Fox news recruits a 12 yo to be fair and balanced

tonyboothOriginal Poster

May 17, 2011

Classic propaganda, I bet Bruce records it for his kids
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4697281
OK I found the link for what I was watching when I wrote this

ReactReplySubscribe

Replies

BE
BeachLisa
May 28, 2011
My apologies DanandJanette, I will try to explain as best I can without using the quote on quote function, I am sure people can go back if they are interested.
By you capitalising (we use s's not z's) the word do it gave the impression you were making a supercilious statement rather than asking a question.
I found this a little patronising. I then drew a very long bow to suggest that, like is often joked about regarding North Americans, that they are so wrapped up in their own continent that they have been known to mistake Australia (where I come from) with Austria. Obviously suggesting someone thinking this way is a very patronising statement. In hindsight it was too obscure and not very well thought out, I apologise.
I do know Tina Fey is responsible for the infamous "from my house" quote and I should of made you aware of this.
Just for 100% clarity, Sarah Palin's actual quote was "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." she made this quote whilst highlighting her foreign policy credentials - just in case you didn't think I knew. There was nothing asinine in that one.
I hope this removes some confusion.
Now let's get back on topic, my apologies to everyone for steering us of course
ReactReply
BE
BeachLisa
May 28, 2011
[quote][quote]Sorry I couldn't resist this:- Why did he have to be so obvious as to rent the house next door? Why didn't he just rent a place in Russia? Because you know "You can see ........... "[/quote] lol.[/quote] Very clever Bruce
ReactReply
DA
DanandJanette
May 29, 2011
[quote]My apologies DanandJanette, I will try to explain as best I can without using the quote on quote function, I am sure people can go back if they are interested. By you capitalising (we use s's not z's) the word do it gave the impression you were making a supercilious statement rather than asking a question. I found this a little patronising. I then drew a very long bow to suggest that, like is often joked about regarding North Americans, that they are so wrapped up in their own continent that they have been known to mistake Australia (where I come from) with Austria. Obviously suggesting someone thinking this way is a very patronising statement. In hindsight it was too obscure and not very well thought out, I apologise. I do know Tina Fey is responsible for the infamous "from my house" quote and I should of made you aware of this. Just for 100% clarity, Sarah Palin's actual quote was "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." she made this quote whilst highlighting her foreign policy credentials - just in case you didn't think I knew. There was nothing asinine in that one. I hope this removes some confusion. Now let's get back on topic, my apologies to everyone for steering us of course[/quote] Apologies and explaination accepted. Peace.
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 30, 2011
[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]yada yada yada...[/quote] I'm roughly centre.[/quote] Forgive me my friend, for my blunt approach- it is late; but you have just expressed a blindly socialist mentality.[/quote] Ok, I'm going to just completely sidestep the patronising (that's how we spell it before you start on me for that again) tone of this response and tackle what you've said.[/quote] The "patronizing" tone-the terrible sin of calling you my friend-is intended to keep the thread from getting out of hand; it's a writing technique designed to keep the tone polite. Liberals tend to go ballistic very easily-especially when their socialists tendencies are exposed. You have said that you are a j major; I thought you would recognize this. Being a j major is also why I pick on you for misspelling. You gotta keep the standard.....my friend. Regarding your other items, I'll get back to you in due time-lot's to do here in the land of slave labor. Meanwhile, moving back to the topic-here is what GEMSNBC puts up to compete against Greta Van Susteren. Matthews, Olbermann(now booted), and the others on primetime there are not much better-just slightly more subtle. Enjoy :http://www.mrctv.org/videos/indefinitely-ed[/quote] *facepalm* I said patronising tone of the response, not sentence. The whole post was patronising. Regarding your attempts to keep my spelling flawless, perhaps you could do it in a manner that doesn't resemble childish ribbing? I know my spelling isn't one hundered percent. That doesn't matter much to me in casual conversation. If I was writing for publication or academic paper I would care but I don't really feel an uncontrolable need to proof read a statement reflecting what I would say in common speach were we discussing this face to face. And why are you still trying to convince me that MSNBC is biased? I've said it's biased already. I know it is. That's not the point. My point is that FOX is too. Why is it that I have to keep repeating myself?[/quote] Because he naively believes that Fox is fair and balanced the cartoon above illustrates the true solution they are in a league out on the extreme all by themselves, so young Sarah is enjoying a ride lovely. I ordered my copy of Blind Allegiance will let you know later.
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 30, 2011
