#397674 - 10/13/0401:05 AM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
DEN
Member
Registered: 08/10/03
Posts: 4898
Loc: Newington
Well you see, my summers aren't consumed with golf and ice fishing in the winter. So you’ll have to excuse my ignorance of the game. Slice you call it? I did see golf on a TV once.
Trying to draw me into pi$$ing match isn’t going to make it either. So trying to be cleaver works for you ea? Sorry Charlie!
I’m not here to convince anybody of anything other than voice my thoughts and to share my fishing knowledge and excursions. Something I see you only do during ice season and nothing more. No political discussions allowed at “Shot Talk”?
Keep a sharp auger; I’ll be waiting for your reports.
Please. FOX IS NOT A NEWS ORGANIZATION. IT IS BUSH'S MINISTRY OF PROPAGANDA (Murdock is Bush's Dr. Goebbels). The Soviet T.A.S.S (state news agency) was less rigidly pro-Communist than FOX news is PRO REPUBLICAN. The words FOX NEWS are a F***ING OXYMORON.
Ok? Let's try this again :rolleyes: . How is FOXNEWS biased as Pro-Bush? Give me some specifics. As far as I know FOXNEWS is balanced, and CNN (CBS and now ABC) is not. MSNBC leans left, but not as much as the others. FOXNEWS has done the following which isn't very 'Republican' in my opinion:
-They hosted 2 Democratic debates, along with the Black Caucus so that Kerry, Dean, Sharpton and the other "anti-patriotic Liberals" could rant their anti-Bush arguments.
-FOXNEWS broke the Bush drunk driving arrest case in 2000 days before the election.
-Hannity&Colmes, one of the networks biggest programs (and my personal favorite) has 2 sides, of which I feel both have equal time addressing issues (unlike CNN's Crossfire which only recieves applause whenever Begala or Carville make good points, but tend to be silent when Novak makes a pro-Bush point). Colmes, the liberal on the program, happens to be one of my favorite liberals, because he is reasonable and makes very strong arguments.
-I can see O'Reilly being conservative, although some of his views don't align with my ultra-conservative point of view. I feel he is more a traditionalist, and addresses the fact that Liberalism needs to be stopped in its tracks before it eradicates our churches, our schools, our culture, and our nation with its political correctness.
Also, Carville and Begala are aids for Kerry and are active in his campaign. Yet the media is silent. You know very well that if Hannity, or any other FOX perosnality for that matter, were to help Bush in his campaign, the Liberal media would be rasising hell like no tomorrow.
To those who questioned nu2salts state pension,what about all those golden parachutes that corporate CEOs get all the while their companies tank?What about all the lifetime freebys that congressman and senators get on the tax payers dole?If your jealous of his pension package get your self a good union and work harder.JFM,what do you sell anyways?You should look into the biomass fertilizer market,you could make a fortune.Henry,NONE of the major networks including FOX News is unbiased.I have watched all the networks for news coverage and fox is by far the shallowist of them all.Kevin B,That picture is in bad taste and insensitive.
Pete: Thanks for supplying some sources in response to my query regarding specifics. Here is my problem with some of them:
-The really long article that deconstructs the FOX infrastructure mentions various news personalities and their past political lives, which I agree with. Some of them, such as Tony Snow and Brit Hume are admitted conservatives. I don't debate that, however, what is debateable is the fact that some of these pesonalities are being labelled conservative for only one or 2 issues (or reasons) as is the case with Mort Kondracke or Juan Williams. Those guys are liberals but just don't adhere to everything the party goes by. Alan Colmes is hardly a moderate democrat, in fact he is left of Bill Clinton and admitted that there is alot of issues he disagreed with Clinton on, feeling he was conservative (sorry Spin...no footnore here, because I have heard him say it alot in the past) such as the bombings in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq and the attacks on Afghnistan and Sudan in 1998.
-The video on O'Reilly (courtesy of Moveon.org) takes his 'shut-up' quote way out of context. Last month he admitted to using the word shut-up out of disgust only six times. In one segment he is telling Al Franken (Stewart Smalley) to shut-up because he didn't interupt Smalley during his address, yet within a minute O'Reilly was interupted (I watched it live on C-SPAN when it happened).
Democracy does mean you have the right to speak, but not the right to be heard. The Left feels that if they are the minority they must compensate by making more noise. Especailly when some of these people are the voicebox of al-Qaeda in spreading dissent at a time of war.
Two reasons for higher oil prices. One is the demand is higher in countries likes China, and India. They are using it much more than even five years ago. And remember there are 2 billion in the two countries combined. Two we have built ZERO refineries since 1979. We should have built at least two since then and then we could take the oil we do get and refine it much quicker. Also we cannot drill for oil in America anywhere's even though in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, and off California there is enough oil to help for many years. Now if you think we need alternatives I agree, but until then we need to explore more he and open more refineries.
Val if you believe that what is CBS with their bogus non news story. ABC with there head of the news admitting there is bias within the ranks there. Last but not least CNN with Begala and Carville both working with Kerry and still working for CNN. Now thats objective. Thats not including MSNBC and Matthews basically cheering for Kerry and Edwards during his show. Give me a break Val.
#397681 - 10/13/0411:24 AM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
richard4878
Member
Registered: 03/14/03
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally posted by nu2salt: [QB] "Once again illustrating exactly how out of touch you all are with the 70% of the people in this country who don't live as well as you and I do.
How many of these "70"% are lazy people who live off the state, and if they really made an effort COULD live like you and I? Why do I want to help them? Children, the old, the sick absolutely. But able body americans who choose not to work because they get state funds? Do you think if you had a turn of bad luck any of that 70% woud help you out? And dont give me the BS that there is no jobs. Look in the paper. why should I give a damn about those people? I bust my hump for 70 hours a week while they drive excursions and live in fixed housing where i sport their bills. If someone gets laid off or has a bad year ok, im more than happy to help, but when you have people living completely off the sate for their whole lives what does that say?
Previous Topic
Index