Fox News Sucks

[fantassin]

Being currently deployed with some yanks and being subjected to constant Fox News propaganda, I just want to confirm Fox News is the biggest propaganda machine ever since the end of the Pravda.

US Marines and soldiers are good blokes though....

I'll be back on those forums in a few weeks...greetings to the old salts.

[American Patriot]

That's nice.

[henksmoeder]

word fantassin

[shrek]

Then watch CNN, we all know it's un-biased. Give me a friggin break!!

[Trigger]

Wow, this one is really a contender for most pointless thread ever. Nice try at making it valid by mentioning the Marines though. :roll:

[chauncy republicans]

He's right! Fox news is the biggest propaganda machine on cable television here in the states!
You give me a break Shreck, CNN is biased, but not like their war-mongering Fox news counterparts. :cantbeli: Fox is an entertainment company, so naturally the entertainment flows through into their news channel, though many dont find it very entertaining, except mindless conservatives. Most conservatives I debate with dont even watch that crap! (Then again, the ones I debate with at home are quite educated.)
For God's sake they were perplexed as to why we didnt use more bombs on Baghdad, and dissapointed MOAB was'nt dropped.
Yeah, real wonderful people....

[Vance]

Pussy.

[budanski]

Propaganda is too polite a term for the type of deliberate brainwashing conducted by the official (french) state media. (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2003/04/29/World/The-French.Spin.A.Different.War.Story-415948.shtml)

[Trigger]

*He's right! Fox news is the biggest propaganda machine on cable television here in the states!
You give me a break Shreck, CNN is biased, but not like their war-mongering Fox news counterparts. :cantbeli: Fox is an entertainment company, so naturally the entertainment flows through into their news channel, though many dont find it very entertaining, except mindless conservatives. Most conservatives I debate with dont even watch that crap! (Then again, the ones I debate with at home are quite educated.)
For God's sake they were perplexed as to why we didnt use more bombs on Baghdad, and dissapointed MOAB was'nt dropped.
Yeah, real wonderful people....
*Not counting ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN :roll:

[Fargin]

Pussy.

Me likes! woot

Al Jazeera actually was considered more sober than Fox, in the Danish media durring the war.


Propaganda is too polite a term for the type of deliberate brainwashing conducted by the official (french) state media. (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2003/04/29/World/The-French.Spin.A.Different.War.Story-415948.shtml)

Bollocks p-)

[chauncy republicans]

*He's right! Fox news is the biggest propaganda machine on cable television here in the states!
You give me a break Shreck, CNN is biased, but not like their war-mongering Fox news counterparts. :cantbeli: Fox is an entertainment company, so naturally the entertainment flows through into their news channel, though many dont find it very entertaining, except mindless conservatives. Most conservatives I debate with dont even watch that crap! (Then again, the ones I debate with at home are quite educated.)
For God's sake they were perplexed as to why we didnt use more bombs on Baghdad, and dissapointed MOAB was'nt dropped.
Yeah, real wonderful people....
*Not counting ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN :roll:
They are all biased, but not like Fox news.

[chauncy republicans]

Pussy.
Wow...how old are you kid?? 15 maybe....

[Trigger]

Then change the f**kin' channel and quit whining. :bash:

[budanski]

Five times more liberal journalists out there than conservative (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040607/opinion/7john.htm) yet all they have is to point to Fox News.

[chauncy republicans]

Propaganda is too polite a term for the type of deliberate brainwashing conducted by the official (french) state media. (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2003/04/29/World/The-French.Spin.A.Different.War.Story-415948.shtml)
Propaganda is too polite a term for the type of "ignorant ****" Budanski posts on this site. Brainwashed red-neck sydrome? You should see a doctor.

[chauncy republicans]

Then change the f**kin' channel and quit whining. :bash:
Am I making you angry.... :oops:

[Vance]

Al Jazeera actually was considered more sober than Fox, in the Danish media durring the war.

Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA, another credible, worthwhile amazing statement made by yet another unimportant European country the size of Wyoming.

[Trigger]

Propaganda is too polite a term for the type of deliberate brainwashing conducted by the official (french) state media. (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2003/04/29/World/The-French.Spin.A.Different.War.Story-415948.shtml)
Propaganda is too polite a term for the type of "ignorant ****" Budanski posts on this site. Brainwashed red-neck sydrome? You should see a doctor.
Nice. You whine about 'propaganda', but your only comeback is to generalize the guy who actually posted a link to support his viewpoint as an 'ignorant redneck'.
You lose. rofl

[Fargin]

still

In population and size the Cowboy State sucks ass compaired to Denmark, you'd know that if you watched Al Jazeera instead of Fox. p-)

[chauncy republicans]

Propaganda is too polite a term for the type of deliberate brainwashing conducted by the official (french) state media. (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2003/04/29/World/The-French.Spin.A.Different.War.Story-415948.shtml)
Propaganda is too polite a term for the type of "ignorant ****" Budanski posts on this site. Brainwashed red-neck sydrome? You should see a doctor.
Nice. You whine about 'propaganda', but your only comeback is to generalize the guy who actually posted a link to support his viewpoint as an 'ignorant redneck'.
You lose. rofl
Actually I dont waste my time with Budanski's links. Ive seen them before they are the same evrytime. I dont recall him ever posting any fact! When has he posted federal documentation, it's always silly little internet newssites! :cantbeli:

[American Patriot]

CNN, CBS, and NBC are all in the business of broadcasting Liberal socialist propaganda so why can't FoxNews even the playing field?

[pinkeye]

Five times more liberal journalists out there than conservative (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040607/opinion/7john.htm) yet all they have is to point to Fox News.

ever heard of media concentration? now do your homework and stop worrying about the "pinko-commie, atheistic, homo******-lovin', latté drinking, prada wearin'" so-called liberal media.

[ExtraT]

... Fox News is the biggest propaganda machine ever since the end of the Pravda.

Hmmmm... Who said Pravda is finished? ;)

http://www.pravda.ru

[chauncy republicans]

now do your homework
He cant, grammar school is out for the summer.

[chauncy republicans]

CNN, CBS, and NBC are all in the business of broadcasting Liberal socialist propaganda so why can't FoxNews even the playing field?
Actually they still report the news despite there political bias, Fox just tries to entertain ingnorant red-necks when there not out shopping at wal-mart.

[chauncy republicans]

Al Jazeera actually was considered more sober than Fox, in the Danish media durring the war.

Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA, another credible, worthwhile amazing statement made by yet another unimportant European country the size of Wyoming.
Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA another credible, worthwhile, amazing statement made by yet another unimportant little kid the size of my right sided ********.

[usa320]

Someone needs to take out the Eurotrolls.

[Vance]

Al Jazeera actually was considered more sober than Fox, in the Danish media durring the war.

Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA, another credible, worthwhile amazing statement made by yet another unimportant European country the size of Wyoming.
Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA another credible, worthwhile, amazing statement made by yet another unimportant little kid the size of my right sided ********.
Wow what a f*cking comeback, you even used my words exactly. Bravo, asshat.

[chauncy republicans]

Someone needs to take out the Eurotrolls.
Why not you, tough guy?

[chauncy republicans]

Al Jazeera actually was considered more sober than Fox, in the Danish media durring the war.

Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA, another credible, worthwhile amazing statement made by yet another unimportant European country the size of Wyoming.
Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA another credible, worthwhile, amazing statement made by yet another unimportant little kid the size of my right sided ********.
Wow what a f*cking comeback, you even used my words exactly. Bravo, asshat.
Asshat? Your not even 15 are you?
Do you have an opinion? Or is typing insults you pick up from grade-school the only thing you use your computer for?

[Vance]

Al Jazeera actually was considered more sober than Fox, in the Danish media durring the war.

Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA, another credible, worthwhile amazing statement made by yet another unimportant European country the size of Wyoming.
Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA another credible, worthwhile, amazing statement made by yet another unimportant little kid the size of my right sided ********.
Wow what a f*cking comeback, you even used my words exactly. Bravo, asshat.
Asshat? Your not even 15 are you?
rofl I guess you're not over the age of 7, since you can't even dignify yourself with your own damn comeback, you're forced to use the adjectives of a kid who is "not even 15". :roll:

[chauncy republicans]

Al Jazeera actually was considered more sober than Fox, in the Danish media durring the war.

Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA, another credible, worthwhile amazing statement made by yet another unimportant European country the size of Wyoming.
Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA another credible, worthwhile, amazing statement made by yet another unimportant little kid the size of my right sided ********.
Wow what a f*cking comeback, you even used my words exactly. Bravo, asshat.
Asshat? Your not even 15 are you?
rofl I guess you're not over the age of 7, since you can't even dignify yourself with your own damn comeback, you're forced to use the adjectives of a kid who is "not even 15". :roll:
:lol:

[chauncy republicans]

Childish insults and lol "comebacks" arent really my specialty. Excuse me for my improper comeback. Maybe you could teach me, great master of the flame warriors. :)

[Aussie E]

I'm just proud that FOX News is owned by an Aussie!
ALL POLITICIANS/NEWS OUTLETS ARE LIERS. THE ONES YOU LISTEN TO JUST TELL THE LIES YOU WANT TO HEAR!

[Fargin]

Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA, another credible, worthwhile amazing statement made by yet another unimportant European country the size of Wyoming.

Al Jazeera actually was considered more sober than Fox, in the Danish media durring the war.
Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA another credible, worthwhile, amazing statement made by yet another unimportant little kid the size of my right sided ********.still

In population and size the Cowboy State sucks ass compaired to Denmark, you'd know that if you watched Al Jazeera instead of Fox.


Wow what a f*cking comeback, you even used my words exactly. Bravo, asshat.


P.S. I must admit I'm strangely attracted to your mature and maskuline stupidity.

[Vance]

Did you **** up that quote chain or was it just me?

[Vance]

Al Jazeera actually was considered more sober than Fox, in the Danish media durring the war.

Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA, another credible, worthwhile amazing statement made by yet another unimportant European country the size of Wyoming.
Well LA-DEE-FREAKIN'-DAA another credible, worthwhile, amazing statement made by yet another unimportant little kid the size of my right sided ********.
Wow what a f*cking comeback, you even used my words exactly. Bravo, asshat.
Asshat? Your not even 15 are you?
rofl I guess you're not over the age of 7, since you can't even dignify yourself with your own damn comeback, you're forced to use the adjectives of a kid who is "not even 15". :roll:
:lol:
Checkmate.

[Fargin]

Did you f*** up that quote chain or was it just me?

I think you did the quote fcuking to begin with, two can play that game.

[Vance]

Childish insults and lol "comebacks" arent really my specialty. Excuse me for my improper comeback. Maybe you could teach me, great master of the flame warriors. :)
Well then think about that before you try and pick a verbal fight.

[Vance]

Did you f*** up that quote chain or was it just me?

I think you did the quote fcuking to begin with, two can play that game.
Come again? I only quoted what you said. You on the other hand somehow manageed to mess it up.

[Fargin]

But in a highly aesthetical way.

Let's discontinue this productive and interesting dialouge. Although we've come closer to mutual respect and understanding, this personal discussions diverts from the original topic. We could continue down this trail in private messages, but it would be unethical(maybe even criminal) considering your young age.

[Vance]

3 months short of being able to serve my country. :roll:

[SeanAshi]

****ing Euro pussies! Bill O'Reily was right about you guys ;)

[SEALInTheMaking]

I love Fox News. All the other stations lean toward the Left, and rip on the Right. So it's nice to hear the Lefties get it for once. I fully support Fox.


Actually they still report the news despite there political bias, Fox just tries to entertain ingnorant red-necks when there not out shopping at wal-mart.

Hey now! There's no reason to be bringing my people into this. I outa break out my woopin stick and tan your sorry hide! :bash:

[duck]

I like my roasted duck...err Fox with a (big) grain of salt.

[chauncy republicans]

Childish insults and lol "comebacks" arent really my specialty. Excuse me for my improper comeback. Maybe you could teach me, great master of the flame warriors. :)
Well then think about that before you try and pick a verbal fight.
You started it. :lol:

[Vance]

Childish insults and lol "comebacks" arent really my specialty. Excuse me for my improper comeback. Maybe you could teach me, great master of the flame warriors. :)
Well then think about that before you try and pick a verbal fight.
You started it. :lol:
rofl

[Fargin]

3 months short of being able to serve my country. :roll:

Still underage :roll:

[Roger Rabbit]

Being currently deployed with some yanks and being subjected to constant Fox News propaganda, I just want to confirm Fox News is the biggest propaganda machine ever since the end of the Pravda.

US Marines and soldiers are good blokes though....

I'll be back on those forums in a few weeks...greetings to the old salts.

Good luck.

Fox News is awful, i like it but its still awful. I don't really trust any mainstream media source to tell the exact truth, just a version of events.

