" want to mandate gun ownership, but really, those things are irrelevant issues used as a distraction.

Both parties are run by, represented by and funded by CFR and other of a few think tanks. Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations and a few other think tanks were necessary stops for ALL presidential candidates in 2008, and EVERY administration acquiesces and appoints people from their ranks.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Well, other than instituting higher forms of protectionism with the end of tax breaks and higher tariffs, the movement of manufacturing overseas will continue.

As a matter of fact, one of the few things that would actually help in that regard would be a devaluation of the dollar. It would make US goods much cheaper in relation to other world currencies and help push trade balances back in our favor. The only problem is we would definitely have to pull in our borders and let the rest of the world fend for itself. There would be no other economic option really. Also we would have to be willing to allow for re-establishment of our industrial base - and come up with ways to work toward tolerance of ecological issues and how to balance the conflicting agendas.

Somehow folks seem to believe that we will overcome our trade deficits with no discernable products or exports. If we produce nothing, we won't export anything except maybe entertainment - and that really won't count for much.

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

There's really no way to get from here to there on this one.

We are still the number one or number two manufacturing nation, but that is basically all based on defense and aerospace. That's really all we have left. And a few medical technologies based on radiation science.

The bottom line is that both parties have taken part in the stagnation, even decline of this nation, and they have accelerated this drive in the past 15 or 20 years.

Neither party is looking out for the common citizen's best interest. They drive wedge issues between republican voters and democrat voters, and we get so worked up over those issues that we fail to see the walls crumbling around us.

I have a feeling that by the time I retire, this country will have "economically equalized" with the developing world. Meaning, no growth for us, and lots of growth for them. No single party will be to blame, either, but many people on both sides will still believe they know best why the other party is responsible for it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Nafta, repressive tax policies and the green agenda have a lot to do with our problems today. Unions and their threats of strikes used as extortion added to the mix.

While there were corporate interests that wanted to open up markets and trade with China, their agenda at the time wasn't wholesale movement of industries overseas. That came later with increasing labor and related costs in the US, and the push to integrate job sectors globally. We were always going to be at a disadvantage in that area because our labor costs were already so much higher then most other countries in the world - in particular the ones we counted on for low cost manufacturing like China, Mexico and India.

Sure, it falls on both sides - but if that is the case then it certainly isn't in the US interest to embrace globalism on any level. Yet the green agenda is the biggest proponent of that today. That falls squarely on one side of the aisle at the moment. It is a wonder how the democratic party functions where half of the agenda is dominated by labor unions and providing much of the money for their campaigns, and the other side is controlled by folks from the Sierra Club and such. Not to mention George Soros - one of the biggest globalists around. He has been pushing for the demise of the US for quite a while.

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

The fact that the liberal-leaning agendas are more prominent in the move towards globalism since 2006 and 2008 doesn't make it okay to jump on the partisan bandwagon of hating on the party you disagree with.

This had been an ongoing thing. Bush Sr worked for it, Clinton Worked for it, Bush Jr worked for it, and now Obama is working for it.

If we continue this silly game where the left gets mad when the right does it, and the right defends it, and the right gets mad when the left does it and the left defends it, we will have allowed divide and conquer to distract us while both parties have accomplished it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

And if we don't take a stand somewhere we will never change anything.

What do you propose oh swami of the non-partisan? I don't see anything but "we are fucked" in your predictions. If all you are going to do is tell us how bad we are for having partisan leanings, you aren't helping.

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

We can't stop anything if we continue playing the partisan games put before us by the people doing the damage.

Empowering either party only continues the path towards a global social, economic and political future. Both sides have made remarks about this, and both parties' candidates all make the rounds in front of the globalist think tanks during elections, yet we are all still supporting both parties.

Awareness is the first step.

Once people realize that both parties are playing us off against each other with all of these "values issues" and other distractions, then the second step can be figured out.

But until people stop getting involved over these distracting issues and angry about what one side or the other is doing, nobody is going to see the reality going on around them.

Both parties are serving a shadow interest, while manipulating people into support for and anger against.

Until that cycle is broken, they'll keep serving the shadows and distracting the public.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Well, that all sounds good - but really accomplishes nothing. The two party cycles are here - it seems to me at this point the only thing you can do is get into the party apparatus and attempt to influence changes from the inside. They are so entrenched in State laws and such that other than creating some viable third party there isn't much else you can do.

First thing is to push for reducing spending. We have to get that under control or we will ensure our destiny is controlled by China and the Saudis.

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

It cannot be changed from within. You cannot get "in" unless you agree to certain things.

Why do you think that an intern of Zbigniew Brezinski from the 1970's can be a junior senator elected to be president only 2 years into his senate tenure?

