DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: TheOutlawXanadu on November 01, 2010, 09:10:04 AM
-
As someone who is only just starting to get aware of all the major news networks and their anchors, or television personalities, or whatever they are called, I was wondering what you guys think about them?
I don't know enough of their names to make a comprehensive list, or anything like that, but I guess I am talking about guys like Bill O' Reilly, Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews, etc. And also guys like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, who are not working for serious news networks but who seem to have some influence on people's politics.
Do you think they should be taken seriously? Are they morons? Are they insightful?
-
I think it is the fact the people like Stewart and Colbert throw comedy into their reports. Not just little bits here and there, their entire show is based around comedy. Most people can't take them seriously. Glenn Beck has a case of diarrhea of the mouth, and I don't know anyone that actually likes him. If a news station picked him up, people would tune off immediately. It is all a business, and that would be a terrible business decision. People like Bill Maher (who I actually am a huge fan of) are interpreted as people who has have their beliefs, and just bashe on others whose are not the same. Nancy Grace does the same thing, but because she doesn't get involved with religion she is allowed on a normal network, no matter how wrong she is.
I think some should be taken more seriously than others. Just because you can make people laugh during a serious topic, doesn't mean your points are any less valid.
-
I don't really follow TV politics but most of it seems partisan and I don't think that's a coincidence lol.
-
I like O'Reilly.. to me he is fair, or as fair as it gets. Beck is sorta on his own tangent, I like how he is like Gingrich as far as wanting to go over American history.
The others listed are nonsense.. Olbermann to me need to be put on medication, he is a loon , a flat out liar
It really takes effort and getting ones views from a mulittude of sources to have any real objectivity, you gotta use ones own BS filter and really think what makes sense and really who is FUNDING the message
-
Cannot stand O'Reilly, Glenn Beck or Bill Maher. I find each of them impossible and religiously bias in fashion or another. Bill Maher is not so much of a dick compared to O Reilly and Beck but Maher is most certainly has a burr up his ass when it comes to religion. I am a rather large fan of Olbermann and Stewart.
-
Eh, I don't mind any of those guys personally, but the fact that they ALL are PRIME TIME "news" programming (aside from the funnies) is pretty much to the detriment of having a truly informed populous. Guys like O'Reilly and Olbermann, who just gas off of whatever lands closest to the "party line" at the moment don't bother me, and I've been entertained by both in the past, but the really belong on day-time TV. Or else AM radio.
These people are not journalists. Sure, you might be able to drum up some instances where some of them have done *real* journalism, but most of them just spin whatever's on the front page of the New York Times... so no respect there from me.
I do not like Glenn Beck, John Stewart, or Bill Maher. Beck is a nutcase. Stewart isn't funny. Neither is Maher, but Maher is obnoxious. Stewart, to me, is like Maher lite.
Love Colbert, though.
-
I get the majority of my news from online feeds and the daily show.
-
I get most of my news online.
Beck and Olbermann are definitely the worst of the bunch you mentioned, IMO. O'Reilly isn't much better, if at all. All predictably partisan enough to make you sick. I agree with PC that these guys are far from "real" journalists, and journalism isn't a profession that I have a whole lot of respect for to begin with.
I've never really watched Maher, but he's seemed like kind of a pompous ass when I've seen him on other programs. His politics are pretty far left.
I like Jon Stewart, even though I disagree with him on quite a few issues. I enjoy his show and I think he's pretty funny, and he seems like a fairly reasonable dude, all things considered.
I have no idea where any of Colbert's politics lie, but his character on his show is an obvious parody of a staunch conservative. It's hilarious, and in general lacks the serious political aspect of Stewart's show.
I definitely don't use The Daily Show, etc. as a primary source of news, but I do enjoy watching them far more than any news program I can think of. I don't know if it's because the humor dampens my general cynicism toward politics in this country or what, but I'm sure that's a part of it.
-J
-
Good post J!^
-
I enjoy watching Bill Maher from time to time, however, I'm under no illusion that his show constitutes news or journalism. That's the trick. The problem I have with a jackass like O'Reilly is that it seems like so many people think of his show as news. Like Bill Maher, it's news-themed entertainment. Maher is just intentionally funny.
-
O'Reilly to me is a democrat, although he claims to be an Independent..
at least on his show he gives equal time for all views..I do enjoy him, he is the best, and the numbers bear that out
-
I enjoy watching Bill Maher from time to time, however, I'm under no illusion that his show constitutes news or journalism. That's the trick. The problem I have with a jackass like O'Reilly is that it seems like so many people think of his show as news. Like Bill Maher, it's news-themed entertainment. Maher is just intentionally funny.
What did you think of Religulous?
-
I enjoy watching Bill Maher from time to time, however, I'm under no illusion that his show constitutes news or journalism. That's the trick. The problem I have with a jackass like O'Reilly is that it seems like so many people think of his show as news. Like Bill Maher, it's news-themed entertainment. Maher is just intentionally funny.
What did you think of Religulous?
I just had to google it to figure out WTF it is.
-
I enjoy watching Bill Maher from time to time, however, I'm under no illusion that his show constitutes news or journalism. That's the trick. The problem I have with a jackass like O'Reilly is that it seems like so many people think of his show as news. Like Bill Maher, it's news-themed entertainment. Maher is just intentionally funny.
What did you think of Religulous?
I just had to google it to figure out WTF it is.
You should find a way to view it. I think you'll dig it.
-
I don't really watch or care for any of them.
-
I enjoy watching Bill Maher from time to time, however, I'm under no illusion that his show constitutes news or journalism. That's the trick. The problem I have with a jackass like O'Reilly is that it seems like so many people think of his show as news. Like Bill Maher, it's news-themed entertainment. Maher is just intentionally funny.
What did you think of Religulous?
Bill Maher is not half as smart as he thinks he is.
That is all.
-
I enjoy watching Bill Maher from time to time, however, I'm under no illusion that his show constitutes news or journalism. That's the trick. The problem I have with a jackass like O'Reilly is that it seems like so many people think of his show as news. Like Bill Maher, it's news-themed entertainment. Maher is just intentionally funny.
What did you think of Religulous?
Bill Maher is not half as smart as he thinks he is.
That is all.
well said^
-
Good post J!^
Thanks! :)
O'Reilly to me is a democrat, although he claims to be an Independent..
Gotta disagree with you here though. O'Reilly claims to be an independent, but he is conservative on every major issue. Definitely not a registered Democrat. :lol
What did you think of Religulous?
I thought it was pretty funny. Definitely nothing particularly novel or thought-provoking on the non-humor side though.
-J
-
I enjoy watching Bill Maher from time to time, however, I'm under no illusion that his show constitutes news or journalism. That's the trick. The problem I have with a jackass like O'Reilly is that it seems like so many people think of his show as news. Like Bill Maher, it's news-themed entertainment. Maher is just intentionally funny.
What did you think of Religulous?
Bill Maher is not half as smart as he thinks he is.
That is all.
He's still hilarious. That is if you know not to take him seriously.
-
I really can't stand Bill Maher most of the time, but he did actually let Ron Paul come on his show and allow him to legitimately speak his mind. Which is more than almost anyone else did prior to the election.
-
I absolutely hate bill maher and if I ever met him in real life I would ask him why he is such a manipulative dickbag.
Aside from him I don't much care about tv politics as it is very rarely an even talking field for opposing views.
-
I enjoy watching Bill Maher from time to time, however, I'm under no illusion that his show constitutes news or journalism. That's the trick. The problem I have with a jackass like O'Reilly is that it seems like so many people think of his show as news. Like Bill Maher, it's news-themed entertainment. Maher is just intentionally funny.
What did you think of Religulous?
Bill Maher is not half as smart as he thinks he is.
That is all.
He's still hilarious. That is if you know not to take him seriously.
I don't take him serious, and really, he's not all that funny.
-
O'Reilly to me is a democrat, although he claims to be an Independent..
at least on his show he gives equal time for all views..I do enjoy him, he is the best, and the numbers bear that out
He doesn't come across as one iota Democrat, and he only gives time to other views so that he can mock them.
However, he is still entertaining at times.
I think that Stewart and Colbert are fantastic.
I also like Olberman, but I wish he weren't quite so liberal. He is extraordinarily intelligent, and the people he usually targets are people that also drive me nuts. But he extremely liberal, so I can only take him in small doses.
Glenn Beck is a fascist fucktard of the first magnitude. And he's stupid as well.
But the truth of it is that none of these people are journalists, and no one should get all of their news from any of these people.
-
I dont find Maher funny at all. Ive never understood why anyone would care what he had to say,and I dont dont find him clever either. Colbert I dont find funny either.. Stewart is at least quick and clever. None of them I would ever expect real news from.
-
Stewart is good for embarrassing Fox by exposing their fails with lulz.
-
Colbert I dont find funny either
I know why.
-
Colbert I dont find funny either
I know why.
why?
-
O'Riley is alright most of the time although he does tend to bash opposing views. Sometimes it's appropriate other times he could do without it.
Beck is fine with me from what I've seen of him most of the time even if he does get a little animated.
Maher tends to come off as a bit of a pompous ass.
I can't say that I've watched Stewart or Colbert cause it just doesn't seem too appealing to me.
-
I gained some respect for O'Reilly when he interviewed Obama. He was one of the people who had the guts to give him a REAL interview. He was a little snippy of times, but the interview I thought was a rare instance of journalistic integrity from someone who usually just bullshits around.
I agree with hef completely about Beck. Beck's an asswipe who would lead us all to facism based on 'his feelings.' And then when he realized what he'd done, it'd be too late, and his feelings wouldn't matter anymore.
-
I'll take Colbert over Bill Maher any day.
-
Im not seeing this "Beck is a Fascist" stuff at all? if Beck is a fascist then Obama is a communist.. since both statements are outragous.. Obama is just a Socialist... ;)
-
oh fuck not this shit again :facepalm:
-
Im not seeing this "Beck is a Fascist" stuff at all? if Beck is a fascist then Obama is a communist.. since both statements are outragous.. Obama is just a Socialist... ;)
How about this one? Obama's a liberal democrat, and Beck's just a dumbass who doesn't know what any of these political categories really mean anyway.
-
I know this: Beck knows heck of a lot more about our constitution and American History then Obama.
