Bill Orielly schooled by 16 year old student!
- Thread starter anabolicrhino
- Start date
bigSMokey
Member
I was watching Countdown w/ Olberman last night and they had a short piece on this story. According to the kid, he was specifically told by Billdo not to mention any parts of his book. So, I guess what we were seeing is O'Reilly's ire towards the disobedience.
Also, I heard the student has received pre-approved entry from several colleges just for standing up to this guy.
somewhatgifted
Registered User
I doubt oreilly will do a follow up on that info...
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
I doubt it happened.
bigSMokey
Member
Really...it's not like they're saying Bill took him in the back and hit him in the jaw. I guess some people get so set in their own beliefs that they can only see things from their point of view.
I personally can't stand O'Reilly, but I will concede that in just the past couple of days, I thought that many of his viewpoints were dead on.
rightship3
New member
Geee...people wonder why our kids aren't up to par with mastery of the fundamentals. Reading, writing, and arithmetic are now competing with a barrage of social indoctrination curriculum. Our government schools are too busy with this bullcrap to focus on what matters. These administrators need to get their heads out of their asses and start educating. I don't want, or need them to attempt to raise my children.
Better yet, remove the shackles from families and provide vouchers for kids to go to private schools.
Better yet, remove the shackles from families and provide vouchers for kids to go to private schools.
Blownkbgt
Board Supporter
it wouldnt be private then ....
i think what you are meaning is stop making us pay taxes for schools if we send our kids to a private school
CDB
Registered User
Vouchers are basically the educational equivallent of food stamps. Look how well those worked out. The best option in my opinion would be complete privatization with the state only involved in basic standard testing involving reading, writing, math, and factual as opposed to interpretive history questions. Small state level administered voucher programs for people who fail to meet strict means tests can be used to ensure no kid is denied an education. The problem there though is state funds come with state strings and constitutional limits. People will either have to live with those strings or chill out on what may in fact be somewhat of a constitutional violation.
Skeptic
New member
The newsrooms may be liberal, but the media conglomerate owners are conservatives meaning they decide what gets reported and what does not get reported.
The "liberal media" is just a myth.
Skeptic
New member
Nobody has "outlawed prayer". Students have every right to pray while in school.
Teachers just don't have the right to preach their religion to students on the taxpayer's dime.
This is what is meant by "separation between church and state".
It is a wholly democratic notion.
spunkles182
Member
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
I like what they do in the UK which is the better qualified students get free public education, the less qualified students have to pay for their own private schooling !
So in the UK if you have a free public education it is considered superior to a private school education!
So in the UK if you have a free public education it is considered superior to a private school education!
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
To liberals....
Sorry, GE and Disney don't decide what gets reported. You are seriously mistaken.
B5150
Legend
I was in NY with family at the time of this thread. My uncle and his family are from Boulder. His daughter is a teacher.
My uncle mentioned that it was really "old news" but that he was tempted to "write in" and comment. Something along the lines of; insert "cigarettes" in place of "drugs, alcohol and unsafe sex" and there would have been an outrage in the community.
His daughter said that this was very overblown by the media and that it was not as big a deal as the media had made it out to be.
They were both in agreement that it was irresponsible and ridiculous that it would be allowed or even more so required in a public school.
My uncle mentioned that it was really "old news" but that he was tempted to "write in" and comment. Something along the lines of; insert "cigarettes" in place of "drugs, alcohol and unsafe sex" and there would have been an outrage in the community.
His daughter said that this was very overblown by the media and that it was not as big a deal as the media had made it out to be.
They were both in agreement that it was irresponsible and ridiculous that it would be allowed or even more so required in a public school.
spunkles182
Member
what is a better qualified student? and/or what is a less qualified student?
Skeptic
New member
To liberals....
Sorry, GE and Disney don't decide what gets reported. You are seriously mistaken.
You don't think GE profits greatly from the war?
You don't think this is one reason why the media was so gung-ho on the run-up to the Iraqi invasion despite there being no evidence that Saddam Hussien had WMDs?