The only way to break the cycle is to get people to stop playing the game, and to vote off issue.

I know, from the existence of UFC and all the reality shows that most people are not fit for self governance and all that, but if people could at least be told that they have a government that runs itself, in opposition to their belief that it is run by them, then maybe people would pay a little more attention.

There are senators and congressmen who are not part of the machine. I know Ron Paul has his detractors, but he is obviously not acting on anyone's behalf other than those that he believes are his voters' interests. End-the-fed, and all that aside, he got shunned by both "left and right media", if you believe in such a set of monsters. He may not be the perfect example since many people have been conditioned to think he's crazy, but he is the most readily available example of a politician that isn't part of the centralized machine that controls both parties.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

God you all should get a room. The infighting IS the only thread on this site. What happened to fighting over the actual topic? At least that was fun.

Back to the topic - Beck wishes we were back in a time with 8% unemployment and 5% annual inflation and a POTUS that had to be appointed because the Pres and VP left office in shame (before their terms). Oh and we were about to elect Jimmy Carter.

Good old days?!? Its not me that is in denial. Beck is a head-case and people that watch him are not really listening or paying attention to the content.

He wants people to be unified - bullshit. Division is his stock-and-trade. Oh and I doubt he wants Jimmy Carter as president like the good old days. If it makes you feel good to watch someone lying I guess he is great to watch. For information - not so much...

Does Glenn Beck do anything other than cry? When he does, it's the only time I hear anything about him. He's a pundit of some sort, right?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We can't stop anything if we continue playing the
> partisan games put before us by the people doing
> the damage.

I've been saying that for a while, now. I'm just a janitor, though, so nobody takes me seriously.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Thank you dono, for wrapping that all up so succinctly.

Shhhhh, they're sleeping. Don't make any sound.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thurston Moore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We can't stop anything if we continue playing
> the
> > partisan games put before us by the people
> doing
> > the damage.
>
> I've been saying that for a while, now. I'm just
> a janitor, though, so nobody takes me seriously.

Maybe we should be giving more credit to the "just a janitor" people??

It should be plainly obvious where all the problems come from, but people are too busy bitching about how their neighbor is an abortion loving communist who loves illegal aliens, or how their neighbor wants to arm schoolchildren with automatic weapons and deny gays the right to marriage.

Right wing, left wing, blah blah blah.

Divide and conquer.

The tactic is working. The tactic is to create this idea that there are two ideologies opposing each other. Get all the people worked up about one side or the other, get them angry that the other side isn't seeing things their way, get them pissed that the others are ruining our country, and then both parties can ruin our country, and hand it over to a supra national body like the Europeans did, slowly, over the course of 50 years when they didn't believe that there was a plan to create the EU, and then they can act all surprised when the lisbon treaty is only put up for a vote in 3 or 4 countries, and Ireland is told to keep trying until they get it right after failing to vote yes for it a year or two ago, but now got it right by voting yes.

They figured this shit out. The only way to circumvent a nation's constitution was through treaties ratified by the legislatures.

All of these treaties take sovereign powers from constitutional governments. The politicians all around the world understand that constitutions restrict their powers, and limit government and that is bad for business.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2009 04:16AM by Thurston Moore.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe we should be giving more credit to the "just
> a janitor" people??
>
> It should be plainly obvious where all the
> problems come from, but people are too busy
> bitching about how their neighbor is an abortion
> loving communist who loves illegal aliens, or how
> their neighbor wants to arm schoolchildren with
> automatic weapons and deny gays the right to
> marriage.
>
> Right wing, left wing, blah blah blah.
>
> Divide and conquer.
>
> The tactic is working. The tactic is to create
> this idea that there are two ideologies opposing
> each other. Get all the people worked up about
> one side or the other, get them angry that the
> other side isn't seeing things their way, get them
> pissed that the others are ruining our country,
> and then both parties can ruin our country, and
> hand it over to a supra national body like the
> Europeans did, slowly, over the course of 50 years
> when they didn't believe that there was a plan to
> create the EU, and then they can act all surprised
> when the lisbon treaty is only put up for a vote
> in 3 or 4 countries, and Ireland is told to keep
> trying until they get it right after failing to
> vote yes for it a year or two ago, but now got it
> right by voting yes.
>
> They figured this shit out. The only way to
> circumvent a nation's constitution was through
> treaties ratified by the legislatures.
>
> All of these treaties take sovereign powers from
> constitutional governments. The politicians all
> around the world understand that constitutions
> restrict their powers, and limit government and
> that is bad for business.

Exactly.