[Nizark]

FOX news couldnt even be considered a news organization. They spew the repub. line, most of their anchors are simply rude assholes who change the topic once they hear something that they dont like, and NOBODY believes that fair and balanced bull**** that is their motto. I'm not saying MSNBC and CNN are equal either, but FOX is the American version of Al Jazerra

[Trigger]

CTFC/STFU

[Kilgor]

Too all the euro-pussies...

dont like it, change the channel or go read some lenin.

or stick "bowling for colombine " on and have a wank over it.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Too all the euro-pussies...
*Puts hand up*


dont like it, change the channel or go read some lenin.
Marx is just that wee bit better.


or stick "bowling for colombine " on and have a wank over it.
I can't I have run out of screen wipes. :P

[BlackRain]

I would like to weigh in here.

I used to watch CNN often until the the FOX news channel was born. I think it more entertaining to watch and has a mix of opinions.

CNN was often accused of being so soft on Bill Clinton that they garnered the name the Clinton News Network.

I think FOX gets a bad name because it tends to call a spade a spade where other networks only report how bad one politcal party is.

Yes. I will admit it FOX News is more jingoistic. There anchors wore American flag pins where CNN and the others refused. Something about multinationalism flavor of reporting...

[cut]

isn't FOX news the same as SKY news in the UK (and STAR news in India) all jingoistic, all inaccurate.

SKY news for example was going on about a plane being shot down over baghdad when Iraqis were shooting into the river during the war, the BBC waited for conformation form the US, who was right?

[Kilgor]

hmmmm...

BBC...

like the order they couldnt use "dicatator" when describing saddam. They had to use "former president" and some other bull**** political correct term.

Black rain is right, fox calls a spade a spade and gets right to the point. Thats why liberals hate it.

[cut]

hmmmm...

BBC...

like the order they couldnt use "dicatator" when describing saddam. They had to use "former president" and some other bull**** political correct term.

Black rain is right, fox calls a spade a spade and gets right to the point. Thats why liberals hate it.

they called saddam a dictator, they still referr to him as the "former iraqi dictatator".. Are you making stuff up again? tut tut ;)

[Kilgor]

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5393

As if we needed further evidence of the BBC’s leftist bias, Nic Cecil, writing for The Sun, sheds light on the organization's latest shenanigans. It seems that the BBC doesn’t want its journalists referring to Saddam Hussein as the ''former dictator'' but rather as ''the deposed former President.'' Something tells me that the countless Iraqis who have suffered under Saddam’s tyranny would beg to differ.

Barmy BBC bosses have banned reporters from calling tyrant Saddam Hussein a former dictator.

Instead, staff must refer to the barbaric mass murderer as ''the deposed former President.''

The astonishing edict was seized on by MPs last night as more proof of a Left-wing bias inside the BBC against the Iraqi war.

Labour MP Kevan Jones, of the Commons Defence Select Committee, said: ''This shows the crass naivety of the BBC. Such political correctness will be deeply hurtful to many of our servicemen serving in Iraq.

''It amply demonstrates elements of the BBC have got a clearly anti-war and anti-Government agenda.''

Labour MP Ann Clwyd, who chairs the Indict group which has dossiers on the crimes of Saddam, his sons and henchmen, was astounded at the BBC’s stance.

She said: ''It’s frankly ridiculous. Saddam Hussein is a despot, a murderer and a torturer. He will have to answer charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.''

Tory Party chairman Liam Fox also slammed the Beeb — which was accused during the war of giving too much weight to Iraqi propaganda.

He said: ''To afford this level of politeness to a tyrant, torturer and murderer is deeply offensive to the Iraqi people.

''It is also an insult to the Coalition forces who have sacrificed so much to liberate Iraq from the evil of Saddam.''

The BBC said the email spelling out the instruction was sent to reporters on its online website, which serves a global audience.

A spokeswoman said: ''This was reiterating existing guidelines to remind BBC News Online journalists of the need to use neutral language.''

Later she said the ban on calling Saddam a dictator did not apply to domestic services.

But a BBC insider said: ''This is our daftest order ever.''


You owe me a slab of beer :P

[cut]

I'll buy you that beer the day the Sun becomes a worthy source of information.

[Kilgor]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36360

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1048450/posts

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000378.html

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5393

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2003/12/bbc_continues_t.html

Maybe someone else could help me out here, but i remember it was a considerable news story when it was revealed.

[Kilgor]

A BBC spokeswoman dismissed the clamor and said the e-mail was merely a reminder to journalists "of the need to use neutral language."

sounds like it did happen !

[Ichhabe]

Someone needs to take out the Eurotrolls.


To make it short & sweet; Go **** yourself!

[Ichhabe]

Too all the euro-pussies...

dont like it, change the channel or go read some lenin.

or stick "bowling for colombine " on and have a wank over it.

Naaaah! I like FOX-news. Best comic relief ever. What is a euro-pussie btw?

[cut]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36360

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1048450/posts

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000378.html

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5393

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2003/12/bbc_continues_t.html

Maybe someone else could help me out here, but i remember it was a considerable news story when it was revealed.

Great set of biased reporting you have their blogs, "news" websites that don't write their own stuff and american conservative forums, right.. These are hardly going to dent the BBC reputation for unbiased reporting despite pressures from governments.

[Pandy]

This became a hell of a fire storm didn't it?

[ibstolidude]

What is a euro-pussie btw? - felines of European decent?

lay off the Euro-cat crap, it is really silly.

[n4292936]

there are various types of propoganda outlets in each country, in America Fox News is hands down the worst offender - they put out so much tripe and expect it to be swallowed whole (which it probably is more often than not) - its offensive

[OB Kenobi]

there are various types of propoganda outlets in each country, in America Fox News is hands down the worst offender - they put out so much tripe and expect it to be swallowed whole (which it probably is more often than not) - its offensive

They're the worst offender right now, but back during Clinton's rape of Yugoslavia, CNN was equally bad. Remember Christiane Amanpour? Wife of Clinton's press secretary? Come on now, talk about a conflict of interest! I still remember her claiming 100,000 Albanian terrorists were killed by the Serbs. As we all know, it turned out that ~8,000 were killed, and most of those were Clinton's CIA-trained KLA terrorists.

Meanwhile, the US isn't even keeping count of civilians massacred in Iraq.

The media is a very powerful tool, thank god we have the internet, otherwise we'd all be zombies by now.