CDB
Registered User
As I understand it there was plenty of evidence, it was just wrong. And it was sourced from more places than our own intelligence sources so it needn't have been engineered by the administration.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
:toofunny:
D_town
Registered User
Why is it that many of the people that cannot stand the O'Reilly Factor are the same that that do not even watch Mr. Bill regularly?
Bill O'Reilly does not try to be too political and is a self-proclaimed independent. He may lean right or conservative, but definately does not ride coat tails or drink the kool-aid.
His major concerns (as of recent times) are the 'culture war' in america (his book is very good) and child predators.
Both seem like valid fights to me.
Bill O'Reilly does not try to be too political and is a self-proclaimed independent. He may lean right or conservative, but definately does not ride coat tails or drink the kool-aid.
His major concerns (as of recent times) are the 'culture war' in america (his book is very good) and child predators.
Both seem like valid fights to me.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Because many people let the bluster get in the way of the message. He is the first to tell you he is an ego maniac and full of "bluster", but if you read his books, they make a LOT of sense....and much of its backed up as well. He's pompous and arrogant and over the top....but I don't let that get in the way of the message. I tend to agree with it. Culture Warrior is a pretty good book IMO. I also like Bernie Goldberg's books although the "101 People who are Ruining America" tends to get monotonous.
rightship3
New member
Well that would be the ideal solution, but my idea was a bit more pragmatic. In fact that was situation here in Florida until a few years ago.
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
They are given standardized tests similar to the "fill in the dots" we take in the US.
Skeptic
New member
What is the "culture war". Is that like the War on Terror. Or the War on Drugs? Or perhaps it is more like the War on Christmas.
D_town
Registered User
It's kind of all of those combined my friend. It's an attitude and a mind set. It's the ideology of what you think of America and the path you think we should go down as a country. It's the secular progressives vs. the traditionalists. The USA haters who think that there is fundamentally wrong with America and those who believe that the USA is a wonderful place and although there are flaws, love our country.
But maybe that was just a question that did not really care for my answer. You apparently do not believe in any of those 'wars', do you? Your name says it all...
CDB
Registered User
Invalid Link Removed.
Skeptic
New member
The Culture Wars is just another method that the corporate and political power structure in this country use to divide Americans.
It's why the media focuses on issues like immigration, abortion, evolution and gay marriage while ignoring issues like corporate fraud at the administrative level (Haliburton), a dwindling middle class, lack of health care and an unjust war that is costing us $5 billion a month to fight.
It's the old divide and conquer routine where you pit one set of working class Americans against the other set of working class Americans and have them fight over issues which the politicians have no intention of ever addressing.
Did anyone actually believe they were going to address the immigration issue? That would force them to look elsewhere for cheap (slave) labor.
Do you really believe those who oppose the war in Iraq really hate America? You can hate Bush and love the USA. Our forefathers considered dissent to the purest form of patriotism as evident in this Thomas Jefferson quote:
"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
The day middle and working class Americans unite and fight for their fair share of the economic pie is the day we become a true democracy.
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
Good stuff ! The immigration issue is a device to avoid addressing the issue of the North American Union.
When the USA, Canada and Mexico are united into one economic entity, it will not matter where in North America the workers are born.
Its only a matter of registration of the workers, which will also be how they condition us to accept national ID cards and eventually RFID chips implanted into our skin.
Once registered, it will be a simple matter of auto-taxation
no one will be able to work off the books.
Cash will eventually be outlawed. Anyone who wants to participate in the official economic system (ie buy and sell) must have an active chip.
If you f*ck up they just turn off you chip !
I can't wait for the black market RFID chips !!!
D_town
Registered User
We all have our opionions.
The culture war may be political, but it is more than that. It is not just the slightly leaning left who oppose or hate our president. It is those that want to change everything that we stand for.
Take religion out of school, but preach liberal political values to our children.
Give our daughters the right to have abortions without informing us/ their parents.
There are many other issues, but it is pointless to debate them with you because we have completely different perspectives as well as different core values as to what is important than I do.
That, and I have to go to class.
The culture war may be political, but it is more than that. It is not just the slightly leaning left who oppose or hate our president. It is those that want to change everything that we stand for.
Take religion out of school, but preach liberal political values to our children.
Give our daughters the right to have abortions without informing us/ their parents.
