PDA

View Full Version : Sarah Palin joins Fox News


Quasimodo
11-01-10, 23:55
This should be interesting:

Sarah Palin takes Fox News commentator job by Rachel D'Oro (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_fox_news)
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, will return to her broadcast roots and take her conservative message to Fox News as a regular commentator, the cable channel announced Monday.

"I am thrilled to be joining the great talent and management team at Fox News," Palin said in a statement posted on the network's Web site. "It's wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balanced news."

Fox said that according to the multiyear deal, Palin will offer political commentary and analysis on the cable channel, as well as Fox's Web site, radio network and business cable channel.

She also will host occasional episodes of Fox News' "Real American Stories," a series debuting this year that the network said will feature true inspirational stories about Americans who have overcome adversity.

"Governor Palin has captivated everyone on both sides of the political spectrum and we are excited to add her dynamic voice to the FOX News lineup," Bill Shine, executive vice president of programming, said in a statement.

Palin, 45, is hugely popular with conservatives and has more than 1.1 million Facebook followers.

She stepped down as Alaska governor in July, 17 months before the end of her first term in office and less than a year after she vaulted to overnight fame as John McCain's running mate.

The bombshell resignation stunned even supporters and fueled widespread speculation on her next career step — with predictions ranging from seeking the presidency in 2012 to hosting a conservative talk show. She told Barbara Walters in November that a 2012 presidential bid was not on her radar but added she wouldn't rule out playing some kind of role in the next presidential election.

Since resigning, Palin has had colossal success with her best-selling memoir "Going Rogue," released four months after she left office. She finished a nationwide tour in December after hitting some of the political battleground states from the 2008 election and drawing thousands of fans.

If she were to seek the presidency, her new job would provide yet another stage from which to advance her conservative platform. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who sought the presidency in 2008, also hosts a talk show on Fox News and hasn't ruled out another run for president.

Palin majored in journalism with an emphasis on broadcasting at the University of Idaho and worked part-time as a weekend sportscaster in 1988 for KTUU-TV in Anchorage, using her then-maiden name Heath. The station's sports director, John Carpenter, said the young broadcaster left after a few months because of the low pay.

Carpenter said he was sorry to see her go. She was a hard worker who enjoyed the entire process, not just being in front of the cameras, he said.

"She knew sports, she could talk sports, she looked OK on TV," Carpenter said. "She had the aptitude, no question."

Palin's upcoming commentary career had her Facebook fans giddy with excitement Monday.

"Tell 'em like it is girl!!!!!!," one person wrote on a post.

"I look forward to seeing you on Fox....but I hope it doesn't prevent you from running in '12!," another wrote.

Legend of Lara
11-01-10, 23:58
Things are about to get even more 'fair and balanced'... :rolleyes:

Mr.Burns
11-01-10, 23:59
*hands Heather a gun* go ahead, I've already painted a target on my forehead. Just end it. *sighs*

patriots88888
11-01-10, 23:59
Fox said that according to the multiyear deal, Palin will offer political commentary and analysis on the cable channel, as well as Fox's Web site, radio network and business cable channel

Will she be analyzing herself?

Mr.Burns
12-01-10, 00:00
Will she be analyzing herself?

LOL That might be interesting to see :p

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 00:04
Hmmm, I might watch that if it's on the Fox News channel over here. :)

However, this will only make people more ignorant of the liberal media (CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS) bias. Fox News is already singled out as being biased while the others aren't.

EmeraldFields
12-01-10, 00:07
I hope it turns out to be a ****ing circus!:vlol:

Tombraiderx08
12-01-10, 00:08
Good for her :)

Love2Raid
12-01-10, 00:09
I think this job will suit her much better.

No Fox News here though, haha!

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 00:09
I hope it turns out to be a ****ing circus!:vlol:Just like all of the other big news companies? :whi:

silver_wolf
12-01-10, 00:09
OMFG :hea:
Good for her :)
:vlol: yeah, ok

AmericanAssassin
12-01-10, 00:28
Oh, God. That news station already sucks enough. :vlol:

EmeraldFields
12-01-10, 00:28
Just like all of the other big news companies? :whi:

All news channels are biased, but Fox News wears it proudly on their sleeve (O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity), although MSNBC are probably right behind.:p

patriots88888
12-01-10, 00:33
All news channels are biased, but Fox News wears it proudly on their sleeve (O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity), although MSNBC are probably right behind.:p

Don't you mean, left behind(s)? :p

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 00:34
Don't you mean, left behind(s)? :pHaha, that's awesome. :p

Love2Raid
12-01-10, 00:39
Don't you mean, left behind(s)? :p

Lol. :D

irjudd
12-01-10, 00:45
She's kind of a babe. Somebody find that "wink" video.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 00:53
She's kind of a babe. Somebody find that "wink" video.28yBI-rEqak

For a politician she is pretty hot. :whi:

TheBloodRed
12-01-10, 01:52
Hmmm, I might watch that if it's on the Fox News channel over here. :)

However, this will only make people more ignorant of the liberal media (CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS) bias. Fox News is already singled out as being biased while the others aren't.

All news is biases... just that FOX news was easier to single out because it is just so obvious. They are getting a tad better nowadays but adding Sarah Palin is a strategic move to get more viewers. Now I don't want to watch the channel at all now because I hate her speeches. xD

SamReeves
12-01-10, 03:38
Now, now. Go to youtube, and eat your helping of Obama fibs. That'll make y'all feel better!

Ward Dragon
12-01-10, 03:49
I stand by my earlier claims that Sarah Palin is really smart no matter what people say about her. First the book, and now she's got two years to rally conservative support through her show and then she'll run for president in 2012. I'm fairly sure of it. Not to mention this will give her tons of practice giving speeches so she'll come across as much more comfortable during the next set of presidential debates. She's got it all figured out :pi:

Legend 4ever
12-01-10, 04:06
OMG I have less and less hope in America.

patriots88888
12-01-10, 04:17
OMG I have less and less hope in America.

LOL! Don't give up that easily. These things always have a way of working themselves out in the long run. Maybe her future lies in acting because she sure did a good job of convincing herself (and a few others :whi:) at least that she was a viable candidate. You know what they say, practice makes perfect.

LaraLuvrrr
12-01-10, 04:40
O M G now I really need to watch Fox News!

I can't get enough of crazy Sarah

ima call her failin palin

EmeraldFields
12-01-10, 04:41
O M G now I really need to watch Fox News!

I can't get enough of crazy Sarah

ima call her failin palin

LMAO! :vlol:

knightgames
12-01-10, 05:17
Anyone watch the 60 Minutes segment called "Revelations From the Campaign."

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6078906n

If even a few of the statements in this piece made about SP are accurate she CAN'T be president.

Seems more like political rangling done at the last moment to chose a candidate more conservative than the supposed VP candidate Joe Lieberman. She came out of left field. No one really knew who she was. In my mind it happened too quickly.

I don't know what's worse: Someone who is so totally unprepared for the POTUS office - or the idiocy of choosing someone so unready or unqualified.


At one point in the nomination of SP I was concerned she was on stage too fast, and as such would have an enormous obstacle to overcome to prepare for the VP candidacy. She wasn't ready for Prime Time as it were. I thought given a few years grooming she'd be okay.

Now...... I'm not too sure and wouldn't vote for her if the vote was held today..... or in 2012.

I dislike FOX enough that I rarely see anything from them. It's not the message, but the tactics used. On the other hand I find Huckabee (Sunday Night) to be a great listener and representive of the Republican party. I'd at LEAST like to hear more about him and what he stands for.

Aranara
12-01-10, 05:24
Too bad we don't have Fox over here. It would've been really interesting to see her on her first day :p

Melonie Tomb Raider
12-01-10, 08:02
Good on her. :tmb: I look forward to seeing how well she does :D

I stand by my earlier claims that Sarah Palin is really smart no matter what people say about her. First the book, and now she's got two years to rally conservative support through her show and then she'll run for president in 2012. I'm fairly sure of it. Not to mention this will give her tons of practice giving speeches so she'll come across as much more comfortable during the next set of presidential debates. She's got it all figured out :pi:

Exactly. Seems like this stuff tends to go over people's heads.

ShadyCroft
12-01-10, 08:12
I stand by my earlier claims that Sarah Palin is really smart no matter what people say about her. First the book, and now she's got two years to rally conservative support through her show and then she'll run for president in 2012. I'm fairly sure of it. Not to mention this will give her tons of practice giving speeches so she'll come across as much more comfortable during the next set of presidential debates. She's got it all figured out

yes, that's what I think too, and yeah she's smart for doing it. She doesn't want people to forget her anytime soon.

Flipper1987
12-01-10, 08:15
OMG I have less and less hope in America.

Just because Sarah Palin signs on to do political commentary on a news-station from time-to-time that didn't treat her like an ignorant whore (for political reasons) during the 2008 campaign and afterwards? My God, get a life!

