(This probably would be just as funny with any other news station so don't start any "FOX TOTALLY LEGIT!!!111 or anything. I just thought it was funny)
(This probably would be just as funny with any other news station so don't start any "FOX TOTALLY LEGIT!!!111 or anything. I just thought it was funny)
I would expect that from someone wearing an ascot.
The Left simply can't let a jab against FOX News go to waste.
Sure plu, you didn't want to start a FOXnews arguement, but you went ahead and linked it anyway... and you knew damn well it would cause problems.
I am no longer disqusted, just amused...
Jabbing Fox News isn't a left thing. It is the proper thing to do. We must jab that thing because it spews lies all day long. Hopefully you'll get a law like in Canada where "journalists" can't lie.
Considering you have spent pages promoting urine-soaked, urine-drinking porn twins from Quebec as a form of sexual entertainment, I would propose that Fox News would be happy to learn that you do not provide them with a resounding "thumbs up."
Jabbing Fox News isn't a left thing. It is the proper thing to do. We must jab that thing because it spews lies all day long. Hopefully you'll get a law like in Canada where "journalists" can't lie.
Considering you have spent pages promoting urine-soaked, urine-drinking porn twins from Quebec as a form of sexual entertainment, I would propose that Fox News would be happy to learn that you do not provide them with a resounding "thumbs up."
uhm pix or it didn't happen
My powers are amazing! HS, you were right!
When have I ever been wrong?
Jabbing Fox News isn't a left thing. It is the proper thing to do. We must jab that thing because it spews lies all day long. Hopefully you'll get a law like in Canada where "journalists" can't lie.
Considering you have spent pages promoting urine-soaked, urine-drinking porn twins from Quebec as a form of sexual entertainment, I would propose that Fox News would be happy to learn that you do not provide them with a resounding "thumbs up."
uhm pix or it didn't happen
Do you really want the link Jesse?
Does a fat kid love cake?
Jabbing Fox News isn't a left thing. It is the proper thing to do. We must jab that thing because it spews lies all day long. Hopefully you'll get a law like in Canada where "journalists" can't lie.
Considering you have spent pages promoting urine-soaked, urine-drinking porn twins from Quebec as a form of sexual entertainment, I would propose that Fox News would be happy to learn that you do not provide them with a resounding "thumbs up."
uhm pix or it didn't happen
Do you really want the link Jesse?
Does a fat kid love cake?
Sent!
much appreciated
much appreciated
Hey... still waiting for your pics...
much appreciated
Hey... still waiting for your pics...
i know i know
we're healing our relationship so there sould be more on the way
much appreciated
Hey... still waiting for your pics...
i know i know
So what happened?
She saw him talking to you.
Jabbing Fox News isn't a left thing. It is the proper thing to do. We must jab that thing because it spews lies all day long. Hopefully you'll get a law like in Canada where "journalists" can't lie.
Considering you have spent pages promoting urine-soaked, urine-drinking porn twins from Quebec as a form of sexual entertainment, I would propose that Fox News would be happy to learn that you do not provide them with a resounding "thumbs up."
You're ridiculus. I could be a serial rapist and still make a valid point of saying Fox is just misinformation and lies.
And yet somehow, coming from you, I'm okay with your assessment. The chances of you being a serial rapist are far greater than me being ridiculous, so the analogy is appropo.
Jabbing Fox News isn't a left thing. It is the proper thing to do. We must jab that thing because it spews lies all day long. Hopefully you'll get a law like in Canada where "journalists" can't lie.
Considering you have spent pages promoting urine-soaked, urine-drinking porn twins from Quebec as a form of sexual entertainment, I would propose that Fox News would be happy to learn that you do not provide them with a resounding "thumbs up."
You're ridiculus. I could be a serial rapist and still make a valid point of saying Fox is just misinformation and lies.
And yet somehow, coming from you, I'm okay with your assessment. The chances of you being a serial rapist are far greater than me being ridiculous, so the analogy is appropo.
Don't be ridiculous
Have you seen some of the stuff you posted?
Really, a vague reference? That's what you bring to the table? "Some" of the things you posted? LOL. Everyone says something ridiculous now and again. It doesn't make them ridiculous.
I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinions. I expect them to be refuted. I expect to be wrong at times. But I also don't radiate vulgarity every chance I can while trying to wear a mask of provocativeness. So again, being judged negatively by you is quite humorous. It's actually quite the antithesis of being judged negatively. I can't help but picture Bizarro offering those very same opinions. Obviously, "ridiculous" means something completely different in your world.
At least I do not take myself too seriously and I do not take offence when some one calls me ridiculus or when someone critics the network I watch.
I admit I can take myself too seriously. I find that a much better alternative than the opposite. But I don't watch Fox, and actually don't like watching Fox, so you are way off base there. I merely joked about the fact that Fox could take your insults as a compliment, considering how you portray yourself here. I mean, you act like a clown non-stop, and go on the attack when someone else calls you on it? Who's taking themself too seriously?
