[mojo2]

ARRRGGGGHHH!!! A Fox News caption: "Worse Then 9/11?"

I just saw it. Shoot someone until they learn the difference between THEN and THAN!!!!!!!!


ARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

ARRRGGGGHHH!!! A Fox News caption: "Worse Then 9/11?"

I just saw it. Shoot someone until they learn the difference between THEN and THAN!!!!!!!!


ARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!

That's your only problem with this caption?

[ghporter]

It's FOX NEWS...They certainly aren't to be taken seriously. They are tabloid through and through, and their whole point is to get people's blood up. If you get mad about something they put on the screen, THEY WIN. Don't let them. Watch the Weather Channel or something-you can still get Katrina news there.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by ghporter

If you get mad about something they put on the screen, THEY WIN. Don't let them.

That's funny. That just about describes why I don't watch any leftist media channels.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by ghporter

It's FOX NEWS...They certainly aren't to be taken seriously. They are tabloid through and through, ...

Methinks that if one of our resident lefties™ had written that sentence above, this thread would contain 40+ posts by now ... should be interesting to see how this shapes up.



Turtle, hand me the popcorn, will ya?

[budster101]

Same here. <cough>Dan I'm a lying swine-pig-dog Rather</cough>

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

Same here. <cough>Dan I'm a lying swine-pig-dog Rather</cough>

Wow.. you certainly have a flair for the dramatic, don't you? I might have gone with "negligent journalist", or perhaps "disingenuous journalist". You like to aim for the bleachers don't you?

At least you're not accusing others of wearing their emotions on their sleeves.

[budster101]

That was a humorous jab in a thread that really has no basis in seriousness. You wish to make it so with a personal attack on myself? Like you did on Salty in his thread by calling him a dumbass?

You are just knee deep in the bleachers yourself.

Edit: And though I wrote "swine-pig-dog" you understood that I meant "disingenuous" or that other two-dollar word that 'smart' people like to use, because they are just so much better than us bleacher-bumbs.

Guess what? This bleacher-bumb got his M.Ed. with a 4.0 GPA, I just don't feel the need to take it out for a walk all the time, and I like to write like I think at times instead of feeding the dialogue through the 'elite-translator'. I didn't know I was being graded on this stuff... by someone that obviously doesn't matter to me in my life. Good luck with that. You are going to win a lot of friends in here by correcting everyone's English.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

ARRRGGGGHHH!!! A Fox News caption: "Worse Then 9/11?"

I just saw it. Shoot someone until they learn the difference between THEN and THAN!!!!!!!!


ARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!

ummm ... it meets my expectations of Fox News ...

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by PacHead

That's funny. That just about describes why I don't watch any leftist media channels.

Oh, OK.

[Artful Dodger]

I like foxes

they are furry

[d4nth3m4n]

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ghporter

It's FOX NEWS...They certainly aren't to be taken seriously. They are tabloid through and through, and their whole point is to get people's blood up. If you get mad about something they put on the screen, THEY WIN. Don't let them. Watch the Weather Channel or something-you can still get Katrina news there.

Feeling a bit provocative, eh? Hahahaha!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by effgee

Methinks that if one of our resident lefties™ had written that sentence above, this thread would contain 40+ posts by now ... should be interesting to see how this shapes up.



Turtle, hand me the popcorn, will ya?

Who, in their right mind, will go at it with a mod??

Be serious.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

That was a humorous jab in a thread that really has no basis in seriousness. You wish to make it so with a personal attack on myself? Like you did on Salty in his thread by calling him a dumbass?

You are just knee deep in the bleachers yourself.

Edit: And though I wrote "swine-pig-dog" you understood that I meant "disingenuous" or that other two-dollar word that 'smart' people like to use, because they are just so much better than us bleacher-bumbs.

Guess what? This bleacher-bumb got his M.Ed. with a 4.0 GPA, I just don't feel the need to take it out for a walk all the time, and I like to write like I think at times instead of feeding the dialogue through the 'elite-translator'. I didn't know I was being graded on this stuff... by someone that obviously doesn't matter to me in my life. Good luck with that. You are going to win a lot of friends in here by correcting everyone's English.

I'm sorry that I couldn't tell you were making a humorous jab. You seem to frequently throw out provocative, knee-jerk-type statements, so I thought this was more of the same.

