Tell your friends

TELL YOUR FRIENDS

POPULAR SEARCHES

Soaps.com - MESSAGE BOARDS

Soaps Boards :: Fox News fair and balanced

Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.

Fox News fair and balanced

Started by cats meow at 2009/06/05 03:09AM
Latest post: 2009/07/13 05:51PM, Views: 1299, Replies: 119
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » »| page:
#41   2009/06/11 07:41AM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
Plot-Twister
image

Quote lovesit: How is this fair and balanced for anyone:

An angry alleged white supremicist (still too early for facts) shoots down a guard at the Holocaust meuseum. Every news station runs it.

A Muslim Extemist guns down two military recruits in front of the recruiting office, says afterwards says he is a hero, and no one knows about it?????????

What happened to the days where the news media's sole purpose was to be the "watch dog" of the gov and our society? When did they start getting the right to pick and choose what and who to report about???? What, b/c its safer to report about a white supremicist than Islamic extremists? Thats a bunch of crap. All of it.


The days of the news media being a watchdog of society are over. Now, the media is being too careful not to offend anyone in the government. Yes, they do their spoofs on the gaffs and such of each pres and cabinet, but gone is the reporting information that goes against what the government wants out there. Plus, with the media being 24/7 all the stories get ran ad nauseum. We are inundated with news that is not really news. So we spend more time worrying about Ms. California (guilty, but was a known diversion for me) than we do with what is going on oversees.

In today's world, it would take a heck of a courageous news team to break watergate. They would be banned, rammed and crammed into a cement pond.

#42   2009/06/11 07:44AM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
lovesit
image

Quote alwaysEJ:
Quote lovesit: How is this fair and balanced for anyone:

An angry alleged white supremicist (still too early for facts) shoots down a guard at the Holocaust meuseum. Every news station runs it.

A Muslim Extemist guns down two military recruits in front of the recruiting office, says afterwards says he is a hero, and no one knows about it?????????

What happened to the days where the news media's sole purpose was to be the "watch dog" of the gov and our society? When did they start getting the right to pick and choose what and who to report about???? What, b/c its safer to report about a white supremicist than Islamic extremists? Thats a bunch of crap. All of it.



Weren't the military recruits shot in Arkansas? It got very little coverage. Ironically this incident occurred the same week Dr. Tiller was shot (tons of coverage).

I found this on the incident:
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524139,00.html


Yes, Arkansas. I wanted to bring it up then, but there were already so many serious topics on here. But after this, I can't hold it back. Where is the fairness for us as a whole? It really gets me hot. I hate biases and prejudices, and there is one in all of our faces and hardly any one cares. If ehough people cared, the media would not get away with this.

#43   2009/06/11 07:47AM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
lovesit
image

Quote Plot-Twister:
Quote lovesit: How is this fair and balanced for anyone:

An angry alleged white supremicist (still too early for facts) shoots down a guard at the Holocaust meuseum. Every news station runs it.

A Muslim Extemist guns down two military recruits in front of the recruiting office, says afterwards says he is a hero, and no one knows about it?????????

What happened to the days where the news media's sole purpose was to be the "watch dog" of the gov and our society? When did they start getting the right to pick and choose what and who to report about???? What, b/c its safer to report about a white supremicist than Islamic extremists? Thats a bunch of crap. All of it.


The days of the news media being a watchdog of society are over. Now, the media is being too careful not to offend anyone in the government. Yes, they do their spoofs on the gaffs and such of each pres and cabinet, but gone is the reporting information that goes against what the government wants out there. Plus, with the media being 24/7 all the stories get ran ad nauseum. We are inundated with news that is not really news. So we spend more time worrying about Ms. California (guilty, but was a known diversion for me) than we do with what is going on oversees.

In today's world, it would take a heck of a courageous news team to break watergate. They would be banned, rammed and crammed into a cement pond.


You got that right. I just can't stand it. I have to waste over an hour searching through news groups of every kind just to get the "facts" on a story. By the time I wade my way past the author's personal views, I get a half-fact, and then must move on. Such a waste of air waves.

#44   2009/06/11 07:54AM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
alwaysEJ
image

lovesit, another thing to consider...last week Obama gave his big speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. With that backdrop, the media are going to be even less willing to bring to light the Muslim convert who shot army recruits.