There are many other issues, but it is pointless to debate them with you because we have completely different perspectives as well as different core values as to what is important than I do.
That, and I have to go to class.
CDB
Registered User
I disagree. It may be overplayed like other such cards, but I think it is real. There is an ideological movement out there that basically wants to transform America into a clone of the various European super states. They want government provided health care, mass welfare systems, mass taxation, and limp wristed foreign policy. They want to wipe out the ideals of self responsibility and individualism this country was founded on and replace them with group think and government empowerment.
Right, because were it not for the media no one would really care about abortion, immigration, etc.
Believe it or not, those are issues some people actually do care about.Of course not, but that's not because people didn't want something done about it.
No, but some do. Just as some war supporters are mindless idiots who think we should invade everywhere because they hate every place that isn't America.
Actually the day working class Americans realize that there is no 'fair share' of anything, and that the only thing anyone is entitled to is what they've been voluntarily given or earned through their own labor, that's when we become not a true Democracy, which is just mob rule, but a great country again. Because it's only then that people will stop whining for handouts and have the moral and political force to stop handouts and wealth redistributions at all levels, to the trailer trash and to the Halliburtons and KBRs of the world.
spunkles182
Member
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
I disagree. It may be overplayed like other such cards, but I think it is real. There is an ideological movement out there that basically wants to transform America into a clone of the various European super states. They want government provided health care, mass welfare systems, mass taxation, and limp wristed foreign policy. They want to wipe out the ideals of self responsibility and individualism this country was founded on and replace them with group think and government empowerment.
Right, because were it not for the media no one would really care about abortion, immigration, etc.
Of course not, but that's not because people didn't want something done about it.
No, but some do. Just as some war supporters are mindless idiots who think we should invade everywhere because they hate every place that isn't America.
Actually the day working class Americans realize that there is no 'fair share' of anything, and that the only thing anyone is entitled to is what they've been voluntarily given or earned through their own labor, that's when we become not a true Democracy, which is just mob rule, but a great country again. Because it's only then that people will stop whining for handouts and have the moral and political force to stop handouts and wealth redistributions at all levels, to the trailer trash and to the Halliburtons and KBRs of the world.
:head: :head: :head: :head: :head: :head: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:
Skeptic
New member
CDB
Registered User
No, because it's indicative of absolutely zero. What you or I or anyone else makes relative to someone else's salary is irrelevant. What we make relative to our own individual productive output is what matters. The economy is not a zero sum game, just because someone is getting rich doesn't mean someone else is being impovrished. To the extent that CEOs may have padded their salaries with protective laws and political influence they don't deserve the pay. To the extent the pay aligns with their productive output, like everyone else, they earned it.
As with anyone else, the extent their pay approaches or departs from their productive output is the real question, and if there is significant deviation one has to ask why and how that came to be, not simply assume theft or undeserved self enrichment through some kind of fraud upon 'the working man'.
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
A lot of the new found found wealth is due to the outsourcing of the labor market on durable goods.
Corporations are able to turn a larger profit margin because they have been able to reduce the labor costs by hiring third worlders at a lower pay scale to production ratio than what was available in the USA in the 1950's.
There has also been improved technologies in the production line that also increase the profit margin which is optimized by the corporation into greater dividends and a more profitable stock, The CEO's take most of their pay in bonus and stock options so it only follows that they would benefit the most from increased margins.
The lesson learned by this disparity is that if you want to be rich, be a CEO not a worker !
CDB
Registered User
Yeah, the division of labor and comparitive advantage. What burdens to humanity they have been... Of course if you understand basic marginal utility you know this is complete bull**** because the costs of production do not determine prices, including the costs of labor.
Oh, the horror, that the head of the company makes more than the janitor... Who would've thunk it possible?
spunkles182
Member
Everyone benefits from outsourcing.Outsourcing is a means of getting more final output with lower cost inputs, which leads to lower prices for all U.S. firms and families. Lower prices lead directly to higher standards of living and more jobs in a growing economy. Outsourcing is about efficiency. As costs decline, every consumer benefits, including those who lose their jobs to outsourcing. A 2003 study by Michael W. Klein, Scott Schuh, and Robert K. Triest, which includes dislocation costs in its calculations, shows the benefits of trade outweighing its costs by 100 percent.