"Disingenuous" is not a terribly unusual or highfalutin word, and sorry, I don't believe in dumbing down my vocabulary to benefit others. In general, I feel that people need to challenge themselves by aiming to sound as intelligent as possible, and becoming comfortable with speaking and writing articulately. Too many people are lazy in this regard, I have no desire to go this route (not that I think my writing is superb or that I'm a model of any sort).

I'm happy that you have some book smarts and managed to score a 4.0 GPA. Why not try to apply your knowledge as much as you can?

P.S. what is a bumb?

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm sorry that I couldn't tell you were making a humorous jab. You seem to frequently throw out provocative, knee-jerk-type statements, so I thought this was more of the same.

"Disingenuous" is not a terribly unusual or highfalutin word, and sorry, I don't believe in dumbing down my vocabulary to benefit others. In general, I feel that people need to challenge themselves by aiming to sound as intelligent as possible, and becoming comfortable with speaking and writing articulately. Too many people are lazy in this regard, I have no desire to go this route (not that I think my writing is superb or that I'm a model of any sort).

I'm happy that you have some book smarts and managed to score a 4.0 GPA. Why not try to apply your knowledge as much as you can?

P.S. what is a bumb?

Come on Besson! You put me in my place a few weeks ago and you were right, but don't let that get to your head.

Budster's initial comment wasn't that bad. It certainly doesn't justify the personal criticisms that have ensued. Please stop...it will make you happy later.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

ummm ... it meets my expectations of Fox News ...

The only reason it was worth a thread is because they are USUALLY excellent in ALL things.

Also, since when have you even had the ability to view Fox News living where you do?

And, if you don't watch it because of location and you don't watch it because of it's point of view, which you disagree with, then tell us all how you'd even be in the position to have expectations of Fox News other than those from the point of view of someone who just parrots whatever they hear other people saying (most of which probably don't know first hand or are just ignoramii)?

Busted?

[besson3c]

Budster: I'm sorry for over-reacting. Seriously.

I do have a hard time backing down too, it's my only flaw! It was wrong of me to keep bickering, and not back down. Perhaps I'm still slightly annoyed at you from the other thread, but I suppose a better course of action would have been to ignore you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

Come on Besson! You put me in my place a few weeks ago and you were right, but don't let that get to your head.

I did? Over what? I don't remember...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The only reason it was worth a thread is because they are USUALLY excellent in ALL things.

Also, since when have you even had the ability to view Fox News living where you do?

And, if you don't watch it because of location and you don't watch it because of it's point of view, which you disagree with, then tell us all how you'd even be in the position to have expectations of Fox News other than those from the point of view of someone who just parrots whatever they hear other people saying (most of which probably don't know first hand or are just ignoramii)?

Busted?

Do you really want to get into why Fox is sensationalist, infotainment, and all of these other arguments which I'm sure have been discussed in countless threads? If so, can any of us respond?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Budster: I'm sorry for over-reacting. Seriously.

I do have a hard time backing down too, it's my only flaw! It was wrong of me to keep bickering, and not back down. Perhaps I'm still slightly annoyed at you from the other thread, but I suppose a better course of action would have been to ignore you.

You have to develop a thicker skin.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You have to develop a thicker skin.

No, what I really need and desire is to understand both of you. Seriously, you are both very mysterious and fascinating to me. I really don't "get" either of you, and I don't mean this in a bad way, nor am I saying this because we disagree on things.

[olePigeon]

I only get my news from The Daily Show.

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I only get my news from The Daily Show.

They have news now?

[Link]

IBL.

Seriously, these threads are headed right for hell.

[Millennium]

I don't know. Fox News captions are usually pretty bad, but are they really worse than 9/11?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I only get my news from The Daily Show.

You COULD do worse, I suppose. Jon Stewart is good. Liberal but not wacko. But always funny.

[mojo2]

ooops

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

No, what I really need and desire is to understand both of you. Seriously, you are both very mysterious and fascinating to me. I really don't "get" either of you, and I don't mean this in a bad way, nor am I saying this because we disagree on things.

I find I disagree less with you than I do with your 'Mentally-mini-you' clone.

No, don't bother to deny someone else uses your sig. I'll just withdraw (HA!) my statement.

