Fair and balanced? Um ... no

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, they do all the time. Some are far better than others, but plenty of "left wing" bias and falsehoods are pointed out, too.



Probably because Obama himself has publically said he is a Christian.

There's also years of back-info and evidence about him attending Christian services.



Nonsense. It's reporting the truth. The problem today seems that many readily confuse truth with ... something else.

If someone has other provable information - not fear-mongering - that the President of the United States is lying, bring it on. So far that's been a pretty big fail on the part of many.

I'm going to give you a hypothetical. I'm sure you won't answer it because you never answer questions that hurt your argument.

I'll make the hypothetical about a Republican. Let's say a poll was done tomorrow and 10% of people say they think that Rudy Giuliani is probably an atheist. If an article was written about this, do you think that the journalist should write that 10% of people "incorrectly" and "wrongly" believe that Giuliani is an atheist? I don't. I think they should report the results of the poll and that should be it. They should say that Giuliani is a professed Catholic but 10% of the respondents think he's an atheist.

They shouldn't make an assesment of whether the people are right or wrong because the truth of the matter is we don't what Rudy Giuliani truly believes. Politicians will often pretend to be religious even if they aren't.

[Riot]

I'm going to give you a hypothetical. I'm sure you won't answer it because you never answer questions that hurt your argument.

That's simply not true, but hey, truth, falsehood, there's no "real" line, is there?

I'll make the hypothetical about a Republican. Let's say a poll was done tomorrow and 10% of people say they think that Rudy Giuliani is probably an atheist. If an article was written about this, do you think that the journalist should write that 10% of people "incorrectly" and "wrongly" believe that Giuliani is an atheist?.

No, what the media should do is the usual: check the facts. Ask Giuliani if he is atheist. If he says no, then look to see if there is any evidence he is atheist (that he is lying).

If there is not, then you bet, "10% incorrectly-wrongly believe" is exactly how the story should be written. Giuliani isn't an atheist. He's a Catholic. People that think otherwise are incorrect, and wrong.

They should report the results of the poll and that should be it. They should say that Giuliani is a professed Catholic but 10% of the respondents think he's an atheist.

Why should the media give people that express a view contrary to proven reality equal creedance with the proven reality? That's silly. Opinion and fact are not the same. Opinion contrary to or ignoring presented fact is worth even less.

And that is one of the things that is harming our country right now - the delusion that anything expressed or written (especially on the internet), no matter how crazy, is taken as true without question. We used to have distance and time and responsibility to protect us from rampant rumour - now, nothing.

The truth of the matter is we don't what Rudy Giuliani truly believes. Politicians will often pretend to be religious even if they aren't

So what?

The WTC was brought down by Bush & Cheney.
Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.
Contrails in the sky are secretly poison put out by the government to rain down upon us.
Communists are present throughout our government, and the President is secretly a communist working for Russia.
Those are not valid "opinions" that deserve "equal time". They are the musings of the deranged who ignore reality.

[clyde]

...quiet!! ...your right to dumb speech should be taken away from you...

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, well you certainly got me on the right track by making sure i understood you don't watch fox, you view it. that helped immensely. had you said you viewed it to begin with, no doubt this tangent would never have happened. but since i don't share your superiour intellect, it flew right by me. i'll do better next time.

you really are living in your own little world,Riot!

[Riot]

It's not because they're misinformed. I don't think any of these people think that Obama claims to be a Muslim. They know he claims to be a Christian. They don't believe him.

People don't believe astronauts really walked on the moon. People believe the world was created from nothing 5,000 years ago.

Anyone can have and express an opinion. Go for it. But I don't expect responsible, professional journalists to conflate opinion with a news piece, let alone include the craziest, most unsupported and factually dismissed "opinions" in that news piece.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

you really are living in your own little world,Riot!

Better mine than yours, thanks

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think a guy like Sean Hannity claims to be "fair and balanced". But if you watch their actual news (like with Shepherd Smith), I think it is very good. I'd rather watch that than the politically correct nonsense on the networks. As much as you hate political correctness, I would think you would like Fox's news.

No, I don't like it. I've listened to it a lot. Like I said, the part I hate the most is that each day they start it out with an obvious lie (fair n' balanced.) I've never heard a good reason for doing that, and don't know why anyone would so easily just accept a network doing that b.s. The 2nd thing I don't like is that they are wrong on the facts way too often. After a while, it becomes obvious that these couldn't all just be innocent mistakes.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's simply not true, but hey, truth, falsehood, there's no "real" line, is there?



No, what the media should do is the usual: check the facts. Ask Giuliani if he is atheist. If he says no, then look to see if there is any evidence he is atheist (that he is lying).

If there is not, then you bet, "10% incorrectly-wrongly believe" is exactly how the story should be written. Giuliani isn't an atheist. He's a Catholic. People that think otherwise are incorrect, and wrong.



