# More proof that Fox News is a government sponsored propaganda machine...



## BigDyl (Apr 28, 2006)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/whitehouse.fox/index.html


----------



## Big Smoothy (Apr 28, 2006)

Fox is pretty bad.....worse than CNN....and CNN is one of the worst news reporting outlets I've ever seen.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2006)

Even more shocking is that somebody cares.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 28, 2006)

All major news outlets are tools for one organization or another.  Not to mention a slave to the almighty buck.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 28, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Even more shocking is that somebody cares.


Yeah, but it's BigDyl and he doesn't count.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 28, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> All major news outlets are tools for one organization or another.  Not to mention a slave to the almighty buck.




True Story, which is why Fox News is your media source of choice.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 28, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, which is why Fox News is your media source of choice.


I don't watch TV. TV will rot your brain.  You'll end up on some Internet forum writing things like "True Story" and "How did you know that."


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 28, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I don't watch TV. TV will rot your brain.  You'll end up on some Internet forum writing things like "True Story" and "How did you know that."




Untrue Story.


----------



## SuppAddict (Apr 28, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Even more shocking is that somebody cares.



Yeah. who cares what news station they watch? Really..its all the same boring garbage every day. 

are they gonna have a meeting and a big vote on what channel to watch?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> TV will rot your brain.



I used to like you.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 28, 2006)

SuppAddict said:
			
		

> Yeah. who cares what news station they watch? Really..its all the same boring garbage every day.
> 
> are they gonna have a meeting and a big vote on what channel to watch?




You didn't read the article...noob.


----------



## SuppAddict (Apr 28, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> You didn't read the article...noob.



i did read it

some guy wanted cnn on, someone else supposedly said nope, it has to stay on fox, while some other guy denies it all

typical government bs--he said, she said, better yet, deny everything


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2006)

I bet GW watches American Idol.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

I think its funny how liberals hate Fox News so much.  

"Damn you Fox News!!!  How dare you not pander to us, like every other media outlet in the entire nation does!!!!  How dare you give opposing view points!!!"


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2006)

I've never watched it, are there hot chicks on it?

News is boring, that's what papers are for.  TV is for relaxation.


----------



## nsimmons (Apr 28, 2006)

Stick with headline news theres no time for opinion, plus robin meade is smokin hot!!

Tuesday and krystie paul was on instead, man was i pissed!

http://www.gogomag.com/cgi-bin/tvheads_viewer.pl?tvheads68187&68187&Robin


----------



## KelJu (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I think its funny how liberals hate Fox News so much.
> 
> "Damn you Fox News!!!  How dare you not pander to us, like every other media outlet in the entire nation does!!!!  How dare you give opposing view points!!!"



I am not a liberal, and I hate Fox news. I can't stand any of their news talk personalities. On AM radio, Sean Hannity will take a call, and the caller will say I love your show Sean you???re a true patriot, then Sean will reply thank you sir you???re a great American. This goes on every fucking 5 minutes for the entire length of his show. It has replaced, "hello, how are you doing?" with "your great American", "no, you???re a great American????We all are great Americans, can I suck your dick some more?"
I can't handle that shit.
Lora Ingram continues to defend Bush, even on matters for which both Liberals and Conservatives agree on that Bush fucked up big time.
Bill O'Reilly thanks there is a war on Christians. He was stupid enough to go on somebody else's show for a change, and let Letterman of all people make him look like a dumbass. 
Conservatives are just as full of shit as liberals.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

O'Reilly is an asshole, but he is fun to watch sometimes.  

There are definitely assholes in both parties, I just think its funny how liberals hate an opposing opinion.  The media is overwhelmingly liberal, the conservative viewpoint gets essentially one outlet and liberals still bitch about it.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> O'Reilly is an asshole, but he is fun to watch sometimes.
> 
> I just think its funny how liberals hate an opposing opinion.




Most people hate an opposing viewpoint, especially politicians..


----------



## KelJu (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> O'Reilly is an asshole, but he is fun to watch sometimes.
> 
> There are definitely assholes in both parties, I just think its funny how liberals hate an opposing opinion.  The media is overwhelmingly liberal, the conservative viewpoint gets essentially one outlet and liberals still bitch about it.




Conservative news gets all of the highest ratings. The liberal outlets do not get half of the amount of ratings that the conservative outlets do. Conservatives hate opposing views just as much as liberals. I will give you this, radical liberals are crybabies, and I can't stand that shit either.  
I have to listen to NPR our foreign news to get any fair reporting, because every news outlet in the US either leans to the left or the right, which really fucks those of us in the middle.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2006)

KelJu said:
			
		

> Conservative news gets all of the highest ratings. The liberal outlets do not get half of the amount of ratings that the conservative outlets do.




That makes sense, there is competition in the liberal news market, and none in the GOP news market.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

If Fox gets a higher rating than other media outlets, it might be because that is the only News that advocates the view points of half of America.  Anyone with a conservative viewpoint (more than half the country) would be more likely to watch Fox, where as the other half of the country would be spread out over several channels that advocate liberal viewpoints.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I think its funny how liberals hate Fox News so much.
> 
> "Damn you Fox News!!!  How dare you not pander to us, like every other media outlet in the entire nation does!!!!  How dare you give opposing view points!!!"




And I think it's funny how "conservatives" actually believe that Faux News is reflective of any level of ethical commitment to the profession, or that it really airs "opposing viewpoints." 

Your concept of the "liberal" media is nothing but a cliche marketed by "conservatives" who believe that a middle-school temper tantrum qualifies as an "opposing viewpoint."


----------



## KelJu (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> If Fox gets a higher rating than other media outlets, it might be because that is the only News that advocates the view points of half of America.  Anyone with a conservative viewpoint (more than half the country) would be more likely to watch Fox, where as the other half of the country would be spread out over several channels that advocate liberal viewpoints.




That is part of the reason, but the biggest part is what Dale said. There are differing opinions within Liberals. Conservatives all agree on the same things, so one news channel could make all of them happy at once. 
Personally, I like Neal Boortz. He has opinions on both sides of the spectrum and is very entertaining.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> If Fox gets a higher rating than other media outlets, it might be because that is the only News that advocates the view points of half of America.  Anyone with a conservative viewpoint (more than half the country) would be more likely to watch Fox, where as the other half of the country would be spread out over several channels that advocate liberal viewpoints.



Their ratings don't come anywhere close to representing half of any America, most particularly a "conservative" viewpoint. A wingnut viewpoint, perhaps, but that is hardly an opinion held by half of Americans. And ratings can't be easily used to assume a political viewpoint at all, since some viewers obviously view Faux News as entertainment.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

KelJu said:
			
		

> There are differing opinions within Liberals. Conservatives all agree on the same things, so one news channel could make all of them happy at once.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> http://www.cnn.com/


 
I stopped myself from clicking when I saw that part of the URL.

CNN is worse, much worse.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> And I think it's funny how "conservatives" actually believe that Faux News is reflective of any level of ethical commitment to the profession, or that it really airs "opposing viewpoints."
> 
> Your concept of the "liberal" media is nothing but a cliche marketed by "conservatives" who believe that a middle-school temper tantrum qualifies as an "opposing viewpoint."



Haha, yeah.  Its all a conspiracy.  Conservatives are the ones who bitch and moan all the time.

"Bill Clinton doesn't care about white people!!!"


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> And I think it's funny how "conservatives" actually believe that Faux News is reflective of any level of ethical commitment to the profession, or that it really airs "opposing viewpoints."
> 
> Your concept of the "liberal" media is nothing but a cliche marketed by "conservatives" who believe that a middle-school temper tantrum qualifies as an "opposing viewpoint."


 

When people deny that the media is liberal, it totally invalidates everything else they say. It is like trying to talk about rap music and saying that Nelly is your favorite rapper. As soon as you do, you have ZERO credibility.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> That makes sense, there is competition in the liberal news market, and none in the GOP news market.


 
That is actually one hell of a point!

The liberals have CNN, CBS, NBC....