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
12-01-10, 08:21
All news is biase(d)... just that FOX news was easier to single out because it is just so obvious.

You clearly have not watched the evolution of broadcast news in the US since the late 1960s. News stations like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC are incredibly biased & have been so for decades (for those that have been around long enough). Numerous surveys about political affiliations, political contributions, and how Dems & Repubs are covered during election cycles have proved this over & over & over again.

FLIPPER - who knows that a news channel is biased because I watch it, not because someone (or some organization) tells me that is.

LightningRider
12-01-10, 09:26
I would be extra excited if they FOX over her, but go her. She needs it. :tmb:

Mr.Burns
12-01-10, 09:52
I stand by my earlier claims that Sarah Palin is really smart no matter what people say about her. First the book, and now she's got two years to rally conservative support through her show and then she'll run for president in 2012. I'm fairly sure of it. Not to mention this will give her tons of practice giving speeches so she'll come across as much more comfortable during the next set of presidential debates. She's got it all figured out :pi:

Having politically savvy advisors does not make one intelligent. The sad part is that everything you have mentioned is all the public will care about when it comes to an election. *shakes head*

Smog
12-01-10, 10:43
I bet this'll make the news.

Oh wait.

*head explodes*

Jack Croft
12-01-10, 11:33
Bayonetta isnt content on destorying the demon world she now wants to take on america. ;)

LightningRider
12-01-10, 11:35
Bayonetta isnt content on destorying the demon world she now wants to take on america. ;)

But still, her hair is a demon! :p

Dennis's Mom
12-01-10, 12:43
I lived in Alaska for five years. I moved there shortly after Murkowski was elected and left about a year into Sarah's aborted term. You would have to have lived in Alaska to understand why Sarah got elected. You'd also have to understand how hated Murkowski was to know how successful the "I'm not Murkowski" campaign plan was, and that was pretty much her campaign. I watched the debates, and listening to her refuse to answer questions and navigate back to her memorized glittering generalities was maddening. There's a reason every "real" interview was a debacle, and why she now hides behind Facebook and Twitter. When my husband called to tell me McCain had picked her, the first words out of my mouth were "He's lost the election."

She's far more suited to reading something prepared for her than anything that requires critical thinking and reasoning. This may be a good fit for her. She's not without talent in public speaking. If they script her, of course, it will reduce the amount of lies she tells. :P

Chocola teapot
12-01-10, 12:58
Yay...

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 13:01
All news is biases... just that FOX news was easier to single out because it is just so obvious. They are getting a tad better nowadays but adding Sarah Palin is a strategic move to get more viewers. Now I don't want to watch the channel at all now because I hate her speeches. xDFOX only stand out because they're the only right-wing major news station in America. All the others are left-wing and that's why nobody mentions them because they all blend in with one another. That and the fact that most people here are left-wing anyway.

Reggie
12-01-10, 13:02
FOX only stand out because they're the only right-wing major news station in America. All the others are left-wing and that's why nobody mentions them because they all blend in with one another. That and the fact that most people here are left-wing anyway.
Sweeping statement much?
Call me 'Eurocentric' if you like but I can't claim to know the US media very well but I'd imagine they're mostly either centre right or centre left. America in general is quite conservative - just look at all skepticism Obama has faced with his 'revolutionary' changes. To be honest, I think most people here don't care much for politics anyway let alone caring to align themselves with some point on the political spectrum.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 13:05
Seeping statement much?
To be honest, I think most people probably don't give a damn about politics anyway.Do you mean sweeping? :p

No, not really. Although most people here don't have a strong opinion on politics most people still have at least some sort of opinion. Most people on this forum are left-wing, in fact most of the internet is left-wing. It's not an insult, just an observation.

Why else do you think Obama got like 95% of the votes when there was that 2008 US election poll on here?

Reggie
12-01-10, 13:08
^I've updated my post. :p
Gah, it didn't update at first. Check it out. -_-
*note to self, proofread before posting!*

And I wasn't here when that poll was held. Surprise, surprise maybe but I was supporting McCain until the eleventh hour when it became clear Obama was in for a landslide.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 13:16
Sweeping statement much?
Call me 'Eurocentric' if you like but I can't claim to know the US media very well but I'd imagine they're all either centre right or centre left. America in general is quite conservative - just look at all skepticism Obama has faced with his 'revolutionary' changes. To be honest, I think most people here don't care much for politics anyway let alone caring to align themselves with some point on the political spectrum.I'd say America is a mix. To me Europe is very liberal. Even the Conservatives here aren't quite as conservative as I'd like them to be, then again it could just be Cameron pandering to the middle like all the big parties do. Also, I can understand why Obama faced a lot of skepticism - he's very fiscally irresponsible.

And I wasn't here when that poll was held. Surprise, surprise maybe but I was supporting McCain until the eleventh hour when it became clear Obama was in for a landslide.Wait, you changed support just because McCain was gonna lose? Glory hunter. :p

Reggie
12-01-10, 13:21
I'd say America is a mix. To me Europe is very liberal and I can understand why Obama faced a lot of skepticism - he's very fiscally irresponsible.

Wait, you changed support just because McCain was gonna lose? Glory hunter. :p
I would agree that America is a mix but I do think that people there are generally wary of anything that is seen too far right or left. The middle is where its pretty much where its been at - issues of liberty seem to come to the fore more often than here. But yeah, this is all general kind of stuff.

And well, I didn't change support per se, I was just happy by that point to see either of them get in and with all the support Obama generated, I was happy to go with whoever was democratically elected which seemed to be Obama. But yeah, if I had the vote there it would've been for McCain. And it had nothing to do with me fancying Sarah Palin. :pi: In all honesty, what I'm looking for in a leader is one who aspires to the golden mean between the two extremes out there. McCain would have done that better I think given how he's more of a realist than Obama is. Well, that ship has sailed anyway...

Eddie Haskell
12-01-10, 13:27
From the Washington Times:
Sarah Palin believed that Sen. John McCain chose her to be his running mate in 2008 because of "God's plan," according to a top political strategist in the Arizona Republican's campaign.

In an interview with the CBS news magazine "60 Minutes," Steve Schmidt described Palin as "very calm - nonplussed" after McCain met with her at his Arizona ranch just before putting her on the Republican ticket. McCain had planned to name Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., as his vice presidential choice until word leaked, sparking what Schmidt called political blowback over picking the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee.

Schmidt said he asked Palin about her serenity in the face of becoming "one of the most famous people in the world." He quoted her as saying, "It's God's plan."

Palin has not ruled out a run for the presidency.

Schmidt was interviewed by "60 Minutes" for a segment about a new book about the 2008 presidential race, "Game Change," by John Heilemann of New York magazine and Mark Halperin of Time magazine.

Schmidt credited Palin with being a quick study and for giving a great speech at the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., but he said it soon became clear that she often was not accurate in her remarks.

"There were numerous instances that she said things that were - that were not accurate that, ultimately, the campaign had to deal with. And that opened the door to criticism that she was being untruthful and inaccurate. And I think that that is something that continues to this day," he said.

In the book, Schmidt is quoted telling Palin's foreign policy tutors: "You guys have a lot of work to do. She doesn't know anything."

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 13:36
But yeah, if I had the vote there it would've been for McCain. And it had nothing to do with me fancying Sarah Palin. :pi:That's surprising. I know you're pretty much a centrist and I know most of them here would probably have voted for Obama. Heck, I think Obama might have even gotten some support from some of the conservatives here.

Are you implying I supported McCain because I fancied Sarah Palin? :p While she is pretty hot, I wouldn't say I fancy her and I started supporting McCain as soon as he won the Republican nomination. I did originally support Huckabee though. McCain was slightly too moderate.

Punaxe
12-01-10, 13:44
Do you mean sweeping? :p

No, not really. Although most people here don't have a strong opinion on politics most people still have at least some sort of opinion. Most people on this forum are left-wing, in fact most of the internet is left-wing. It's not an insult, just an observation.

Why else do you think Obama got like 95% of the votes when there was that 2008 US election poll on here?

I wonder how rigged this (http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results) poll is, but yeah, the Internet does seem to be rather left-wing; but as far as I know, even the right-wing parties of nearly every other Western country are left-wing compared to the United States' right-wing.

Anyway, I was wondering about the FOX News Channel. I hate it too, but I'm wondering if mere bias can be the sole explanation. Do republicans hate CBS as much as democrats (and the rest of the world) hate FOX? Can some Americans enlighten us about that?

I found the following stats on bias (click for source):

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8_files/image004.gif (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm)

http://people-press.org/reports/images/559-1.gif (http://people-press.org/report/559/)

FOX is clearly the odd one out. The first graph however deals only with one specific show, and I think when it concerns reporting actual, general news itself, FOX is not entirely unreasonable (at least comparatively). However as far as I know, most of the other shows on that same network are heavily opinionated/opinionating which I don't see (as much) on other networks, and this serves for the network as a whole to be discredited - especially when through their own opinion pieces, they can give their own taste to news stories telling how "it is being said that [insert O'Reilly's opinion here]".