Why should the media give people that express a view contrary to proven reality equal creedance with the proven reality? That's silly. Opinion and fact are not the same. Opinion contrary to or ignoring presented fact is worth even less.


So what?

The reason that I said that you don't answer questions that hurt your argument is because that has been my experience with you on several occasions. The one that sticks out off the top of my head was when we were debating about the popularity of Bin-Laden throughout the Muslim world. You claimed that he wasn't popular with Muslims. You tried to make some type of analogy with Timothy McVeigh, which is absurd because Mc Veigh has no support amongst Christians. Anyway, I put up links to polls showing that Bin-Laden was extremely popular throughout the Muslim world. You said that the polls didn't show enough Muslim countries and that Pakistan, Indonesia, and all the other countries named in the poll didn't prove that much.

I finally asked you to estimate what Bin-Laden's popularity was throughout the Muslim world. I asked you to give your best guess estimate. The polls were showing anywhere from a 20-60% approval rating in most Muslim countries. You wanted to pretend that Bin-Laden was in no way representative of Muslims just like McVeigh is in no way representative of Christians. You seemed to act like the polls were not truly representative yet you refused to say what you thought the real numbers. The reason you wouldn't say what you thought the true numbers were was because it would have discredited your original argument. Even if you would have admitted to Bin Laden just having a 10% approval rating amongst Muslims, even that would have contradicted your argument. So you refused to answer the question.

Come to think of it, this reminds me of what you were just accusing others of which is stating an opinion that is contrary to facts. All the evidence and all the polls showed that Bin-Laden was extremely popular throughout the Muslim but you want to deny it just because you want to be "politically-correct".

With regards to the Giuliani hypothetical, I was giving an example of a guy who we know is not really religious based on his behavior. I'm not saying that he's not a Catholic but I would say it's pretty obvious that he's not really religious. We know that many politicians pretend to be religious even though they are not religious. You can't take them on their word on it.

I agree with you that if everything about a guy's behavior pointed to him being the religious person that he claims to be, then it would be silly for people to question it. And in that case, I doubt people would question it. I don't think anyone questioned whether John Ashcroft was religious.

I agree with you that the media should not give equal credence to people that express a contrary view to proven reality. But the true religious beliefs of Rudy Giuliani or Barrack Obama are not even close to "proven reality". There is absolutely zero proof of what their true beliefs are.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

No, I don't like it. I've listened to it a lot. Like I said, the part I hate the most is that each day they start it out with an obvious lie (fair n' balanced.) I've never heard a good reason for doing that, and don't know why anyone would so easily just accept a network doing that b.s. The 2nd thing I don't like is that they are wrong on the facts way too often. After a while, it becomes obvious that these couldn't all just be innocent mistakes.

see fox learns from cnn and cbs , back during the 2000 election , dan , yes dan rather , we have confirmed that al gore , yes we have declared al gore the winner in the state of florida

..........only problem dan , not all the state is in the eastern time zone , mr hooves here and his pals still had an hour to go out and vote , now how many people in the western panhandle heard mr rather and decided to stay home????

[Riot]

The polls were showing anywhere from a 20-60% approval rating in most Muslim countries. You wanted to pretend that Bin-Laden was in no way representative of Muslims just like McVeigh is in no way representative of Christians. You seemed to act like the polls were not truly representative yet you refused to say what you thought the real numbers.

Yup. Because you were quoting polls from immediately after WTC. 10 years ago.

And no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of Muslims at all. "Pretend"? LOL - that's your prejudice and bigotry against all Muslims. No, not mine.

Good luck with that.

Let me make this crystal clear: no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of all Muslims. No way in hell.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yup. Because you were quoting polls from immediately after WTC. 10 years ago.

And no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of Muslims at all. "Pretend"? LOL - that's your prejudice and bigotry against all Muslims. No, not mine.

Good luck with that.

Let me make this crystal clear: no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of all Muslims. No way in hell.

I never said that Bin-Laden is representative of all Muslims. I don't think he is even close to being representative of all Muslims.

The polls I was quoting were not just right after 9/11. The polls went from around 2001-2006 or so.

The problem with people like you that are so politically correct is that you think that if you even ackowledge any type of negative characteristic about a group, that that would make you a bigot or racist. That is ridiculous.

Quoting a poll does not make someone a racist. Bin-Laden enjoyed a ton of popularity throughout the Muslim world for several years. This was after he murdered 3,000 people on 9/11.

Is Rush Limbaugh representative of all Republicans? Of course not. There are plenty of Republicans that are not Rush Limbaugh fans at all. Is Rush Limbaugh fairly popular amongst Republicans? I would have to say yes. He is certainly representative of some republicans. I don't know the exact number. I would guess that at least 50% of republicans like Limbaugh.