The conservatives have Fox News.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> O'Reilly is an asshole, but he is fun to watch sometimes.
> 
> There are definitely assholes in both parties, I just think its funny how liberals hate an opposing opinion.  The media is overwhelmingly liberal, the conservative viewpoint gets essentially one outlet and liberals still bitch about it.




I'm not a liberal, I just find it blatantly obvious that Fox News, conservatives, and the like, wrap themselves in the flag no matter what.  No matter what atrocity we commit, it can be justified by proclaiming patriotism, and anyone who disagrees must be a terrorist, communist, or any "ist" that has negative intentions.  George Orwell's world has indeed become a reality.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

kbm's level of hate is amazing.

Its also amazing the double standard that exists about stereotyping people.  It is perfectly fine to say "conservatives only have one channel because they only have one opinion; they all think alike."

Guess who else only has channel?  Black people, do they all think alike KelJu?  Is that the reason why there is a channel called Black Entertainment Television?  Why is there no White Entertainment Television?  I guess, under your logic, it is because white people are diverse and black people are all the same, right?


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I've never watched it, are there hot chicks on it?
> 
> News is boring, that's what papers are for. TV is for relaxation.


 
Dude, Fox News *by far *has the hottest news-babes around.

While CNN or NBC may have a hot chick here and there, Fox has tons of them and they just keep rolling new ones out all the time.


----------



## KelJu (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> When people deny that the media is liberal, it totally invalidates everything else they say. It is like trying to talk about rap music and saying that Nelly is your favorite rapper. As soon as you do, you have ZERO credibility.




Yeah, when people say that liberals are the only ones that bitch and complain, they lose all credibility too. 
Would you agree?


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> kbm's level of hate is amazing.


 
Yep. He is about as unreasonable as anyone here.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

KelJu said:
			
		

> Yeah, when people say that liberals are the only ones that bitch and complain, they lose all credibility too.
> Would you agree?


 
Absolutely. Conservatives can bitch with the best of them. Especially the Christian-right.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Dude, Fox News *by far *has the hottest news-babes around.
> 
> While CNN or NBC may have a hot chick here and there, Fox has tons of them and they just keep rolling new ones out all the time.



Rupert Murdoch must be a genius...Be the only conservative news outlet, hire hot chicks.  No competition, and eye candy.  All he needs now is to figure beer into the equation and maybe I will put it as one of my favorites.


----------



## KelJu (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> kbm's level of hate is amazing.
> 
> Its also amazing the double standard that exists about stereotyping people.  It is perfectly fine to say "conservatives only have one channel because they only have one opinion; they all think alike."
> 
> Guess who else only has channel?  Black people, do they all think alike KelJu?  Is that the reason why there is a channel called Black Entertainment Television?  Why is there no White Entertainment Television?  I guess, under your logic, it is because white people are diverse and black people are all the same, right?





That???s cool; I like how you try to morph me into a racist. Don't worry, I see your straw man from a mile away.
First off, your political affiliation can not be equated to your choice of entertainment. How man black people listen to David Allen Coe? I would guess less than 1% of the black population.
I know that you do not know many black people, but take my take my word for it, blacks do not watch only one channel.
There is a white entertainment channel; it is called the Country Music Network.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

The media are not liberal. For the most part, the media are lazy and/or incompetent. Fox news is decidely a wholly owned subsidiary of the republican party. That's evident to anyone paying attention. 

If anyone thinks the media are liberal, please put up some support for that. My argument? Here's an easy one. Just look at the 20 month battle waged against Al Gore prior to the 2000 election. The lies attributed to Al Gore were themselves fables perpetuated by lazy-ass reporters repeating right-wing drivel. It's easy to write about alpha males, love canal, and inventing the internet. It's difficult to write about substantive issues. 

Currently look at the right-wing news's contrivance that leaks of info regarding illegal wiretapping, rendition and torture are treasonous and that presidential leaks of info ruining the efforts of WMD covert agents for political gain is patriotic.

Guess which side of that fence Fox falls on? 
http://newsbusters.org/node/5052

This spin will likely take hold just the way the bullshit about "Bush is a competent war-time leader" took hold.

If anything the media tilt right b/c the messages are generally very effective propaganda--sound bites that are easy to understand. Who cares if it's bullshit. It's easier to repeat propaganda than to research a thoughtful story.


----------



## KelJu (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Absolutely. Conservatives can bitch with the best of them. Especially the Christian-right.




That is exactly who I had in mind when I said that.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> The media are not liberal.


 
You lost me right there. You have got to be kidding. That is simply NOT a reasonable position. Most media people are liberals. Period.

Admit that, then we can discuss the rest of your post.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

KelJu said:
			
		

> That is exactly who I had in mind when I said that.


 
Most of you would consider me a member of that group. just sayin'


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

KelJu said:
			
		

> That???s cool; I like how you try to morph me into a racist.



I wasn't trying to claim you were a racist.  Look back at my post, then look up the meaning of the phrase 'double standard.'

Your logic, if applied to race, would make you a racist.  However, my point about the double standard was that you would never apply that same logic to race, hence the term double standard: you are applying two standards.

If one TV channel equates to one belief, then lets apply that logic across the board, OK?  If not, then drop that ridiculous argument.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> You lost me right there. You have got to be kidding. That is simply NOT a reasonable position. Most media people are liberals. Period.
> 
> Admit that, then we can discuss the rest of your post.



No, Pepper.  I think he is correct.  In fact, college professors are not overwhelmingly liberal either.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> You lost me right there. You have got to be kidding. That is simply NOT a reasonable position. Most media people are liberals. Period.
> 
> Admit that, then we can discuss the rest of your post.


The vast majority of newspaper editors and owners are conservative. 

Tell me which person--the editor or the reporter--decides what story will be printed?

Look at the ownership of telecommunications: approximately 6 corporate bodies own all the media in this country. http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

Do you honestly believe that these corporate giants--many of them defense contractors too--are flaming liberals?

You state a conclusion that the media are liberal--where's your support?


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> No, Pepper. I think he is correct. In fact, college professors are not overwhelmingly liberal either.


It depends what departments you look at and how you define liberal and conservative. W/out defining Conservative or Liberal, dept.s of business tend to be wholly conservative while everyone else is liberal. 

It's just that the modern definition of what a conservative is so repugnant to thinking people, anyone spending time debating and contemplating life w/out having their heads up Big-business's ass see the utter futility of shortsighted, selfish conservatism. 

Good example:
America's attacked by terrorists, the president asks everyone to go out and shop!


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> The vast majority of newspaper editors and owners are conservative.
> 
> Tell me which person--the editor or the reporter--decides what story will be printed?
> 
> ...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> It depends what departments you look at and how you define liberal and conservative. W/out defining Conservative or Liberal, dept.s of business tend to be wholly conservative while everyone else is liberal.
> 
> It's just that the modern definition of what a conservative is so repugnant to thinking people, anyone spending time debating and contemplating life w/out having their heads up Big-business's ass see the utter futility of shortsighted, selfish conservatism.
> 
> ...



I think with the editors, money is more of a driving factor.  Let's face it, WRT politics, Bush-hating is what is selling newspapers.  When it is something else, they will move to that.  I imagine there are a ton of tobacco executives that don't smoke, but they have no problem selling the product.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Support? Do you watch the news? Katie Couric? Dan Rather? Do you read the New York Times? The Washington Post? This just isn't that they tend to prefer liberal candidates, they tend to support liberal causes.

Where is your support that the reports and editors are conservatives? This is laughable.

BigDyl, I guess ANY post that you agree with defines "owned." Fucking lame, but about what I'd expect.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 28, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I used to like you.



See, TV turned you against me.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> It depends what departments you look at and how you define liberal and conservative. W/out defining Conservative or Liberal, dept.s of business tend to be wholly conservative while everyone else is liberal.
> 
> * It's just that the modern definition of what a conservative is so repugnant to thinking people*, anyone spending time debating and contemplating life w/out having their heads up Big-business's ass see the utter futility of shortsighted, selfish conservatism.
> 
> ...


