White House War On Fox News

[Marksmu]

Er... ok. Whatever.

Alright, I mis-spoke without looking up stats - I am more educated than 91.9% of Americans

Percentage of Americans graduating high school = 85% (wikipedia from 2000 census) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States

Percentage graduating college - 27% (wikipedia again)

Percentage graduating from a graduate or professional degree - 8.9% - http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2002-06-05-education-census.htm

Where do I fall?

High school diploma - check

Major in Mechanical Engineering - check

Major in Math - check

Doctor of Jurisprudence - Check - pass Texas bar - check

So ya, I am more educated than 91.9% of Americans, not quite the 99.99% I originally wrote, but significantly more than the majority. Like it or not.

[Marksmu]

1) Again, not everything is subjective. The definition for racism is pretty clear on this. It isn't racism, pure and simple. It doesn't matter how loudly you scream it.

2) Yes it does. It does target poor people and minorities. Do you really have the gall to deny that? Really?

BTW, nice rhetorical style, Glenn Beck. I challenge you to produce the woman that Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder in 1990. Can't find her? That must mean he raped and murdered a woman in 1990, huh?

Yes - I have the gall to deny that! Its not true - Ill wait for you to show me a single statute that uses race to criminalize, or to act as a mitigating, or agitating factor in any crime.

You think minorities are targeted b/c you see the statistics of minorities arrested. Unfortunately for most of them - they committed the crime they were arrested for. They just have unequal access to good attorneys. Its not because of their race that they are not getting good or attorneys, its b/c of their financial situation. A rich minority has the same chance of acquittal as a rich white person. Its all about the money, not the race. Like it or not, the law is blind.

Your constant reference to Glen Bleck leads me to believe your infatuated with him. Your the only one bringing him up.

[AtticaFlinch]

I think Walter Cronkite would probably be considered an expert on journalism. Please tell me your arguments against his opinion.

I will as soon as you present the woman that Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder in 1990.

So you get what I'm saying, I'll explain it like I would to a fifth grader:

I'm not arguing his opinion. I'm arguing that his opinion isn't a fact, which is how you used it.

Alright, I mis-spoke without looking up stats - I am more educated than 91.9% of Americans

Percentage of Americans graduating high school = 85% (wikipedia from 2000 census) - http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Percentage graduating college - 27% (wikipedia again)

Percentage graduating from a graduate or professional degree - 8.9% - http://www.usatoday....tion-census.htm

Where do I fall?

High school diploma - check

Major in Mechanical Engineering - check

Major in Math - check

Doctor of Jurisprudence - Check - pass Texas bar - check

So ya, I am more educated than 91.9% of Americans, not quite the 99.99% I originally wrote, but significantly more than the majority. Like it or not.

Does it count if your degree is from a degree-by-mail university? All that education and your and you're is still too big a challenge? Whatever.

[jgriff]

Alright, I mis-spoke without looking up stats - I am more educated than 91.9% of Americans

Percentage of Americans graduating high school = 85% (wikipedia from 2000 census) - http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Percentage graduating college - 27% (wikipedia again)

Percentage graduating from a graduate or professional degree - 8.9% - http://www.usatoday....tion-census.htm

Where do I fall?

High school diploma - check

Major in Mechanical Engineering - check

Major in Math - check

Doctor of Jurisprudence - Check - pass Texas bar - check

So ya, I am more educated than 91.9% of Americans, not quite the 99.99% I originally wrote, but significantly more than the majority. Like it or not.

So let me get this straight? You mean you didn't learn everything you know from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc... You don't believe everything you see on TV? That must be why you don't know that Fox News is a racist, Anti-American organization.

[Marksmu]

I will as soon as you present the woman that Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder in 1990.

So you get what I'm saying, I'll explain it like I would to a fifth grader:

I'm not arguing his opinion. I'm arguing that his opinion isn't a fact, which is how you used it.

Does it count if your degree is from a degree-by-mail university? All that education and your and you're is still too big a challenge? Whatever.