#45   2009/06/11 08:23AM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
lovesit
image

Quote alwaysEJ: lovesit, another thing to consider...last week Obama gave his big speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. With that backdrop, the media are going to be even less willing to bring to light the Muslim convert who shot army recruits.


true, I guess us calling out an extremist from their world would look bad with us trying to make peace with them. The problem...you can't make peace with terrorists. Us making peace with the Muslim world will not fix the extremist views, in any religion. Why? Because even the regular Muslims do not agree with the extreme ones, so making peace with the regular ones really does not help, not that I can see. And the day we make peace with extremists of any religion...will be the day our thought process is that of an extremist.

I just can't get over how the media picks and chooses. And why not even the Fox channel, who is the most
"conservative" has not made the coorelation. And they won't.

#46   2009/06/11 08:34AM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
sarahconnor
image

Quote alwaysEJ:
Quote Plot-Twister: "Our creator" is deliberatly vague. Your creator may be god, while another's is evolution, another is reincarnation, another is the speghetti monster. "our Cretor" is not a specific person or entity and it was stated that way to cover all beliefs.


True, it is vague, however I don't think many American men & women have given their lives in the pursuit of freedom - for Americans or others - b/c they felt freedom was an unalienable right bestowed on men by the spaghetti monster.

If you read the writings of America's founders, there are many references to God, to the Creator, but no references (that I am aware of) to a spaghetti monster. The beauty of America is that you can believe in whoever or whatever you want (or believe in nothing & no one), but our founders & our military fought for your right to do so b/c they believe(d) you have the right to be free, & they believe(d) that right is yours b/c of their belief in God as Creator.

Americans have & continue to benefit from our founders belief in an Almighty God, & just b/c some don't believe in Him, doesn't mean they don't continue to reap the benefits of living in a country that was founded by men who believed in God.


oh sheesh how things can become very twisted and sorted. our military fights for our rights under our country's constitution..freedom of religion is traced all the way back to our 3rd president (Jefferson) who believed in the separation of the Church and government. freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. this is why it's specified so general statements attributing religion can not be proven.

and technically America WAS founded as a Christian nation...it may have been Catholic. the original beliefs changed - it was founded and decided upon as a nation for EVERYONE. who is to say who is right and who is wrong?
initially COLOMBUS wanted to spread his beliefs to far away "lands"...and they say to become famous and rich as well.

our admendents support freedom of religion - thankyou Thomas Jefferson! HE was an Episcopalian but was in personal conflict with certain views.

quoted from
www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html :

Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.

quoted from
etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.html

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

also stated in the Declaration of Independance :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

so basically our "Creator" can mean our mother/father - God - OR whatever we choose to believe due to freedom of religion. so as plot says yes, sure the spagetti monster when it comes to some people and they have the right to that b/c of our country's constitution for which our military honors.

Modified 2 times(s), last time at: 2009/06/11 08:57AM
#47   2009/06/11 08:47AM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
alwaysEJ
image

Quote lovesit:
Quote alwaysEJ: lovesit, another thing to consider...last week Obama gave his big speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. With that backdrop, the media are going to be even less willing to bring to light the Muslim convert who shot army recruits.


true, I guess us calling out an extremist from their world would look bad with us trying to make peace with them. The problem...you can't make peace with terrorists. Us making peace with the Muslim world will not fix the extremist views, in any religion. Why? Because even the regular Muslims do not agree with the extreme ones, so making peace with the regular ones really does not help, not that I can see. And the day we make peace with extremists of any religion...will be the day our thought process is that of an extremist.

I just can't get over how the media picks and chooses. And why not even the Fox channel, who is the most
"conservative" has not made the coorelation. And they won't.



Well said. As for Fox, they do at least allow commentators on the air who echo what you've just said...that attempting to make peace with terrorists (who we cannot even call terrorists anymore I believe) is futile. I think Obama called the War on Terror off, so I guess that means it's over I hope the artists formerly known as terrorists got the memo.

