PDA

View Full Version : So are any of you libs going to defend this?


ChiefaRoo
07-28-2007, 04:30 AM
I wonder what the reaction would be if an Ultra-Conservative group pressured CNN in the this way. Any liberal defenders here? or can we all agree this type of censorship is bs?


By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer

Liberals Pressure Fox News Advertisers

NEW YORK (AP) -- Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.

MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.

The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.

At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.

"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said.

Some of the videos produced by Gilliam's company compile statements made by Fox anchors and guests that the activists consider misleading, such as those that question global warming.

Representatives for Fox News Channel, which is owned by News Corp., did not immediately return calls for comment.

Home Depot has not had an unusual number of calls, said spokesman Jerry Shields, and the home improvement chain will not change its advertising strategy.

"We're not in the business of censoring media," Shields said. "We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available."

Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.

The groups seem particularly angry at Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who has done critical reports on left-wing bloggers. On July 16, O'Reilly said the DailyKos.com Web site is "hate of the worst order," and sent a reporter to question JetBlue Airways Corp. CEO Dave Barger about the airline's sponsorship of a gathering run by DailyKos.

He'll never ride on JetBlue again, O'Reilly said.

Fox said JetBlue has since asked that its name be removed from the DailyKos.com Web site.

MoveOn.org is campaigning against Fox because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.

"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air - he admits his point of view. Fox doesn't."

banyon
07-28-2007, 05:47 AM
Did you even read the article you posted?

I wonder what the reaction would be if an Ultra-Conservative group pressured CNN in the this way. Any liberal defenders here? or can we all agree this type of censorship is bs?

The groups seem particularly angry at Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who has done critical reports on left-wing bloggers. On July 16, O'Reilly said the DailyKos.com Web site is "hate of the worst order," and sent a reporter to question JetBlue Airways Corp. CEO Dave Barger about the airline's sponsorship of a gathering run by DailyKos.

KC Jones
07-28-2007, 06:05 AM
Do you even know what censorship is?

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 06:33 AM
Did you even read the article you posted?
In the example you previously posted, it seems to me that 1) O'Reilly is not targeting a network, 2) Isn't trying to whip up support to close a blog down but simply sending a journalist to a large corporation to ask questions about its support of a bunch of far left wackos, and 3) O'Reilly is not Ultra Conservative. Far right but not wacko right.

BTW, I am not defending Chiefaroo but just pointing out the discrepancy in your argument. JMO.

Bowser
07-28-2007, 08:07 AM
Now, I'm no "liberal", but you lost me at Fox and Bill O'Reilly.

wazu
07-28-2007, 08:16 AM
Home Depot has not had an unusual number of calls, said spokesman Jerry Shields, and the home improvement chain will not change its advertising strategy.

"We're not in the business of censoring media," Shields said. "We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available."

I think I'll be stopping by Home Depot this weekend. Need some stuff for the lawn anyway, and after reading this I now know where I should start.

banyon
07-28-2007, 10:34 AM
In the example you previously posted, it seems to me that 1) O'Reilly is not targeting a network, 2) Isn't trying to whip up support to close a blog down but simply sending a journalist to a large corporation to ask questions about its support of a bunch of far left wackos, and 3) O'Reilly is not Ultra Conservative. Far right but not wacko right.

BTW, I am not defending Chiefaroo but just pointing out the discrepancy in your argument. JMO.

So, pretty much you are trying to say the following:

1) it's okay to pressure bloggers but not TV channels

2) When O'Reilly tells his viewers he is never going to ride Jet Blue again he is treating TheDaily Kos's sponsor in a meaningfully diffferent way than when bloggers recommend not to shop at Home Depot?

3) There is some distinction between "far Right " and "Ultra Right", so that to qualify as an attack example for ChiefaRoo's purposes they have to be "really nutty"?

:spock:

Oh, and your protestations that O'Reilly isn't really "Ultra Right" are about as comical as Kotter saying "No, really, I'm a Democrat!"

|Zach|
07-28-2007, 10:44 AM
Great thread.

noa
07-28-2007, 10:51 AM
Honestly, what about this is hard to defend?

Chiefaroo, most of the time, I think you come across as a reasonable guy who isn't a moonbat. You have strong beliefs, and you word your posts strongly, but you base them off your travels around the world and your beliefs about our country and its enemies, usually not from drinking the right wing Kool-aid.

This just seems like partisan BS, though. Why on earth do you care what a few liberals are doing here? Are you concerned about the future of Fox News? Do you think it will have any effect on Home Depot?

Also, I strongly disagree that this is censorship in any way.