Good argument - I do not care to spell check and waste time making sure I use punctuation properly - last I checked I was on an internet forum, not turning in a paper to be be graded.

If I wanted to spend the time using proper grammar I would, I would rather not waste my time. Unless you are not smart enough to understand what I am writing, I would quit picking on form instead of substance.

Substantively speaking your argument is non-existent- mine is factually based. There is no law that specifically attacks and separates out minorities. Because you can not point me to one, and I know one does not exist, my point is made. Your point on the other hand is still completely irrelevant. Whether or not Glen Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 - does not change the FACT that the law is color blind and that minorities commit a disproportionate percentage of the crimes.

[jgriff]

I will as soon as you present the woman that Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder in 1990.

So you get what I'm saying, I'll explain it like I would to a fifth grader:

I'm not arguing his opinion. I'm arguing that his opinion isn't a fact, which is how you used it.

I totally agree with you. Glen Beck is a murderer.

I never said it was a fact. Just like Sonia Sotomayer isn't a racist because she didn't say "I'm a racist".

[AtticaFlinch]

Yes - I have the gall to deny that! Its not true - Ill wait for you to show me a single statute that uses race to criminalize, or to act as a mitigating, or agitating factor in any crime.

Well, here you go. This is a good book to start out with. If you'd like, I can give you entire reading list, but I'm guessing reading isn't something you do too often.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZlHZpqo7rwEC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=percentage+of+police+that+are+racist&source=bl&ots=yxttNJTfEW&sig=ygw08cQ0Vx-5pRvV8NFZDpjwaxk&hl=en&ei=hR_eSsDnFJDiMe7r3fcN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

You think minorities are targeted b/c you see the statistics of minorities arrested. Unfortunately for most of them - they committed the crime they were arrested for. They just have unequal access to good attorneys. Its not because of their race that they are not getting good or attorneys, its b/c of their financial situation. A rich minority has the same chance of acquittal as a rich white person. Its all about the money, not the race. Like it or not, the law is blind.

The law is composed of the people charged with protecting it. There's more than enough evidence to suggest there's enough institutionalized racism inherent within the system that neither a black man nor a hispanic man will get the same fair shakes as a white man. That is self-evident and denying it is an outright lie. The law is only blind on paper, my friend. Reality is a far stranger beast.

Your constant reference to Glen Bleck leads me to believe your infatuated with him. Your the only one bringing him up.

Well, I only bring it up because no one is willing to prove conclusively that Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a woman in 1990. It's an outrage if it's true (which I'm not saying it is - but if it was, it would suck).

[jgriff]

Well, I only bring it up because no one is willing to prove conclusively that Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a woman in 1990. It's an outrage if it's true (which I'm not saying it is - but if it was, it would suck).

No one has proven conclusively that you didn't rape and murder a woman in 1990 either.

[AtticaFlinch]

Good argument - I do not care to spell check and waste time making sure I use punctuation properly - last I checked I was on an internet forum, not turning in a paper to be be graded.

You brag about your education as if it makes your opinion superior to facts. That's why I've brought attention to such a glaring flaw with the quality of your education. They didn't teach you basic grammar anymore than they taught you the difference between fact, truth and opinion... or how to open a dictionary.

If I wanted to spend the time using proper grammar I would, I would rather not waste my time. Unless you are not smart enough to understand what I am writing, I would quit picking on form instead of substance.

Good point. Using proper grammar is sooo time consuming. Give me some substance, and I'll argue with you there.

Substantively speaking your argument is non-existent- mine is factually based. There is no law that specifically attacks and separates out minorities. Because you can not point me to one, and I know one does not exist, my point is made. Your point on the other hand is still completely irrelevant. Whether or not Glen Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 - does not change the FACT that the law is color blind and that minorities commit a disproportionate percentage of the crimes.

You haven't proven a thing. Your contention is still "opinion = fact as long as marksmoo says it is." That still isn't true no matter how you choose to mischaracterize me.