Granted, I don't watch a lot of American news channels (which all seem to have gone down the drain pretty quickly in recent years) and get most of my FOX commentary from Jon Stewart, but his criticism seems hard to deny. What I just said above is pretty much illustrated in this piece (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-), and examples of hypocricy, favouritism and twisting of facts are featured on the show pretty often. Now I realize The Daily Show is anything but neutral, but the examples given seem clear and undeniable.

Of course it may still be that other networks are doing the exact same thing, but just not put in the spotlight like this, but then at least we'd have an explanation of why FOX is being singled out.

Reggie
12-01-10, 13:53
^Very interesting stuff. I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from but certainly interesting. :)

That's surprising. I know you're pretty much a centrist and I know most of them here would probably have voted for Obama. Heck, I think Obama might have even gotten some support from some of the conservatives here.

Are you implying I supported McCain because I fancied Sarah Palin? :p While she is pretty hot, I wouldn't say I fancy her and I started supporting McCain as soon as he won the Republican nomination. I did originally support Huckabee though. McCain was slightly too moderate.
I just think McCain made more sense to me, though choosing Palin seemed like a bit of a random decision at the time. And no I'm not implying that...unless you do, but you don't but if you do I wouldn't blame you. :whi:

And lol at McCain being 'too moderate' - I think this was his problem. By left wingers he was seen as Bush Pt.II while in reality, he was so moderate he was turning off the staunch republicans. He's good on paper but he didn't win the popularity contest in the end.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
12-01-10, 14:08
Hmmm, I might watch that if it's on the Fox News channel over here. :)

However, this will only make people more ignorant of the liberal media (CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS) bias. Fox News is already singled out as being biased while the others aren't.

Come on now... I can see it being possible that "Maw & Paw" down in South Carolina might not be aware of Fox and CNN's political inclinations. But any reasonably educated person is well aware - My dad calls CNN "Clinton News Network" for a reason.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 14:10
I just think McCain made more sense to me, though choosing Palin seemed like a bit of a random decision at the time. And no I'm not implying that...unless you do, but you don't but if you do I wouldn't blame you. :whi:

And lol at McCain being 'too moderate' - I think this was his problem. By left wingers he was seen as Bush Pt.II while in reality, he was so moderate he was turning off the staunch republicans. He's good on paper but he didn't win the popularity contest in the end.I think choosing Palin was a way of a) appealing to social conservatives and b) reeling in some of the disgruntled Hillary supporters.

Haha, lol. :p

I agree. You'd think a moderate Republican would have an excellent chance but an Obama win was inevitable. Mainly simply because "he wasn't Bush" and also to a lesser extent because he was black.

Of course, if US presidents were allowed to run for a third term I would've been behind Bush from the start.

*snip*Very interesting post :)

I wasn't surprised by those results from the "if the world could vote" website to be honest. Pretty much everyone in the world (with a few exceptions, me being one of them) hated Bush. John McCain was a member of the same party and thus when people saw McCain all they saw was Bush again. That and the fact that the media were very biased towards Obama, at least over here anyway.

Did you notice how Obama got a much bigger percentage of the votes than McCain did on this website than in the real election? Just goes to prove my point about the internet being mainly liberal.

@Sgt BOMBULOUS: What do you mean? I said I thought CNN were biased.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
12-01-10, 14:15
@Sgt BOMBULOUS: What do you mean? I said I thought CNN were biased.

I never said you didn't, but you seem to be making an assumption that other people are oblivious to it.

voltz
12-01-10, 14:15
Palin seemed like a decent choice up till she let that "God" bit blurp out, then I knew she had to be cast outta there. People may not agree with me on this but mixing bible-thumpers with government is just something that should never be allowed.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 14:17
I never said you didn't, but you seem to be making an assumption that other people are oblivious to it.Well, on the internet they are at least. Very rarely do you hear people on here or elsewhere mention the bias of all the other news networks but you never hear the end of how FOX news are biased.

Dennis's Mom
12-01-10, 14:42
Palin seemed like a decent choice up till she let that "God" bit blurp out, then I knew she had to be cast outta there. People may not agree with me on this but mixing bible-thumpers with government is just something that should never be allowed.

My head will surely implode at the thought of defending Sarah Palin, but I don't think it's fair to judge that comment out of context. It was a private comment in a personal situation regarding a belief that God was working in her life. If she'd said it after founding an orphanage, no one would have batted an eye.

The idea that people of faith cannot be responsible elected officials is also ridiculous and certainly passe. Remember when folks refused to vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic (and therefore completely subject to the Vatican's whims?)

I agree, however, that religious dogma has little place in the workings of government, but it's also a kneejerk reaction that any mention of God marks someone as a loon unfit for office. In this regard, I think this comment has gotten more play than it warrants. IMO, it shows the "anti-religion" bias the media has. Where was all this coverage when the report came out citing abuse of power? Using Yahoo accounts to avoid open records? Taking per diam for living in her own home? Letting Emmonak starve for five weeks?

But boy, say "God" and the (in this regard) "liberal media" is all over it in big headlines.

Lemmie
12-01-10, 17:00
Well, on the internet they are at least. Very rarely do you hear people on here or elsewhere mention the bias of all the other news networks but you never hear the end of how FOX news are biased.

For me, it's more that they are dogmatic and at times blatantly untruthful.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 17:40
For me, it's more that they are dogmatic and at times blatantly untruthful.So can all the other news stations.

knightgames
12-01-10, 17:43
So can all the other news stations.

One doesn't need to be dogmatic if the agenda is so deeply entrenched. IOW: The left leaning media has such a say in shaping opinions and sometimes politics that they need not appear like religous extremists. They are already preaching to the choir.

If they weren't as entrenched they'd appear just as dogmatic a FOX does.

Reggie
12-01-10, 17:45
Just because its widely practiced doesn't make it right though. Journalists and broadcasters should have a responsibility to report first and foremost. Stuff like drumming up the drama contained in the news story and using creative license to suit their agenda and audience should come secondary.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 17:45
Just because its widely practiced doesn't make it right though. Jouranlists and broadcasters should have a responsibility to report first and foremost. Stuff like drumming up the drama contained in the news story and using creative license to suit their agenda and audience should come secondary.Of course, I never said it was right.

Reggie
12-01-10, 17:47
That's good but I didn't say you did say that in the first place. :p
Just my 2 cents on where the discussion was going.

knightgames
12-01-10, 18:06
As far as I know, no one from FOX has lost a job for lying of falsifying a report. I can't say the same for the left leaning media in the states.

SamReeves
12-01-10, 18:24
For me, it's more that they are dogmatic and at times blatantly untruthful.

Ever watched MSNBC? Or is your political affiliation blinding you?

As far as I know, no one from FOX has lost a job for lying of falsifying a report. I can't say the same for the left leaning media in the states.

LOL, yea. Good old Dan Rather. What a schmuck!!!

Lemmie
12-01-10, 18:31
Ever watched MSNBC? Or is your political affiliation blinding you?

Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow do get things wrong and mis-state things, but I find that FOX News is entirely unapologetic and wilfully misrepresents the truth - but in today's media that's hardly something that's unusual.

Of course I am sympathetic to MSNBC and less so to FOX because my personal politics are better represented by MSNBC. But anyone who believes that FOX is 'fair and balanced' as their anchors so readily espouse - the idea is laughable.

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 18:31
Good move on Palin's part... not so sure about Fox. Palin primarily attracts hardcore conservatives and evangelicals - in other words, Fox' core audience. They'll lose even more credibility with the rest of the world.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m289/speedymeadows/3610904941_742e9f9738.jpg

2kool4u
12-01-10, 18:38
tFUDEmMjC-c

Democratic Liberals. Enough said.

In actuality i was neither until after this election. I wasnt crazy with obama and once he said spread the wealth i chose republican. Screw that concept. It was way too close to communism. I also chose conservative because i dont like to *****. I attended a protest and never again will i ever. I'll take voting quietly please.

Dark Lugia 2
12-01-10, 18:41
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/01/13/pf_fast_sarah-palin.jpg

:p

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 18:44
I'm doubting the authenticity of this image.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 18:48
It's real, trust me.Proof? I'm not saying it's definitely false, just seems a bit odd that's all. There were lots of photos of Bush apparently showing stupid things that turned out to be photoshoped.

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 18:53
I don't know. I found some pages saying it's a fake, but I also remember seeing a vid of it (which would be a lot harder to fake than a pic). I used it for comedic value, not to make a point.

SamReeves
12-01-10, 19:14
Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow do get things wrong and mis-state things, but I find that FOX News is entirely unapologetic and wilfully misrepresents the truth - but in today's media that's hardly something that's unusual.

Of course I am sympathetic to MSNBC and less so to FOX because my personal politics are better represented by MSNBC. But anyone who believes that FOX is 'fair and balanced' as their anchors so readily espouse - the idea is laughable.

