# Irony, thy name is Fox.



## Watty (Sep 7, 2014)

Found this while browsing some news articles a few days back and literally (and I mean literally) almost fell over trying not to laugh out loud in my cube at work. 

Why, you ask?

Skip to 1:16 in the first of the two linked video clips.

O&#8217;Reilly Fires Back at Jon Stewart&#8217;s &#8216;Distortions&#8217; of His Ferguson Comments | Mediaite

BillO, BillO, BillO....truer words were never spoken. I'd imagine this clip will end up getting a lot of play time down the road as it is a clip that can be used almost universally when talking about Fox and their ilk, regardless of the specifics. I wonder if that was scripted or if he just didn't really think before opening his mouth.

________________

Anyone else have examples of "foot-in-mouth" disease similar to this?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Sep 7, 2014)

Even more irony for those who are interested.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Sep 7, 2014)

Say what you will about Fox, it's really, really, REALLY f*cking entertaining (not in the way they're intending). Mildly terrifying at the same time though. I think it says something about the state of American culture that people who are quite obviously deranged can end up with their own TV shows.

Also, Phil "convert or die" Robertson is a piece of shit. He's quite funny on TV but I have no time for his views.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 7, 2014)

Did someone mention conservative irony?...


----------



## Explorer (Sep 8, 2014)

This is the greatest graphic I have seen in quite a while. That woman is so... Palin.

Which woman am I talking about?

Exactly.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Sep 8, 2014)

Well the difference is obvious...




AMERICA MOTHERFVCKER!!!


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 8, 2014)

Who watches cable news anyways?
That's right, it's the older, wiser, and more mature demographic.

And who's at the top of cable news by a landslide?
That's right, it's FOX NEWS, and it's been that way for a very long time.

And where does Mr. J.S. fall in the news ratings?
That's right, he's not even considered news, he's on the laugh channel, as he should be since he's a very funny guy.



I'm sorry guys, but reality seems to discredit the original intention of this thread.
Anyone who actually watches cable news knows full well that FOX NEWS is about the only place you'll ever get to hear all points of view in a debate, and also they're the only cable news network who attempts to uncover all the related facts concerning our daily news stories.

Cable News Ratings for Friday, September 5, 2014 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.Zap2it.com

Number 1 for how long now? It's been so long I've lost track.





So here's to all the success haters and liberal whine-bags. You know who you are.
Keep on drink'n that John Stewart fruit-punch , by the gallon.


----------



## asher (Sep 8, 2014)

I...

I don't even.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 8, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Who watches cable news anyways?
> That's right, it's the older, wiser, and more mature demographic.
> 
> And who's at the top of cable news by a landslide?
> ...




 you realize age doesn't = wisdom/maturity right? 

If anything most old people are judgmental and could care less about seeing things from a different point of view.

Let's not pretend that fox is at the top because they're "fair and balanced" it's because they're the only major conservative channel and like you said OLD people watch it and it's the only place they get their news from, while younger generations spread what they watch between cnn, msnbc, or get their news from internet sources while also watching fox sometimes to see what they have to say (adding to the amount of people who watch fox)...actually trying to get both sides of the debate by ohhhh I don't know? listening to both sides as opposed to one ....ing channel where all the talking heads do is yell at guest and interrupt them constantly if the guest doesn't agree with them...and every other day there's some ignorant, bigoted, misogynistic or racist remark coming from one of them it's disgusting or they're complaining about the war on Christmas or gays ruining traditional marriage or some other non-news one sided subject.

Fox is like a religion now, you can only believe one source, if you watch anything else there's no way you could be getting the true story, so says fox...nothing we say or do is racist or centered around Christian values that's just those liberal whine bags (really a "whine bag" what even is that? A bag of whiners? a bag full of whine? Step up your conservative name calling dude) trying to play the race card or attack GOD.

P.s. Do you ever post anything without using name calling? You're just a dildo of astronomical size...


----------



## flint757 (Sep 8, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Who watches cable news anyways?
> That's right, it's the older, wiser, and more mature demographic.
> 
> And who's at the top of cable news by a landslide?
> ...



Nearly everything on TV is meant for entertainment, including all of the news networks and the supposed educational channels. I wouldn't call bringing the polar opposite opinion on to fox just to yell and gang up on them for a half hour 'balanced' or 'giving everyone their fair shot' either, especially when, wouldn't you know, the conservative viewpoint always manages to come out smelling like roses compared to their opponents viewpoint. That's what happens when you spend an entire show seeing who can talk the loudest though I guess. Of course that'd be something you like about it given the fact that that lines up with your political views. What a shocker. Who knew popularity was an indicator of quality and accuracy too. Someone should let Bieber know for sure. The hilarious fact is that none of the news networks are fair or balanced so you claiming that everyone else is drinking the Kool Aid while you come to fight for your networks honor is that that is exactly what I'd expect from someone who has already drank all the Kool Aid.


----------



## Danukenator (Sep 8, 2014)

Trench is the guy who though biodiversity in the rain forest proved global warming was good thing. Because, ya' know, rain forests are warm. Which means a warmer Earth will cause greater biodiversity.

TBH, it almost seems like intentional trolling at this point. Right off the bat we jump into ad hominems against other members.


----------



## Necris (Sep 8, 2014)

Fox News is Number One in cable news ratings. Checkmate Liberals!

Fox is in the News ratings, where's John Stewart? Checkmate Liberals!

As long as the hosts on Fox News at least mention the opposing point of view you can't accuse them of being partisan! Checkmate Liberals!

Bill O'Reilly is never partisan, therefore there is no irony in him warning his viewers against believing anything said on "partisan driven programs" like The Daily Show. Checkmate Liberals!

If you don't like Fox you hate success. Checkmate Liberals!

Somehow all of this means that the thread conflicts with reality! *Check. Mate. Liberals.*

Now go drink the kool-aid you success hating whinebags!



*Thanks Trench for the unintended compliment, in my life I've seen far more Fox News than Comedy Central. It warms my heart that you believe me to be wise(r) and more mature because of it. 

However, I can't help but question the judgement of anyone who really believes that maturity or wisdom are necessarily reflected in cable news choices so the compliment falls a little flat, but still...


----------



## Watty (Sep 8, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> Trench is the guy who though biodiversity in the rain forest proved global warming was good thing. Because, ya' know, rain forests are warm. Which means a warmer Earth will cause biodiversity.



I thought his post above was the most ridiculous thing he'd said....guess I was wrong.


----------



## Promit (Sep 8, 2014)

Explaining to TRENCHLORD the problems with Fox News is like explaining to a cat the problems with killing birds. It won't work and you'll feel like an idiot for trying. There is no comprehension at the other end. None.

Other exercises of similar efficacy include typing arguments into Notepad and closing it without saving, giving impassioned speeches to cinderblocks, and writing open letters to 4chan on the error of its ways.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 9, 2014)

Promit said:


> Other exercises of similar efficacy include typing arguments into Notepad and closing it without saving, giving impassioned speeches to cinderblocks, and writing open letters to 4chan on the error of its ways.


 
All arguments about politics and news aside, the above is such a wonderfully accurate depiction of so many arguments and debates between polarized viewpoints!