Baby Lee
07-28-2007, 10:59 AM
Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may.
If you think you need to boycott everyone who disagrees with you, good on you.
And if the 'chips' think you're waggling dog-teet crazy for it, good on them.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 11:09 AM
So, pretty much you are trying to say the following:

1) it's okay to pressure bloggers but not TV channels

2) When O'Reilly tells his viewers he is never going to ride Jet Blue again he is treating TheDaily Kos's sponsor in a meaningfully diffferent way than when bloggers recommend not to shop at Home Depot?

3) There is some distinction between "far Right " and "Ultra Right", so that to qualify as an attack example for ChiefaRoo's purposes they have to be "really nutty"?

:spock:

Oh, and your protestations that O'Reilly isn't really "Ultra Right" are about as comical as Kotter saying "No, really, I'm a Democrat!"
Umm, no. Nice try at projection there counselor but you have made a few reading and interpretation errors.

1) How is he pressuring bloggers? He simply uses his 1st Amendment right to disagree with them and publicly do so. Seems to me, judging your reaction, that you don't like it when someone disagrees with liberals. Are you going to engage in hypocrisy in the context of defending the actions of Jet Blue and Daily Kos while demonizing someone of a different political persuasion than you for doing precisely the same thing?

2) Absolutely. When a concerted effort by a GROUP of heavily financed lefties try to influence public opinion by silencing opposing viewpoints, then yes it is subject to scrutiny, criticism and review. Saying you don't want to fly a certain airline because they disagree with your views is not even remotely in the same ballpark. If he doesn't want to ride Jet Blue again, that is his deal. If I get a better price from Jet Blue to go to the same destination then I am flying Jet Blue all the way.

3) I recommend removing the left wing goggles for a minute or 2 and seeing the world in 3d sir. :p

BTW, your attempt to equate ANYTHING I post with anything Kotter posts, or trying to put us in the same category is equally laughable. Even idiotic. Your turn at the insult table bro. Let me know when you are lucid enough to discuss things without insult. Thanks in advance.

Direckshun
07-28-2007, 11:16 AM
How about I defend it as saying it's a free country where people are allowed to show up and pressure advertisers for any reason they want and advertisers, if they want, can oblige.

Yeah I think that about sums up my defense.

|Zach|
07-28-2007, 11:22 AM
How about I defend it as saying it's a free country where people are allowed to show up and pressure advertisers for any reason they want and advertisers, if they want, can oblige.

Yeah I think that about sums up my defense.
:clap:

noa
07-28-2007, 11:24 AM
Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may.
If you think you need to boycott everyone who disagrees with you, good on you.
And if the 'chips' think you're waggling dog-teet crazy for it, good on them.

To me, there is a difference between the 'chips' calling the boycotters waggling dog-teet crazy and saying that the boycotters are censoring the media.

banyon
07-28-2007, 11:48 AM
Umm, no. Nice try at projection there counselor but you have made a few reading and interpretation errors.

1) How is he pressuring bloggers? He simply uses his 1st Amendment right to disagree with them and publicly do so. Seems to me, judging your reaction, that you don't like it when someone disagrees with liberals. Are you going to engage in hypocrisy in the context of defending the actions of Jet Blue and Daily Kos while demonizing someone of a different political persuasion than you for doing precisely the same thing?

2) Absolutely. When a concerted effort by a GROUP of heavily financed lefties try to influence public opinion by silencing opposing viewpoints, then yes it is subject to scrutiny, criticism and review. Saying you don't want to fly a certain airline because they disagree with your views is not even remotely in the same ballpark. If he doesn't want to ride Jet Blue again, that is his deal. If I get a better price from Jet Blue to go to the same destination then I am flying Jet Blue all the way.

3) I recommend removing the left wing goggles for a minute or 2 and seeing the world in 3d sir. :p

BTW, your attempt to equate ANYTHING I post with anything Kotter posts, or trying to put us in the same category is equally laughable. Even idiotic. Your turn at the insult table bro. Let me know when you are lucid enough to discuss things without insult. Thanks in advance.

Focus and read again. I didn't insult you, compare you to Kotter or defend Jet Blue or the Daily Kos. My only argument is that your attempt to say the two actions are somehow different in a non-semantic way is untenable.

Also beyond the silly emoticon I would be intersted in your attempt to demonstrate that Bill O' Reilly is really some kind of moderate centrist.

Also, FYI, "projection" is when I attempt to assign my own views or feelings to you. I don't hold any of those views on the three items i stated, so it is not projection.

jAZ
07-28-2007, 11:53 AM
I wonder what the reaction would be if an Ultra-Conservative group pressured CNN in the this way. Any liberal defenders here? or can we all agree this type of censorship is bs?

This is how capitalism works. Why do you hate it?

As long as the corporate "news" media continues to operate itself as a for-profit, infotainment operation, they are subject to such pressure... and it's 100% justifiable. Its consumer activism, pure and simple.

