96DXCivic wrote: Why does everything remotely to do with the gov't turn into a political debate? No Obama isn't a god but he also isn't the anti-Christ that Fox news makes him out to be. The fact that Fox News is so highly rated is a sad reflection on the U.S. It is nothing more then a right wing mouth piece.
Why do so many people invoke the Fox News straw-man argument when addressing anything political?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8400239.stm headline reads:
Chicago man accused of involvement in Mumbai attacks
Obama is "from Chicago"...
OMFG Obama BOMBED Mumbai!
oldsaw wrote:96DXCivic wrote: Why does everything remotely to do with the gov't turn into a political debate? No Obama isn't a god but he also isn't the anti-Christ that Fox news makes him out to be. The fact that Fox News is so highly rated is a sad reflection on the U.S. It is nothing more then a right wing mouth piece.Why do so many people invoke the Fox News straw-man argument when addressing anything political?
I try to watch Fox News, but I can't go five minutes without hearing the propaganda. You can go on and on all you want about how CNN, CBS blah blah blah, but I know what I hear. CNN may be a little less left biased than it was under Turner but it is also a lot more tabloid. I don't watch them as much as I used to either nor do I really like the left wing bias of MSNBC. Cable news is getting to be useless. The WSJ used to be a good source of information until Murdoch bought them out. Now you get the same kind of journalism there. I don't read it anymore. I would rather go to Bloomberg or the Economist. I get my non-financial news from NPR and BBC.
I laugh every time I hear old Rupert complaining about giving away his propaganda for free. I hope he starts charging for it and I hope he starts charging a lot. I need to buy his content about as much as I need to buy content from AOL.
John Brown wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8400239.stm headline reads:Chicago man accused of involvement in Mumbai attacksObama is "from Chicago"... OMFG Obama BOMBED Mumbai!
best flounderstop evarrrr
Josh wrote: To suggest that there are any nefarious purposes to the census only shows your ignorance. There is legally nothing that CAN be done with the data except things that HAVE to be done if we are going to have a free democratic society. We can't have representation unless we count the people to determine representation.
Then why do they need to know my NAME and SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER? All they need to know is how many people live in my house... but that's not all they ask.
Duke wrote:Josh wrote: To suggest that there are any nefarious purposes to the census only shows your ignorance. There is legally nothing that CAN be done with the data except things that HAVE to be done if we are going to have a free democratic society. We can't have representation unless we count the people to determine representation.Then why do they need to know my NAME and SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER? All they need to know is how many people live in my house... but that's not all they ask.
Yeah. The sexual preferance question is waayy out of line. 
Ahem...
Attention united states people,
The census guys want to know your name. As a result, the sky is falling. Please run for your life.
Have a nice day, Sam
Duke wrote: Then why do they need to know my NAME and SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER? All they need to know is how many people live in my house... but that's not all they ask.
To avoid duplicate entries when possible. But feel free to continue wearing your tinfoil hat and hiding under the kitchen table whenever you see a helicopter :).
oldsaw wrote:96DXCivic wrote: Why does everything remotely to do with the gov't turn into a political debate? No Obama isn't a god but he also isn't the anti-Christ that Fox news makes him out to be. The fact that Fox News is so highly rated is a sad reflection on the U.S. It is nothing more then a right wing mouth piece.Why do so many people invoke the Fox News straw-man argument when addressing anything political?
why do half of your posts seem to be trying to make half of this message board mad, and preach to the other half stuff they already know? Cmon man, are you expecting in a year or two when (and if) everything falls apart we are going to look back and say "geepers, oldsaw was right"? I don't agree with alot of the guys on this forum, but it seems like most of them don't go out of there way to create threads that will piss people off. Of course, sometimes I don't agree with Hess, and jensonman, and the others, but I still feel like we have something in common, but you, it seems like you just want to fire some of the people up, and get some positive reinforcement from the rest of them. Do you even like cars?
sorry, rant off. Joey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434
/thread
The 'baggers sound like peasant digging in the poop.
"Help Help.. .I'm being Repressed"
Laugh a little people, the world isn't going to end because there is a guy whom you don't like in the whitehouse..
