Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jesse · 03-29-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Straight Hate
Equally silly is the assertion that if it was for the United States we'd all be speaking German right now. Such a statement fails to recognize the abundance of other forces that help shape and destroy an empire (the Soviet Union being an excellent case in point). It's very distressing to hear so many buy into it.

Yeah, but having all of western Europe controlled by the Soviet Union would have been only marginally better.

On the subject of FOX news, I just saw this on Jim Treacher's weblog:

Quote:

Which guy on FOX News is it that kind of looks like Ed Begley Jr. with bigger hair? He's almost an albino, big glasses? I don't know his name. Flipping around, I decided to endure a few minutes of FOX, and he was talking to somebody about Al-Jazeera reporters in Washington. He said something about standing near one as she filed a report after a press conference or something, and how she was "babbling away in Arabic" and she should have been kicked out of there. What the fuck? Why don't you just call her a rag-head, asshole?

And it isn't really related to their conservative bias, but this is still pretty funny:

J. Lo freudian slip

Jesse · 03-30-2003, 04:59 PM

Jury rules FOX news is allowed to lie

Quote:

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

Sakpo · 03-30-2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumpy

-Soldiers of the US Army arguably prevented Southern states from exercising liberties (as they saw them).

I suppose anything can be argued....but not neccesarily intelligently or without being disgusting. What, the "freedom" to own slaves (oops, I mean "states rights"

)? Give me a break. Nothing could be more anti freedom than slavery. Might as well argue women who learn self defense are practicing to fight against the male freedom to rape , or the the Polish Jews who revolted against the Nazis were fighting against the freedom of the Nazis to kill them at a place and time of their choosing...etc etc etc. That kind of argument makes the concept of defending freedom meaningless.

trunks2k · 03-31-2003, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sakpo
What, the "freedom" to own slaves (oops, I mean "states rights" )? Give me a break. Nothing could be more anti freedom than slavery.

If you are arguing that Union soldiers were fighting to free the slaves, that would be wrong. The war was mainly about the preservation of the Union, not about slavery (though the events leading up to the war did heavily involve the debate over slavery). The freedom of slaves was simply a by-product of the war. The soldiers themselves rarely even fought for the union, never mind the slaves. IIRC the majority of soldiers in the Union army were from small towns and saw the army as a way for glory and a way to travel around instead of being stuck in a small town.

HaysooChreesto! · 03-31-2003, 09:08 AM

Even as a political conservative and supporter of the war I can't watch the majority of Fox News. It's just really bad. The stuff from the reporters in the field is good but how can it not be?

Fox's two finest on-air minds are Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity... And I can't stand either one. Rhetoric spouting a-holes who over pursue and shout down their guests.

"Fair and Balanced"? I think not. Their war coverage is reminiscent of the way WWII was covered. Lots of "Lets hear it for our boys as they teach Tojo's Japs a lesson" type stuff. At least that's what it reminds me of. I have no doubt that if we weren't more liberally enlightened these days that the on-air personalities at Fox would be referring to Iraqi's as "ragheads" or something similar.
Add to that the fact that they've consistently reported rumor as fact e.g., the "huge chemical weapons plant". They were also the ones reporting that Basra and Umm Qasar had both been taken and secured by the third day of the war. William Randolph Hearst couldn't do yellow journalsim like Fox is doing right now.

At first I was pleased to hear that a news station with a conservative bent was taking to the air on tv, but they've really gone too far. There's just a lot of seemy stuff about Fox News that bothers me.

Mageth · 03-31-2003, 09:32 AM

Fox's two finest on-air minds are Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity...

Sean Hannity? Jon Voight and Ned Beatty met finer minds in Deliverance.

Sakpo · 03-31-2003, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by trunks2k
If you are arguing that Union soldiers were fighting to free the slaves, that would be wrong. The war was mainly about the preservation of the Union, not about slavery (though the events leading up to the war did heavily involve the debate over slavery). The freedom of slaves was simply a by-product of the war. The soldiers themselves rarely even fought for the union, never mind the slaves. IIRC the majority of soldiers in the Union army were from small towns and saw the army as a way for glory and a way to travel around instead of being stuck in a small town.

I was clearly arguing that if the Civil War was to be seen in terms of fighting for or against freedom the Union would be on side with freedom. I'm fully aware that the war was fought to prevent succesful secession from the union after disputes regarding tariffs, slavery, trade, and the extent of individual states rights and that furthermore, as in many wars, many of the individual soldiers fought for reasons other than the official ones. Please don't be one of those annoying people who thinks they've learned the "real" causes of the Civil War and feels the need to jump in and correct people whenever they suggest slavery was an important issue or discuss that aspect of the war.

Furthermore there were Union soldiers primarily motivated by the abolition issue.

Sakpo · 03-31-2003, 10:59 AM

Double

MortalWombat · 03-31-2003, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Fox's two finest on-air minds are Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity...

Sean Hannity? Jon Voight and Ned Beatty met finer minds in Deliverance.

Well, when you think about it, O'Reilly and Hannity probably are Fox's two finest on-air minds.

Wyz_sub10 · 03-31-2003, 01:53 PM

The only intelligent voice on the Fox network these days comes from the mouth of a yellow-tinted bald man with four fingers on each hand.

BTW, that J Lo clip was priceless.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2003, 09:08 AM	#15
HaysooChreesto! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: SoCal USA Posts: 7,737	Even as a political conservative and supporter of the war I can't watch the majority of Fox News. It's just really bad. The stuff from the reporters in the field is good but how can it not be? Fox's two finest on-air minds are Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity... And I can't stand either one. Rhetoric spouting a-holes who over pursue and shout down their guests. "Fair and Balanced"? I think not. Their war coverage is reminiscent of the way WWII was covered. Lots of "Lets hear it for our boys as they teach Tojo's Japs a lesson" type stuff. At least that's what it reminds me of. I have no doubt that if we weren't more liberally enlightened these days that the on-air personalities at Fox would be referring to Iraqi's as "ragheads" or something similar. Add to that the fact that they've consistently reported rumor as fact e.g., the "huge chemical weapons plant". They were also the ones reporting that Basra and Umm Qasar had both been taken and secured by the third day of the war. William Randolph Hearst couldn't do yellow journalsim like Fox is doing right now. At first I was pleased to hear that a news station with a conservative bent was taking to the air on tv, but they've really gone too far. There's just a lot of seemy stuff about Fox News that bothers me.

03-31-2003, 09:32 AM	#16
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Fox's two finest on-air minds are Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity... Sean Hannity? Jon Voight and Ned Beatty met finer minds in Deliverance.

03-31-2003, 10:59 AM	#18
Sakpo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Pacific Northwest (illegally occupied indigenous l Posts: 7,716	Double

03-31-2003, 01:53 PM	#20
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	The only intelligent voice on the Fox network these days comes from the mouth of a yellow-tinted bald man with four fingers on each hand. BTW, that J Lo clip was priceless.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.