Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FOX, are they real???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    <<And if you listen to the exact words they are using they are so full of barely concealed innuendo that it makes you head spin.>>

    Who are using? Fox has dozens of people, and some shows are not innuendo at all, they are full rhetoric, because that is how this or that particular show is designed.

    I watched a show on Fox last night talking about how health care under Saddam was better. Hardly the Republican party line there.

    No matter what "insider information" anyone gives you, watch Fox and see that they tell both sides of a story. The editorial shows may lessen in one side, sometimes, but the straight news is just like any other network. Their stories are drawn from the wires, just like everyone else's are.

    Aside from that, whatever non-liberal stance that FNC has, it does some job of balancing out the largely liberal media.

    Also, TM, you leave out the times FNC glorifies Kerry...is it okay to glorify him, but not Bush?
    Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

    Comment


    • #17
      Well, to be honest I haven't seen too much of TWW so I can hardly tell in what way the character was outlined overtime.
      Also I was just half serious.

      "Excellent dutch by the way."
      Heh, thanks to my ex g/f.


      ZD, just outta curiosity: What makes you say the media are largely liberal? The fact that they don't praise everything the government does?
      What's up Drakh?

      Comment


      • #18
        <<The fact that they don't praise everything the government does?>>

        No. The fact that the mainstream networks and papers distort stories in favor of the liberal view. Ignoring certain stories for same purpose, or to avoid offending somebody.

        Just like this story of the "missing weapons cache."
        Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

        Comment


        • #19
          Interesting...that evil FNC is interviewing the Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik.
          Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

          Comment


          • #20
            I think you're missing the point somewhat. Nobody has said that Fox does not interview other people than the GOP-clan.
            "En wat als tijd de helft van echtheid was, was alles dan dubbelsnel verbaal?"

            Comment


            • #21
              Interesting...that evil FNC is interviewing the Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik.
              In the same way one opinion show (say, O'Reilly) does not prove bias, as you said, I think it's safe to say that one interview does not disprove it either.

              Just like this story of the "missing weapons cache."
              The way you put that in quotes, like it's a comic point, does in fact amuse me, but probably not in the way you intended.

              What about that story has such a liberal slant to it? And try to be serious.
              Radhil Trebors
              Persona Under Construction

              Comment


              • #22
                <<What about that story has such a liberal slant to it? And try to be serious.>>

                The fact that it's likely concocted by the oh-so-objective New York Times? The fact that it's one week away from election day and Kerry is using it as ammo. He is the gun, and NY Times provided him with a clip of rounds. Too bad they're blanks.

                Even if it is true, Iraq is (or was, now that they've been dug up) littered with ammo dumps. What do you think the insurgents are using against coalition forces?

                Aside from that, to blame Bush for the supposed theft is akin to blaming him for a shortage of flu vaccine.

                <<In the same way one opinion show (say, O'Reilly) does not prove bias, as you said, I think it's safe to say that one interview does not disprove it either.>>

                But they're open to different opinions. I think that this Libertarian guy and Nader should have been at the debates. Maybe then they wouldn't get made fun of for getting the 1% of votes. Maybe it would be 8%. Maybe they would have made more sense than Kerry, giving leftists someone else than the Democrat candidate to vote for. Someone that actually counts, not just on the ballot, getting the 1%.

                But opinion shows should be looked at differently. They're pockets of the network. MSNBC and CNBC have conservative shows. FNC makes a good "boogeyman" for liberals to rally against and that is why I think it gets attacked so much.
                Last edited by Dr Maturin; 10-26-2004, 02:42 PM.
                Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The fact that it's likely concocted by the oh-so-objective New York Times? The fact that it's one week away from election day and Kerry is using it as ammo. He is the gun, and NY Times provided him with a clip of rounds. Too bad they're blanks.
                  Concocted? The story stems from the fact that the new Iraq administration reported this to the IAEA, who were checking up on the explosives in question. This is public record - not some paper's scoop.

                  Our grand ol' Bush gov't then promptly issued conflicting stories. Some trying to cover that this wasn't reported earlier, some trying to cover that it even happened.

                  I wonder which to believe.

                  If the timing of it is questionable, the only "october suprise" you can draw is that maybe the Iraqis pay more attention to our politics than we would think. And are sending a message.

                  Even if it is true, Iraq is (or was, now that they've been dug up) littered with ammo dumps. What do you think the insurgents are using against coalition forces?
                  Your arguement amouts to: "There's too much stuff to cover."

                  Pardon me, but, WE'RE IN A FUCKING WAR.

                  Regardless of the fact that I don't like this war, what the hell reason would any army have not to cover and sieze all large sources of weapons that could be used against them? This wasn't just a pile of 50 AK's that some villagers hid. This was tons upon tons of plastic explosives components. A compound full of the shit. Do you know the story you're talking about here, or did you just watch Fox for five minutes?
                  Last edited by Radhil; 10-26-2004, 03:47 PM.
                  Radhil Trebors
                  Persona Under Construction

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    In a much more tactful -- albiet brief -- repsonse: From what I understand, there is now way to know if the weapons had been moved before Baghdad fell. The brigade who passed through the dump was on its way to Baghdad, and did not report any of the weapons there that the IAEA reported missing.