#48   2009/06/11 09:07AM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
lovesit
image

Quote alwaysEJ:
Quote lovesit:
Quote alwaysEJ: lovesit, another thing to consider...last week Obama gave his big speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. With that backdrop, the media are going to be even less willing to bring to light the Muslim convert who shot army recruits.


true, I guess us calling out an extremist from their world would look bad with us trying to make peace with them. The problem...you can't make peace with terrorists. Us making peace with the Muslim world will not fix the extremist views, in any religion. Why? Because even the regular Muslims do not agree with the extreme ones, so making peace with the regular ones really does not help, not that I can see. And the day we make peace with extremists of any religion...will be the day our thought process is that of an extremist.

I just can't get over how the media picks and chooses. And why not even the Fox channel, who is the most
"conservative" has not made the coorelation. And they won't.



Well said. As for Fox, they do at least allow commentators on the air who echo what you've just said...that attempting to make peace with terrorists (who we cannot even call terrorists anymore I believe) is futile. I think Obama called the War on Terror off, so I guess that means it's over I hope the artists formerly known as terrorists got the memo.


LOL!
I didn't know he called it off, I just knew he termed it different, something ridiculous like "The arguments between those we do not speak of and Americans" or some baby-fied menial terminology. Granted, the terminology literally does not mean anything, nor does it affect the actions you do under said terms. BUT, why sugarcoat it? Why try at all to make it sound better, when it is the most heinous thing on the planet? No other nation is. I do not want my tax dollars going to some man in a room where his sole job is to put a rainbow and unicorn spin on the actions of our nation.
At least he has stepped up forces in Afghan. That was greatly needed. It was getting so hard over there. Hopefully now we can see some relief. I still bet a lot of inactives/reservists get stop lossed, though, unfortunately.
And, to bring this back to topic, I bet the news medias of USA will not report on that man in the rainbows and unicorns room.

#49   2009/06/11 09:14AM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
alwaysEJ
image

Quote sarahconnor:
Quote alwaysEJ:
Quote Plot-Twister: "Our creator" is deliberatly vague. Your creator may be god, while another's is evolution, another is reincarnation, another is the speghetti monster. "our Cretor" is not a specific person or entity and it was stated that way to cover all beliefs.


True, it is vague, however I don't think many American men & women have given their lives in the pursuit of freedom - for Americans or others - b/c they felt freedom was an unalienable right bestowed on men by the spaghetti monster.

If you read the writings of America's founders, there are many references to God, to the Creator, but no references (that I am aware of) to a spaghetti monster. The beauty of America is that you can believe in whoever or whatever you want (or believe in nothing & no one), but our founders & our military fought for your right to do so b/c they believe(d) you have the right to be free, & they believe(d) that right is yours b/c of their belief in God as Creator.

Americans have & continue to benefit from our founders belief in an Almighty God, & just b/c some don't believe in Him, doesn't mean they don't continue to reap the benefits of living in a country that was founded by men who believed in God.


oh sheesh how things can become very twisted and sorted. our military fights for our rights under our country's constitution..freedom of religion is traced all the way back to our 3rd president (Jefferson) who believed in the separation of the Church and government. freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. this is why it's specified so general statements attributing religion can not be proven.

and technically America WAS founded as a Christian nation...it may have been Catholic. the original beliefs changed - it was founded and decided upon as a nation for EVERYONE. who is to say who is right and who is wrong?
initially COLOMBUS wanted to spread his beliefs to far away "lands"...and they say to become famous and rich as well.

our admendents support freedom of religion - thankyou Thomas Jefferson! HE was an Episcopalian but was in personal conflict with certain views.

quoted from
www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html :

Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.

quoted from
etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.html

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

also stated in the Declaration of Independance :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

so basically our "Creator" can mean our mother/father - God - OR whatever we choose to believe due to freedom of religion. so as plot says yes, sure the spagetti monster when it comes to some people and they have the right to that b/c of our country's constitution for which our military honors.


I am a fan of freedom of religion, separation of church & state...I never said otherwise. My point was that b/c of their belief in a higher power, a Creator, our founders felt that man shouldn't be subject to a powerful federal govt. in matters of religion. B/c they believed in a Creator, they felt there is a power greater than any govt. on earth & people should be free to worship & acknowledge their Creator, or not, & the feds have zero say in the matter. This idea is woven in all of our founding documents, several of which you quote. It is nations founded & run by by men who have no belief in a higher power that tend to dictate religion to their people.

I don't understand the Catholic statement. Catholicism was seen as a negative by some early settlers, & as late as 1960, when JFK was elected as the first Catholic president, some people were bothered by his Catholic faith.