[stephane from Paris]

the last of Fox:
Chirac don't want to come for Reagan (hell he don't want to be under insults of Bush supporters which are thousands in the place) and FOX says: boycott FRANCE!!
It's that a serious media???? I'm happy to never saw this sort of comments on a french TV!!!!

And nothing of course on the lack of Canadian's , Japanese's, Russian's prime minister!

Go FOX we love you, too much fun!

[BlackRain]

It really does not matter at this point if Chirac attends.

Chirac, whose presidential immunity prevents prosecutors from trying him on similar charges as Alain Juppé , will probably be indicted when he leaves office for politcal corruption anyway.

http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/scandals/political.html
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901040216-588808,00.html

[n4292936]

there are various types of propoganda outlets in each country, in America Fox News is hands down the worst offender - they put out so much tripe and expect it to be swallowed whole (which it probably is more often than not) - its offensive

They're the worst offender right now, but back during Clinton's rape of Yugoslavia, CNN was equally bad. Remember Christiane Amanpour? Wife of Clinton's press secretary? Come on now, talk about a conflict of interest! I still remember her claiming 100,000 Albanian terrorists were killed by the Serbs. As we all know, it turned out that ~8,000 were killed, and most of those were Clinton's CIA-trained KLA terrorists.

Meanwhile, the US isn't even keeping count of civilians massacred in Iraq.

The media is a very power tool, thank god we have the internet, otherwise we'd all be zombies by now.

I wasnt aware of all that OB Kenobi. That is indeed a rather glaring conflict of interests isnt it. I wouldn't condone any such obvious tailor made reporting but Fox News seems to be qualitatively different. The poor and biased reporting seems to be institutional and intentional (with respect to casting especially). On the other hand, it is important to recognise that most, if not all, media outlets do this to varying degrees. The bottom line is that news is now being sold as a commodity rather than serving its intended purpose of informing the public. Various gimmicks and incentives are now in place to attract audiences... appealing to political and cultural prejudices seems to be foremost amongst them.

[Chris196]

Thanks for sharing your unsolicited opinion.

Fox News doesnt spew enough anti-American liberal drivel for you I take it?

Too bad they cant be like the rest of the leftist propaganda machine that makes up the American media...that way we could have total conformity.

[Deuterium]

there are various types of propoganda outlets in each country, in America Fox News is hands down the worst offender - they put out so much tripe and expect it to be swallowed whole (which it probably is more often than not) - its offensive


And I would contend that NPR is as equal to FOX news on espousing one or the other political side of the argument. The sad thing is that I have to fund NPR with my tax dollars.

[n4292936]

Thanks for sharing your unsolicited opinion.

Fox News doesnt spew enough anti-American liberal drivel for you I take it?

Too bad they cant be like the rest of the leftist propaganda machine that makes up the American media...that way we could have total conformity.
Um, this thread is about Fox News as a biased news outlet, and is in a forum. No one therefore has to solicit an opinion, the point of a forum, since you have obviously missed its intended purpose, is to give an opinion. It doesnt have to be solicited, just like no one asked for your input. You have a right to give it by virtue of the fact that you are a posting member of this forum. :backhand:
Im not interested in antiAmerican news, and to suggest that everyother media outlet in America is just that puts you squarely in the midst of the ultra-rightests who, like the ultra-leftists, are by and large not worth listening to given their moronic and tainted input into any debate.

[pinkeye]

Thanks for sharing your unsolicited opinion.

Fox News doesnt spew enough anti-American liberal drivel for you I take it?

Too bad they cant be like the rest of the leftist propaganda machine that makes up the American media...that way we could have total conformity.

you obviously know absolutely nothing about media concentration. conservative pundits thoroughly dominate talk radio. how many liberal talk show hosts can you name? most mainstream newspapers are dominated by conservatives. these are facts. last time i checked the media was not limited to television broadcasting.

[Deuterium]

Thanks for sharing your unsolicited opinion.

Fox News doesnt spew enough anti-American liberal drivel for you I take it?

Too bad they cant be like the rest of the leftist propaganda machine that makes up the American media...that way we could have total conformity.

you obviously know absolutely nothing about media concentration. conservative pundits thoroughly dominate talk radio. how many liberal talk show hosts can you name? most mainstream newspapers are dominated by conservatives. these are facts. last time i checked the media was not limited to television broadcasting.

And the last time I checked radio was market driven. Advertisers pay for these shows. No listeners, no market, no show. If a liberal talk show can make it in a market, so be it. I do find it strange that the largest liberal radio "show" NPR is government funded.......hmmmmmmmm

[n4292936]

too true dueterium, it is market driven. I'm curious as to why talk shows are nearly entirely dominated by conservative show hosts. Given electoral results there is clearly a market for liberal-ish media so then why the statistical bias. Are republicans simply more entertaining or better represented by the personable and media friendly types? Its a curious phenomena.

[pinkeye]

Thanks for sharing your unsolicited opinion.

Fox News doesnt spew enough anti-American liberal drivel for you I take it?

Too bad they cant be like the rest of the leftist propaganda machine that makes up the American media...that way we could have total conformity.

you obviously know absolutely nothing about media concentration. conservative pundits thoroughly dominate talk radio. how many liberal talk show hosts can you name? most mainstream newspapers are dominated by conservatives. these are facts. last time i checked the media was not limited to television broadcasting.

And the last time I checked radio was market driven. Advertisers pay for these shows. No listeners, no market, no show. If a liberal talk show can make it in a market, so be it. I do find it strange that the largest liberal radio "show" NPR is government funded.......hmmmmmmmm

radio, like every other media environment is indeed market-driven. so, according to your line of argument, if the market dictates that conservative media is more attractive to listeners and/or viewers, there should be no liberal media because the public is clearly more interested in michael savage and fox news. way to shoot yourself in the foot...

[BlackRain]

most mainstream newspapers are dominated by conservatives

Simply a lie.


A study released in late May by the Pew Research Center confirmed what many have believed for some time, the people who work in print news and in traditional TV newsrooms across the country consider themselves ‘liberal’ by a 5-1 margin over their conservative counterparts.

[Deuterium]

Thanks for sharing your unsolicited opinion.

Fox News doesnt spew enough anti-American liberal drivel for you I take it?

Too bad they cant be like the rest of the leftist propaganda machine that makes up the American media...that way we could have total conformity.

you obviously know absolutely nothing about media concentration. conservative pundits thoroughly dominate talk radio. how many liberal talk show hosts can you name? most mainstream newspapers are dominated by conservatives. these are facts. last time i checked the media was not limited to television broadcasting.