Snowdoggie wrote: The WSJ used to be a good source of information until Murdoch bought them out. Now you get the same kind of journalism there. I don't read it anymore. I would rather go to Bloomberg or the Economist. I get my non-financial news from NPR and BBC.
Ironically, the WSJ news division has long had a more liberal reputation than its' editorial side. I cannot say if Murdoch's takeover has affected the reporting, but the editors and opinion contributors have remained totally consistent.
Speaking of NPR, I found this link to a Politico article on WSJ's opinion page:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29892.html
It seems NPR management has concerns over some of its' staff (Juan Williams and Mara Liasson) who appear (almost) exclusively on FOX news programs - news, not opinion!
They (management) think their staffers are used as "liberal" foils to balance the coverage of FOX's conservative "agenda". To their immense credit, both Williams and Liasson always provide remarkably honest and rational analysis.
If NPR management is concerned that their staff might be considered "liberal", perhaps they should also be concerned about presenting a more "balanced" content within NPR programming.
As always, just sayin!
oldsaw wrote:Snowdoggie wrote: The WSJ used to be a good source of information until Murdoch bought them out. Now you get the same kind of journalism there. I don't read it anymore. I would rather go to Bloomberg or the Economist. I get my non-financial news from NPR and BBC.Ironically, the WSJ news division has long had a more liberal reputation than its' editorial side. I cannot say if Murdoch's takeover has affected the reporting, but the editors and opinion contributors have remained totally consistent. Speaking of NPR, I found this link to a Politico article on WSJ's opinion page: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29892.html It seems NPR management has concerns over some of its' staff (Juan Williams and Mara Liasson) who appear (almost) exclusively on FOX news programs - news, not opinion! They (management) think their staffers are used as "liberal" foils to balance the coverage of FOX's conservative "agenda". To their immense credit, both Williams and Liasson always provide remarkably honest and rational analysis. If NPR management is concerned that their staff might be considered "liberal", perhaps they should also be concerned about presenting a more "balanced" content within NPR programming. As always, just sayin!
Fair and balanced.. (sssshhhh but only to white men over the age of 40)
even black people are now appologizing for Obama..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOwwA5VUJzs&feature=channel
OMG THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!
oldsaw wrote:Snowdoggie wrote: The WSJ used to be a good source of information until Murdoch bought them out. Now you get the same kind of journalism there. I don't read it anymore. I would rather go to Bloomberg or the Economist. I get my non-financial news from NPR and BBC.Ironically, the WSJ news division has long had a more liberal reputation than its' editorial side. I cannot say if Murdoch's takeover has affected the reporting, but the editors and opinion contributors have remained totally consistent. Speaking of NPR, I found this link to a Politico article on WSJ's opinion page: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29892.html It seems NPR management has concerns over some of its' staff (Juan Williams and Mara Liasson) who appear (almost) exclusively on FOX news programs - news, not opinion! They (management) think their staffers are used as "liberal" foils to balance the coverage of FOX's conservative "agenda". To their immense credit, both Williams and Liasson always provide remarkably honest and rational analysis. If NPR management is concerned that their staff might be considered "liberal", perhaps they should also be concerned about presenting a more "balanced" content within NPR programming. As always, just sayin!
This is the first time I have ever heard any part of the WSJ being called liberal, before or after the takeover. It makes me wonder what you consider liberal.
I have never heard anybody from NPR on Fox News but it doesn't surprise me. They do use tokens from time to time. Alan Combes actually had an opinion show on there for a while. That doesn't change the overall bias of the network. Every time I tune in I hear the same old propaganda.
Snowdoggie wrote: It makes me wonder what you consider liberal.
That actually is a very good question. I'm sure there are people out there that consider Rush Limbaugh to be a pansy.
ignorant wrote:Snowdoggie wrote: It makes me wonder what you consider liberal.That actually is a very good question. I'm sure there are people out there that consider Rush Limbaugh to be a pansy.