No, here is where your wrong, and here is why Democrats will loose in 2008.  YOU are the people with your head up your ass.  You and Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the rest of the holier-than-thou elite think you can just declare that conservative=unintelligent.  The fact of the matter is that for every dipshit religious neo-con voting conservative because he thinks God told him to, there is a crackhead prostitute birthing 7 babies a decade, all addicted to herion, all living off the government for their entire lives voting democrat to secure their welfare check.  Their is nothing inherently unintelligent about either idealogy when you get down to the bare bones.  Each side has unintelligent people.  You keep painting yourself as the intellectual, why don't you copy and paste that list of government responsibilities for me again!  You are real deep thinker, alright.  A deep thinker who is incapable of distinguishing the concept of how much government is good, from whether we need government at all.  Keep telling yourself that your idealogy is intelligent and mine isn't, and you can keep bitching all the way until 2012.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> BigDyl, I guess ANY post that you agree with defines "owned." Fucking lame, but about what I'd expect.




I just let kbm and decker fight the battle while I sit back and post owned pictures.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> No, here is where your wrong, and here is why Democrats will loose in 2008.  YOU are the people with your head up your ass.  You and Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the rest of the holier-than-thou elite think you can just declare that conservative=unintelligent.  The fact of the matter is that for every dipshit religious neo-con voting conservative because he thinks good told him to, there is a crackhead prostitute birthing 7 babies a decade, all addicted to herion, all living off the government for their entire lives voting democrat to secure their welfare check.  Their is nothing inherently unintelligent about either idealogy when you get down to the bare bones.  Each side has unintelligent people.  You keep painting yourself as the intellectual, why don't you copy and paste that list of government responsibilities for me again!  You are real deep thinker, alright.  A deep thinker who is incapable of distinguishing the concept of how much government is good, from whether we need government at all.  Keep telling yourself that your idealogy is intelligent and mine isn't, and you can keep bitching all the way until 2012.




I dislike conservatives while at the same time... DISLIKING affleck and decaprio.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I just let kbm and decker fight the battle while I sit back and post owned pictures.




Everyone has their place.


----------



## topolo (Apr 28, 2006)

Does anybody have any gum?


----------



## DOMS (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Support? Do you watch the news? Katie Couric? Dan Rather? Do you read the New York Times? The Washington Post? This just isn't that they tend to prefer liberal candidates, they tend to support liberal causes.



That, and you're more likely get liberal content from a conservative media outlet than you to get conservative content from liberal media outlet.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 28, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I just let kbm and decker fight the battle while I sit back and post owned pictures.




So, you're their fluffer.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 28, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> Does anybody have any gum?



What does gum have to do with rubbing one out?


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Support? Do you watch the news? Katie Couric? Dan Rather? Do you read the New York Times? The Washington Post? This just isn't that they tend to prefer liberal candidates, they tend to support liberal causes.
> 
> Where is your support that the reports and editors are conservatives? This is laughable.
> 
> BigDyl, I guess ANY post that you agree with defines "owned." Fucking lame, but about what I'd expect.


Just got back from a soft taco lunch--chicken tacos. 

I'm sorry but the NY Times and practically every paper in america supported Bush's invasion of Iraq. Where do you think Judith Miller and her bullshit WMD stories came from?  Some tool of the Left.

If the liberal media are so monolithic why all the conservative talking heads, radio shows, columnists etc? Limbaugh, Will, O'reilly, McGlaughlin, Barnes, Kristol, Kondracke, Scarborough, Hannity, coulter, Hitchens, Snow(now he's part of the political problem), and on and on.

I would like to see a list of hardcore liberals to match that.

If there were a liberal media, where's the attendant and numerous liberal think tanks, liberal cable news organizations, endless liberal talking heads....If Dan Rather is your idea of bias well then you haven't been paying attention.

Check out election surveys about which candidate newspaper editors supported--Bush by 60%. But who cares? The very assertion assumes that professional ethics are a joke and motive is everything.

I've shown you corporate (conservative) ownership of the media itself. I've shown you that reporters may vote liberal but so what, editors vote conservative.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> That makes sense, there is competition in the liberal news market, and none in the GOP news market.



As in most dictatorial countries, official news services don't believe in competition.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> No, here is where your wrong, and here is why Democrats will loose in 2008. YOU are the people with your head up your ass. You and Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the rest of the holier-than-thou elite think you can just declare that conservative=unintelligent. The fact of the matter is that for every dipshit religious neo-con voting conservative because he thinks God told him to, there is a crackhead prostitute birthing 7 babies a decade, all addicted to herion, all living off the government for their entire lives voting democrat to secure their welfare check. Their is nothing inherently unintelligent about either idealogy when you get down to the bare bones. Each side has unintelligent people. You keep painting yourself as the intellectual, why don't you copy and paste that list of government responsibilities for me again! You are real deep thinker, alright. A deep thinker who is incapable of distinguishing the concept of how much government is good, from whether we need government at all. Keep telling yourself that your idealogy is intelligent and mine isn't, and you can keep bitching all the way until 2012.


This excerpt is a little bit hyperbolic...just a little. I merely pointed out what is common knowledge: That the view of the "shortsighted, profit motivated to the exlusion of all else crowd" is really just a suicidal perspective...it goes nowhere but to hell. 

I believe I did say that being short-sighted and selfish in reference to any thinking person inexorably leads to the conclusion that conservatism is a fast-track to nowhere. Profit now and damn the future or effects. You said, "unintelligent", I didn't. There are plenty of clever and intelligent conservatives. But truly thoughtful people are not morally bankrupt the way modern conservatives are.

Contrary to your accusation, I've never painted myself as an intellectual. So what's wrong with being an intellectual?  I know how antithetical thinking and intelligence is to the republican party. That's why you guys nominated an incurious dolt for president. The worst part of it is, guys like you voted for this small foolish man.

My ideology? Ideology in what sense of the word? Marx???

Hey, why so defensive?


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> You lost me right there. You have got to be kidding. That is simply NOT a reasonable position. Most media people are liberals. Period.
> 
> Admit that, then we can discuss the rest of your post.



This, of course, is based on. . . . . 
Interestingly, I know of only one institute specifically created to "train" professionals in the media which is entirely based on a political viewpoint - and it is a "conservative"-funded group which takes quite a bit of pride in placing their "graduates" in mass media networks. Of course, there are no professional tenets for such behavior, but "conservatives" are apparently entitled to a free pass from ethical considerations.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> If the liberal media are so monolithic why all the conservative talking heads, radio shows, columnists etc? Limbaugh, Will, O'reilly, McGlaughlin, Barnes, Kristol, Kondracke, Scarborough, Hannity, coulter, Hitchens, Snow(now he's part of the political problem), and on and on.


 
We are talking about news media, aren't we?

Reporters and editors, not talk show hosts.

Liberal talk radio is a circus, see Air America.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> No, Pepper.  I think he is correct.  In fact, college professors are not overwhelmingly liberal either.



Um...isn't that another claim that comes from a "conservative" source?


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

Oh, I almost forgot, For you Clemson357:

Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade. 
Public roads. 
Rural electrification. 
Government subsidized telephone wiring. 
Satellite communications. 
Police protection. 
Military protection. 
A criminal justice system. 
Fire protection. 
Paramedic protection. 
An educated workforce. 
An immunized workforce. 
Protection against plagues by the Centers for Disease Control. 
Public-funded business loans, foreclosure loans and subsidies. 
Protection from business fraud and unfair business practices. 
The protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights. 
Student loans. 
Government funded research and development. 
National Academy of Sciences. 
Economic data collected and analyzed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 
Prevention of depressions by Keynesian policies at the Fed (successful for six decades now). 
Dollars protected from inflation by the Fed. 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 
Public libraries. 
Cooperative Extension Service (vital for agriculture) 
National Biological Service. 
National Weather Service 
Public job training.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> We are talking about news media, aren't we?
> 
> Reporters and editors, not talk show hosts.
> 
> Liberal talk radio is a circus, see Air America.


Many of the people on that list write editorials for papers across the country. 

Who do you think chooses which editorialist will appear in print?