----------



## Glosni (Sep 9, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Who watches cable news anyways?
> That's right, it's the older, wiser, and more mature demographic.
> And who's at the top of cable news by a landslide?
> That's right, it's FOX NEWS, and it's been that way for a very long time.
> ...



And as we all know: Mainstream sucess = Quality. I'll just leave this here Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests - Forbes

I honestly can't watch Fox News for more than two minutes top, I just start cringing so hard. Hannity, O'Reily, Fox and friends... I'm sorry, but this is one of the things where I am glad to live in Germany: Yeah we have stupid crap on TV as well, but not THAT stupid. 
Last winter, when it was really cold on the east on coast, Fox "News" said that climate change obviously was a hoax, cause you know, it's cold.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Sep 9, 2014)

Glosni said:


> Yeah we have stupid crap on TV as well, but not THAT stupid.



  

Same here


----------



## Explorer (Sep 9, 2014)

Trenchlord, I'd be very interested in your explanation and justification of the second clip provided above, especially given your viewpoint that the majority is right. 

Killing in the name of. 

I can't wait.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 9, 2014)

ITT: Folks getting troll'd hard by Trench.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Sep 9, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> ITT: Folks getting troll'd hard by Trench.


After Eric Christian I'm not sure who's trolling and who's serious


----------



## asher (Sep 9, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> ITT: Folks getting troll'd hard by Trench.



It's basically exactly what I expected him to say when I saw he'd posted


----------



## TedEH (Sep 9, 2014)

I think to myself sometimes, "hey self, you're not super in-tune with the world, maybe you should watch the news!" 

So, I'll put on the news, regardless of the channel, and they'll be interviewing redneck reality tv stars, talking about how I should feel bad that a celebrity I've never heard of has died, giving opinions of things that you can tell they googled five minutes ago and know nothing about, reminding me about the latest facebook and twitter trends... and I leave feeling no more informed than I started.

I don't regret not paying for tv service anymore.


----------



## will_shred (Sep 9, 2014)

I personally don't know anyone who thinks that fox news is actual news. I feel like i'm fortunate in a way.

I just can't understand how fox can be taken seriously, anyone with basic critical thinking skills can plainly see how insane they are.


----------



## asher (Sep 9, 2014)

will_shred said:


> anyone with basic critical thinking skills



Admittedly, not most of their target audience.

Feature, not bug.


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Sep 9, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> Did someone mention conservative irony?...



Look, I don't want to defend Fox News or anything, but such a comparison is disingenuous at best and intellectually bankrupt at worst. One of them is a West Virginian mother. The other is A FVCKING SUICIDE BOMBER. So yeah... that horse you rode in on? You can ride it out too. All of the Reddit-esque "MURICA" comments and observations regarding the relative superiority of atheism as a life choice don't change the fact that this is a textbook false analogy that people perpetuate just because it aligns with their worldview.

There's a reason people like her hate "the liberals" - because they do shit like this.

I would also like somebody to tell me all about how CNN or NBC don't have an agenda either and do it with a straight face. Seriously, at least mainstream conservatism is straightforward enough with their unique brand of horseshit... the mythical monolithic 'left' seems to have compensated for their lower grade of manure with high-octane moral smugness that further inflames the Glenn Beck-types and keeps the big retarded steam engine known as American politics going.

I'm also duly interested in whether or not anybody in this thread A) gets their news from The Daily Show (hint: it's a comedy show, not a news program) or B) actually reads NPR, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. Just wondering.

[/rant]


----------



## asher (Sep 9, 2014)

Mo Jiggity said:


> One of them is a West Virginian mother. The other is A FVCKING SUICIDE BOMBER.



_[citation needed]_

Gun, check, flag, check, holy book, check. I see no suicide bomb vests on either side, do you?



> I would also like somebody to tell me all about how CNN or NBC don't have an agenda either and do it with a straight face. Seriously, at least mainstream conservatism is straightforward enough with their unique brand of horseshit... the mythical monolithic 'left' seems to have compensated for their lower grade of manure with high-octane moral smugness.
> 
> [/rant]



I was waiting for someone to call CNN or NBC effectively leftish bastions. Which is kind of laughable too. They certainly slant more left than, say, Fox, but are pretty centered and very much captive to the Overton window.

Or are you going to find all their stories debunking the Obamacare victims and proclaiming its success, or how well stimulus has done? Instead, (C)NBC has Santelli.

All the cool leftists use the blogosphere


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Sep 9, 2014)

asher said:


> _[citation needed]_
> 
> Gun, check, flag, check, holy book, check. I see no suicide bomb vests on either side, do you?
> 
> ...



Jihad Barbie | Know Your Meme ... see Spread



> photo featuring suicide bomber Reem Riyasha


https://www.google.com/search?q=reem+riyashi

Oops. Did I think with my head instead of my feels?

**EDIT: Derp, my reading comprehension


----------



## asher (Sep 9, 2014)

Mo Jiggity said:


> Jihad Barbie | Know Your Meme ... see Spread
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=reem+riyashi
> 
> Oops. Did I think with my head instead of my feels? I also appreciate the straw-man argument regarding the Obamacare and whatnot. Pretty much solidifies my point that you're incapable of objective thinking and are pretty much exactly what the clows over at Fox say you are - a Trendy Lefty (tm).



Didn't know she specifically was a suicide bomber.

The idea still... kinda? stands anyhow though. But these things are almost always way too distilled to not be cheap shots either way.

But, like, cross the "Being a Liberal" FB page with the "Conservative News" or whatever, all of which pass around slanted and not necessarily correct, almost certainly oversimplified memes. THAT is a place I'll accept the "both sides do it" stuff, because every group is full of assholes 

It seems like the wrong thing to get bent out of shape about.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 9, 2014)

Mo Jiggity said:


> Look, I don't want to defend Fox News or anything, but such a comparison is disingenuous at best and intellectually bankrupt at worst. One of them is a West Virginian mother. The other is A FVCKING SUICIDE BOMBER. So yeah... that horse you rode in on? You can ride it out too. All of the Reddit-esque "MURICA" comments and observations regarding the relative superiority of atheism as a life choice don't change the fact that this is a textbook false analogy that people perpetuate just because it aligns with their worldview.
> 
> There's a reason people like her hate "the liberals" - because they do shit like this.
> 
> ...



You know why as a liberal, I tend to hate conservatives? Because they spend far too much time telling me on the one hand how the government should stay out of everyone's business, then on the other hand try to dictate to me who the .... I can marry, what kind of healthcare I can receive as a woman, that my place is to be barefoot and pregnant at home. If someone were to rape me, the majority of conservatives would blame me as being a slut and/or somehow twist things around to where I'm solely to blame for someone else making the decision to rape. For a political party that believes exclusively in hands-off government, they spend FAR too much time micro-managing the way I live.

Economically speaking, they are completely insane. They give money to the rich and put complete trust in some of the shadiest people alive to distribute that money to the average person, THEN blame poor people for what rich people are doing to them; hell they even SIDE with the rich people that are ....ing them over and anyone that tries to stand up to that is somehow engaging in "class warfare".

