|
|
Soaps Boards :: Fox News fair and balanced
Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.
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. |
lovesit![]() |
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. |
lovesit![]() |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 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. |
alwaysEJ![]() |
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. |
sarahconnor![]() |
[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] |
sarahconnor![]() |
all of that together looks too confusing..here is my post |
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 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. |
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 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... |
Plot-Twister![]() |
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 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. |
lovesit![]() |
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. |
Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.