[Marksmu]

The law is composed of the people charged with protecting it. There's more than enough evidence to suggest there's enough institutionalized racism inherent within the system that neither a black man nor a hispanic man will get the same fair shakes as a white man. That is self-evident and denying it is an outright lie. The law is only blind on paper, my friend. Reality is a far stranger beast.

Actually all of the most recent evidence points to money as the largest single distinguishing factor, not race. A minority with money and good attorneys has an almost equal acquittal percentage as a white person with money.

Its unfortunate that minorities continue to commit more crimes, but it does not make the system racist. A jury convicts - the jury is made up of an absolute random drawing of people. In Houston, the population is 49% white, 25% black and 37% hispanic.

That means that the jury make up should be very similar to this ratio. Anything too far off this make up, would not take much of an attorney to find some fault on the part of the defense. I guess the blacks and hispanics are racist against their own too?

[jgriff]

Well, I only bring it up because no one is willing to prove conclusively that Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a woman in 1990. It's an outrage if it's true (which I'm not saying it is - but if it was, it would suck).

OK, now I get it. I just looked up this little internet Meme. I got suspicious that no one could really be dumb enough to keep asking this question.

This internet meme is a standard liberal tactic of bringing attention to a cause that they think needs publicity. It's similar to the recent Chamber of Commerce hoax, people posing nude to bring attention to global warming, etc... They use these tactics when they think everyone in the world will agree with them if they can just be heard. The reality is that we've already heard we just don't care. These tactics are used when no one will listen based on the merit of the argument so you use a stunt to get people to listen.

[Jeebus]

True, but at least none of their anchors raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Not sayin' Glenn Beck did rape and murder a girl in 1990, but it's curious he hasn't denied it.

http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/

Also (and very curiously), Glenn Beck still hasn't come on this forum and denied that he raped and murdered a woman in 1990. I still don't believe he did it, but I find it compelling that he hasn't denied it here.

Everything of value you bring to this thread is continually invalidated when you try and use this as some sort of example of how Fox News operates.

This is a free country and Obama can say whatever he wants about Fox News. You disagree and continue to watch Fox News, good for you, its a free country. Moving on.

Hopefully, when this debate is said and done, this will remain the paradigm.

[Jeebus]

Not really. Not every subjective response has validity. I can call the sky green and then say that it's just my opinion, but it doesn't make my stupid statement valid. It's still a stupid statement, and it's still not true. It's not as true as calling the sky blue, no matter how much I try to justify it. It's still a false statement.

There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what exactly racism means, so here, from Merriam-Webster:

Explain to me how Sotomayor calling herself a "wise, Latina woman" in any way constitutes racism.

She won't use it anymore because it's become a political hot button. That's it. That's the only reason.

She doesn't say her being Latina gives her the ability to inherently make decisions better than old white dudes, just that the experiences she's had as a Latina (as opposed to the experiences old, white dudes have - for those keeping track at home) give her a different perspective than the norm. And, considering minorities and the poor are more often targeted by the judicial system, that perspective will tend to be less lopsided and more judicious. Why is that a difficult concept to grasp? Here, as an example of an accurate comparison, consider that I'm over six feet tall. I would hope a wise, tall man, with the frequency that he hits his head against the door lintel, would be better able to judge how high that lintel should be. Yeah, I've got a better understanding of how high it should be, better than Muggsy Bogues, not just because I'm simply taller, but because I'm taller and that extra height causes me to frequently bump my head. You get it now?

Again I request for you to explain how that's racist. Or, do you deny the judicial system targets certain groups over others?

Using your example of "tallness" makes no sense. Sotomayor's statement that she can make a more informed decision because she is Latina infers that being Latina is superior to that of any other race that would attempt to make the same decision. Her being Latina should have NOTHING to do with a Judiciary position, except perhaps to help teach children 100 years from now how archaic our society still was at the beginning of the 21st century.