Our country is so far to the right that what Canadians and Europeans consider moderate and middle of the road is actually considered leftist here. A true leftist would want to blow up what the Wall Street Journal Reports on.
joey48442 wrote: why do half of your posts seem to be trying to make half of this message board mad, and preach to the other half stuff they already know? Cmon man, are you expecting in a year or two when (and if) everything falls apart we are going to look back and say "geepers, oldsaw was right"? I don't agree with alot of the guys on this forum, but it seems like most of them don't go out of there way to create threads that will piss people off. Of course, sometimes I don't agree with Hess, and jensonman, and the others, but I still feel like we have something in common, but you, it seems like you just want to fire some of the people up, and get some positive reinforcement from the rest of them. Do you even like cars? sorry, rant off. Joey
Half the people who post on off-topic threads (primarily the politically-oriented ones) offer opinions too often founded on ignorance, or an unwillingness to recognize there's always more than one way to view a topic.
Please accept my apologies if my posts upset you, but then again, you can always ignore them or offer honest and well-founded rebuttals.
As far as "liking" cars - I've worked in the automotive sector longer than you have drawn breath. My first autocross was run before you were in first grade. I subscribed to Auto-X magazine when I discovered the third issue and have kept every issue received or purchased for over 25 years. There's more info available, if you ask nicely.
And for the record, was it not you who started this thread?
oldsaw wrote:joey48442 wrote: why do half of your posts seem to be trying to make half of this message board mad, and preach to the other half stuff they already know? Cmon man, are you expecting in a year or two when (and if) everything falls apart we are going to look back and say "geepers, oldsaw was right"? I don't agree with alot of the guys on this forum, but it seems like most of them don't go out of there way to create threads that will piss people off. Of course, sometimes I don't agree with Hess, and jensonman, and the others, but I still feel like we have something in common, but you, it seems like you just want to fire some of the people up, and get some positive reinforcement from the rest of them. Do you even like cars? sorry, rant off. JoeyHalf the people who post on off-topic threads (primarily the politically-oriented ones) offer opinions too often founded on ignorance, or an unwillingness to recognize there's always more than one way to view a topic. Please accept my apologies if my posts upset you, but then again, you can always ignore them or offer honest and well-founded rebuttals. As far as "liking" cars - I've worked in the automotive sector longer than you have drawn breath. My first autocross was run before you were in first grade. I subscribed to Auto-X magazine when I discovered the third issue and have kept every issue received or purchased for over 25 years. There's more info available, if you ask nicely.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to get in a pissing match over age, you have me soundly beat there. I honestly thought you were in your early 20s. Maybe it was someone else. I didn't start this thread to have it become another one of these silly arguments that no one can win. I was just pointing out what seemed like a suspicious murder, but is only apparently a suicide. Ah well.
Joey
ignorant wrote:oldsaw wrote:Fair and balanced.. (sssshhhh but only to white men over the age of 40)Snowdoggie wrote: The WSJ used to be a good source of information until Murdoch bought them out. Now you get the same kind of journalism there. I don't read it anymore. I would rather go to Bloomberg or the Economist. I get my non-financial news from NPR and BBC.Ironically, the WSJ news division has long had a more liberal reputation than its' editorial side. I cannot say if Murdoch's takeover has affected the reporting, but the editors and opinion contributors have remained totally consistent. Speaking of NPR, I found this link to a Politico article on WSJ's opinion page: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29892.html It seems NPR management has concerns over some of its' staff (Juan Williams and Mara Liasson) who appear (almost) exclusively on FOX news programs - news, not opinion! They (management) think their staffers are used as "liberal" foils to balance the coverage of FOX's conservative "agenda". To their immense credit, both Williams and Liasson always provide remarkably honest and rational analysis. If NPR management is concerned that their staff might be considered "liberal", perhaps they should also be concerned about presenting a more "balanced" content within NPR programming. As always, just sayin!
Well, one of the many times I should be apologizing apparently for being white, but I am only 27, so hmm...
Plus, I don't vote republican very often, so that right wing mouthpiece thing isn't working very well.
Anyway, no news is unbiased - NONE. Not unless you were actually there yourself.
And I have been to a few tea parties myself. I haven't seen those covered honestly either.
joey48442 wrote: Sorry, I wasn't trying to get in a pissing match over age, you have me soundly beat there. I honestly thought you were in your early 20s. Maybe it was someone else. I didn't start this thread to have it become another one of these silly arguments that no one can win. I was just pointing out what seemed like a suspicious murder, but is only apparently a suicide. Ah well. Joey
Joey, no apologies necessary. However, you may be the first person ever to read my posts and conclude I was a twenty-something!