-
No, he doesn't. He's just been spoon-fed an interpretation of both that you agree with more.
-
No, he doesn't. He's just been spoon-fed an interpretation of both that you agree with more.
we just saw Obama call citizens of the USA the "Enemy" I think Beck is smarter... well most anybody is smarter then Obama the "great divider".. we are seeing Obama being rejected like a disease today
-
we are seeing Obama being rejected like a disease today
Kind of like the way Beck's advertisers treat him when he continues to keep talking out of his ass without thinking.
-
No, he doesn't. He's just been spoon-fed an interpretation of both that you agree with more.
we just saw Obama call citizens of the USA the "Enemy" I think Beck is smarter... well most anybody is smarter then Obama the "great divider".. we are seeing Obama being rejected like a disease today
First off, calling a party the enemy is not the same as calling it's members the enemy. If you can't see the distinction, then you have a problem.
Second, a rejection of Obama is merely how you're interpreting this thing. The president's party almost always gets hammered in the midterms.
-
we are seeing Obama being rejected like a disease today
Kind of like the way Beck's advertisers treat him when he continues to keep talking out of his ass without thinking.
who dropped Beck? what has Beck said that is even debatable? I see no sign of any flair up with Beck anywhere?
-
No, he doesn't. He's just been spoon-fed an interpretation of both that you agree with more.
we just saw Obama call citizens of the USA the "Enemy" I think Beck is smarter... well most anybody is smarter then Obama the "great divider".. we are seeing Obama being rejected like a disease today
First off, calling a party the enemy is not the same as calling it's members the enemy. If you can't see the distinction, then you have a problem.
Second, a rejection of Obama is merely how you're interpreting this thing. The president's party almost always gets hammered in the midterms.
that's your opinion and view..Obama had to retract his angry stupidity...lets face it Obama aint the brightest bulb.
I have no problem..thank you
-
we are seeing Obama being rejected like a disease today
Kind of like the way Beck's advertisers treat him when he continues to keep talking out of his ass without thinking.
who dropped Beck? what has Beck said that is even debatable? I see no sign of any flair up with Beck anywhere?
https://www.google.com/search?q=glenn+beck+loses+advertisers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I'll give you the search link so you can dig through all the different sources, since if I posted it you would likely dismiss it right away.
-
EB,
If you are not reading this as a rejection of liberalism tax and spend, and Obama, then you gotta maybe take an objective look at what we are seeing.
This is not a regular midterm...this might be historic , and you saying that its not wont change it
people ar rejcting Obamas Socilaist platform of unfair taxing, wealth redistribution, and our rights being taken under the false Obamacare ..
thats what todays vote is..not the spin that the Dem Lib media is trying to sell us
-
we are seeing Obama being rejected like a disease today
Kind of like the way Beck's advertisers treat him when he continues to keep talking out of his ass without thinking.
who dropped Beck? what has Beck said that is even debatable? I see no sign of any flair up with Beck anywhere?
https://www.google.com/search?q=glenn+beck+loses+advertisers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I'll give you the search link so you can dig through all the different sources, since if I posted it you would likely dismiss it right away.
what did Beck do ? recite Obamas own words from his book? LOL
-
we are seeing Obama being rejected like a disease today
Kind of like the way Beck's advertisers treat him when he continues to keep talking out of his ass without thinking.
who dropped Beck? what has Beck said that is even debatable? I see no sign of any flair up with Beck anywhere?
https://www.google.com/search?q=glenn+beck+loses+advertisers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I'll give you the search link so you can dig through all the different sources, since if I posted it you would likely dismiss it right away.
what did Beck do ? recite Obamas own words from his book? LOL
:facepalm:
I don't like Obama at all, but as you said, let's stay objective. I think making a statement like "Obama hates all white people" is a pretty big thing to say without much of anything to back it up. Says a lot about who Glenn Beck is.
-
over the past 17 midterm elections, the president's party has lost an average 28 seats in the House, and an average 4 seats in the Senate.
2006 George W. Bush Republican (R) R-30 R-6
1994 Bill Clinton D D-54 D-8
1982 Ronald Reagan R R-26 0
1974 Gerald Ford R R-48 R-4
1966 Lyndon B. Johnson D-48 D-3
1958 Dwight D Eisenhower R-48 R-12
1946 Harry S Truman D D-54 D-12
-
I just curious if their is documented proof that most of the stuff Beck says are blatant lies? Has he been proven to be a liar on several occasions?
If he has he should shut the fuck up already. If not, then let the man speak his point of view, because if he is telling truth he is doing nothing wrong regardless of how much the left wing media hates him. :tick2:
Its not like Keith Oberman doesn't talk out his ass.
-
we are seeing Obama being rejected like a disease today
Kind of like the way Beck's advertisers treat him when he continues to keep talking out of his ass without thinking.
who dropped Beck? what has Beck said that is even debatable? I see no sign of any flair up with Beck anywhere?
https://www.google.com/search?q=glenn+beck+loses+advertisers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I'll give you the search link so you can dig through all the different sources, since if I posted it you would likely dismiss it right away.
what did Beck do ? recite Obamas own words from his book? LOL
:facepalm:
I don't like Obama at all, but as you said, let's stay objective. I think making a statement like "Obama hates all white people" is a pretty big thing to say without much of anything to back it up. Says a lot about who Glenn Beck is.
Thats not what Beck said!!!!! read his words...then read Obamas words from his own book!!!
-
What Beck did was "react" to Obama's own words from his book..Obama's words are racist. Beck said that Obama's words are racist..
-
Yup. Plus, if people are "rejecting Obama like a disease" with a 45 percent approval rating, how would explain Bush's final approval rating of 22 percent?
Besides, like Obama or not, he's got an education from Harvard Law and taught constitutional law at the Ivy League for almost 10 years. In every way we can tell, he knows more about Beck about the constitution. Regardless of whether you agree with his views on the Constitution or not, Obama is an accredited specialist in this area. Beck does not even have a college education as far as I know.
I'm not talking opinions here, I'm talking facts. Obama knows more about the constitution than Beck simply based on we can quantify Obama's knowledge (and Ivy league degree and teaching at the Ivy League level) whereas with Beck we can only surmise.
You can guess about Beck's intelligence all you want, but one person is accredited to speak and even teach in this field from one of our nation's top universities and the other doesn't. While Obama was getting his degree in Business Administration from Columbia and, later, Law from Harvard, Beck was busy being a radio-clown, doing drugs, drinking into oblivion, and contemplating suicide.
So, in sum, let's see what we know about the intelligence in both:
Obama Beck
BA from Columbia Believes in Mormonism
Law from Harvard Thinks communism, fascism, and socialism are the same thing
Ivy League Professor
-
we are seeing Obama being rejected like a disease today
Kind of like the way Beck's advertisers treat him when he continues to keep talking out of his ass without thinking.
who dropped Beck? what has Beck said that is even debatable? I see no sign of any flair up with Beck anywhere?
https://www.google.com/search?q=glenn+beck+loses+advertisers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I'll give you the search link so you can dig through all the different sources, since if I posted it you would likely dismiss it right away.
what did Beck do ? recite Obamas own words from his book? LOL
:facepalm:
I don't like Obama at all, but as you said, let's stay objective. I think making a statement like "Obama hates all white people" is a pretty big thing to say without much of anything to back it up. Says a lot about who Glenn Beck is.
Thats not what Beck said!!!!! read his words...then read Obamas words from his own book!!!
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57C07920090813
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/glenn-beck-loses-advertisers/backlash/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/25/glenn-beck-loses-advertisers/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/glenn-becks-obama-racist_n_253264.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/business/media/14adco.html
That's the first 5 links on the search link I gave you. Although I don't think it matters much, seeing as I expect you to disregard any link I post.
What Beck did was "react" to Obama's own words from his book..Obama's words are racist. Beck said that Obama's words are racist..
He said that "Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture". I think that's more than a reaction to whatever words Obama spoke.
-
I read your post and link SS,
I saw that 2 advertisers requested to be moved from that time slot AFTER certain lobbies contacted them..
again, Beck was quoting Obama, and Becks views were based on Obamas own words and again ASSOCIATIONS...that why the associations of Obama are a vaild concern..
here is a link for you
https://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/30/white-folks-greed-runs-a-world-in-need.html
-
I read your post and link SS,
I saw that 2 advertisers requested to be moved from that time slot AFTER certain lobbies contacted them..
again, Beck was quoting Obama, and Becks views were based on Obamas own words and again ASSOCIATIONS...that why the associations of Obama are a vaild concern..
here is a link for you
https://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/30/white-folks-greed-runs-a-world-in-need.html
A conservative blog takes a quote out of context and tries to pinpoint Obama as racist? That's all I got out of it.
-
Also a bit of searching through google, I found this link by the exact same blog:
https://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2010/01/08/google-is-bigoted-against-christians-and-supports-terrorism.html
Seriously? That's where you're getting your sources from? :facepalm:
-
Once again because no one responded, can anyone prove Glen Becks claims to be blatant lies?
I want the truth. I can handle it. :tick2:
-
EPICVIEW, that's what I meant by the sources you use.
And Beck wasn't quoting Obama. He was expressing a personal opinion.
-
Also a bit of searching through google, I found this link by the exact same blog:
https://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2010/01/08/google-is-bigoted-against-christians-and-supports-terrorism.html
Seriously? That's where you're getting your sources from? :facepalm:
read his book...Obamas book, You gotta work for Obama...really
-
EPICVIEW, that's what I meant by the sources you use.
And Beck wasn't quoting Obama. He was expressing a personal opinion.
again..its Obamas words from his book...
I ask...do you sense any racism in his words? I do..and Beck did,...
-
Once again because no one responded, can anyone prove Glen Becks claims to be blatant lies?
I want the truth. I can handle it. :tick2:
There's no way to prove or disprove if Obama is racist or not, but you have to admit that's a very ridiculous thing to say on nation television regardless and makes it nearly impossible to take you seriously without any proof.
-
EPICVIEW, that's what I meant by the sources you use.
And Beck wasn't quoting Obama. He was expressing a personal opinion.
same sort of source that SS used?. and Becks "opinion" was based from Obamas OWN WORDS..