HolmeZz
07-28-2007, 11:55 AM
Also beyond the silly emoticon I would be intersted in your attempt to demonstrate that Bill O' Reilly is really some kind of moderate centrist.


Maybe you're not familiar with C4E's posts, but he's a staunch supporter of Fox News. Claims it truly is fair and balanced.

Ultra Peanut
07-28-2007, 11:55 AM
That's retarded. You're retarded.

jAZ
07-28-2007, 11:56 AM
In the example you previously posted, it seems to me that 1) O'Reilly is not targeting a network, 2) Isn't trying to whip up support to close a blog down but simply sending a journalist to a large corporation to ask questions about its support of a bunch of far left wackos, and 3) O'Reilly is not Ultra Conservative. Far right but not wacko right.

BTW, I am not defending Chiefaroo but just pointing out the discrepancy in your argument. JMO.
This is among the most annoying "debate" tactics in the DC. Pointing out completely trivial details of wholely irrelevant distinctions in analogy.

Why waste everyone's time forcing a debate on details that just don't matter?

CHIEF4EVER, you aren't in any way, alone in this. Don't mean to pick on you in particular.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 12:06 PM
I would be intersted in your attempt to demonstrate that Bill O' Reilly is really some kind of moderate centrist.

I never said he was so THAT is a projection on your part sir. You know, the tactic that you vehemently denied using. Thanks for playing. I said he is a right winger but not wacko right. I am surprised someone as educated as yourself can't make that distinction. Let me put it into perspective for you....Nancy Pelosi = left winger, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore = Ultra Left Wing Nutball. Clear enough bro?

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 12:08 PM
Maybe you're not familiar with C4E's posts, but he's a staunch supporter of Fox News. Claims it truly is fair and balanced.

There is a difference between News and Commentary but I wouldn't expect a moron from New England to understand that.

|Zach|
07-28-2007, 12:12 PM
There is a difference between News and Commentary but I wouldn't expect a moron from New England to understand that.
What is your problem today?

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 12:14 PM
What is your problem today?

I donh't have one, how about you Zach? What is YOUR problem today?

HolmeZz
07-28-2007, 12:14 PM
There is a difference between News and Commentary but I wouldn't expect a moron from New England to understand that.

Except that when they're talking about fair and balanced, they're talking about their commentary. That's why their primetime people are shown in those promos.

Their news slogan is "we report, you decide".

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 12:18 PM
Except that when they're talking about fair and balanced, they're talking about their commentary. That's why their primetime people are shown in those promos.

Their news slogan is "we report, you decide".

LMAO

No they are not. Fox News is Fox News. The O'Reilly Factor is opinionated tripe and classified as commentary. BIG difference. Are you trying to tell me Chris Matthews is NEWS? C'mon bro.

Nightwish
07-28-2007, 12:20 PM
I wonder what the reaction would be if an Ultra-Conservative group pressured CNN in the this way. Any liberal defenders here? or can we all agree this type of censorship is bs?"
"
Short answer, it isn't censorship, by any definition that I've ever seen or heard of. It's the 1st Amendment in action. Private citizens, organized, funded, or otherwise, are well within their rights to organize, gather, correspond, and otherwise use the resources at their disposal to try to influence policy-making, whether it is the government or private enterprises they are trying to influence. As long as they are not using any illegal means to do so, they are well within their rights. If it were ultra-conservatives targeting CNN in the same manner, they would be equally within their rights to do so.

From the article, it isn't clear exactly what tactics are being employed in the phone campaign, though I would assume it probably ranges from the perfectly innocuous (such as simply voicing displeasure) to the somewhat more coercive, but still perfectly legal, such as threatening to boycott the advertisers (as Bill O'Reilly did with Jet Blue). Such things don't always work, but sometimes they do, and it is a constitutionally protected practice. If they're illegal tactics, such as bomb threats or threats of violence, that's quite another thing, but I see nothing in the article to suggest anything remotely like that.

banyon
07-28-2007, 12:31 PM
I never said he was so THAT is a projection on your part sir. You know, the tactic that you vehemently denied using. Thanks for playing. I said he is a right winger but not wacko right. I am surprised someone as educated as yourself can't make that distinction. Let me put it into perspective for you....Nancy Pelosi = left winger, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore = Ultra Left Wing Nutball. Clear enough bro?

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection" [1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

banyon
07-28-2007, 01:09 PM
I never said he was so THAT is a projection on your part sir. You know, the tactic that you vehemently denied using. Thanks for playing. I said he is a right winger but not wacko right. I am surprised someone as educated as yourself can't make that distinction. Let me put it into perspective for you....Nancy Pelosi = left winger, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore = Ultra Left Wing Nutball. Clear enough bro?