[ghporter]

First off, my politics are "eclectic" and I'll leave that to the audience to figure out (or not). I do however value REAL journalism, whatever the politics of the journalist, so I tend to gather my information from a variety of sources including CNN, NPR, The New York Times, and so on, as well as some particularly conservative sources. Compared to any of the real journalists I follow or look to, Fox News rates between silt and basalt. Sensationalism is no replacement for real analysis, and feeding people who haven't yet learned to think beyond "black" and "white" more black and white information does them no good. In fact, it tends to reinforce prejudices and ignorant concepts. People need SMART people to tell them WHY something is happening so they can understand what else is going on. Fox just doesn't provide that.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by ghporter

People need SMART people to tell them WHY something is happening so they can understand what else is going on. Fox just doesn't provide that.

This European in this thread made a false statement based upon having watched the smart people at CNN all evening, the only American channel he gets in.

(towards the bottom of the page - from fhoubi)
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=268337&page=2

NPR offers very biased reporting, especially when it comes to international news. The new york times is a scandalous propaganda rag. Those sources you claim you're found of aren't all the great really.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Also, since when have you even had the ability to view Fox News living where you do?

And, if you don't watch it because of location and you don't watch it because of it's point of view, which you disagree with, then tell us all how you'd even be in the position to have expectations of Fox News other than those from the point of view of someone who just parrots whatever they hear other people saying (most of which probably don't know first hand or are just ignoramii)?

Busted?

Ever hear of DirecTV? The signals don't stop at the Canada/US border ... fascinating thing, electromagnetic radiation; gets right past those border guards.

[budster101]

Most of my so-called provocative statements are made with tongue in my cheeky. I like being cheeky on the internet... I'm drunk right now, and a cheeky-monkey most of the time.

I mean no foul most of the time, except when my country is inslutted... (purposeful mispelling).

Lata'

[historylme]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I don't know. Fox News captions are usually pretty bad, but are they really worse than 9/11?

That was funny, actually very creative/thoughtful funny.

[tracemhunter]

i dont like how the news of any sort uses the same clips i saw earlier in the day. i live in dallas and as some of you know all those people are flocking here and fort worth. fox news has been bugging me all day. they dont put any regular programming on. sick of hearing aobut this ****.

[greenamp]

Well, to be fair the N.O crisis is worse than 9/11 in terms of damage done ( 1 building vs an entire city destroyed ), and most likely when the fog clears the death toll will equal or surpass that of 9/11.

Now why hasn't this situation recieved as much attention from the American public as 9/11 did? That will be a topic up for debate for many years to come.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by greenamp

( 1 building vs an entire city destroyed )

Just a small nitpick. 9-11 was of course a lot more than just 1 building destroyed. Besides the two towers, multiple buildings in New York were completely destroyed, not to mention the other places that got hit like the pentagon.

The situation in New Orleans is bad, but it's not the same thing as 9-11. One is an act of nature and the other is an act of evil, depraved people.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Just a small nitpick. 9-11 was of course a lot more than just 1 building destroyed. Besides the two towers, multiple buildings in New York were completely destroyed, not to mention the other places that got hit like the pentagon.

Yeah I thought of that after I posted but was too lazy to edit, lol.
Even still, the damage from 9/11 is dwarf in comparison to the damage to N.O. And I have a bad feeling once it's all over and counted the death toll in N.O will surpass that of 9/11 ( but I really hope I'm wrong )

The situation in New Orleans is bad, but it's not the same thing as 9-11. One is an act of nature and the other is an act of evil, depraved people.

Right, but why should the emergency response be any different?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PacHead

One is an act of nature and the other is an act of evil, depraved people.

True, but outside of retaliation, the cost of Katrina both in dollars and human life, will likely be much higher than the costs of 9/11. Katrina won't likely result in the same kind of paradigm shift as 9/11, though it probably should.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Right, but why should the emergency response be any different?

And it shouldn't of course. The area effected is so large though, that obviously it will take time to reach all areas and the thugs aren't helping the situation much either.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Katrina won't likely result in the same kind of paradigm shift as 9/11, though it probably should.

Of course it won't. Katrina isn't the first hurricane to hit the US and it certainly won't be the last.
You can't prevent hurricanes, you can fight and kill terrorists.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by PacHead

And it shouldn't of course. The area effected is so large though, that obviously it will take time to reach all areas and the thugs aren't helping the situation much either.

Yeah.

I guess I just wonder that if the images we have been seeing in N.O were that of middle class white people, would the response be any different?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PacHead

This European in this thread made a false statement based upon having watched the smart people at CNN all evening, the only American channel he gets in.