And the last time I checked radio was market driven. Advertisers pay for these shows. No listeners, no market, no show. If a liberal talk show can make it in a market, so be it. I do find it strange that the largest liberal radio "show" NPR is government funded.......hmmmmmmmm

radio, like every other media environment is indeed market-driven. so, according to your line of argument, if the market dictates that conservative media is more attractive to listeners and/or viewers, there should be no liberal media because the public is clearly more interested in michael savage and fox news. way to shoot yourself in the foot...

No that's not what I said at all. I didn't shoot myself in the foot. My point would be that talk radio is indeed dominated by conservatives as TV and print are dominated by the liberal media. On the whole the media IS biased to the left. FOX news is popular because conservatives now have an outlet they can now watch instead of being inundated with liberal outlets like CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC. Let it be market driven. I don't have a problem if all the media is either liberal or conservative. I do my own thinking thank you. I don't need a troll like Katie Couric or a conservative pundit like Limbaugh to form my opinions. I watch many news programs. I listen to NPR in the mornings on my way into work. I think it's my duty as a citizen to ensure I know where both sides are coming from. Now that said I am a conservative. I just find it quite amusing the response that FOX news gets. It's great to see liberals in action. They never get it. I understand that there are 2 or more opinions on subjects. I understand the first amendment. Liberals on the other hand (and detractors of FOX news) only want to hear their own opinions. Limbaugh and FOX news are the ant-christ and should be pulled from the air. GET REAL. Open your minds liberals.

[Tane Angle]

Both sides have their TV stations, everyone goes home happy right? Or at least self-reinforced, unless they do like Deut here and listen to both sides. ;) Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[budanski]

you obviously know absolutely nothing about media concentration. conservative pundits thoroughly dominate talk radio. how many liberal talk show hosts can you name? most mainstream newspapers are dominated by conservatives. these are facts. last time i checked the media was not limited to television broadcasting.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/Slanted-X.gif

Newsflash:

1. The media is liberal

2. The Pope is Catholic

3. A bear sh**s in the woods...

Mainstream Left
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Public Television, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle (my part of the woods)

Mainstream Right
FoxNews and Talk Radio

[Trigger]

Stop making sense Deuterium!!
You're gonna break the internet.

[Trigger]

you obviously know absolutely nothing about media concentration. conservative pundits thoroughly dominate talk radio. how many liberal talk show hosts can you name? most mainstream newspapers are dominated by conservatives. these are facts. last time i checked the media was not limited to television broadcasting.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/Slanted-X.gif

Newsflash:

1. The media is liberal

2. The Pope is Catholic

3. A bear sh**s in the woods...

Mainstream Left
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Public Television, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle (my part of the woods)

Mainstream Right
FoxNews and Talk Radio
Obviously an unfair advantage for the Right. p-)

[pinkeye]

most mainstream newspapers are dominated by conservatives

Simply a lie.


A study released in late May by the Pew Research Center confirmed what many have believed for some time, the people who work in print news and in traditional TV newsrooms across the country consider themselves ‘liberal’ by a 5-1 margin over their conservative counterparts.

do your homework. we're not talking about the personal views of journalists, but rather the editorial control exerted by the ownership structure of the current media environment. i suggest you do some research on media concentration or consolidation. check out news corporation, viacom, bertelsmann, disney, vivendi universal, etc. a few corporations own most of the media we consume. news corporation, for example, owns hundreds of newspapers around the world, numerous television broadcast undertakings, several large publishing houses, dth services, etc. media barons are not always known for their particularly liberal views.

[pinkeye]

Thanks for sharing your unsolicited opinion.

Fox News doesnt spew enough anti-American liberal drivel for you I take it?

Too bad they cant be like the rest of the leftist propaganda machine that makes up the American media...that way we could have total conformity.

you obviously know absolutely nothing about media concentration. conservative pundits thoroughly dominate talk radio. how many liberal talk show hosts can you name? most mainstream newspapers are dominated by conservatives. these are facts. last time i checked the media was not limited to television broadcasting.

And the last time I checked radio was market driven. Advertisers pay for these shows. No listeners, no market, no show. If a liberal talk show can make it in a market, so be it. I do find it strange that the largest liberal radio "show" NPR is government funded.......hmmmmmmmm

radio, like every other media environment is indeed market-driven. so, according to your line of argument, if the market dictates that conservative media is more attractive to listeners and/or viewers, there should be no liberal media because the public is clearly more interested in michael savage and fox news. way to shoot yourself in the foot...

No that's not what I said at all. I didn't shoot myself in the foot. My point would be that talk radio is indeed dominated by conservatives as TV and print are dominated by the liberal media. On the whole the media IS biased to the left. FOX news is popular because conservatives now have an outlet they can now watch instead of being inundated with liberal outlets like CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC. Let it be market driven. I don't have a problem if all the media is either liberal or conservative. I do my own thinking thank you. I don't need a troll like Katie Couric or a conservative pundit like Limbaugh to form my opinions. I watch many news programs. I listen to NPR in the mornings on my way into work. I think it's my duty as a citizen to ensure I know where both sides are coming from. Now that said I am a conservative. I just find it quite amusing the response that FOX news gets. It's great to see liberals in action. They never get it. I understand that there are 2 or more opinions on subjects. I understand the first amendment. Liberals on the other hand (and detractors of FOX news) only want to hear their own opinions. Limbaugh and FOX news are the ant-christ and should be pulled from the air. GET REAL. Open your minds liberals.

who is advocating the removal of fox news and rush? i think fox news is rubbish, but i have no problems (relatively-speaking) with the fact that it occupies an important segment of the television news environment. as you pointed out, there has to be some measure of balance, so a variety of information sources is healthy and necessary. unfortunately, many viewers, both left and right, are too effin' stupid to go after genuine sources of information, so they turn to talk radio, fox news, the new york post, pseudo-anarchist websites or cnn for stories on killer elevators, car chases in downtown los angeles, pointless editorials devoid of genuine substance, and so on and so forth. mainstream media is not liberal, it's just plain stupid because it caters to a stupid population that prefers show over substance. okay, no more ranting on my part...

[pinkeye]

you obviously know absolutely nothing about media concentration. conservative pundits thoroughly dominate talk radio. how many liberal talk show hosts can you name? most mainstream newspapers are dominated by conservatives. these are facts. last time i checked the media was not limited to television broadcasting.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/Slanted-X.gif

Newsflash:

1. The media is liberal

2. The Pope is Catholic

3. A bear sh**s in the woods...

Mainstream Left
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Public Television, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle (my part of the woods)

Mainstream Right
FoxNews and Talk Radio

hey budanski, beware the red scare!!!