-
Once again because no one responded, can anyone prove Glen Becks claims to be blatant lies?
I want the truth. I can handle it. :tick2:
There's no way to prove or disprove if Obama is racist or not, but you have to admit that's a very ridiculous thing to say on nation television regardless and makes it nearly impossible to take you seriously without any proof.
you talkling abaout Obamas " the GOP is the Enemy" line....I agree with you..its very hard to to take Obama seriuously...His sponsers should all be pulled..
-
Also a bit of searching through google, I found this link by the exact same blog:
https://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2010/01/08/google-is-bigoted-against-christians-and-supports-terrorism.html
Seriously? That's where you're getting your sources from? :facepalm:
read his book...Obamas book, You gotta work for Obama...really
No, I don't work for Obama. You're assuming because I don't believe the stuff you're spewing out that I must be working for him. Nice.
I don't have the money to go purchase some obscure book I've never heard of before, so unless there's a way to read it online I'm out of luck I suppose.
EPICVIEW, that's what I meant by the sources you use.
And Beck wasn't quoting Obama. He was expressing a personal opinion.
same sort of source that SS used?. and Becks "opinion" was based from Obamas OWN WORDS..
What words?
Once again because no one responded, can anyone prove Glen Becks claims to be blatant lies?
I want the truth. I can handle it. :tick2:
There's no way to prove or disprove if Obama is racist or not, but you have to admit that's a very ridiculous thing to say on nation television regardless and makes it nearly impossible to take you seriously without any proof.
you talkling abaout Obamas " the GOP is the Enemy" line....I agree with you..its very hard to to take Obama seriuously...His sponsers should all be pulled..
I would bet good money a Republican has said the same things about the Democrats before. Its called politics. Mudslinging is the order of the day.
-
Here...
Obama saying it.. books on tape...BLT theology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNQBTOVF4o
-
Here...
Obama saying it.. books on tape...BLT theoligy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNQBTOVF4o
There is nothing racist about it at all. "White folks" can be attributed simply to people in power that do nothing to help others. It does not necessarily refer to the Caucasian race.
-
here it is again in more context
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySM63ES8t4U&feature=related
-
Here...
Obama saying it.. books on tape...BLT theoligy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNQBTOVF4o
There is nothing racist about it at all. "White folks" can be attributed simply to people in power that do nothing to help others. It does not necessarily refer to the Caucasian race.
if you insist... but Beck is the bad guy... I get it....LOL
-
SS,
Obama wrote 2 books, they are not "obscure"..Im always shocked how many who voted for him never read them, but those who read them and see his racist side are "not informed"...
fascinating.
-
here is is again in more context
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySM63ES8t4U&feature=related
Rev. Wright is a lunatic. We all know that. What are you trying to prove? Obama lied about it so he wouldn't be tied to him? I don't blame him, any other politician would have done the same thing. All politicians lie man, its nothing new. Get with the program.
SS,
Obama wrote 2 books, they are not "obscure"..Im always shocked how many who voted for him never read them, but those who read them and see his racist side are "not informed"...
fascinating.
Again, I don't like Obama either. I just don't feel compelled to read all his books especially when I have other financial woes to tend to.
-
This is an interesting watch..Obamas own words
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs&feature=related
-
This is an interesting watch..Obamas own words
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs&feature=related
I've used the term "white folks" the exact same way myself. Well shit, I guess I'm just racist now.
-
here is is again in more context
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySM63ES8t4U&feature=related
Rev. Wright is a lunatic. We all know that. What are you trying to prove? Obama lied about it so he wouldn't be tied to him? I don't blame him, any other politician would have done the same thing. All politicians lie man, its nothing new. Get with the program.
SS,
Obama wrote 2 books, they are not "obscure"..Im always shocked how many who voted for him never read them, but those who read them and see his racist side are "not informed"...
fascinating.
Again, I don't like Obama either. I just don't feel compelled to read all his books especially when I have other financial woes to tend to.
he sat in his church for 20 years... this is why Obamas assocatiation is paramount
-
This is an interesting watch..Obamas own words
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs&feature=related
I've used the term "white folks" the exact same way myself. Well shit, I guess I'm just racist now.
why is this so confusing? its the rest of the sentence!!! and pattern that is the real issue..
you seem to see it with Beck? but you can see it with Obama? thats the point
-
The point is Beck is NOT a racist.. he was quoting Obama..Beck has no history of racism..nor does anyone think he is a racist.
but Obama has a very muddied past of delving into racist issues with his BLT associations and far worse..and Obama goes and says it print and speeches, books..and thats fine?
-
here is is again in more context
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySM63ES8t4U&feature=related
Rev. Wright is a lunatic. We all know that. What are you trying to prove? Obama lied about it so he wouldn't be tied to him? I don't blame him, any other politician would have done the same thing. All politicians lie man, its nothing new. Get with the program.
SS,
Obama wrote 2 books, they are not "obscure"..Im always shocked how many who voted for him never read them, but those who read them and see his racist side are "not informed"...
fascinating.
Again, I don't like Obama either. I just don't feel compelled to read all his books especially when I have other financial woes to tend to.
he sat in his church for 20 years... this is why Obamas assocatiation is paramount
My biological mother hates jews and is very open about it. I don't live with her anymore, but she raised me for many years and there is an undeniable association with that. I think antisemitism is retarded personally, but does the fact that she is my mother mean I should be suspect if I ever ran for political office?
The point is Beck is NOT a racist.. he was quoting Obama..Beck has no history of racism..nor does anyone think he is a racist.
but Obama has a very muddied past of delving into racist issues with his BLT associations and far worse..and Obama goes and says it print and speeches, books..and thats fine?
When did I say he was? He just said that Obama was which is a silly thing to say and makes him look like an idiot.
The hell is BLT?
-
Once again because no one responded, can anyone prove Glen Becks claims to be blatant lies?
I want the truth. I can handle it. :tick2:
dont hold your breath..LOL
-
Once again because no one responded, can anyone prove Glen Becks claims to be blatant lies?
I want the truth. I can handle it. :tick2:
There's no way to prove or disprove if Obama is racist or not, but you have to admit that's a very ridiculous thing to say on nation television regardless and makes it nearly impossible to take you seriously without any proof.
He makes many more claims about other things then just that. I can of them be proven to be lies? I really want to know if they have?
-
Once again because no one responded, can anyone prove Glen Becks claims to be blatant lies?
I want the truth. I can handle it. :tick2:
There's no way to prove or disprove if Obama is racist or not, but you have to admit that's a very ridiculous thing to say on nation television regardless and makes it nearly impossible to take you seriously without any proof.
He makes many more claims about other things then just that. I can of them be proven to be lies? I really want to know if they have?
I don't watch Glenn Beck so I don't have a documented knowledge of what everything he has said, but the links I showed earlier (one of them at least) had a date of what show that Beck made that statement. There is no proof for the validity of the statement, and claiming Obama to be racist is a really bold thing to say without any evidence. Of course, there's no way to know otherwise but I think I'll stick with the mindset that Beck is saying things to stir his fans up.
-
SS, sorry to hear about your mom...thats sad..
but your analogy is weak..
Obama chose Wright..he wasnt subjugated to have to stay with him...BLT is Black Liberation Theology, what Wright preaches..Wright babtized Obamas kids at Obamas request.. Farakan was on the Trumpet News letter of Wrights Church..it goes on and on and on..with Obama.. This is what Obama BELIEVES...he never tried to get aways from it.. he stayed for 20 years of this hatred..How can anyone trust Obama after that? and his assocatioan as I listed in some thread are ENDLESS
He lied and tried to ditch Wright when it was politcally savy...AKA: he got caught.
find out about this on your own..so you can embrace what Im saying, and not think Im trying to use "conservative blogs" lol.
PS: Im proud of you as far as your rejecting antisemitism...You are a good dude..please find out about what Im saying on Obama
-
SS, sorry to hear about your mom...thats sad..
but your analogy is weak..
Obama chose Wright..he wasnt subjugated to have to stay with him...BLT is Black Liberation Theology, what Wright preaches..Wright babtized Obamas kids at Obamas request.. Farakan was on the Trumpet News letter of Wrights Church..it goes on and on and on..with Obama.. This is what Obama BELIEVES...he never tried to get aways from it.. he stayed for 20 years of this hatred..How can anyone trust Obama after that? and his assocatioan as I listed in some thread are ENDLESS
He lied and tried to ditch Wright when it was politcally savy...AKA: he got caught.
find out about this on your own..so you can embrace what Im saying, and not think Im trying to use "conservative blogs" lol.
PS: Im proud of you as far as your rejcting antisemitism...You are a good dude..please find out about what Im saying on Obama
Its nothing really, I'm my own man, I've chosen not to associate with her anymore. But that's beside the point.
I want evidence of this (Baptizing his own kids at BLT), and I don't consider obvious right-wing blogs to be evidence despite what you say. I want you to find this out because you're the one saying that Obama is racist. The burden of proof is on you not me (lolzomgnuggetz :neverusethis: ). If I made a radical claim, I'd need to prove it using real sources, and not random blogs.
-
SS, sorry to hear about your mom...thats sad..
but your analogy is weak..
Obama chose Wright..he wasnt subjugated to have to stay with him...BLT is Black Liberation Theology, what Wright preaches..Wright babtized Obamas kids at Obamas request.. Farakan was on the Trumpet News letter of Wrights Church..it goes on and on and on..with Obama.. This is what Obama BELIEVES...he never tried to get aways from it.. he stayed for 20 years of this hatred..How can anyone trust Obama after that? and his assocatioan as I listed in some thread are ENDLESS
He lied and tried to ditch Wright when it was politcally savy...AKA: he got caught.
find out about this on your own..so you can embrace what Im saying, and not think Im trying to use "conservative blogs" lol.
PS: Im proud of you as far as your rejecting antisemitism...You are a good dude..please find out about what Im saying on Obama
The problem I've had with the whole Obama/Wright thing, is that just because he attends his church doesn't mean he subscribes to his beliefs.
For example: the former Rabbi of my synagogue had some pretty heated sermons. During the High Holidays, and especially during Yom Kippur, he would go on and on about how Israel should be a purely Jewish state, and how all the Palestinians should be kicked out, yadda yadda yadda.