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/244849/

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Angry Old Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV has referenced or addressed Vince in 653
> posts.
>
> RV's first post ever on FFXU was directed at
> Vince.
>
> RV's first post after his five month hiatus was
> directed at Vince.
>
> In the past 24 hours, RV has referenced Vince 11
> times.
>
> Hopefully RV never finds out Vince's real life
> identity. I think he has box of ammunition
> reserved for Vince. Fucking nutjob.


And he accuses me of being obsessed with him! Rv is a bit of a joke a stereotype of Fox "news". Imagine describing Rupert Murdock as a "nationalist"! Ruppert like his puppet Rush will do and say anything to make a buck. Thats all that motivates him and Rush...not nationalist pride in any country on the face of the earth..

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

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LMAO...I apologize in advance, but Glenn Beck
> crying over sappy 1970s commercials and creating
> sap-strewn analogies out of teen-age curfew
> violations is just priceless.
>
> Or was he talking about the Redskins?
>
> I love his forceful recovery from the temptations
> of tears...too fuckin funny!
>
>
>
That was absolutely bizarre! My theory is that with the end of the fairnes doctrine a new industry developed...an industry dependent on diversion...cable news.

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

Yeah, not like the Whitehouse would ever orchestrate some kind of phony campaign with the help of media outlets to promote an agenda...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/10/20/obamavision-the-eifs-implausible-deniability/

Quote

...
But here’s my favorite part of the story… The “Who us?” part…

Entertainment executives first hit on the idea during a board retreat in summer 2008 when they were brainstorming how to follow the “Stand Up to Cancer” project, according to Mitch Metcalf, NBC’s executive vice president of program planning and scheduling and a member of the EIF board.

“We’re lucky that the Obama administration happened to think this is a worthy cause and the first lady in particular is behind this general effort,” he said. “But that just provides support and shines a spotlight on it. . . . We’re certainly not servicing the White House.”

Why would anyone think network television is servicing the White House when the memo directing everyone to “organically” create propaganda opens with, “President Obama has called for…”?

And then there’s the coincidence surrounding the laundry list of specific asks. Top three in the EIF memo: Education, health, environment… Top three in the NEA conference calls: Health care, education, environment…
...

Vince, you have no plausible deniability. You are just a nucking fut.

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

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They figured this shit out. The only way to
> circumvent a nation's constitution was through
> treaties ratified by the legislatures.
>
> All of these treaties take sovereign powers from
> constitutional governments. The politicians all
> around the world understand that constitutions
> restrict their powers, and limit government and
> that is bad for business.


So, as a conservative, when I protest against American liberals/progressives who
want to similarly sign away US sovereign powers through various such treaties
(eg, international criminal court), have I merely succumbed to the "divide and
conquer" tactic, or would my right-wing agitations - screaming and yelling,
pounding the table, the usual stuff - be justified in that case? (Of course, I
freely acknowledge they're not justified - but rather, obviously, just a kind of
mass hysteria - when it comes to meaningless issues like abortion, gay
marriage, etc.)

And yet Bush and previous Republican administrations have made it clear we would not be subject to the World Court for criminal prosecution, especially for war crimes. Under more liberal administrations the trend has been looking to go the other way, and allow for this - even though it flies in the face of our Constitution and laws.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa050602b.htm

Quote

US Renounces UN's World Court
Move outrages human rights groups
Dateline: 05/07/02

Through a letter to the U.N., the Bush administration has reserved the right of the U.S. to ignore decisions and orders issued by the International Criminal Court. The action effectively neutralizes President Clinton's signature to the treaty creating the court.

Established under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998, the court was established to serve as an ad hoc world tribunal responsible for prosecuting war crimes and "crimes against humanity," when national criminal justice systems are "unwilling or unable to act." [See: Establishment of the Court]

While human rights organizations have expressed outrage over President Bush's action, former President Clinton, who signed the treaty on behalf of the U.S. on Dec. 31, 2000, stated at the time that he did not intend to sending the pact to the Senate for official ratification. Clinton stated that he agreed to sign the treaty only to allow the U.S. to participate in discussions on the court's structure and jurisdiction.

Both former President Clinton and President Bush expressed reservations that the treaty could lead to politically-motivated prosecution of U.S. government leaders or military personnel.

While Canada and all but one of the 15 nations of the European Union have ratified the treaty since 1998, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues Pierre-Richard Prosper is quoted in an Associated Press article as stating that President Bush's action makes it clear to the U.N. that, "we [the U.S.] are not going to be a party to the process."
...

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 10/20/2009 06:11PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yet Bush and previous Republican
> administrations have made it clear we would not be
> subject to the World Court for criminal
> prosecution, especially for war crimes.


Precisely.

Don't you get it?

They're just playing their role in the "divide and conquer" game.