Who's taking themself too seriously?
I would be a liar if I didn't admit to it.
I would be a liar if I didn't admit to it.
I would assess that everyone could stand to lighten up now and again, myself included.
I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinions. I expect them to be refuted. I expect to be wrong at times. But I also don't radiate vulgarity every chance I can while trying to wear a mask of provocativeness. So again, being judged negatively by you is quite humorous. It's actually quite the antithesis of being judged negatively. I can't help but picture Bizarro offering those very same opinions. Obviously, "ridiculous" means something completely different in your world.
... I gotta agree with Jhari here, U_S. As "ridiculous" as I find him myself (though I would probably use a different adjetive) it really is meaningless coming from yourself. It's like if I, in full drag, turned up my nose at someone and called them a freak. Sure, I'm probably right (I often am), but just because of the context it loses it's bite, ya know?
In other words, I much prefer to address any issues people may have with me head on rather than someone taking pot/cheap shots. That never ends up in anything but perpetual flame wars (and yes, I've been known to succumb to that siren's call).
Alas, were I to be more explicit, I would be doing nothing more then "taking pot/cheap shots" as I'm too lazy to back up my judgement. And seeing as I'd rather not be terribly judgemental to begin with, I find the entire question to be one I'd rather avoid.
It's all good. All in fun anyhow. The only way to get to know people is to get to know them. You're more than welcome to PM. Peace!
It's not funny at all... well, maybe it's "funny" to meatheads.
The Left simply can't let a jab against FOX News go to waste.
Sure plu, you didn't want to start a FOXnews arguement, but you went ahead and linked it anyway... and you knew damn well it would cause problems.
I am no longer disqusted, just amused...
It isn't just the left. As a moderate who leans to the right, FOX News is so blatantly biased that I only turn it on once or twice a year for the amusement factor. This is not to say that FOX is the only biased station out there.......it isn't, but at least call FOX what it is.
Now there are segments of legitimate news reporting on those channels (it's sure not Beck or O'reilly), but they don't warn the viewers when the transition from legitimate news to opinion enternatinment. Shows like Beck, O'reilly, etc. amount to televised op-ed pieces and there should be a warning beforehand.
My biggest gripe with Fox, and with all radio talk programs and 24 hr news channels in general, is that they don't put up warnings to let people know that what they are about to see/hear is an entertainemnt program and not a news program.
Now there are segments of legitimate news reporting on those channels (it's sure not Beck or O'reilly), but they don't warn the viewers when the transition from legitimate news to opinion enternatinment. Shows like Beck, O'reilly, etc. amount to televised op-ed pieces and there should be a warning beforehand.
Except for those times when the "real" news portion says something and then quotes Beck or O'reilly to back up the story. They do that :P
My biggest gripe with Fox, and with all radio talk programs and 24 hr news channels in general, is that they don't put up warnings to let people know that what they are about to see/hear is an entertainemnt program and not a news program.
Now there are segments of legitimate news reporting on those channels (it's sure not Beck or O'reilly), but they don't warn the viewers when the transition from legitimate news to opinion enternatinment. Shows like Beck, O'reilly, etc. amount to televised op-ed pieces and there should be a warning beforehand.
Except for those times when the "real" news portion says something and then quotes Beck or O'reilly to back up the story. They do that :P
I suppose they might. I don't actually watch Fox anymore so I can't corroborate that. I find CNN, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report to be less biased.
EDIT:
I suppose they might. I don't actually watch Fox anymore so I can't corroborate that. I find CNN, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report to be less biased.
Ummm, yeah. I'm going out on a limb here, but if you define those as unbiased, I'm not sure if you know what the word means.
Beck and O'Reilly (and Limbaugh) are easy targets. Old news. Let's see how "unbiased" some of you are. Give us some CNN and (MS)NBC examples.
How will providing examples from CNN and/or MSNBC show you how unbiased WE are? All that will do is enable you to judge CNN/MSNBC, not us.
How will providing examples from CNN and/or MSNBC show you how unbiased WE are? All that will do is enable you to judge CNN/MSNBC, not us.
I already said that I am not a fan of Fox and don't watch it. What's your point? I'm just looking for some consistency from the finger-pointers.
Beck and O'Reilly (and Limbaugh) are easy targets. Old news. Let's see how "unbiased" some of you are. Give us some CNN and (MS)NBC examples.
I don't watch those stations, either. It's really hard to find unbiased sources on T.V.
Ummm, yeah. I'm going out on a limb here, but if you define those as unbiased, I'm not sure if you know what the word means.
Stewart and Colbert are funny, and you will get some news, but they ARE biased. They at least know they are comedy, though, and don't try to pass themselves off as main stream news like FOX.