Invalid Link Removed
The number of jobs coming from other countries to the U.S. (jobs “insourced”) is growing at a faster rate than jobs lost overseas. According to the Organization for International Investment, the numbers of manufacturing jobs insourced to the United States grew by 82 percent, while the number outsourced overseas grew by only 23 percent. Moreover, these insourced jobs are often higher-paying than those outsourced.
Invalid Link Removed.
see a CEO already knows all of this, where your common worker, has not invested the time and energy into learning this. hence this is why CEO's get paid more.
spunkles182
Member
Should we care about the size of the gap between the rich and poor? If we succeed in raising the incomes of the poor, does it matter if incomes at the top are rising even faster, making us a more unequal society overall?
In fact, there are some really good things about income inequality, namely that it motivates risk, hard work, and innovation. I'm sure Wall Street bankers are motivated by a love of their work -- but a $50 million bonus can also help you get out of bed in the morning. As a matter of fact, high salaries motivate not only the people who get them, but also the people who would like to get them in the future -- a phenomenon that economists refer to as a "tournament effect." Thus, a $50 million bonus for a Wall Street CEO also inspires that ambitious guy in the mailroom to get out of bed if he thinks he's got a shot at being CEO someday.
CDB
Registered User
The issue with outsourcing when people bring it up is not cheap labor, but the fact that they think US jobs are being 'shipped over seas' or other such nonsense. What people don't realize is that this process takes place all the time. Anything anyone doesn't do for themselves has been 'outsourced'. What they don't realize is the problem is not the job opportunities opening up for people overseas, but that the government here has strangled domestic opportunities with mass regulation, so disemployed labor here in the US isn't taken up by the system and put back to productive use as fast as it otherwise would be if the politicians would stop stifling the system.
Also, in my cynical view, I think for politicians an unemployed voter is easier to manipulate than one who is employed but who sees the buying power of his wages being tanked when it should be going up. The former person is more desperate, the latter person would be more inclined to blame Washington and monetary policy. A starving man cares less about blame, he just wants to eat and to feed his family by any means necessary.
Also, in my cynical view, I think for politicians an unemployed voter is easier to manipulate than one who is employed but who sees the buying power of his wages being tanked when it should be going up. The former person is more desperate, the latter person would be more inclined to blame Washington and monetary policy. A starving man cares less about blame, he just wants to eat and to feed his family by any means necessary.
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
It's not a matter of losing US domestic jobs to a foreign market.
Its the opportunity of a labor market located outside the US labor force that creates the motivation to create a profitable return on a business venture that would not exist without the foreign labor pool to support it !
The worker benefits because no matter how bad their working conditions, the factory offers at least another and in most case a better opportunity outside the farming culture of their
country of origin.
The corporate owners benefit because they can offer products at cheaper prices while making a larger profit than a domestic US factory would afford. Walmart has the cheapest stuff you can buy and yet the Walton family is the richest in the world!
The only loser is the Walmart associate working in a US store.
The dominance of Walmart in a given demographic, causes a reduction in other job opportunities in that same demographic because Walmart drives them out of business.
The worker who now has less opportunity in terms of employment choices must take what ever Walmart doles out.
The only other choice for the worker would be to leave their demographic to find opportunity away from Walmart's sphere of confluence.
So, the foreign worker is not taking domestic jobs, they are just making certain domestic jobs less desirable for the US workers.
The foreign worker forces the US worker to adapt to the competition model, but the US worker still has a much better quality of life in terms of buying power and employment choices!
Its the opportunity of a labor market located outside the US labor force that creates the motivation to create a profitable return on a business venture that would not exist without the foreign labor pool to support it !
The worker benefits because no matter how bad their working conditions, the factory offers at least another and in most case a better opportunity outside the farming culture of their
country of origin.
The corporate owners benefit because they can offer products at cheaper prices while making a larger profit than a domestic US factory would afford. Walmart has the cheapest stuff you can buy and yet the Walton family is the richest in the world!
The only loser is the Walmart associate working in a US store.