So you will admit that MSNBC is not balanced? ;) There's the straw man in your commotion about FOX. So I like news one way, and you like yours. You can change the channel and not get so upset about it.

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 19:16
So you will admit that MSNBC is not balanced? ;) There's the straw man in your commotion about FOX. So I like news one way, and you like yours. You can change the channel and not get so upset about it.
Why not watch both? It's rather difficult to learn something when you only watch what you agree with anyway.

SamReeves
12-01-10, 19:18
Why not watch both? It's rather difficult to learn something when you only watch what you agree with anyway.

On rare occasion I do, but then I get disappointed…and switch the channel!

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 19:18
Disappointed with what?

Dennis's Mom
12-01-10, 19:23
The truth is most of the actual "news reporting" is fairly accurate on both sides.

The problem comes in when you are a "news network" and your pundits are allowed to say whatever they want under the guise of "opinion." There's a reason Glenn Beck was first runner up for Lie of the Year.

Mostly, I hate fear mongering, and that is something both "sides" excel at. On one hand the government will kill you, and on the other, the environment will.

Here's a truth: whenever someone tells you to be afraid or how horrible things are, they're trying to control you somehow.

SamReeves
12-01-10, 19:23
Disappointed with what?

Watching Chris Matthews have a rushing experience when Obama speaks. Please, give me a break. Or Keith Oblermann or Rachel Maddow trying to be funny…when in essence they are very offensive. Yes FOX is guilty of the same games with O'Reilly and Hannity. But as I said, I do like Special Report with Bret Baier on FOX. It's more of a normal newscast, and a final commentary with a good panel without all the fluff.

Here's a truth: whenever someone tells you to be afraid or how horrible things are, they're trying to control you somehow.

Reminds me of that guy in the White House. Gotta bail everybody out or the world ends tommorow!

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 19:28
Reminds me of that guy in the White House. Gotta bail everybody out or the world ends tommorow!Urgh, tell me about it. I'm fed up of hearing Gordon Brown say how he saved the world with all his ridiculous spending and how the economy would've collapsed had we not done it.

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 19:38
Reminds me of that guy in the White House. Gotta bail everybody out or the world ends tommorow!
Well, to be fair, his predecessor scared you and a majority of Americans into supporting two wars, not only costing tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, but also effectively ruining the entire nation's image. I think that puts things in perspective.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 19:48
Well, to be fair, his predecessor scared you and a majority of Americans into supporting two wars, not only costing tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, but also effectively ruining the entire nation's image. I think that puts things in perspective.Scared? He merely presented the facts.

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 19:51
Is that the facts of Saddam being in possession of WMDs or the facts of 'fight them overseas so you don't have to fight them here' (damn, somebody should've told the Underwear Bomber!)?

Besides, who's to say Obama isn't right? It's mere speculation what would've happened without the bailouts. Personally, it's something I would've liked to see. Capitalism in its current form isn't worth saving, IMO.

Dennis's Mom
12-01-10, 19:56
Reminds me of that guy in the White House. Gotta bail everybody out or the world ends tommorow!

No different than the "Nazi Health Reform" or "Death Panels" or "Come to Jesus or Go To Hell" or "Your Mommy Kills Animals". Fear is a very powerful weapon. It generates a LOT of income. It preys upon the emotions and opens the pocketbooks.

Melonie Tomb Raider
12-01-10, 20:07
Some of Fox's shows are a bit biased, like Hannity and Glenn Beck (though I still enjoy watching Glenn Beck), but The Oreilly Factor is a lot more unbiased than any other news channel out there.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 20:12
Is that the facts of Saddam being in possession of WMDs or the facts of 'fight them overseas so you don't have to fight them here' (damn, somebody should've told the Underwear Bomber!)?

Besides, who's to say Obama isn't right? It's mere speculation what would've happened without the bailouts. Personally, it's something I would've liked to see. Capitalism in its current form isn't worth saving, IMO.I was mainly referring to the war in Afghanistan, but in regards to Iraq I don't think it was Bush's fault that the information on Iraqi WMDs was a bit sketchy.

Well one thing we do know for sure, America will be even more in debt now thanks to those bailouts.

As Sir Winston Churchill said "Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others."

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 20:21
Well, somebody fabricated the information. Maybe Bush knew it was nonsense, maybe he didn't. Maybe he was tricked himself. Whichever way, he was Commander in Chief, it was his responsibility. You don't start a war unless absolutely necessary, and you certainly don't start one based on sketchy intelligence. You also don't start one if measures are underway to determine if the perceived threat is real, and you don't start wars that violate international law. Bush ****ed up, America ****ed up, the UK ****ed up. Sometimes it's as simple as that.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 20:24
Well, somebody fabricated the information. Maybe Bush knew it was nonsense, maybe he didn't. Maybe he was tricked himself. Whichever way, he was Commander in Chief, it was his responsibility. You don't start a war unless absolutely necessary, and you certainly don't start one based on sketchy intelligence. You also don't start one if measures are underway to determine if the perceived threat is real, and you don't start wars that violate international law. Bush ****ed up, America ****ed up, the UK ****ed up. Sometimes it's as simple as that.While you may not agree with the war, the UK certainly did not **** up. I can't exactly speak for America but in my eyes they didn't either.

There have been some fortunate outcomes from the Iraq war.

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 20:32
Bush and Blair couldn't have gone to war without any support from their people. The tides have certainly turned - as they always do when people die - but it would be hypocritical to insinuate that it was just bad luck or a mistake made by a select few. After 9/11, people were understandably hurt and angry, but that doesn't justify a knee-jerk reaction. Afghanistan was an act of revenge, basically.

Punaxe
12-01-10, 20:33
(...) The Oreilly Factor is a lot more unbiased than any other news channel out there.

What do you make of this (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a772693139&db=all) (PDF (http://files.noctifer.net/JournalismPropagandaStudy.pdf))?

e.g.
(...) our study provides systematic analysis of content over an extended period.

As was the case during the world wars, O’Reilly injects fear into his commentaries. In sharp contrast to Gans’ (1979) observation that the media focus on restoration of social order in their messages, O’Reilly almost never offered that hope, as tension remained unresolved in nearly all of his commentaries, promoting an undercurrent of fear. This frequent emphasis on fear and social disorder - coupled with his overriding lack of resolution to that fear - not only puts O’Reilly at odds with traditional journalistic values, it also suggests a rhetorical strategy of playing on a primal human emotion to attract and maintain viewers.

O’Reilly used all seven of the propaganda devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Propaganda_Analysis) in his commentaries, (...). On average, O’Reilly used six of the propaganda devices 12.91 times a minute (...)
(Wikipedia-link mine.)
(...) O’Reilly used a fear frame in over half (52.4 percent) of the commentaries. (...) When O’Reilly invoked the fear frame, he offered resolution to the threat in only 1 percent of cases.

Victims made up 16 percent of all role-players and this frame was assigned across 15 identity categories. O’Reilly never presented the political left, politicians/government officials not associated with a political party, left-leaning media, illegal aliens, criminals, and terrorists as victims.

O’Reilly cast Democrats and left-leaning organizations as predominantly bad, and the Bush administration among the most virtuous role-players.

Do you feel you can maintain that all other news channels are worse than this?

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 20:35
Bush and Blair couldn't have gone to war without any support from their people. The tides have certainly turned - as they always do when people die - but it would be hypocritical to insinuate that it was just bad luck or a mistake made by a select few. After 9/11, people were understandably hurt and angry, but that doesn't justify a knee-jerk reaction. Afghanistan was an act of revenge, basically.Again, I can't speak for America here but I know here many people did not support the Iraq war.

Hardly. Afghanistan was launched right on the back of 9/11 to try and catch the people responsible for the attacks and bring them to justice.

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 20:39
Hardly. Afghanistan was launched right on the back of 9/11 to try and catch the people responsible for the attacks and bring them to justice.
People are brought to justice in a fair trial before a court of law.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 20:41
People are brought to justice in a fair trial before a court of law.Yeah, because Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are just gonna pop on a plane to D.C. and turn themselves in.

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 20:52
Which they are doing now that Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied? I'm sure a more subtle and constructive approach would've been more effective than this. Al-Qaeda is not some separate entity that you can just eliminate. Those people have families, friends, supporters. What's worse, so do the civilians killed, injured or otherwise harmed in these conflicts. Furthermore, there's a lot of 'The West vs. Islam' propaganda going around, not only in Muslim countries, but also in America and Europe. Unless people fight the roots, and not the symptoms, of religious extremism, those wars breed their own soldiers.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 20:58
Which they are doing now that Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied? I'm sure a more subtle and constructive approach would've been more effective than this. Al-Qaeda is not some separate entity that you can just eliminate. Those people have families, friends, supporters. What's worse, so do the civilians killed, injured or otherwise harmed in these conflicts. Furthermore, there's a lot of 'The West vs. Islam' propaganda going around, not only in Muslim countries, but also in America and Europe. Unless people fight the roots, and not the symptoms, of religious extremism, those wars breed their own soldiers.The whole point of Afghanistan is to find those responsible and put them on trial. I really do not see how else to approach a brutal and ruthless terrorist organization other than by hunting them down.