Stewart and Colbert are funny, and you will get some news, but they ARE biased. They at least know they are comedy, though, and don't try to pass themselves off as main stream news like FOX.
Exactly. Colbert is a complete riot, imho. But there are people take them as a credible news source first and comedy second, which is quite scary.
Stewart and Colbert are funny, and you will get some news, but they ARE biased. They at least know they are comedy, though, and don't try to pass themselves off as main stream news like FOX.
Exactly. Colbert is a complete riot, imho. But there are people take them as a credible news source first and comedy second, which is quite scary.
Yeah, but that's their fault. I mean, what part of COMEDY CENTRAL do they not get?
EDIT:I suppose they might. I don't actually watch Fox anymore so I can't corroborate that. I find CNN, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report to be less biased.
Ummm, yeah. I'm going out on a limb here, but if you define those as unbiased, I'm not sure if you know what the word means.
I didn't say unbiased, so please don't say that I did. I said they are less biased.
I suppose they might. I don't actually watch Fox anymore so I can't corroborate that. I find CNN, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report to be less biased.
Ummm, yeah. I'm going out on a limb here, but if you define those as unbiased, I'm not sure if you know what the word means.
There's a bit of a difference between "less biased" and "unbiased".
Edit: Ninja'd!
Stewart and Colbert are funny, and you will get some news, but they ARE biased. They at least know they are comedy, though, and don't try to pass themselves off as main stream news like FOX.
Exactly. Colbert is a complete riot, imho. But there are people take them as a credible news source first and comedy second, which is quite scary.
Yeah, but that's their fault. I mean, what part of COMEDY CENTRAL do they not get?
Great question... But a lot of the problems with our society these days is that we, as a whole, have a painful ignorance of the obvious. It's almost as if common sense has been legislated and regulated along with all of the other things.
Then I look at CNN. I would surmise that Anderson Cooper is their most "credible" figurehead. Well, they have recently gotten pretty gimmicky with Dr. Drew, Piers Morgan, and Simon Cowell, so I have a harder time taking them seriously. But Anderson Cooper is about as biased as they get. For the most part, he coddles the current administration. I would call him far from unbiased. Then again, I haven't tuned in to him in a year or so, so maybe he's changed his tune.
I didn't say unbiased, so please don't say that I did. I said they are less biased.
My apologies, I read too far into it. But I don't think they are less biased than Beck or O'Reilly. They just are a bit more attuned to your beliefs and/or style.
Could you indulge us by doing the same thing. Can you show clips of Fox looking bad?
You know, so we know you are also unbias.
I already agreed that Beck and O'Reilly were biased and that I don't watch them. What more did you need?
Beck and O'Reilly (and Limbaugh) are easy targets. Old news. Let's see how "unbiased" some of you are. Give us some CNN and (MS)NBC examples.
EDIT:I suppose they might. I don't actually watch Fox anymore so I can't corroborate that. I find CNN, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report to be less biased.
Ummm, yeah. I'm going out on a limb here, but if you define those as unbiased, I'm not sure if you know what the word means.
Could you indulge us by doing the same thing. Can you show clips of Fox looking bad?
You know, so we know you are also unbias.
I'm gonna have to call you out here too U_S. Him showing clips of Fox won't tell us if HE is biased or not. Besides, I wouldn't want to be resposible for encouraging someone to watch Fox when they're not a fan (and presumably he would have to watch the clips before posting them).
That is just juding a book by it's cover... on the internet. I attacked Jharii on what he said not who he is. This is how things should be on the net, since we do not really know the people we talk too.
If I would have attacked his credibility, I would have said he is some single guy living in a rented basement, is in 40-50s, with a huge belly, hasn't been laid in 5 years and just vent his frustrations by watching Fox and blasting the g'burment.
But I am not that kind of poster. Jharii is.
2 years.
Fortunately, you don't get to determine what "should" and "should not" be appropriate. And I was very forthright in mentioning that is how you portray yourself as. It's not our fault that you only want to present the cover and not the book.
News flash. There are real people posting here. Real content. If you want to act like you're not a real person, that's up to you. But don't hold those same expactations on us all. It's a very simple word. Respect. If you don't offer any semblance of it here, how can you expect us to believe you show it elsewhere? More to the point, why should we show any to you in return? And if it is all so meaningless to you, why are you so up in arms about someone calling you out?
And you are absolutely that kind of poster. You just throw out a caveat that you are not that kind of poster when you are more guilty of it than anyone. I've seen more "judgement" from you than from anyone else except maybe our resident DDI troll.
Stewart and Colbert are funny, and you will get some news, but they ARE biased. They at least know they are comedy, though, and don't try to pass themselves off as main stream news like FOX.
Exactly. Colbert is a complete riot, imho. But there are people take them as a credible news source first and comedy second, which is quite scary.