They bash me over the goddamn head repeatedly with how I'm doomed to hell because I swing both ways, but then decry oppression when I simply call them out on it and ask them to stop. They go batshit insane with getting the most tricked out firearms and 7/10 times leave that shit where kids or mentally ill people can get access to them, then throw tantrums when the government has no choice but to legislate common sense since they demonstrate time and again that they can't do it on their own.

Unless they demonstrate to me otherwise (which some conservatives have), the first thing I think of when I hear the word conservative is a self-absorbed, self-righteous, xenophobic asshole. Do I think all conservatives are like that? No. As I've said, I've met several (even on here) that are awesome people. But as a former registered republican, I quickly jumped ship when I started to see what was in that particular kool-aid. Lincoln's party got taken over by some of the worst kinds of people.

So no, I won't be doing any horse-riding today because I'm fed up with holier-than-thous trying to tell me how to live my goddamn life when they can't even get their own shit together.

/rant


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 9, 2014)

Mo Jiggity said:


> All of the Reddit-esque "MURICA" comments and observations regarding the relative superiority of atheism as a life choice don't change the fact that this is a textbook false analogy that people perpetuate just because it aligns with their worldview.



I think the point is the mentality of both women is generally the same faith, nation, weapons...I argue that that mom from Virginia would do the same thing as the suicide bomber IF their circumstances were flipped...conservatives already look for any excuse to scream revolution 



Mo Jiggity said:


> There's a reason people like her hate "the liberals" - because they do shit like this.



Really? This is what you're going with? People like her hate liberals because they make false analogies regarding the right? It couldn't be because we fundamentally disagree on almost everything... They probably also hate us for pointing out that dumbass graph they put on fox about healthcare signups where somehow 7 million equals this ---------------------------
But 6 million is somehow -------

Liberals are such dicks for pointing out stupidity  



Mo Jiggity said:


> I would also like somebody to tell me all about how CNN or NBC don't have an agenda either and do it with a straight face. Seriously, at least mainstream conservatism is straightforward enough with their unique brand of horseshit... the mythical monolithic 'left' seems to have compensated for their lower grade of manure with high-octane moral smugness that further inflames the Glenn Beck-types and keeps the big retarded steam engine known as American politics going.



So you're saying you'd rather have crazy bat shit non-factual opinions rather then semi biased, moral smugness? I don't know, to me I'd rather deal with overly moral, liberal bleeding hearts who you can actually explain too and have a conversation with about why they're over reacting then intellectually incompetent tough guys who just plug their ears and yell their opinion at you.



Mo Jiggity said:


> I'm also duly interested in whether or not anybody in this thread A) gets their news from The Daily Show (hint: it's a comedy show, not a news program) or B) actually reads NPR, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. Just wondering.



I don't really see how this matters after glosni posted that artical that said 

"Fox News viewers were also less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news, suggesting a daily dose of sound bytes from CNN at the gym, and headlines from Google News were enough to surpass what average Fox viewers polled knew about current events." 

Apparently I'm wasting my ....ing time trying to be more informed then republicans when I can just listen to cnn sound bytes and google headlines.

But yes I read many different sources of news every morning and since I switched to just netflix I haven't watched the daily show (hint: do you really think people don't know the DS is a comedy show?) or Colbert in a really long time but even when I did have cable I still watched fox,cnn,msnbc ect. And at times agreed or disagreed with all of them.

And just to be "that guy" I'm fine with saying atheism is superior to theism as no part of atheism dictates that you should dislike or kill other people. InB4 someone says "what about Stalin!" That wasn't because atheism that was because he wanted to have absolute power...


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Sep 9, 2014)

Real quick responses...

Nowhere did I say that mainstream conservatism was valid in its viewpoint. I merely pointed out the wanton hypocrisy of stereotypically 'liberal' behavior as exemplified in that stupid meme that everybody was high-fiving each other over. You all don't have to tell me about how climate change denial is a load of crap - I'm fully aware. I just find it amusing that you all can sling shit while you employ the very same logical fallacies to prop your positions up instead of anything substantial.

Also... religion in and of itself has no agency, much like atheism. Stalin DID kill religious people in the name of atheism, just as millions have been killed in the name of Christianity and Islam. Just as Stalin did it for "absolute power," those that employed religion as a scapegoat for their atrocities sought to oppress their victims. There's NO DIFFERENCE. The Bible is a book; it can't hurt anybody. People hurt people. Don't blame an inanimate object for the death of hundreds of millions.

Being a socially liberal, fiscally-conservative dude myself I have just as much if not more of a reason to hate these clowns then you might (for giving right-wing politics a bad name and writing moderation out of the realm of possibility), but please - you're not doing anybody any favors by representing what might otherwise be a valid viewpoint with cheesecloth logic.


----------



## StevenC (Sep 9, 2014)

Mo Jiggity said:


> Also... religion in and of itself has no agency, much like atheism. Stalin DID kill religious people in the name of atheism, just as millions have been killed in the name of Christianity and Islam. Just as Stalin did it for "absolute power," those that employed religion as a scapegoat for their atrocities sought to oppress their victims. There's NO DIFFERENCE. The Bible is a book; it can't hurt anybody. People hurt people. Don't blame an inanimate object for the death of hundreds of millions.



Then again, there's a lot of needless violence in those books and other religious books. And you can't forget all the verses telling you to kill and generally mistreat people.

Atheism on the other hand, not having an official book written by people going for power grabs, doesn't say anything about violence.

You can back up killing people in the name of religion with the Quran, Bible or Torah, but Stalin was just a bad dude.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Sep 9, 2014)

StevenC said:


> Atheism on the other hand, not having an official book written by people going for power grabs, doesn't say anything about violence.



give it time


----------



## broj15 (Sep 9, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Anyone who actually watches cable news knows full well that *FOX NEWS is about the only place you'll ever get to hear all points of view in a debate*, and also they're the only cable news network who attempts to uncover all the related facts concerning our daily news stories.




I actually thought you were being genuine until this point. I spit out my drink when I read the bolded sentence.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 9, 2014)

Mo Jiggity said:


> Nowhere did I say that mainstream conservatism was valid in its viewpoint. I merely pointed out the wanton hypocrisy of stereotypically 'liberal' behavior as exemplified in that stupid meme that everybody was high-fiving each other over. You all don't have to tell me about how climate change denial is a load of crap - I'm fully aware. I just find it amusing that you all can sling shit while you employ the very same logical fallacies to prop your positions up instead of anything substantial.



Lol well I find it amusing that you get extremely bent out of shape over a meme of all things...if hypocritical memes are the worst "stereotypical liberals" offer as opposed to blatantly misleading graphs by a major news channel I'm fine being called a stereotypical liberal and I already made my point why that meme isn't a logical fallacy...it makes a very good point IMO



Mo Jiggity said:


> Also... religion in and of itself has no agency, much like atheism. Stalin DID kill religious people in the name of atheism, just as millions have been killed in the name of Christianity and Islam. Just as Stalin did it for "absolute power," those that employed religion as a scapegoat for their atrocities sought to oppress their victims. There's NO DIFFERENCE. The Bible is a book; it can't hurt anybody. People hurt people. Don't blame an inanimate object for the death of hundreds of millions.