Where's this "The West vs. Islam" propaganda in Europe and America then?

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 21:09
France is discussing the ban of niqabs, Switzerland already put a ban on minarets. In public opinion, Islam is often linked with extremism, intolerance and violence. On the other hand, some radical Muslims refuse to accept the separation of church and state in western societies, and that religion doesn't grant any privileges. It's clearly a problem that exists on both sides, and can only be solved through tolerance, discussion and mutual respect.

I agree that Al-Qaeda needs to be fought. However, terrorism can't be fought by conventional means, and definitely not by occupying foreign countries. There will always be lunatics trying to ignite the powder keg that is religion, but you can try not to give anybody a good reason to join them.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 21:11
Well do you have any better ideas as to how to take on Al-Qaeda? Feasible ones.

SamReeves
12-01-10, 21:18
Well, to be fair, his predecessor scared you and a majority of Americans into supporting two wars, not only costing tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, but also effectively ruining the entire nation's image. I think that puts things in perspective.

Ehm, if I remember correctly we were attacked on our own soil on September 11, 2001. It wasn't an inside job, it wasn't underground ninjas, nor was it a phantom. This country was attacked by Jihadists who hate America and the western world period. You can't color it any other way. I know I wouldn't choose to lay down and do nothing after being attacked like that.

Mona Sax
12-01-10, 21:24
- A less aggressive foreign policy
- more emphasis on international organizations (UN)
- support of democratic forces and educational institutions in conflict areas
- training of domestic police forces
- respecting the rule of law and the right to a fair trial

That's what comes to mind. Starting a war to catch a group of criminals seems like hitting somebody over the head with a two-by-four in order to squash a fly.

Anyway, we're getting way off topic here. Sarah Palin, anyone? MT, if you want to continue on Afghanistan, Iraq etc., feel free to start a new thread.

Legend 4ever
12-01-10, 22:44
Just because Sarah Palin signs on to do political commentary on a news-station from time-to-time that didn't treat her like an ignorant whore (for political reasons) during the 2008 campaign and afterwards? My God, get a life!

FLIPPER

She might not be a whore, but she certainly is ignorant and retrograde.

Mad Tony
12-01-10, 23:06
She might not be a whore, but she certainly is ignorant and retrograde.Personally I don't see how she is either of those things. The only thing negative I would say about her is that she's a little inexperienced.

Legends
12-01-10, 23:58
This woman just won't go away. Just when I thought I wouldn't hear about her for a while she comes right back to remind me she's still alive and stupid.

Mad Tony
13-01-10, 00:00
This woman just won't go away. Just when I thought I wouldn't hear about her for a while she comes right back to remind me she's still alive and stupid. But to be fair though a lot of the publicity she gets is from people who hate her. Her biggest benefactors it seems are ironically, her detractors.

Mr.Burns
13-01-10, 00:07
People are brought to justice in a fair trial before a court of law.

In an idealist's world, sure. But we don't live in an idealist's world, Mona.

Draco
13-01-10, 00:47
I think most people automatically assume anyone who isn't a blatant liberal is less than intelligent. I mean Bush wasn't an Einstein, but he wasn't an idiot either.

voltz
13-01-10, 01:15
I mean Bush wasn't an Einstein, but he wasn't an idiot either.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kAYZT4UUxIQ/SKdD2Xp-JPI/AAAAAAAAD10/oDf6V6Ej4bM/s400/Bush_Idiot_4.jpg

Ward Dragon
13-01-10, 07:19
Good move on Palin's part... not so sure about Fox. Palin primarily attracts hardcore conservatives and evangelicals - in other words, Fox' core audience. They'll lose even more credibility with the rest of the world.

I don't think Fox cares much. They know they're the only conservative channel on TV and people have nowhere else to turn if they want a conservative perspective of things (at least on TV) so they have a lot of leeway to do whatever they want since they aren't competing with anybody.

Another Lara
13-01-10, 07:55
I've never forgiven Fox news for their coverage of the July 7th bombings in London. 52 people killed on the buses and tubes and the next day people are heading back to work using the same transport and Fox called them cowards?!?!

Fox are welcome to Palin as far as I'm concerned, anyone with half a brain cell knows that that news channel is a load of crap and so won't watch it, no matter who is on there!

Ward Dragon
13-01-10, 08:10
Fox called them cowards?!?!

They did? I missed that and can't find it now through internet searches. Which particular person said it?

Another Lara
13-01-10, 08:17
They did? I missed that and can't find it now through internet searches. Which particular person said it?

I'm not too sure myself, but I remember it vivdly as I was in the Caribbean working on my degree at the time and as we didn't have computers on the little island we were on, Fox news was our only way of getting information... after a few hours of the same thing being said, Fox was switched off for the rest of the trip!

Ward Dragon
13-01-10, 08:25
I'm not too sure myself, but I remember it vivdly as I was in the Caribbean working on my degree at the time and as we didn't have computers on the little island we were on, Fox news was our only way of getting information... after a few hours of the same thing being said, Fox was switched off for the rest of the trip!

Ah, I think I found it. It was probably O'Reilly. He calls everybody a coward :rolleyes:

While O'Reilly has primarily directed his hostility toward France (here, here, and here), this was not his first characterization of the entire continent as "cowardly." As Media Matters has noted, on the July 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor television broadcast, O'Reilly asserted that "Europe is a cowardly continent. They know what the stakes are. They don't care." His comments came hours after a series of suicide attacks in London.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200512090003

I'll believe that particular statement because it does sound like something O'Reilly would say (I used to have fun yelling at the TV in college, especially when O'Reilly would say anything about science since he knows so little it's pathetic). However I don't trust that site overall because even MSNBC is complaining that it has a liberal bias :p

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/468740.aspx

wmcintosh
13-01-10, 08:33
Will she be analyzing herself?

I like to analyze her myself.

Quasimodo
13-01-10, 10:34
I think most people automatically assume anyone who isn't a blatant liberal is less than intelligent.
Or just pitiably unenlightened.

Chug a Bug
13-01-10, 10:35
When I couldn't afford the full Sky subscription anymore I lost F*x News too.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Bush and Blair couldn't have gone to war without any support from their people. The tides have certainly turned - as they always do when people die - but it would be hypocritical to insinuate that it was just bad luck or a mistake made by a select few. After 9/11, people were understandably hurt and angry, but that doesn't justify a knee-jerk reaction. Afghanistan was an act of revenge, basically.

If only that were true, here at least. Blair could declare war on anybody he wanted too he didn't require ratification from Parliament unlike the US I believe where a president can't act alone. Of course, he sought backing from parliament retrospectively. And went to any length to find "evidence" to justify it. But basically he'd allready made up his mind before the war even started after the summit with Bush. There wasn't much support from the people as the anti-war demonstrations, er, demonstrate.

Iraq was revenge I'd say, for the Gulf War.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kAYZT4UUxIQ/SKdD2Xp-JPI/AAAAAAAAD10/oDf6V6Ej4bM/s400/Bush_Idiot_4.jpg

Funniest thing I've seen all week. Thanks :vlol:

george_croft
13-01-10, 10:47
Palin, 45, is hugely popular with conservatives and has more than 1.1 million Facebook followers.

Oh right, she must of just passed the 2012 OLYMPICS LOGO LOOKS LIKE LISA SIMPSON GIVING HEAD, group. She must be proud.

Dennis's Mom
13-01-10, 12:39
I think most people automatically assume anyone who isn't a blatant liberal is less than intelligent. I mean Bush wasn't an Einstein, but he wasn't an idiot either.

True, but she has had such basic ethical laspses that I do question her intelligence. Taking per diam for living in your own home? Who among us would actually have the chutzpah to put that on a form? Deciding to conduct business on a Yahoo account rather than your work one? No one would do that. Charging the state for her children's travel? My husband gets fab travel opportunities too, and trust me, when you live in AK you leap at any chance to get Outside, but it would never have crossed his mind that his company should pay so he could bring his children. The entire Troopergate affair is un-freaking-believable. How could she not understand what "Conflict of Interest" is? And, of course, outright lying. I'm cynical enough to know that's what politicians do, but she lies about such silly things, things that are easily proven wrong. *shakes head*

These sort of really basic ethics failures lead me to believe she simply doesn't know very much, or she felt the rules didn't apply to her.

Jack Croft
13-01-10, 12:52
Oh right, she must of just passed the 2012 OLYMPICS LOGO LOOKS LIKE LISA SIMPSON GIVING HEAD, group. She must be proud.

:vlol:

Ward Dragon
13-01-10, 13:06
Charging the state for her children's travel?