It says a lot about "actual" news shows when 2 comedians are seen as more credible a news source.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
How do you identify the lies?
They can't.
The left resorts to calling them liars because they can't really refute them with facts.
*shrug*
Thing is, I think everyone is like me. I'm just less of an hypocrite by not hidding it behind internet's filter
You know how much you sound like a comic book villain here? Specifically the Joker. But hey, whatever you need to do to rationalize treating people like crap, right? They'll just do it to you if you don't do it first.
Tell me, what sort of filthy porn do you watch on the internet?
Single "filthiest" type? Tentacles, probably. Other than that it's mostly lesbians and good ol' fashioned man on woman bonin'.
What stupid thing did you do that you do not mention here?
Had a pregnancy scare once with a girl I had been dating for only a few months. Luckily, she didn't get pregnant.
At my old work once accused a seedy looking guy of shoplifting after he went out of my sight with some items and came back in without them. Turns out he had just discarded them in another aisle. Made myself and my company look bad.
Half-assed a school project and let my group down.
There, three things off the top of my head that I feel crappy about that I haven't mentioned here previously.
What did you do that made you a jerk to some people?
I will admit to getting short with people at work when they can barely speak english and I'm trying to convey vital information to them (like how no, that camera is not waterproof, why would you even think that?).
Chewed out a coworker for not doing his job in front of several other coworkers. Despite the fact that it was deserved he'd probably see me as a jerk.
This one is hard for me to find examples, because I go out of my way to not be a jerk to people and assume they'll have the same courtesy for me.
Or maybe you are just perfect.
Hardly. I'm lazy, I've lied, cut corners, and lost my temper. However I have never deliberately used a person or intentionally engaged in other jerk-like behaviours.
Goldie, it's a little sad that you equate "not being a complete and utter jerk both online and off" to "being perfect". Nobody here think's they're perfect (and before at least one of you says "I am!", I'd just like to say "You's trollin'!")
Of course, there's really no point to saying this, is there? I suppose you'll just tell me I'm
1) lying (I'm not)
2) trying to make you guilty (utterly pointless. I doubt you've ever felt guilt)
Or the ever so popular, "disregard the point and say something quasi-related to prove how much of a cynical internet badass you are", as you did with Jharii.
Thing is, I think everyone is like me. I'm just less of an hypocrite by not hidding it behind internet's filter.
I gotta call BS on this.
I am actually probably more of a dick on here than I am in Real LifeTM.
Meaning, I am as honest and "myself" on here as I really am, but more blunt maybe... but I have been on the defensive 98% of my time on here.
Anyway, I hide behind nothing...
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
By going to other sources to find out what really happened, as well as how they identify when politicians lie. Video. They don't outright lie often, but they DO twist things to make it appear is if one thing means another, but I don't consider that sort of truth twisting to be lies. I consider it deception.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
By going to other sources to find out what really happened, as well as how they identify when politicians lie. Video. They don't outright lie often, but they DO twist things to make it appear is if one thing means another, but I don't consider that sort of truth twisting to be lies. I consider it deception.
How do you justify trusting one source over another?
I would agree that reporting in a way that taking truths and makes them viable to ones own point of view isn't lying. However, I would like to see a venue that reports with no agenda. I don't need things explained to me. I am intelligent enough to decide my own opinion on matters.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
Well when Beck says that inflation will rise by 1000% in 2011 because one of his sponsors said so. And that sponsor sells gold or food...
Those are lies to make profits. No credible financial organisation is seriously saying that hyper-inflation will hit the US.
This is a very specific example. I was looking more for a general means but since you bring it up did he say it as a prediction or a fact?
If it was a prediction it is not really a lie is it?
How do you identify the lies?
They can't.
The left resorts to calling them liars because they can't really refute them with facts.
*shrug*
Easy one. And one that influenced a Presidential Election no less.
Saying Bush won Florida in 2000 when everyone else was correctly giving the victory to Al Gore.
Now, just think of all the posts you've linked with Faux News stories, that one of us countered with the Correct info and or actual story in it's original context.
Such as that one you linked a good ways back where Faux News was fear mongering about the UN, with a document that might as well have never existed they twisted it out of context so hard. And several of us went and read the original document, and corrected Faux's errors.
Using Faux news as your only news source is dangerous for several reasons (using any single media source is bad, but Faux more so than the others) 1. They are so openly pushing a Right Wing Agenda.
2. They don't actually bother to fact check their stories.
3. They disguise their opinions in with the normal news.
How do you justify trusting one source over another?
By generally looking at multiple sources if it's on a matter I care about. You can often weed out the bias if you look at multiple sources for a story.
I would agree that reporting in a way that taking truths and makes them viable to ones own point of view isn't lying. However, I would like to see a venue that reports with no agenda. I don't need things explained to me. I am intelligent enough to decide my own opinion on matters.
