Support NeoGAF

[PantherLotus]

You would be correct however, the actual question behind this is whether or not Fox is a news organization, that question can be answered without going into politics.

That's fine, but the main premise from which those that argue that FOX actually is a news organization is that it is a political necessity that they exist. The ensuing discussion afterward is whether or not news itself is biased and whether or not bias can be removed from those retelling the events. (itself a pedantic and largely already-concluded debate starting in the early 1900s).

The truth is that even if they were an actual news organization, their supposed service to the community would be more than undone by the harm the larger, more entertainment-focused opinionaires (Beck, O'Reiley, Hannity) launch into society. The part getting lost here is that it's not just those talking heads that are the problem, it's the skewed notion of "balanced."

All of this has been discussed already, numerous times, in numerous threads and on numerous sites. The fact the White House said it doesn't make it more or less true. FOXNEWS is, has been, and will remain a major wing of the Republican Party. The fact that this is up for debate by its fans shows how influencial their bile-spewing really is.

 

[mckmas8808]

They do?

Yes. Being a sports guy I thought you'd know that. Do you not keep up with these back room talks in the NFL?

 

[PantherLotus]

Yes. Being a sports guy I thought you'd know that. Do you not keep up with these back room talks in the NFL?

Randy Moss was traded to one of the best teams of all time after quitting on one of the worst. His contract wasn't up to him--it got traded with him. If he signed to remain after that is beside the point. Remember, the Raiders actually took a 4th or 5th rounder to get him off of their roster. Definitely not a good example.

Regardless, your point is that there might be some players that would turn down the money to make a political point. I can accept that, if you can accept that most would still take the money because of extremely shortened window of opportunity to make their money. Either way, what was this tangent about? Does this make FOXNEWS more of a news organization? Doesn't look like it to me.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

Why would we have an official/national language when one of the basics of American life is the concept of a "melting pot?" As far as I'm concerned, it's a failure of the American educational system that multiple language teachings aren't presented until junior high or high school. We should and NEED to know how to speak English, Spanish, French, and maybe even Mandarin.

 

[PantherLotus]

Why would we have an official/national language when one of the basics of American life is the concept of a "melting pot?" As far as I'm concerned, it's a failure of the American educational system that multiple language teachings ins't presented until junior high more high school. We should and NEED to know how to speak English, Spanish, French, and maybe even Mandarin.

Agreed with the idea. This is isolationism at its worst. The truth is that it's just another means of keeping dumb people dumb, and dumb people are easier to control. But no, they'll tell you that "ah dunt speek illegal, dammit!" because they think Mexicans took their job...while getting welfare.

Truthfully, is there any benefit at all at this blatantly racist platform of official language? Saves money?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Truthfully, is there any benefit at all at this blatantly racist platform of official language? Saves money?

From a liberal standpoint (admittedly a non-traditional one) it would encourage a level of integration which would be helpful to the economic standing of those it affects.


But that's rather vague, and further, what does having an official language mean? No bilingual forms or something?

 

[JoeBoy101]

Agreed with the idea. This is isolationism at its worst. The truth is that it's just another means of keeping dumb people dumb, and dumb people are easier to control. But no, they'll tell you that "ah dunt speek illegal, dammit!" because they think Mexicans took their job...while getting welfare.

Truthfully, is there any benefit at all at this blatantly racist platform of official language? Saves money?

'Isolationism at its worst' is not emphasizing learning multiple languages? Kind curious where actual, proactively isolationist policies fall under? You know, like blocking an entire group of people from immigrating, closing the borders, or refusing to interact with the entire world?

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

'Isolationism at its worst' is not emphasizing learning multiple languages? Kind curious where actual, proactively isolationist policies fall under? You know, like blocking an entire group of people from immigrating, closing the borders, or refusing to interact with the entire world?

I'm not entirely following.

 

[tekumseh]

Gitmo is no where near closing, hell we have people in my squadron that just got orders there so yeah it isn't closing anytime soon. I personally think the Stimulus packages are BS, why give money to failing companies, that makes no damn sense to me at all, and yeah the Health Care reform. nothing quite says stupid, like pushing reform before you even know how your truly going to finance it.

This can't be any more egregious than invading Iraq without bothering to finance it. The trillion dollars we've pissed down that hole so far could've paid for this healthcare. By the way, where were the tea party protests over that mountain of money we just poured gasoline on and set fire to?

 

[PantherLotus]

'Isolationism at its worst' is not emphasizing learning multiple languages? Kind curious where actual, proactively isolationist policies fall under? You know, like blocking an entire group of people from immigrating, closing the borders, or refusing to interact with the entire world?

You wouldn't agree that requiring immigrants to speak proficient English as a prerequisite to employment wouldn't be an isolationist policy? That's rather blind of you, JoeBoy.