Religion has no agency? Killing in the name of no god? Ridiculous...There is a DIFFERENCE. yeah, wonderful the bible is an inanimate object so ....ing what?atheism is just a concept. The difference is the bible is a book supposedly containing the words and laws of the guy who ya know, created everything and can choose to send you to heaven or hell based on your actions and atheism simply is the disbelief of gods. Just because it's an inanimate object doesn't mean it can't convince people to do really terrible things based on the idea "do it or you'll burn forever" no one blames the bible like we think it has evil mind control powers but there's no way to argue around the fact that if that book didn't put dumb ideas in people's heads they would most likely not come to these hateful conclusions on their own. So yeah I blame the people for their ignorant ways but at the same time I'm sympathetic towards their belief because they wouldn't be that way had they not been feed this shit since birth.

The other thing confusing me is you're saying Stalin DID kill in the name of atheism while at the same time only using it as a scapegoat? So he wasn't really an atheist?

I think you're grossly underestimating the beliefs of every generation of people from the last 3-4 millennia, it seems you're implying no mass killing has ever been purely in the name of one established religion, that someone must of had an ulterior motive based solely on acquisition or oppression. Using this logic everyone who is anti-gay is just using religion as a scapegoat to dislike gay people and don't truly believe that god hates gays? I doubt that...

But overall explain exactly where/how atheism could possibly even give anyone a scapegoat style argument to blame atheism for their atrocities that a majority of atheist would stand behind in the same sense as pretty much ANYTHING religion has been against.

And to gothic head hunter I hope you're kidding atheism is never gonna need to start killing people to gain more atheist...there's this thing called education that generally when people take it seriously they gain knowledge that helps them see through bullshit like plants being created before stars


----------



## will_shred (Sep 10, 2014)

I don't think that pointing out the parallels between far right islamic terrorists and far right christian's is a bad thing. I think it's a discussion that we should have, because as humans we have seen time and time again the havoc that has been sewn by ideological extremism. The fear mongers (Fox news, the right wing media in general) are stirring up a hornets nest of stupid, heavily armed people who are now going as far as forming full on militias. The only thing keeping them from lynching minorities and homosexuals (like they did in the jim crow era), and possibly "liberating" abortion clinics is the fact that we have a strong central government with more than enough law enforcement power. 

On the flip side, the first amendment (that they keep saying we're bound to lose any day now) kind of keeps them quiet. They have a right to express their political opinions, as crazy as they are. And as long as the fed doesn't come knocking on their door, which so far they have no reason to do, than there is less fuel on the fire that's keeping their dreams of revolution alive.


As a progressive, I just believe that instead of violence we should use our words like adults. I understand that an economy is not just a floating pool of money, but that an economy is made up of people. When people do well, the economy does well. History has shown that the best way to set up a modern economy is to set rules and regulations in place that aid and protect the rights of the working man. I also believe that alienating anyone who's not a white man is generally not the best way to go when you're living in a melting pot society. I also understand the concept of return on investment. That government investment in things like education and science will end up bringing in more tax money in the long run, and is therefor not only the fiscally responsible thing to do, but it also has enormous social benefits as well.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 10, 2014)

I do think that picture is pretty funny, but I'm with dude in thinking it's being a little disingenuous. The physical similarities are there, and it does inspire a bit of "haha, it's funny because they're both right-wing religious nuts! Heh." However, one is a woman who at most is willing to defend the rights her government already affords her from imaginary forces who might be trying to take them away, and the other is willing to _murder innocent civilians for disagreeing with her beliefs_. That's a pretty big difference from where I'm sitting.

I won't say the American religious right doesn't have its nutters or that none if its members are a danger to anyone, but come on, guys. That comparison, amusing as it may be, is more than a little self-serving.


----------



## 1b4n3z (Sep 10, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> However, one is a woman who at most is willing to defend the rights her government already affords her from imaginary forces who might be trying to take them away, and the other is willing to _murder innocent civilians for disagreeing with her beliefs_. That's a pretty big difference from where I'm sitting.



That's quite a big assertion, from where I'm sitting. And how do we know if one picture is firmly tongue-in-cheek and the other is of course dead serious? Well, of course we know because it couldn't be one of _us_, oh no. And if it was, there were never any _signs _


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 10, 2014)

Related to the previously posted pictures... Anyone here ever read the book Starship Troopers? Unlike the movie, which is pretty much a cheap action flick that only hints at some central themes of the book, the text really drives the point of real political power resting in violence.

In Starship Troopers, citizens only gain the right to vote through military service. This shows that not only are they willing to kill or die, but also have the ability to physically force their will upon others.

Seeing the photo of the suicide bomber and the West Va. mother posing with guns reminds me of that theme. The fact that both are touting their beliefs (exclusive nationalism, exclusive religion) along with the guns (physical representation of deadly force) tells me that both women had the same mindset and intent of message when the pictures were taken.


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Sep 10, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> Related to the previously posted pictures... Anyone here ever read the book Starship Troopers? Unlike the movie, which is pretty much a cheap action flick that only hints at some central themes of the book, the text really drives the point of real political power resting in violence.
> 
> In Starship Troopers, citizens only gain the right to vote through military service. This shows that not only are they willing to kill or die, but also have the ability to physically force their will upon others.
> 
> Seeing the photo of the suicide bomber and the West Va. mother posing with guns reminds me of that theme. *The fact that both are touting their beliefs (exclusive nationalism, exclusive religion) along with the guns (physical representation of deadly force) tells me that both women had the same mindset and intent of message when the pictures were taken.*



I almost want to cry because of how many likes this has.

Once again:



versus

Gun Bible Flag | Jihad Barbie | Know Your Meme

regarding her earlier picture

Origin Tweet | Jihad Barbie | Know Your Meme

NOT. THE. FVCKING. SAME.

Do you people not understand critical thinking? The one of them is trying to piss of "teh liberals." THE OTHER IS ADVOCATING EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS. Millions of law-abiding gun owners who own them for self-defense would scoff at your implication that they are primarily an instrument to "force will upon others." They _can_ be used to do that, but unless you're a vigilante, criminal or operating in a military capacity then that's hardly applicable. In fact a central tenet of Second Amendment rights is that weapons allow you to _prevent_ somebody from doing just that. There are a vocal minority of hateful gun nuts that would relish the opportunity to shoot somebody who invades their property but I'll go ahead and make a reasonable (read: the opposite of what you're making) generalization and say that most people that own guns hope that they never have to use them against people - and, it's worth nothing, a large majority never have.

You're all looking for a basis for comparison when there is none, besides the superficial. Yes, let's all point and laugh at the woman who doesn't believe in letting people abort their children and worships an invisible entity in the sky - that's probably a bit intolerant, but whatever. Drawing a comparison to a woman who literally exploded herself and several other people and left behind two children is Olympic-level ignorance. No two ways about it.

**EDIT: The crying bit is what I hope would be recognizable as hyperbole and to insinuate that I "shouldn't be upset by this" is classic misdirection, before anybody sashays their way in and addresses these or posts an XKCD comic. Serious discourse is impossible in the face of oversimplified ad hominem attacks such as that picture... but then again I suppose that the although the web might have been designed for that it's evolved into a way to high-five people that share your same worldview.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 10, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I do think that picture is pretty funny, but I'm with dude in thinking it's being a little disingenuous. The physical similarities are there, and it does inspire a bit of "haha, it's funny because they're both right-wing religious nuts! Heh." *However, one is a woman who at most is willing to defend the rights her government already affords her from imaginary forces who might be trying to take them away, and the other is willing to murder innocent civilians for disagreeing with her beliefs*. That's a pretty big difference from where I'm sitting.
> 
> I won't say the American religious right doesn't have its nutters or that none if its members are a danger to anyone, but come on, guys. That comparison, amusing as it may be, is more than a little self-serving.