I hate thinking like that. I feel that Israel CAN exist as a Palestinian and Jewish state, but neither side has given that a chance, really. But would you say that I'm anti-Palestinian just because my Rabbi is?
-
PLM,
You should consider leaving that temple, if you dont subscribe to that view.
but BLT is a little more then "one church" it borders on a political movement.. a social movement..
find out about it..I dont have the time to "teach" LOL..I do the best I can to just get people to "think"
-
The problem I've had with the whole Obama/Wright thing, is that just because he attends his church doesn't mean he subscribes to his beliefs.
Exactly. I went to catholic schools for 10 years, went to mass hundreds of times, and I am completely opposed to all religion.
-
SS, sorry to hear about your mom...thats sad..
but your analogy is weak..
Obama chose Wright..he wasnt subjugated to have to stay with him...BLT is Black Liberation Theology, what Wright preaches..Wright babtized Obamas kids at Obamas request.. Farakan was on the Trumpet News letter of Wrights Church..it goes on and on and on..with Obama.. This is what Obama BELIEVES...he never tried to get aways from it.. he stayed for 20 years of this hatred..How can anyone trust Obama after that? and his assocatioan as I listed in some thread are ENDLESS
He lied and tried to ditch Wright when it was politcally savy...AKA: he got caught.
find out about this on your own..so you can embrace what Im saying, and not think Im trying to use "conservative blogs" lol.
PS: Im proud of you as far as your rejcting antisemitism...You are a good dude..please find out about what Im saying on Obama
Its nothing really, I'm my own man, I've chosen not to associate with her anymore. But that's beside the point.
I want evidence of this (Baptizing his own kids at BLT), and I don't consider obvious right-wing blogs to be evidence despite what you say. I want you to find this out because you're the one saying that Obama is racist. The burden of proof is on you not me (lolzomgnuggetz :neverusethis: ). If I made a radical claim, I'd need to prove it using real sources, and not random blogs.
You still have to prove that Beck lied... thats going to be tough.. proving Obama has having a racist side is easy...read his books!
-
PLM,
You should consider leaving that temple, if you dont subscribe to that view.
but BLT is a little more then "one church" it borders on a political movement.. a social movement..
find out about it..I dont have the time to "teach" LOL..I do the best I can to just get people to "think"
You'll note I said 'former' Rabbi. He retired a few years ago.
But I wouldn't have left anyway. All in all, the prayer itself was the same, and that's what matters in a place of worship, right?
-
SS, sorry to hear about your mom...thats sad..
but your analogy is weak..
Obama chose Wright..he wasnt subjugated to have to stay with him...BLT is Black Liberation Theology, what Wright preaches..Wright babtized Obamas kids at Obamas request.. Farakan was on the Trumpet News letter of Wrights Church..it goes on and on and on..with Obama.. This is what Obama BELIEVES...he never tried to get aways from it.. he stayed for 20 years of this hatred..How can anyone trust Obama after that? and his assocatioan as I listed in some thread are ENDLESS
He lied and tried to ditch Wright when it was politcally savy...AKA: he got caught.
find out about this on your own..so you can embrace what Im saying, and not think Im trying to use "conservative blogs" lol.
PS: Im proud of you as far as your rejcting antisemitism...You are a good dude..please find out about what Im saying on Obama
Its nothing really, I'm my own man, I've chosen not to associate with her anymore. But that's beside the point.
I want evidence of this (Baptizing his own kids at BLT), and I don't consider obvious right-wing blogs to be evidence despite what you say. I want you to find this out because you're the one saying that Obama is racist. The burden of proof is on you not me (lolzomgnuggetz :neverusethis: ). If I made a radical claim, I'd need to prove it using real sources, and not random blogs.
You still have to prove that Beck lied... thats going to be tough.. proving Obama has having a racist side is easy...read his books!
1. I never said he lied, although I do think he's talking out of his ass.
2. I don't have access to the books, as I said before.
-
I forget Wright also married the Obamas... and Obama named his book after Wrights sermons
Here it again mentions the baptizing of Obamas Children..
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html
-
I forget Wright also married the Obamas... and Obama named his book after Wrights sermons
Here it again mentions the baptizing of Obamas Children..
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html
Thank you for not using a blog this time :P
Anyway, most religious people tend to have close relationships with their pastors, its not that uncommon. Is it cause for concern? Possibly, but dude you just can't jump the gun and scream "OBAMA IS RACIST OBAMA IS RACIST" because of that.
-
I forget Wright also married the Obamas... and Obama named his book after Wrights sermons
Here it again mentions the baptizing of Obamas Children..
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html
Thank you for not using a blog this time :P
Anyway, most religious people tend to have close relationships with their pastors, its not that uncommon. Is it cause for concern? Possibly, but dude you just can't jump the gun and scream "OBAMA IS RACIST OBAMA IS RACIST" because of that.
cmon, his relationship with Obama is beyond tight...this is getting stupid now. can you name another President with these type of associations???
-
Obama wants it both ways.. Obama is the one who deals in racism.. thats part of Black Liberation Theology.. look at their charter!!! for starters...what makes me upset is the lib media didnt report all this.
now..Im to believe Beck is a racist for reciting Obamas own words??
-
Obama wants it both ways.. Obama is the one who deals in racism.. thats part of Black Liberation Theology.. look at their charter!!! for starters...what makes me upset is the lib media didnt report all this.
now..Im to believe Beck is a racist for reciting Obamas own words??
How exactly does Obama deal in racism?
-
I forget Wright also married the Obamas... and Obama named his book after Wrights sermons
Here it again mentions the baptizing of Obamas Children..
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html
Thank you for not using a blog this time :P
Anyway, most religious people tend to have close relationships with their pastors, its not that uncommon. Is it cause for concern? Possibly, but dude you just can't jump the gun and scream "OBAMA IS RACIST OBAMA IS RACIST" because of that.
cmon, his relationship with Obama is beyond tight...this is getting stupid now. can you name another President with these type of associations???
What, you mean a president who went to a church and was married by a pastor from that church?
You don't always have the option of just "going to another church." There aren't always multiple churches within reasonable distance. And sometimes the community makes up for other areas that are lacking. There are a multitude of reasons for Obama to have continued going even if he disagreed with with some of the comments his pastor made.
Hell, if anything I'd prefer a pastor that made claims I strongly disagreed with over the last few I've had who pretty much repeat "God is awesome, worship Jesus" every Saturday. At least then I'd have to question why they're wrong and I'm right.
-
https://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
https://gawker.com/5371272/glenn-beck-is-even-wrong-in-the-future
https://gawker.com/5387076/glenn-beck-net-neutrality-is-marxist-plot
https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31245.html
https://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003230049
https://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-3-2010/glenn-beck-airs-israeli-raid-footage
There's more but these seemed like the good ones when I decided to look around.
-
https://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
https://gawker.com/5371272/glenn-beck-is-even-wrong-in-the-future
https://gawker.com/5387076/glenn-beck-net-neutrality-is-marxist-plot
https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31245.html
https://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003230049
https://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-3-2010/glenn-beck-airs-israeli-raid-footage
There's more but these seemed like the good ones when I decided to look around.
all blogs...LOL...not that I care
-
Obama wants it both ways.. Obama is the one who deals in racism.. thats part of Black Liberation Theology.. look at their charter!!! for starters...what makes me upset is the lib media didnt report all this.
now..Im to believe Beck is a racist for reciting Obamas own words??
How exactly does Obama deal in racism?
read the thread from the start..thanks!
-
The fact that Jon Stewart is treated as a rival/equal by alot of this pundits says alot about the the state of news reporting in the US.
-
I forget Wright also married the Obamas... and Obama named his book after Wrights sermons
Here it again mentions the baptizing of Obamas Children..
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html
Thank you for not using a blog this time :P
Anyway, most religious people tend to have close relationships with their pastors, its not that uncommon. Is it cause for concern? Possibly, but dude you just can't jump the gun and scream "OBAMA IS RACIST OBAMA IS RACIST" because of that.
cmon, his relationship with Obama is beyond tight...this is getting stupid now. can you name another President with these type of associations???
What, you mean a president who went to a church and was married by a pastor from that church?
You don't always have the option of just "going to another church." There aren't always multiple churches within reasonable distance. And sometimes the community makes up for other areas that are lacking. There are a multitude of reasons for Obama to have continued going even if he disagreed with with some of the comments his pastor made.
Hell, if anything I'd prefer a pastor that made claims I strongly disagreed with over the last few I've had who pretty much repeat "God is awesome, worship Jesus" every Saturday. At least then I'd have to question why they're wrong and I'm right.
This is Chicago...
-
https://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
https://gawker.com/5371272/glenn-beck-is-even-wrong-in-the-future
https://gawker.com/5387076/glenn-beck-net-neutrality-is-marxist-plot
https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31245.html
https://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003230049
https://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-3-2010/glenn-beck-airs-israeli-raid-footage
There's more but these seemed like the good ones when I decided to look around.
all blogs...LOL...not that I care
Wrong.
-
I forget Wright also married the Obamas... and Obama named his book after Wrights sermons
Here it again mentions the baptizing of Obamas Children..
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html
Thank you for not using a blog this time :P
Anyway, most religious people tend to have close relationships with their pastors, its not that uncommon. Is it cause for concern? Possibly, but dude you just can't jump the gun and scream "OBAMA IS RACIST OBAMA IS RACIST" because of that.
cmon, his relationship with Obama is beyond tight...this is getting stupid now. can you name another President with these type of associations???
What, you mean a president who went to a church and was married by a pastor from that church?
You don't always have the option of just "going to another church." There aren't always multiple churches within reasonable distance. And sometimes the community makes up for other areas that are lacking. There are a multitude of reasons for Obama to have continued going even if he disagreed with with some of the comments his pastor made.
Hell, if anything I'd prefer a pastor that made claims I strongly disagreed with over the last few I've had who pretty much repeat "God is awesome, worship Jesus" every Saturday. At least then I'd have to question why they're wrong and I'm right.
This is Chicago...
I guess that's supposed to counter every point I made?
-
Obama wants it both ways.. Obama is the one who deals in racism.. thats part of Black Liberation Theology.. look at their charter!!! for starters...what makes me upset is the lib media didnt report all this.
now..Im to believe Beck is a racist for reciting Obamas own words??