Rasmussen? Seriously? Hey, guess what? The Daily Kos poll has 82% of Americans favoring it. Take that, Rasmussen!

B-b-b-b-but Rasmussen says only 42%! Rasmussen! You know, that keenly objective pollster without an agenda?! Surely you've heard of Rasmussen?

So you're confirming that all Polls are only that: a poll. At least we agree on something.

[ricco67]

In NO way does your reply address the content of the article. Bias or not.

Fox news is truly a sad commentary of the failure of education in America.

The failure is the Education system not teaching proper history or critical thinking to properly debate the various issues to begin with.

[AtticaFlinch]

OK, now I get it. I just looked up this little internet Meme. I got suspicious that no one could really be dumb enough to keep asking this question.

If only if was this easy to clue you in to anything of value.

Everything of value you bring to this thread is continually invalidated when you try and use this as some sort of example of how Fox News operates.

Egads, but this is the way Fox News operates. It's not merely hyperbole. How can we discuss Fox News without discussing the way they skew the dialect? If anything, it strengthens my point. It doesn't sit well when those on the opposite side of the aisle are forced to look into the mirror though. That's why it's dismissed so readily by them.

No offense and I know Muslims, I like Muslims, I've been to mosques, I really don't think Islam is a religion of evil. I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying let's cut and run. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview because what I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy. But that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/beck_tries_to_kill_parody_webs.php

[LegacyTree]

^Actually, I see Attica being dogpiled by rhetoric and he is the only one using source material and concise logic. Try again. The Glenn Beck rumor is telling in how you react to such nonsense, conversely that same method colors your perception.

[jgriff]

If only if was this easy to clue you in to anything of value.

So you're saying that a false rumor about Glen Beck is something of value? We all already know what your argument is. You don't have to use a stunt like this to make us hear it.

Glen Beck doesn't have to prove anything he says on his show is true. He is not a journalist. His show is all opinion. He's just a former radio DJ.

[jgriff]

^Actually, I see Attica being dogpiled by rhetoric and he is the only one using source material and concise logic. Try again. The Glenn Beck rumor is telling in how you react to such nonsense, conversely that same method colors your perception.

I'm not even sure what point Attica is trying to make. It seems that he's arguing that Glen Beck is wrong sometimes. No one is arguing that point against him. That's an argument he's having all by himself.

He's also arguing that Sonia Sotomayor is not a racist. I'm not arguing that he's wrong in that opinion. I'm arguing that he's wrong in not accepting my opinion.

[AtticaFlinch]

Using your example of "tallness" makes no sense. Sotomayor's statement that she can make a more informed decision because she is Latina infers that being Latina is superior to that of any other race that would attempt to make the same decision. Her being Latina should have NOTHING to do with a Judiciary position, except perhaps to help teach children 100 years from now how archaic our society still was at the beginning of the 21st century.

No it doesn't, and in the very line you quoted of mine, I explained the difference. At what point did you stop reading my reply?

So you're confirming that all Polls are only that: a poll. At least we agree on something.

Sort of. Take from it what you will. Rasmussen has an agenda, a fairly open one. When it comes to broader topics Rasmussen will err on the side of objectivity, but when it comes to policy questions or newsmaking events, Rasmussen is as biased as the day is long. For instance, how do you think Republicans responded to this question?

“Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high.”

Aside from the crappy grammar, do you think many Republicans admitted they were Yes-men to Limbaugh? Do you think an organization like Rasmussen, which phrases qustions to get a very predictable result should carry any weight in a discussion of policy? The Rasmussen poll exists to sway opinion, not report it. I glibly used the Daily Kos to fairly openly show how the same could be used by the other side. Polls aren't inherently useless. Badly worded polls are though. Rasmussen is useless in any discussion.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2009/just_11_of_republicans_say_limbaugh_is_their_party_s_leader

[AtticaFlinch]

So you're saying that a false rumor about Glen Beck is something of value? We all already know what your argument is. You don't have to use a stunt like this to make us hear it.

