Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Rather should tell anyone who suggests he be fired to go rub their knuckles in shit. Fox has dragged us into the gutter; pardon CBS for fumbling as it struggles to kneel in the muck.

Give the newbie liar and spinner a break. CBS will get better - its lies and spin will be as hard to unscramble as Fox's soon enough.

I really don't get when people say this. Fox is not a CNN clone. Little of the FoxNews television programming purports to be pure news. Almost all is commentary. Contrast with CBS which has a guy who speaks at Democratic fundraisers reading the "news." BS Sebastian, these guys are good at hiding the lies they just got carried away. Of course the population learns to adapt to the lies. Like this November, at 8 E.T. when CBS declares Kerry has won Fla. (or Bush) the Fla. panhandle will ignore it and go vote.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Rather should tell anyone who suggests he be fired to go rub their knuckles in shit. Fox has dragged us into the gutter; pardon CBS for fumbling as it struggles to kneel in the muck.

Give the newbie liar and spinner a break. CBS will get better - its lies and spin will be as hard to unscramble as Fox's soon enough.

I get it. Sorta like, "Mom, b-b-but Fox started it". Cept that we've been making the complaints about liberal bias for 30 years, before Fox was even born. Whatever.

Or is it, "Mom, Fox did it too, but I just can't prove it cuz they are too smart".

You got any particular example of them characterizing an impeachable source as "unimpeachable" in mind?

He(the real right wingman)llo

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yo, I'm pretty sure I outflank anyone here to the right on any issue. Y'all suckers need to step off.

re: drug policy. Preferable to legalize and tax, spend tax money on prevention and treatment. As long as its illegal, shoot everybody, especially all y'all crackheads.

re: public housing. Preferable to abolish, cept for those who can't fend for themselves. As long as its legal, spread the pain around fairly and don't let nobody pay to get out of the war on poverty.

re: Fallujah. Preferable to fight and kill our enemies. As long as we won't, preferable to leave (liberally leaving weapons in the hands of the Kurds and Shiites).

re: Taxes. 12% baby. Bid me lower or bow down.

Someone wanna tell me how they are farther to the right? I'm the rightest mutha in the house.

Hello

I'll go through em in order...

1. Agreed as to the 1st plan. As to the alternative, are you including cokeheads as well? Are you advocating shooting a white guy like me for sucking a few lines at a party in my neighborhood? Are you advocating jailing some 18 year old for smoking a joint at his home while his folks are away? Didn't think so. Shooting crackheads accomplishes nothing but paperwork and dirt removal at the pauper's field.

2. NIMBY.

3. Leaving is not an option. We have to ride out that shitrain or the lunatics will declare victory. The LAST thing we can do is hand the Islamists "Remember Falluja" glory. But we can't keep running a Big Ten offense over there. We need more covert assassinations of radicals, not these skirmishes with Sadr and others like him. Brute force won't work. Perhaps we should import some Israeli killers to do the work for us - they seem to know how to take out high level targets in broad daylight.

4. Agreed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I get it. Sorta like, "Mom, b-b-but Fox started it". Cept that we've been making the complaints about liberal bias for 30 years, before Fox was even born. Whatever.

Or is it, "Mom, Fox did it too, but I just can't prove it cuz they are too smart".

You got any particular example of them characterizing an impeachable source as "unimpeachable" in mind?

He(the real right wingman)llo

Your logic is interesting. You deride the "But Fox did it first" argument, then proceed to raise the argument yourself. Congratultions on another fine debate, Mr. Hannity.*

* If there's a better case for a caste system in this country to preclude Joe Lunchpail from soiling the airwaves with idiocy, I've yet to see it. I'm no friend of the so-called elites, and I generally loathe left-leaning academia, but they are correct when they call Hannity a buffoon. But I do give him his props - he is a rich buffoon, so there must be some circuits running between his ears.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Your logic is interesting. You deride the "But Fox did it first" argument, then proceed to raise the argument yourself.

It's a different argument, because CBS did something Fox hasn't even done yet.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'll go through em in order...

1. Agreed as to the 1st plan. As to the alternative, are you including cokeheads as well? Are you advocating shooting a white guy like me for sucking a few lines at a party in my neighborhood? Are you advocating jailing some 18 year old for smoking a joint at his home while his folks are away? Didn't think so. Shooting crackheads accomplishes nothing but paperwork and dirt removal at the pauper's field.