#50   2009/06/11 10:58AM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
sarahconnor
image

[quote]Quote alwaysEJ: [quote]Quote sarahconnor: [quote]Quote alwaysEJ: [quote]Quote Plot-Twister: "Our creator" is deliberatly vague. Your creator may be god, while another's is evolution, another is reincarnation, another is the speghetti monster. "our Cretor" is not a specific person or entity and it was stated that way to cover all beliefs.[/quote]

True, it is vague, however I don't think many American men & women have given their lives in the pursuit of freedom - for Americans or others - b/c they felt freedom was an unalienable right bestowed on men by the spaghetti monster.

If you read the writings of America's founders, there are many references to God, to the Creator, but no references (that I am aware of) to a spaghetti monster. The beauty of America is that you can believe in whoever or whatever you want (or believe in nothing & no one), but our founders & our military fought for your right to do so b/c they believe(d) you have the right to be free, & they believe(d) that right is yours b/c of their belief in God as Creator.

Americans have & continue to benefit from our founders belief in an Almighty God, & just b/c some don't believe in Him, doesn't mean they don't continue to reap the benefits of living in a country that was founded by men who believed in God.[/quote]

oh sheesh how things can become very twisted and sorted. our military fights for our rights under our country's constitution..freedom of religion is traced all the way back to our 3rd president (Jefferson) who believed in the separation of the Church and government. freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. this is why it's specified so general statements attributing religion can not be proven.

and technically America WAS founded as a Christian nation...it may have been Catholic. the original beliefs changed - it was founded and decided upon as a nation for EVERYONE. who is to say who is right and who is wrong?
initially COLOMBUS wanted to spread his beliefs to far away "lands"...and they say to become famous and rich as well.

our admendents support freedom of religion - thankyou Thomas Jefferson! HE was an Episcopalian but was in personal conflict with certain views.

quoted from
www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html :

Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.

quoted from
etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.html

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

also stated in the Declaration of Independance :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

so basically our "Creator" can mean our mother/father - God - OR whatever we choose to believe due to freedom of religion. so as plot says yes, sure the spagetti monster when it comes to some people and they have the right to that b/c of our country's constitution for which our military honors.[/quote]

I am a fan of freedom of religion, separation of church & state...I never said otherwise. My point was that b/c of their belief in a higher power, a Creator, our founders felt that man shouldn't be subject to a powerful federal govt. in matters of religion. B/c they believed in a Creator, they felt there is a power greater than any govt. on earth & people should be free to worship & acknowledge their Creator, or not, & the feds have zero say in the matter. This idea is woven in all of our founding documents, several of which you quote. It is nations founded & run by by men who have no belief in a higher power that tend to dictate religion to their people.

I don't understand the Catholic statement. Catholicism was seen as a negative by some early settlers, & as late as 1960, when JFK was elected as the first Catholic president, some people were bothered by his Catholic faith.[/quote]

you are really simplying this way too much. it's MUCH more complex than that. do you realize the colony of Maryland was founded on the Catholic religion b/c of queen Mary?

but back to the first point i bolded - most of our founding fathers were from England - the need for a government technically came from wanting to break out from the power of a King or Queen - it had to do with economics & politics itself, NOT religion..our founding fathers were made up of Protestants, Catholics & deists (as well as the people that traveled over here for the most part) - their ideal government came from the model for roman republic which is very separate from religion. when they first created the Declaration of Indepenence a "creator" was mentioned but not specified..it was meant to be vague. the Declaration of Indepenence has no legal standpoint and was written to basically tell England "we are separate from you". from THERE the constitution was written 10 years later to specify what the government can and can not do and as you know, that is where religion is taken OUT. Freedom was a decided upon right for individuals just as freedom of religion. it had more to do with breaking away from the current ideals of the kings & queens, economics & politics in themselves. they wanted their own government and a fair chance at equality. since religious viewpoints differed so much, you can't say it came out of religion b/c common sense dictates it did not.

