For all the FOX, Beck, Limbaugh, Conservative Haters.

With that said, here's a great book I'd like to recommend to you:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/THE-FIVE-THOUSAND-YEAR-LEAP/W-Cleon-Skousen/e/9780981559667

It might clear up some serious misconceptions you have about the Founders.

I love the:
1st
Principle (Section) (pg37)
The words of Cicero (being used as a guiding light in the minds of our forefathers.) How revealing!

The whole book should be a text bood/required study in schools.

Awesome amount of understanding can be gleaned by anyone from either Party or political persuasion.
It's just simple truth on who we were/are capable of becoming.
Cheers to the reading recommendation.
 

medicineman

New Member
Med ...

I'm really happy that you've awakened from your Kool-Aid induced coma long enough to start posting in the forum again ... hopefully on a regular basis. :)

With that said, here's a great book I'd like to recommend to you:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/THE-FIVE-THOUSAND-YEAR-LEAP/W-Cleon-Skousen/e/9780981559667

It might clear up some serious misconceptions you have about the Founders.
Well Vi, I don't have the inclination to read about them, might be interesting, but I really dont care about 20 odd dead people. Suffice it to say they were the elites of their day. Here is a brief synopsis of the views about the founders. I fit somewhere in between;
Within the broader world of popular opinion in the United States, the Founding Fathers are often accorded nearly mythical status as demigods who occupy privileged locations on the slopes of some American version of Mount Olympus. Within the narrower world of the academy, however, opinion is more divided. In general, scholarship over the last three decades has focused more on ordinary and “inarticulate” Americans in the late 18th century, the periphery of the social scene rather than the center. And much of the scholarly work focusing on the Founders has emphasized their failures more than their successes, primarily their failure to end slavery or reach a sensible accommodation with the Native Americans.
The very term “Founding Fathers” has also struck some scholars as inherently sexist, verbally excluding women from a prominent role in the founding. Such influential women as Abigail Adams, Dolley Madison, and Mercy Otis Warren made significant contributions that merit attention, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers label obscures their role.
As a result, the Founding Fathers label that originated in the 19th century as a quasi-religious and nearly reverential designation has become a more controversial term in the 21st. Any assessment of America’s founding generation has become a conversation about the core values embodied in the political institutions of the United States, which are alternatively celebrated as the wellspring of democracy and a triumphant liberal legacy, or demonized as the source of American arrogance, racism, and imperialism.
For at least two reasons, the debate over its Founders occupies a special place in American history unlike the history of any European nation-state. First, the United States was not founded on a common ethnicity, language, or religion that could be taken for granted as the primal source of national identity. Instead, it was founded on a set of beliefs and convictions, what Thomas Jefferson described as self-evident truths, that were proclaimed in 1776 and then embedded in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. To become an American citizen is not a matter of bloodlines or genealogy, but rather a matter of endorsing and embracing the values established at the founding, which accords the men who invented these values a special significance. Second, the American system of jurisprudence links all landmark constitutional decisions to the language of the Constitution itself and often to the “original intent” of the framers. Once again, this legal tradition gives the American Founders an abiding relevance in current discussions of foreign and domestic policy that would be inconceivable in most European countries.
Finally, in part because so much always seems to be at stake whenever the Founding Fathers enter any historical conversation, the debate over their achievement and legacy tends to assume a hyperbolic shape. It is as if an electromagnetic field surrounded the discussion, driving the debate toward mutually exclusive appraisals. In much the same way that adolescents view their parents, the Founders are depicted as heroic icons or despicable villains, demigods or devils, the creators of all that is right and all that is wrong with American society. In recent years the Founder whose reputation has been tossed most dramatically across this swoonish arc is Thomas Jefferson, simultaneously the author of the most lyrical rendition of the American promise to the world and the most explicit assertion of the biological inferiority of African Americans.
Since the late 1990s a surge of new books on the Founding Fathers, several of which have enjoyed surprising commercial and critical success, has begun to break free of the hyperbolic pattern and generate an adult rather than adolescent conversation in which a sense of irony and paradox replaces the old moralistic categories. This recent scholarship is heavily dependent on the massive editorial projects, ongoing for the last half-century, which have produced a level of documentation on the American Founders that is more comprehensive and detailed than the account of any political elite in recorded history.
While this enormous avalanche of historical evidence bodes well for a more nuanced and sop.
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-who-were-these-guys/
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
well when you find it be sure to let us know:roll: try using Google or something..don't they have a search engine on fox:roll: and the hate crime bill means if you kick a person ass because they gay and you hell gay slurs at them then hell yeah put on some extra time....on the same foot the hate bill means if some black guys were beating the shit out of some white guy and hell , honkey , whitey, or cracker (except for our CrackerJax then it would be ok because thats his name) then they would get extra time too..the hate bill now works for all humans..not plants ( bad example you used )
I'll be sure to let you know, is it actually an insult to say someone found a link to information on Google now, or are you that desperate to get in some kind of a jab?