 

[scorcho]

You wouldn't agree that requiring immigrants to speak proficient English as a prerequisite to employment wouldn't be an isolationist policy? That's rather blind of you, JoeBoy.

Not really - you're ascribing a nativist policy to an isolationist one, which has a tenuous connection at best.

 

[BowieZ]

The truth is that it's just another means of keeping dumb people dumb, and dumb people are easier to control.

This sounds kinda conspiracy-theory-esque. I'm guessing you were just being rhetorical, though?

 

[PantherLotus]

1. From a liberal standpoint (admittedly a non-traditional one) it would encourage a level of integration which would be helpful to the economic standing of those it affects.

2. But that's rather vague, and further, what does having an official language mean? No bilingual forms or something?

1. That might be a benefit, but not more so than allowing culture to take its course and for immigrants to 'melt' into the pot. Then again, the same argument could be made that such a requirement would devalue the incoming culture which has made our country so unique.

2. In general, when I hear "official language," I infer that those people supporting mean "prerequisite for entering the country and/or acquiring employment." I believe some amount of English ability is already required to become a citizen.

 

[PantherLotus]

Not really - you're ascribing a nativist policy to an isolationist one, which has a tenuous connection at best.

I see your point. Perhaps "xenophobia at its worst" would be a better description.

This sounds kinda conspiracy-theory-esque. I'm guessing you were just being rhetorical, though?

Pretty much. I don't believe there's some giant government/corporate conspiracy to misinform people (that an official language is needed or otherwise), only that there is a financial benefit for doing so.

 

[Kai Dracon]

'Isolationism at its worst' is not emphasizing learning multiple languages? Kind curious where actual, proactively isolationist policies fall under? You know, like blocking an entire group of people from immigrating, closing the borders, or refusing to interact with the entire world?

While "at its worst" may be hyperbolic, I would not disregard the seriousness of practicing isolationism in philosophical areas of society - such as insinuating that English is the "defacto" and "correct" American language by omission. Specific policies, state actions, and laws, do more harm in the short term. But shaping the way people think can irrevocably damn everyone in the long term.

As already stated, we have generations of dumb and dumber people who don't believe anyone in Amurrica should be spakin' 'dem forriner's spakin'. Now they're entrenched and have another reason to fervently support anyone who gets on a podium and promises to keep out the perceived invasive, dangerous influence of the forriners.

 

[BowieZ]

Pretty much. I don't believe there's some giant government/corporate conspiracy to misinform people (that an official language is needed or otherwise), only that there is a financial benefit for doing so.

Is there a difference between the two?

One could say that -- PURELY FOR EXAMPLE -- 9/11 was faked to build a case for war that would allow military contracting companies like Halliburton to strike gold and oil companies likewise. Financial motive is valid for a conspiracy, no?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

1. That might be a benefit, but not more so than allowing culture to take its course and for immigrants to 'melt' into the pot. Then again, the same argument could be made that such a requirement would devalue the incoming culture which has made our country so unique.

2. In general, when I hear "official language," I infer that those people supporting mean "prerequisite for entering the country and/or acquiring employment." I believe some amount of English ability is already required to become a citizen.

#1 has no context outside of #2-- which seems highly unworkable.

- the bulk of people who don't speak the language aren't here legally (I assume this)
- Keeping employers from hiring a segment of the workforce is an unnecessary intrusion into the free market.

I'm a pretty big advocate of living here = learn the languange ASAP, but I (like you) see no practical way to make a policy about that at all.

 

[Salazar]

Financial motive is valid for a conspiracy, no?

Possible: barely.
Plausible: fuck, no.

 

[BowieZ]

Possible: barely.
Plausible: fuck, no.

So what motivates genuine conspiracies (for the sake of the argument, let's presume that at least one conspiracy theory ever posited has been accurate)?

 

[Hitokage]

So what motivates genuine conspiracies (for the sake of the argument, let's presume that at least one conspiracy theory ever posited has been accurate)?

There's a difference between conspiracy theories and conspiracies, and it usually has to do with evidence and testability. Enron's rolling blackouts and Arthur Daniels Midland's price fixing were certainly financially motivated conspiracies.

 

[JoeBoy101]

You wouldn't agree that requiring immigrants to speak proficient English as a prerequisite to employment wouldn't be an isolationist policy? That's rather blind of you, JoeBoy.

You called it the worst, Pantherlotus. Seems a rather close-minded hyperbole to make.

And no, I don't think it's isolationist when we provided plenty of resources to help teach English and more and more businesses and organizations are providing multilingual services.

Now, how about you answer the question I asked in the first place instead of dodging it by patronizing me?

EDIT - Alright, so I saw you changed it to Xenophobia. But here's the problem Panther, you were talking about not emphasizing the learning/mastery of multiple languages is isolationism at its worst and helps keep dumb people dumb.

