Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I'm neither a fool or delusional, and I can see that they are more fair and balanced than CNN or MSNBC.> Really? That's really how you see things? Not talking about their commentator-hosted shows, now. Not O'Reilly or Olbermann or Hannity or Maddow. Talking about their normal news coverage, the stuff you see in the middle of the afternoon. You really think FoxNews is "more fair and balanced" than CNN or MSNBC? THAT, my friends, says about all one needs to know.
Originally Posted By DAR I like the Fox Business channel, especially the show that takes place in a bar.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <THAT, my friends, says about all one needs to know.> And it says all one needs to know about you that you're incredulous that anyone could believe that. Like I said earlier, blinders on, firmly.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No. FoxNews was DESIGNED as propaganda. Ailes even tacitly admits as much. Does bias creep in at the others (again, I'm talking news shows, not commentary shows). Sure. But there's also conservative bias in terms of what doesn't get seen in the first place (very little that's critical of advertisers, for instance). And neither CNN nor MSNBC was designed as propaganda, as FoxNews was. So as much as it comforts conservatives to think "they all the same," it's not true. More honest conservatives even cop to it and admit the bias evident in Fox's news hours is ridiculous. You have supposedly "neutral" news anchors like Brit Hume (a writer for the American Spectator and Weekly Standard) openly commentating on the news. Do you see, say, Andrea Mitchell doing that, or does she write for Mother Jones or the Nation? No. So they are not equivalent. But I'm not surprised you don't see it; when you're THAT far right, everything looks left.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Rather than automatic gainsaying a la Monty Python, why not respond to the substance? You disagree with WHAT exactly? That Brit Hume writes for the WS and AS? (Hint: he does). That Andrea Mitchell does NOT write for MJ or the Nation? (Hint: she doesn't). This automatic gainsaying with nothing behind it just makes you look like... well, you don't appear to care.
Originally Posted By piperlynne I have to admit. I'm confused about what you disagree with as well. And I'm not trying to attack you. I just would like to know what it is that you disagree with since this is a discussion board and all. Geez. . .now I'm starting to think I'm projecting. . . .
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Rather than automatic gainsaying a la Monty Python, why not respond to the substance?> I've explained why many times. I'll explain why I disagree, I'll give examples, I'll back them up, and you'll denigrate, distort, and dismiss. It's not worth my trouble to try to have an honest discussion with you. I've tried, and it always ends the same.
Originally Posted By piperlynne But the discussion is not just with Dabob or Doug or any one single person. Its a board, and there may be other people that would like to see actual discourse. I think of it as responding to the entire board and putting forth my point. I don't need to be agreed with or given validation for my points. I post to give my opinion and facts. Not just to argue with someone.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I've explained why many times.<< No you haven't. >>I'll explain why I disagree,<< No you won't. >>I'll give examples,<< No you won't. >>I'll back them up,<< No you won't. >>and you'll denigrate,<< No we won't. >>distort,<< Nuh-uh. >>and dismiss.<< Never. >>It's not worth my trouble to try to have an honest discussion with you.<< Yes it is. >>I've tried,<< No you haven't. >>and it always ends the same.<< No it doesn't.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin K2 makes an excellent projecter...can we screen that film with the Grand Canyon Suite as the soundtrack...what was the name of that?...I just love the way the light shines through his left nostril.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin You keep trying mawnck, but you will never convince Doug that he doesn't know what's best for all the rest of the world.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Rather than automatic gainsaying a la Monty Python, why not respond to the substance?> <I've explained why many times. I'll explain why I disagree, I'll give examples, I'll back them up, and you'll denigrate, distort, and dismiss.> No, I won't. It's why I always quote your whole post verbatim and respond specifically. You claim I do it anyway, but that's on you. <It's not worth my trouble to try to have an honest discussion with you. I've tried, and it always ends the same.> I'm able to have honest discussions with other conservatives here. So do other liberals. Yet you can't seem to have an honest discussion with anyone. THAT'S what always ends the same. The common denominator, my friend, is not the ideology of the persons debating. Newsflash: it's you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think of it as responding to the entire board and putting forth my point. I don't need to be agreed with or given validation for my points. I post to give my opinion and facts. Not just to argue with someone. > You're a normal person. And I've enjoyed seeing your posts and hope you stick around. Just curious: are you a woman? WE needs more women, always has.