                    Like I said, my main points here are that the whole situation is minutiae, one way or another, as the insurgents have tons (literally) upon tons of explosives to begin with, and that this is nothing more than ammo for Kerry.

                    Further from what I understand, the dump was guarded, so unless numerous US troops are lying -- or 007-like agents snuck the stuff out -- then this is a no go.
                    Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Under Bush's watch, the only thing of value in Iraq that Didn't get "misplaced" was the Oil.

                      And, yes, he IS to blame.
                      He put Rummy and Wolfie in charge, even though they had NO Military experience.
                      Remember the phrase: The Buck Stops Here!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Your tact may be commendable, but it doesn't help the thinness of your arguement. The last inspection of the explosives and their seal was in March, before the invasion, while we were already in run up mode and watching Iraq like a hawk for a twitch. They were all accounted for then. Baghdad fell in April. One month during which they could have been moved, but when it should have been obvious they were being moved.

                        If they were moved before, by Saddam or his army, we should know exactly where they are now.

                        If they were moved after, looted slowly truck by truck, then we had a massive failure of strategy and command.

                        The explosives were not guarded - the dump was not guarded, and your understanding - from whatever magical source - is flawed. There were two sweeps through the compound during the war at least, but no permanent post was made. If it had been, they would still be there. That is the whole point.

                        The insurgents have tons (literally) upon tons of explosives to begin with, and that this is nothing more than ammo for Kerry.
                        Where is this magical source of explosives you claim? You can explain a few like that - the stories of old shells rigged to explode on American convoys ring pretty true for an insurgency. That's what an insurgency does - it makes do with what limited resources it has on hand and whatever it can scavenge. But recent attacks - mostly those claimed by Zarqawi's group - have gone well beyond what mere looted shells and mines can do. We have car bombs on an almost daily basis now.

                        You're right that this is ammo for Kerry. That doesn't make it any less true, or dangerous.

                        So I ask again - what about all this - all this quite plain and flat fact that I've laid out - is liberal bias?

                        Because it hurts Bush? Because it makes him look like an ass? These are just the facts man. I'm not tossing in any crazy liberal conspiracy theories like they were all busy going after the oil. This is what happened. Where's the bias?
                        Last edited by Radhil; 10-26-2004, 06:48 PM.
                        Radhil Trebors
                        Persona Under Construction

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          <<Where is this magical source of explosives you claim? You can explain a few like that - the stories of old shells rigged to explode on American convoys ring pretty true for an insurgency. That's what an insurgency does - it makes do with what limited resources it has on hand and whatever it can scavenge. But recent attacks - mostly those claimed by Zarqawi's group - have gone well beyond what mere looted shells and mines can do. We have car bombs on an almost daily basis now.>>

                          It was, I believe, in the Moore thread where I described the breakdown of UN sanctions which allowed French, German, Russian and Chinese companies to move in weaponry and weapons components to Iraq, up until March 2003. The rockets that almost killed Wolfowitz were of French make, and very new, according to Navy SEALs who went in and disarmed the makeshift launcher that failed to launch all of the rockets. That's just one example.

                          <<You're right that this is ammo for Kerry. That doesn't make it any less true, or dangerous.>>

                          Blanks.

                          <<So I ask again - what about all this - all this quite plain and flat fact that I've laid out - is liberal bias?

                          Because it hurts Bush? Because it makes him look like an ass? These are just the facts man. I'm not tossing in any crazy liberal conspiracy theories like they were all busy going after the oil. This is what happened. Where's the bias?>>

                          It MAY hurt Bush and it IS NOT because of any real concern. There is more to this story than meets the eye. But the Times just had to get the story out so people's first impression would be that the war in Iraq took "yet another" bad turn.

                          <<The last inspection of the explosives and their seal was in March, before the invasion, while we were already in run up mode and watching Iraq like a hawk for a twitch.>>

                          Who performed this inspection, if I may ask?
                          Last edited by Dr Maturin; 10-26-2004, 07:42 PM.
                          Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Who performed this inspection, if I may ask?
                            Same task force that was looking for weapons of mass destruction before the war. Saddam included them in Iraq's weapons disclosure. They were tagged and sealed because the explosive is high grade enough to be used in the detonation chamber of a nuke. It was only sealed and not destroyed because it was by itself merely high-end explosives, and wasn't banned under the Iraq sanctions.

                            This is at least my understanding - the inspectors and the reason for the seal I know for certain, the rest is merely what I've heard. I'll get more certain if you wish.

                            it IS NOT because of any real concern. There is more to this story than meets the eye.
                            It is of concern - it's a lot of explosive to go missing. It is missing - this fallout on the news isn't over that fact, it's over the finger-pointing. I've heard comparisons (heard, so you may take with salt as you like) that it amounts to more than 8,000 equivalents of the Okhlahoma City bomb.