The dominance of Walmart in a given demographic, causes a reduction in other job opportunities in that same demographic because Walmart drives them out of business.
The worker who now has less opportunity in terms of employment choices must take what ever Walmart doles out.
The only other choice for the worker would be to leave their demographic to find opportunity away from Walmart's sphere of confluence.
So, the foreign worker is not taking domestic jobs, they are just making certain domestic jobs less desirable for the US workers.
The foreign worker forces the US worker to adapt to the competition model, but the US worker still has a much better quality of life in terms of buying power and employment choices!
Rufio
Member
To liberals....
Sorry, GE and Disney don't decide what gets reported. You are seriously mistaken.
No, corporations DO have a major influence on reporting and they have an extreme influence on US foreign policy. I don't see how you can deny the existence of their influence. The parties themselves depend HEAVILY on corporate sponsors. You need their support to win a major office. As for the influence on the media, every story in the US media paints the US in a flattering light compared to how the rest of the world would view it. I've given examples before.
And I'm really not seeing an overwhelming "liberal" bias. I've seen Republican and Democrat biased reporting on each news channel I tune into. Even CNN, the leader of the supposed "liberal media" has Glenn Beck. Besides that, TV news is only a part of the media. What about the Republican bias in talk radio? Talk radio is a part of the media.
spunkles182\ said:
Generally countries with a smaller wealth gap between the rich and the poor have a higher standard of living from what I've seen. In fact this applies to the country with the highest standard of living in the world.
CDB said:
From everything I've seen, not many countries actually considered Iraq a big threat. Given that their economy was destroyed and they had over a million civilians die of starvation or malnutrition due to the embargo, that's understandable. I've also seen statements a few years before the war that they didn't have anywhere near nuclear capacity. Which again is understandable given their crappy economy. Even if they had WMDs it's not like that would be just grounds for invasion. We have WMDs. Does that mean that a government that doesn't trust us has the right to invade? There are quite a few countries that have WMDs which are widely distrusted by various people in the world and are not being invaded.
The primary reason behind the war was controlling (not directly importing) the oil reserves.
CDB
Registered User
There's a difference between news analysis and editorial programs and straight news where they coveniently forget to report something that's obviously relevant. Like back when those school shootings were big news and reporters at the majors like CNN, who had to know the gun control debate would flare up, conveniently forgot to report that several of the shootings were ended by legally armed citizens.
Dodges the question. They did think he had the weapons. Saying they didn't think he was a threat is a convenient way for liberals to confuse the issue with how other intelligence/military services thought Iraq should be dealt with as opposed to whether or not they thought he had the weapons. Whatever criticisms people may want to level at Bush Co., fabricating the WMD issue is one of the flimsier ones.
If other nations honestly thought there was a chance we would use them without first being aggressed upon then yes, they would be justified. As such while we've had nukes for a long time and in fact are the only ones who have used them in war, no one honestly thinks that one day the US might government might go bat**** and sell the warheads from our ICBMs to some radical factions to be used indiscriminatly. Whether or not such an eventuallity was possible between Saddam and Al Qeda is arguable. I don't think it was likely, but I don't think people who disagree are necessarily defective in the head either.
Then by eliminating Iraq as an effective buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia and by not gaining control of the Iraqi oil fields themselves, and by not getting the government(s) over them in control of themselves we haven't done such a wonderful job. So conspiracy theorywise it doesn't quite fit. The fact that Buch Co., perhaps mistakenly, saw them as a legitimate threat is the most likely explanation.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Do you even read what you post? Do you think before you post? Who ever said corportation don't have an influence? What I said is GE and Disney don't sit there and figure out whats going on the front page of the news and editorial staffs don't get approval from GE or Disney to print their stories or choose what to print. If you do think this, you are absolutely clueless.
Wow. They have Glenn Beck!!! They have ONE conservative. How many people on NBC, ABC and CBS news staffs are conservative? NONE!
Talk radio is opinion based shows, not news reports. The reason talk radio and many of the fox news OPINION shows do so well its because people want to get the other side of the story...the side you WON'T GET IN THE MAINSTREAM.