Your distinction is still irrelevant to ChiefaRoo's assertion that there were not any RW elements doing anything like the Home Depot boycott.
The fact that less nutty Rwers are doing it than Hitler still means that there are plenty of example of the behavior ChiefaRoo was looking for, including the paragraph i quoted in the very same post he made.

Logical
07-28-2007, 02:05 PM
Not defending them as a liberal but everyone has a right not to partake of a product as a form of protest. I defended the conservatives when they did it to that country girl group that blasted Bush in England and I defend the liberals now when they are doing it against Fox network.

Logical
07-28-2007, 02:10 PM
How about I defend it as saying it's a free country where people are allowed to show up and pressure advertisers for any reason they want and advertisers, if they want, can oblige.

Yeah I think that about sums up my defense.:clap:

Logical
07-28-2007, 02:12 PM
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection" [1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection


A lot of people (to go un-named) around here need to read that. It did not hurt me either, though I rarely use the term.

Pitt Gorilla
07-28-2007, 02:17 PM
I'm fine with it. Conservatives boycott stuff all the time. I think it's weird, but more power to them.

Logical
07-28-2007, 02:17 PM
There is a difference between News and Commentary but I wouldn't expect a moron from New England to understand that.Come on even their news anchors are clearly right biased as is most of the news items they select to cover and how they cover it. I like that, why not stand up and admit it.

Logical
07-28-2007, 02:21 PM
I never said he was so THAT is a projection on your part sir. You know, the tactic that you vehemently denied using. Thanks for playing. I said he is a right winger but not wacko right. I am surprised someone as educated as yourself can't make that distinction. Let me put it into perspective for you....Nancy Pelosi = left winger, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore = Ultra Left Wing Nutball. Clear enough bro?Not to discuss your post in general but a specific question.

Why is Cindy Sheehan a Ultra Left Wing Nutball, simply because she has been protesting the Iraq War for several years including camping outside of Bush's ranch? Do you have her other views to show they support that claim?

Baby Lee
07-28-2007, 03:25 PM
To me, there is a difference between the 'chips' calling the boycotters waggling dog-teet crazy and saying that the boycotters are censoring the media.
Are you sitting down?


I was agreeing with you.

go bowe
07-28-2007, 04:01 PM
cindy sheehan?

she's a nutball?

ultra left wing?

oh boy...

any oppostition to the war and those who are running it is now viewed as ultra left?

given the poll numbers, there must be an awful lot of ultra left nutballs out there...

how can you tell if someone is ultra left or just (ordinary) left?

is it the way they walk?

Baby Lee
07-28-2007, 04:07 PM
cindy sheehan?

she's a nutball?

ultra left wing?

oh boy...

any oppostition to the war and those who are running it is now viewed as ultra left?

given the poll numbers, there must be an awful lot of ultra left nutballs out there...

how can you tell if someone is ultra left or just (ordinary) left?

is it the way they walk?
I don't have enough info to say she's actually ultra-left. Her problem she's been co-opted by the ultra-left. The communo-socio-guerilla-Guevera-patchouli-ecoterror-pamphlet printing-protest thriving-knit beanie-garish placard types that throng around her.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 04:59 PM
Come on even their news anchors are clearly right biased as is most of the news items they select to cover and how they cover it. I like that, why not stand up and admit it.

I call BS. ANY controversial issue is discussed by a panel of both lefties and righties. Left wingers hate Fox because it doesn't blow sunshine up their asses 24/7.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 05:04 PM
Not to discuss your post in general but a specific question.

Why is Cindy Sheehan a Ultra Left Wing Nutball, simply because she has been protesting the Iraq War for several years including camping outside of Bush's ranch? Do you have her other views to show they support that claim?

OMG LMAO

Sorry Jim, I found that humorous. You mean other than getting filmed schmoosing with a communist dictator and being part of an organization (Code Pink) that is bat shit crazy? No, she is quite normal. :p

Logical
07-28-2007, 05:34 PM
OMG LMAO

Sorry Jim, I found that humorous. You mean other than getting filmed schmoosing with a communist dictator and being part of an organization (Code Pink) that is bat shit crazy? No, she is quite normal. :p

I believe she tries to associate herself with anyone (a certain communist dictator) or anything (Code Pink) that is associated with her cause of ending the Iraq war.

By the way I went to the Code Pink website http://www.codepink4peace.org/v and I see that it appears to be a womens organization with the goal of world peace in general and against the Iraq occupation specifically. I don't see it as a particularly far left nutjob website.

ChiefaRoo
07-28-2007, 06:03 PM
This is how capitalism works. Why do you hate it?

As long as the corporate "news" media continues to operate itself as a for-profit, infotainment operation, they are subject to such pressure... and it's 100% justifiable. Its consumer activism, pure and simple.

Hmm, good to know your against the fairness doctrine then.