Thank you for explaining that which I clearly understand as well, if not more so, than you do. Adding on years for yelling a slur at a plant as you grow it is a PERFECT example of the stupidity of the Hate Crime legislation. Murder is murder, assault is assault... they all involve hate or anger in some form, singling out specific groups for "extra" protection is just a way to punish people for having views that run contrary to what the "thought police" find acceptable.

I don't condone those views, however, I do believe they have a right to hold them. If they act on them, well then they should pay the same price as anyone else that commits that act. Using those views and prejudices against them for motive and such, to secure a conviction is fine.... adding time for simply having those views is ludicrous. Kinda like the plant example.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
I'll be sure to let you know, is it actually an insult to say someone found a link to information on Google now, or are you that desperate to get in some kind of a jab?

Thank you for explaining that which I clearly understand as well, if not more so, than you do. Adding on years for yelling a slur at a plant as you grow it is a PERFECT example of the stupidity of the Hate Crime legislation. Murder is murder, assault is assault... they all involve hate or anger in some form, singling out specific groups for "extra" protection is just a way to punish people for having views that run contrary to what the "thought police" find acceptable.

I don't condone those views, however, I do believe they have a right to hold them. If they act on them, well then they should pay the same price as anyone else that commits that act. Using those views and prejudices against them for motive and such, to secure a conviction is fine.... adding time for simply having those views is ludicrous. Kinda like the plant example.
not desperate at all just get tired of people saying $hit without any proof or they can't remember where they heard it..don't be insulted just be prepared to have some sort of proof when you talk nonsense..and google is your friend
 

stalebiscuit

Well-Known Member
its simple

fox is a news organization that features generally right wing pundits. that means there is opinion on THOSE SHOWS. that means they are trying to attract a certain audience

so if anything, its not a right or left bias, but a bias as far as ratings are concerned

fox new sis reliable and they report the same shit any other news show does. end of story
 

Leothwyn

Well-Known Member
You really believe that?
Even if they report the same things (and, I don't believe that they do), their bias shows to some extent - how they report it, how much time they spend on it, etc..
Do you think cnn and fox spent the same amount of time reporting on the teabagger march on the capitol? I doubt it.
If Bush made a mistake or did something stupid, who spent more time dwelling on it, cnn or fox? How about if Obama makes a dumb mistake?
And the little filler stories... fox might make time to report on a small teabagger gathering somewhere, while cnn doesn't bother with it. Or cnn might report on a small gay rights gathering somewhere, while fox decides not to.

I just don't get why people are so reluctant to admit that their favorite news channel is biased. Maybe they feel like an attack against fox/cnn is an attack against the right/left wing and their beliefs? (Although, I haven't seen anyone here denying the bias of the left-leaning stations... only conservatives whining). Personally, I think the most neutral one is the bbc. If someone had a beef with them, and showed examples of why they had the problem, I don't see myself getting all defensive and denying the problem (especially when there's evidence).
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
this is from Fox Noise Hannity broadcast from yesterday 11/10
it's supposedly the Bachmann "rally", which she illegally advertised on her government website
Fox uses fake footage to make it look like the grass roots attended, when in fact, the crowd was embarrassingly small
So Fox is enhancing the story on behalf of the right-wing nut-job, rep. michelle bachman - with fake video
[youtube]8Ir52yjqgxA[/youtube]
 

Leothwyn

Well-Known Member
Oh, I'm sure they do the same thing to make liberal rallies look more impressive too. They're fair and balanced after all.
 
Was there footage being shot that day? Who shot it and when was it out of the Can? Was Glen in the Studio preparing for his show? More than likely he was - so... he used B Roll tape all ready in Archive. It is for effect/fill - not to deceive.