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> This, of course, is based on. . . . .
> Interestingly, I know of only one institute specifically created to "train" professionals in the media which is entirely based on a political viewpoint - and it is a "conservative"-funded group which takes quite a bit of pride in placing their "graduates" in mass media networks. Of course, there are no professional tenets for such behavior, but "conservatives" are apparently entitled to a free pass from ethical considerations.


 
It is based on the fact that most of these people lean to the left. By their own admission. This is like arguing that the earth is round. I can do it, but I am too distracted by how insane the other side of the arguement is.

The rest of your post is pretty typical for you. Find one conservative group doing something, project it over ALL conservatives to make a good looking post on a message board. You like pull out random stuff that is barely even relevant to the discussion....


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Support? Do you watch the news? Katie Couric? Dan Rather? Do you read the New York Times? The Washington Post? This just isn't that they tend to prefer liberal candidates, they tend to support liberal causes.
> 
> *What exactly is a "liberal" cause? Perhaps factual truth instead of "truthiness?"*
> 
> ...



Lame.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Many of the people on that list write editorials for papers across the country.
> 
> Who do you think chooses which editorialist will appear in print?


 
First of all, no one said every word of every newspaper is liberal rantings.

Second, what I am talking about is the liberal slant on NEWS. The stories that are covered, the way they are covered, etc.

The fact that Rush is on the radio and George Will prints a column doesn't change the fact  that most of the people delivering us the news are liberal and their bias, as much as they may try to hide it, comes through.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> It is based on the fact that most of these people lean to the left. By their own admission. This is like arguing that the earth is round. I can do it, but I am too distracted by how insane the other side of the arguement is.
> 
> The rest of your post is pretty typical for you. Find one conservative group doing something, project it over ALL conservatives to make a good looking post on a message board. You like pull out random stuff that is barely even relevant to the discussion....


How do we know that they lean left. Well, some guy did a poll once. Just as the reporters leaned left, the editors and owners leaned right.

So what!

There are no journalistic ethics? I mean could you point out some liberal equivalent of the blatant pay-offs and moles of the Bush run Federal Government in our press today?

Also, how about the liberal equivalent to a fox cable network? What about all the liberal think tanks that provide fodder for all these left wing news outlets. How about all the liberal corporate owners of the media?

I can do the above w/ respect to conservatives and republicans.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Lame.


 
Argueing with you is worst than argueing with my teenager. 

I'm done. Enjoy your hate.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> First of all, no one said every word of every newspaper is liberal rantings.
> 
> Second, what I am talking about is the liberal slant on NEWS. The stories that are covered, the way they are covered, etc.
> 
> The fact that Rush is on the radio and George Will prints a column doesn't change the fact that most of the people delivering us the news are liberal and their bias, as much as they may try to hide it, comes through.


Since bias is so prevalent.  Please provide me with one example.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Since bias is so prevalent. Please provide me with one example.


 
Just one?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> How do we know that they lean left. Well, some guy did a poll once. Just as the reporters leaned left, the editors and owners leaned right.
> 
> So what!
> 
> ...


 
Fox News is no more biased than CNN.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> It is based on the fact that most of these people lean to the left. By their own admission.
> 
> *Really now. And you are privy to not only their professional ethical training, but their personal political viewpoints? *
> 
> ...



Well, when you all stop being a little flock of sheep whose talking points are fed to you because you are too damned lazy to be a real American and attempt to think for yourself, you might see me post a different response. And who the hell ever appointed you the arbiter of relevancy, particularly on a topic in which I've done the bulk of my professional training, work, and research on over the last 20 years? 

For chrissakes - you see a parade of wingnuts whining about the "liberal" media over and over again and you lap it up because that's what you want to hear - not because it may or may not be based on anything.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> That, and you're more likely get liberal content from a conservative media outlet than you to get conservative content from liberal media outlet.




That's an interesting fantasy.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> No, here is where your wrong, and here is why Democrats will loose in 2008.  YOU are the people with your head up your ass.  You and Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the rest of the holier-than-thou elite think you can just declare that conservative=unintelligent.  The fact of the matter is that for every dipshit religious neo-con voting conservative because he thinks God told him to, there is a crackhead prostitute birthing 7 babies a decade, all addicted to herion, all living off the government for their entire lives voting democrat to secure their welfare check.  Their is nothing inherently unintelligent about either idealogy when you get down to the bare bones.  Each side has unintelligent people.  You keep painting yourself as the intellectual, why don't you copy and paste that list of government responsibilities for me again!  You are real deep thinker, alright.  A deep thinker who is incapable of distinguishing the concept of how much government is good, from whether we need government at all.  Keep telling yourself that your idealogy is intelligent and mine isn't, and you can keep bitching all the way until 2012.




    

The party known popularly as the culture of corruption is not in much of a position to win anything right now.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Find on place where I said conservatives are persecuted?

As is usually, you lump me in with everything every conservative has said.

Yet somehow, I am the unreasonable one.

I just said they were biased. as is Fox News.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> It's just that the modern definition of what a conservative is so repugnant to thinking people





			
				Decker said:
			
		

> *You said, "unintelligent", I didn't....*
> 
> I know how antithetical thinking and intelligence is to the republican party.


Why don't you come up with something original, rather than hiding behind your ambiguous language?

Yes, you are correct.  You never literally said the word "unintelligent."  Lets get beyond an elementary school thought process, and quite denying the blatantly obvious.  'Modern conservatism is repugnant to anyone who thinks' = 'conservatism is unintelligent'


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Argueing with you is worst than argueing with my teenager.
> 
> I'm done. Enjoy your hate.




Look at it from my standpoint. You have spelling difficulties when you get upset, you don't know much about the topical material except what you've had fed to you to make you feel better about yourself, and you have a propensity for requiring that ideas be cemented in terms of black and white to address your own insecurities.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Just one?
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html


So I imagine that all the news outlets that followed all the groundless/baseless/manufactured Clinton 'Scandals' of the 1990s were engaged in conservative bias.  I'd list a few but why.  The cases are legion.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/24/001633.php

I have no idea if his stats are acurate.



> _NEW YORK Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today._
> _While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as "moderate," a far higher number are "liberal" than in the general population._
> _At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives. _
> _This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative. _
> ...


----------



## DOMS (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Argueing with you is worst than argueing with my teenager.
> 
> I'm done. Enjoy your hate.



Once you understand that, to him, everthing is a conspiracy, liberals can do no wrong, and needs to feel he's being persecuted, he's easier to get along with.

I've read some of his writings on others sites (where he's not ranting) and I have to say, he's rather intelligent and has a decent friendly side.  He just doesn't show that here.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> So I imagine that all the news outlets that followed all the groundless/baseless/manufactured Clinton 'Scandals' of the 1990s were engaged in conservative bias. I'd list a few but why. The cases are legion.


 
While the Clinton scandals were overblown, they were not groundless or baseless.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> How do we know that they lean left.
> 
> *Because they are leftist traitors if they don't repeat the "conservative" talking point as gospel and without investigation.*
> 
> ...




They don't seem to think one thing is wrong with the government's production of propaganda clips of "news" that were issued and aired on television stations around the country without a single attribution of the source as the GOVERNMENT. To them, that's merely "conservative" adherence to journalistic principles - meaning endorsement of propaganda presented as "news reports" originating at conservative stations. 

Of course, I won't even get into the blatant misuse of the public airwaves by Sinclair Broadcasting. Or that the Right screams about offenses on networks it labels "leftist" - a dubious notion at best - and yet is silent when Rush slips obscenities into a daytime broadcast.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Once you understand that, to him, everthing is a conspiracy, liberals can do no wrong, and needs to feel he's being persecuted, he's easier to get along with.
> 
> I've read some of his writings on others sites (where he's not ranting) and I have to say, he's rather intelligent and has a decent friendly side. He just doesn't show that here.


 
Interesting. His first post here that I read was one stating how happy he was with US Troop deaths in Iraq. Ever since then, I have pretty view him as an unreasonable jerk.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> While the Clinton scandals were overblown, they were not groundless or baseless.


They were.  How many convictions came out of the scandals?


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> and yet is silent when Rush slips obscenities into a daytime broadcast.


