For all the FOX, Beck, Limbaugh, Conservative Haters.

Originally Posted by ViRedd

Med ...

I'm really happy that you've awakened from your Kool-Aid induced coma long enough to start posting in the forum again ... hopefully on a regular basis.

With that said, here's a great book I'd like to recommend to you:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/THE-FIVE-THOUSAND-YEAR-LEAP/W-Cleon-Skousen/e/9780981559667

It might clear up some serious misconceptions you have about the Founders.

Well Vi, I don't have the inclination to read about them, might be interesting, but I really dont care about 20 odd dead people. Suffice it to say they were the elites of their day. Here is a brief synopsis of the views about the founders. I fit somewhere in between;
Within the broader world of popular opinion in the United States, the Founding Fathers are often accorded nearly mythical status as demigods who occupy privileged locations on the slopes of some American version of Mount Olympus. Within the narrower world of the academy, however, opinion is more divided. In general, scholarship over the last three decades has focused more on ordinary and “inarticulate” Americans in the late 18th century, the periphery of the social scene rather than the center. And much of the scholarly work focusing on the Founders has emphasized their failures more than their successes, primarily their failure to end slavery or reach a sensible accommodation with the Native Americans.
The very term “Founding Fathers” has also struck some scholars as inherently sexist, verbally excluding women from a prominent role in the founding. Such influential women as Abigail Adams, Dolley Madison, and Mercy Otis Warren made significant contributions that merit attention, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers label obscures their role.
As a result, the Founding Fathers label that originated in the 19th century as a quasi-religious and nearly reverential designation has become a more controversial term in the 21st. Any assessment of America’s founding generation has become a conversation about the core values embodied in the political institutions of the United States, which are alternatively celebrated as the wellspring of democracy and a triumphant liberal legacy, or demonized as the source of American arrogance, racism, and imperialism.
For at least two reasons, the debate over its Founders occupies a special place in American history unlike the history of any European nation-state. First, the United States was not founded on a common ethnicity, language, or religion that could be taken for granted as the primal source of national identity. Instead, it was founded on a set of beliefs and convictions, what Thomas Jefferson described as self-evident truths, that were proclaimed in 1776 and then embedded in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. To become an American citizen is not a matter of bloodlines or genealogy, but rather a matter of endorsing and embracing the values established at the founding, which accords the men who invented these values a special significance. Second, the American system of jurisprudence links all landmark constitutional decisions to the language of the Constitution itself and often to the “original intent” of the framers. Once again, this legal tradition gives the American Founders an abiding relevance in current discussions of foreign and domestic policy that would be inconceivable in most European countries.
Finally, in part because so much always seems to be at stake whenever the Founding Fathers enter any historical conversation, the debate over their achievement and legacy tends to assume a hyperbolic shape. It is as if an electromagnetic field surrounded the discussion, driving the debate toward mutually exclusive appraisals. In much the same way that adolescents view their parents, the Founders are depicted as heroic icons or despicable villains, demigods or devils, the creators of all that is right and all that is wrong with American society. In recent years the Founder whose reputation has been tossed most dramatically across this swoonish arc is Thomas Jefferson, simultaneously the author of the most lyrical rendition of the American promise to the world and the most explicit assertion of the biological inferiority of African Americans.
Since the late 1990s a surge of new books on the Founding Fathers, several of which have enjoyed surprising commercial and critical success, has begun to break free of the hyperbolic pattern and generate an adult rather than adolescent conversation in which a sense of irony and paradox replaces the old moralistic categories. This recent scholarship is heavily dependent on the massive editorial projects, ongoing for the last half-century, which have produced a level of documentation on the American Founders that is more comprehensive and detailed than the account of any political elite in recorded history.

While this enormous avalanche of historical evidence bodes well for a more nuanced and sop.
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007...re-these-guys/

Originally Posted by londonfog

well when you find it be sure to let us know try using Google or something..don't they have a search engine on fox and the hate crime bill means if you kick a person ass because they gay and you hell gay slurs at them then hell yeah put on some extra time....on the same foot the hate bill means if some black guys were beating the shit out of some white guy and hell , honkey , whitey, or cracker (except for our CrackerJax then it would be ok because thats his name) then they would get extra time too..the hate bill now works for all humans..not plants ( bad example you used )

I'll be sure to let you know, is it actually an insult to say someone found a link to information on Google now, or are you that desperate to get in some kind of a jab?

Thank you for explaining that which I clearly understand as well, if not more so, than you do. Adding on years for yelling a slur at a plant as you grow it is a PERFECT example of the stupidity of the Hate Crime legislation. Murder is murder, assault is assault... they all involve hate or anger in some form, singling out specific groups for "extra" protection is just a way to punish people for having views that run contrary to what the "thought police" find acceptable.

I don't condone those views, however, I do believe they have a right to hold them. If they act on them, well then they should pay the same price as anyone else that commits that act. Using those views and prejudices against them for motive and such, to secure a conviction is fine.... adding time for simply having those views is ludicrous. Kinda like the plant example.

Originally Posted by MuyLocoNC

I'll be sure to let you know, is it actually an insult to say someone found a link to information on Google now, or are you that desperate to get in some kind of a jab?

Thank you for explaining that which I clearly understand as well, if not more so, than you do. Adding on years for yelling a slur at a plant as you grow it is a PERFECT example of the stupidity of the Hate Crime legislation. Murder is murder, assault is assault... they all involve hate or anger in some form, singling out specific groups for "extra" protection is just a way to punish people for having views that run contrary to what the "thought police" find acceptable.

I don't condone those views, however, I do believe they have a right to hold them. If they act on them, well then they should pay the same price as anyone else that commits that act. Using those views and prejudices against them for motive and such, to secure a conviction is fine.... adding time for simply having those views is ludicrous. Kinda like the plant example.

not desperate at all just get tired of people saying $hit without any proof or they can't remember where they heard it..don't be insulted just be prepared to have some sort of proof when you talk nonsense..and google is your friend

its simple

fox is a news organization that features generally right wing pundits. that means there is opinion on THOSE SHOWS. that means they are trying to attract a certain audience

so if anything, its not a right or left bias, but a bias as far as ratings are concerned

fox new sis reliable and they report the same shit any other news show does. end of story

You really believe that?
Even if they report the same things (and, I don't believe that they do), their bias shows to some extent - how they report it, how much time they spend on it, etc..
Do you think cnn and fox spent the same amount of time reporting on the teabagger march on the capitol? I doubt it.
If Bush made a mistake or did something stupid, who spent more time dwelling on it, cnn or fox? How about if Obama makes a dumb mistake?
And the little filler stories... fox might make time to report on a small teabagger gathering somewhere, while cnn doesn't bother with it. Or cnn might report on a small gay rights gathering somewhere, while fox decides not to.

I just don't get why people are so reluctant to admit that their favorite news channel is biased. Maybe they feel like an attack against fox/cnn is an attack against the right/left wing and their beliefs? (Although, I haven't seen anyone here denying the bias of the left-leaning stations... only conservatives whining). Personally, I think the most neutral one is the bbc. If someone had a beef with them, and showed examples of why they had the problem, I don't see myself getting all defensive and denying the problem (especially when there's evidence).

this is from Fox Noise Hannity broadcast from yesterday 11/10
it's supposedly the Bachmann "rally", which she illegally advertised on her government website
Fox uses fake footage to make it look like the grass roots attended, when in fact, the crowd was embarrassingly small
So Fox is enhancing the story on behalf of the right-wing nut-job, rep. michelle bachman - with fake video

^^^ ouch!!!!

^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
That darn Daily Show the best...ROFL....Fox=simple minded people