[budanski]

hey budanski, beware the red scare!!!

Spoken just like my fellow ex-patriots. ;)

[Sir Zach of R.]

God I think I'm gonna be sick. I've never read through a flame this long before..... :roll: OK, I'm gonna lay this out.

1. The left (the left) controls most of the MAJOR media outlets.

2. The right (the right) controls a few major media outlets such as FOX, radio, NY Post, Washington Times, and that's all I can think of.

3. Die thread! Die! DIE!!!!!!!!

[BlackRain]

do your homework. we're not talking about the personal views of journalists, but rather the editorial control exerted by the ownership structure of the current media environment.


Ha! Now you are changing your argument because you were bitch slapped with the truth.



most mainstream newspapers are dominated by conservatives. these are facts.

Try expand your research base from Michael Moore movies.


Lets examine your paranoid delusions about "big medias" influencing editorial decisions.

1) German media giant Bertelsmann has admitted it lied about its Nazi past and that it made big profits during Adolf Hitler's reign in Germany using Jewish slave labour.

2) Total Political Donations during the 2001-2002 US election cycle: Vivendi Universal political donations $516,824 ($314,064 to Democrats, $202,760 to Republicans)

Soft Money Donations: (same company, but donations given through different channels) Vivendi Universal $1,172,238 ($640,219 to Democrats, $532,019 to Republicans)

3) Disney and its employees are among the biggest donors in American politics, having contributed nearly $8 million to federal candidates and party committees since 1989. Two-thirds of that total has gone to Democrats. So far in the current cycle, slightly more than 60% of contributions from Disney has gone to Democrats, versus 40% to Republicans.

4) Media companies, including Viacom, have given more than $300,000 to Kerry. Viacom has contributed a total of $3.2 million to political campaigns in the 2000 and 2002 election cycles, with 81 percent of the money going to Democrats. Kerry has played a role at helping telecom lobbyists control the timing of airwave auctions and helping media conglomerates by voting for telecom deregulation in 1996.

The evil media corporations and their employees you talk about contribute more to Democrats then Republicans.


Pinkeye, I stipulate you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

[DPGLAW]

Why, when I see statements like the title of this thread are they always accompanied my the fact that this train of thought and the opinion is that of Europe. The only country in Eurpoe that is worth anything is Britan....I mean look at who else is there, France and Germany.....hahahaha. Two countries that are a joke in and of themselves.

In addition, yeah, you are correct. Fox news is biased, but so is the New York Slimes, NBC, ABC, CNN. They are constantly spouting the views of those Liberal and Democratic retards.......Put it this way, all I have to say is that if we had a Liberal, Democrat in power on 9/11 we would of had a summit afterwards insted of bombing the **** of someone. On top of that, if we had a Democrat in power I am 100% sure that we would of been attacked again as those ragheads would know that with a democrat in office they could do whatever they wanted without any consequence. I mean look at their history, this is a fact, Somalia, the USS Cole, Embassy Bombins, etc. We did what? Fired a few cruise missles at empty tents......Thats a large part of why ther terrorists felt they could get away with 9/11. I mean they probably knoew that something would happen, but probably not the large scale hunt that is occurring now. Clinton was a pussy, apparently the saying "you are what you eat" really applied in this situation. :)

[Tane Angle]

One, they are not ragheads. Either speak respectfully of such cultures or do not speak of them at all, please. Two, I don't know if it is appropriate to discuss President Reagan's anti-/counter-terrorism policies just yet, but they were extremely, extremely weak. You want to talk about sending a message to terrorists that they can attack the US without fear of a response, look at Reagan's policies. I hate to say it, but Jimmy Carter may have had a tougher stance on terrorism than any other President in history. At least he authorized rescue attempts.

I would normally not care about the political nonsense, but I would appreciate it greatly if you did not refer to people in the Middle East as ragheads. Nearly all are good people. There are a number of Middle Eastern people, including Muslims, who command my respect, and a few who I owe my life to. Would you insult someone's mother? I would hope not, as that someone owe's their life to his or her mother. It's the same here.

Things are not so black and white. A look at US policy over the past 60 years shows that we have supported terrorists as much as we have fought them, propped up dictators as much as we have torn them down. Republicans have been as weak on defense as Democrats, and Democrats have been as strong on defense as Republicans.

Why are some so hateful? Those who have done the fighting often don't have their enemies. True hate doesn't work well in the Middle East. It makes it too difficult to be pragmatic. If one truly hates, one increases his or her chances of going home in a casket.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[OB Kenobi]

[quote=OB Kenobi]
I wasnt aware of all that OB Kenobi. That is indeed a rather glaring conflict of interests isnt it. I wouldn't condone any such obvious tailor made reporting but Fox News seems to be qualitatively different. The poor and biased reporting seems to be institutional and intentional (with respect to casting especially). On the other hand, it is important to recognise that most, if not all, media outlets do this to varying degrees. The bottom line is that news is now being sold as a commodity rather than serving its intended purpose of informing the public. Various gimmicks and incentives are now in place to attract audiences... appealing to political and cultural prejudices seems to be foremost amongst them.

"Cultural and political prejudices," that is pretty much what the networks and MSNBC cater to. But Fox and CNN are a bit different. They have anchors *closely* related to the Democrat and Republican parties, people like O'Reilly, Hannity, Amanpour and Novak. You may recall for instance that Novak (CNN's Crossfire) was the one who leaked the CIA agent's name to the public. He was given that info by a member of the Bush administration, he didn't come upon it by accident. Basically the same situation as when Amanpour was given her agenda directly by Clinton.

Hmm, now that I think about it, both Novak and Amanpour are on CNN... so maybe CNN are the biggest scumbags in the newsmedia, and not Fox? Fox are just wannabes, with clowns like O'Reilly who think anyone except trailer trash take him seriously.

John Stewart of the daily show is alot more trustworthy and accurate than all these assholes, and he's a comedian!

[OB Kenobi]

Two, I don't know if it is appropriate to discuss President Reagan's anti-/counter-terrorism policies just yet, but they were extremely, extremely weak.

That's because Bush, Sr. was the one really in charge, just as he is today. Reagan was an actor, a guy who could give good speeches and make people laugh to hide the evil that is the Bush dynasty. He was the guy who could get Bush into office.