But you may never see it that way because there are some of you who have not been in a studio- when you are up againsy a crunch/deadline before air. You use what you have at hand.

Finer point. Who ever was shooting that day has financial rights to the film and many of them would want Big Bucks for having their work seen on Beck/Fox.

You just can't take their tapes. You negotiate.

It was used for fill/entertainment. It was not being used to deceive.

If you disagree - think about this.... If Obama uses Pancake 64 then that would be embellishing or enhancing the fact that he wants all people to see him as a handsome black guy. He wants to be seen in the best light. Why else would you use Pancake 64? or 63 for that matter?? If that were not true?

So as I see it no one was trying to deceive people. It's only for enhancement/look and entertainment purposes.
But again- your hatred may not allow you to see this simple truth. Just like the fact that the jews were not responsible for all the things they were being accused/made responsible for. They all said untrue things about the Jews. We are no different if we do the same thing.

Hate separates and divides - while Love elevates and unites. We should be united in a common bond and not divide ourselves over misrepresentations and unwarranted accusations.
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
Was there footage being shot that day? Who shot it and when was it out of the Can? Was Glen in the Studio preparing for his show? More than likely he was - so... he used B Roll tape all ready in Archive. It is for effect/fill - not to deceive.

But you may never see it that way because there are some of you who have not been in a studio- when you are up againsy a crunch/deadline before air. You use what you have at hand.

Finer point. Who ever was shooting that day has financial rights to the film and many of them would want Big Bucks for having their work seen on Beck/Fox.

You just can't take their tapes. You negotiate.

It was used for fill/entertainment. It was not being used to deceive.

If you disagree - think about this.... If Obama uses Pancake 64 then that would be embellishing or enhancing the fact that he wants all people to see him as a handsome black guy. He wants to be seen in the best light. Why else would you use Pancake 64? or 63 for that matter?? If that were not true?

So as I see it no one was trying to deceive people. It's only for enhancement/look and entertainment purposes.
But again- your hatred may not allow you to see this simple truth. Just like the fact that the jews were not responsible for all the things they were being accused/made responsible for. They all said untrue things about the Jews. We are no different if we do the same thing.

Hate separates and divides - while Love elevates and unites. We should be united in a common bond and not divide ourselves over misrepresentations and unwarranted accusations.
this was on Hannity's show, not Beck's
the footage on Hannity's show was actually from Beck's show
and you don't show fake footage on the News as if it was actual footage - but then again, it isn't news, is it?

whatever dude

the fucking thread was about fake news - i showed you some and you tell me it's fill
 
this was on Hannity's show, not Beck's
the footage on Hannity's show was actually from Beck's show
and you don't show fake footage on the News as if it was actual footage - but then again, it isn't news, is it?

whatever dude

the fucking thread was about fake news - i showed you some and you tell me it's fill
The 'news' may have been real but the footage was enhanced for sure! I totally agree.
"That's entertainment!" they say - but... I'm a bit more militant in my view of news coverage. I too like actual footage of the actual event and If I (an you too no doubt) were to use 'enhancement footage- we both would have made that clear.

So your point is valid on this count. And thanks for the correction- Hannity from Beck. It all becomes one big blur after awhile.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
the thing is this, if the cowboys are playing home, and they score a touchdown... but it isn't too amazing, sort of a routine hand-off to the running back, who takes it in from 1st and goal. they also have footage of another touchdown, 1-year ago, which is a handoff to another running back, who whizzes and twirls his way through the defense, breaking two tackles and stiff-arming the safety for the last 15 yards to complete a 65 yard run into the end zone.....

when someone talking about the greatness of the team, and about how amazing and great they are, they show the really good, long, impressive touchdown.... even if it was last year.... even if it was another whole scenario.... because the entire goal is to put the greatness of the team first.....

same tactic Fox news uses.... but for the conservative movement....
 
the thing is this, if the cowboys are playing home, and they score a touchdown... but it isn't too amazing, sort of a routine hand-off to the running back, who takes it in from 1st and goal. they also have footage of another touchdown, 1-year ago, which is a handoff to another running back, who whizzes and twirls his way through the defense, breaking two tackles and stiff-arming the safety for the last 15 yards to complete a 65 yard run into the end zone.....

when someone talking about the greatness of the team, and about how amazing and great they are, they show the really good, long, impressive touchdown.... even if it was last year.... even if it was another whole scenario.... because the entire goal is to put the greatness of the team first.....

same tactic Fox news uses.... but for the conservative movement....
Very true! It's all about marketing, presentation, show, enhancement, staging, lighting etc. . You are very correct.
 