How exactly does Obama deal in racism?
read the thread from the start..thanks!
Yeah I'm not seeing anything that says he deals in racism over the past two pages
-
ehra ^your post makes no sense to me..
He could have found another church in a nano second..its Chicago..
your logic says " go to a Chruch that the pastor is a lunatic, that way its fun and not what you think"
Its a place of worship.. where people of common minds and vlaues come together.. not a debate team challenge gathering LOL..
but not Obamas church.. they gave a lifetime acheivment award to FARAKAN... but Obama he is sooooo smart...how could he know? only 20 years there...
-
all of this on Obama is so old and stale..you all really have no idea? I find it hard to believe..
-
ehra ^your post makes no sense to me..
Staying at a church with a pastor you might not agree with 100% because of the rest of the community doesn't make any sense to you? Or because it's at a more convenient location? Or because you don't feel like finding a new one? Or any other number of reasons? Ok.
-
ehra ^your post makes no sense to me..
Staying at a church with a pastor you might not agree with 100% because of the rest of the community doesn't make any sense to you? Or because it's at a more convenient location? Or because you don't feel like finding a new one? Or any other number of reasons? Ok.
aint a regular church..and NO its not acceptable to stay in a house of hatred and racism to me..
how do you know it was convienient? maybe he pased many others to get there
-
ehra ^your post makes no sense to me..
Staying at a church with a pastor you might not agree with 100% because of the rest of the community doesn't make any sense to you? Or because it's at a more convenient location? Or because you don't feel like finding a new one? Or any other number of reasons? Ok.
aint a regular church..and NO its not acceptable to stay in a house of hatred and racism to me..
how do you know it was convienient? maybe he pased many others to get there
Read my post. I was listing multiple possible reasons. I don't know anymore you do, yet that doesn't keep you from saying he absolutely should have left.
-
ehra ^your post makes no sense to me..
Staying at a church with a pastor you might not agree with 100% because of the rest of the community doesn't make any sense to you? Or because it's at a more convenient location? Or because you don't feel like finding a new one? Or any other number of reasons? Ok.
aint a regular church..and NO its not acceptable to stay in a house of hatred and racism to me..
how do you know it was convienient? maybe he pased many others to get there
Read my post. I was listing multiple possible reasons. I don't know anymore you do, yet that doesn't keep you from saying he absolutely should have left.
well...he left... after he got exposed, why didnt he stay?
-
ehra ^your post makes no sense to me..
Staying at a church with a pastor you might not agree with 100% because of the rest of the community doesn't make any sense to you? Or because it's at a more convenient location? Or because you don't feel like finding a new one? Or any other number of reasons? Ok.
aint a regular church..and NO its not acceptable to stay in a house of hatred and racism to me..
how do you know it was convienient? maybe he pased many others to get there
Read my post. I was listing multiple possible reasons. I don't know anymore you do, yet that doesn't keep you from saying he absolutely should have left.
well...he left... after he got exposed, why dint he stay?
Because people love to make mountains out of ant hills. It politically stupid for anyone to keep doing something that the public is throwing a tantrum over.
-
thats not the reason...sorry^
-
"You're wrong I'm right."
And anyone wonders why your posts get the responses they do.
-
read and behold
https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64260
now imagine if this GWB?...
-
Great, now what does that article have to do with why Obama left when people started making such a huge deal about the guy?
-
read and behold
https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64260
now imagine if this GWB?...
Like how everyone in the press was making a big deal out of Obama saying that the republicans would have to sit in the back seat in his speech in Cleveland but, it was OK when Michael Steele said the same about about the Democrats in a speech last year?
The magnifying glass is put on the people at the top no matter what their race/religioun/politics are.
-
Great, now what does that article have to do with why Obama left when people started making such a huge deal about the guy?
why is that not a huge deal? so if GWB sat in a white supremist church for 20 years with them giving award to David Duke and all sorts of scum....that would be ok? and the lib media would say "thats fine"? and some white supremist baptized GWB girls in some so called "church" that you would say "thats fine"..
not with me it would NOT be
this is a big deal
-
read and behold
https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64260
now imagine if this GWB?...
Like how everyone in the press was making a big deal out of Obama saying that the republicans would have to sit in the back seat in his speech in Cleveland but, it was OK when Michael Steele said the same about about the Democrats in a speech last year?
The magnifying glass is put on the people at the top no matter what their race/religioun/politics are.
I agree to some extent... but if there is a pattern like Obama then its a pattern..if its an honest mistake then of course we should forgive..
-
Oh epicview, just so you're aware, you CAN quote multiple people in a single post ;)
-
Oh epicview, just so you're aware, you CAN quote multiple people in a single post ;)
I wish I could..I have some sort of tech issue...maybe one day you can help me quote better..I apologize for my style and typos..the screen jumps around when I quote..especially if I try to quote a long post from someone..
PS: I really dont want to argue..I want to debate.. and if people here are really being truthfull about not knowing all this about Obama, I dont mind going over all this..
-
read and behold
https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64260
now imagine if this GWB?...
Like how everyone in the press was making a big deal out of Obama saying that the republicans would have to sit in the back seat in his speech in Cleveland but, it was OK when Michael Steele said the same about about the Democrats in a speech last year?
The magnifying glass is put on the people at the top no matter what their race/religioun/politics are.
I agree to some extent... but if there is a pattern like Obama then its a pattern..if its an honest mistake them of course we should forgive..
You're making the mistake of thinking that the american people actually give a shit about a candidates religious affiliations. Most of them pay about 30 seconds of lip service to it on their campaigns then go back to "playing the game". The so-called "liberal media" played Obama's religioun to the hilt in '08 and it made absolutely no difference in the end results.
-
Powerslave..
I agree with you. and welcome!
I hope they dont care with Romney runs!! he is a decent fellow
-
Great, now what does that article have to do with why Obama left when people started making such a huge deal about the guy?
why is that not a huge deal? so if GWB sat in a white supremist church for 20 years with them giving award to David Duke and all sorts of scum....that would be ok? and the lib media would say "thats fine"? and some white supremist baptized GWB girls in some so called "church" that you would say "thats fine"..
not with me it would NOT be
this is a big deal
It doesn't and shouldn't matter unless it affects how he leads the country or which policies he adopts.
-
Great, now what does that article have to do with why Obama left when people started making such a huge deal about the guy?
why is that not a huge deal? so if GWB sat in a white supremist church for 20 years with them giving award to David Duke and all sorts of scum....that would be ok? and the lib media would say "thats fine"? and some white supremist baptized GWB girls in some so called "church" that you would say "thats fine"..
not with me it would NOT be
this is a big deal
It doesn't and shouldn't matter unless it affects how he leads the country or which policies he adopts.
You just proved my point...!!!! it has
-
Great, now what does that article have to do with why Obama left when people started making such a huge deal about the guy?
why is that not a huge deal? so if GWB sat in a white supremist church for 20 years with them giving award to David Duke and all sorts of scum....that would be ok? and the lib media would say "thats fine"? and some white supremist baptized GWB girls in some so called "church" that you would say "thats fine"..
not with me it would NOT be
this is a big deal
It doesn't and shouldn't matter unless it affects how he leads the country or which policies he adopts.
You just proved my point...!!!! it has
What is it with you just saying things without giving examples or sources?
-
Great, now what does that article have to do with why Obama left when people started making such a huge deal about the guy?
why is that not a huge deal? so if GWB sat in a white supremist church for 20 years with them giving award to David Duke and all sorts of scum....that would be ok? and the lib media would say "thats fine"? and some white supremist baptized GWB girls in some so called "church" that you would say "thats fine"..
not with me it would NOT be
this is a big deal
It doesn't and shouldn't matter unless it affects how he leads the country or which policies he adopts.
You just proved my point...!!!! it has
Saying it doesn't make it true.
-
check the vote tonight...
I have listed Obama's radical associations...thats who shaped his failed radical policy
-
*sigh*
epicview, I wish I could make you see that just because his views/policies are different from yours, doesn't mean they're 'radical', as you say
And, once again, I'll say that just because he has in the past associated with people with radical views, doesn't mean he shares them.
-
*sigh*
epicview, I wish I could make you see that just because his views/policies are different from yours, doesn't mean they're 'radical', as you say
And, once again, I'll say that just because he has in the past associated with people with radical views, doesn't mean he shares them.
Oh he shares them..find out about George Soros..PLM, its not that he is a dem, its that he is Obama, he is unlike any other president, for all the wrong reasons..Im as frustrated as you that I cant make you see this.
so lets just disagree as I think you are awesome..and I will pray you find out on your own about who this Obama really is
-
If his views WERE radical, he would never have been elected in the first place.
I trust you know what a bell curve is? If so, you would know that America would NEVER vote in a radical as executive, though you can make the case for the House, perhaps
-
If his views WERE radical, he would never have been elected in the first place.
I trust you know what a bell curve is? If so, you would know that America would NEVER vote in a radical as executive, though you can make the case for the House, perhaps
People never found out about the guy..and in many ways he did tell us he would transform our country..that is code for radical..but people saw what they wanted in Obama..as he had no resume. Soros funded it, he carries Soros's water.
but no matter what I say here...people will not believe it, why I dont know. all one has to do is look into his mentors, and who is in his cabinet and his outragous Czars..
America is REJECTING IT
-
Today is like the make up exam America Failed in 2008....Lets hope we get it right today and get an A+
-
I don't think Obama's "transformation" is grand in any way at all but if you think the best thing for America is to keep things the way they are with all the shit we have going on, I'm not sure what to tell you.
-
I don't think Obama's "transformation" is grand in any way at all but if you think the best thing for America is to keep things the way they are with all the shit we have going on, I'm not sure what to tell you.
History is the greatest indicator of the future...
America has always bounced back if the business principlas of capitalism is left to correct itself...open market.
Obama does not be believe in American Exceptionalism..he has said that he doesnt.
-
I don't think Obama's "transformation" is grand in any way at all but if you think the best thing for America is to keep things the way they are with all the shit we have going on, I'm not sure what to tell you.
History is the greatest indicator of the future...
America has always bounced back if the business principlas of capitalism is left to correct itself...open market.