Agreed.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
Well when Beck says that inflation will rise by 1000% in 2011 because one of his sponsors said so. And that sponsor sells gold or food...
Those are lies to make profits. No credible financial organisation is seriously saying that hyper-inflation will hit the US.
This is a very specific example. I was looking more for a general means but since you bring it up did he say it as a prediction or a fact?
If it was a prediction it is not really a lie is it?
Of course it is a lie. He knew it was false. This was misinformation to actually gain something from uneducated people. Their money.
And yes, he presents it as facts. Cause credible people (his sponsor) said so.
And how you excuse/justify such fear mongering is discusting.
I never seen this episode that you have referenced so I asked questions. If he stated it as a fact then I guess we shall see if it turns out to be a lie (very likely so).
However, prediction are not lies and can not be lies. They are a guess of future occurrances and thus can not be lies.
I, sir, have not excused nor justified anything. I merely asked a question to find out your opinion. Do I think that using one's influence to mislead other to do things that you would benefit from and hurt your admirers is irresponsible and condemnable? Yes.
You are too quick to react with insults and general abbrasiveness and then wonder why people have very harsh words for you later.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
They seldom outright lie1, but they frequently give a platform to people that do2. They also frequently skew the news (both in how they cover and what they cover) to serve their ideology and politics3. And they misinform their viewers to a greater degree then their chief competitors4.
________
1Intentionally. They've "mixed up" footage before that gives an outright wrong idea of things.
2Michelle Bachman and her various stories about Obama's spending, anyone talking about how Obama isn't enforcing DOMA anymore or that he's changed positions since the campaign trail.
3It really shouldn't be forgotten how they gave the Tea Party free advertising for the last two years, to the point of both promoting them on the air (not reporting about them, but outright promoting them), sending their anchors and talking heads to speak at Tea Party events, having half of the Tea Party darlings as paid talking heads, so-on.
4There was a study on this last year. Fox News viewers were, quite simply, wrong on more bits of news then the viewers of their chief competitors.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
Well when Beck says that inflation will rise by 1000% in 2011 because one of his sponsors said so. And that sponsor sells gold or food...
Those are lies to make profits. No credible financial organisation is seriously saying that hyper-inflation will hit the US.
This is a very specific example. I was looking more for a general means but since you bring it up did he say it as a prediction or a fact?
If it was a prediction it is not really a lie is it?
Of course it is a lie. He knew it was false. This was misinformation to actually gain something from uneducated people. Their money.
And yes, he presents it as facts. Cause credible people (his sponsor) said so.
And how you excuse/justify such fear mongering is discusting.
I never seen this episode that you have referenced so I asked questions. If he stated it as a fact then I guess we shall see if it turns out to be a lie (very likely so).
However, prediction are not lies and can not be lies. They are a guess of future occurrances and thus can not be lies.
I, sir, have not excused nor justified anything. I merely asked a question to find out your opinion. Do I think that using one's influence to mislead other to do things that you would benefit from and hurt your admirers is irresponsible and condemnable? Yes.
You are too quick to react with insults and general abbrasiveness and then wonder why people have very harsh words for you later.
A prediction can be a lie. I am lying if I say that I predict the world will end tomorrow and I know it is a lie. People at Fox aren't dumb (only the viewers). They know the yare lying.
Meh. When I see bad faith and people justifying crap I call them out. My martyrdom is the price I have to pay. I do not have to like it, but I know I have to pay.
You called me out on justify crap as you put it, when exactly did I do that? What by stating that a prediction is a guess and a guess is not a lie because there is an inherit chance that goes with the term that tells the people listen that it may not actual come to pass. Or was it the fact that I intentionally ask whether he stated it as a fact or a prediction? I guess my questioning and not just taking your word that Beck is evil that was my downfall, right?
A martyr, a little dramatic are we? But then again you do consider yourself a hero of the trampled masses right?
That said, it's arguable that Beck really is insane/delusional enough to believe his own stories. This is the same man that cries about socialism in any and all forms and then proudly boasts that he never went to school to get an education, he learned everything he needed from (publicly funded and supported, that is, socialist) libraries.
Or maybe you are just perfect.
I've admitted my flaws on many occasions. I admitted to one in this thread already. Maybe the difference is that I understand what mine are. I don't need to pretend that I am something that I am not.
But throwing on the "internet bravado" mask and using that as justification for behaving badly is just a really weak-ass excuse.
The people that come here, as diverse as they may be (in lifestyle, political affiliation, personality, and so on), typically have one thing in common. We love D&D enough to integrate into the community. If you feel like you can't be yourself, then I am really sorry to hear that. But that probably says more about you than you care to acknowledge. I may not get along with everyone, we all may disagree, but I typically respect the people I am communicating with.
You can mock that and call it "perfect." I simply call it being human, which is inherently imperfect.