2. NIMBY.

Back at ya.

1. Yes. If we shot cokeheads 30 years ago, we would have dissuaded the cokeheads 20 years ago. The Right believes in effective solutions, not expensive, hypocritical, unfair and inefficient solutions like locking up 300K black kids when we could just shoot 500 white ones.

2. Spoken like a true elitist. The Right believes in fairness.

re: 1&2, I'm opposed to the government involvement in either. My argument is that as longs as its involved in either, it should be fair and effective. Principles of Rightism 101.

3. Leaving is not an option. We have to ride out that shitrain or the lunatics will declare victory. The LAST thing we can do is hand the Islamists "Remember Falluja" glory. But we can't keep running a Big Ten offense over there. We need more covert assassinations of radicals, not these skirmishes with Sadr and others like him. Brute force won't work. Perhaps we should import some Israeli killers to do the work for us - they seem to know how to take out high level targets in broad daylight.

4. Agreed.

re: 3, There are a lot of people to assassinate. So many, in fact, that the military has a term for it. Its called an "offensive". Don't get me wrong, if we are fighting, I'm all in favor of fighting. Its my first option. THe other message we could have sent a year ago, i.e., fuck with us, we'll send our whole army in (well, not the whole army) to get you. When we are done, we're outty, and y'all can kill each other en masse for all we care. Don't make us come back. That option is gone too, thanks to Wolfy and Rummy.

re: 4, Excellent. You are 1/4 as Right as I.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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

No its not. CBS came out and said "unimpecahable". They put their money where their mouth is. Fox won't EVER do that because their mantra is, like Michael Moore, "spin each fact slightly and put them all together out of context to fit your message." Fox does exactly what CBS does - the only difference is the subtly of the lie. Oh, and yes, witholding and/or misrepresenting information by offering it in slanted context is as much a lie as saying something is "unimpeachable" when its not.

Yours is a distinction without a difference.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Rather should tell anyone who suggests he be fired to go rub their knuckles in shit. Fox has dragged us into the gutter; pardon CBS for fumbling as it struggles to kneel in the muck.

Give the newbie liar and spinner a break. CBS will get better - its lies and spin will be as hard to unscramble as Fox's soon enough.

Save it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No its not. CBS came out and said "unimpecahable". They put their money where their mouth is. Fox won't EVER do that because their mantra is, like Michael Moore, "spin each fact slightly and put them all together out of context to fit your message." Fox does exactly what CBS does - the only difference is the subtly of the lie. Oh, and yes, witholding and/or misrepresenting information by offering it in slanted context is as much a lie as saying something is "unimpeachable" when its not.

Yours is a distinction without a difference.

Cite please. In its evening line up, fox has a total of 2.0 news shows. Brit Hume and Covuto. The rest (e.g. Hannity & Combs, O'reilly, etc.) are opinion/commentary. So before you go googling, please keep this in mind.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Back at ya.

1. Yes. If we shot cokeheads 30 years ago, we would have dissuaded the cokeheads 20 years ago. The Right believes in effective solutions, not expensive, hypocritical, unfair and inefficient solutions like locking up 300K black kids when we could just shoot 500 white ones.

2. Spoken like a true elitist. The Right believes in fairness.

re: 1&2, I'm opposed to the government involvement in either. My argument is that as longs as its involved in either, it should be fair and effective. Principles of Rightism 101.

re: 3, There are a lot of people to assassinate. So many, in fact, that the military has a term for it. Its called an "offensive". Don't get me wrong, if we are fighting, I'm all in favor of fighting. Its my first option. THe other message we could have sent a year ago, i.e., fuck with us, we'll send our whole army in (well, not the whole army) to get you. When we are done, we're outty, and y'all can kill each other en masse for all we care. Don't make us come back. That option is gone too, thanks to Wolfy and Rummy.

re: 4, Excellent. You are 1/4 as Right as I.

