Greyfoxlinux
Sorry Bol, I just need to post my biased sludge to defend my credibility. Oh, you should write a guideline about not double posting, and using the edit button by the way.^-^
Hey Mirror, im sorry that my posts got you pissed off, but i wasn't trying to debate anything with my "sludge". I'm going to try and offer my supports here, since you obviously think I was lacking them there. Good call, and now i can elaborate; as well as express the undying love and bottomless admiration I have for you!
Bolt, should we take this somewhere else? I fussed about messing up the thread in my first post, but he's given me no choice but to perpetuate this.
Oh, I just love you too. I
think you were lacking because you
were. You offered no support and made many wild, baseless accusations.
Quote:
Let's start with Fox, and how it's biased. Fox is the single largest news conglomerate in the world, and it's owned by a single man, Rupert Murdoch. Here's a bio on him, if you feel up to a little reading:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/murdochrupe/murdochrupe.htm
Murdoch's regime is notedly right wing, supporting the Reagan, Bush, and Bush administrations closely. In fact, Murdoch and the Clearchannel syndicate are among the largest contributors to the present administration, just look around on google and you'll find supports for this. In return, Fox is allowed certain "loopholes" in FCC regulations, among other things.
I love your use of the term "regime." Nice touch, that.
A owner/creator's beliefs aren't necessarily reflected in the news. It's fallacious to assume that his views are the ones that come through on Fox. You need to look at how news is actually presented. Fox does an excellent job of hosting debates. People with differing opinions are pitted against each other daily. It's not just one stream of conservatives giving their view unchallenged.
Quote:
A question for you: If the Fox News Channel is truly fair and balanced, then why do they hire mostly notable conservative talking heads, such as:
Bill O'Reilly,
Sean Hannity,
Britt Hume,
and
Tony Snow.
(Snow most notably was a primary speechwriter for the Bush Sr. campaign.)
The only regular competition is Colmes, of Hannity and Colmes. However, he does a poor job of supporting the opposition's(liberals) opinions, due to the format of the show. Watch Hannity and Colmes oblectively, and you'll see what I mean. The show is formatted so that the hosts, instead of debating each other with the guests, attack the guests independently.
O'Reilly's an independent, not a conservative. Look at his positions. Many are liberal.
I know the format of the show. I fail to see how it unfairly favors Hannity. Both have an equal chance at the guest (unless it's an interview). Colmes does just fine.
There are liberals on Fox besides Colmes. I believe Geraldo Rivera and Greta van Susteren are liberals.
Quote:
Another of my favorites is O'Reilly. O'Reilly is most noted for his "tell it like it is" style, which often brings up blunders that he refuses to appologize for. I'm not going to delve into this barrel of fish too deeply, so for some support, check up on O'Reilly's "Peabodys"
wink The "Peabodys" have little to do with his reporting and analysis of current events. He does admit when he's wrong. One of his most recent "my bads" is that he was too trusting of the WMDs in Iraq thing.
Quote:
There's also a major thing about the FNN that I forgot to mention. Do you happen to know who the man hired to direct the network. I'll give you a hint: Roger Ailes, former GOP consultant, and advisor to three Republican presidents. He's notedly right wing, so would it make sense for a network owned by a contributor to Republican officials, and managed by a former right wing advisor; to have a fair, balanced, or even leftist stance?
I don't think it would be leftist, obviously, but there's no reason it couldn't be fair. Look at the owner of the Washington Post. She's very liberal. Are you admitting that there's a liberal bias in the Post?
Quote:
Ok, next accusation. By emotion poster, I meant posters either on the left or right, that make one lined arc generalizations, such as "Bush is a moron." or "All Liberals are idiots."
Here's one of my favorites so far:
"I just want to point of that there is no such thing as an educated liberal whether they try to be or not, they are not."
Examine that statement, and you'll see what im talking about.
Allow me to highlight one of your statements.
Quote:
Most of the conservative posters only bother to look at their side of the issue; not fact check; and write bigoted biased posts.
I see nothing to back up that assertion. It's partisan, unsupported and needlessly inflammatory.
Quote:
Ann Coulter and her books are great as an entertainment medium. You definitely should pick up a copy of it, and you'll see its full of ridiculous statements. Ms. Coulter prefers to support the opinion that it's actually liberals, who are the elitist snobs in America. For my starting piece, I'm going to cite a passage from her book, and an incident highlighted in Al Franken's "Lying Liars".
