Fox does Republicans more harm than good

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I said far right, not right wing. There's a difference.

 

There's currently not that much of a difference between the "right wing" and the "far right" - thus the assesment stands.

 

[Killian Kalthorne]

I should make my own Internet News Opinion Channel. Left or right, it doesn't matter, only how insane you are.

[Calax]

Same reason Rupert Murdoch's tabloids have topless chicks.

And conservative stations get rock and roll, while liberal get jazz.

 

Anyway, back to the point. If you think Fox has only ONE right wing figure then it just reinforces how right wing we've been saying you are, WoD. The Zulus have a saying: If three men say you are sick, see a doctor. There's a quite a broad array of nations, ages, and experience on here who'd say Fox was pronouncedly Right wing. Not to mention all the folks in the article.

I said far right, not right wing. There's a difference.

I can name three off the top of my head, O'Rielly, Beck, and Hannity. All three are so far right that it's silly.

[Walsingham]

Anyway, back to the point. If you think Fox has only ONE right wing figure then it just reinforces how right wing we've been saying you are, WoD. The Zulus have a saying: If three men say you are sick, see a doctor. There's a quite a broad array of nations, ages, and experience on here who'd say Fox was pronouncedly Right wing. Not to mention all the folks in the article.

I said far right, not right wing. There's a difference.

 

Yes, there is a difference. But I suggest you are too close to Fox's position (I'm not suggesting you ARE Fox) to see how right wing they actually are.

 

One of the paper's I read is the Daily Telegraph, which any Britisher would say was right wing. I read it because they (predictably) do the best defence news; and occasionally have cricket articles I can understand. But they regularly comment on the 'nuttiness' of Fox and the Republican right.

 

What's the strapline "Free and fair news reporting"? Merely repeat those words to many people and they will bust into merry laughter.

[Calax]

What's the strapline "Free and fair news reporting"? Merely repeat those words to many people and they will bust into merry laughter.

Fair and Balanced

[Walsingham]

What's the strapline "Free and fair news reporting"? Merely repeat those words to many people and they will bust into merry laughter.

Fair and Balanced

 

That's less funny.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Same reason Rupert Murdoch's tabloids have topless chicks.

And conservative stations get rock and roll, while liberal get jazz.

 

Anyway, back to the point. If you think Fox has only ONE right wing figure then it just reinforces how right wing we've been saying you are, WoD. The Zulus have a saying: If three men say you are sick, see a doctor. There's a quite a broad array of nations, ages, and experience on here who'd say Fox was pronouncedly Right wing. Not to mention all the folks in the article.

I said far right, not right wing. There's a difference.

I can name three off the top of my head, O'Rielly, Beck, and Hannity. All three are so far right that it's silly.

That's a matter of perspective, I don't consider O'Reilly or Hannity far right, although Hannity is to the right of O'Reilly.

[Calax]

Same reason Rupert Murdoch's tabloids have topless chicks.

And conservative stations get rock and roll, while liberal get jazz.

 

Anyway, back to the point. If you think Fox has only ONE right wing figure then it just reinforces how right wing we've been saying you are, WoD. The Zulus have a saying: If three men say you are sick, see a doctor. There's a quite a broad array of nations, ages, and experience on here who'd say Fox was pronouncedly Right wing. Not to mention all the folks in the article.

I said far right, not right wing. There's a difference.

I can name three off the top of my head, O'Rielly, Beck, and Hannity. All three are so far right that it's silly.

That's a matter of perspective, I don't consider O'Reilly or Hannity far right, although Hannity is to the right of O'Reilly.

Really? You don't consider Bill "Liberals are idiots no matter what they do" O'Rielly to be far right? What world do you live in? The guy is so far to the right that he can't even see moderate and flips on issues so fast when it's a different party saying things that it makes your head spin. Wasn't he the one who said you're unpatriotic if you don't cooperate with el presidente? And just look at him now, claiming to be the king patriot for FIGHTING the president.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm not aware of that and would like to see your sources if available.

[Monte Carlo]

Is one of those guys the Irish American who supports (almost exclusively Marxist) Irish Republicans? Oh the irony.

 

Apologies if it isn't.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Monte Carlo

[Walsingham]

I'm not aware of that and would like to see your sources if available.

 

So would I.

[Calax]

*grumbles* I can't find the exact clips but it's actually from a Daily show segment where they discussed how fox news almost totally swapped sides on things after obama came into office.

 

Like, for example, the afore mentioned patriotism and the presidency, and the more prominent "Protestors are loony... PROTEST OBAMA!" that had O'Reilly in such a fuss that he had jon stewart on his show to yell at him about it... then edited it out because O'Reilly basically got blown out of the water by Stewart.

 

And of course Megyn Kelly's "Polls only matter if they support me" schtick (among other things she said that polls supporting obama meant nothing, but the polls saying that americans didn't want health care were ironclad).