Obama does not be believe in American Exceptionalism..he has said that he doesnt.
I don't believe in American Exceptionalism either. Does that make me a radical? :lol :lol :lol
Atleast, not in the way that it has been excercised in recent years. Maybe his initial message about that subject made sense to the "silent majority" in '08?
-
Once again because no one responded, can anyone prove Glen Becks claims to be blatant lies?
I want the truth. I can handle it. :tick2:
There's no way to prove or disprove if Obama is racist or not, but you have to admit that's a very ridiculous thing to say on nation television regardless and makes it nearly impossible to take you seriously without any proof.
He makes many more claims about other things then just that. I can of them be proven to be lies? I really want to know if they have?
I don't watch Glenn Beck so I don't have a documented knowledge of what everything he has said
Not to pick on you by quoting the part of your post I want to make a point with but many rip Beck who have never heard a damn thing he has said, and act like they are justified in doing so. Their just sheep who take it what they are fed, treat it as gospel and just run with it. If you don't have a clue(and I don't mean you) you shouldn't pretend you do. Far too many do this and its quite annoying.
If I don't know something I try not to act like I do.
I watch all sources of media, even the ones I hate to gain different perspectives. That's what intelligent people do.(not that I claim to be ultra intelligent, but you get the point)
-
Once again because no one responded, can anyone prove Glen Becks claims to be blatant lies?
I want the truth. I can handle it. :tick2:
There's no way to prove or disprove if Obama is racist or not, but you have to admit that's a very ridiculous thing to say on nation television regardless and makes it nearly impossible to take you seriously without any proof.
He makes many more claims about other things then just that. I can of them be proven to be lies? I really want to know if they have?
I don't watch Glenn Beck so I don't have a documented knowledge of what everything he has said
Not to pick on you by quoting the part of your post I want to make a point with but many rip Beck who have never heard a damn thing he has said, and act like they are justified in doing so. Their just sheep who take it what they are fed, treat it as gospel and just run with it. If you don't have a clue(and I don't mean you) you shouldn't pretend you do. Far too many do this and its quite annoying.
If I don't know something I try not to act like I do.
I watch all sources of media, even the ones I hate to gain different perspectives. That's what intelligent people do.(not that I claim to be ultra intelligent, but you get the point)
Oh I understand perfectly. Obama worshipers that think he does no wrong are annoying as fuck as well as anyone else.
I was just bashing Glenn Beck for calling Obama racist without any reasoning behind it other than to stir up his base. I think that's a legitimate reason to bash him, correct? If I suddenly called you out for being racist without anything to back it up, I'd look like a really big idiot, wouldn't I?
-
Once again because no one responded, can anyone prove Glen Becks claims to be blatant lies?
I want the truth. I can handle it. :tick2:
There's no way to prove or disprove if Obama is racist or not, but you have to admit that's a very ridiculous thing to say on nation television regardless and makes it nearly impossible to take you seriously without any proof.
He makes many more claims about other things then just that. I can of them be proven to be lies? I really want to know if they have?
I don't watch Glenn Beck so I don't have a documented knowledge of what everything he has said
Not to pick on you by quoting the part of your post I want to make a point with but many rip Beck who have never heard a damn thing he has said, and act like they are justified in doing so. Their just sheep who take it what they are fed, treat it as gospel and just run with it. If you don't have a clue(and I don't mean you) you shouldn't pretend you do. Far too many do this and its quite annoying.
If I don't know something I try not to act like I do.
I watch all sources of media, even the ones I hate to gain different perspectives. That's what intelligent people do.(not that I claim to be ultra intelligent, but you get the point)
Oh I understand perfectly. Obama worshipers that think he does no wrong are annoying as fuck as well as anyone else.
I was just bashing Glenn Beck for calling Obama racist without any reasoning behind it other than to stir up his base. I think that's a legitimate reason to bash him, correct? If I suddenly called you out for being racist without anything to back it up, I'd look like a really big idiot, wouldn't I?
You would be. I get your point, as I know you understood mine, even if it went a little off subject.
-
Once again because no one responded, can anyone prove Glen Becks claims to be blatant lies?
I want the truth. I can handle it. :tick2:
There's no way to prove or disprove if Obama is racist or not, but you have to admit that's a very ridiculous thing to say on nation television regardless and makes it nearly impossible to take you seriously without any proof.
He makes many more claims about other things then just that. I can of them be proven to be lies? I really want to know if they have?
I don't watch Glenn Beck so I don't have a documented knowledge of what everything he has said
Not to pick on you by quoting the part of your post I want to make a point with but many rip Beck who have never heard a damn thing he has said, and act like they are justified in doing so. Their just sheep who take it what they are fed, treat it as gospel and just run with it. If you don't have a clue(and I don't mean you) you shouldn't pretend you do. Far too many do this and its quite annoying.
If I don't know something I try not to act like I do.
I watch all sources of media, even the ones I hate to gain different perspectives. That's what intelligent people do.(not that I claim to be ultra intelligent, but you get the point)
Since I'm the only one that bothered to post anything negative about Beck, I'm going to have to guess that this was directed at me.
First of all, I get a daily dose of him. I have an elderly relative that lives close by. This relative has the TV tuned to fox news on an almost constant/round the clock basis. I try to spend as much time as possible with this relative because I'm the only person that lives close to them. Some days I get Beck, some days it's Hannity and some days it's Bill. It all depends on when I make my way over to their home.
It's funny that you mention sheep. It's exactly how I feel about my relative but, it's a loved one so I put up with the garbage on the TV and still go over every day. Ofcourse, politics come up all the time in our conversations. It's really quite sad. I'll just be nice and say that this person is terribly out of touch with reality just like every other fox news supporter that I ever encounter and just like every other one of them, it's impossible to debate with them because they refuse to listen to any point of view that doesn't align with their own.
I must hand it to fox news, though. They've got this thing down to an art. For example; one of the pundits will put up some off the wall conspiracy as an open ended question(Beck is the master at this) then their "straight news" programs will pick up on it and present it as a news story(are americans being analy probed with chinese made dildos blah blah blah ect. ect. ect.). Now, they have their viewership pissed off and buying into the story because good ol' Glenn warned them that this was about to happen. Honestly, it's fucking brilliant. They've got people eating out of their hands and the sponsorship money just keeps flowing.
Infact, a good one from last week comes to mind. He's showing some videos that were made to teach kids about being environmentaly responsible and was claiming that the videos were indoctrination tools made by the left. He does his intro speak for the videos then shows them and I almost fell off the damn couch. There was nothing in the videos that was political what-so-ever. All the videos were teaching the kids is to take care of their surroundings or they'd be living in piles of shit or poisoning the water. BFD!!! It's something that every kid needs to learn.
It's good business but, I must have missed the part where reality and news had anything to do with business.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a democrat and I'm just as critical of MSNBC. I will hand one thing to Oberman, though. He's willing to admit that he's wrong from time to time. I rarely, if ever see that from fox. And, just as you've done, I refuse to claim that I'm super intelligent. Infact, I'm probably one of the least educated people that ever post in this forum but, that doesn't mean that I'm a sheep in any way or form.
-
Have a nice night everyone...
just pulled the battery out of the wifes Volvo..wont take a charge? very odd, I hope I only have to replace a faulty battery in the early am..oh the joy
+3 for the GOP... 7 more needed..
-
Have a nice night everyone...
just pulled the battery out of the wifes Volvo..wont take a charge? very odd, I hope I only have to replace a faulty battery in the early am..oh the joy
+3 for the GOP... 7 more needed..
This post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand
-
Yeah, I gave up when the ridiculous argument that Beck was quantifiably smarter than Obama was cast aside to talk (spam) about more of Obama's "connections."
Again, I'll reiterate. I don't know what people like Beck and O'Rielly do, or what kind of knowledge they have. All I know about Beck is that he doesn't have a college education and spent the time Obama was working on his education boozing it up, and I know O'Rielly used to do real journalism for tabloids.
Obama, once again, has a degree in Business Administration from Columbia and a degree in Law from Harvard. He taught Constitutional law at University of Chicago for 10 years. Beck does not have experience even close to that.
You CAN argue that, quite possibly, Beck is WISER than Obama. But that is all subject. The point is, just because you disagree about the way Obama interprets history or the constitution doesn't mean he's an 'idiot' in regards to either. In fact, he's an accredited from the very best Universities the world has to offer, and validated by his experience as a professor at another one of the nation's best Universities.
Likewise, I don't know anything about Olbermann, but Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar.
You can gas all you want about how much you disagree with these people, but the fact is some of them have some quantifiable testification to their intelligence, and you shouldn't just assume every politician who you don't like is an "idiot."
-
Yeah, I gave up when the ridiculous argument that Beck was quantifiably smarter than Obama was cast aside to talk (spam) about more of Obama's "connections."
Good point PC. I got kinda swept up in the argument and so I failed to notice this.
Epicview, I don't mind that you want to discuss those things, but thread derailment like that takes away from the discussion that's supposed to be happening. I almost forgot what was supposed to be discussed here. If you want to create a thread about Obama's radical associations, by all means do so. In the future, please try not to derail so much.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming
-
all I did was mention I was changing out a battery in the garage, watching the networks report the poll results? my point was my hands were busy , and I couldnt type earlier...but Im sorry if that somehow you felt was off subject..I was justadding a bit of humanity mixed in that I wish I could relax and watch the TV more closely.. thats the subject? the people on tv..
-
PowerSlave ,my post was not directed at you. It was directed at those who have strong opinions about things or people they only know anything about except from second hand information. You want to tell me these people don't exist?
As far as MSNBC, they every bit as bad at Fox for being 100% bias in the way they report the news. Their is simply nothing fair about them that puts them even a little bit above Fox as far as non bias journalism goes.
I actually heard one jackass women last night saying that last night was really a victory for Democrats because judging by how dissatisfied people are with the economy last night should have been more of a slam dunk for Republicans then it was. It proves people really don't actually trust them at all. :facepalm:
Are you kidding me? I almost threw up the pizza I was eating but it was too good to let that happen.
-
As far as MSNBC, they every bit as bad at Fox for being 100% bias in the way they report the news. Their is simply nothing fair about them that puts them even a little bit above Fox as far as non bias journalism goes.