Having a few "extra" years under the belt gives one a very different perspective on current events; a perspective that often conflicts with those who didn't pay attention or experience past events that affect us now.
Yes, your original post was one commenting on a suspicious death. But speculative responses (totally unfounded) appeared immediately. When the investigation's results were released, the speculative and rather inflammatory comments only escalated. I suspect that was not the result you anticipated.
Yep, I have my biases, but they are influenced by the reality that no question or issue has a black/white resolution. Posting contrary opinions doesn't make them "wrong", but I do hope said opinions encourage some reflection by those who may disagree.
Their opinions certainly have an influence on the way I see "things".
oldsaw wrote:joey48442 wrote: Sorry, I wasn't trying to get in a pissing match over age, you have me soundly beat there. I honestly thought you were in your early 20s. Maybe it was someone else. I didn't start this thread to have it become another one of these silly arguments that no one can win. I was just pointing out what seemed like a suspicious murder, but is only apparently a suicide. Ah well. JoeyJoey, no apologies necessary. However, you may be the first person ever to read my posts and conclude I was a twenty-something!
See, posts like that make you seem like an o-k guy. Why do your others make you seem (to me) otherwise? I hate how polarizing politics are. Maybe they were in the past as well, but from alot of my older friends they have said that it is true, it is alot more polarizing now. It seem like whenever I'm talking in person to someone I don't know well and the find out Im not a republican, they end up trying to convince to change. This happens with democrat friends when they find out I'm not a dem either. I almost get the vibe they don't like me as much as they did before they found out.
Joey
2 party politics is a way to moderate the discussion. If theres only 2 options: "right" or "wrong" (I think we can all agree a lot of people in America fail to see shades of gray) then its easy to avoid having to explain your (meaning a politicians or government departments) position/decision on any topic that isnt cut and dry. Americas political structure is polarizing at its very core. I think people (who care to listen or look) are just better informed because of the interwebz, and therefore, more ready to argue.
just my .02
joey48442 wrote: See, posts like that make you seem like an o-k guy. Why do your others make you seem (to me) otherwise? I hate how polarizing politics are. Maybe they were in the past as well, but from alot of my older friends they have said that it is true, it is alot more polarizing now. It seem like whenever I'm talking in person to someone I don't know well and the find out Im not a republican, they end up trying to convince to change. This happens with democrat friends when they find out I'm not a dem either. I almost get the vibe they don't like me as much as they did before they found out. Joey
I believe you'll find that the huge majority of my posts (on this thread or other "political" topics) are direct responses to statements that are factually wrong or express opinions that are willfully stated with no respect towards anyone with a different perspective. If those responses bother you (or others), that may suggest a level of personal intolerance at least equal to what is perceived as mine.
Or, you have me confused with someone else.
Isn't it time for someone to yell "They took our jobs!" Southpark style?
oldsaw wrote:Snowdoggie wrote: The WSJ used to be a good source of information until Murdoch bought them out. Now you get the same kind of journalism there. I don't read it anymore. I would rather go to Bloomberg or the Economist. I get my non-financial news from NPR and BBC.Ironically, the WSJ news division has long had a more liberal reputation than its' editorial side. I cannot say if Murdoch's takeover has affected the reporting, but the editors and opinion contributors have remained totally consistent. Speaking of NPR, I found this link to a Politico article on WSJ's opinion page: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29892.html It seems NPR management has concerns over some of its' staff (Juan Williams and Mara Liasson) who appear (almost) exclusively on FOX news programs - news, not opinion! They (management) think their staffers are used as "liberal" foils to balance the coverage of FOX's conservative "agenda". To their immense credit, both Williams and Liasson always provide remarkably honest and rational analysis. If NPR management is concerned that their staff might be considered "liberal", perhaps they should also be concerned about presenting a more "balanced" content within NPR programming. As always, just sayin!
I don't think you will be hearing a screeching partisan opinion show by either Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann on NPR anytime soon.
You'll need to log in to post.