However, one is a woman who at most is willing to defend the rights her government already affords her from imaginary forces who might be trying to take them away, and the other is willing to defend her rights/beliefs not afforded to her by her government from real forces trying to take them away (guarantee, whether that is factually accurate or not, that is absolutely the thought process for the majority of folks in the middle east. That's completely aside from whether or not it is actually valid. ).

It's a bit of an extreme comparison for sure, but it isn't so outrageous that it doesn't have some validity. I don't necessarily think they are going to go out and kill someone, but nobody is a killer until they kill someone so who the hell knows. I see everyday on my Facebook feed things like "they can try to take my guns" directly implying that they will shoot anyone who even tries. Will they when push comes to shove? I highly doubt it. Is anyone going to be coming for their guns in the US (a nation that fetishizes guns)? I don't think so. The thought process isn't all that different though. I have to agree that it _seems_ people have a hard time believing their 'neighbor' is capable of some of the same violence that we see happening across the globe.

In any case, I always thought the photo comparison was strictly about the physical similarities, not the intent (something that's kind of hard to know without action from both parties). Every time I've seen that photo my thought process has been the same as yours though. The "haha, it's funny because they're both right-wing religious nuts! Heh" kind of reaction usually. I've never assigned deeper meaning to it, but that doesn't make it outright ridiculous either.

At least she is accurately portraying her religion I guess. Yahweh is kind of a God of bloodshed so posturing a weapon with a bible in hand is certainly an accurate portrayal of early Christianity. On the same note, irrelevant to the flag or bible of choice, someone holding a religious text and weapons in a photo is someone I don't trust.


----------



## asher (Sep 10, 2014)

This is why I think maybe it's Mo Jiggity that needs less feels and more critical thinking, if he can't even comprehend there might be valid, *albeit shallow*, reasons to make the comparison.


----------



## Randy (Sep 10, 2014)

Mo Jiggity said:


> You're all looking for a basis for comparison when there is none, besides the superficial. Yes, let's all point and laugh at the woman who doesn't believe in letting people abort their children and worships an invisible entity in the sky - that's probably a bit intolerant, but whatever. Drawing a comparison to a woman who literally exploded herself and several other people and left behind two children is Olympic-level ignorance. No two ways about it.



The "abort children thing" you mentioned references the "Pro-Life" shirt but you apparently selectively left out the Chick-Fil-A cup and Hobby Lobby in the background. Considering she said "liberal heads explode" I'm imagining those two visuals were no accident, and how those two entities relate to "liberals heads exploding" is relevant:

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...so you have this woman deliberately referencing these two things, followed by the image of her holding the bible. The juxtaposition of these two things imply her advocating the position of restricting/controlling other people's lives because of what her religion tells her to believe. The second image as a follow-up, including the bible along with the gun and the flag implies her pride in her positions and her belief in defending those positions (possibly with violence).

So, she advocates making a public show of her belief in forcing her worldview and her religious morality onto others.

Also, on a purely visual/compositional level, they're both pictures of young women with a gun, a religious text and a flag. Those are significant comparisons.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 10, 2014)

Jiggity, you keep claiming that the pictures are not the same, or that the intent of the message contained within the pictures is not the same. However, you keep referencing the outcome as the difference. The message of the pictures bear similarity regardless of what happened in each of the individuals' lives after the photograph.

Either woman was using symbolism representing religious beliefs, nationalism, and a representation of deadly force to convey a message against another group of people.

Regardless of who would scoff, the use of the gun as a symbol in either picture conveys the same intent of message.


----------



## pink freud (Sep 10, 2014)

The difference between the two women is one actually followed through with their beliefs.


----------



## asher (Sep 10, 2014)

now ITT: everyone else is better at formulating the same position than I am.


----------



## TedEH (Sep 10, 2014)

pink freud said:


> The difference between the two women is one actually followed through with their beliefs.



The real life differences between the women are irrelevant in the context of comparing the message they intended to convey through their photos.


----------



## Necris (Sep 10, 2014)

To play devils advocate for a moment (forgive me if I'm not great at it):

We can assume that by standing in front of hobby lobby wearing a pro life t-shirt and a cup from chick-fil-a that she (the woman on the left in the meme) supports the ruling in the hobby lobby case and could even make the stretch to assume that the chick-fil-a cup isn't just there by accident, but is included to represent that she holds a similar view on gay marriage to that held by chick-fil-a.

We can probably assume, based on the second photo that is she a gun owner (or the wife of one). Is she a rabid 2nd amendment supporter and a "gun nut" or merely your every day gun owner (or the wife of a gun owner)? We can't make that determination.

We can reasonably assume shes Christian. We can be certain she owns a flag (would _you_ stand outside a neighbors house with a weapon and a bible?) but is she a hardcore nationalist? We don't have enough information to determine that.

It's fairly safe, judging by what information we can glean from these photos alone, to assume that this woman is Socially Conservative, Christian and a gun owner (or the wife of one).

Looking at the accompanying texts that she posted the pictures with on twitter we have:







I'm not a twitter user, but I assume by tagging her photo/post #UniteBlue (I had to look up what it was) she was attempting to get this picture viewed by people who were more "left wing" "progressive" etc.
This context essentially makes it read as a "You Liberals don't like it? Well too bad." post. 

The follow up:






Looks like she was responding to a request, and maybe trying to make a few "liberals" mad too, considering she was aware that her picture had gone viral and people were following her twitter account, but I'm not seeing a direct threat.


So, if you're judging by what you can see in both photos and have the context, it seems like a stretch, and quite a big one at that, to assume/assert that she is a Christian Nationalist who wants to establish a Christian theocracy in the United States by force or something along those lines and it's also silly to assert that that the differences between her and a Jihadist/known suicide bomber are difficult to see. 

[/devils advocate]

When you remove it from that context and you just have a photo of a presumably American Christian Woman standing in front of an American flag with a weapon in one hand and a bible in the other placed next to a photo of a terrorist that is extremely similar in composition and _apparent_ motive I understand the "Oh, shit" knee-jerk response,

If you are on "the other side" (read: are liberal) or even just have a bit of knowledge of some of the anti-choice/anti-gay/whatever rhetoric that comes out of right wing politicians and supporters and notice how strongly Christian centric right wing/conservative political aims seem to be it makes sense many people will find that photo menacing and eerily similar to what we see from middle eastern countries from time to time.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 10, 2014)

I don't think anyone has claimed that she is a raging nationalist or a suicide bomber. People have merely pointed out that there are similarities between the two and some people refuse to acknowledge that there is 'some' similarity, probably because she is a white girl from the states. People requesting that she do this, or her trying to just piss people off, doesn't really make much of a difference. If people genuinely wanted to see her do this with that picture then that is rather odd in and of itself. Her intentions don't make the photos any less out of place and she has clear intent otherwise she wouldn't have bothered (gun, bible, flag, pro life, chick-fil-a, hobby lobby; those aren't accidents). Clear intent means she wants to send some sort of message. Whatever that message is may be left in the air, but it isn't like it's clouded in obscurity either.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 10, 2014)

flint757 said:


> some people refuse to acknowledge that there is 'some' similarity



Hopefully you aren't including me in the "some people" group there, since I'm one of exactly two people who've done anything but applaud the picture in here. I did say I see the similarities and that I think it's funny for those reasons, I just think that when you actually _think_ about it, and try to, you know, _answer the question posed on the picture itself_ ("What's the difference?"), the whole thing kind falls apart.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 10, 2014)

A lot of talk about how this particular pictured woman (text/gun/flag) doesn't have a jihadist mindset.