 
I have no idea if this is true as I don't listen to him but I am surpised that you do.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> But truly thoughtful people are not morally bankrupt the way modern conservatives are.


You are right.  Truly thoughtful people make blanket generalizations.  Well, then let me partake:

Truly thoughtful people paint their opponents as "short-sighted," while they are clearly looking towards the future.  Crazy 'short-sighted' things like punishing criminals don't bode well in the liberal party.  Neither do crazy 'short-sighted' things like equality of opportunity rather than equality of results.  No, we look to the future, and focus on banning inanimate objects, making blanket generalizations about entire races of people as a pretext for lowering academic standards and setting quotas.  We look to the future, with our so-called 'progressive' tax schemes.  Truly, focusing on the individual, deterring crime and rewarding success are very 'short-sighted.'  We look towards the future, and say very intelligent things like "George Bush doesn't care about black people."   We look towards the future, and have the hypocrisy to call conservatives "morally bankrupt," while simultaneously defending adulterous Slick Willy.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> They were. How many convictions came out of the scandals?


 
Oh, so there have to be convictions to really be a scandal. I guess he really didn't have sex with Monica since no one was convicted.

Again, the whole thing was ridiculously overblown (no pun intended) but come on, Clinton was involved in one scandal after another. The one that didnt get the attention it deserved was the FBI files matter.


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker, the ones that aren't morally bankrupt get blistered by you and KBM for being religious zealots.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Oh, so there have to be convictions to really be a scandal. I guess he really didn't have sex with Monica since no one was convicted.



It depends on what your defintion of "is" is.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Why don't you come up with something original, rather than hiding behind your ambiguous language?
> 
> Yes, you are correct. You never literally said the word "unintelligent." Lets get beyond an elementary school thought process, and quite denying the blatantly obvious. 'Modern conservatism is repugnant to anyone who thinks' = 'conservatism is unintelligent'


Let's clear up ambiguity then.

Conservatives in the style of GWB (moderns) are hypocritical, unduly selfish, small-minded, bigoted, anti-science/intellectual, evil, exploitive, chumps who think the world begins and ends in their wallets.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Oh, so there have to be convictions to really be a scandal. I guess he really didn't have sex with Monica since no one was convicted.
> 
> Again, the whole thing was ridiculously overblown (no pun intended) but come on, Clinton was involved in one scandal after another. The one that didnt get the attention it deserved was the FBI files matter.


overblown....hahaha.  

I'll take any filegate compared to the sins of the current administration.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Decker, the ones that aren't morally bankrupt get blistered by you and KBM for being religious zealots.


Not me.  Although religion and morals are not two peas in a pod.  I think there's much to be said about the golden rule and social contract.

Overblown....do you kiss your children w/ that mouth Mister? hahaha


----------



## Pepper (Apr 28, 2006)

Christianity and morals SHOULD be _two peas in a pod_ but as I have often said, there are probably more non-Christians in Church on Sunday than Christians.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Once you understand that, to him, everthing is a conspiracy, liberals can do no wrong, and needs to feel he's being persecuted, he's easier to get along with.
> 
> *This statement, of course, is based on your renowned research skills and your thorough examination of issues on the topic of conspiracies, liberals, and the world's salvation before Reverend Moon, Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson's "conservative" agenda. Wingnuttery at its finest. Any diversion but the topic at hand. *
> 
> I've read some of his writings on others sites (where he's not ranting) and I have to say, he's rather intelligent and has a decent friendly side.  He just doesn't show that here.



Actually, you haven't read anything near what my writings are on other sites. . .and if you've seen some in print, you wouldn't have known they were mine. You were just seeking some angle to search for what you thought would be a weapon of mass destruction, which you, of course, quickly attempted to produce.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Christianity and morals SHOULD be _two peas in a pod_ but as I have often said, there are probably more non-Christians in Church on Sunday than Christians.




Well they aren't. . .and that's because so many "christians" don't practice much in the way of morality. So many state constitutions wisely chose to SEPARATE the two terms.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> You are right. Truly thoughtful people make blanket generalizations. Well, then let me partake:
> 
> Truly thoughtful people paint their opponents as "short-sighted," while they are clearly looking towards the future. Crazy 'short-sighted' things like punishing criminals don't bode well in the liberal party. Neither do crazy 'short-sighted' things like equality of opportunity rather than equality of results. No, we look to the future, and focus on banning inanimate objects, making blanket generalizations about entire races of people as a pretext for lowering academic standards and setting quotas. We look to the future, with our so-called 'progressive' tax schemes. Truly, focusing on the individual, deterring crime and rewarding success are very 'short-sighted.' We look towards the future, and say very intelligent things like "George Bush doesn't care about black people."  We look towards the future, and have the hypocrisy to call conservatives "morally bankrupt," while simultaneously defending adulterous Slick Willy.


You're right.  the progressivity of our tax code is being diminished.  GWB doesn't care about anyone but his cronies and supporters--why else would we eliminate taxes on dividends and cut taxes during a time of "war".  That's fairly obvious.  

Let's see, an illicit blowjob v. murderous war crimes/criminal incompetence.  Yeah, they are about the same in magnitude.  My god Clinton's blown dick could have brought down our whole system of constitutional government.

Unlike illegal spying, torture, rendition, treasonous intelligence leaks, bypassing Congressional will, abusing signing statements for laws.  That shit's small potatoes with an 'e'.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> You are right.  Truly thoughtful people make blanket generalizations.  Well, then let me partake:
> 
> Truly thoughtful people paint their opponents as "short-sighted," while they are clearly looking towards the future.  Crazy 'short-sighted' things like punishing criminals don't bode well in the liberal party.
> 
> ...



We look to the future with an increasingly pronounced budget deficit, the demonizing of fellow American citizens simply because some people "think they are icky" and the over-biblicalization of certain select religious verses that are only socially useful in codifying the persecution of others for their existence. Conservatives focus on the individual by saying anyone can do anything. . .and then issue a list of exceptions and pretend that the straight white male worked "harder" and that's why they, as a minority group, constitute over 80% of the positions in our government. . .not because they kinda stacked the laws - or the more subtle, cultural route to success - in making it much easier for themselves. Conservatives like to pretend that they care about the success of everyone - and then attempt to redefine "morality" to favor some characteristic about themselves which God intended to automatically place them with special favored status. . .which of course they don't have to earn.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Interesting. His first post here that I read was one stating how happy he was with US Troop deaths in Iraq. Ever since then, I have pretty view him as an unreasonable jerk.



I believe you may be bearing false witness if you are referring to me.


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> ...Conservatives like to pretend that they care about the success of everyone - and then attempt to redefine "morality" to favor some characteristic about themselves which God intended to automatically place them with special favored status. . .which of course they don't have to earn.


That's interesting.  I see a sort of pretension in the anti-abortionists.  They love the unborn, all the unborn, but damn if that love doesn't dry up and shrivel on the vine as soon as the fetus exits the womb.

If one cannot express love for another at all stations of life then what we have here is a superficial kind of selfishness expressed by the anti-abortionist.  Surprise surprise.  It's easy to love something that's no hassle.  As soon as we have the birth, the hassle begins and the love stops.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> You're right.  the progressivity of our tax code is being diminished.  GWB doesn't care about anyone but his cronies and supporters--why else would we eliminate taxes on dividends and cut taxes during a time of "war".  That's fairly obvious.
> 
> Let's see, an illicit blowjob v. murderous war crimes/criminal incompetence.  Yeah, they are about the same in magnitude.  My god Clinton's blown dick could have brought down our whole system of constitutional government.
> 
> Unlike illegal spying, torture, rendition, treasonous intelligence leaks, bypassing Congressional will, abusing signing statements for laws.  That shit's small potatoes with an 'e'.


Decker, I am truly disappointed.  I never believed you were ultra-intellectual, but I thought you were at least above cliche rants that you find on the bumpers of soccer-mom minivans.  No one compared a blow job to a war, except you.  I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of you labeling conservative 'morally bankrupt.'