Don't fall for it!
Attachments:

Bronx Banter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thurston Moore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They figured this shit out. The only way to
> > circumvent a nation's constitution was through
> > treaties ratified by the legislatures.
> >
> > All of these treaties take sovereign powers
> from
> > constitutional governments. The politicians
> all
> > around the world understand that constitutions
> > restrict their powers, and limit government and
> > that is bad for business.
>
>
> So, as a conservative, when I protest against
> American liberals/progressives who
> want to similarly sign away US sovereign powers
> through various such treaties
> (eg, international criminal court), have I merely
> succumbed to the "divide and
> conquer" tactic, or would my right-wing agitations
> - screaming and yelling,
> pounding the table, the usual stuff - be justified
> in that case? (Of course, I
> freely acknowledge they're not justified - but
> rather, obviously, just a kind of
> mass hysteria - when it comes to meaningless
> issues like abortion, gay
> marriage, etc.)


It isn't justified if it is based on a misunderstanding of what is really going on.

Attacking one side and supporting the other will not change a damn thing.

So what if health care isn't passed (or is), it isn't going to change a thing.

Bush not supporting the ICC and Obama maybe supporting it, doesn't matter.

Bush signed trade agreements, Obama will sign more. Bush met with Fox and the Canadian PM working towards even larger trade agreements and open border policies (think mexican truckers on US highways. They're here, and Bush was the one who allowed it. I'm sure Obama will go one step further and allow mexicans to unload the trucks at their destinations. Well, that already happens, from Bush, clinton, Bush and Reagan policies.)

Getting pissed off that the other party is doing this or that is missing the point. We should be pissed that BOTH PARTIES are doing this or that. They are both working towards an end, and we are simply running around all pissed off about how the damn liberals or the damn conservatives are doing this and that, depending on our political allegiances.

We need to abandon allegiances to EITHER party, BOTH parties.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

We need to stop fighting from one party trench or the other. That shit is why Britain is such a politically stagnant and increasingly meaningless nation on the world stage (unless it hitches its wagon to US policies.)

Britain has a highly politicized, partisan media, and Fox News has brought that to America.

It's hurting America.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192

Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.

.......

Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic. Fox sponsored as much as it covered the anti-Obama "tea parties" this summer. Its "fact checking" about the president's health-care proposal is provided by Karl Rove. And weepy Glenn Beck has begun to exhibit a Strangelovean concern about government invading our bloodstream by vaccinating people for swine flu. With this misinformation campaign, Fox stands to become the first network to actively try to kill its viewers.

.........


What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.



-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Bobbie McDonnell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a fucking cry baby! Are all Republicans
> bying into this shit?


Kind of like how all of the Democrats bought into that whining Curious George character currently in the WH?

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We need to stop fighting from one party trench or
> the other. That shit is why Britain is such a
> politically stagnant and increasingly meaningless
> nation on the world stage (unless it hitches its
> wagon to US policies.)
>
> Britain has a highly politicized, partisan media,
> and Fox News has brought that to America.
>
> It's hurting America.
>
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192
>
> Any news organization that took its
> responsibilities seriously would take pains to
> cover presidential criticism fairly. It would
> regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At
> Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt
> only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence"
> that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.
>
> .......
>
> Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent
> months become more boisterous and demagogic. Fox
> sponsored as much as it covered the anti-Obama
> "tea parties" this summer. Its "fact checking"
> about the president's health-care proposal is
> provided by Karl Rove. And weepy Glenn Beck has
> begun to exhibit a Strangelovean concern about
> government invading our bloodstream by vaccinating
> people for swine flu. With this misinformation
> campaign, Fox stands to become the first network
> to actively try to kill its viewers.
>
> .........
>
>
> What's most distinctive about the American press
> is not its freedom but its century-old tradition
> of independence—that it serves the public interest
> rather than those of parties, persuasions, or
> pressure groups. Media independence is a
> 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken
> root in many other countries that do have a free
> press. The Australian-British-continental model of
> politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox
> is un-American, so much so that he has little
> choice but go on denying what he's doing as he
> does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair
> and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that
> their coverage is slanted by design would violate
> the American understanding of the media's role in
> democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair
> play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no
> longer deserves equal time.
>
>


That's really funny, coming from Newsweek (AkA Salon, AKA MSNBC) and all.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> That's really funny, coming from Newsweek (AkA
> Salon, AKA MSNBC) and all.

