You gotta love Faux News.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well like anyone else I can only speak for my own motivations. I know that I first heard about it through the Objectivist Party's official news letter (the political party that I'm in.) So that's a political party source, but then again it's a small third party. What exactly qualifies as grass roots then? Are we saying that things are somehow less legitimate if they're covered on TV? If you want to know what one is about, then go to one and tlak to the people there. Anything else is just empty conjecture.

As I said, I won't touch it seriously until it gets cold. I don't do the Vietnam War for that reason. I do, however, think it was engineered and orchestrated from the RNC.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

All 'grassroots' uprisings begin with biased parties with a specific agenda that manage to hit a nerve among a significant minority of the populace. Whether right, left, centre, up or down, this is always the case.

No revolution in history has ever been brought about by a spontaneous uprising of ordinary people. There always has to be prodding.

And when one side is prodding, the other always prods back. This too is natural and predictable.

I see quote mining, strawmen, speculation, bias, unwarranted extrapolation, unverified eyewitnesses, unsourced evidence and similar bullshit in almost EVERY news report I see. Personally, it annoys me most when it is done by those with whom I broadly agree - especially when it is someone like Hitchens (who can rival anyone in the 'religious right' when it comes to biased reporting of 'facts'!)

But the fact is, most people can't see past the huge, bold headlines - to get a point across, especially a point that flies in the face of accepted (ie. LCD) fact, it is deemed necessary to employ the same low tactics as the opposition.

Would that everyone in the world were intelligent and skeptical enough to see through the bullshit from both sides - but if they were, religion would have vanished up its own arse millenia ago.

[/rant]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

XC, nobody can get ALL the facts into a single newscast. I note that news coverage from the Maldives is sadly lacking on my local news program. So they have to pick what items appear. That's where the tricky part comes in, applying an editorial policy that is "fair and unbiased". (That's Faux News' self-promoting mantra, BTW.) The irony is that they can't (or refuse to) see they are the very example of "unfair and biased", the worst of a bad lot. They are the Völkischer Beobachter of the 21st Century. I'd rather watch Al Jazeera.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

XC, nobody can get ALL the facts into a single newscast. I note that news coverage from the Maldives is sadly lacking on my local news program. So they have to pick what items appear. That's where the tricky part comes in, applying an editorial policy that is "fair and unbiased". (That's Faux News' self-promoting mantra, BTW.) The irony is that they can't (or refuse to) see they are the very example of "unfair and biased", the worst of a bad lot. They are the Völkischer Beobachter of the 21st Century. I'd rather watch Al Jazeera.

You get a far less opinionated view of most events on Al Jazeera than Fox - and far more detailed and informed - except when it comes to middle east skirmishes, of course. The main thing is to know the biases of whoever you are watching and to compensate with a "well they would say that, wouldn't they" attitude. Even the BBC, which bends over backwards to appear to be unbiased has its faults - usually erring far too much on the side of political correctness.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

XC, nobody can get ALL the facts into a single newscast. I note that news coverage from the Maldives is sadly lacking on my local news program. So they have to pick what items appear. That's where the tricky part comes in, applying an editorial policy that is "fair and unbiased". (That's Faux News' self-promoting mantra, BTW.) The irony is that they can't (or refuse to) see they are the very example of "unfair and biased", the worst of a bad lot. They are the Völkischer Beobachter of the 21st Century. I'd rather watch Al Jazeera.

You get a far less opinionated view of most events on Al Jazeera than Fox - and far more detailed and informed - except when it comes to middle east skirmishes, of course. The main thing is to know the biases of whoever you are watching and to compensate with a "well they would say that, wouldn't they" attitude. Even the BBC, which bends over backwards to appear to be unbiased has its faults - usually erring far too much on the side of political correctness.

You really can't say if one party gives "better" information than another unless you know ALL the facts, you can only estimate the amount of bias you, yourself, perceive.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-2k2D-F ... re=related[/youtube]

[Xamonas Chegwé]

XC, nobody can get ALL the facts into a single newscast. I note that news coverage from the Maldives is sadly lacking on my local news program. So they have to pick what items appear. That's where the tricky part comes in, applying an editorial policy that is "fair and unbiased". (That's Faux News' self-promoting mantra, BTW.) The irony is that they can't (or refuse to) see they are the very example of "unfair and biased", the worst of a bad lot. They are the Völkischer Beobachter of the 21st Century. I'd rather watch Al Jazeera.

You get a far less opinionated view of most events on Al Jazeera than Fox - and far more detailed and informed - except when it comes to middle east skirmishes, of course. The main thing is to know the biases of whoever you are watching and to compensate with a "well they would say that, wouldn't they" attitude. Even the BBC, which bends over backwards to appear to be unbiased has its faults - usually erring far too much on the side of political correctness.

You really can't say if one party gives "better" information than another unless you know ALL the facts, you can only estimate the amount of bias you, yourself, perceive.

Of course - but in the case of Fox, knowing who owns it helps.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Of course - but in the case of Fox, knowing who owns it helps.

Yeah, Rupert's such a poof.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Evidently atheists are the cause of gang violence in the USA. Thanks, Glenn.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t ... MwZ76QB7uk[/youtube]

[maiforpeace]

Fuck Faux News.

One hundred of these are gracing the sides of buses in Seattle, WA in honor of the FFRF convention as we speak.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

There can't be a god then. Cos Santa says so - and he's real, isn't he?

[Dory]

32 seconds before vomit! Yay...so proud at my endurance. Thought I'll dropped at 10.

-Dory

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, who will replace the Republican Party?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q547CzWJv7Y&feature=sub[/youtube]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

LiberalViewer shows that Faux News is not a news organization, but rather a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, or it's most extremely conservative segments at least.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwD-zdBl ... re=channel[/youtube]

[Horwood Beer-Master]

So, who will replace the Republican Party?..

I'm hardly an expert on American politics, but from where I'm sitting it looks as if the so-called 'Blue Dog Democrats', 'New Democrats' and other 'DINOs' are currently occupying the political ground vacated when the Republican party shifted to Loonyville.


Whether they're going to split to form their own party (with the help of some of the more (relatively) sane Republicans) remains to be seen.
Let's hope not - It may split the Democrat vote and let the loonies back in!