Hard to believe? Look at Bush Jr today. Look at Dan Quayle. See what's going on here? Bush Sr is the CIA terror mastermind, and an oil-sucking thief.

[Haiw]

Why, when I see statements like the title of this thread are they always accompanied my the fact that this train of thought and the opinion is that of Europe. The only country in Eurpoe that is worth anything is Britan....I mean look at who else is there, France and Germany.....hahahaha. Two countries that are a joke in and of themselves.
Apart from the things Tane Angle already pointed out; you're underestimating Europe. I guess Germany was a joke 60-65 years ago? If you'd just take a map and look at the current deployments by countries like France and Germany, but other countries as well, you'd see the idiocy in your 'statement'.

[BlackRain]

I don't know if it is appropriate to discuss President Reagan's anti-/counter-terrorism policies just yet, but they were extremely, extremely weak.

You want to talk about sending a message to terrorists that they can attack the US without fear of a response, look at Reagan's policies.

I hate to say it, but Jimmy Carter may have had a tougher stance on terrorism than any other President in history. At least he authorized rescue attempts.


Tane, you may be too young to remember this but... at the beginning of the Reagan administration, Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that opposition to terrorism would replace the Carter administration’s focus on advancing human rights throughout the world.

Carter had to be forced to take military action. I personally spoke to one the helo pilots of aborted Desert One; and he cursed Carter up and down.

Reagan's Anti-Terrorism Policies and Actions:

April 14 1986: In retaliation for the terrorist bombing of a West Berlin night club where a U.S. serviceman was killed, U.S. Air Force & Navy bombers hit Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya.


August 27 1986: Reagan signs an anti-terrorism law that bans arms sales to nations that support terrorism, and strengthens U.S. anti-terrorist measures.

The Reagan Administration's National Security Decision Directive (NSSD) 30, Managing Terrorist Incidents, issued in April 1992, established that the State Department would take the lead for international terrorist attacks, the FBI for domestic incidents and the Federal Aviation Administration for incidents concerning aircraft. It also established the Terrorist Incident Working Group which was responsible for coordinating efforts to respond to terrorism, and the Interdepartmental Group on Terrorism which was responsible for formulating terrorism policy. Anti-terrorism policies continued to be developed in Reagan's second term:

1985
National Security Decision Directives 179 and 180 established the Task Force on Combating Terrorism and the Civilian Aviation Anti-Terrorism Program.

1986
National Security Decision Directives 205 and 207 were released. 205 acknowledged the tremendous threat to national security posed by state-sponsored terrorism, in this instance by Libya. 207 established the National Program for Combating Terrorism; it outlined guidelines for preventing and responding to acts of terrorism.

[Haiw]

Tane, you may be too young to remember this but...
rofl rofl rofl
Quote of the week! :lol:

[budanski]

Carter gave a way the Panama Canal, betrayed the Shah, fostered the energy crisis, Carter's "malaise" presided over stagflation (remember 21% interest rates!?), drew down the military, and generally positioned the US as ineffective and so guilt-ridden it could never act. It was Carter who commisioned the only non-nuclear Nimitz class carrier, JFK, that requires a flotilla of refueling ships to follow it. Further dependance on mideast oil. ;)

Held for 444 days, tortured and paraded publicly due to Carter's inaction. The US Embassy hostages were only to be released when Ronald Reagan became President because the Iranian militants knew he would use force to solve the situation.

http://webcenter.edivu.aol.com/editorial1/sstantis/stantis072601.jpg

Carter Sold Out Iran 1977-1978 (http://66.34.243.131/iran/html/article774.html)
Iran for years had been a great ally of America, until Carter. The history does not stop where this article stops, it continues into the Reagan administration. Saddam Hussein, sensing weakness and military disorder in Iran attacks hoping to gain valuable oil fields. After initial Iraqi gains the Iran military response drives the Iraqi military back. The now enemy state of America, Iran is on the verge of conquering Iraq and becoming immensely more powerful. What should the Reagan Administration do? Allow this to happen? America steps in and supports the Iraqi military ensuring a stalemate outcome of the 8 year war that killed and injured millions. Thanks Jimmy Carter, winner of the Nobel Peace prize. Remember this the next time you leftist pundits says," Reagan gave Saddam those weapons in the first place." Or throw the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.

[Tane Angle]

That's because Bush, Sr. was the one really in charge, just as he is today. Well, I don't know about that. Bush Sr. has apparently been alienated by the religion-talk (Bush Sr. is not very religious) and is giving public service awards to Ted Kennedy. Seems like he's disappointed in his son.

budanski, I'm by no means a big fan of Carter as a President, but my point was that at least he knew the only two letters in the English language that really matter: "G" and "O." He wasn't a great President, but some people were pretty much only concerned with hearing his authorization. By the way, besides Honey Badger, there weren't really any real viable military options for Iran after Eagle Claw was aborted. The hostages were split up, thrown to the winds, and hidden. Neither Carter nor Reagan couldn't have done too much for those hostages if he had wanted to. The ones in Lebanon, however, were a bit more reachable.


you may be too young to remember this Why thank you, I guess that wrinkle-remover worked after all. And my wife said I overpaid for it. :D Thanks for the tip, Argyll. p-)


at the beginning of the Reagan administration, Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that opposition to terrorism would replace the Carter administration’s focus on advancing human rights throughout the world. Yes, it was always about announcements. Announcements don't be squat. Results are what matter. Giving the "Go" is what matters. Not leaving our people to rot is what matters. I wasn't looking for talk, I was looking for walk. It never came.

Yes, President Reagan had policies. And they were lovely, flowery policies. They were phantoms. There was nothing to them. Libya kills one US serviceman in West Berlin, we hit Libya. We lost 17 Americans, including a critical portion of the best people the CIA had on the Middle East, we made policies. We lost 241 US Marines, we made some more policies. We lost our COS, we made even more policies. We lost American civilians, and we made still more policies. It's all about one, the effort, and two, the results. Reagan had neither.

Policies don't matter. Token bombings don't matter. Getting down in the streets-and getting one's hands dirty if need be-that matters. Be it through bribes or roughing up someone or cultivating HUMINT sources or meeting face to face with the real string-pullers, it's all about getting the intelligence, and then acting on it.