Now let's talk about Duck Dynasty guy from the second clip, Sarah Palin with teh baptism/waterboading idea which played so well for her group, Clive Bundy with his army of conservatives ready to defeind his squatting, and numerous other prominent right-examples who talk about enforcing points of view through violence. 

Any difference between Fox not calling Duck Dynasty guy on "convert or kill them" and a jihadist?

More importantly, any similarities?

(I was hoping Trenchlord would come in and argue how Dynasty guy was a whackjob, but I think he's not up to the taslk, and that failure might stem from the fact that there might be many more similarities in the viewpoints than differences, other than the religion's name.)


----------



## flint757 (Sep 10, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Hopefully you aren't including me in the "some people" group there, since I'm one of exactly two people who've done anything but applaud the picture in here. I did say I see the similarities and that I think it's funny for those reasons, I just think that when you actually _think_ about it, and try to, you know, _answer the question posed on the picture itself_ ("What's the difference?"), the whole thing kind falls apart.



I wasn't including anyone in particular in that statement and in regards to the mom vs. suicide bomber aspect of the picture, I agree that there is a difference once you check out the reasoning/back story. That doesn't negate what remains similar though and there are still some rather concerning elements to the photos outside of the comparison. I haven't _'applauded'_ the picture either (whatever that means ).


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Sep 10, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> And to gothic head hunter I hope you're kidding atheism is never gonna need to start killing people to gain more atheist...there's this thing called education that generally when people take it seriously they gain knowledge that helps them see through bullshit like plants being created before stars



No one ever needs to start killing people to convert them. What I was trying to say is that religion and atheism are two sides of the same coin- two answers to the same question, kinda. If it can happen to one, I'd say it's plausible that it can happen to the other. I'm not looking at a demographic spreadsheet right now or anything, but I'd say that a vast majority of atheists are similar in more than a few ways (political preference, possibly age, maybe even upbringing) so it's not hard to develop an us vs. them mentality. Am I saying that overnight there's gonna be some type of atheist revolution advocating the mass murder of religious people? No, of course not. But I wouldn't be surprised if somebody's thought about it. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that people really aren't that different, and a lot of them can hate very easily. 

Actually, Mussolini comes kinda close to what I'm talking about Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 10, 2014)

flint757 said:


> I haven't _'applauded'_ the picture either (whatever that means ).



It was a hyperbolic and perhaps poor word choice 
I just meant most people seem to be agreeing with it or defending its sentiment rather than pointing out how it's flawed. I know it's a bit of a jump from "not disagreeing with" to "applauding," but hey, what would the Internet be without hyperbole?

Well, besides more tolerable sometimes...


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 10, 2014)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> No one ever needs to start killing people to convert them.



Yeah I didn't say atheist would kill people to convert them because you can't convert dead people? I meant in the sense of intimidation like killing some to scare the others into converting much like what Isis has done...it just wouldn't work with modern atheism considering most if not all atheist could also be described as a humanist who strive for equality and reason who also are intelligent enough to understand that any violence coming from atheism would result in nothing but violent backlash from theist who are already looking anywhere they can for a non fictional enemy. Sure it's plausible atheism could become violent sometime in the future but is it likely? No...I don't think so.


Regarding Mussolini from what I understand it sounds like his hatred of religion stemmed from his family forcing him to participate in it.

"Mussolini was raised by a devoutly Catholic mother and an anti-clerical father, His mother Rosa had him baptized into the Roman Catholic Church, and took her children to services every Sunday. His father never attended. Mussolini regarded his time at a religious boarding school as punishment, compared the experience to hell, and "once refused to go to morning Mass and had to be dragged there by force."

Whenever you force someone to participate in something they don't want to at a young age they're going to gain an irrational hatred of it. So I blame his family for fostering the notion that acting as a tyrant and forcing people into doing your will is okay not his atheism.

Something's I've read about him make me even question his atheism to begin with.

"Despite making such attacks, Mussolini tried to win popular support by appeasing the Catholic majority in Italy. In 1924, Mussolini saw that three of his children were given communion. In 1925, he had a priest perform a religious marriage ceremony for himself and his wife Rachele, whom he had married in a civil ceremony 10 years earlier. On 11 February 1929, he signed a concordat and treaty with the Roman Catholic Church. Under the Lateran Pact, Vatican City was granted independent statehood and placed under Church lawrather than Italian lawand the Catholic religion was recognized as Italy's state religion. The Church also regained authority over marriage, Catholicism could be taught in all secondary schools, birth control and freemasonry were banned, and the clergy received subsidies from the state, and was exempted from taxation. Pope Pius XI praised Mussolini, and the official Catholic newspaper pronounced "Italy has been given back to God and God to Italy."

If he was an atheist I find it amusing that a lot of these things happened under an atheist dictator


----------



## Watty (Sep 10, 2014)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> No one ever needs to start killing people to convert them. What I was trying to say is that religion and atheism are two sides of the same coin- two answers to the same question, kinda.



That's not a great example as there's no "cut and dry" with religion. Not only do folks not believe in the same God, once you've snorted that aspect out, they can't agree on anything else (except the commonly perpetrated social issues for convenience's sake). If you want a better corollary, let's try a 20 sided die where the Atheist is the one rolling it. 

And it's not really a question. A question implies that we're actively engaged in a debate about potential answers. What we're dealing with is a population of people who realize it's highly unlikely (to the point of disbelief) and operate under that assumption because it comports with reality and a population of people who believe it to be true regardless of what anyone says. [The Atheist] is not questioning whether God exists, nor is the believer.



Gothic Headhunter said:


> If it can happen to one, I'd say it's plausible that it can happen to the other. I'm not looking at a demographic spreadsheet right now or anything, but I'd say that a vast majority of atheists are similar in more than a few ways (political preference, possibly age, maybe even upbringing) so it's not hard to develop an us vs. them mentality.



While I disagree in this specific instance given the content, I can see your point in general.



Gothic Headhunter said:


> I'm not looking at a demographic spreadsheet right now or anything, but I'd say that a vast majority of atheists are similar in more than a few ways (political preference, possibly age, maybe even upbringing) so it's not hard to develop an us vs. them mentality. Am I saying that overnight there's gonna be some type of atheist revolution advocating the mass murder of religious people? No, of course not. But I wouldn't be surprised if somebody's thought about it. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that people really aren't that different, and a lot of them can hate very easily.



