Take back any benefit of the doubt you ever gave Fox News

[Sigz]

Ban his ass, C. Bass!

 

[MasterShakezula]

Ban his ass, C. Bass!

You rang?

[GuineaPig]

But what if AngelBack is secretly Wendel Clark?

[Super Dude]

I'm encouraged about the interest in reality, the beginning of wisdom is an acknowlegement of lack of understanding.  So, we will start with the basics:

1.  There is a God
2. There is a right and wrong
3. You have to learn the right and wrong.

Once you get these down, let me know.

Oh, this is gonna be fun.  I think I'll just hunker down over here and ...

[XJDenton]

I'm encouraged about the interest in reality, the beginning of wisdom is an acknowlegement of lack of understanding.  So, we will start with the basics:

1.  There is a God
2. There is a right and wrong
3. You have to learn the right and wrong.

Once you get these down, let me know. 

Oh boy.

[El JoNNo]

I'm encouraged about the interest in reality, the beginning of wisdom is an acknowlegement of lack of understanding.  So, we will start with the basics:

1.  There is a God
2. There is a right and wrong
3. You have to learn the right and wrong.

Once you get these down, let me know.

This is a god?!?!?!

[Perpetual Change]

Looks like Angelback had nothing.

[William Wallace]

Looks like Angelback had nothing.

I was hoping he'd start quoting Ann Coulter.

[YtseBitsySpider]

You guys don't get much compettion over here.....unless you count Andy.

He was entertaining at least.

[Super Dude]

Lame.

[Perpetual Change]

You guys don't get much compettion over here.....unless you count Andy.

He was entertaining at least.

There's plenty of differing opinions over here.

It just turns out no intelligent posters (i.e., those who can hold civilized discussions with one another) are willing to defend Fox New's journalistic integrity. Go figure.

[William Wallace]

You guys don't get much compettion over here.....unless you count Andy.

He was entertaining at least.

There's plenty of differing opinions over here.

It just turns out no intelligent posters (i.e., those who can hold civilized discussions with one another) are willing to defend Fox New's journalistic integrity. Go figure.

Yeah, they don't have any. But as I said in the other journalism thread, once you figure out how to get your news from the people that the media get it from, which is very easy, cable news seems like an unnecessary evil. I still read newspapers, but now it's an exercise in critical thinking (e.g. "how does this compare to what I know about the topic?"

[SnakeEyes]

"rapist"   

Dawg was just that:  A DAWG   

Best president we've had, probably in 50 years, maybe more.  The economy literally fucking EXPLODED under his watch.  And the way it works in American politics, in case you haven't been paying attention is, if it happens on your watch, you get credit, good, bad or ugly.

Bill Clinton is pretty much my hero.  I wish he hadn't cheated on his wife, because that's something I don't condone and would never do, but we, as a nation, pretty much idolize JFK and he was well known for cheating on his wife.

I won't hold President Clinton to a different standard.  This country FLOURISHED under his leadership, and BOTH presidents since have, quite frankly, sucked a mile of wombat ass in comparison.

Yeah.  And, then the economy IMPLODED in 2008 because of Clinton's policies.  And, then there was also the little issue of ..... September 11th.  I love how people completely forget the fact that 9-11 didn't just "happen" one day with absolutely no thought or preparation.  The planning of 9-11 went way back into Clinton's presidency when Bin Laden threatened the U.S. on ..... get this.... CLINTON'S WATCH and.... get this.... PLANNED IT under..... get this..... CLINTON'S WATCH. 

So, do you still think he was such a "great" president?

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah.  And, then the economy IMPLODED in 2008 because of Clinton's policies.  And, then there was also the little issue of ..... September 11th.  I love how people completely forget the fact that 9-11 didn't just "happen" one day with absolutely no thought or preparation.  The planning of 9-11 went way back into Clinton's presidency when Bin Laden threatened the U.S. on ..... get this.... CLINTON'S WATCH and.... get this.... PLANNED IT under..... get this..... CLINTON'S WATCH. 

So, do you still think he was such a "great" president?

What a jump. Maybe we should find out who was president when Osama bin Laden was conceived and blame it on them?

[Progmetty]

That was Eisenhower PC. Eisenhower's WATCH!