Isn't that normal in government? Tax payers paid for Michelle Obama to go shopping in Paris and take her kids on vacation in Europe after all.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50528

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/06/05/obama_family_vacation_to_paris_raises_some_eyebrow s/

Mad Tony
13-01-10, 13:14
Iraq was revenge I'd say, for the Gulf War.But we won that war. :p Bush Sr just didn't have the guts to go all the way unlike his son.

Oh right, she must of just passed the 2012 OLYMPICS LOGO LOOKS LIKE LISA SIMPSON GIVING HEAD, group. She must be proud.There's a group on Facebook called "1,000,000 strong against Sarah Palin". Do you wanna know how many members it has? Just over 200,000. Lol, fail.

Lemmie
13-01-10, 13:30
So you will admit that MSNBC is not balanced? ;) There's the straw man in your commotion about FOX. So I like news one way, and you like yours. You can change the channel and not get so upset about it.

No. I said that anchors make mistakes. That's understandable. It's stressful to listen to your headset, read a teleprompter and look business-like all the time. Moreover, news corporations get things wrong as well. It happens. But news corporations should also be bound by journalistic integrity, which certain shows on FOX News like Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and others seemed to be inured to, as well as the idea that they should be 'fair and balanced'.

Frankly, Sarah Palin should be right at home with that crowd.

Dennis's Mom
13-01-10, 14:39
Isn't that normal in government? Tax payers paid for Michelle Obama to go shopping in Paris and take her kids on vacation in Europe after all.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50528

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/06/05/obama_family_vacation_to_paris_raises_some_eyebrow s/

There's rules established for this, and I'm fairly confident that the White House paid whatever portion they're supposed to according to the existing policy. The article only asks questions, doesn't provide answers regarding who paid what, but I have no doubt there's plenty of folks from both sides of this watching.

Alaska does have a policy regarding this. Link (http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/04-018_KingAir.pdf)

If there is no benefit to the state, the state doesn't pay. Former governor Tony Knowles went on record as saying the state never paid for his kids travel and he couldn't imagine an occasion where it would have been appropriate to do so. I agree.

george_croft
13-01-10, 15:00
There's a group on Facebook called "1,000,000 strong against Sarah Palin". Do you wanna know how many members it has? Just over 200,000. Lol, fail.

LMAO!

I just think it's pretty ridiculous how serious journalist even mention how many Facebook followers a politician has. Especially when there's a group for just about anything these days.

Dennis's Mom
13-01-10, 15:15
LMAO!

I just think it's pretty ridiculous how serious journalist even mention how many Facebook followers a politician has. Especially when there's a group for just about anything these days.

And some people join just to watch.

Draco
13-01-10, 15:27
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kAYZT4UUxIQ/SKdD2Xp-JPI/AAAAAAAAD10/oDf6V6Ej4bM/s400/Bush_Idiot_4.jpg

I've done that before and I'm a fairly intelligent individual.

Or just pitiably unenlightened.

Are you implying something or agreeing with me in an indirect fashion?

True, but she has had such basic ethical laspses that I do question her intelligence. Taking per diam for living in your own home? Who among us would actually have the chutzpah to put that on a form? Deciding to conduct business on a Yahoo account rather than your work one? No one would do that. Charging the state for her children's travel? My husband gets fab travel opportunities too, and trust me, when you live in AK you leap at any chance to get Outside, but it would never have crossed his mind that his company should pay so he could bring his children. The entire Troopergate affair is un-freaking-believable. How could she not understand what "Conflict of Interest" is? And, of course, outright lying. I'm cynical enough to know that's what politicians do, but she lies about such silly things, things that are easily proven wrong. *shakes head*

These sort of really basic ethics failures lead me to believe she simply doesn't know very much, or she felt the rules didn't apply to her.

I fail to see what ethics and intelligence have to do with each other.

Eddie Haskell
13-01-10, 15:28
I read a lot of news each day. I read both Chicago papers thoroughly, and frequent the NY Times online, MSNBC, ABCNEWS, the BBC, and yes, even FoxNews. In order to understand all points of view in the "news" (no matter how far fetched or bizarre some of these outlets are) I make it my business to suffer through listening to O'Reillys know-it-all bull****, and I take particular pleasure in laughing my ass off at that circus clown, Howard Beale wanna-be known as Glenn Beck.

Fox is as far from "fair and balanced" as Steven Seagal's acting skills are to Tom Hanks.

voltz
13-01-10, 15:33
Iraq was revenge I'd say, for the Gulf War.

To be brutally honest about this, Iraq was basically Bush Jr. fighting his daddy's war... pretty much doing what Bush Sr. failed to accomplish originally. We knew it would be chaos after taking Saddam out, but he went and did it anyway.

Afghanistan was the revenge. 9/11, 4,000 killed... you better believe it. Heck we were dropping bombs all over the place so bad that I couldn't go a day without reading a section of the newspaper and see people fleeing for their lives.

Capt. Murphy
13-01-10, 15:34
....and I take particular pleasure in laughing my ass off at that circus clown, Howard Beale wanna-be known as Glenn Beck.

I doubt you mean that in a nice way... But I do enjoy listening to his radio program. Tis' very comical. :o

Eddie Haskell
13-01-10, 15:39
To be brutally honest about this, Iraq was basically Bush Jr. fighting his daddy's war... pretty much doing what Bush Sr. failed to accomplish originally. We knew it would be chaos after taking Saddam out, but it's didn't surprise me we finally did that anyway.

Afghanistan was the revenge. 9/11, 4,000 killed... you better believe it. Heck we were dropping bombs all over the place so bad that I couldn't go a day without reading a section of the newspaper and see people fleeing for their lives.

During the Gulf War, I spent most of my time behind enemy lines looking for and destroying scuds. And I can unequivocally state that militarily it would have been a cakewalk all the way to Saddam's front door. But, instead we depended on the people rising up and ousting that asshole without a bit of help from us, and that strategy proved a monumental failure. And particularly sad was the fact that the Saddam's subsequent draining of the marshes that the poor Ma'dan people (whom I got to know a bit) depended upon for their livelihood was preventable.

SamReeves
13-01-10, 15:42
No. I said that anchors make mistakes. That's understandable.

Oh goody, you do live in fantasy-land after all!

*sigh*

Dennis's Mom
13-01-10, 16:05
I fail to see what ethics and intelligence have to do with each other.

Well, it depends on whether you think (and I'm using this term for a reason) "common sense" counts as intelligence. Most people have the "common sense" to know that their company won't pay for their children to travel with them; I doubt they'd even have the balls to ask. Most people have the "common sense" to know that you don't use your job to exert influence over personal relationships.

If you think common sense and intelligence are two separate things, I can see your point. But if you have to be told explicitly that instructing your employees to contact you via a Yahoo account because "the other one isn't private and can be read by others" isn't good government, then I'd have to say you're not very intelligent, that you do not have a grasp of what being a responsible public servant is all about.

Ward Dragon
13-01-10, 16:19
But if you have to be told explicitly that instructing your employees to contact you via a Yahoo account because "the other one isn't private and can be read by others" isn't good government, then I'd have to say you're not very intelligent, that you do not have a grasp of what being a responsible public servant is all about.

My university professor had us always contact him on an aol account because he didn't want the university reading our e-mails. Considering some of the asinine things the university did, I think he was being smart to do that. I don't think Palin was stupid for using a Yahoo account. I think her serious lapse in judgment came from picking a weak password that 4Chan figured out XD (And after they got into her e-mail, they couldn't find any dirt so she apparently wasn't hiding anything sinister)

Dennis's Mom
13-01-10, 16:53
Your professor isn't a public servant, and you don't run on a campaign slogan of "open and transparent" and then tell people to circumvent open records laws. Just a slight disconnect there, dontcha think?

Open records laws are there for a reason, so public officials can be held accountable for their actions.

Quasimodo
13-01-10, 17:04
Are you implying something or agreeing with me in an indirect fashion?
I wasn't being clear enough, sorry. I was agreeing with you :)

Candee Sparks
13-01-10, 17:06
Sarah Palin? Bill O'Reilly? Fox News? Nuke 'em.

The only purpose of her new position on Fox News is basically a chance for her to talk **** about the big boys while serving under the guise as a "commentator" or whatever she was announced as all because she wants the last word in since nobody wants her in any government position. Politics may not be my strong point but I do know that Fox News is just lower than low.

Eddie Haskell
13-01-10, 17:11
I doubt you mean that in a nice way... But I do enjoy listening to his radio program. Tis' very comical. :o

And you know Fox always brags about its ratings. But I can tell you that nearly all of my friends (who are almost all liberals) tune in as well on occasion, or read or view the online site to see what shenanigans they are brewing. And you can be sure that this is not an anomaly, many more people on the flip side of their coin tune in to see what's up as well.You can bet that when they talk about how many people agree with their point of view (because of said ratings), they are whistling up the wrong tree.

Lemmie
13-01-10, 17:16
Oh goody, you do live in fantasy-land after all!