Thank you for making their point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Britain has a highly politicized, partisan media,
> and Fox News has brought that to America.
>
> It's hurting America.
>
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192
>
> Any news organization that took its
> responsibilities seriously would take pains to
> cover presidential criticism fairly. It would
> regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At
> Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt
> only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence"
> that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.
>
> .......
>
> Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent
> months become more boisterous and demagogic. Fox
> sponsored as much as it covered the anti-Obama
> "tea parties" this summer. Its "fact checking"
> about the president's health-care proposal is
> provided by Karl Rove. And weepy Glenn Beck has
> begun to exhibit a Strangelovean concern about
> government invading our bloodstream by vaccinating
> people for swine flu. With this misinformation
> campaign, Fox stands to become the first network
> to actively try to kill its viewers.
>
> .........
>
>
> What's most distinctive about the American press
> is not its freedom but its century-old tradition
> of independence—that it serves the public interest
> rather than those of parties, persuasions, or
> pressure groups. Media independence is a
> 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken
> root in many other countries that do have a free
> press. The Australian-British-continental model of
> politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox
> is un-American, so much so that he has little
> choice but go on denying what he's doing as he
> does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair
> and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that
> their coverage is slanted by design would violate
> the American understanding of the media's role in
> democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair
> play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no
> longer deserves equal time.
>
>

Newsweek is hardly an unbiased source to post a response from. It isn't as if the government is running the media (See Britain) - of which the equivalent over here would be NPR. Thank God there is no TV equivalent here in the US. Although now what you have is the MSM buying into the "party-line".

Sorry TM, but you are drinking the koolaid. You come here and tout all this hyper-partisan BS, but in reality you are consistently DEFENDING the same organizations that are promoting the continuing dumbing down of the news. What you keep glossing over is the fact that Murdoch runs News and Media organizations - his only Corporate interest is to himself. He isn't like the guy in the James Bond movies where he is some kind of megalomaniac that has to have his face posted on every building, and tries to make the news by blowing up ships from other countries and trying to cause wars.

The MSM today ONLY reports salacious news against Conservative opponents. That is pretty much it. They have taken this cry of "hypocrite" and applied it to conservative politicians, so the only time you get a story pounded to discredit someone is when they are on that side of the aisle. Look at Charlie Rangel - how many stories in MSM over his tax evasion? How many stories about why the ethic committee isn't being partisan by glossing over his activities? Your cup is overflowing with BS TM. The media became "partisan" a long time ago - Fox is just the other side of the coin, which unfortunately we needed to offset the news that was not being covered by MSM.

Sure, do ALL politicians have problems? Absolutely. That doesn't mean Fox is wrong for covering the other side to expose their BS. Personally I am tired of "radicals" trying to control the way I live my life. I don't want religion pushed in my face, and I don't want the moral relatives pushing their apathy agenda either. This article from Newsweek is just another "expose" in the attempt to marginalize Fox. It will be interesting to see what the final result is - but I seriously doubt Fox is going anywhere, and will most likely only get a louder voice because of it.

EDIT: That article smacked of a conversation Vince would have - in a more civilized tone.

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 10/29/2009 02:41PM by Registered Voter.

Now you have the next step - marginalizing Drudge. I knew this was coming - since many of the stories you see covered on the cable news is highlighted on his site.

Zeroing in on the dollar's decline
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28530.html

Quote

...
That’s leading some to conclude that Drudge’s conservative politics are playing a part in his focus on the issue.

“I think Drudge has been taking a page out of Fox News’ playbook,” said Adam Penenberg, a journalism professor at New York University and author of “Viral Loop: From Facebook to Twitter, How Today’s Smartest Businesses Grow Themselves.”

“Because Republicans have been making hay over their belief that America is becoming weak, its “socialist” economy in shambles, stories on the falling dollar help buttress this worldview,” Penenberg said.

One financial consultant who asked not to be named agreed with that analysis. “The problem is now that fundamentals-driven dollar weakness is being politicized as an anti-Obama weapon, thus Drudge,” said the consultant. “Drudge is simply looking at the charts and then hitting the administration on it.”
...

So now it is all Drudge's fault - NOT the policy makers. Too funny. When you print paper money with no backing, there is only one way for the value to go.

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

Drudge is an unreliable source of factual reporting. You can read his site with a large grain of salt.

And yet, the stories he links to are the ones most of the cable news folks cover. You definitely have to read into the articles to see what is actually being talked about - you can't go by his titles. That has a lot to do with why he does it - if all you do is follow soundbites, you would never get anything out of checking articles from his site.

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

.........Sigh....

So now you see why, Reggie muh man, I rarely start threads here.

Every new thread is yet another opportunity to lend your distinctive brand of keyboard puke to the cesspool of the interwebz.

..........Sigh.....

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .........Sigh....
>
> So now you see why, Reggie muh man, I rarely start
> threads here.
>
> Every new thread is yet another opportunity to
> lend your distinctive brand of keyboard puke to
> the cesspool of the interwebz.
>
> ..........Sigh.....