----------



## Decker (Apr 28, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Decker, I am truly disappointed. I never believed you were ultra-intellectual, but I thought you were at least above cliche rants that you find on the bumpers of soccer-mom minivans. No one compared a blow job to a war, except you. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of you labeling conservative 'morally bankrupt.'


Perhaps I should have distinguished between personal virtue and the morality of the commons. I merely point out the degrees of morality. I was not dismissing what Clinton did. In fact, as I stated before, he got caught and there should have been a vote on impeachment. The actual vote should have been 'no' but our politicians are fucked. So I do not see the moral selectivity that you see in what I said.

For what it's worth, I'm not above anything, least of all cliches. But the astute reader would have distinguished the irony implicit in my statements.  They are true in scope and magnitude.

Have a great weekend guys. It's time to head home to drunken debauchery ....and lifting.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 28, 2006)

Thanks Decker, and KBM.  I'll take it from here.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 28, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> That's interesting.  I see a sort of pretension in the anti-abortionists.  They love the unborn, all the unborn, but damn if that love doesn't dry up and shrivel on the vine as soon as the fetus exits the womb.
> 
> *I think it is even more interesting that they scream "murder" and then suddenly fall silent when they are asked what the punishment for this "murder" should be. . .or mention the man as an accomplice to murder, or. . .really make their heads explode if you ask if a miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter. . .*
> 
> If one cannot express love for another at all stations of life then what we have here is a superficial kind of selfishness expressed by the anti-abortionist.  Surprise surprise.  It's easy to love something that's no hassle.  As soon as we have the birth, the hassle begins and the love stops.



Exactly. . .just as it is always so much easier to blame others rather than look at ourselves.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 28, 2006)




----------



## lnvanry (Apr 28, 2006)

maniclion said:
			
		

>


----------



## GFR (Apr 28, 2006)

#9


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 28, 2006)

Yeah, I hate Fox News.  They like to call themselves "fair and balanced," when they are more biased than any other news organization that I've ever seen.  Not to mention they like to spout Bullshit backed up by totally unreliable sources.  Have you ever noticed how the reports often repeat the words, "Some say," or "People are saying," or something to that effect.  You are a news organization.  Stop presenting heresay as news and confirm it.  Christ.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Yeah, I hate Fox News.  They like to call themselves "fair and balanced," when they are more biased than any other news organization that I've ever seen.  Not to mention they like to *spout Bullshit backed up by totally unreliable sources*.  Have you ever noticed how the reports often repeat the words, "Some say," or "People are saying," or something to that effect.  You are a news organization.  Stop presenting heresay as news and confirm it.  Christ.



Ha!  The Washington Post (a liberal rag) had a story during the last Elections whose source was "people on the Internet".  

Yeah, sure, it's just the conservative media outlets...


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Ha!  The Washington Post (a liberal rag) had a story during the last Elections whose source was "people on the Internet".
> 
> Yeah, sure, it's just the conservative media outlets...


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Ha!  The Washington Post (a liberal rag) had a story during the last Elections whose source was "people on the Internet".
> 
> Yeah, sure, it's just the conservative media outlets...



Was that the only source in the article? 

And wasn't the Washington Post the newspaper who hired a "conservative" rant blogger, only to find out he was a plagiarist? And I would certainly not call Fred Hiatt, who regularly pens editorials supporting this Administration, a "liberal." 

How often does the Moonie-owned wingnut bible Washington Times, along with the Moonie-owned United Press International, run "liberal" positions?


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Was that the only source in the article?



Yes.


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 29, 2006)

Then I'd like to see it.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Then I'd like to see it.


I was mistaken.  It wasn't the Washington Post, it was the New York Times.

Here you go.  Note: you may need to click through an ad first (just click on the 'skip ad' link at the top right).  

The second sentence into the article:

"*According to rumors racing across the Internet this week*, the rectangular bulge  visible between Mr. Bush's shoulder blades was a radio receiver, getting answers  from an offstage counselor into a hidden presidential earpiece."


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

Now defend it with the mindlessness that you accuse everyone else of.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

*Intermission






*


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *Intermission
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bless you my son.  

Oh, and why are you still here?


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Bless you my son.
> 
> Oh, and why are you still here?


100 posts to go still


----------



## DOMS (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> 100 posts to go still



99 and I'll miss you.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 29, 2006)

"The greatest thing to come out of this [war in Iraq] for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." Rupert Murdoch


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 29, 2006)




----------



## lnvanry (Apr 29, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Yeah, I hate Fox News. They like to call themselves "fair and balanced," when they are more biased than any other news organization that I've ever seen. Not to mention they like to spout Bullshit backed up by totally unreliable sources. Have you ever noticed how the reports often repeat the words, "Some say," or "People are saying," or something to that effect. You are a news organization. Stop presenting heresay as news and confirm it. Christ.



Fox is on my TV for about 2-3 hours.


Hey....foreman....."the spin stops here!  Cause we're looking out for you!" -O'reilly sign off from The Factor.


----------



## topolo (Apr 29, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Fox is on my TV for about 2-3 hours.
> 
> 
> Hey....foreman....."the spin stops here!  Cause we're looking out for you!" -O'reilly sign off from The Factor.



No bloviating


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> Fox is on my TV for about 2-3 hours.
> 
> 
> Hey....foreman....."the spin stops here!  Cause we're looking out for you!" -O'reilly sign off from The Factor.


When I want a good laugh I watch Fox news......esp O'Reilly or Sean Hanaty....sp?


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 29, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> When I want a good laugh I watch Fox news......esp O'Reilly or Sean Hanaty....sp?



I'm not a huge fan of those two.  I like Brit Hume and Neil Cavuto much better.

Tucker Carlson on MSNBC is a another I watch.


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> I'm not a huge fan of those two.  I like Brit Hume and Neil Cavuto much better.
> 
> Tucker Carlson on MSNBC is a another I watch.


Loved when John Stewart was on cross fire and owned  Tucker Carlson...


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 29, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Now defend it with the mindlessness that you accuse everyone else of.



I can't believe this is your example. . .     

_According to *rumors* racing across the Internet this week, the rectangular bulge visible between Mr. Bush's shoulder blades was a radio receiver, getting answers from an offstage counselor into a hidden presidential earpiece._

Is that what you consider an indication of inherent bias? Based on what sort of journalism ethics? The reporter merely stated the *fact* that rumors were flying around the Internet. . .and did the reporter substantiate it with a source and an example and indicate the reason why the story had public interest? 

_When the *online magazine Salon published an article *about the rumors on Friday, the speculation reached such a pitch that *White House *and *campaign officials *were *inundated with calls*_

Then the reporter went back to the specifics of the *rumors* except spending the next four paragraphs explaining and quoting the White House position. Let's see - a lead paragraph in the story, TWO paragraphs about the rumors, and FOUR paragraphs with more than one quote from one named White House spokesperson and references to other White House/campaign personnel. How does this story indicate some "liberal" bias? 

Was the story of interest? Well. . .duh. . .it was noticed on national television during a debate broadcast over every major non-cable network, and the "bulge" was noticed by tens of millions of people. 

If there was any hint of bias in the story, it was the lack of a balanced direct quote from the Salon reporter - and even that wouldn't necessary indicate a deliberate bias - only that the _Times_ reporter was attributing the story of the speculation of the rumors on the Internet to a rather well-known online magazine's report. Then she supported the controversy by citing White House and campaign sources who said they were inundated with phone calls about the bulge. The story has a photograph of the President at the debates with a rather obvious bulge in the back - and the lead only asks a question about what it is, rather than the *reporter *speculating the answer. . .


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)




----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 29, 2006)

Gee...let's see if I can reproduce this story here....with the "conservative" idea of proper reporting: 

_WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 - Why is it that leftist-leaning, communist liberals are harping all over the Internet about some doctored picture of a bulge in the back of President Bush's suit jacket at the presidential debate in Miami last week?

According to typical liberal rumors racing across the Internet this week that a rectangular bulge visible between Mr. Bush's shoulder blades was a radio receiver, getting answers from an offstage counselor into a hidden presidential earpiece, it was just another example of Democrats hating America. The prime suspect - naturally- was Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's powerful political adviser.