*sigh*

Wow. You're so worth engaging with.

Mad Tony
13-01-10, 17:16
nobody wants her in any government position.She's pretty popular actually. I heard quite a big crowd turned out for one of her book signings.

Eddie Haskell
13-01-10, 17:19
She's pretty popular actually. I heard quite a big crowd turned out for one of her book signings.

And that translates into a good legislator or leader? In that case I nominate Britney Spears... :mis:

Mad Tony
13-01-10, 18:04
And that translates into a good legislator or leader? In that case I nominate Britney Spears... :mis:No, I never said it did.

Eddie Haskell
13-01-10, 18:07
No, I never said it did.

Read what you quoted, and read your response. You should not have plucked that particular quote if you did not mean to respond directly to it.

Mad Tony
13-01-10, 18:19
Read what you quoted, and read your response. You should not have plucked that particular quote if you did not mean to respond directly to it.I know what I was replying to. He said nobody wants her in a government position and I was saying that there are indeed quite a few people who do.

Eddie Haskell
13-01-10, 18:26
I know what I was replying to. He said nobody wants her in a government position and I was saying that there are indeed quite a few people who do.

Than my initial response was adequate. Notice I never did say that you thought that.

Mad Tony
13-01-10, 18:38
Than my initial response was adequate. Notice I never did say that you thought that.You certainly implied it by saying "And that translates into a good legislator or leader?".

Eddie Haskell
13-01-10, 18:40
You certainly implied it by saying "And that translates into a good legislator or leader?".

Nothing personal or with the intention of being offensive in any way Mad Tony, but you need to improve your reading comprehension. :)

Tonyrobinson
13-01-10, 18:45
This woman never cists to amaze me :vlol:

Mad Tony
13-01-10, 18:46
Nothing personal or with the intention of being offensive in any way Mad Tony, but you need to improve your reading comprehension. :)My reading comprehension is fine thank you.

Legend 4ever
13-01-10, 20:47
Wait, some people still think Bush is not an idiot?

Dennis's Mom
13-01-10, 20:59
I don't think Bush is an idiot. He made some decisions that I think are bad and shortsighted, and he certainly isn't the fiscal conservative the country needed.

Because of their position, all presidents eventually make decisions that will bite someone sometime. You gotta wonder where we'd be sitting right now had Clinton taken Osama bin Laden when Somalia offered him. Would things be better or worse?

In the end we are all armchair quarterbacks. None of us have will ever have all of the information a president does at the time he makes a decision. It's easy to say "this was dumb" or "that was wrong", but we generally make our calls based on very limited information and emotion.

Legend 4ever
13-01-10, 21:11
I don't care about his policies and the things that happened during his presidency. We all know there are many people working behind a president, who sometimes know how to advise them and make better judgments that the presidents would.

I am talking about him as a person, as a man. He can't speak right, he is very slow, the binoculars thing wasn't the only object he couldn't use properly lol And he's said so many stupid things, enough for a person to say or think in a lifetime.

Tyrannosaurus
13-01-10, 21:31
I'd taken Lisa Anne over Sarah Palin, but I don't think she's acutally into politics.

Eddie Haskell
13-01-10, 21:40
I'd taken Lisa Anne over Sarah Palin, but I don't think she's acutally into politics.

Oh my God, I didn't know who this person was until I Googled the name and something called Nailin' Palin came up. And as far as being President is concerned, I'd rather have Ms. Anne... :D

Edit: I am laughing my ass off at the names of the characters in this spoof.

Mad Tony
13-01-10, 22:34
Wait, some people still think Bush is not an idiot?You're saying it as if it's fact.

I don't think Bush is an idiot. He made some decisions that I think are bad and shortsighted, and he certainly isn't the fiscal conservative the country needed.Oh yeah, that was my only gripe with him. While I think he was a great American president (not the best mind you) and he dealt with the terrorist threat well, he wasn't that fiscally responsible. Still, Obama's already racking up debts which make Bush's look puny.

I am talking about him as a person, as a man. He can't speak right, he is very slow, the binoculars thing wasn't the only object he couldn't use properly lol And he's said so many stupid things, enough for a person to say or think in a lifetime.All politicians make stupid mistakes when speaking. ALL OF THEM. Why people single out Bush is something which has baffled me for a long time.

Also, many of the pictures of Bush which allegedly show him holding something wrong are photoshopped. Here's a couple of examples.

http://loranablog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/bush-phone.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Bush_phone_9-11.jpg

http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/bush_hoax2_f.jpg

Admittedly though that binocular one does look legit. Doesn't make him an idiot though. But I'd bet that 9 out of 10 of the pictures where you see him doing something stupid are fake.

Dennis's Mom
13-01-10, 22:51
Oh my God, I didn't know who this person was until I Googled the name and something called Nailin' Palin came up. And as far as being President is concerned, I'd rather have Ms. Anne... :D

I thought I'd seen everything. I had no idea this existed. I'm going to have nightmares.

patriots88888
13-01-10, 23:53
I am talking about him as a person, as a man. He can't speak right, he is very slow, the binoculars thing wasn't the only object he couldn't use properly lol And he's said so many stupid things, enough for a person to say or think in a lifetime.

Couldn't find the 'lock box' though. :whi: :D

nOUuKQlGdEs

Eddie Haskell
14-01-10, 00:15
I always loved this Bush-ism:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii298/eddie-haskell/23439GBBushisms-Misunderestimated-P.jpg

silver_wolf
14-01-10, 00:58
You know, for all the havock ol' Bushy wreaked, I think he had good intentions. I think he genuinely believed going to Iraq was the right thing to do, and that he was defending America. Cheney's the evil mastermind.

Tommy123
14-01-10, 04:20
You know, for all the havock ol' Bushy wreaked, I think he had good intentions. I think he genuinely believed going to Iraq was the right thing to do, and that he was defending America. Cheney's the evil mastermind.

indeed...or bush was just flat out dumb

Mad Tony
14-01-10, 06:37
You know, for all the havock ol' Bushy wreaked, I think he had good intentions. I think he genuinely believed going to Iraq was the right thing to do, and that he was defending America. Cheney's the evil mastermind.Where does this whole "Cheney is evil" perception come from anyway? As far as I know the vice president doesn't have that big an influence on the president and administration policy. That's the impression I got anyway.

CerebralAssassin
14-01-10, 06:48
i always loved this bush-ism:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii298/eddie-haskell/23439gbbushisms-misunderestimated-p.jpg

lmao.

Mr.Burns
14-01-10, 11:31
And that translates into a good legislator or leader? In that case I nominate Britney Spears... :mis:

These days? With the way the American public doesn't bother to really pay attention to the person, their intelligence, their views,etc and just how likable they are? *shudders* The woman scares me.

Where does this whole "Cheney is evil" perception come from anyway? As far as I know the vice president doesn't have that big an influence on the president and administration policy. That's the impression I got anyway.


The power of the VP is at the determination of the President. Cheney was given a lot of power, more than many VPs have in the past.

Eddie Haskell
14-01-10, 14:30
These days? With the way the American public doesn't bother to really pay attention to the person, their intelligence, their views,etc and just how likable they are? *shudders* The woman scares me.

What scares me is the people who say that they'd vote for her because she's "one of us", or "down to earth" or a "regular person". I don't know about anyone else, but I'd kinda like my President to be a little smarter and more knowledgeable than me, know the history, peoples and geography of our planet, and most importantly care about the needs of Americans "in this life", not the next one. That's why I believe that atheists make the best office holders, they only care about making the here and now better for the citizens and don't interject religious angles into everything. That should be the job of the priest, pastor, etc for the individual who wants it.




The power of the VP is at the determination of the President. Cheney was given a lot of power, more than many VPs have in the past.

Remember that the way the Republicans do business, government is like a corporation. The twist for the GOP is that they get a popular figurehead as a front man, and all he does is wave the flag, scare the citizens, send troops into harms way, smile, and gut programs. The Republicans are smart in the way they manipulate the population.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
14-01-10, 14:39
What scares me is the people who say that they'd vote for her because she's "one of us", or "down to earth" or a "regular person". I don't know about anyone else, but I'd kinda like my President to be a little smarter and more knowledgeable than me, know the history, peoples and geography of our planet, and most importantly care about the needs of Americans "in this life", not the next one. That's why I believe that atheists make the best office holders, they only care about making the here and now better for the citizens and don't interject religious angles into everything. That should be the job of the priest, pastor, etc for the individual who wants it.



The sad thing is, the founders of the country were for the most part, intellectuals (Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams etc...). It's amazing how quickly that was derailed. Now we have corruption & crooked agendas everywhere you look.

Eddie Haskell
14-01-10, 14:47
The sad thing is, the founders of the country were for the most part, intellectuals (Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams etc...). It's amazing how quickly that was derailed. Now we have corruption & crooked agendas everywhere you look.