Actually alot of the past powerful "governments" (pre-America) were always adhered by and in accordance with religion or some sort of religious viewpoint. especially Great Britian when America was founded. it was because of a difference in religious beliefs, political & economic that our founding fathers rallied for freedom in all aspects - religion included. they wanted a government separate from religion & kings & queens. Most of them came from the Age of Enlightenment too. our founding fathers had quite an assortment of beliefs. some of what jefferson believed in bordered on something other than Christianity at times....he believed Jesus was a man who was more of a teacher of morality than the true son of God. he wrote his own version of the bible..imagine if Obama tried that!

quoted from -www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm:

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus

i would address bolded part #2 but i have noooo idea what you mean by that. the statement in itself makes no sense to me. people that dictate religion to others DO have a belief in a higher power..it just may not coincide with what everyone views.

as for bolded section #3, Catholics and Protestants pretty much made up the earliest parts of America. Colombus was Catholic and from Italy. George Washington was speculated to have been Catholic..not proven. personally i feel America was founded under Catholic and Protestant beliefs due to many people and b/c not agreed upon, the Constitution clarified things. there were Colonies considered to be Catholic and some considered to be Protestant and of course the division of those two religions dates back to the King Henry VIII/Ren period.

Anyway i feel it's much more complex than you are stating and the information is not entirely correct. (reasoning etc)

Modified 3 times(s), last time at: 2009/06/11 11:24AM
#51   2009/06/11 10:59AM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
sarahconnor
image

all of that together looks too confusing..here is my post


you are really simplying this way too much. it's MUCH more complex than that. do you realize the colony of Maryland was founded on the Catholic religion b/c of queen Mary?

but back to the first point i bolded - most of our founding fathers were from England - the need for a government technically came from wanting to break out from the power of a King or Queen - it had to do with economics & politics itself, NOT religion..our founding fathers were made up of Protestants, Catholics & deists (as well as the people that traveled over here for the most part) - their ideal government came from the model for roman republic which is very separate from religion. when they first created the Declaration of Indepenence a "creator" was mentioned but not specified..it was meant to be vague. the Declaration of Indepenence has no legal standpoint and was written to basically tell England "we are separate from you". from THERE the constitution was written 10 years later to specify what the government can and can not do and as you know, that is where religion is taken OUT. Freedom was a decided upon right for individuals just as freedom of religion. it was not backed solely by their religious views at all b/c they very much differed. it had more to do with breaking away from the current ideals of the kings & queens, economics & politics in themselves. they wanted their own government and a fair chance at equality. since religious viewpoints differed so much, you can't say it came out of religion b/c common sense dictates it did not.

Actually alot of the past powerful "governments" (pre-America) were always adhered by and in accordance with religion or some sort of religious viewpoint. especially Great Britian when America was founded. it was because of a difference in religious beliefs, political & economic that our founding fathers rallied for freedom in all aspects - religion included. they wanted a government separate from religion & kings & queens. Most of them came from the Age of Enlightenment too. our founding fathers had quite an assortment of beliefs. some of what jefferson believed in bordered on something other than Christianity at times....he believed Jesus was a man who was more of a teacher of morality than the true son of God. he tried to write his own version of the bible..imagine if Obama tried that!!

quoted from -www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm:

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus

i would address bolded part #2 but i have noooo idea what you mean by that. the statement in itself makes no sense to me. people that dictate religion to others DO have a belief in a higher power..it just may not coincide with what some view.

as for bolded section #3, Catholics and Protestants pretty much made up the earliest parts of America. Colombus was Catholic and from Italy. George Washington was speculated to have been Catholic..not proven. personally i feel America was founded under Catholic AND Protestant beliefs due to many people and b/c not agreed upon, the Constitution clarified things. there were Colonies considered to be Catholic and some considered to be Protestant and of course the division of those two religions dates back to the King Henry VIII/Ren period.

Anyway i feel it's much more complex than you are stating and the information is not entirely correct. (reasoning etc)

Modified 3 times(s), last time at: 2009/06/11 11:23AM
#52   2009/06/11 12:11PM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
Plot-Twister
image

Quote lovesit:
Quote alwaysEJ:
Quote lovesit:
Quote alwaysEJ: lovesit, another thing to consider...last week Obama gave his big speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. With that backdrop, the media are going to be even less willing to bring to light the Muslim convert who shot army recruits.


true, I guess us calling out an extremist from their world would look bad with us trying to make peace with them. The problem...you can't make peace with terrorists. Us making peace with the Muslim world will not fix the extremist views, in any religion. Why? Because even the regular Muslims do not agree with the extreme ones, so making peace with the regular ones really does not help, not that I can see. And the day we make peace with extremists of any religion...will be the day our thought process is that of an extremist.