With Bin-Laden, in the years of approximately 2001-2006, I would say that somewhere around 30%-40% of Muslims around the world liked Bin-Laden during that time. Is Bin-Laden represenative of all Muslims? Of course not. But he was quite popular for a while. Even today, he still enjoys some popularity in the Muslim world. If you polled Muslims all over the world today, I would guess that his popularity rate would still be above 10% and I'll bet you that those people would tell you that he does represent them.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's not because they're misinformed. I don't think any of these people think that Obama claims to be a Muslim. They know he claims to be a Christian. They don't believe him.

Much as I think this is based mainly on wanting to get him out of office (by any means necessary,) I don't think it helped him to give a dinner marking the beginning of Ramadan. Unless there was some reason he was forced to do that, I think it was a dumb move. It fed right into the hands of people who think he's a hidden Moslem. Didn't help that he n' Hilary both threw the Armenians under the truck (to make the leader of Turkey happy.) They both promised (in Jan 2008) to get behind Armenian Genocide Recognition. When it came for vote in Congress, they both tried to keep Congressman from voting for it. Then what? It passed in the committee, and the Turk blamed Obama FOR NOT DOING ENOUGH. Welcome to Karma. People who try to satisfy Moslems (especially inbred Turks) are gunna get owned every time. You can't satisfy them. Now, you've got 3 problems that you've caused:

1) Twenty some odd % of Americans think you're actually a Moslem.

2) You lied about helping Armenian Americans.

3) Turks made an ass out of you. On this, you're just one of many American Presidents that got owned by them. Always seems that Presidents think they can satisfy these children. You can't satisfy 6 year olds for very long. Now, you know. You went against the Armenian Genocide Recognition, and they still voted against punishing the Iranians. That's called getting owned, sir. Should of stayed loyal to the people you promised to help, but you're no good. Your word means nothing, and neither does Hilary's. If I'm the Republican running against either of you 2 liars (in 2012,) I would never let up on the integrity issue. You've got zero.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yup. Because you were quoting polls from immediately after WTC. 10 years ago.

And no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of Muslims at all. "Pretend"? LOL - that's your prejudice and bigotry against all Muslims. No, not mine.

Good luck with that.

Let me make this crystal clear: no, I do not think bin Laden is representative of all Muslims. No way in hell.

Why are you so prejudice against Muslims? Why do you think they are all liars? You say that you "don't think Bin-Laden is represenative of Muslims at all". There are Muslims around the world that named their new-born babies "Osama". They love Bin-Laden. They think he is a great role model and a great Muslim. They think he represents them. Yet you say that he doesn't represent Muslims at all. That measn that you are calling those people liars since they would say that he does represent them.

Why do you streotype Muslims like this? They're not all liars. They are a diverse group. Some Muslims hate Bin-Laden and some love him. You can't paint them all with one brush.

I love giving you a taste of your own medicine.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The problem with people like you that are so politically correct is that you think that if you even ackowledge any type of negative characteristic about a group, that that would make you a bigot or racist. That is ridiculous. .

The problem with people like you is that not everyone else will buy into the prejudiced, bigoted bullcrap.

[Riot]

I love giving you a taste of your own medicine.

But you didn't. You made up a moronically stupid straw man, simply ignoring the two times I clarified my meaning to be the opposite of what you say.

Epic fail.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

The problem with people like you is that not everyone else will buy into the prejudiced, bigoted bullcrap.

Like what? Name me one thing that I've ever said that is prejudiced or bigotted. With regard to Islam, I recognize all facets of the religion, the good with the bad.

There are good parts to the religion and there are plenty of good Muslims. But there are also some very negative parts to the religion. For example, the way they treat women in many Muslim countries is really bad.

You have to take the bad with the good.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

But you didn't. You made up a moronically stupid straw man, simply ignoring the two times I clarified my meaning to be the opposite of what you say.

Epic fail.

What do you mean? That is exactly what you did. You claimed that I think Bin-Laden represents "all" Muslims when I have said just the opposite.

[Riot]

Like what? Name me one thing that I've ever said that is prejudiced or bigotted.

The problem with people like you that are so politically correct is that you think that if you even ackowledge any type of negative characteristic about a group, that that would make you a bigot or racist. That is ridiculous.

And back at you.

Why does any politicians religion matter?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

And back at you.

Why does any politicians religion matter?

You are changing the subject. I don't know that a politician's religion is necessarily significant. I would say that it's significant to some voters in that they want a person representing them that shares their values. They may feel that a person that shares their religion is more likely to share their values.

We know that isn't necessarily true because knowing a person's religion doesn't necessarily tell you anything about that person.

It is the same with a person's race. I am caucasian but I would much rather have Clarence Thomas on the Suprme Court than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Thomas' race is totally irrelevant to me. Why would I care about his race? The only thing I care about are his beliefs and his beliefs are much more in line with mine than Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What do you mean? That is exactly what you did. You claimed that I think Bin-Laden represents "all" Muslims when I have said just the opposite.

Nope. Fail again. Nice try at changing the subject, though.