Ann Coulter
The day after seven time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation's fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second most watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are blinking dumbly at that last sentence.) It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt's death sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left's renowned populist touch, the article began, "His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart." The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!
In actuality, as proven by Franken; the Times ran an article the day after Earnhardt's death. He died on Feb. 18, 2001; and the article debuted on the front page, on Feb 19, 2001. The article was penned by Robert Lipsyte, a noted sportswriter; and contained none of the Wal-Mart accusations Ann brought up.(If you have a NY Times member id, which I doubt you do with your disdain for "Leftist" media, you can pull the article up for yourself.) She also writes these little gems in Treason:
Ann Coulter
"Liberals hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11."
"LIberals hate society"
"Liberals are crazy."
"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate Islam like liberals do."
I'll also throw in Some of Ann's non treason quotes, for you to peruse for accuracy.
[ QUOTE="Ann Coulter"]
"LIberals cant come out and just say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and descriminate on the basis of race."
"At least when right wingers rant, there's a point"
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity"(referencing the Arab Middle Eastern Nations)
"My Only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times Building."
"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
"Swing voters are more appropriatley known as the idiot voters because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of 14, you're either a conservative or a liberal, if you have an IQ above that of a toaster."
I'd prefer not to trust Franken, thanks. Coulter is inflammatory. It's her claim to fame. She's nowhere near Michael Moore's level, but she does say things in... less than diplomatic... ways.
With several of the quotes you cited, she's being sarcastic. Other times, like, "LIberals cant come out and just say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and descriminate on the basis of race." are right. Liberals CAN'T come out and say that. She's not saying anything more (
and even if she were, I think she's be right in this instance)
And of course, some are over-the-top and probably not really intended to be taken seriously. I can't speak for her, but she's only hurting her cause if she's serious.
Quote:
Now, lets look at your accusations at how partisan, lowbrow, and stubborn I am.
Quote:
Perhaps "they" actually have a point? I love how you assume everyone shares your views. Really, it cracks me up. Again, see if your own opinion may need reevaluating.
If you actually bothered to read my post, instead of skimming for faults,
you'd see that Im not trying to attack anyone with the statement, Im actually trying to show that the opposing side, while not of my opinion, is not necessarily wrong. To support my point, I'll highlight a statement in the post you referenced that shows this, AND a definitition that might help you understand.
Insight: a feeling of understanding.
Quote:
Its not to antagonize them. It can provide valuable insight into where they're coming from; and why they might cite a specific reason for something.
Where in there am I assuming that "they"(Yes, the word "they" is a pronoun, used to reference a previously mentioned group.If you click
here, you can get some great info on pronouns, and why we use them!
3nodding )vare sharing my opinion? By reading "their" information sources, you can understand "them", since they HAVE a different viewpoint.
Thanks for being condescending. That just makes your argument soo much stronger. I'm overwhelmed by your superiority... I.. I think I'm going to faint... (here again I stoop. I need sleep
xp )
I read your post, darling. Your whole purpose was to find ways of overcoming arguments "they" might use against you. You're assuming that your audience (not "they"
wink agrees with you and are only seeking understanding to argue, not to seek truth. That disgusts me. "They" have a different viewpoint, yes. Since you're going to take the time to read it, why not see if it might, just maybe, possibly, by some strange chance, have a measure of truth to it.
Quote:
Quote:
Most of the conservative posters only bother to look at their side of the issue; not fact check; and write bigoted biased posts. A large majority of them only bother to use what information they obtain via word of mouth, and not trace points back to the arguments.
Here, notice how I specifically avoided using the word "all". I used the terms "most" and "large majority". I don't deny that there are intelligent conservatives who can intelligently defend their opinions, but there are a large amount of conservative posters who retort with one liners expressing an opinion that while is theirs to support, is left unverified or not elaborated on. Granted, there are liberal posters who do the same thing, but more often than not its the conservatives who do it.
Again, I cry for support from you. Anything showing that more conservatives use one liners and no support? You, seemingly liberal, are blissfully doing the same thing that you accuse the "large majority" of conservatives of doing.