By the way, I don't care about the these guys. They'll have no effect because they are kooks. I just wanted to hear Jiz say he was a capitalist and logically is against the fairness doctrine.

|Zach|
07-28-2007, 06:10 PM
Hmm, good to know your against the fairness doctrine then.

By the way, I don't care about the these guys. They'll have no effect because they are kooks. I just wanted to hear Jiz say he was a capitalist and logically is against the fairness doctrine.
I haven't seen a single person defend that on this board.

Just more of your schtick. You love creating these evil liberal characters. Then you take these fictional people and cast posters on this board to the role. Even when in many many instances it doesn't fit.

I will give you credit though. You at least know about the things you talk about. You can't say that much for C4E.

ChiefaRoo
07-28-2007, 06:12 PM
I haven't seen a single person defend that on this board.

Just more of your schtick. You love creating these evil liberal characters. Then you take these fictional people and cast posters on this board to the role. Even when in many many instances it doesn't fit.

I will give you credit though. You at least know about the things you talk about. You can't say that much for C4E.


Go back to school and learn something.

|Zach|
07-28-2007, 06:14 PM
Go back to school and learn something.
Sorry, I called you out on the fictional crap you push on this board. No reason to get mad at me man.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 06:14 PM
I believe she tries to associate herself with anyone (a certain communist dictator) or anything (Code Pink) that is associated with her cause of ending the Iraq war.

By the way I went to the Code Pink website http://www.codepink4peace.org/v and I see that it appears to be a womens organization with the goal of world peace in general and against the Iraq occupation specifically. I don't see it as a particularly far left nutjob website.

OMG Jim. Have you ever listened to those nuts? They even told sHillary to take a hike because she wasn't radical left enough to suit them. LMAO

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 06:18 PM
I will give you credit though. You at least know about the things you talk about. You can't say that much for C4E.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaaaaaaaaa! So if someone doesn't agree with you they automatically don't know what they are talking about. Ok. I will take that with a grain of salt as it is coming from a college dropout LOSER who has about as much real world experience as my 18 year old son. Except that my son is more intelligent and has more guts.

jAZ
07-28-2007, 06:58 PM
Hmm, good to know your against the fairness doctrine then.
Where does that come from?

I know I didn't say that explicitly... and there's no logical infrence that my statement express a judgement on the Fairness Doctrine either way.

While I think undoing it was a bad idea, I don't see how the fairness doctrine can be undone.

I do think that something needs to be done about the for-profit nature of the news media. The only think I can see that would work, would be requiring. The problem isn't so much that the fairness doctrine went away... as much as corporate pressure for ad revenues have cut into investigative reporting budgets... and an inclination toward the status quo, sensationalism and ratings.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 07:10 PM
While I think undoing it was a bad idea, I don't see how the fairness doctrine can be undone.

jAZ, clarify please? :shrug:

|Zach|
07-28-2007, 07:20 PM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaaaaaaaaa! So if someone doesn't agree with you they automatically don't know what they are talking about. Ok. I will take that with a grain of salt as it is coming from a college dropout LOSER who has about as much real world experience as my 18 year old son. Except that my son is more intelligent and has more guts.
No, people that don't know what they are talking about don't know what they are talking about. The total tonage of people that I disagree with that I have the utmost respect for could stop a team of oxen in their tracks.

Not everyone on this board can spout of using big words just because they are big not knowing how the hell to use them. That whole "projection" things was classic C4E. And it comes as no surprise to anyone that you are a big backer of Fox. You don't like to think. Never have.

|Zach|
07-28-2007, 07:22 PM
When the news isn't what you want it to be? Flip the party.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/24/184250/101

This is the same crew that had 8 "news" segments based on an article that was a parody by the onion.

And then...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/docs/fox-memo/memo4.jpg

Logical
07-28-2007, 07:34 PM
OMG Jim. Have you ever listened to those nuts? They even told sHillary to take a hike because she wasn't radical left enough to suit them. LMAOYou realize that Hillary is closer to a centrist than someone being far left don't you? By the way the ROFL smilie really does not make your point for you, some real information from their website illustrating your point would be much more substantial.

I am open to believing you, but I am looking for evidence.

ChiefaRoo
07-28-2007, 07:39 PM
You realize that Hillary is closer to a centrist than someone being far left don't you? By the way the ROFL smilie really does not make your point for you, some real information from their website illustrating your point would be much more substantial.

I am open to believing you, but I am looking for evidence.

Hillary is not a centrist. She's a chameleon who if she gains power will show her socialist tendencies by trying to regulate, tax and nationalize as much of the American economy as she can. She'd be a disaster for the economy.

mlyonsd
07-28-2007, 07:39 PM
Moveon is just playing into Fox's hands in case any of you missed it.