Again, a fair point, but if they've thought about it.....it'd be mainly due to the world being a better place if:

Women could control their bodies fully and have equal rights under the law.
People born differently (read: homosexuals) were treated the same as anyone else and afforded rights accordingly.

The list goes on. Regardless of any similarities in the overall mindset specifically relating to "I believe one thing and you believe another," there just isn't enough to compare them in the way a lot of folks do, especially when going after Atheists.

__________________________________________

I hadn't seen that picture of the American girl with the Hobby Lobby/Pro Life/ChickFilA and I find it sad that she could be that thoroughly enthralled with a position that inherently advocates making women slaves to their biology when she is, in fact, a woman. If folks are interested in a pretty good debate about Abortion rights from a secular standpoint (relevant to this thread anyways), check out the debate Matt Dillahunty had with some representative from a secular pro-life group. Great watch and, as expected, the pro-choice side wins out in a fantastic way.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 10, 2014)

One interesting thing that could be taken from this is an observation about how different groups respond to things:

People on the left see a picture that could be used to paint hard-line right wingers in the same light as Islamic fundamentalists. What do they do? Post a funny meme about it on the internet.

People on the right see a meme making fun of the right. What do they do? PUT IT ON THE FVCKING NEWS UGAIS OMG.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 11, 2014)

Explorer said:


> A lot of talk about how this particular pictured woman (text/gun/flag) doesn't have a jihadist mindset.
> 
> Now let's talk about Duck Dynasty guy from the second clip, Sarah Palin with teh baptism/waterboading idea which played so well for her group, Clive Bundy with his army of conservatives ready to defeind his squatting, and numerous other prominent right-examples who talk about enforcing points of view through violence.
> 
> ...




You're asking the wrong guy, as I have never watched the DD show or sat through a PR interview. 
My first impression at a glance so to speak is that I don't really like that guy or his crew, but I sure haven't really given him a chance either.
I'm never too big on anyone telling anyone else they're going to be damned in hell or whatever to that effect.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Sep 11, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> If he was an atheist I find it amusing that a lot of these things happened under an atheist dictator



Ever hear of Machiavelli? That's why. 

And by that rational, you saying that his family is responsible for his actions and not his beliefs, (sorry, posting from my phone, quoting is a pain in the ass) I think they go hand in hand. And you could probably blame his family for his atheism as well, but I think that would be a little ignorant. Just like how blaming someone's rule as a totalitarian dictator on their family is ignorant. Not sure if you meant it in that way, but that's what it sounded like to me. 

And Watty, it sounds like you're just saying "yeah, but that can't happen here, not to us" 
My point was just that it's plausible, not that it's totally concrete and will happen any day now.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 11, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> You're asking the wrong guy, as I have never watched the DD show or sat through a PR interview.



Ah. Well, for all that you're talking about fairness in news, I'm extremely surprised that you're talking about how this topic is viewing Fox unfairly when you never even watched the clip provided by the OP in the very second post. 

I do hope you'll watch it, and will then post with a more informed perspective. Fox's actions seem to undermine your arguments a bit, so it's unfortunate that you posted such before actually knowing what was being discussed.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 11, 2014)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> Ever hear of Machiavelli? That's why.


Yes I've heard of him, but I'm ignorant as to why he's relevant. Explain for me.



Gothic Headhunter said:


> And by that rational, you saying that his family is responsible for his actions and not his beliefs, (sorry, posting from my phone, quoting is a pain in the ass) I think they go hand in hand. And you could probably blame his family for his atheism as well, but I think that would be a little ignorant. Just like how blaming someone's rule as a totalitarian dictator on their family is ignorant. Not sure if you meant it in that way, but that's what it sounded like to me.



Here I'll try to make it clearer, yes I blame his family for his actions. Explain how someone's parents don't fundamentally shape who you'll be as a person? Do you think you would be the same person if you were raised by different parents?

Also yes his family is most likely to blame for his so called atheism as they gave him an irrational hatred of church by literally dragging him there as a child. I don't think it's an ignorant to assume that by doing this they were also installing a dictator like mindset in him leading him to believe it's completely acceptable to do this to people, when of course it is not.

And I'll say again in case watty doesn't reply, yes of course it's possible atheist as a group could someday use violence in some way to harm another group of people but it just doesn't seem likely? I'd like to see the results of a poll given to atheist asking "given you had the majority political power and majority of the population being atheist would you ever support a leader calling for the death and extermination of all theist?" I would shit a brick if the percent of people who said NO was less than 90% whereas I'm kinda scared to think about what theist would say if that question were reversed...which mind you is the world we live in.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 11, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Ah. Well, for all that you're talking about fairness in news, I'm extremely surprised that you're talking about how this topic is viewing Fox unfairly when you never even watched the clip provided by the OP in the very second post.
> 
> I do hope you'll watch it, and will then post with a more informed perspective. Fox's actions seem to undermine your arguments a bit, so it's unfortunate that you posted such before actually knowing what was being discussed.




I watch FOX almost everyday, as well as the other cable news networks, and I don't believe for a second that you or most others posting here actually do.

What I think is that you are a bandwagon jumper who's been trained like a puppy to hate anything that isn't biased to the far-left.
FOX is commonly days ahead of the curve when it comes to delivering factual representations of current news events.

Case in point; the Trevon Martin case.
When your preferred sources were still posting pics of a gunned down 8yr old, FOX was actually presenting the situation in an unbiased and accurate manner.
Same thing with the Ferguson Mo. ordeal.

Like it or not, and I'm sure you don't, FOX gets the facts to the table from the start and lets the viewer draw their own conclusions, unlike your own brethren who deliberately and consistently skew the facts to deliver a story in keeping with their own political agenda.

When it comes to credibility and accuracy; FOX > any other national news source .


----------



## pink freud (Sep 11, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> When it comes to credibility and accuracy; FOX > any other national news source .



This is so true. I mean, just look at the run-up to the 2012 elections! Astounding accuracy.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 11, 2014)

pink freud said:


> This is so true. I mean, just look at the run-up to the 2012 elections! Astounding accuracy.



I agree, their accuracy always astounds me, at least when compared to the other options.


----------



## Watty (Sep 11, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Like it or not, and I'm sure you don't, FOX gets the facts to the table from the start and lets the viewer draw their own conclusions, unlike your own brethren who deliberately and consistently skew the facts to deliver a story in keeping with their own political agenda.



TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLLLLLL...in the dungeon!



TRENCHLORD said:


> When it comes to credibility and accuracy; FOX > any other national news source



See above.

Also, national news is not the only news. We could refer to smaller (and for the purposes of the argument, unbiased) outlets to show just how partisan Fox is, even if we were to (falsely) concede that all of the other news sources are at near 100 on the scale I explained previously.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Sep 11, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I watch FOX almost everyday, as well as the other cable news networks, and I don't believe for a second that you or most others posting here actually do.
> 
> What I think is that you are a bandwagon jumper who's been trained like a puppy to hate anything that isn't biased to the far-left.
> FOX is commonly days ahead of the curve when it comes to delivering factual representations of current news events.
> ...



