Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
Word. Or in other words, as Planned Parenthood describes the breakdown of people's opinions on the subject of abortion access:

10% -- Under no circumstances, even for rape/incest.
10% -- Under all circumstances, without restriction.
20% -- Under some circumstances, with restrictions.
60% -- In cases of rape, incest, and me.

(I can't remember the exact numbers, but they express the sentiment accurately.)

I've generally found that there's a congruence between the level of moral harrumphing from a family and the level of closeted immorality within the family. These were always the families where, when mom and dad went to Europe, the kids would throw a party and we'd go in dad's study and find all sorts of fucked up porn mags and videos. Now, mind you, there's nothing wrong with porn, but it always made me a little queasy to see a dad who had piles of Hustler hidden in his study carrying the donation hat at Sunday mass.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I've generally found that there's an inverse congruence between the level of moral harrumphing from a family and the level of closeted immorality within the family. These were always the families where, when mom and dad went to Europe, the kids would throw a party and we'd go in dad's study and find all sorts of fucked up porn mags and videos. Now, mind you, there's nothing wrong with porn, but it always made me a little queasy to see a dad who had piles of Hustler hidden in his study carrying the donation hat at Sunday mass.

2.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So it's entirely different than one CBS did. As I was saying. But you still haven't answered Hello's question, which is what story has fox run that is demonstrably false, as CBS just did.*

What still hasn't been mentioned during this CBS mess - which I find amusing - is why is it that Dan Rather - heir to Cronkite and the supposedly bias-neutral front-and-center face of the network - chose to run with this hatchet story, as opposed to the more usual suspects of Mike Wallace or Morley Safer?

Rather should be forced to take a leave of absence until after the election. Nothing less.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What still hasn't been mentioned during this CBS mess - which I find amusing - is why is it that Dan Rather - heir to Cronkite and the supposedly bias-neutral front-and-center face of the network - chose to run with this hatchet story, as opposed to the more usual suspects of Mike Wallace or Morley Safer?

Rather should be forced to take a leave of absence until after the election. Nothing less.

Who cares?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Who cares?

I don't.

5k!

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Now, mind you, there's nothing wrong with porn, but it always made me a little queasy to see a dad who had piles of Hustler hidden in his study carrying the donation hat at Sunday mass.

It's pretty clear that you think there is something wrong with porn if you'd deny it to churchgoers. After all, Jesus hung with Mary Magdalene, even though the lawyers and pharisees gave him a hard time about it. Or are you, like the pharisees of old, ready to stick to someone just for being human?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I don't.

5k!

I propose: Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck. Only with Sebby's permission, of course.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's a different argument, because CBS did something Fox hasn't even done yet.

And what is that?

eta: Do you mean apologize for an error?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
As I said, I can't point to a specific instance - but I invite you to watch "Outfoxed" for a dissertation on how Fox uses the "Moore Method".

Are you really making the defense that a veiled misrepresentation is somehow more excusable than an outright misrepresentation?

Fox also benefits from low expectations. Nobody expects them to be fair and balanced, so unless they come out with bald faced bullshit stories, people say "What'd you expect? Its Fox" - like you did in one of your previous posts.

If Fox is willing to say "We're idealogues, not a standard news outfit", I'd be fine with anything they said, but they don't. And they never will. Thats the problem.

Have you ever watched Fox? In the opinion/editorial shows they do just that.

I haven't seen outfoxed, but from what I heard, it goes after the opinion/editorial shows and not the straight news. It Brit Hume's show in there? Covuto's? I know O'reilly's is, but he's not news and doesn't purport to be.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Have you ever watched Fox? In the opinion/editorial shows they do just that.

I haven't seen outfoxed, but from what I heard, it goes after the opinion/editorial shows and not the straight news. It Brit Hume's show in there? Covuto's? I know O'reilly's is, but he's not news and doesn't purport to be.

Has O'Reilly changed his motto from "The No Spin Zone"?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Has O'Reilly changed his motto from "The No Spin Zone"?

Isn't the network slogan "We Report, You Decide"?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Have you ever watched Fox? In the opinion/editorial shows they do just that.

I haven't seen outfoxed, but from what I heard, it goes after the opinion/editorial shows and not the straight news. It Brit Hume's show in there? Covuto's? I know O'reilly's is, but he's not news and doesn't purport to be.