While calling for a boycott plays to the far left, or what I like to think of as 'sheep liberals', moderates and independents will view it as a WTF? move.

The far left lives on hate and in this point of the election cycle it is a stupid move, IMO.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 07:45 PM
No, people that don't know what they are talking about don't know what they are talking about. The total tonnage of people that I disagree with that I have the utmost respect for could stop a team of oxen in their tracks.

Not everyone on this board can spout off using big words just because they are big not knowing how the hell to use them. That whole "projection" things was classic C4E. And it comes as no surprise to anyone that you are a big backer of Fox. You don't like to think. Never have.
Coming from a loser like yourself I will take your criticism as a compliment. BTW, I am not a 'big backer' of FOX which is a concept you are trying to shoehorn me into. I simply defend their NEWS reporting as being just as fair as any other network, to the chagrin of liberal morons like yourself.

P.S. Try getting the little words right before telling someone more intelligent than you how to use big ones. I understand you don't think well.....never have.

Logical
07-28-2007, 07:58 PM
Coming from a loser like yourself I will take your criticism as a compliment. BTW, I am not a 'big backer' of FOX which is a concept you are trying to shoehorn me into. I simply defend their NEWS reporting as being just as fair as any other network, to the chagrin of liberal morons like yourself.

....See now that is not what you said before. I would agree with that statement in bold they are just as fair as CNN, MSNBC, just tilting right instead of left.

Oh one other thing Zack is a centrist, not a liberal moron.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 08:06 PM
See now that is not what you said before. I would agree with that statement in bold they are just as fair as CNN, MSNBC, just tilting right instead of left.
I didn't say that in detail but the inference was easily understood in my previous posts. I was discussing NEWS not COMMENTARY.

Oh one other thing Zack is a centrist, not a liberal moron.
Until that immature bastard decides he wants to debate without his typical insulting and/or seagull posts, I prefer not to even discuss his loser ass. I can't stand that f*ck.

|Zach|
07-28-2007, 08:16 PM
See now that is not what you said before. I would agree with that statement in bold they are just as fair as CNN, MSNBC, just tilting right instead of left.

Oh one other thing Zack is a centrist, not a liberal moron.
From his perspective I am prob am a huge liberal. Anyone who believes in science is left of C4E.

Logical
07-28-2007, 08:17 PM
...

Until that immature bastard decides he wants to debate without his typical insulting and/or seagull posts, I prefer not to even discuss his loser ass. I can't stand that f*ck.You calling him an immature bastard does nothing to raise the color of discourse between the two of you.

|Zach|
07-28-2007, 08:20 PM
You calling him an immature bastard does nothing to raise the color of discourse between the two of you.
He is very fringe and his opinion in the discourse of our nation is marginalized quickly.

Why would C4E expect honest talk from anyone...a reasonable post was responded too in this manner right off the bat. He is talking to me like he is above it. Nice.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4102415&postcount=21

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 09:10 PM
You calling him an immature bastard does nothing to raise the color of discourse between the two of you.

True. I don't really want to discuss anything with that idiot. Especially when said idiot is moronic enough to believe something like this:

Anyone who believes in science is left of C4E.

Jim, I could probably teach him a course in any of the sciences but he is too stupid to retain it as evidenced by his failure in college. F*ck him.

Logical
07-28-2007, 09:17 PM
OK, then I evidently failed in my efforts at a Peace Accord. Let the entertainment continue.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 09:27 PM
OK, then I evidently failed in my efforts at a Peace Accord. Let the entertainment continue.

No problem Jim. I'll just put him on iggy for a month or so. That way the discussion can return to being on topic and not on our (his and mine) juvenile bickering.

Nightwish
07-28-2007, 09:33 PM
I simply defend their NEWS reporting as being just as fair as any other network, to the chagrin of liberal morons like yourself.

I would take that to mean no more and no less biased than any other major network. And I would generally agree with that. Only problem is, none of those other networds that FOX is just as biased as bill themselves as being "fair and balanced." They don't try to snow their viewers under a facade of fake objectivity. If their slogan was "no worse than the other guys," that would be an honest appraisal. "Fair and balanced" is not.

Nightwish
07-28-2007, 09:39 PM
Hillary is not a centrist. She's a chameleon who if she gains power will show her socialist tendencies by trying to regulate, tax and nationalize as much of the American economy as she can. She'd be a disaster for the economy.
Did you glean that from wishful thinking, or do you have a crystal ball on hand?

|Zach|
07-28-2007, 10:13 PM
I wonder what his degree is in.