When the leftwing online magazine Salon published an article about the rumors on Friday, the speculation reached such a pitch that the Democrats orchestrated a vicious campaign and White House and campaign officials were inundated with calls. 

White House officials immediately identified the pictures as obviously doctored. But then, when the bulge turned out to be clearly visible in the television footage of the evening, they offered a different explanation that shows just how low the Left will get to gain power. 

"There was nothing under his suit jacket," said Nicolle Devenish, a campaign spokeswoman.

"It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric."_


----------



## GFR (Apr 29, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

>


kbm8795 owns DOMS every time


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 29, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> I'm not a huge fan of those two.  I like Brit Hume and Neil Cavuto much better.
> 
> Tucker Carlson on MSNBC is a another I watch.




Tucker Carlson? Bowtie Boy? His daddy has some nice connections with the Republican establishment. . .he knows what to say to keep the dollars flowing.


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 29, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Tucker Carlson? Bowtie Boy? His daddy has some nice connections with the Republican establishment. . .he knows what to say to keep the dollars flowing.



smart guy


FYI he has removed the bow tie...permanently.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 29, 2006)

I only get my news from the Colbert Report, no hippy liberal jazzy jism there, just cold hard fact for us right leaning truth hoarders.


----------



## topolo (Apr 29, 2006)

green and yellow


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 29, 2006)

com central is always good for laughs


----------



## Big Smoothy (Apr 29, 2006)

maniclion said:
			
		

> "The greatest thing to come out of this [war in Iraq] for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." Rupert Murdoch



Yes.

One of the major arguements of attacking Iraq was increasing the oil suppley, thereby lowering oil prices, thereby helping the U.S. economy.

Who said this over, and over, and over, in public?


*Lawrence Lindsey.*

Economic policy advisor to the Bush administration.

Bush and his admin. never told him to shut up - UNTIL - he started stating that his analysis showed the possiblity of it the Iraq war costing up to 1.9 Trillion.

He was pushed out....


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 29, 2006)

Now this is great. . .Stephan Colbert at the White House Press Correspondents Dinner tonight, skewering the White House and the Press...it's hilarious. . .

http://www.crooksandliars.com/


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 29, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Now this is great. . .Stephan Colbert at the White House Press Correspondents Dinner tonight, skewering the White House and the Press...it's hilarious. . .
> 
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/




   Is this your website?


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 29, 2006)

aw no. . .but those guys come up with some good clips about public officials messing up quite often. . .


----------



## maniclion (Apr 30, 2006)

Stephen is the man, he does my favorite thing to do...


----------



## maniclion (Apr 30, 2006)

"If anything they're rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg."


----------



## Big Smoothy (Apr 30, 2006)

*fox Should Be Taken Out And All People Wiped Out That Work For That Pile Of Crap.


Take Them Out!*


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 30, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> kbm's level of hate is amazing.
> 
> 
> *You really shouldn't try to pass off your own irresponsibility as an American citizen on someone else. *
> ...



  *You mean we only see Black people, or their varied opinions, on BET? *


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 30, 2006)

maniclion said:
			
		

> "If anything they're rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg."



   That was a good one. . .I couldn't believe he was saying that stuff right there with the Prez sitting at the head table.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 30, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Is that what you consider an indication of inherent bias? Based on what sort of journalism ethics? The reporter merely stated the *fact* that rumors were flying around the Internet. . .and did the reporter substantiate it with a source and an example and indicate the reason why the story had public interest?



A story who's premise is "rumors on the Internet" has no place in journalism.  Hell, I'm sure that I can find "rumors on the Internet" that all gays are into bestiality.



			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> _When the *online magazine Salon published an article*_



Validating the pathetic journalism of one liberal outlet with another is a joke. Good try though...wait, no it wasn't.


----------



## MyK (Apr 30, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> A story who's premise is "rumors on the Internet" has no place in journalism.  Hell, I'm sure that I can find "rumors on the Internet" *that all gays are into bestiality*.
> 
> 
> 
> Validating the pathetic journalism of one liberal outlet with another is a joke. Good try though...wait, no it wasn't.



nice example!


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 30, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> A story who's premise is "rumors on the Internet" has no place in journalism.  Hell, I'm sure that I can find "rumors on the Internet" that all gays are into bestiality.
> 
> *You have absolutely no basis for that statement. Are you trying to tell me that coverage of an event that was broadcast on every major television network isn't newsworthy? And if you READ the story, the LEAD isn't about the rumors - it is about the question of what the rectangular object appears to be on the Prez's back. The bulge wasn't a RUMOR - it was a fact.*
> 
> ...



Since you obviously know nothing about journalism, you really aren't in much of a position to define what is pathetic or not - beyond your obvious propensity to deny reality even when millions of Americans saw it on their television screens. A news outlet doesn't become "liberal" simply because you expect it to engage in "conservative" propaganda, or, in this case, apparently denial of reality. Did the reporter indicate the rumors were true and then back it up with substantiation? Nope. Did the reporter WRITE that it was a *fact* that a radio device was hooked up to coach the Prez? Nope. If the World Wingnut Daily had reported the same online story, the _Times_ reporter would have used the same information - except probably leaving out the "leftist, liberal plot" fabrications.

The reporter did nothing more than gather the information being circulated about the bulge, and indicated what the major speculation was about an appearance that millions of people witnessed and wondered about - which would qualify as news. The use of Salon as an online magazine source isn't an indication of "liberal bias" either - the _Times_ reporter was sourcing the rumors through a story that was published on Salon's site which likely included examples of where the rumors were circulating elsewhere on the Web.

If the White House and/or Bush campaign had indicated they had received no phone calls speculating about the bulge, then there might be some question here - but that isn't the case at all. 

The bulge was the basis for the story and the bulge wasn't a rumor. The speculation was the result of the bulge. The White House responded to the question raised in the lead graph of the story. If that's your idea of "liberal" bias, no wonder "conservatives" celebrate Faux News...


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 30, 2006)

MyK said:
			
		

> nice example!




Not by a long shot.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 30, 2006)




----------



## MyK (Apr 30, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Not by a long shot.



I can shoot up to like 3 feet sometimes! how about you?


----------



## kbm8795 (Apr 30, 2006)

Putting your manjuices into a bug spray container doesn't count.


----------



## MyK (Apr 30, 2006)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Putting your manjuices into a bug spray container doesn't count.


the trick is to pinch your head before you blow!


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> *fox Should Be Taken Out And All People Wiped Out That Work For That Pile Of Crap.
> 
> 
> Take Them Out!*



terrorist


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 30, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Ha!  The Washington Post (a liberal rag) had a story during the last Elections whose source was "people on the Internet".
> 
> Yeah, sure, it's just the conservative media outlets...



I never espoused The Washington Post.  I also never said that only conservative media outlets do this.  I just said Fox News is a piece of shit.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 30, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I never espoused The Washington Post.  I also never said that only conservative media outlets do this.  I just said Fox News is a piece of shit.


All major news outlets are shit.  With no exceptions.  That's my point.


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I never espoused The Washington Post. I also never said that only conservative media outlets do this. I just said Fox News is a piece of shit.



thats b/c you don't agree with them.


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 30, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> All major news outlets are shit. With no exceptions. That's my point.



Okay, great.  I can still call Fox a piece of shit then.




			
				lnvanry said:
			
		

> thats b/c you don't agree with them.



It's not because I disagree with them.  It's because they call themselves fair and balanced when they are obviously biased.  At least don't pretend to be fair.  Come up with a slogan that is less filled with Bullshit.  Furthermore, they like to present stories that have no source and pass them off as news.


----------



## lnvanry (Apr 30, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Okay, great.  I can still call Fox a piece of shit then.



fair enough






			
				CowPimp said:
			
		

> It's not because I disagree with them. It's because they call themselves fair and balanced when they are obviously biased. At least don't pretend to be fair. *Come up with a slogan* that is less filled with Bullshit.  Furthermore, they like to present stories that have no source and *pass them off as news.*



thats how media business is done and ALL media outlets do the same.  If your going to blast one outlet for this reason then the same applies to all the outlets.