[Perpetual Change]

Well, in that case:

WORST PRESIDENT EVER

[Orion1967]

It's a terrible headline, but my disdain for Clinton balances out that for Fox News. I would have made the headline even more course: "grandstanding, self-righteous attention whore offers unsolicited opinion on climate change."

Good to know where you stand on objective journalism. 

oxymoron...

there IS NO such thing as objective journalism anymore...

[Super Dude]

There is no such thing as objective journalism ever.  Anyone who thinks there ever was and ever will be is naive.  Humans are by nature biased, and all journalism ever will reflect this fact of life.

[Orion1967]

Oh but I also forgot to add the question of: "What part of that headline is incorrect?"  not seeing it.

[Perpetual Change]

Oh but I also forgot to add the question of: "What part of that headline is incorrect?"  not seeing it.

The part where it included extraneous information for the sole purpose of adding political bias beyond what can be expected of a professional in the field.

[SnakeEyes]

What a jump. Maybe we should find out who was president when Osama bin Laden was conceived and blame it on them?

No, that wouldn't make sense, you see, because that would be completely out of context.  I was replying directly to someone who was praising Bill Clinton and talking about how the country "flourished" during his time in office.  On the surface, it appeared to be good, but underneath, things were really bad and they affected us later.  And, the problem is that the "flourishing" had nothing to do with Clinton while the bad things that affected us later WERE within his control - he just didn't do anything about them. 

[El Barto]

What a jump. Maybe we should find out who was president when Osama bin Laden was conceived and blame it on them?

No, that wouldn't make sense, you see, because that would be completely out of context.  I was replying directly to someone who was praising Bill Clinton and talking about how the country "flourished" during his time in office.  On the surface, it appeared to be good, but underneath, things were really bad and they affected us later.  And, the problem is that the "flourishing" had nothing to do with Clinton while the bad things that affected us later WERE within his control - he just didn't do anything about them.

Wag the dog.

[SnakeEyes]

Even if "wag the dog" had truly been a concern for Clinton, that says to me that he didn't have a backbone.  He cared more about the public's perception of him and his legacy than he did about real problems that actually developed into terrible things (9-11 being the biggest). 

So, even with "wag the dog," he still loses. 

[GuineaPig]

Why does Clinton get blamed for 9/11 and Bush doesn't?

[Perpetual Change]

Why does Clinton get blamed for 9/11 and Bush doesn't?

It almost certainly has to do with the color of his tie.

[SnakeEyes]

Who said Bush doesn't get blamed?  No one was praising Bush.  However, Clinton was MORE responsible.  Attack after attack happened during Clinton's time, they issued the original threat to the U.S. during his time, they planned 9-11 during his time and, to top it off, Clinton easily could have stopped it if he had a backbone, which he didn't.  As far as I know, the "blame" that Bush gets is that Condi Rice received memos that planes were going to be used a weapons inside the U.S. and she didn't follow through with informing Bush or something along those lines.  That's bad, but Clinton's is worse. 

[7StringedBeast]

Clinton had plenty of warning signs that shit was going down.  The world trade center bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, which was a Bin Laden job etc.  I don't think either president deserves blame really.  I think most of the blame should be put on the people who planned and carried out the attack. 

Also, we were bombing foreign countries under the Clinton administration without declaring war on anyone so the US foreign policy that people tend to have a huge problem with didn't really start with Bush.

As for the economy.  The reason it flourished under Clinton was because of the internet boom.  Once that died, what was left?  Clinton didn't cause the good economy that's for sure.

[Perpetual Change]

Clinton had plenty of warning signs that shit was going down.  The world trade center bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, which was a Bin Laden job etc.  I don't think either president deserves blame really.  I think most of the blame should be put on the people who planned and carried out the attack. 

Also, we were bombing foreign countries under the Clinton administration without declaring war on anyone so the US foreign policy that people tend to have a huge problem with didn't really start with Bush.

As for the economy.  The reason it flourished under Clinton was because of the internet boom.  Once that died, what was left?  Clinton didn't cause the good economy that's for sure.

Yeah, this I can all pretty much agree with.


Though, hey, the guy balanced the budget regardless.

[El Barto]

Even if "wag the dog" had truly been a concern for Clinton, that says to me that he didn't have a backbone.

I agree with this, but that's not the point you've been trying to make.  Clinton spent quite a bit of time worrying about al Qaeda, while Bush completely ignored it because he was more interested in Iraq.  Bush had 10 months of PDB's, and like most things,  was completely uninterested in them.  Personally,  I'd rank fruitless efforts light years ahead of willful negligence. 