It is not a mask, but underwear. Their isn't much different between here and the RL ofr me. I talk trash like that and talk about my sex life like that to people around me. We have a good laugh. Probably because it sounds more funny in RL. I also argue alot in RL.
So my initial assessment was pretty accurate after all...
No I mocked that you mocked me by attacking my avatar and my sex life. As if it made you better, but we do not really know anything about yours.
I never attacked either. The "mask" is a figure of speech and was in no way referincing your avatar, but instead the persona you put on in the forums. And I certainly didn't mock your sex life. I only joked that Fox would probably be happy that you don't cheer them on, considering your promtion of the incestuous twins' video.
Or, even better, why not just ignore news stations from countries that are allowed to lie in news shows and just watch only news from countries where it's not allowed? That way you can be as certain as possible that the facts presented are actually that.
As for debates... they're not news. They're opinions, and should also be treated as such. Just because 2 people agree, doesn't mean everyone will.
It class we learn that opinions changed rarely, so the impact of debates are small.
They should have taught you that opinions change freely. Since you apparently believed whatever they said, it would've made the world a far more interesting place
So no, they are not biased because they have no options for serving anything beyond the menu dictated for them.
Fox News is, in every meaningful way, nothing more than the media outlet of the Republican party.
Oh! That's rich!
As if ALL THE OTHER media weren't sining praises to Barry Almighty during the election!!!
How can you say those things with a straight face?!
You're joking, right?
This is some sort of joke, isn't it!
The Left hates FOX because they don't vomit forth the same foul secretions that the Left does.
They simply don't like FOX because FOX exposes them and is against them.
It really is that simple.
The Left hates FOX because they don't vomit forth the same foul secretions that the Left does.
... I do love how you find my reasons so insignificant to not even be worthy of denying.
The Left hates FOX because they don't vomit forth the same foul secretions that the Left does.
... I do love how you find my reasons so insignificant to not even be worthy of denying.
I'm not sure I understand?
Yeah, RH, you kind of did use the typical Democratic tactic to try to back up your point.
Well, you guys are right, I suppose.
But dammit!
Somebody has to stand up and say something!
And EE, I didn't mean to dismiss your criticisms of FOX, or to assume your reasonings. I was speaking generally, about the general leftist idea that FOX lies!1!1!!one!! that is, indeed, vomited forth on here as though it is accepted fact. I get just a little tired of it day after day.
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
How do you identify the lies?
They can't.
The left resorts to calling them liars because they can't really refute them with facts.
*shrug*
Thing is, I think everyone is like me. I'm just less of an hypocrite by not hidding it behind internet's filter
You know how much you sound like a comic book villain here? Specifically the Joker. But hey, whatever you need to do to rationalize treating people like crap, right? They'll just do it to you if you don't do it first.
Tell me, what sort of filthy porn do you watch on the internet?
Single "filthiest" type? Tentacles, probably. Other than that it's mostly lesbians and good ol' fashioned man on woman bonin'.
What stupid thing did you do that you do not mention here?
Had a pregnancy scare once with a girl I had been dating for only a few months. Luckily, she didn't get pregnant.
At my old work once accused a seedy looking guy of shoplifting after he went out of my sight with some items and came back in without them. Turns out he had just discarded them in another aisle. Made myself and my company look bad.
Half-assed a school project and let my group down.
There, three things off the top of my head that I feel crappy about that I haven't mentioned here previously.
What did you do that made you a jerk to some people?
I will admit to getting short with people at work when they can barely speak english and I'm trying to convey vital information to them (like how no, that camera is not waterproof, why would you even think that?).
Chewed out a coworker for not doing his job in front of several other coworkers. Despite the fact that it was deserved he'd probably see me as a jerk.
This one is hard for me to find examples, because I go out of my way to not be a jerk to people and assume they'll have the same courtesy for me.
Or maybe you are just perfect.
Hardly. I'm lazy, I've lied, cut corners, and lost my temper. However I have never deliberately used a person or intentionally engaged in other jerk-like behaviours.
Goldie, it's a little sad that you equate "not being a complete and utter jerk both online and off" to "being perfect". Nobody here think's they're perfect (and before at least one of you says "I am!", I'd just like to say "You's trollin'!")
Of course, there's really no point to saying this, is there? I suppose you'll just tell me I'm
1) lying (I'm not)
2) trying to make you guilty (utterly pointless. I doubt you've ever felt guilt)
Or the ever so popular, "disregard the point and say something quasi-related to prove how much of a cynical internet badass you are", as you did with Jharii.
Thing is, I think everyone is like me. I'm just less of an hypocrite by not hidding it behind internet's filter.
I gotta call BS on this.
I am actually probably more of a dick on here than I am in Real LifeTM.
Meaning, I am as honest and "myself" on here as I really am, but more blunt maybe... but I have been on the defensive 98% of my time on here.
Anyway, I hide behind nothing...