ClevelandBronco
07-28-2007, 10:42 PM
Short answer, it isn't censorship, by any definition that I've ever seen or heard of. It's the 1st Amendment in action. Private citizens, organized, funded, or otherwise, are well within their rights to organize, gather, correspond, and otherwise use the resources at their disposal to try to influence policy-making, whether it is the government or private enterprises they are trying to influence. As long as they are not using any illegal means to do so, they are well within their rights. If it were ultra-conservatives targeting CNN in the same manner, they would be equally within their rights to do so.

From the article, it isn't clear exactly what tactics are being employed in the phone campaign, though I would assume it probably ranges from the perfectly innocuous (such as simply voicing displeasure) to the somewhat more coercive, but still perfectly legal, such as threatening to boycott the advertisers (as Bill O'Reilly did with Jet Blue). Such things don't always work, but sometimes they do, and it is a constitutionally protected practice. If they're illegal tactics, such as bomb threats or threats of violence, that's quite another thing, but I see nothing in the article to suggest anything remotely like that.

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

Logical
07-28-2007, 10:45 PM
I wonder what his degree is in.

If you mean C4E I don't know, but I would guess he might have religious studies based degree.

ChiefaRoo
07-28-2007, 10:55 PM
Did you glean that from wishful thinking, or do you have a crystal ball on hand?

I watched her try to nationalize 1/7th of the US economy the first time she tried doing it early on in Bill's administration before the public outrage beat her down. Further, she was a committed leftist activist in college. What more do you guys need to know? Are you retarded?

go bowe
07-28-2007, 11:15 PM
I don't have enough info to say she's actually ultra-left. Her problem she's been co-opted by the ultra-left. The communo-socio-guerilla-Guevera-patchouli-ecoterror-pamphlet printing-protest thriving-knit beanie-garish placard types that throng around her.thong?

i just can't imagine ms. sheehan in a thong...

i mean, have you seen her?

Logical
07-28-2007, 11:15 PM
I watched her try to nationalize 1/7th of the US economy the first time she tried doing it early on in Bill's administration before the public outrage beat her down. Further, she was a committed leftist activist in college. What more do you guys need to know? Are you retarded?

Just out of curiousity how do you come up with 1/7th of the national economy? I doubt National Health care is that big fraction.

go bowe
07-28-2007, 11:19 PM
No problem Jim. I'll just put him on iggy for a month or so. That way the discussion can return to being on topic and not on our (his and mine) juvenile bickering.hold on now...

juvenile bickering can be quite entertaining at times...

and you guys are so good at it, too... :Poke:

ClevelandBronco
07-28-2007, 11:22 PM
I watched her try to nationalize 1/7th of the US economy the first time she tried doing it early on in Bill's administration before the public outrage beat her down. Further, she was a committed leftist activist in college. What more do you guys need to know? Are you retarded?

JefeRoo, I was a committed leftist in college (although no one could accuse me of being much of an activist about anything back then, except for being active about all kinds of indulgences that I'll likely never discuss in a public forum). People change.

I'd venture a guess that Hillary's values haven't matured much since she was a teenager, although her tactics have become more polished. IMO, I think we'd gain more ground discussing her more recent record and her pitiable lack of qualification for the office.

CHIEF4EVER
07-28-2007, 11:29 PM
hold on now...

juvenile bickering can be quite entertaining at times...

and you guys are so good at it, too... :Poke:

Ouch. LMAO

Pitt Gorilla
07-28-2007, 11:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uQ9W4K

Is that Servo?!?

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2007, 12:20 AM
Just out of curiousity how do you come up with 1/7th of the national economy? I doubt National Health care is that big fraction.

To be honest with you I remember hearing it in 1993 while listening to Limbaugh quote it from some source. So if you want to pretend he made it up go ahead.

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2007, 12:24 AM
JefeRoo, I was a committed leftist in college (although no one could accuse me of being much of an activist about anything back then, except for being active about all kinds of indulgences that I'll likely never discuss in a public forum). People change.

I'd venture a guess that Hillary's values haven't matured much since she was a teenager, although her tactics have become more polished. IMO, I think we'd gain more ground discussing her more recent record and her pitiable lack of qualification for the office.

Ok. However, I can't think of anything except that she was overheard by a Republican Senator recently saying she wanted to bring back the Fairness Doctrine while talking to Barbara Boxer from Cali. I think her public face is like a chameleon. She simply will say and do anything. Once in power that'll all be out the window and she'll show her true leftist colors.

Logical
07-29-2007, 12:25 AM
To be honest with you I remember hearing it in 1993 while listening to Limbaugh quote it from some source. So if you want to pretend he made it up go ahead.

Nah, why don't you find some sort of support for it. I did not say you were wrong, I said I doubted National Healthcare could account for it. By the way I would not want to stake anything I was saying based on Rush Limbaugh.

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2007, 12:34 AM
Nah, why don't you find some sort of support for it. I did not say you were wrong, I said I doubted National Healthcare could account for it. By the way I would not want to stake anything I was saying based on Rush Limbaugh.