And yet, you are just a cesspool of pretty much nothing FF. So every time you post, you are directly contributing to the overall apathetic BS you push. You should change your name to FFKibbles - that would be more appropriate for the comments you do make here and elsewhere.

EDIT: I suppose the world would be a better place if all tv did was show "reality" shows? Personally I liked it better when tv painted a higher standard for people to aspire to - that way when they fell short, they still had a pretty decent life. Today you have folks aspiring to get on shows like "Wipe Out" or "Big Brother" - MTV's the "Real World" is another winner. They have taken Soap Operas and turned them into real life - while it can be sometimes entertaining, the fact that kids watch these shows and think they should act like these folks doesn't help anyone.

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 10/21/2009 01:59PM by Registered Voter.

Alexander to White House: Don't Create 'Enemies List'
http://www.rollcall.com/news/39733-1.html?type=printer_friendly

Quote

...
“This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants,” Alexander said. “If the president and his top aides treat people with different views as enemies instead of listening to what they have to say, they’re likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them. And as those of us who served in the Nixon White House know, that can get you into a lot of trouble.”

After Alexander’s remarks, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) rose to speak on a different topic, but he first commented that it appeared Alexander was accusing the administration of “Nixifying” the White House — adding that he hoped the term would enter into “the lexicon.” Alexander replied that he was “seeing some signs” in the Obama White House that he had seen “at the early stages of Nixon.”

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 yet, you are just a cesspool of pretty much
> nothing FF. So every time you post, you are
> directly contributing to the overall apathetic BS
> you push. You should change your name to FFKibbles
> - that would be more appropriate for the comments
> you do make here and elsewhere.
>
> EDIT: I suppose the world would be a better place
> if all tv did was show "reality" shows? Personally
> I liked it better when tv painted a higher
> standard for people to aspire to - that way when
> they fell short, they still had a pretty decent
> life. Today you have folks aspiring to get on
> shows like "Wipe Out" or "Big Brother" - MTV's the
> "Real World" is another winner. They have taken
> Soap Operas and turned them into real life - while
> it can be sometimes entertaining, the fact that
> kids watch these shows and think they should act
> like these folks doesn't help anyone.


thats stupid

Ive applied to Big Brother 17 times. I cant believe they wont take me!

Obama has nothing on Nixon. Nixon is my hero.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > .........Sigh....
> >
> > So now you see why, Reggie muh man, I rarely
> start
> > threads here.
> >
> > Every new thread is yet another opportunity to
> > lend your distinctive brand of keyboard puke to
> > the cesspool of the interwebz.
> >
> > ..........Sigh.....
>
> And yet, you are just a cesspool of pretty much
> nothing FF. So every time you post, you are
> directly contributing to the overall apathetic BS
> you push. You should change your name to FFKibbles
> - that would be more appropriate for the comments
> you do make here and elsewhere.
>
> EDIT: I suppose the world would be a better place
> if all tv did was show "reality" shows? Personally
> I liked it better when tv painted a higher
> standard for people to aspire to - that way when
> they fell short, they still had a pretty decent
> life. Today you have folks aspiring to get on
> shows like "Wipe Out" or "Big Brother" - MTV's the
> "Real World" is another winner. They have taken
> Soap Operas and turned them into real life - while
> it can be sometimes entertaining, the fact that
> kids watch these shows and think they should act
> like these folks doesn't help anyone.


I SERIOUSLY (lol) have no idea what this drivel is......"cesspool of nothing"? well, it wouldn't be a cesspool then, would it? "apathetic BS"? as opposed to drone-erous, onerous FAUX NEWS and Breitbart reposts?..... FFKIbbles? You're still hung up on Snowball....awwwwww, thats cute!

WTF is this non sequitur about reality TV? Did your TV explode during FAUX NEWS reruns? Or did Steve DOOOOOOOOOOCEY not wink at you this morning? I mean, SERIOUSLY, wtf dude?

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Seriously, WTF dude.

Did your brain explode and leave trails down the walls?

You seem to be as obsessed with me as the trolls are. If you don't like my posts, ignore me. Seriously.

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

I'd rather sit here and poke sharp sticks into your fat abdomen, while I wait for you to follow your own advice.

But really, you just keep on blabbering nonsense. Soap Operas? Really? LMAO

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Hey im just wondering, why do people like Fairfaxdude care so much to give Glenn Beck this extra attention. Why do you feel the need to create a forum about him? Finally if you hate/despise him so much, and think he is a cry baby why do you have so many responses about HIS subjects. over 80 responses about a person you claim to hate so much? it seems like you are scared of your insecurities and feel the need to attack somebody else. Somebody with a lot of money and security in the form of wealth. Seems envious to me. But hey i did not read any of your comments on this topic b/cuz i feel like it would be a lot of ignorant insults.


anyways. thats it for me here.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yet, the stories he links to are the ones most
> of the cable news folks cover. You definitely have
> to read into the articles to see what is actually
> being talked about - you can't go by his titles.
> That has a lot to do with why he does it - if all
> you do is follow soundbites, you would never get
> anything out of checking articles from his site.