                            I will check later on the oil-for-food program breakdowns - I'm not as learned in that area as I'd like to argue over it.
                            Radhil Trebors
                            Persona Under Construction

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Zhd: Take this in the spirit that I write it. I don't want World War III breaking out here but...

                              Some questions to which I would appreciate hard answers(not only your opinion but also the sources of your information).


                              1) You keep mentioning things over and over again as if to ram them into our heads. Such as the talk about the vile and evil French who supplied weapons to Iraq which were then used against American forces. The fact that any country can get their hands on american weapons because they are floating all over the world, available to the highest bidder, apparently eludes you?

                              2)Follow up question :

                              If you are so in favor of gun-ownership(see some of your other postings) for every american, even when it comes down to repetitive assaultrifles, then why do you wish to deny citizens in other countries this right? One rule for americans and another for the rest of the world?
                              Don't think I'm baiting you or anything, this is a vital and important question.


                              3) Why is it so hard to acknowledge the fact that America has been the biggest exporter of arms ever and has no competition anymore since the USSR collapsed? And that it therefor has squandered the right to be critical of other countries that do the same because America sounds incredibly hypocritical when it does just so?

                              4) Why have you only answered along the lines of "Yes but with the help of George Bush we are bettering our lives now"? Which I think is a bit like the boy who cried wolf.
                              If we rely on history we see some historical examples of the U.S.A. getting unilaterally into other nation's affairs with military means(not necessarily in chronological order but all after WWII) :

                              Vietnam
                              Argentina
                              Nicaragua
                              El salvador
                              Afghanistan
                              Iraq
                              Haiti

                              On top of this you are/have been supplying weapons and support to among others :

                              Saudi Arabia, although the population is kept down by the government of the royal family, the women have no rights whatsoever, there is capital punishment for minors and retarded people, women are killed for adultery, etcetera, etcetera. Principled it ain't.

                              Iran, massive weaponsdeals in the eighties so America could wage covert war in Middle-America to keep an elected government out because Washington didn't like them. While at the same time you supported that idiot Noriega although he was smuggling hard-drugs all over the place. Principled it ain't.

                              Iraq. Maaaaaasssive weaponsdeals in the eighties to keep the war against Iran going. Results included not only gassed battlefields but also whole Kurd villages gassed into extinction, the use of banned weapons all over the frontlines and the proliferation of weapons throughout the entire region.
                              Oh yeah; it also gave Hussein a sense of incredible power which he then tried to abuse against Kuwait so we had to go and liberate the country. Thank you very much.

                              Afghanistan. You know what? Let's give the Taliban the weapons they need because they are giving the USSR their own Vietnam. Good for them! Principled it ain't.

                              Israel, this is a sensitive topic, but anyone who is somewhat objective and who looks at that situation over there can see that the Palestinian insurgency is the result of an incredibly oppressive Israeli state.
                              Palestines were first chased out of the 'New Israeli Lebensraum' in the sixties although Israel had no claim to the land whatsoever(I do not count religious reasons, we live in a secular western world). They are not called 'Occupied Territory' for nothing.
                              The people who refused to leave are now living in refugeecamps... They have been doing that for FORTY YEARS! There is a third generation growing up in the camps that has seen that their parents and grandparents could not find a way out of their misery. They will - and they do - revolt. Hence the Intifada. Twice so far in fact. Of course terrorists are drawn to such regions because they can move about easier, but does anybody actually believe that the Intifada is all the work of some terrorists? The U.S.A. give Israel over 3 billion dollars a year, you would think you could exert some influence, don't you think?


                              In short : why does almost every remark that is critical of America have to be countered by a repetition of official statements that I have heard and read when they came out of the White House already? Why are you pointing at others all the time, when the U.S.A. has been a massive influence over the world and did nothing because that was more convenient to the U.S.A. ?


                              Please keep in mind that this posting was written by someone who isn't against the U.S.A. at all, just against the policy of some idiots in Washington. Can you imagine what a real critic or anti-american would say?
                              Perhaps it would sound like the French Ann Coulter and you would get freakin' mad reading it?

                              Which brings me back on-topic; FOX' bias. I loathe those hypocritical demagogues who deliberately twist and distort the truth so they can cause an uproar.

                              Funny to see how a thread about FOX turns into a discussion about the U.S.A. and Iraq etcetera. Sorta proves my point about bias I guess...


                              TM.
                              Last edited by Towelmaster; 10-27-2004, 03:29 AM.
                              "En wat als tijd de helft van echtheid was, was alles dan dubbelsnel verbaal?"

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                "You keep mentioning things over and over again as if to ram them into our heads."

                                What else can you do when you no valid arguments left?


                                "The people who refused to leave are now living in refugeecamps... They have been doing that for FORTY YEARS! "

                                Not to mention that the israelis don't mind steamrolling into those camps and killing those people.
                                It's more than rediculous that they see themselves as the victims when they started the war. Especially when they use any means they deem nescessary like slaughtering civilians, using gas grenades in Gaza and so on.
                                What's up Drakh?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X