Glen Beck doesn't have to prove anything he says on his show is true. He is not a journalist. His show is all opinion. He's just a former radio DJ.

If it's just opinion, then why is he on a "news" channel? Better question, why does Fox's ratings machine (which at least two people on this thread pointed to as a reason that Fox's opinion is superior to that of any other) consist mostly of former radio DJ's opinions?

I'm not even sure what point Attica is trying to make. It seems that he's arguing that Glen Beck is wrong sometimes. No one is arguing that point against him. That's an argument he's having all by himself.

He's also arguing that Sonia Sotomayor is not a racist. I'm not arguing that he's wrong in that opinion. I'm arguing that he's wrong in not accepting my opinion.

I'm arguing that Fox is garbage. Someone else brought up Sonia Sotomayor to prove Fox isn't the only one who piles crap upon crap and insists it's roast beef. (I think it may have been you.) I just pointed out the comparison was weak and invalid. Quit throwing up the straw men, and I'll quit knocking them down.

[jgriff]

I'm hoping we can all agree that being on the side of censors or people who want to silence their opposition is never the place to be. We have freedom of the press in this country for a reason. That freedom also includes the freedom to be wrong. You can't count on the president or anyone else in government to decide who is right. You have to count on the fact that the truth will always win in the end. It may take a long time but it will get there someday.

I'm out of here for the day. No hard feelings with anyone. It was a good discussion.

[ricco67]

So you're saying that a false rumor about Glen Beck is something of value? We all already know what your argument is. You don't have to use a stunt like this to make us hear it.

Glen Beck doesn't have to prove anything he says on his show is true. He is not a journalist. His show is all opinion. He's just a former radio DJ.

He also had a drinking problem and abused drugs. He has been very open about it, and admits when he missed the mark on a prediction or opinion. Not to mention he downplays his importance and refers to himself as a "rodeo clown" of the talk show personalities.

You don't see Hannity, Limbaugh, or Randy Rhodes copping to their own shortcomings.

[AtticaFlinch]

I'm hoping we can all agree that being on the side of censors or people who want to silence their opposition is never the place to be. We have freedom of the press in this country for a reason. That freedom also includes the freedom to be wrong. You can't count on the president or anyone else in government to decide who is right. You have to count on the fact that the truth will always win in the end. It may take a long time but it will get there someday.

I'm out of here for the day. No hard feelings with anyone. It was a good discussion.

Only if the lies are challenged will we ever arrive at the truth. Since the rest of the mainstream media hadn't yet stood up to the challenge, Obama had to. Should he have merely sat there and took his lumps and said nothing while the Fox machine spread lie after lie about him, his policies and his politics? If he'd have gone down that road, he'd be called weak and spineless. There's no satisfying some extremist factions.

Sounds a bit like some yahoos running around a desert blowing each other up on the other side of the world. They're never satisfied with any capitulation either.

He also had a drinking problem and abused drugs. He has been very open about it, and admits when he missed the mark on a prediction or opinion. Not to mention he downplays his importance and refers to himself as a "rodeo clown" of the talk show personalities.

You don't see Hannity, Limbaugh, or Randy Rhodes copping to their own shortcomings.

The only Randy Rhoads worth a damn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Rhoads

And, because Beck admits he has flaws his every word and the way he argues is acceptable? I'm not buying it.

[Jeebus]

No it doesn't, and in the very line you quoted of mine, I explained the difference. At what point did you stop reading my reply?

I read your post many time and it still makes no sense. Your example of a tall person being more apt to properly determine how tall doorways should be only shows that the tall person will show favoritism towards other tall people. Of course your example is not accurate to Sotomayor as well because all people shorter than the tall person making the door height determination would not be negatively affected by his decision, since anyone his height or below would make up what would most likely be considered the majority group (as it would be unlikely that there are more tall people than other people combined).