(towards the bottom of the page - from fhoubi)
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=268337&page=2

NPR offers very biased reporting, especially when it comes to international news. The new york times is a scandalous propaganda rag. Those sources you claim you're found of aren't all the great really.

CNN seems to be a little sensational too, but I take exception to your complaints of the NYTimes. I work around literally dozens of journalists and aspiring journalists, and I can assure you that the NYTimes is still one of the most highly respected and admired publications. You may not agree with the columnists you contribute editorials to the newspaper, but it is still a highly regarded paper based on its integrity and credibility.

You are clearly pretty far Right, and that's cool, but all I ask is that you recognize that a publication isn't a poor model within the field of journalism just because you disagree with an article here or there, or even every single editorial. There are a lot of smart and admired journalists working at the NYT, there is a lot of solid "meat" within that publication.

I'm wondering, what do *you* consider a good source of journalism?

[greenamp]

I have actually been kinda impressed with MSNBC lately ( go ahead and flog me )

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PacHead

You can't prevent hurricanes, you can fight and kill terrorists.

You are right. Hurricanes can't be prevented, though it's possible that they can be prevented from becoming more powerful in the future.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm wondering, what do *you* consider a good source of journalism?

To be honest, I think all media has their biases including Fox. I just find it ridiculous when people constantly rant about FOX, when the others are not any less biased at all. I get my information from a whole bunch of sources, which is what I assume many people do, especially those who are often on the net. I'll read links from google news linking to some random news site. I even read articles from the New York Times, even though I find them to be very politically biased. The best way to get news is to read many sources and draw your own conclusions, at least that's what I do. I read European news, I'm multilingual and also read non-english news sources. I happen to like FOX and I consider myself extremely informed.



And also, I'm not extremely to the right. There was some quiz in the PL lounge awhile back, and I took it. The results said I was slightly right of center. I was even to the left on certain issues.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PacHead

To be honest, I think all media has their biases including Fox. I just find it ridiculous when people constantly rant about FOX, when the others are not any less biased at all. I get my information from a whole bunch of sources, which is what I assume many people do, especially those who are often on the net. I'll read links from google news linking to some random news site. I even read articles from the New York Times, even though I find them to be very politically biased. The best way to get news is to read many sources and draw your own conclusions, at least that's what I do. I read European news, I'm multilingual and also read non-english news sources. I happen to like FOX and I consider myself extremely informed.

I agree that every source has its bias, journalists are telling the story they want to tell. The distinction, IMHO, is in the honesty of the arguments being made, so at least the story isn't being presented in pure black and white, and by doing so manipulating the reader.

The NYT tells their stories too, but I just had a problem with you blowing off the entire publication as being worthless (at least, this is how it seemed).

One thing I remember discussing in a political science class that I took was how people naturally tune out the stories they don't want to hear, and pay more attention reading the ones they do want to hear/read. I certainly catch myself doing this, I wonder if it isn't unavoidable.

What do you think... honestly, off the stricken record, do you find yourself reading more Right-wing stuff than you do moderate or Left-wing stuff? Do you find yourself reinforcing your current beliefs more than challenging them?

I ask this to anybody else here too, if you care to answer.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PacHead

And also, I'm not extremely to the right. There was some quiz in the PL lounge awhile back, and I took it. The results said I was slightly right of center. I was even to the left on certain issues.

Forgot to respond to this part: I don't recall seeing passionate threads or posts of yours defending religion, or any of the social policies of the Right/Christian Right.

Without going into gory details, I'm just curious, do you break with the Right on some of these issues? Is this where you are not far right?

Again, just curious, I hope you don't mind the personal questions.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What do you think... honestly, off the stricken record, do you find yourself reading more Right-wing stuff than you do moderate or Left-wing stuff? Do you find yourself reinforcing your current beliefs more than challenging them?

Well, if I visit any leftwing blogs for example, it is only for pure entertainment value. A good example is democratic underground or dailykos. The more I read those sort of sites, the more I dislike those sorts of people. Littlegreenfootballs is more my style.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Forgot to respond to this part: I don't recall seeing passionate threads or posts of yours defending religion, or any of the social policies of the Right/Christian Right.

Without going into gory details, I'm just curious, do you break with the Right on some of these issues? Is this where you are not far right?

Again, just curious, I hope you don't mind the personal questions.

I'm not religious at all. I'm just an artist that enjoys to smoke weed and wishes to see dead terrorists. So I share something in common with both the anti-war hippies and the warmongerers.