Speaking of which, they really should just give Pat Buchanan his own show. I wish Fox would bring on a token liberal of similar stature regularly, instead of the normal county-college poli-sci professors they just bring on as strawman to yell at. And anyway I'm not sure who it could be.
-
As far as MSNBC, they every bit as bad at Fox for being 100% bias in the way they report the news. Their is simply nothing fair about them that puts them even a little bit above Fox as far as non bias journalism goes.
Speaking of which, they really should just give Pat Buchanan his own show. I wish Fox would bring on a token liberal of similar stature regularly, instead of the normal county-college poli-sci professors they just bring on as strawman to yell at. And anyway I'm not sure who it could be.
I see lots of Liberals on Fox.. they do seem to keep it equal....Sean has a liberal every night on the panel..
-
I wouldn't know. Sean makes me want to leave the country.
-
I wouldn't know. Sean makes me want to leave the country.
to my point of "if you dont watch then how can you know" Id like to see MSNBC even remotely look or even FAKE being objective...its like Liberal lunatic headquarters... I watch it to make sure Im facile on the other side..Maddow and Olberman are mental midgits, who only attack the GOP , and the worst part is the lying..
-
I've watched Hannity's "Great American Panel." It sucks. Hannity is terrible. The worst, even. His program is not, in any way, objective.
I don't know why you're complaining though, since during the Bush years MSNBC was the only haven for libertarian ideas in the mainstream press while Fox was busy black-outing them and censoring Ron Paul's presidential campaign.
-
all I did was mention I was changing out a battery in the garage, watching the networks report the poll results? my point was my hands were busy , and I couldnt type earlier...but Im sorry if that somehow you felt was off subject..I was justadding a bit of humanity mixed in that I wish I could relax and watch the TV more closely.. thats the subject? the people on tv..
I was referring to your shift in topic to Obama, which is not what the thread is about.
-
In reading through the last few pages, I wanted to correct something that EV apparently misconstrued.
No one said that Glenn Beck is a racist. They said that he is an idiot for saying that he thought Obama was a racist. And when he said that, he WAS NOT quoting Obama. He was expressing a personal opinion of his.
-
In reading through the last few pages, I wanted to correct something that EV apparently misconstrued.
No one said that Glenn Beck is a racist. They said that he is an idiot for saying that he thought Obama was a racist. And when he said that, he WAS NOT quoting Obama. He was expressing a personal opinion of his.
OK.. fair enough I guess HD
-
As far as MSNBC, they every bit as bad at Fox for being 100% bias in the way they report the news. Their is simply nothing fair about them that puts them even a little bit above Fox as far as non bias journalism goes.
Speaking of which, they really should just give Pat Buchanan his own show. I wish Fox would bring on a token liberal of similar stature regularly, instead of the normal county-college poli-sci professors they just bring on as strawman to yell at. And anyway I'm not sure who it could be.
I see lots of Liberals on Fox.. they do seem to keep it equal....Sean has a liberal every night on the panel..
Ok, now that isn't true. Lets be fair, they don't keep it equal just as MSNBC doesn't keep it equal.
-
Funny that this is coming up (although it might have been from the other thread--who can tell anymore). The feature story of the Dallas Observer, which I was reading over lunch, was about tea party darling Stephen Broden, who's a frequent guest of Glen Beck's, fairly racist, and suggests that a violent overthrow of the government should be on the table. The guy sounds like a real winner. His best moment was hinting that Obamacare was about making it easier for black women to get abortions in a backhanded attempt at eugenics.
And people wonder why the tea party is so linked to radicals.
-
His best moment was hinting that Obamacare was about making it easier for black women to get abortions in a backhanded attempt at eugenics.
That's pretty outlandish, even for the Tea Party
-
And people wonder why the tea party is so linked to radicals.
Do you mean like Obama is? or in a different way? :tick2:
just sayin...
-
take a look a look at this
Chris Screwball Mathews.." calls the the GOP the WHITE BOY club"..last night...and is there one person thats not a far left whack on that panel?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWXlF4nVbY&feature=player_embedded
-
take a look a look at this
Chris Screwball Mathews.." calls the the GOP the WHITE BOY club"..last night...and is there one person thats not a far left whack on that panel?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWXlF4nVbY&feature=player_embedded
What a bunch of dicks.
-
its been objectively proven Fox is the most fair as far as air time to both parties..
Bill gives equal time to both sides
Sean has a diverse panel each night
the rest of the shows are news.. Greta is like Geraldo..more news pieces..
-
I'm starting to doubt you know what objective really means.
-
I'm starting to doubt you know what objective really means.
Oh I do.. do you?
please dont tell me CNN or the BBC are objective either...
-
I'm starting to doubt you know what objective really means.
Oh I do.. do you?
please dont tell me CNN or the BBC are objective either...
No, far from it. There's an obvious liberal bias present within them, but Fox is also has a ridiculous conservative bias as much as those guys :facepalm:
-
I'm starting to doubt you know what objective really means.
Oh I do.. do you?
please dont tell me CNN or the BBC are objective either...
No, far from it. There's an obvious liberal bias present within them, but Fox is also has a ridiculous conservative bias as much as those guys :facepalm:
sorry Fox is as fair as it gets..its a good read
read the link
https://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html
-
CNN is far and beyond the other two as far as equal time. Their problem is that they're too light handed with almost every issue as if they're afraid of offending anyone at all. Anderson Cooper, wether you like his personality or not, is the benchmark that the rest should be measured by. Unfortunately, he's the only one on that network that's willing to show any balls.
-
CNN is far and beyond the other two as far as equal time. Their problem is that they're too light handed with almost every issue as if they're afraid of offending anyone at all. Anderson Cooper, wether you like his personality or not, is the benchmark that the rest should be measured by. Unfortunately, he's the only one on that network that's willing to show any balls.
CNN has that Reuters feel to it... I have to say I really dont watch them much
-
its been objectively proven Fox is the most fair as far as air time to both parties..
Bill gives equal time to both sides
Sean has a diverse panel each night
the rest of the shows are news.. Greta is like Geraldo..more news pieces..
I personally don't question their integrity. I believe they have integrity, and I believe they are fair, but the statement they they have as many liberals on the network as conservatives is just an untrue statement.
-
I'm starting to doubt you know what objective really means.
Oh I do.. do you?
please dont tell me CNN or the BBC are objective either...
No, far from it. There's an obvious liberal bias present within them, but Fox is also has a ridiculous conservative bias as much as those guys :facepalm:
sorry Fox is as fair as it gets..its a good read
read the link
https://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html
Read the link.
The source used is The Center for Media and Public Affairs which apparently receives funding from conservative sources, which seriously devalues any merit Fox or the article has to "objectivity".
-
I'm starting to doubt you know what objective really means.
Oh I do.. do you?
please dont tell me CNN or the BBC are objective either...
No, far from it. There's an obvious liberal bias present within them, but Fox is also has a ridiculous conservative bias as much as those guys :facepalm:
sorry Fox is as fair as it gets..its a good read
read the link
https://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html
Read the link.
The source used is The Center for Media and Public Affairs which apparently receives funding from conservative sources, which seriously devalues any merit Fox or the article has to "objectivity".
you got any proof?
-
its been objectively proven Fox is the most fair as far as air time to both parties..
Bill gives equal time to both sides
Sean has a diverse panel each night
the rest of the shows are news.. Greta is like Geraldo..more news pieces..
I personally don't question their integrity. I believe they have integrity, and I believe they are fair, but the statement they they have as many liberals on the network as conservatives is just an untrue statement.
Tick ( You rock bro)
My point is that Fox is as fair as it gets.. imagine what we put up with before Fox? it was all pure liberal BS
-
I'm starting to doubt you know what objective really means.
Oh I do.. do you?
please dont tell me CNN or the BBC are objective either...
No, far from it. There's an obvious liberal bias present within them, but Fox is also has a ridiculous conservative bias as much as those guys :facepalm:
sorry Fox is as fair as it gets..its a good read
read the link
https://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html
Read the link.
The source used is The Center for Media and Public Affairs which apparently receives funding from conservative sources, which seriously devalues any merit Fox or the article has to "objectivity".
you got any proof?
Sure
This comes from FAIR (Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting) mind you, but I hope you'll accept this?
https://www.fair.org/extra/9807/myth-makers.html
https://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2515
-
This is amazing.. Chris Mathews never fails to amaze with hostility and non objective BS...and he is a blatent liar
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingly_anymore.html
-
CNN is far and beyond the other two as far as equal time. Their problem is that they're too light handed with almost every issue as if they're afraid of offending anyone at all. Anderson Cooper, wether you like his personality or not, is the benchmark that the rest should be measured by. Unfortunately, he's the only one on that network that's willing to show any balls.
Actually, I agree about Cooper. I'm not a fan of his reporting style/delivery (although that goes for the vast majority of reporters), but I think the dude has some integrity and honestly takes what he does seriously. I feel like he's one of the only real journalists that makes an effort to rise above the bullshit and see all sides of things, and is willing to ask tough questions when necessary, etc.
-J
-
Chris Matthews is my equivalent to the disdain people have for Glen Beck. I can't stand Matthews. He is a pompous ass, and speaks out his ass as much as anyone in the media, imo. :tick2:
-
This is amazing.. Chris Mathews never fails to amaze with hostility and non objective BS...and he is a blatent liar
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingly_anymore.html
Yes, he's an idiot but, should he have settled for the bullshit answer she was giving him?
-
SS,
I read that Fair.org stuff, but still dont see how it says otherwise about Fox being fair?
it did go into Brent Bozell.. who to me has always been a pretty straight shooter...
-
This is amazing.. Chris Mathews never fails to amaze with hostility and non objective BS...and he is a blatent liar
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingly_anymore.html
Yes, he's an idiot but, should he have settled for the bullshit answer she was giving him?
any objective viewer could see his baited questions were nonsense..and she could hardly hear him in that crowd... Mathews is pure garbage, a bitter Obamanaut
-
The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?
-
The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?
No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?
-
and to be honest " who is Fair.org"? do you know who funds them? maybe liberal groups? does that concern you?