Heh heh, whenever someone says that line to me (I want a regular guy, etc), my answer is always, "Hey, that's a great idea! Why don't you run!"... :D

Dennis's Mom
14-01-10, 14:54
What scares me is the people who say that they'd vote for her because she's "one of us", or "down to earth" or a "regular person". I don't know about anyone else, but I'd kinda like my President to be a little smarter and more knowledgeable than me, know the history, peoples and geography of our planet, and most importantly care about the needs of Americans "in this life", not the next one.

Yeah, that's sort of my take. That and how she's pretty much completely incompetent. About the only thing positive she did for Alaska was put it on the map for most Americans. The only two notable pieces of legislation she enacted while governor (ACES and AGIA) are already showing fault lines because they were products of Palin's "the world is what I say it is" mindset rather than actual understanding of energy development.

Remember that the way the Republicans do business, government is like a corporation. The twist for the GOP is that they get a popular figurehead as a front man, and all he does is wave the flag, scare the citizens, send troops into harms way, smile, and gut programs. The Republicans are smart in the way they manipulate the population.

I'm more cynical than you, and I think they all operate that way. Once it looked like the Obama could win, the Dems threw Hillary under the bus. All politicians are in it to get elected--and then re-elected.

Mad Tony
14-01-10, 16:17
That's why I believe that atheists make the best office holders, they only care about making the here and now better for the citizens and don't interject religious angles into everything.I'm sorry but that's just utterly ridiculous. Firstly, whether or not somebody interjects their religion into the job has nothing to do with their actual religion. It all depends on the person. I'm a Christian, but if I was ever prime minister I certainly wouldn't interject my religion into anything.

Besides, some of the worst and most murderous leaders in history have been atheists. Mao, Stalin and arguably Hitler (there's some debate over his religion). That said, I'm sure there have been good atheist leaders. Same applies to religious leaders. What can be concluded by all this?

Believing or not believing in God doesn't affect a person's ability to govern.

I'm more cynical than you, and I think they all operate that way. Once it looked like the Obama could win, the Dems threw Hillary under the bus. All politicians are in it to get elected--and then re-elected.Oh no, the Dems are angels. How dare you compare them to the evil Republicans... :rolleyes:

SamReeves
14-01-10, 16:59
OMG, after reading those quotes there Ben, I must say:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5696/wackolg.gif

They all hate Sarah Palin because she's got better legs, is more attractive than Hillary Clinton, and knows how to use a rifle. It don't get much more "regular gal" than that! ;)

Eddie Haskell
14-01-10, 17:11
I'm sorry but that's just utterly ridiculous. Firstly, whether or not somebody interjects their religion into the job has nothing to do with their actual religion. It all depends on the person. I'm a Christian, but if I was ever prime minister I certainly wouldn't interject my religion into anything.

Besides, some of the worst and most murderous leaders in history have been atheists. Mao, Stalin and arguably Hitler (there's some debate over his religion). That said, I'm sure there have been good atheist leaders. Same applies to religious leaders. What can be concluded by all this?

Believing or not believing in God doesn't affect a person's ability to govern.

Oh no, the Dems are angels. How dare you compare them to the evil Republicans... :rolleyes:

Move to the United States. Or else read up a little more on politics in this nation.

OMG, after reading those quotes there Ben, I must say:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5696/wackolg.gif

They all hate Sarah Palin because she's got better legs, is more attractive than Hillary Clinton, and knows how to use a rifle. It don't get much more "regular gal" than that! ;)

I don't hate her, any more than I would hate Annie Oakley (the chick you're describing). Just wouldn't vote for her for public office.

Mad Tony
14-01-10, 17:17
Move to the United States. Or else read up a little more on politics in this nation.I'm fully aware of how some American politicians interject religious motives into politics, but that doesn't prove anything. Saying "atheists are the best office holders" is simply discriminatory. Religion has no bearing on a person's ability to do a job, their character and personality do.

Eddie Haskell
14-01-10, 17:26
I'm fully aware of how some American politicians interject religious motives into politics, but that doesn't prove anything. Saying "atheists are the best office holders" is simply discriminatory. Religion has no bearing on a person's ability to do a job, their character and personality do.

You missed the entire point. It's not the individual person, it's the method of governing. An atheist (or a person of religion who does as you describe) would not place a (or any) religious agenda, or color their opinions about what the nation or local district requires based on what religion teaches/requires or on any afterlife.

Any person in this country who seeks to be elected (or even electable) as a Republican would need to have the "credentials". An atheist would stand little chance of winning (or to be nominated), unless of course his (what would be) strange philosophy coincides with the religious right. The Dems are the Godless monsters... :)

Capt. Murphy
14-01-10, 17:32
It doesn't hurt for someone... anyone to pray and ask for guidance and wisdom from God.

Faith (or a lack thereof) may not dictate how well someone governs, but it may dictate how they govern.

Edit: Example; abortion.

Edit2: Call it what you will... But I've heard that George Washington was a man of faith. :pi:

Eddie Haskell
14-01-10, 17:35
But it doesn't hurt for someone... anyone to pray and ask for guidance and wisdom from God.

Faith (or a lack thereof) may not dictate how well someone governs, but it may dictate how they govern.

I am a practicing Catholic, so of course I agree. However, our governmental leaders should only be concerned about one thing...life in the here and now. Poverty, joblessness, infrastructure, etc, not the religious right agenda. That's the job of the clergy and the family. Teach your kids well, take them to church and raise them right.

Mad Tony
14-01-10, 17:40
You missed the entire point. It's not the individual person, it's the method of governing. An atheist (or a person of religion who does as you describe) would not place a (or any) religious agenda, or color their opinions about what the nation or local district requires based on what religion teaches/requires or on any afterlife.But not all religious people would have a "religious agenda" were they in that position.

Eddie Haskell
14-01-10, 17:44
But not all religious people would have a "religious agenda" were they in that position.

Obviously. I know I wouldn't, as do most Democrats (at least those comfortable enough with their constituents to execute it that way). In the south, it is much, much different.

Mad Tony
14-01-10, 18:06
Obviously. I know I wouldn't, as do most Democrats (at least those comfortable enough with their constituents to execute it that way). In the south, it is much, much different.Ah, but Republicans do do they?

Just some food for thought here, did you know Fred Phelps ran for office as a Democrat?

Lemmie
14-01-10, 18:10
Just some food for thought here, did you know Fred Phelps ran for office as a Democrat?

Why is that food for thought? :confused:

Mad Tony
14-01-10, 18:13
Why is that food for thought? :confused:I was challenging Eddie's view that the Dems are somehow not religiously motivated but Republicans are.

Lemmie
14-01-10, 18:17
I was challenging Eddie's view that the Dems are somehow not religiously motivated but Republicans are.

Yes, but he didn't get voted in. Because he's insane.

I don't see how anyone who professes that 'God hates America' can really legitimately expect to become part of the political process.

But I don't disagree with you. That is, about Democrats being religiously motivated.

interstellardave
14-01-10, 18:20
ANYONE can be religiously motivated. So what? All that separation of church and state means is that the State cannot sanction one official religion for the country and, thus, ban others from being practiced. It does not mean that religious thoughts and viewpoints have no place anywhere in government; that would be ridiculous. That would imply that religion has no value at all in society--and the founding fathers certainly did not hold that view!

Dennis's Mom
14-01-10, 18:24
the founding fathers certainly did not hold that view!

Guess who Palin's favorite founding father is? "All of them." :D

Politicians are going to say what gets them elected. If you want the support of the Republican party, you're going to make the appropriate noises to garner those votes and monetary support. If you want the Democratic vote, you're going to make those noises.

It's simple really.

Eddie Haskell
14-01-10, 18:30
Guess who Palin's favorite founding father is? "All of them." :D

Politicians are going to say what gets them elected. If you want the support of the Republican party, you're going to make the appropriate noises to garner those votes and monetary support. If you want the Democratic vote, you're going to make those noises.

It's simple really.

...and those "noises" vary depending on which party and where you are running. An Illinois Republican would not pass the sniff test in Georgia.

ShadyCroft
14-01-10, 20:10
Politicians are going to say what gets them elected. If you want the support of the Republican party, you're going to make the appropriate noises to garner those votes and monetary support. If you want the Democratic vote, you're going to make those noises.

Yes. It makes sense anyways.

Its so ironic that am reading Dan Brown's Deception Point while we're having this convo, and right now its about the US elections and the senate running for it was losing the votes until he found a topic he shed some light on. It was about the US's excessive funding on NASA and how little progress its yielding.
Just shows you need to say what you think will get attention.
This is the book of course and am not starting a new conversation about NASA and the US.

Just thought of mentioning the coincidence.

TRhalloween
14-01-10, 20:15
Something political is going down in this biatch tonight. Keep your eyes open, this **** is sure to be slammin'.

Draco
15-01-10, 01:58
He can't speak right, he is very slow,

That qualifies someone as less than intelligent?

I guess I'm as dumb as a rock then.

amiro1989
15-01-10, 02:25
Why am I not surprised?