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
By going to other sources to find out what really happened, as well as how they identify when politicians lie. Video. They don't outright lie often, but they DO twist things to make it appear is if one thing means another, but I don't consider that sort of truth twisting to be lies. I consider it deception.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
By going to other sources to find out what really happened, as well as how they identify when politicians lie. Video. They don't outright lie often, but they DO twist things to make it appear is if one thing means another, but I don't consider that sort of truth twisting to be lies. I consider it deception.
How do you justify trusting one source over another?
I would agree that reporting in a way that taking truths and makes them viable to ones own point of view isn't lying. However, I would like to see a venue that reports with no agenda. I don't need things explained to me. I am intelligent enough to decide my own opinion on matters.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
Well when Beck says that inflation will rise by 1000% in 2011 because one of his sponsors said so. And that sponsor sells gold or food...
Those are lies to make profits. No credible financial organisation is seriously saying that hyper-inflation will hit the US.
This is a very specific example. I was looking more for a general means but since you bring it up did he say it as a prediction or a fact?
If it was a prediction it is not really a lie is it?
How do you identify the lies?
They can't.
The left resorts to calling them liars because they can't really refute them with facts.
*shrug*
Easy one. And one that influenced a Presidential Election no less.
Saying Bush won Florida in 2000 when everyone else was correctly giving the victory to Al Gore.
Now, just think of all the posts you've linked with Faux News stories, that one of us countered with the Correct info and or actual story in it's original context.
Such as that one you linked a good ways back where Faux News was fear mongering about the UN, with a document that might as well have never existed they twisted it out of context so hard. And several of us went and read the original document, and corrected Faux's errors.
Using Faux news as your only news source is dangerous for several reasons (using any single media source is bad, but Faux more so than the others) 1. They are so openly pushing a Right Wing Agenda.
2. They don't actually bother to fact check their stories.
3. They disguise their opinions in with the normal news.
How do you justify trusting one source over another?
By generally looking at multiple sources if it's on a matter I care about. You can often weed out the bias if you look at multiple sources for a story.
I would agree that reporting in a way that taking truths and makes them viable to ones own point of view isn't lying. However, I would like to see a venue that reports with no agenda. I don't need things explained to me. I am intelligent enough to decide my own opinion on matters.
Agreed.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
Well when Beck says that inflation will rise by 1000% in 2011 because one of his sponsors said so. And that sponsor sells gold or food...
Those are lies to make profits. No credible financial organisation is seriously saying that hyper-inflation will hit the US.
This is a very specific example. I was looking more for a general means but since you bring it up did he say it as a prediction or a fact?
If it was a prediction it is not really a lie is it?
Of course it is a lie. He knew it was false. This was misinformation to actually gain something from uneducated people. Their money.
And yes, he presents it as facts. Cause credible people (his sponsor) said so.
And how you excuse/justify such fear mongering is discusting.
I never seen this episode that you have referenced so I asked questions. If he stated it as a fact then I guess we shall see if it turns out to be a lie (very likely so).
However, prediction are not lies and can not be lies. They are a guess of future occurrances and thus can not be lies.
I, sir, have not excused nor justified anything. I merely asked a question to find out your opinion. Do I think that using one's influence to mislead other to do things that you would benefit from and hurt your admirers is irresponsible and condemnable? Yes.
You are too quick to react with insults and general abbrasiveness and then wonder why people have very harsh words for you later.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
They seldom outright lie1, but they frequently give a platform to people that do2. They also frequently skew the news (both in how they cover and what they cover) to serve their ideology and politics3. And they misinform their viewers to a greater degree then their chief competitors4.
________
1Intentionally. They've "mixed up" footage before that gives an outright wrong idea of things.
2Michelle Bachman and her various stories about Obama's spending, anyone talking about how Obama isn't enforcing DOMA anymore or that he's changed positions since the campaign trail.
3It really shouldn't be forgotten how they gave the Tea Party free advertising for the last two years, to the point of both promoting them on the air (not reporting about them, but outright promoting them), sending their anchors and talking heads to speak at Tea Party events, having half of the Tea Party darlings as paid talking heads, so-on.
4There was a study on this last year. Fox News viewers were, quite simply, wrong on more bits of news then the viewers of their chief competitors.
I am not sure. Are you guys implying that Fox News lies or just adds thier own personal opinion to the news and skews actual events to be seen from a perspective that re-enforces thier own personal views?
Both, with much more of the latter. They twist things far more than they outright lie about things.
How do you identify the lies?
Well when Beck says that inflation will rise by 1000% in 2011 because one of his sponsors said so. And that sponsor sells gold or food...
Those are lies to make profits. No credible financial organisation is seriously saying that hyper-inflation will hit the US.
This is a very specific example. I was looking more for a general means but since you bring it up did he say it as a prediction or a fact?
If it was a prediction it is not really a lie is it?