Now I'm confused. Is the mainstream media only attacking conservatives, or is Drudge linking to the stories where the mainstream media is all of the sudden not kowtowing to the left?

I really have a hard time keeping up. It's okay for fox to be biased because "everyone knows" the msm is biased, so thank god there is long last this balancing force to counter NPR? NPR? Really??

You don't like that I do not follow the Fox News and other ultra-right-wing talking points, so you label me a "liberal".

Sorry, but I am not. If it makes you feel better about your political views to think that I am, that's up to you. But you should examine why you are so heatedly against one party while being so blindly obedient to another.

BTW, the newsweek article was not talking about the state run BBC, he was talking about what we Americans have, at least 20 or so years ago, referred to as the british tabloids. Tabloid journalism is extremist, partisan and reactionary.

Fox News is based on the very same model that Murdoch imported to America from his British and Australian tabloids.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 10/22/2009 01:15AM by Thurston Moore.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now I'm confused. Is the mainstream media only
> attacking conservatives, or is Drudge linking to
> the stories where the mainstream media is all of
> the sudden not kowtowing to the left?

Drudge links to stories he deems important for whatever reason. Fox covers a lot of the stories he posts. Other cable outlets will cover a few of the things he points out. MSM (broadcast) will sometimes cover one of his topics, but not anything that points to liberal failings.

MSM tends to promote stories that attack conservatives when they find out "salacious" material to promote. If A conservative failed to pay his taxes and held a position of authority, it would be front page news for days and days until they were forced to step down or resign. That has been done over and over again. Yet you have Wrangel and others who had issues with taxes, serious issues, and yet you hear nothing about this. Past examples include the UN Oil for Food program which was used by Saddam to pay off folks for political favors, and eventually led to indictments and resignations from the UN. You ask someone who only watched broadcast news, and they would have no clue what you are talking about. Fox was one of the only places the story was investigated, and eventually it ended up in the Washington Times and WSJ (go figure). NY Times and WAPO may have eventually covered it after the fact.

>
> I really have a hard time keeping up. It's okay
> for fox to be biased because "everyone knows" the
> msm is biased, so thank god there is long last
> this balancing force to counter NPR? NPR?
> Really??
>

NPR was quite liberal prior to the Bush administration. When they attempted to balance the stories there they got all sorts of flack for it - even though it was government funded. As far as the rest of the MSM goes, they generally practice the art of ignoring stories - these days with Obama they seem to have forgotten how to be journalists.

> You don't like that I do not follow the Fox News
> and other ultra-right-wing talking points, so you
> label me a "liberal".
>
> Sorry, but I am not. If it makes you feel better
> about your political views to think that I am,
> that's up to you. But you should examine why you
> are so heatedly against one party while being so
> blindly obedient to another.

I don't care what news sites you watch or don't watch. You are the one that consistently defend the liberal point of view (as some form of hyper-partisan defense), why would anyone think you are "liberal" in political bent TM? You can claim to be non-partisan all you want, but your posts clearly point in a different direction. I am not blindly obedient to anyone - I have made it clear that special interests control both sides and "we the people" rarely have our views included in current legislation. I don't believe MSM serves anyone's interest at the moment other than the liberal agenda. They can be biased in how they report an issue, as well as their NON reporting on an issue.

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

Wow.

You honestly do not know how deeply you have been influenced.

I've never defended the liberals.

Did you ever see my post of why I would not support health care reform?

I know, it had nothing to do with the talking point of the day of the pissed off opposition, it was just an actual opinion, that I formed on my own, actually through reading all of that "liberal" media that is supposedly guiding me towards the socialist nirvana you are supposed to be angry and upset about if you watch Fox News.

Sorry, but you remind me of a talking points memo, and none of what you say is original (though you may feel that after watching and reading and listening for however many hours today, it is really your own belief, but it is still influenced by the channel of information you have chosen to adhere to.)

We Report. You Decide. -- Yeah, makes you feel like they trust you to handle the entire story, not just the parts they want you to hear.


When has Fox actually argued against the requirement that everyone have medical insurance? I haven't heard too much consternation about this. That is the reason why I am against it, but I don't count since I'm too moderate of a conservative.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 10/22/2009 01:57AM by Thurston Moore.

Quote

...
What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.
...