Kind like how snafu blasts them all.....except NBC.  I didn't see them on his list.


----------



## GFR (Apr 30, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> thats how media business is done and ALL media outlets do the same.  If your going to blast one outlet for this reason then the same applies to all the outlets.


And you can thank the Reagan administration for that.


----------



## CowPimp (May 1, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> thats how media business is done and ALL media outlets do the same.  If your going to blast one outlet for this reason then the same applies to all the outlets.
> 
> Kind like how snafu blasts them all.....except NBC.  I didn't see them on his list.



Well, this thread was about FOX.  I didn't feel the need to bash other news organizations.  But yes, the majority of them twist the news how they see fit.


----------



## Decker (May 1, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Well, this thread was about FOX. I didn't feel the need to bash other news organizations. But yes, the majority of them twist the news how they see fit.


By and large true objectivity is not possible.  Even facts must be selected according to certain criteria--relevance, probity etc.  But as reasonable people we can weigh factors to get a fair and balanced representation of the facts.  That capacity is lost entirely on fox news.  It is lost on ABC and NBC.  Probably CBS too, If I watched the network.  

Look at the pundit panels of the network's sunday shows: 2-3 conservatives and one moderate debate the stories of the day.  For the right wing in this country, the opposite of conservative is not liberal, the opposite of conservative is anyone disagreeing w/ the conservative party line.  When is the last time a representative of labor was included in any discussion panel on these news networks? 

The media mostly are lazy and not competent.  When a go-getter like Murdoch puts out the republican storyline on the fox network, lazy journalists follow suit.  Shit like 'Straight Talk' McCain or Bush the Wartime President become thoughtless frames of the day's issues.  Both are demonstratively bullshit but both thrive b/c of the laziness lockstep of journalists.  Now that's the bias we see.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Okay, great.  I can still call Fox a piece of shit then,



Knock yourself out.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> By and large true objectivity is not possible.  Even facts must be selected according to certain criteria--relevance, probity etc.  But as reasonable people we can weigh factors to get a fair and balanced representation of the facts.  That capacity is lost entirely on fox news.  It is lost on ABC and NBC.  Probably CBS too, If I watched the network.
> 
> Look at the pundit panels of the network's sunday shows: 2-3 conservatives and one moderate debate the stories of the day.  For the right wing in this country, the opposite of conservative is not liberal, the opposite of conservative is anyone disagreeing w/ the conservative party line.  When is the last time a representative of labor was included in any discussion panel on these news networks?
> 
> The media mostly are lazy and not competent.  When a go-getter like Murdoch puts out the republican storyline on the fox network, lazy journalists follow suit.  Shit like 'Straight Talk' McCain or Bush the Wartime President become thoughtless frames of the day's issues.  Both are demonstratively bullshit but both thrive b/c of the laziness lockstep of journalists.  Now that's the bias we see.



You can interchangeably use conservative and liberal in the about post.


" The media mostly are lazy and not competent."

You're mistaking greed for laziness.


----------



## Decker (May 1, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You can interchangeably use conservative and liberal in the about post.
> 
> 
> " The media mostly are lazy and not competent."
> ...


The media are conservative by default b/c of the laziness and incompetence.

Greed made Murdoch manufacture a republican propaganda machine in the Fox Network. The non-fox journalists that want to keep the gravy rolling in just regurgitate what fox puts out b/c they are lazy and greedy. So DOMS, good call. 

If Murdoch is 'in your face' republican propaganda, the other media moguls are more subtle about their influence. Please read the link below to see how concentrated the media ownership is. These corporate giants are certainly not flaming liberals. Does anyone seriously think that these owners would permit ongoing newscoverage of stories antithetical to the corporation's bottom line?
http://www.freepress.net/content/ownership

These are the entities that own the popular 'free press.'  Look at the defense contractors in that list.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> The media are conservative by default b/c of the laziness and incompetence.



Here again, a person with a political bias claiming that the media favors the other group...


----------



## Decker (May 1, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Here again, a person with a political bias claiming that the media favors the other group...


Correct but I give good reasons for my claim.

To claim an overarching liberal media is to assert that the inmates run the asylum.

They don't. 

The corporate owners run the show. Look at the ownership again.
http://www.freepress.net/content/ownership
As long as the media are rendered harmless or supportive of corporate interests, eveything is fine for them.

This is factual. The number of stories re labor's side of the debate--environmental safety, working conditions, bargaining, pay --is almost never heard. But the corporate owner's side is trumpeted.

Like with most ventures in life, the ruling class rules and the workers work.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Correct but I give good reasons for my claim.
> 
> To claim an overarching liberal media is to assert that the inmates run the asylum.
> 
> ...


Then we are in agreement: The media outlets are tools whose master is the almighty buck and shouldn't be trusted.

BTW, I'm not stating that the media has a _*liberal **bias*_, I'm simply stating that the media has _*a bias*_.


----------



## Decker (May 1, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Then we are in agreement: The media outlets are tools whose master is the almighty buck and shouldn't be trusted.
> 
> BTW, I'm not stating that the media has a liberal bias, I'm simply stating that the media has _*a bias*_.


That's a smarter way of stating the bias.  How dare you cut to the chase.  The bottom line is always power and then money.  The better angels of our nature rarely work into the equation.  Truth, Justice, and the american way.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> That's a smarter way of stating the bias.  How dare you cut to the chase.  The bottom line is always power and then money.  The better angels of our nature rarely work into the equation.  Truth, Justice, and the american way.


You're a lawyer, so I don't trust you either.


----------



## Decker (May 1, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You're a lawyer, so I dont' trust you either.


You are wise.  I'm also a bad husband, a traitorous friend and a marginal human being....but I'm a great guy to drink with.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> You are wise.  I'm also a bad husband, a traitorous friend and a marginal human being....but I'm a great guy to drink with.



I don't drink alcohol, but I like traitorous friends.  You're not a "marginal human being", you're a lawyer, which places lower on the grand scale of things.

Me, I'm a computer IT guy, you can trust me with your wife...just not with your Star Trek (the original series) DVD box set.


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I don't drink alcohol, but I like traitorous friends.  You're not a "marginal human being", you're a lawyer, which places lower on the grand scale of things.
> 
> Me, I'm a computer IT guy, you can trust me with your wife...*just not with your Star Trek (the original series) DVD box set.*



I almost bought that last week.


----------



## Decker (May 1, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I don't drink alcohol, but I like traitorous friends. You're not a "marginal human being", you're a lawyer, which places lower on the grand scale of things.
> 
> Me, I'm a computer IT guy, you can trust me with your wife...just not with your Star Trek (the original series) DVD box set.


Now it all comes out.  Old friend....You task me....you task me.  ...But like a poor marksman you keep missing the target.  DOMS, I'm laughing at the superior intellect.  hahahaa

Of course that's a movie.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I almost bought that last week.


There's something about the original series that all the later ones just can't touch.  It's definitely worth buying.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Now it all comes out.  Old friend....You task me....you task me.  ...But like a poor marksman you keep missing the target.  DOMS, I'm laughing at the superior intellect.  hahahaa
> 
> Of course that's a movie.



My life's a movie?  My whole world is just a large sound stage?!  I am merely a source of entertainment for the viewing public?!  A spectacle?

_*Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!*_


----------



## BigDyl (May 1, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> There's something about the original series that all the later ones just can't touch.  It's definitely worth buying.




I got _something_ for you to touch.


----------



## DOMS (May 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I got _something_ for you to touch.



Yeah, but I can't afford an electron microscope just now.


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I got _something_ for you to touch.





			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I can't afford an electron microscope just now.


----------



## topolo (May 1, 2006)

shot fired.............


----------



## MyK (May 1, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> shot fired.............


----------



## lnvanry (May 1, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> And you can thank the Reagan administration for that.


----------



## maniclion (May 1, 2006)

MyK said:
			
		

>


How come Godhand looks like he's the only one enjoying it?


----------



## GFR (May 1, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

>


Read about it.


----------



## Decker (May 2, 2006)

Jesus Myk, that jizz barrage is...I can't stop laughing.  Makes me think of the Hotti thread.


----------