Last I checked, at least basic teaching of a second language is on almost every High Schools curriculum, and if this were Xenophobia wouldn't it involve not teaching any of this at all, including any cultural aspects of other societies(*Cough*)? but trying to prevent such learning. Further, how does only knowing English make someone dumb? Does that mean that those Hispanics who only know Spanish are dumb too, because they don't a second language?

If you want to argue that the pushing of policies of English only and making English an 'official' language are xenophobic. Fine, go ahead. I would agree, though not to the same vehemence you would. But that's not what I responded to and that's not what you were agreeing with and expounding on.

 

[mckmas8808]

Randy Moss was traded to one of the best teams of all time after quitting on one of the worst. His contract wasn't up to him--it got traded with him. If he signed to remain after that is beside the point. Remember, the Raiders actually took a 4th or 5th rounder to get him off of their roster. Definitely not a good example.

Regardless, your point is that there might be some players that would turn down the money to make a political point. I can accept that, if you can accept that most would still take the money because of extremely shortened window of opportunity to make their money. Either way, what was this tangent about? Does this make FOXNEWS more of a news organization? Doesn't look like it to me.

I can accept that Panther. We seem to agree now.

 

[BowieZ]

There's a difference between conspiracy theories and conspiracies, and it usually has to do with evidence and testability. Enron's rolling blackouts and Arthur Daniels Midland's price fixing were certainly financially motivated conspiracies.

You don't think if there were a financial motive behind false-flag 9/11 terrorist attacks, that somewhere in the world there'd be evidence for it? I'm still not understanding the distinction.

Yes, some conspiracies can be theorized based on assumptions, and other conspiracies suddenly appear out of the woodwork with nobody having really theorized about them.

What PantherLotus suggests though is a conspiracy THEORY, because the conspiracy hasn't suddenly become proven.

 

[zoku88]

You don't think if there were a financial motive behind false-flag 9/11 terrorist attacks, that somewhere in the world there'd be evidence for it? I'm still not understanding the distinction.

Yes, some conspiracies can be theorized based on assumptions, and other conspiracies suddenly appear out of the woodwork with nobody having really theorized about them.

What PantherLotus suggests though is a conspiracy THEORY, because the conspiracy hasn't suddenly become proven.

Well, yea. He was suggesting that there is a reason for a conspiracy, without suggesting that there was a conspiracy.

More like he's saying: "there's a reason to conspire" and not saying "they are conspiring for this reason."

The second one is a conspiracy theory while the first one doesn't really fit in to either category.

At least, that was what I was thinking Panther was saying. At least, in later posts.

But if he were serious, than yea, what he said would be a conspiracy theory.


But to your question, the difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy is that the former is the suggestion that the latter exists.

Ppl like to use "conspiracy theory" as an attack on ppl's arguments, however. Because most ppl think of crazy conspiracy theorists rather than the rational ones.

 

[BowieZ]

Well, yea. He was suggesting that there is a reason for a conspiracy, without suggesting that there was a conspiracy.

Well, PL said this:

The truth is that it's just another means of keeping dumb people dumb, and dumb people are easier to control.

So, you're saying, if I said 9/11 was just a means of keeping Halliburton/Dick Cheney/oil companies rich, purely expression the reason for a conspiracy, it wouldn't actually be a conspiracy theory?

 

[zoku88]

Well, PL said this:



So, you're saying, if I said 9/11 was just a means of keeping Halliburton/Dick Cheney/oil companies rich, purely expression the reason for a conspiracy, it wouldn't actually be a conspiracy theory?

It depends on if its known to be true or not.

If you shown that Cheney had some 9/11 plans drawn up, then you would just be stating a fact: that there was a conspiracy.

But without truth, then the suggestion itself is a conspiracy theory (theorizing that there is a conspiracy.)

I think my post eventually said something to this effect, but I had to edit it a couple of times... and didn't delete the questionable parts.

EDIT: You shouldn't really be decided on whether something is a conspiracy or a conspiracy theory, since that doesn't really make sense (it's like, units not matching up.) It should be a question of whether the statement is a fact or a theory, to begin with. Then you can worry about whether it is a fact of conspiracy or a theory of conspiracy.

 

[BowieZ]

It depends on if its known to be true or not.

If you shown that Cheney had some 9/11 plans drawn up, then you would just be stating a fact: that there was a conspiracy.

But without truth, then the suggestion itself is a conspiracy theory (theorizing that there is a conspiracy.)

But what is PL's "truth" in suggesting that somebody with a financial motive had some Board of Education plans drawn up that prevented "multiple language teachings [from being] presented until junior high more high school"?

EDIT: This must be an example of strawman, then! Can you explain how I'm misrepresenting his argument?