[quote][quote]... climate change deniers ...[/quote] And we were doing so well, guy. Jeez Leweez. One must look with utter contempt at any person who equates citing solid scientific evidence against anthropogenic global warming with denying the Nazi holocaust. That IS what the word "denier" is implying. It is a sign of utter desperation when the Gorebots are forced to resort to vicious, loathsome slanders to try to silence their opponents and censor the facts. • Based on the diameter of Earth plus the atmosphere, 8526 miles, the sun is blasting our planet 24/7/365 with 207,017,158 gigawatts of continuous energy. • Solar activity is the primary, if not the only, driver of climate change on Earth (and on Mars, where there are no SUVs, barbecues and incandescent bulbs). • Earth's climate has been changing since climate began on Earth. • Earth's climate has been both hotter and colder than it is now. • Mankind's contribution to all those historical climate changes was exactly zero. • Greenland, now largely covered by ice, was named because at the time of the Norse explorers, it was a lush, fertile land, ideal for farming. • Based on that fact, Earth was considerably warmer then than it is now. • The Medieval Warm Period (~ 800-1300) described above was not caused by humans. • The Little Ice Age (~ 1400-1900) that followed it also was not caused by humans. • There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Earth's present climate is ideal. • Far from being a dangerous gas, carbon dioxide is totally natural, and is absolutely necessary for plant life. • CO2 levels on Earth have been much higher than they are now, with the concomitant abundance of plant life. • There is absolutely no evidence to support the frivolous notion that humans CAN affect global climate. • Rather than spending trillions of dollars on an utterly quixotic quest to stop global climate change, just spend 1% as much to prepare for it. • Burn AlBore in effigy.[/quote] http://www.newscorp.com/energy/index.html
ReactReply
ME
Member
May 31, 2011
It is unfortunate, Gore. Due to his being a former Presidential Candidate, the issue of Global Warming became a popular press issue. That is, Global Warming became a politcal issue. Not being an expert in this field of science, though, I listen to the experts in those fields of science who can share educated opinions. The vast majority support the two-fold issue: Global warming is real (greater than 90%), and that it is product of industry (greater than 80%). That the industrial world has listened as well and has accepted the principal of global warming (that it is a man-made, and therefore, correctable) and is trying to find ways to correct it, that is pretty persuasive.
ReactReply
ME
Member
May 31, 2011
You begin with the statement, it is a liberal agenda. Yes, there
are reputable scientist who differ with the idea of global warming; its
science. (Einstein disagreed with certain principals of quantum
theory, which are now held as true). Still, the vast majority of
experts (we are talking greater than 80% here) see the data and agree.
There is a world wide effort to stem those factors that are leading to a
perceived global warming. It is not reasonable to believe that these
80% of scientists, and the rest of the industrial world, are somehow
associated with the political left, or a liberal agenda.
ReactReply
ME
Member
May 31, 2011
Last week, five independent investigationsclearedthe scientists involved in the Climategate scandal from allegations that they had tampered with their research in order to prove global warming. The verdict is a major victory for environmentalists and a wake up call for climate change skeptics. . This from the popular press, Bruce. as was the initial coverage of Climategate. You cannot accept as fact, things read in the popular press. They have their own agenda. Now, perhaps we should start to wonder at the source of Climategate...who might that have been? And why would they perpetrate such a lie?
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
Jun 1, 2011
[quote][quote]You begin with the statement, it is a liberal agenda. Yes, there are reputable scientist who differ with the idea of global warming; its science. (Einstein disagreed with certain principals of quantum theory, which are now held as true). Still, the vast majority of experts (we are talking greater than 80% here) see the data and agree. There is a world wide effort to stem those factors that are leading to a perceived global warming. It is not reasonable to believe that these 80% of scientists, and the rest of the industrial world, are somehow associated with the political left, or a liberal agenda.[/quote] I am not implying it is some grand worldwide conspiracy. More of a herd mentality within the scientific community which is decidedly liberal. Much like the herd mentality that says the poor are incapable of success without a lifetime of government assistance. At one time, more than 80% of the scientists thought that the world was flat. During development of nuclear weapons, some scientists were afraid that a nuclear explosion would ignite the atmosphere. When you consider the "climategate" scandal was about some of the "most respected" scientists falsifying and ignoring data, it is not reasonable to accept their findings. The left latched onto their findings and profited from it at great expense to "the little people". Like I have said before, we should work to keep a clean environment, but not at the expense of the poor.[/quote] This bullshit liberal bias anlalysis, I thought this was even beneath you. Bruce accept the science for once, its not a liberal conspiciary. If Al Gore puts you off ignore that put it aside. This is just paranoid nonsense. It is the Catholic church that was the enemy of science for many centuries because it threatened their control and showed a literal account was merely allegorical not literal. I suppose Bruce would support Creationism being taught at schools or the other rubbish. Accept the fact that 80% of scientists have great concerns and are urging action. Not everything has to be seen through a prism of political ideology. It says more about your paranonia than any kind of dispassionate response. http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2011/05/book-reviews-of-climate-change-denial.html http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-change-denial-heads-in-the-sand/
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
Jun 1, 2011
[quote]...how the liberal mainstream media are "grinding their teeth" chasing her into the great unknown. Too funny! Maybe they'll learn to act like adults next time around. No, probably not.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/sarah-palin-one-nation-.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef015432b02d50970c[/quote] I did laugh at the coverage but Bruce ignores that people on Fox have devoted vast amount of coverage to this, as I am typing BoR will interview Dick Morris, as Bill baby observed yesterday the independents won't vote for her so she is just spruicking her popularity with no serious intent. Whilst poor old Hannity was creaming his pants that his vision of common sense would ride triumphant into the White House. Dick Morris calls it ADD! too hilarious, she knows she cannot win. Too much personal baggage!!!