But in all reality, I could go down the list of tv news staffs and newspaper editorial boards and show you how liberal it is (self admitted) but you won't see that. You don't want to see that...therefore you won't.
"You've been at NBC for 30 years..can you name me one conservative thinker there?"
"uh...uh...uh..uh...."
Straight from ABC.
Good ol' Bernie. 25 years at CBS.
Rufio
Member
When did anyone fail to report how a shooting ended? Or are you talking about not reporting some instances? Every time I've seen a school shooting reported on in the news, the conclusion was made clear. Maybe you're talking about not stressing that aspect rather than not reporting it.
And if you think that the same thing doesn't happen on the other side of the coin, I can give several examples showing it does.
Not really. The reporting on that has been quite mixed:
Invalid Link Removed
"[the sanctions and containment policy] have worked. [Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"
That's in 2001. Odd that he wouldn't use these vast weapons when Iraq's economy is completely destroyed by the embargo and over a million innocent civilians were killed by it.
That's complete BS. I level it at both Democrats and Republicans, and I place the rest of the world's overall opinion of Iraq as the most likely. You didn't see this fear mongering throughout all the other UN nations because they didn't have as much interest in Iraq.
And using the word "liberal" is hilarious given that the invasion of Iraq is the complete antithesis of conservative foreign policy.
No they wouldn't. And there are quite a few nations who DO think that and with good reason.
Yes they would be, given that Saddam was considered a secular plague in the Middle East by these "radical factions." And unlike Saddam, the US has documented cased of allying with Osama Bin Laden and religious radicals in the past. You're pretty much making the case for us to be invaded.
Hilarious. They are setting up an Iraq puppet government to control it with more stability. Thus why they were trying to refuse to allow Iraqis to elect their own people to draw up the new constitution, and the attempts to hand-pick those who are elected. Direct colonial rule is extremely rare in these days. Over a century ago the British declared that puppet government was the way to go. The US has done things exactly the way they should be doing them for the most stability of the oil.
And believing Iraq to be a threat is FAR from the most likely explaination given how many other countries in the world have more blood on their hands. In fact, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. supplied Saddam with weapons in the 80's and treated him as a media darling until the invasion of Kuwait. Do you really think France is against the war because they're hippies? Oooooor could it be because the US declared Saddam's previous oil deals null and void, such as switchig the oil currency from the dollar to the Euro?
The idea that the US would be as concerned about Iraq if it was exporting coconuts instead of oil is extremely ridiculous to anyone who's studied the history or is aware of which countries the US is NOT invading and in many cases is allied with.
Rufio
Member
The impression I got from the person you were responding was that he was pointing out the influence of corporate power on reporting rather than claiming they approve every single story that gets printed. There IS a lot that is or is not reported based on their influence. Obviously they don't look over every single story that is reported. Just the ones that have a big impact on the perception of US world power and influence.
Glenn Beck and other Neocons are not real conservatives, but I digress. I don't really see what news staffs have to do with anything. I'm talking about political talk shows, which tend to have more influence. In fact CNN's other top news show, Nancy Grace, is hardly liberal. That being said, I've flipped on that weekend roundtable debate (don't remember if it was Lou Dobbs or what) at NBC a time or two when I was about to fall asleep and saw several Republican biased debaters.
You get plenty of it in the mainstream. What you don't get are the views of the rest of the world, or objective assessment of American leaders' intentions compared to the intentions of other world leaders. Having a Democrat or Republican bias is not covering "both sides." In fact the differences between the parties are very superficial.
And those "opinion based" shows offer misleading and distorted news reports constantly.
You don't have any idea what I want or don't want to see. I really don't care about the personal beliefs of people on news boards. Whether someone declares themselves "liberal" or "conservative" doesn't matter to me, especially given the terms have been distorted to hell from the way they were traditionally used. I'm speaking in terms of bias in reporting. I don't watch much TV News except for an occasional laugh, but the most visible bias is strong nationalism.
I mean a visible bias like this:
Invalid Link Removed
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
It was about bias and their viewpoints. Its liberal biased and every person in the news will tell you the same....unless they have something to hide.
The subject was news, not talk shows.
Thats because the views of the rest of the world don't vote. If you want a "world view" then watch their news.