"Homicide bombers"? Aside from the offensiveness of the term on grammatical grounds (redundancy), its a flagrant play to the lowest common denominator. Clearly, the author didn't think too much of his audience if he felt such a cheap, stupid sounding term could whip up the base.

The Flag logos everywhere, the jovial softballs for right wingers and "give my best to the troops" send-offs to minitary interviews, the patriotic music... they have an agenda. Its all subtly conveyed, and thats a testament to Ailes' brilliance.

I actually love Fox and watch it all the time. I think they're miles more entertaining than any other news outlet, but I see the subtle spin. Fox is like the WMD story. For those of us with brains who know the truth, we accept it for what it is. For those of us dumb enough not to see the spin, well, good for the network - they'v hooked another rube. Either way, they get the viewers. Its is a great network, but to suggest that it doesn't twist the news is just silly. They all do. The suggestion that Jennings is not a lefty is ludicrous, and its pretty damn obvious that Brokaw is a left leaning moderate.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Fox is like the WMD story. For those of us with brains who know the truth, we accept it for what it is. For those of us dumb enough not to see the spin, well, good for the network - they'v hooked another rube.

You don't see a difference between spin and rhetorical devices as compared to lousy fact-checking coupled with adament assurances that the network stands behind its reporting? But, if you want to equate Dan Rather and Michael Moore, please feel free.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You don't see a difference between spin and rhetorical devices as compared to lousy fact-checking coupled with adament assurances that the network stands behind its reporting? But, if you want to equate Dan Rather and Michael Moore, please feel free.

Jesus Christ, people, have none of you realized that THIS IS SEBBY YOU'RE ARGUING WITH!!!

He's just trying to make a point via hyperbole, and y'all are looking at the trees and not the forest. He's like Ronald Reagan telling that story about that lady on welfare who drives a Cadillac -- the specific facts don't matter, they merely serve as the temporary framework for the broader point. His facts aren't meant to be taken literally.

Sheesh. Don't you people read the FB?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
You complain that I don't treat you "individually". That I treat all libs here as fungible. That I don't take your viewpoint seriously.

Maybe it's because you all use old, slanted info to make your partisan points. Maybe it's because you all (you, too) rip what's happening in Iraq, based on ignorance. Yes, effin' IGNORANCE.

Got any really close rels in Iraq?

How's this?

-------------

The US media is abuzz today with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq’s future. CNN’s website says, “[The] National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was ‘tenuous stability’ and the worst case was civil war.” That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days are being portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency.

From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn’t the case. Let’s lay out some background, first about the “National Intelligence Estimate.” The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring – in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn’t cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September.

The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren’t even close. The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr’s troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr’s enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to “court” and never seen again. Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah – the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.

You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a “No-go” area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren’t welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn’t want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.

Boom, boom, just like that two major “hot spots” cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The US commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it – probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. Things will still happen in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days – especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people’s homes and lives.

So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it’s looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of “cutting our losses” and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war “Away” games are always preferable to “Home” games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here – not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It’s terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we’re doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week.

Posted by Captain Ed at September 17, 2004 01:36 PM

-----

But I bet a dollar you don't even make it this far. Read what someone on the ground has to say that knocks down your view? Heavens, no. But, slander the effort for the sake of a doomsdayer? Sure. He's in your party.

I never thought I'd say this, but it IS correct to attack the patriotism of the Dems. You'd rather we lost, just so your party wins. My god, how you guys must hate Bush. I can't imagine hating that much.

A few days ago, bilmore passed along this e-mail about how wonderful things have been in Samarra lately. Imagine my surprise, then, when I heard on the radio this morning that U.S. and Iraqi forces were launching a "major offensive" into Samarra. "That can't be!", I thought. "Bilmore's anonymous but clearly better-informed-than-the-liberal-media e-mail correspondent told us all not too long that we'd won this big victory in Samarra. Surely with bilmore's dedication to keeping us all informed, he'd have informed us of unfortunate developments in Samarra!" Cognitive dissonance, I tell you. And then I recalled that just a week ago, Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi told Congress, "In Samarra, the Iraqi government has tackled the insurgents who once controlled the city." Surely Allawi had no reason to misrepresent the situation on the ground in Samarra. And if he'd been inclined to bend the truth, I'm sure the man from the Bush campaign who helped him would have set him straight.