I just can't get over how the media picks and chooses. And why not even the Fox channel, who is the most
"conservative" has not made the coorelation. And they won't.



Well said. As for Fox, they do at least allow commentators on the air who echo what you've just said...that attempting to make peace with terrorists (who we cannot even call terrorists anymore I believe) is futile. I think Obama called the War on Terror off, so I guess that means it's over I hope the artists formerly known as terrorists got the memo.


LOL!
I didn't know he called it off, I just knew he termed it different, something ridiculous like "The arguments between those we do not speak of and Americans" or some baby-fied menial terminology. Granted, the terminology literally does not mean anything, nor does it affect the actions you do under said terms. BUT, why sugarcoat it? Why try at all to make it sound better, when it is the most heinous thing on the planet? No other nation is. I do not want my tax dollars going to some man in a room where his sole job is to put a rainbow and unicorn spin on the actions of our nation.
At least he has stepped up forces in Afghan. That was greatly needed. It was getting so hard over there. Hopefully now we can see some relief. I still bet a lot of inactives/reservists get stop lossed, though, unfortunately.
And, to bring this back to topic, I bet the news medias of USA will not report on that man in the rainbows and unicorns room.


But didn't the conservatives do the same thing when they changed the word "torture" to the phrase "strong interrogation techniques"?

Both sides do it (change verbage) so you cant really knock one side for doing it if you don't acknowledge the other side.

#53   2009/06/11 12:33PM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
lovesit
image

Quote Plot-Twister:
Quote lovesit:
Quote alwaysEJ:
Quote lovesit:
Quote alwaysEJ: lovesit, another thing to consider...last week Obama gave his big speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. With that backdrop, the media are going to be even less willing to bring to light the Muslim convert who shot army recruits.


true, I guess us calling out an extremist from their world would look bad with us trying to make peace with them. The problem...you can't make peace with terrorists. Us making peace with the Muslim world will not fix the extremist views, in any religion. Why? Because even the regular Muslims do not agree with the extreme ones, so making peace with the regular ones really does not help, not that I can see. And the day we make peace with extremists of any religion...will be the day our thought process is that of an extremist.

I just can't get over how the media picks and chooses. And why not even the Fox channel, who is the most
"conservative" has not made the coorelation. And they won't.



Well said. As for Fox, they do at least allow commentators on the air who echo what you've just said...that attempting to make peace with terrorists (who we cannot even call terrorists anymore I believe) is futile. I think Obama called the War on Terror off, so I guess that means it's over I hope the artists formerly known as terrorists got the memo.


LOL!
I didn't know he called it off, I just knew he termed it different, something ridiculous like "The arguments between those we do not speak of and Americans" or some baby-fied menial terminology. Granted, the terminology literally does not mean anything, nor does it affect the actions you do under said terms. BUT, why sugarcoat it? Why try at all to make it sound better, when it is the most heinous thing on the planet? No other nation is. I do not want my tax dollars going to some man in a room where his sole job is to put a rainbow and unicorn spin on the actions of our nation.
At least he has stepped up forces in Afghan. That was greatly needed. It was getting so hard over there. Hopefully now we can see some relief. I still bet a lot of inactives/reservists get stop lossed, though, unfortunately.
And, to bring this back to topic, I bet the news medias of USA will not report on that man in the rainbows and unicorns room.


But didn't the conservatives do the same thing when they changed the word "torture" to the phrase "strong interrogation techniques"?

Both sides do it (change verbage) so you cant really knock one side for doing it if you don't acknowledge the other side.


Oh I'm not picky on who I knock!
You're absolutely right. The only difference is that torture (while not taking away from severity of the matter) is not as bad as terrorism.

Actually, I just hate the whole thing. Why waste my time making me try and figure out what they're really talking about? Tell it like it is. Muslim extremists turn to terrorists, while US officials resort to torture to get the info out of the terrorists.

I better watch out, I'll be on Napolatano's watch list before I know it...