Thats because its OPINION, NOT the news.
You're right, I don't know what you want nor do I care.
Oh wow...you got them!!! Fox News tried to pull a fast one on the public....they were going to fool everyone into thinking Foley was a Dem. The jig is up...
Unbelievable.
Rufio
Member
The main news biases I see are nationalism and sensationalism (like the current Benoit/steroid fiasco). I don't watch the TV news often, but I don't see much of a "liberal" bias aside from lots of pro-illegal immigration rally coverage. And even that gets criticized heavily at places like CNN.
I'm just pointing this out because according to many (O Reilly for instance) it's "far left" to question the good intentions of US politicians overseas. Which is hilarious given that the American left is extremely nationalistic itself.
I recall you cheering on some example of CNN stating there were "dozens" at a rally where thousands could be seen. I assume they were trying to pull the wool over people's eyes despite the visual, eh?
I don't see how that's any less obvious in its ridiculousness than Fox labelling a sex offender a Democrat.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Its get criticized on one show, Lou Dobbs. Of course you don't see it, you don't watch it often.
Are you kidding? I can show you clip after clip of "questioning" this war on that very show. The difference is he says "I disagree and they fouled this up" rather than "Bush is a dictator and we're killing babies". One is questioning, the other is accusing.
Where? What are you talking about?
Of course you don't see it......its blatantly obvious you see what you want to see.....even when you don't watch the news that often.
Thats obvious.
Rufio
Member
Uh-huh.
For argument's sake, let's assume that there is a visible "liberal" bias among reporters. In that case, TV news is slanted to Democrats, talk radio is slanted to Republicans, and news talk shows are mixed. Since talk radio and news talk shows are ALSO parts of the media, how does that equate to a vast Democrat-biased media?
... That is EXACTLY what I just said.
It's okay to say "Bush had the best intentions in mind, but he just didn't think it through, he was wrong, and he messed up." It's NOT okay to say "Bush knew exactly what he was doing but decided that securing power interests is worth the cost in human lives."
When people point out things like the US (including those in Bush's cabinet) allying with Iraq in the first place, things that contradict the party line about going into Iraq with the intention of freedom and security, they're labelled as "far left" or "America haters."
I'd have to dig through several multi-page threads to find it, but in one of the first political threads I looked at on here, someone referenced CNN reporting "dozens" or "hundreds" at attendence for some rally, before stating that thousands could be seen from the picture. You replied with an emoticon approving the post.
Of course you don't see it......its blatantly obvious you see what you want to see.....even when you don't watch the news that often.
Baseless insult.
I do find it amusing that you talk about the hypocrisy of all things "liberal" while stating your approval of Bill O Reilly, a guy who complains about America's overly litigious legal system and yet tried to sue Al Franken for use of the term "fair and balanced."
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
RIght. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSBNC and 90% of the news print media vs......Fox and talk radio (with their immense audience compared to network news). Got it.
I can see the spin is certinaly spinning... :lol:
The way you morph 30 years of history like it was comparing last week to this week is ridiculous. At one point, everyone was diplomatic with Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Foreign policy doesnt include a crystal ball to know exactly what is going to happen in the future. You can go down throughout history and find the exact same types of situations on both sides. Its irrelevant to me.
The way you state "party line" sounds like tis written in stone. IT changed dramatically for both sides in the last 10 years...If you looked at JFK now, he would be considered a conservative. Its also irrelevant to me.
I wouldn't call those people who express their view fairly eloquanly "America haters". I would say they lean left and probably liberal. There is a different between what you state and calling Bush Hitler and the soldiers baby killers.
You are the one associating "far left" with "American haters". I don't think I've said that once. Seems to be more of an insult to you than me.
Find it and I will explain it but I'm sure you had such a thorough understanding of my point with the "emoticon". Here's one
Fact. You state there is no liberal bias then freely admit you don't even watch the news often. Not baseless at all and I certinaly don't see the insult.
Rufio said:
...wihch leaves you in a great position to see this issue clearly
I forgot....Bill O'Reilly has to be perfect to defend him.
Where in the definition of the word "approval" does it state he is right all the time? When you find it, let me know.