Of course it is a lie. He knew it was false. This was misinformation to actually gain something from uneducated people. Their money.
And yes, he presents it as facts. Cause credible people (his sponsor) said so.
And how you excuse/justify such fear mongering is discusting.
I never seen this episode that you have referenced so I asked questions. If he stated it as a fact then I guess we shall see if it turns out to be a lie (very likely so).
However, prediction are not lies and can not be lies. They are a guess of future occurrances and thus can not be lies.
I, sir, have not excused nor justified anything. I merely asked a question to find out your opinion. Do I think that using one's influence to mislead other to do things that you would benefit from and hurt your admirers is irresponsible and condemnable? Yes.
You are too quick to react with insults and general abbrasiveness and then wonder why people have very harsh words for you later.
A prediction can be a lie. I am lying if I say that I predict the world will end tomorrow and I know it is a lie. People at Fox aren't dumb (only the viewers). They know the yare lying.
Meh. When I see bad faith and people justifying crap I call them out. My martyrdom is the price I have to pay. I do not have to like it, but I know I have to pay.
You called me out on justify crap as you put it, when exactly did I do that? What by stating that a prediction is a guess and a guess is not a lie because there is an inherit chance that goes with the term that tells the people listen that it may not actual come to pass. Or was it the fact that I intentionally ask whether he stated it as a fact or a prediction? I guess my questioning and not just taking your word that Beck is evil that was my downfall, right?
A martyr, a little dramatic are we? But then again you do consider yourself a hero of the trampled masses right?
That said, it's arguable that Beck really is insane/delusional enough to believe his own stories. This is the same man that cries about socialism in any and all forms and then proudly boasts that he never went to school to get an education, he learned everything he needed from (publicly funded and supported, that is, socialist) libraries.
Or maybe you are just perfect.
I've admitted my flaws on many occasions. I admitted to one in this thread already. Maybe the difference is that I understand what mine are. I don't need to pretend that I am something that I am not.
But throwing on the "internet bravado" mask and using that as justification for behaving badly is just a really weak-ass excuse.
The people that come here, as diverse as they may be (in lifestyle, political affiliation, personality, and so on), typically have one thing in common. We love D&D enough to integrate into the community. If you feel like you can't be yourself, then I am really sorry to hear that. But that probably says more about you than you care to acknowledge. I may not get along with everyone, we all may disagree, but I typically respect the people I am communicating with.
You can mock that and call it "perfect." I simply call it being human, which is inherently imperfect.
It is not a mask, but underwear. Their isn't much different between here and the RL ofr me. I talk trash like that and talk about my sex life like that to people around me. We have a good laugh. Probably because it sounds more funny in RL. I also argue alot in RL.
So my initial assessment was pretty accurate after all...
No I mocked that you mocked me by attacking my avatar and my sex life. As if it made you better, but we do not really know anything about yours.
I never attacked either. The "mask" is a figure of speech and was in no way referincing your avatar, but instead the persona you put on in the forums. And I certainly didn't mock your sex life. I only joked that Fox would probably be happy that you don't cheer them on, considering your promtion of the incestuous twins' video.
Or, even better, why not just ignore news stations from countries that are allowed to lie in news shows and just watch only news from countries where it's not allowed? That way you can be as certain as possible that the facts presented are actually that.
As for debates... they're not news. They're opinions, and should also be treated as such. Just because 2 people agree, doesn't mean everyone will.
It class we learn that opinions changed rarely, so the impact of debates are small.
They should have taught you that opinions change freely. Since you apparently believed whatever they said, it would've made the world a far more interesting place
So no, they are not biased because they have no options for serving anything beyond the menu dictated for them.
Fox News is, in every meaningful way, nothing more than the media outlet of the Republican party.
Oh! That's rich!
As if ALL THE OTHER media weren't sining praises to Barry Almighty during the election!!!
How can you say those things with a straight face?!
You're joking, right?
This is some sort of joke, isn't it!
The Left hates FOX because they don't vomit forth the same foul secretions that the Left does.
They simply don't like FOX because FOX exposes them and is against them.
It really is that simple.
The Left hates FOX because they don't vomit forth the same foul secretions that the Left does.
... I do love how you find my reasons so insignificant to not even be worthy of denying.
The Left hates FOX because they don't vomit forth the same foul secretions that the Left does.
... I do love how you find my reasons so insignificant to not even be worthy of denying.
I'm not sure I understand?
Yeah, RH, you kind of did use the typical Democratic tactic to try to back up your point.
Well, you guys are right, I suppose.
But dammit!
Somebody has to stand up and say something!
And EE, I didn't mean to dismiss your criticisms of FOX, or to assume your reasonings. I was speaking generally, about the general leftist idea that FOX lies!1!1!!one!! that is, indeed, vomited forth on here as though it is accepted fact. I get just a little tired of it day after day.
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.