Edited April 28, 2010 by Calax

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yah, OK, that has nothing to do with being far right though. Also I'd suggest to you the Daily show is not the most objective source of information.

[Calax]

Yah, OK, that has nothing to do with being far right though. Also I'd suggest to you the Daily show is not the most objective source of information.

It's not but it is. The daily show is probably one of the best sources for discussions on bias reporting. Fox news is their favorite but they've gone after MSNBC, CNN and CNBC.

 

also

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reil...political_views that too

Edited April 28, 2010 by Calax

[Walsingham]

OK. That's good enough for me.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yah, OK, that has nothing to do with being far right though. Also I'd suggest to you the Daily show is not the most objective source of information.

It's not but it is. The daily show is probably one of the best sources for discussions on bias reporting. Fox news is their favorite but they've gone after MSNBC, CNN and CNBC.

 

also

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reil...political_views that too

I said he's not far right, I didn't claim Fox wasn't biased. Where in the video does he say something far right? I don't feel like watching the whole thing. Also with the wiki article, why don't you quote the relevant parts instead of just linking it?

[Calax]

Well, in the video it's implied that him, and a few other commentators on fox, are being told to shut up by the conservative media groups because they're TO loud and To conservative (which is exactly what this thread is about).

 

Well, if you just SKIM the wiki entry you find that he finds the ACLU to be FASCIST (when they're, you know, kinda, the antithesis of fascist?). He wants to put death row inmates in GULAGS, He thinks evolution is imaginary and that god is the one truth, he supports "enhanced interrogation techniques", like waterboarding...

 

And here's what he thinks we should do in future actions in the middle east

"We cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again", he said. "What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them (...) no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work."

 

Basically the guy is hard line right wing. I mean moderate right wing wouldn't support such fascist things like putting people in gulags, and generally can reconcile their belief system with science.

 

You know dagon, if you're gonna try to do a debate, at least put effort into learning your opponents points if they post links. That wiki page only takes what, 10 minute to glean facts from?

[Cwicseolfor]

You know dagon, if you're gonna try to do a debate, at least put effort into learning your opponents points if they post links. That wiki page only takes what, 10 minute to glean facts from?

 

Hahaha. Best line in this thread.

[Morgoth]

"We cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again", he said. "What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them (...) no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work."

Wow, if some European politician would say that, he'd be condemned as the second Hitler.

[Walsingham]

Condemning the entire Arab world as incapable of being civilised sounds to me like neo-nazism. Or possibly old skool British Empire.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, in the video it's implied that him, and a few other commentators on fox, are being told to shut up by the conservative media groups because they're TO loud and To conservative (which is exactly what this thread is about).

 

Well, if you just SKIM the wiki entry you find that he finds the ACLU to be FASCIST (when they're, you know, kinda, the antithesis of fascist?). He wants to put death row inmates in GULAGS, He thinks evolution is imaginary and that god is the one truth, he supports "enhanced interrogation techniques", like waterboarding...

He called ACLU fascist in the context of them constantly going after the Boy Scouts. He doesn't advocate Soviet style Gulags but prison camps as an alternative to the death penalty, there's no quote of him in the Wiki article saying evolution is imaginary.

And here's what he thinks we should do in future actions in the middle east

"We cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again", he said. "What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them (...) no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work."

You have to read that in context, he's saying we should never again invade a Muslim country, and instead if attacked we should retaliate by bombing those who attacked us. He's not saying we should bomb all Muslims indiscriminately.

Basically the guy is hard line right wing. I mean moderate right wing wouldn't support such fascist things like putting people in gulags, and generally can reconcile their belief system with science.

 

You know dagon, if you're gonna try to do a debate, at least put effort into learning your opponents points if they post links. That wiki page only takes what, 10 minute to glean facts from?

And if you're going to try to debate, you should provide quotes backing up your views, instead of me trying to guess what you consider far right, especially as some statements are subject to interpretation. You also conveniently ignore statements like this from the Wiki article " O'Reilly generally leans to the right on most issues, most notably the Bush administration's War on Terror, but breaks from conservative and Republican Party orthodoxy on such issues as the global warming controversy, the death penalty, and civil unions for same sex couples."

 

Edit: He also says things like that: "Liberal thought, however, can be a good thing. Progressive programs to help the poor, fight injustice and give working people a fair shake are all positive. But libertine actions damage a just society because actions have consequences. Kids who drink and take drugs are likely to hurt themselves and others. But obviously, the SPs do not make judgments like that."[16]

Edited April 29, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Well, in the video it's implied that him, and a few other commentators on fox, are being told to shut up by the conservative media groups because they're TO loud and To conservative (which is exactly what this thread is about).

 

Well, if you just SKIM the wiki entry you find that he finds the ACLU to be FASCIST (when they're, you know, kinda, the antithesis of fascist?). He wants to put death row inmates in GULAGS, He thinks evolution is imaginary and that god is the one truth, he supports "enhanced interrogation techniques", like waterboarding...