1. If we did # 1, you'd never get anyone elected. In fact, your current candidate wouldn't be in office.

2. I never said I wasn't elitist about certain things, like the hypocritical right does. Only a fool aims for consistency above all else. I find as a rule that people who pride themselves on being consistent are the most boring and usually the least intelligent of anyone I meet. Consistent people are good worker bees - nothing more, nothing less. Sensible humans who use their mind learn early that people are, as a rule, constantly engaged in self-contradiction. Its the human condition. Only one with shit for brains would seek to remove that element of his personality. Of course, the most right people I know remedy their uncomfortableness with their own contradictory beliefs by lying to themselves and others. I think they're called hypocrites, and they're all over the right, like a bad case of lice.

Do I sound angry on this point? Well, I should. These phony right cocksuckers who refuse to placate the populist liberatarian line have held us back. They've tied the majority of Rockefeller Republicans to a cadre of biblical literalists, people with fear of societal progression, lunatic traditionalists, women haters, etc... The debate in the GOP is whether the "afraid' wing (Jesus nuts and traditionalists) or the populist wing (social moderate/fiscal conservative) will dominate in the next decade.

I grew up with loads of pompous social conservativ GOPers. First seat in church every weekend. But when the daughter got knocked up, they had the first seat on a plane to a clinic in San Diego. Everybody wants to tell everybody to be pious when there are no consequences to themselves.

3/4. Agreed.

[sgtclub]

A French official said Saturday that even if Sen. John Kerry defeats President Bush in November's election, his country won't provide troops to help the U.S. in Iraq - the same policy France has under President Bush.

"If Kerry is elected, we wouldn't send troops either," the unnamed official told the New York Daily News. "We don't need any more targets in Iraq."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No its not. CBS came out and said "unimpecahable". They put their money where their mouth is. Fox won't EVER do that because their mantra is, like Michael Moore, "spin each fact slightly and put them all together out of context to fit your message."

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.*


*And I'll grant you that Bill O'Reilly should be eating his shoe (or tie, or whatever it was on WMD).

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. If we did # 1, you'd never get anyone elected. In fact, your current candidate wouldn't be in office.

2. I never said I wasn't elitist about certain things, like the hypocritical right does. Only a fool aims for consistency above all else. I find as a rule that people who pride themselves on being consistent are the most boring and usually the least intelligent of anyone I meet. Consistent people are good worker bees - nothing more, nothing less. Sensible humans who use their mind learn early that people are, as a rule, constantly engaged in self-contradiction. Its the human condition. Only one with shit for brains would seek to remove that element of his personality. Of course, the most right people I know remedy their uncomfortableness with their own contradictory beliefs by lying to themselves and others. I think they're called hypocrites, and they're all over the right, like a bad case of lice.

Do I sound angry on this point? Well, I should. These phony right cocksuckers who refuse to placate the populist liberatarian line have held us back. They've tied the majority of Rockefeller Republicans to a cadre of biblical literalists, people with fear of societal progression, lunatic traditionalists, women haters, etc... The debate in the GOP is whether the "afraid' wing (Jesus nuts and traditionalists) or the populist wing (social moderate/fiscal conservative) will dominate in the next decade.

I grew up with loads of pompous social conservativ GOPers. First seat in church every weekend. But when the daughter got knocked up, they had the first seat on a plane to a clinic in San Diego. Everybody wants to tell everybody to be pious when there are no consequences to themselves.

#1. I'm not debating popularity. I'm debating what's Right.

#2. One of the whole points of the second position (shoot people, put public housing everywhere), is because if we put these lines back on the liberals and Jesus freak-conservatives who advocate all of this social intervention, they'd back the fuck off of American socialism. Unfortunately, we can't even put these lines out there for argument, because if the public took us up on it, they'd be taking you out and shooting you with the Kennedy's and Not_Me. So its not me compromising with the 38% tax rates and the hypocricical war on drugs and war on poverty. Its y'all.

I'm not saying I'm going to win. I'm just saying I'm Right.

Hello

[dtb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I grew up with loads of pompous social conservativ GOPers. First seat in church every weekend. But when the daughter got knocked up, they had the first seat on a plane to a clinic in San Diego. Everybody wants to tell everybody to be pious when there are no consequences to themselves.

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.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by 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.*


*And I'll grant you that Bill O'Reilly should be eating his shoe (or tie, or whatever it was on WMD).

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.