I don't even know what to say...sure trolllord eh I mean trenchlord you're right...we're gonna continue talking about how right you are...there's no need to come back to this thread all hail trench lord for he is wisest among the wise


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Sep 11, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> Yes I've heard of him, but I'm ignorant as to why he's relevant. Explain for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor only to avoid hatred, as is noted."

One of the points Machiavelli makes in the prince is that the absolute worst thing a ruler could do is become hated by his own people. Publicly coming out against Catholicism in Italy in the 1920's would have been political suicide, and he would've had almost his entire population against him. Doing things such as having a religious marriage ceremony helped him to avoid being hated by his people.It was necessary for him to do things like that to avoid being kicked out of power (he didn't start out as a dictator) and to keep his people under control. I realize that I could've made that point without bringing up Machiavelli, but I recently had a conversation about if Machiavelli would have liked Mussolini's regime, which is why I made the Machiavelli/Mussolini parallel. 

On your point about his parents being responsible, I absolutely agree that a person's parents affect who they will be as a person. And yes, I do believe I would be a different person if I was raised by different parents. However, blaming his parents for him becoming a dictator is over-simplifying it. There's a lot of other things that affect who a person is. No situation is that simple. Mussolini wasn't a dictator ONLY because of his parents, Hitler wasn't a dictator ONLY because he was kicked out of art school, etc. Going back to that same wikipedia article, "Mussolini was an admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche. According to Denis Mack Smith, "In Nietzsche he found justification for his crusade against the Christian virtues of humility, resignation, charity, and goodness."[142] He valued Nietzsche's concept of the superman, "The supreme egoist who defied both God and the masses, who despised egalitarianism and democracy, who believed in the weakest going to the wall and pushing them if they did not go fast enough." It seems pretty obvious that Mussolini was influenced by Nietzsche, especially in his views on power, but I sure as hell wouldn't hold Nietzsche responsible for Mussolini's actions. People make their own decisions. Not just because of their parents, not just because of the bible, not just because of Nietzsche, but because of a lot of things that have played a part in their lives. 

And if you agree that it's possible, than we agree (at least on that aspect), because that was my entire point. The first post that I quoted came across as, quite frankly, a little smug, as well as a few others in this thread. I'm just saying it can happen to anybody. No group is so good that it doesn't have a few assholes in it, even atheists. Agreed?


----------



## Explorer (Sep 15, 2014)

I just ran across this again, and thought it was wonderful support for Trenchlord's faith in Fox News. 





TRENCHLORD said:


> When it comes to credibility and accuracy; FOX > any other national news source .


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 22, 2014)

Outside of Fox's need to lie to its viewers constantly, this is pretty much my main beef with the network. You have people that make 200K/year trying to pretend that they're working class and telling you that it's the actual middle class (re: ~50k/year) or lower that is to blame for everything. 

It's no wonder the pundits hate Obama, his proposals for higher taxes on higher income brackets would affect them too.


----------



## asher (Sep 22, 2014)

New York Times Analysis Finds Sunday News Shows Favor Conservative Guests | Blog | Media Matters for America

And that doesn't even address the hosts themselves


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 22, 2014)

When I was in the military, the office I worked in had two large flat panel TVs, one played FOX 24 hours a day, the other CNN. I honestly got more unbiased and informative news when I'd watch Al Jazeera - _in Arabic _- for fifteen minutes than I would from watching either of those TVs throughout my entire 12 hour shift.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 23, 2014)

I've been shocked at the difference between Al Jazeera in English and in Arabic. 

There was some completely strange report on Islamic creationism on the Arabic channel, which was uncritical and admiring. Al Jazeera in English would never have run such a piece because it would undermine the image they're trying to curry with the Western market. 

----

So weird... the guy who was all about Fox being fair and balanced never watched the second clip, with Fox being okay with the "kill 'em or convert 'em" idea, and he never said a thing about that horrible Fox interview I posted where Fox showed itself as completely unfair and unbalanced.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 23, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I've been shocked at the difference between Al Jazeera in English and in Arabic.
> 
> There was some completely strange report on Islamic creationism on the Arabic channel, which was uncritical and admiring. Al Jazeera in English would never have run such a piece because it would undermine the image they're trying to curry with the Western market.


 
And yet it was _still_ a better news source than Fox or CNN .


----------



## Explorer (Sep 23, 2014)

Now I have to do a little research on al Jazeera's Arabic reporting on climate change to see if they really are unbiased against science... if they even bother to mention it at all. Avoiding the issue completely would be sad.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 23, 2014)

Never claimed they were unbiased or covered one particular contentious thing. All I know is that over the course of an hour cycle, the talking heads on CNN and Fox would yammer on about three, four news items, tops. Al Jazeera, on the other hand, covered a multitude of items from around the world covering a range of topics. Sticking with the main English US news sites would spend alot of time telling me very little about only a few things, but 15 minutes on Al Jazeera would get me a snapshot of the main news happenings from all over the world.

Maybe it's changed since my days as an interpreter/intel analyst, but at least back then it was the more well-rounded news site.

EDIT: And my job put me in a position to know how... erm... "accurate" new reports on certain specific subjects were, and Al Jazeera generally had the other two beat there, too.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 23, 2014)

I think that's true of most foreign news services. American services are mostly focused on US news, with a smattering of what's been easy for English speakers to access. 

European news services are much better than any of the US services.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 23, 2014)

Yeah, I'm not saying Al Jazeera is some kind of unique beacon of quality reporting or anything, just that of the three programs I had available to me while at work at the time (CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera Arabic), Al Jazeera was the best. Figured it'd be amusing to point out that AJ is a more reliable and well-rounded source than Fox, considering it's the type of channel a Fox News fanatic is likely to sneer at.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 24, 2014)

I thought that the one reliable thing about Fox is that it consistently skews the facts. It wouldn't surprise anyone except a Fox fan that Fox is inaccurate. 

After all, when watchers of a comedy show ("We're not a news program! We're a comedy show!") are better informed than watchers of Fox, that tells you how low the bar has been set.


----------



## Glosni (Sep 26, 2014)

Alright, not trying to sound like a tinfoil hat here, but anybody else find it weird that on the exact same day that Obama held a speech at the UN summit that sounded like Fox/GOP wanted him to sound like for years (i.e. "we will kill them, no negotiations, bombs away, USA No.1"), Fox harps on about this he-saluted-with-coffee-in-hand-how-disrespectful crap for hours and hours?


----------



## synrgy (Sep 26, 2014)

Not tinfoil at all. Reads to me like a completely fair summation of what transpired.

But, color me not surprised. Cable news is little more than a propaganda and/or advertising apparatus. Each network will air only that which A) helps pay its bills, or B) helps promote the agenda(s) of those running the network. This isn't so much noteworthy as it is depressing, but it's hardly exclusive to one network. Although some might be more transparent in this regard than others, all are equally held at the mercy of their stakeholders who continually demand exponentially increasing quarterly profits.

What does surprise me is that it still works. We're the better part of 20 years past the internet becoming commonplace in American homes, and what little actual, factual reporting there is on TV these days is done either at the local level, or from larger stories the staff found online. They're no longer inherently better informed than the rest of us; they're relying upon Google and/or Reuters.

For my part, I just don't tune in. I wish more would do the same. Their tactics might change only when we stop paying attention to them.


----------