Three dangerous precedents were set by President Reagan and his administration (he was the NCA, and if people want to give him credit for other things, they've got to blame him for the bad too, no?): Abandoning POWs; that America will in fact negotiate with terrorists and will abandon American hostages; that a terrorist organization can attack the US without fear of a response. I hate to say it, I really do, but we are less safe today because of that last dangerous precedent. And maybe if we had actually done what we should have with the hostages in Lebanon then we wouldn't be facing so many hostage takings in Iraq today.

The hostile forces in Iraq are doing what they know has worked against the US in the past. Last time, it changed US foreign policy and we pulled out of Lebanon. If we are going to blame Clinton for his misjudgments in Somalia (and we should, no?), then we should blame Reagan as well, because they made identical mistakes. Both told the troops to do something without giving the troops the tools or free hand needed.

President Reagan, unintentionally I am sure, made the US appear weak. So the other kids, the bullies-not necessarily the bigger ones, but the ones with more guts than our politicians-have been picking on us ever since.

Sorry for the rant, but it really does seem sometimes that those bad calls were perhaps some of the worst in terms of long-term security ramifications that a US President has ever made. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Yes, President Reagan had policies. And they were lovely, flowery policies. They were phantoms. There was nothing to them. Libya kills one US serviceman in West Berlin, we hit Libya. We lost 17 Americans, including a critical portion of the best people the CIA had on the Middle East, we made policies. We lost 241 US Marines, we made some more policies. We lost our COS, we made even more policies. We lost American civilians, and we made still more policies. It's all about one, the effort, and two, the results. Reagan had neither.

Policies don't matter. Token bombings don't matter. Getting down in the streets-and getting one's hands dirty if need be-that matters. Be it through bribes or roughing up someone or cultivating HUMINT sources or meeting face to face with the real string-pullers, it's all about getting the intelligence, and then acting on it.


Seems like you're viewing the Reagan administration of the '80s through the lens of the realities of 2004. We did not know then what we know now. We didn't have 20-25 years of experience with Muslim terrorists under our belts then.

There is absolutely no way that the American (or European) populace would have stood for a post-9-11 type campaign conducted in 1987. No way. Cripes, even now, when Islamists kill 3000 of us, on our own soil, with our own aircraft - we still have people unwilling to "put troops on the ground". No way that would have been politically viable in the '80s.

It seems to me that Reagan was headed into uncharted waters. I don't find many terrorist attacks against US interests prior to 1980 or so. I did see where a US diplomat was killed in an attack in 1976...but other than the Iran crisis...all the US deaths seem to be coincidental & were just people at the wrong place/wrong time in Israel. >anybody know of a good online terrorist attack database?<

The Reagan administration did the best it could given the political, military, and economic realities of it's time. You can't judge them by the standards of 2004. They were the first ones to have to deal with the radical Islamists on this scale - I suppose he could have saved us all a lot of trouble by simply nuking the entire region :)

[Midav]

As an American, I'd like to say Fox is done in a somewhat amateur'esque way.

That's by looking at the whole picture....

However, I like some of the female broadcasters ;)

[Sir Zach of R.]

One, they are not ragheads. Either speak respectfully of such cultures or do not speak of them at all, please. Two, I don't know if it is appropriate to discuss President Reagan's anti-/counter-terrorism policies just yet, but they were extremely, extremely weak. You want to talk about sending a message to terrorists that they can attack the US without fear of a response, look at Reagan's policies. I hate to say it, but Jimmy Carter may have had a tougher stance on terrorism than any other President in history. At least he authorized rescue attempts.

I would normally not care about the political nonsense, but I would appreciate it greatly if you did not refer to people in the Middle East as ragheads. Nearly all are good people. There are a number of Middle Eastern people, including Muslims, who command my respect, and a few who I owe my life to. Would you insult someone's mother? I would hope not, as that someone owe's their life to his or her mother. It's the same here.

Things are not so black and white. A look at US policy over the past 60 years shows that we have supported terrorists as much as we have fought them, propped up dictators as much as we have torn them down. Republicans have been as weak on defense as Democrats, and Democrats have been as strong on defense as Republicans.

Why are some so hateful? Those who have done the fighting often don't have their enemies. True hate doesn't work well in the Middle East. It makes it too difficult to be pragmatic. If one truly hates, one increases his or her chances of going home in a casket.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

BS. I ain't talking' respectful to any one who considers me an ignorant redneck who shops at Wal-Mart. :bash:

[Ratamacue]

Just because someone may think lowly of you doesn't mean that you can't strive to be better than them.

[Tane Angle]

Who thinks you're an ignorant redneck? People in the Middle East? Like Rat, the ever-sage ;), said, respect those who don't respect you, and maybe they will return the favor.

2Sheds_Jackson, I'd probably feel better about it if it was just hindsight, but there's no shortage of military and intelligence people who saw-at the time-what had to be done, saw what would happen if we didn't, and voiced their opinions, practically begging the administration for authorization. It's not just hindsight. It's not like it was tough to see. :|

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[n4292936]

wow this thread is still here and Fox still sucks :D
Die thread! DIE! DIE!!!

[Haiw]

BS. I ain't talking' respectful to any one who considers me an ignorant redneck who shops at Wal-Mart. :bash:
Why would you be disrespectfull to anyone who knows the truth? p-)

[chauncy republicans]

There is absolutely no way that the American (or European) populace would have stood for a post-9-11 type campaign conducted in 1987. No way. Cripes, even now, when Islamists kill 3000 of us, on our own soil, with our own aircraft - we still have people unwilling to "put troops on the ground".
:cantbeli: Afghanistan?

[Roger Rabbit]

Been watching Fox recently and i've come to the following conclusion. Compared to the BBC then the Fox reporters seem to stumble over their words at least once every 5 minutes. Ok so it might not have anything to do with the news they're delivering but it does make them look less professional.

[BlackRain]

The BBC reporters are used having foreign objects in their mouths.

Hence, the improved speaking dynamics.

Just a joke, just relax your BBCphiles.

[Sir Zach of R.]

BS. I ain't talking' respectful to any one who considers me an ignorant redneck who shops at Wal-Mart. :bash:
Why would you be disrespectfull to anyone who knows the truth? p-)

Shutup. :lol: I may be a redneck but I sure as hell ain't ignorant.

[Roger Rabbit]

The BBC reporters are used having foreign objects in their mouths.

Hence, the improved speaking dynamics.

Just a joke, just relax your BBCphiles.
:lol: Wasn't saying the BBC are any better than Fox, although IMO they are. Still i'm not too keen on any of the media outlets although i do have the upmost respect for some of the reporters/cameramen/photographers.