[Orion1967]

Oh but I also forgot to add the question of: "What part of that headline is incorrect?"  not seeing it.

The part where it included extraneous information for the sole purpose of adding political bias beyond what can be expected of a professional in the field.

Yeah beacuse the left leaning media outlets NEVER do that do they? LMAO.

But just for shits-n-giggles lets break it down... "Impeached President Says Global Warming Deniers Embarrass America"

Impeached President? Check
Impeached Presidenet says? Check
Impeached President Says Global Warming Deniers Embarrass America? Check
So yup the headline is 100% factual.  i will debate though the accuracy of his statement, since he lumped us all (Americans that is) together and said we are all embarrased... I for one am an American and I think there are indicators that actions of humans in general are certainly not preventing global climate change but are we causing it? Nope not doing it.  Global climate change has been going on for millions of years... most of which oddly enough occurred BEFORE the advent of CFC's and the internal combustion engine. So to address Billy-Boy's statement I am not embarrased at all by those who deny we are the cause of "global warming".

However to play devil's advocate, consider this headline https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-remain-silent-for-most-of-obamas-speech/2011/09/08/gIQAy3NXDK_story.html for the most part it is not quite as obvious a rhetoric as the Fox headline, however it is also in fact 100% correct YET lends itself to the belief and position that the house republicans SHOULD have been cheering, hooping, and clapping at the pile of crap the Obama was shoveling in that speech.  Not trying to sidetrack the thread mind you with another political avenue (the speech) just citing an example where rhetoric comes into play on both sides of the aisle, its just that the Dems are admittedly slicker when it comes to doing it.

[Orion1967]

Though, hey, the guy balanced the budget regardless.

Huh?

[Scheavo]

What a jump. Maybe we should find out who was president when Osama bin Laden was conceived and blame it on them?

No, that wouldn't make sense, you see, because that would be completely out of context.  I was replying directly to someone who was praising Bill Clinton and talking about how the country "flourished" during his time in office.  On the surface, it appeared to be good, but underneath, things were really bad and they affected us later.  And, the problem is that the "flourishing" had nothing to do with Clinton while the bad things that affected us later WERE within his control - he just didn't do anything about them.

If you wanna take this route, we have to go all the way back to Reagan. You also have to ignore some of the most important negative effects from the past decade, the war in Iraq, Bush Tax Cuts and his lax regulation.

Who said Bush doesn't get blamed?  No one was praising Bush.  However, Clinton was MORE responsible.  Attack after attack happened during Clinton's time, they issued the original threat to the U.S. during his time, they planned 9-11 during his time and, to top it off, Clinton easily could have stopped it if he had a backbone, which he didn't.  As far as I know, the "blame" that Bush gets is that Condi Rice received memos that planes were going to be used a weapons inside the U.S. and she didn't follow through with informing Bush or something along those lines.  That's bad, but Clinton's is worse.

Wow, really? You seem to forget that Clinton responded to this by having constant meetings about Al Qaueda. Richard Clarke ran them, then Bushy decided they weren't important or something, got rid of the meetings, fired the expert, ignored the issue, and something BIG happens. There was intelligence on the matter, as you point to a fucking memo, thanks to Clinton era policies, and Bush not only dropped the ball, he quit the game.. I'd hardly say that makes Clinton more responsible.

You're forgetting how much 9/11 changed peoples awareness of this issue, and you can't expect a President to follow up on any and every potential threat to the nation. What do you propose Clinton to have done? Act upon intelligence that wasn't available? Start a War to kill a guy no one really knows about, cares about, or thinks is a threat?

[Super Dude]

You'd think Bush was the most loved president since Reagan.

[Perpetual Change]

Oh but I also forgot to add the question of: "What part of that headline is incorrect?"  not seeing it.

The part where it included extraneous information for the sole purpose of adding political bias beyond what can be expected of a professional in the field.

Yeah beacuse the left leaning media outlets NEVER do that do they? LMAO.

CNN, MSNBC, and so-on never do.

[ehra]

I don't even get why people use that argument to try to defend their side. The best defense you can come up with to excuse Fox's shitty journalism is to say the other side is shitty too? Might as well not even bother at that point.