ReactReply
ME
Member
Jun 2, 2011
Interesting edit to my comment, Bruce. Don't want to address the other side of the political agenda question? No? Didn't think so.
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
Jun 5, 2011
[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]yada yada yada...[/quote] I'm roughly centre.[/quote] Forgive me my friend, for my blunt approach- it is late; but you have just expressed a blindly socialist mentality.[/quote] Ok, I'm going to just completely sidestep the patronising (that's how we spell it before you start on me for that again) tone of this response and tackle what you've said.[/quote] The "patronizing" tone-the terrible sin of calling you my friend-is intended to keep the thread from getting out of hand; it's a writing technique designed to keep the tone polite. Liberals tend to go ballistic very easily-especially when their socialists tendencies are exposed. You have said that you are a j major; I thought you would recognize this. Being a j major is also why I pick on you for misspelling. You gotta keep the standard.....my friend. Regarding your other items, I'll get back to you in due time-lot's to do here in the land of slave labor. Meanwhile, moving back to the topic-here is what GEMSNBC puts up to compete against Greta Van Susteren. Matthews, Olbermann(now booted), and the others on primetime there are not much better-just slightly more subtle. Enjoy :http://www.mrctv.org/videos/indefinitely-ed[/quote] *facepalm* I said patronising tone of the response, not sentence. The whole post was patronising. Regarding your attempts to keep my spelling flawless, perhaps you could do it in a manner that doesn't resemble childish ribbing? I know my spelling isn't one hundered percent. That doesn't matter much to me in casual conversation. If I was writing for publication or academic paper I would care but I don't really feel an uncontrolable need to proof read a statement reflecting what I would say in common speach were we discussing this face to face. And why are you still trying to convince me that MSNBC is biased? I've said it's biased already. I know it is. That's not the point. My point is that FOX is too. Why is it that I have to keep repeating myself?[/quote] Because he doesn't get it and doesn't understand he was pratronising
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
Jun 5, 2011
1.) From my post #59: Liberals tend to go ballistic very easily-especially when their socialists tendencies are exposed.
Because we explode ala Spinal Tap.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spinal+tap+exploding+drummer&aq=0
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
Jun 7, 2011
[quote][quote][quote][quote][/quote] PS. thanks for coming back to the point. this aspect of the discussionis really what I'm in this thread for. The rest, well, you're entitled to your views. I could drop the topics if you want.[/quote] Mesca, Certainly, you did throw in a lot of stuff there- I would be glad to discuss them individually; but probably best in their own threads. If you build it, I will come. When threads get reallly long and drift off target, I think they lose their value. Thus, my "rules" as stated previously. And my tendency to ignore really long diatribes. This is supposed to be fun; If it doesn't fit on my 14" laptop screen, I begin to be impatient about reading through it-and I would guess our readers do as well. [/quote] Fair enough. To be honest I'm tired of the descusion and I'd rather leave it alone. We both have our opinions and I don't think either of us will persuade the other to change their mind. I think if we are to ever alter our views we must happen upon the evidence ourselves. In the spirit of that I would encourage you simply to get your news from sources other than television or major media outlets for a little while, or maybe some international sources. That's how I roll and I like to think I'm pretty unbiassed. Anyway. It's up to you. [quote]Regarding patronage-although I think Tony is throwing one of his ever increasingly boring(and self-diminishing) insults, he is right-I don't get how I was being patronizing in tone. I do use labels like the s or the l words; but you'll note I do so to frame the discussion as the left and the right are generally the opposing views and it is my belief that moderates or a combination of views merely leads to indecision or lack of a viable solution. For example-socio capitalist makes no sense to me-it seems to me that it is the view of someone who thinks socialism is compassionate, but knows that capitalism works. Anyway-getting to long here...back to the subject per your request: Did you read the Doug Schoen piece about Fox?[/quote] I think it was your insistance that I was liberal/socialist that made it seem patronising. You did it in a very casual way as if it was obvious. Regardless, that wasn't your intention so I can drop that topic too. It's funny as well because I take the oposite view to you on leaning stances. I think If you take one side you're ruling out good ideas from the other side. Taking the best aspects of both worlds isn't indecisive, it's just well thought out and rational. It takes what works regardless of political bias. I would be very right wing in terms of criminal justice for example, very left wing in terms of education. The reason being those attitudes, to me, do more for the systems they are attributed to. There is no indecision and the solution is more likely to present itself when all options are considered. But that's just my stance. I haven't gotten the chance to read Doug Schoen's piece yet. Any chance of a link? Have you watched outfoxed yet?[/quote] Thanks for the suggestion on the outfoed I think Bruce must watch it, it answrs all the questions upto 2004 and interviews a great many people who were former employees and even demonstrates some of Bruce's points. I was going to post another link for a guy who wa a former Labor Premier of NSW Bob Carr and has taken to writing a daily blog it encompasses varied topics and he was particularly famous for his incredible knowledge of US presidents, beowse the web site at your collective leisure. http://bobcarrblog.wordpress.com/ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428# Bruce shall we go back to the GOP race? Can Newt recover?
ReactReply