He called ACLU fascist in the context of them constantly going after the Boy Scouts. He doesn't advocate Soviet style Gulags but prison camps as an alternative to the death penalty, there's no quote of him in the Wiki article saying evolution is imaginary.

I'm sorry, but why can't somebody go after the Scouts? They're a state funded organization that A) Doesn't allow gay members B) Will deny membership to the children of Atheists and C) Has support of god in their friggin pledge. If a similar organization popped up that wasn't these things it'd probably be unable to gain the support needed, even if it had the EXACT SAME ranking system and badges, for the benefits that a Scout receives (particularly an Eagle). And actually, Billy-o called the ACLU facist for suing LA about taking a christian cross out of their seal. But still, facism is usually the exact opposite of the ACLU's MO, as in NO free speech, and only one religion is allowed to be represented, and your civil liberties are stomped on.

 

As to Gulags, HE USED THE EXACT WORD! Look for yourself!

 

You mean other than the fact that he's openly supporting the teaching of intelligent design in schools as science (when there is nothing testable about a giant floating narcissist)? While ID and evolution aren't necessarily at odds, usually when somebody proposes ID they're trying to remove Evolution in favor of magical fairy dust.

And here's what he thinks we should do in future actions in the middle east

"We cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again", he said. "What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them (...) no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work."

You have to read that in context, he's saying we should never again invade a Muslim country, and instead if attacked we should retaliate by bombing those who attacked us. He's not saying we should bomb all Muslims indiscriminately.

Really? Can you demonstrate the context of where he said it? Because that quote makes it sound like rather than negotiate he's advocating sending in the bombers, even if it's over something that is incorrect. Add to that the fact that he thinks they're primative and prehistoric and it sounds more like YOU got the context wrong.

Basically the guy is hard line right wing. I mean moderate right wing wouldn't support such fascist things like putting people in gulags, and generally can reconcile their belief system with science.

 

You know dagon, if you're gonna try to do a debate, at least put effort into learning your opponents points if they post links. That wiki page only takes what, 10 minute to glean facts from?

And if you're going to try to debate, you should provide quotes backing up your views, instead of me trying to guess what you consider far right, especially as some statements are subject to interpretation. You also conveniently ignore statements like this from the Wiki article " O'Reilly generally leans to the right on most issues, most notably the Bush administration's War on Terror, but breaks from conservative and Republican Party orthodoxy on such issues as the global warming controversy, the death penalty, and civil unions for same sex couples."

 

Edit: He also says things like that: "Liberal thought, however, can be a good thing. Progressive programs to help the poor, fight injustice and give working people a fair shake are all positive. But libertine actions damage a just society because actions have consequences. Kids who drink and take drugs are likely to hurt themselves and others. But obviously, the SPs do not make judgments like that."[16]

Here's the thing tho, Being a tiny bit center in terms of 3 issues does not negate being so far right on others that you're being told to shut up by other members of the right wing. I mean this is the guy who openly lies about what he says to make himself look consistent (look at the "Obama will put you in jail if you can't get Health Insurance" thing over at media matters), and is unrepentant when something he says probably led to the death of a doctor. Also, on the whole "death penalty" thing, He doesn't support it in that you directly kill somebody, you just work them to death... you know, like the Nazi's did to the Jews in WWII when they weren't pulling out poison gas.

 

And his progressive programs discussion is negated by the fact that any time anyone wants to put a program in place to help kids, he misconstrues things and throws up a double standard to make it look bad, even if he uses a similar language in his own book about drugs.

 

Is that enough evidence of his lunacy or are you again, going to come back with little more than "Tl;dr, also get more evidence" again because you're a lazy arguer? And when pressed pull out a pair of quotes that mean little because they invalidate themselves on other points that he makes.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Calax

[Gfted1]

I'm sorry, but why can't somebody go after the Scouts? They're a state funded organization that A) Doesn't allow gay members B) Will deny membership to the children of Atheists and C) Has support of god in their friggin pledge. If a similar organization popped up that wasn't these things it'd probably be unable to gain the support needed, even if it had the EXACT SAME ranking system and badges, for the benefits that a Scout receives (particularly an Eagle).

 

 

Not according to this:

 

Finance

The National Council is incorporated as a 501

Edited April 29, 2010 by Gfted1

[Calax]

I'm sorry, but why can't somebody go after the Scouts? They're a state funded organization that A) Doesn't allow gay members B) Will deny membership to the children of Atheists and C) Has support of god in their friggin pledge. If a similar organization popped up that wasn't these things it'd probably be unable to gain the support needed, even if it had the EXACT SAME ranking system and badges, for the benefits that a Scout receives (particularly an Eagle).

 

 

Not according to this:

 

Finance

The National Council is incorporated as a 501

[Walsingham]

Apropos nothing, I heard the boyscouts were invented during the seige of Ladysmith. So they're a sort of church of england style Congolese child soldiery.