#54   2009/06/11 12:46PM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
Plot-Twister
image

Quote lovesit:
Quote Plot-Twister:
Quote lovesit:
Quote alwaysEJ:
Quote lovesit:
Quote alwaysEJ: lovesit, another thing to consider...last week Obama gave his big speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. With that backdrop, the media are going to be even less willing to bring to light the Muslim convert who shot army recruits.


true, I guess us calling out an extremist from their world would look bad with us trying to make peace with them. The problem...you can't make peace with terrorists. Us making peace with the Muslim world will not fix the extremist views, in any religion. Why? Because even the regular Muslims do not agree with the extreme ones, so making peace with the regular ones really does not help, not that I can see. And the day we make peace with extremists of any religion...will be the day our thought process is that of an extremist.

I just can't get over how the media picks and chooses. And why not even the Fox channel, who is the most
"conservative" has not made the coorelation. And they won't.



Well said. As for Fox, they do at least allow commentators on the air who echo what you've just said...that attempting to make peace with terrorists (who we cannot even call terrorists anymore I believe) is futile. I think Obama called the War on Terror off, so I guess that means it's over I hope the artists formerly known as terrorists got the memo.


LOL!
I didn't know he called it off, I just knew he termed it different, something ridiculous like "The arguments between those we do not speak of and Americans" or some baby-fied menial terminology. Granted, the terminology literally does not mean anything, nor does it affect the actions you do under said terms. BUT, why sugarcoat it? Why try at all to make it sound better, when it is the most heinous thing on the planet? No other nation is. I do not want my tax dollars going to some man in a room where his sole job is to put a rainbow and unicorn spin on the actions of our nation.
At least he has stepped up forces in Afghan. That was greatly needed. It was getting so hard over there. Hopefully now we can see some relief. I still bet a lot of inactives/reservists get stop lossed, though, unfortunately.
And, to bring this back to topic, I bet the news medias of USA will not report on that man in the rainbows and unicorns room.


But didn't the conservatives do the same thing when they changed the word "torture" to the phrase "strong interrogation techniques"?

Both sides do it (change verbage) so you cant really knock one side for doing it if you don't acknowledge the other side.


Oh I'm not picky on who I knock!
You're absolutely right. The only difference is that torture (while not taking away from severity of the matter) is not as bad as terrorism.

Actually, I just hate the whole thing. Why waste my time making me try and figure out what they're really talking about? Tell it like it is. Muslim extremists turn to terrorists, while US officials resort to torture to get the info out of the terrorists.

I better watch out, I'll be on Napolatano's watch list before I know it...


I like being able to knock both sides. Contrary to what it may seem like, I am not all rah rah democrat. I call them as I see them and I think all politicians are sneaky snakes. I don't think Obama is the second coming, but I do appreciate that he is trying to change perceptions a bit. The word changing thing is all over lol IE I am a domestic Godess!

I guess I disagree with you a bit because I think, as Americans, we should honor the Geneva Code and we should be better than treating our captured like animals. I think that is what holds us above the terrorists. Every time we torture one of these extremists, we are proving them right. They are willing to die for their cause. Torture is nothing to them.

I, in general, have a difficult time understanding how we can be at war with a concept. Drugs, terror, all a concept. You go to war with people. These terrorists happen to have been located in Afganastan. If Afganastan didn't want to get involved in a war, they should have turned them over or allowed us to go get them. Since they didn't we are at war with Afganastan. No ifs ands or buts. You bomb a country, not a concept. To me it is 21st century gobbledygook verbage to try to make it appear as though we aren't attacking afganastan, when it is their houses that are being blown up.

Please don't misinterpret....I think we have every reason to be over there. Just not in Iraq.

#55   2009/06/11 01:14PM
Re: Fox News fair and balanced
lovesit
image

plot - I agree. I think they should call it "War on Terrorists" if anything.You can't battle the concept of terrorism, or you will just be having a debate club.
Because we (imo) incorrectly went to Iraq first, we made an even bigger problem for ourselves. I can only base my Iraq opinion on what my fellow friends/family have told me from when they were there since the first day - that the Iraqis were massively grateful for us. On the steets, they greeted us (mostly) with gifts and graciousness, even opening up their homes to some of us. That is the only reason why I am not so negative about Iraq as others. But I am not naive to think that that is where we should have started for our country, even though the Iraqis might have been grateful.

« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » »| page:

Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.

« Go back to topic list