Fox has never denied they have a conservative slant to their reporting. They promote fair and balanced in the sense that they always try to have opposing points of view represented in their discussions. MSM started adopting a larger use of opposing views once Fox came on the scene. While there may have been a time in the past when MSM was independent, that era is long past with media consolidation and ownership changes. MSM has never acknowledged their liberal slant. It is there, but they want to act like it doesn't exist. Which is worse?

As far as independence goes, NBC has no claim to that mantle, being owned by GE. CBS, and ABC are as much media companies as Fox is. CNN tried to come off that way, but they clearly promote the globalist agenda (which Fox really does not - they have a much stronger nationalist push).

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

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You honestly do not know how deeply you have been
> influenced.
>
...
> none of what you say is original (though you
> may feel that after watching and reading and
> listening for however many hours today, it is
> really your own belief, but it is still influenced
> by the channel of information you have chosen to
> adhere to.)

Your argument is like the one for global warming. You look at indicators and decide that x + y = z. Of course you completely ignore any other information in front of you that might invalidate your "proof".

I compare news, I don't just watch any one channel or show. If I see a story, I research it - I don't care that Fox or some other news agency is telling me one thing or another. Truly, there are stories MSM does not cover - that should have been covered. They are failing in their "independent" ability to look into and deal with stories that need to be investigated because they "agree" with the agenda. My wife pushes me emails that contain truly biased information on a regular basis (internment camps, etc) , and I have to point out to her that the information she subscribes to is clearly "clipped" to present a point of view (ultra conservative BS) and she shouldn't just believe everything she reads.

When the original health care bill came out, I saw some summaries and looked more into the what the bill really said. Remember me debunking the "death panels" issue by pointing out the changes were just to allow for paying of consultations, not making them some kind of mandatory issue. That came from reading portions of the bill, not just believing what Fox or anyone else told me to believe. Even the liberals came in and attacked the issue - they didn't clarify it at all.

The issue with Obama talking to the schools. My original issue was with the lesson plan they promoted, the eventual speech was fine. But it definitely received some editing once the story broke. We may never know what it originally was, but clearly the end result was tailored to be perfectly reasonable.

Yes, I come from a conservative background. That doesn't mean that Fox makes my decisions for me. They do present one side of the story, and MSM these days tends to promote or not cover the other. I also advocate for legalization of marijuana, and believe that executive salaries should be reduced in companies that received bail out funds. I don't think either of those views would be represented at Fox, huh?

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

Christ on crutches RV. Do you ever go to sleep? Do you just frantically press the refresh button waiting for the next response to your inane rambling views?

alright, I might be lumping you in with all the rest, unfairly.

But you should recognize how the extreme, and we all know that Fox News is breeding that viewpoint, is making anyone who has a reasonable viewpoint that is a little bit to the right, appear just as extremist as them.

Moderates on the right have no chance to say anything without sounding like the nutjobs.

But, let's not forget, left or right, adhering to any party line is a recipe for disaster. People need to unsubscribe and just vote off issue.

We need to either get rid of these two parties (nearly impossible) or we need to make it impossible for them to be bought by special interests, and force them to represent genuine American political positions, not the corporate media derived anger and vitriol.

But when you react to a Newsweek article about how Fox News is unamerican, by saying that Newsweek is Liberal, and of course they would say that, you need to realize how that just proves exactly what they are saying.

Newsweek isn't liberal. I know that is what is said by certain news outlets, but Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer and George Will all write for Newsweek. It might not be "right wing" but it definitely attempts to present both viewpoints.

Sure, Fox News presents both viewpoints, for sure. They have a "liberal" on a show, and the other 3 guests interrupt him, the host yells and screams at him and eventually turns off his microphone. How "balanced" is that??? Newsweek just allows all political ideologies to have their own columns, or to write articles, and nobody screams at them to drown them out while they do it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 10/22/2009 02:55AM by Thurston Moore.

Thurston Moore Wrote:

> Sure, Fox News presents both viewpoints, for sure.
> They have a "liberal" on a show, and the other 3
> guests interrupt him, the host yells and screams
> at him and eventually turns off his microphone.
> How "balanced" is that??? Newsweek just allows
> all political ideologies to have their own
> columns, or to write articles, and nobody screams
> at them to drown them out while they do it.


My favorite example was when Hannity was Hannity/Colmes. Poor Alan Combes--Hannity would openly jeer at him, invite his "guests" to make fun of him, and just shout over him, much as he does now with his "liberal" guests (read: victims/foils). It got just ridiculous during the election coverage. I'm sure Combes was pals with Hannity before; now I imagine he's just relieved to not have that asshole in his face every night. Hannity needs to have one of his "liberal" guests just shove that football down his throat.