-
This is amazing.. Chris Mathews never fails to amaze with hostility and non objective BS...and he is a blatent liar
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingly_anymore.html
Yes, he's an idiot but, should he have settled for the bullshit answer she was giving him?
any objective viewer could see his baited questions were nonsense..and she could hardly hear him in that crowd... Mathews is pure garbage, a bitter Obamanaut
It was far from being a baited question. If she went on his program and made a statement and is now in a position to make good on her statement then it's his right to ask her about it.
Was he being a dipshit for asking her is she's been hypnotized? Absolutely. Is he a partisan hack? Absolutely. Are you dancing around my question in the same manor that she danced around his? Absolutely.
-
also many times OReilly or Sean will say "we invited liberal X to come on and give his side of this, but they have declined to come on"...LIKE OBAMA, who won go on Fox.. LOL...he cant handle any question thats not lobbed and tee-d up..
I sw Howard Dean on MSNBC last night..he was ranting about Fox....these Liberals are so thin skinned..
-
This is amazing.. Chris Mathews never fails to amaze with hostility and non objective BS...and he is a blatent liar
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingly_anymore.html
Yes, he's an idiot but, should he have settled for the bullshit answer she was giving him?
any objective viewer could see his baited questions were nonsense..and she could hardly hear him in that crowd... Mathews is pure garbage, a bitter Obamanaut
It was far from being a baited question. If she went on his program and made a statement and is now in a position to make good on her statement then it's his right to ask her about it.
Was he being a dipshit for asking her is she's been hypnotized? Absolutely. Is he a partisan hack? Absolutely. Are you dancing around my question in the same manor that she danced around his? Absolutely.
I will watch again.. I never even heard the question till he was railing she wouldnt answer it..
-
The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?
No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?
Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased. If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything. And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed. Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable. You should really learn to recognize things like this.
I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter. And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.
-
The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?
No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?
Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased. If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything. And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed. Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable. You should really learn to recognize things like this.
I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter. And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.
I see your point... but OReilly only gets jumpy if they are lying , he seems to jump in when he cant take it
-
The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?
No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?
Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased. If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything. And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed. Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable. You should really learn to recognize things like this.
I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter. And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.
I see your point... but OReilly only gets jumpy if they are lying , he seems to jump in when he cant take it
Not true, you need to watch the Ron Paul interviews again.
-
This is amazing.. Chris Mathews never fails to amaze with hostility and non objective BS...and he is a blatent liar
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingly_anymore.html
Yes, he's an idiot but, should he have settled for the bullshit answer she was giving him?
The point is guys like Bill O Reilly have a level of fairness and Bill will agree with a liberal point of view if it has merit. I have never ever seen Chris Mathews try to be fair. He is the most bias journalist out there.
Does MSNBC try to pawn themselves off as balanced or do they just admit that don't have a shred of it?
-
This is amazing.. Chris Mathews never fails to amaze with hostility and non objective BS...and he is a blatent liar
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingly_anymore.html
Yes, he's an idiot but, should he have settled for the bullshit answer she was giving him?
The point is guys like Bill O Reilly have a level of fairness and Bill will agree with a liberal point of view if it has merit. I have never ever seen Chris Mathews try to be fair. He is the most bias journalist out there.
Does MSNBC try to pawn themselves off as balanced or do they just admit that don't have a shred of it?
That's fine but, it still doesn't answer my question. She was obviously dodging his question. Should he have accepted her dodging the question?
It's his right to ask the question based on what she said previously on his show unless he was taking it out of context. I don't know if he was doing that but, if he was she should have called him on it if he was. Otherwise, she agreed to do an interview with someone that's obviously hostile towards her and a question like that should come as no surprise.
If she answered the question truthfully then she should be given a reasonable amount of time to answer it clearly.
The end result of the interview was equal to watching two retards drool on each other.
-
The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?
No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?
Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased. If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything. And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed. Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable. You should really learn to recognize things like this.
I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter. And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.
I see your point... but OReilly only gets jumpy if they are lying , he seems to jump in when he cant take it
As much as I think that O'Reilly is a half-witted twit, he does seem to have a sharp instinct for when somebody is fixing to cut him to shreds. That's when he cuts them off, every single time. He just won't allow cogent answers that go against his ideology.
-
I dunno, O'Reilly always struck me as a pretty intelligent guy. The problem is that he thinks so too, and it results in his ego and the yes-men at Fox reinforcing his preconceived opinions about everything.
But I have watched his show only a handful of times, and I can remember multiple instances where he's conceded a point, acknowledged the possibility that he's been mistaken, etc. It's rare in a sea of abrupt cut-offs, talking over "guests", and general blowhardism, but it's more than you'll ever get out of Chris Matthews or Sean Hannity.
-J
-
I dunno, O'Reilly always struck me as a pretty intelligent guy. The problem is that he thinks so too, and it results in his ego and the yes-men at Fox reinforcing his preconceived opinions about everything.
But I have watched his show only a handful of times, and I can remember multiple instances where he's conceded a point, acknowledged the possibility that he's been mistaken, etc. It's rare in a sea of abrupt cut-offs, talking over "guests", and general blowhardism, but it's more than you'll ever get out of Chris Matthews or Sean Hannity.
-J
Good sound post, J. :tick2:
-
To be honest, I rarely watch his show, and for years Hard Copy was always on in the break room here, so that's largely where my opinion of his dipshitiness comes from. However, when I have seen his FOX show, I only seem to catch the "blowhardism" aspect, and never the contrition.
-
The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?
No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?
Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased. If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything. And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed. Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable. You should really learn to recognize things like this.
I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter. And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.
I see your point... but OReilly only gets jumpy if they are lying , he seems to jump in when he cant take it
As much as I think that O'Reilly is a half-witted twit, he does seem to have a sharp instinct for when somebody is fixing to cut him to shreds. That's when he cuts them off, every single time. He just won't allow cogent answers that go against his ideology.
have you watched the show? he is willing to concede if he is wrong, at times I think he wants that, to be proven wrong. he is always a good sport, unless its Barney Frank or some crackpot terror sympathizer
-
Good sound post, J. :tick2:
The Tick symbol? What an honor! :tup
To be honest, I rarely watch his show, and for years Hard Copy was always on in the break room here, so that's largely where my opinion of his dipshitiness comes from. However, when I have seen his FOX show, I only seem to catch the "blowhardism" aspect, and never the contrition.
I didn't mean to overstate the frequency with which it happens. But it does happen, and that's worth something IMO.
-J
-
SS,
I read that Fair.org stuff, but still dont see how it says otherwise about Fox being fair?
It wasn't supposed to. He posted that in response to your "got any proof?" of his claims for The Center for Media and Public Affair
-
The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?
No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?
Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased. If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything. And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed. Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable. You should really learn to recognize things like this.
I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter. And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.
I see your point... but OReilly only gets jumpy if they are lying , he seems to jump in when he cant take it
As much as I think that O'Reilly is a half-witted twit, he does seem to have a sharp instinct for when somebody is fixing to cut him to shreds. That's when he cuts them off, every single time. He just won't allow cogent answers that go against his ideology.
have you watched the show? he is willing to concede if he is wrong, at times I think he wants that, to be proven wrong. he is always a good sport, unless its Barney Frank or some crackpot terror sympathizer
I would appreciate it if you would tone down your criticism of the 'other side'. You don't hear myself or Barto or anyone else saying 'those evil republicans' or 'crackpot tea partiers'
Keep it civil. You can be critical of the 'other side' all you want, but the harshness is uncalled for and unprofessional in these sorts of arguments.
-
have you watched the show? he is willing to concede if he is wrong, at times I think he wants that, to be proven wrong. he is always a good sport, unless its Barney Frank or some crackpot terror sympathizer
I would appreciate it if you would tone down your criticism of the 'other side'. You don't hear myself or Barto or anyone else saying 'those evil republicans' or 'crackpot tea partiers'
Keep it civil. You can be critical of the 'other side' all you want, but the harshness is uncalled for and unprofessional in these sorts of arguments.
Not to be an insurgent, but..a little overzealous with the moderating there I think, PLM. :lol
We all say "harsh" things like that in every post. Here are a few recent examples:
As much as I think that O'Reilly is a half-witted twit
Was he being a dipshit for asking her is she's been hypnotized? Absolutely. Is he a partisan hack? Absolutely.
I've watched Hannity's "Great American Panel." It sucks. Hannity is terrible. The worst, even.
Not to single these guys out: I do it in practically all of my posts too. I think EPICVIEW's pretty damn mixed up, but you're calling him out on being out of line for THAT?
-J
-
None of you do it every single post though. Otherwise I'd say it's a problem.
It's nothing though. I'm not warning anybody; it's just supposed to be an FYI
-
Yeah, I was going to point out that I've referred to the 43rd POTUS as President Dumbass every day for the last 10 years. Occasionally I'll throw in Chimpy just to mix things up a bit. Dim-wit, dipshit, and ignorant buffoon also make regular occurrences. :lol
-
Yeah, I was going to point out that I've referred to the 43rd POTUS as President Dumbass every day for the last 10 years. Occasionally I'll throw in Chimpy just to mix things up a bit. Dim-wit, dipshit, and ignorant buffoon also make regular occurrences. :lol
shit that actually slipped my mind. how on earth could i forget? :facepalm:
Disregard my stupid warning. I only noticed him doing it :P
-
Haha, no worries, and I wasn't trying to be an ass or anything. I just know I post a lot worse than that on a regular basis. :lol
Anyway, you should be reprimanding EPICVIEW for his opinions, not his delivery of them. :neverusethis:
-J
-
Thanks J!!! I appreciate your objectivity!
Have a great day!
markets are up, I wonder how MSNBC will spin that,!
-
You guys are so ruthless. :lol
-
Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert are both very clever and interesting imo, Bill Maher is too far left but to say he's not smart or witty is down right hateful and weak.
I enjoy watching Bill Maher from time to time, however, I'm under no illusion that his show constitutes news or journalism. That's the trick. The problem I have with a jackass like O'Reilly is that it seems like so many people think of his show as news. Like Bill Maher, it's news-themed entertainment. Maher is just intentionally funny.
What did you think of Religulous?
I just had to google it to figure out WTF it is.
You should find a way to view it. I think you'll dig it.
I agree, it's funny, informative, clever and most of all fair.