I used to travel by car for work a lot. When I heard it I was somewhere in TN and he did quote a source from The Heritage Foundation or the GAO but it's been too long for me to remember. Obviously the economy has grown a great deal since 1993 and I don't know if a 2007 comparison is still valid. Regardless healthcare is a huge part of all our lives at some pont. I think to nationalize it would be like having FEMA run it. It would ruin it. It's simple, if you guarantee the "right" of universal healthcare to the individual that doesn't mean anything unless you "get" said healthcare. If the profit motive is greatly reduced then people with the excellent skillsets and brainpower in that field will go and do something else. Whether it's a top notch Doc. or a top notch Medical Scientist. We don't want to kill the Golden Goose of medical advancement. That being said the poorest amongst us should have some form of good healthcare. As others have said here previously we already have it in that people with nothing simply go to the E-Room for medical help. I'm sure we can improve the system eventhough it's got a lot of ethical and morale issues that have to be addressed.

ClevelandBronco
07-29-2007, 12:38 AM
Ok. However, I can't think of anything except that she was overheard by a Republican Senator recently saying she wanted to bring back the Fairness Doctrine while talking to Barbara Boxer from Cali. I think her public face is like a chameleon. She simply will say and do anything. Once in power that'll all be out the window and she'll show her true leftist colors.

Hey, I think you're right. Hillary's a European-style socialist who will say whatever she needs to say now to get enough of the leftist base behind her to give her the chance at the nomination. Then, she'll try to move to the center to get the votes that could put her in office.

Personally, I don't think she has enough range to pull it off, but I've been surprised before.

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2007, 12:48 AM
Hey, I think you're right. Hillary's a European-style socialist who will say whatever she needs to say now to get enough of the leftist base behind her to give her the chance at the nomination. Then, she'll try to move to the center to get the votes that could put her in office.

Personally, I don't think she has enough range to pull it off, but I've been surprised before.


I think you're right but the Republicans are going to have to nominate a strong ticket and run a great grass roots organization to try and swing Wisconsin, Ohio and Fla. while holding onto the rest of the South and the West/Midwest.

I think they win if they make the following key points

1) New course in Iraq, but not a bailout
2) Border security first after that is proven to work streamline immigration and temporary worker visa programs -
3) Bigger Military - Less rotations
4) No tax increases
5) Healthcare reform without nationalization of the entire thing
6) American foreign policy outreach - run away from Bush's record without trashing him directly. Take a more Ronald Reagan approach to attacking our enemies.
7) Appoint Constructionist Judges, no legislation from the bench


Right now without having all the facts I like Thompson for Pres./Giuliani as VP.

Nightwish
07-29-2007, 11:23 AM
I watched her try to nationalize 1/7th of the US economy the first time she tried doing it early on in Bill's administration before the public outrage beat her down.
For one thing, it wasn't "the public outrage" that beat her down, it was Congress, which hasn't adequately reflected the will of the American people in decades. "The public outrage," such as it were, was largely ignored and unheard, just as the many voices who supported the measures went equally unheard. Congress does what they want, you should know that by now. Furthermore, not all of her efforts were beaten down, some of it did pass, for good or ill (HMO's, anyone?).

Further, she was a committed leftist activist in college.
Dude, have you ever been to college? It should take on the Vegas slogan, "What happens here, stays here." Everyone and their brother is a "leftist activist" in college. It doesn't mean much.

What more do you guys need to know?
Quite a bit more, actually. You said she was going to try to regulate, tax and nationalize as much of the US economy as possible, but only pointed toward her attempts to nationalize health care. When and where did health care evolve into "as much of the US economy as possible?"

Are you retarded?
No, but I strongly suspect that's what it will take to understand your paranoid logic on this matter.

Nightwish
07-29-2007, 11:25 AM
She simply will say and do anything. Once in power that'll all be out the window and she'll show her true leftist colors.You wasted a lot of unnecessary words saying all this. You could have stated the idea much simpler by simply saying, "She's a politician." What you said applies to every damn one of them, Republican, Democrat, Green, Independent, Libertarian, or otherwise. When it comes right down to it, I suspect that it isn't the chameleonic nature of Hillary Clinton (and all the rest) that bothers you, it is the notion that the liar that gets into office isn't going to be the liar whose true colors match yours.

BCD
07-29-2007, 12:07 PM
Jesus H. Christ! Whatever happend to, "If you don't like it," "Don't watch it?" ****ing lunatic fringe!

go bowe
07-29-2007, 01:00 PM
i might be the lunatic you're looking for... /billy joel

Pitt Gorilla
07-29-2007, 11:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uQ9W4K

Is that Servo?!?
Seriously, is that Tom Servo?!?