The point is that in this politically correct society where race/ethnicity is one of the many factors that are NOT to have any bearing on a person's qualifications to be hired, Sotomayor was wrong to try and use her race/ethnicity as reason why should would be more qualified to do the job, than a person of another race/ethnicity.

If you walked into my office and told me that as a __________ you are more qualified than the other candidate sitting in the waiting room who is a __________, I would call your comment racist. Can you tell me where in the modern American workplace this would be allowed or where that statement would not be considered racist?

[AtticaFlinch]

Can you tell me where in the modern American workplace this would be allowed or where that statement would not be considered racist?

As a trained and degreed archaeologist, I am more qualified to be hired for a job in archaeology than someone with no experience in the field and that has a degree in accounting. That's just the way it is, like it or not.

A Hispanic person born into poverty and blight has a far more intimate understanding of the inherent injudiciousness of the judicial system than a white man born into wealth and privilege. That's just the way it is, like it or not.

[musicman]

As a trained and degreed archaeologist, I am more qualified to be hired for a job in archaeology than someone with no experience in the field and that has a degree in accounting.

...different situation altogether. so if you and another archaeologist were up for the same job and the other person got it cause they were latin, i'm sure you'd be upset. that's just the way it is, like it or not.

[BryanS]

jgriff - nail - hit - head - her statements WERE racist - Attica, you saying that its not a racist statement is just disingenuous. Her attempt to clarify it was that she would think that her diversity of experiences, that white people do not experience, would lead her to come to a more compassionate decision.

Any way you skin that horse, Sotomayer is a racist - she said she would make a better decision than a white person because she is a hispanic with a more diverse background.

Thats like me saying - I will make better choices than you because I am white and you are not. Its just a different way of saying it. She is a racist.

And the other networks are on the defensive. FOX is crushing them - more people watch Fox than all the other networks combined, on ALL of the shows... the Democrats want the main stream media to make you think that the FOX channel is only for extremists and that its not news, because they want to control what news actually gets to you. Unfortunately for them, their audience is shrinking, and Fox's is growing - its b/c more people are disgusted with this administration than are happy with it. People are sick and tired of hearing the same tired rhetoric coming from the "news" channels...they hear one thing on the "news" and then when they step outside their house, their eyes show them something completely different. Common sense is about to take over again, and when it does, the liberal left are in big trouble.

They are fighting a losing battle - the Democrats power is a going to be a short 4 years, but a very destructive 4.

Fox news sad commentary on the education of America? Are you effin kidding me? - I watch Fox, dont buy into it all, but sure as heck like it alot more than the other networks, and I have more education than 99.99% of Americans.

ahhhh....yes... I was just waiting for that... "Fox has more viewers than all others..."

Conservatives/wingnuts... need fancy moving pictures on the TV to convey information. They like the TV. And Fox, mostly catering to a white, angry, straight male audience - gives them plenty of blonde T&A to keep them interested. They just eat it up.

But what about all the so-called "liberals" who read papers? Who get their information from news sites on the Internet - some even international? Who listen to the radio, but not talk radio? Who do not even have - nor need - a television?

They're not watching the TV. They have no need for it.

...and yet, somehow.... with that huge audience that Fox has... its viewers got slammed in the 2008 elections. Outnumbered by more enlightened people who had no need to be included in the Nielsen ratings to make a difference. God bless those people.

[barracuda]

^ You hit on a very good point. Plenty of conservatives congregate to the flag-waving, self-proclaimed patriots at Fox News, but that doesn't represent America by any means. Most people I know (myself included) obtain the majority of their news from internet news sites and news publications rather than disc-jockey turned TV rodeo clowns who have no background in journalism or politics.

[20thStDad]

This thread is awesome. Changing each other's minds on an internet forum is about as likely as me starting at 3rd base for the Yankees. But hey, if it feels good keep on banging your heads against the wall.

TV news (all of it) is entertainment. I have no need for it.

[Porchman]

The failure is the Education system not teaching proper history or critical thinking to properly debate the various issues to begin with.

...Or even to stay on the original topic.