Leothwyn

Well-Known Member
Was there footage being shot that day? Who shot it and when was it out of the Can? Was Glen in the Studio preparing for his show? More than likely he was - so... he used B Roll tape all ready in Archive. It is for effect/fill - not to deceive.
Didn't they start the segment out with REAL footage, then switch to fake when they talked about what a big crowd there was?

They did have the real footage.

Obviously you're not willing to admit that the network that leans the way you do is at all deceptive... so you're going to have come up with another way to excuse them.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
Watch the whole video...its all good. But I would like for someone to explain what starts at the 6:50 min.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-
dude he's just pointing out the way that fox digs up a negative story on obama.... for example the song.... which was a school official's idea, parent's signed off on it, they performed it once, maybe twice, 7 months prior to the FOX news airdate.....but somehow they start putting the blame on OBAMA. as if he was the one who thought it up, as if saying: "see, this guy is a nazi, he's indoctrinating our children"... then they start with the: "there's some that say that this is what happens in china" there's some that say that in north korea, there's some that say............ and keep on mentioning this omnipresent, all knowing well of knowledge that there's some that says this and that...and repeat indoctrinate, and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it......... they also give you a negative nudge before giving you the news, then give you the news so before you find out what happened, you already started to form an opinion.....

it can be noted that the conservative douche-bag says that it's wrong for the white house to go against the media cuz it's censorship.... yet he says that bush should've done it sooner.... it's interesting how he sells out, depending who he's talking about....

he's right about Fox news kicking MSNBC's ass.... FOX news makes their stories sound interesting at least, and they have hot ass women on all the time...

the video was good though... jon stewart is the shit....
 

pluto420

Active Member
I think he is pointing out how fox made up a negative story about Obama. Their was nothing to dig up. The event happened 7 months ago with the parents consent and no one complained. Now Fox is making up this indoctrination news story.
 
They did have the real footage.

Obviously you're not willing to admit that the network that leans the way you do is at all deceptive... so you're going to have come up with another way to excuse them.
Mix and match. Real with archived B roll tape. Whatever. And 'that leans the way I do' comment is just shows how little you know me or can read from me in my posts. This one might help some see.

I learn toward full disclosure. No one in their right mind ought to disagree with that. But, in this day and age many do. They are the ones that don't have the sense God gave a bucket of dead fish.

All I know is people. What makes some tick the way they do and others differently.
Example:
If School children were being taught songs by those that Loved Bush- everyone in the LIB party (pundits) would look like puppy trying to poop a peach seed and sounding like a cat having a litter of kittens.

The biggest problem with those that have w[U]alls in their minds[/U] can't seem to judge a matter in an unbiased way.

We, on the other hand, had to create a media network that people could use to share what matters to THEM most.
Not one media does this as a foundational matter.

No, all of them THEM lean to the right or to the left according to certain people.

I lean toward America and the right of free speech.

But even though a person has the right to their own opinion but- THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEIR OPINION IS RIGHT. So many people forget this. Facts rule and Fiction is fucked.

And therein lays the problem.

I have never once heard the administration of the LEFT ever admit that they were wrong. Not once- a "we blew it"

This right/left Party politics bullshit is whats killing US. As in America. I'm an American!
I'm both liberal and conservative!

Our voices have been shut out by the media for years.

Fact:
The Libs have most of the channels/stations and they bitch about Fox and the talk shows because they can't fight the fact that the lib party is being killed by the first half white president we have ever had.

Calling him Black is a disservice to real black people.

Oblabla has always been a panhandler screaming for 'change' then, as well asnow.

But now it's every bodies change. Here and globally. Begging countries for money like never before.

And, if it wasn't for those who are conservative in the media- we would have already been made to march in lock step. Another FACT that many libs deliberately forget to remember.

To that I say 'fuck no' Lock and load!' I'm not marching to the beat of this out of tune pusillanimous freak.

I believe he and all the Washington Deceit beltway insiders are killing this country.

He gives black people a bad name. That's all I can say. I had hope but he fucked that up just like everything else.
Now - look at the facts as they appear.
 
Top