 

[zoku88]

But what is PL's "truth" in suggesting that somebody with a financial motive had some Board of Education plans drawn up that prevented "multiple language teachings [from being] presented until junior high more high school"?

I don't actually understand the question.

But what I think you're saying is "what if he has evidence?" Well, unless the evidence is sufficient to prove a conspiracy, what he is saying is not fact.

EDIT: Well, it can't be a strawman without you setting up some argument. And this conversation isn't really focused on his argument at all.

His argument merely being "there is reason for someone to conspire in this instance". Which isn't very hard, since... well.. it's almost self-evident.

 

[BowieZ]

I don't actually understand the question.

But what I think you're saying is "what if he has evidence?" Well, unless the evidence is sufficient to prove a conspiracy, what he is saying is not fact.

EDIT: Well, it can't be a strawman without you setting up some argument. And this conversation isn't really focused on his argument at all.

His argument merely being "there is reason for someone to conspire in this instance". Which isn't very hard, since... well.. it's almost self-evident.

You and your stealth edits!

No, I'm pretty sure he said, and I'm paraphrasing "in truth, the stifling of multilingualism is a means of controlling the populace [for financial gain, as later clarified]," in other words, that somewhere there are two or more people with a motivation to earn money by stifling multilingualism. If he didn't mean this, he wouldn't have confirmed it in the subsequent post by saying "Pretty much" when I questioned him on the conspiratorial element.

He didn't dispute that there WAS a conspiracy, he just disputed what motivation there was, which as has been said, was money.

 

[zoku88]

You and your stealth edits!

No, I'm pretty sure he said, and I'm paraphrasing "in truth, the stifling of multilingualism is a means of controlling the populace [for financial gain, as later clarified]," in other words, that somewhere there are two or more people with a motivation to earn money by stifling multilingualism. If he didn't mean this, he wouldn't have confirmed it in the subsequent post by saying "Pretty much" when I questioned him on the conspiratorial element.

He didn't dispute that there WAS a conspiracy, he just disputed what motivation there was, which as has been said, was money.

???

I'm confused. Are you saying that he believes that there was a conspiracy (cuz, I think his "pretty much" was affirming your belief that he didn't believe that there was) or are you saying that he believe that there is motivation for a conspiracy?.

Anyway, yes, the original statement is a conspiracy theory. The "truth" part is a irrelevant addition, since every statement made is assumed to be the truth unless otherwise stated (which he does later.)

If you're asking if the believe that there is motivation for a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory, then no, it is not.

Also, for the motivation part. He doesn't have to prove that people with those motivations actually exist.

EDIT: I actually take the last statement back. He has to show that some people would benefit or, at least, have a reason to believe that they would benefit.

 

[Cloudy]

Fox News' war on the WH from January 20 to date lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ

 

[Gui_PT]

Dear lord I HATE Fox News

That one video proves the White House is 100% correct when they say what they do about that "news channel"

 

[mckmas8808]

Fox News' war on the WH from January 20 to date lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ

:lol

And people want to protect this type of network coverage?

 

[TruHero]

Yes the majority of the time it is about the money. You are right.

Then we actually do agree.

 

[TruHero]

You would be correct however, the actual question behind this is whether or not Fox is a news organization, that question can be answered without going into politics.

Sure, the question can be answered without going into politics. I agree with that. However, such has not been the case in this thread and therefore validating PL's point.

 

[nib95]

Fox News' war on the WH from January 20 to date lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ

Wow, could legal action ever be considered? That is some ridiculous shit right there. Just further cements why Fox News and all of it's loyal followers are just joke worthy.

 

[CrazedArabMan]

Sure, the question can be answered without going into politics. I agree with that. However, such has not been the case in this thread and therefore validating PL's point.

Yes, but it is a generalization, some people are doing that while others are saying what they feel and just leaving trying to not get too political. So it is a few people but not all, then there are the people who care less and just don't post in either. I guess my main point is that you can post in here and say what you want, that doesn't mean that their points are invalid because they don't post in PoliGAF or express their views there.

 

[ViperVisor]

Wow, could legal action ever be considered? That is some ridiculous shit right there. Just further cements why Fox News and all of it's loyal followers are just joke worthy.

No. I read a relevant to this thing in GQ yesterday.
http://www.gq.com/magazine/toc/200911/index_20090916
Open Letter
Dear Glenn Beck, congrats on that lunatic cult of personality you've got going!

Sure, it's hard to imagine your cynical, ratings-driven exploitation of people's pain, fear, and bigotry not ending badly. But this is America, and the Constitution guarantees certain freedoms to everybody - even assclowns bent on turning the national conversation into a game of Whac-A-Mole. In other words, Glenn, we don't need a Freedom Tower. We have you.

Oh great, now we're crying,

 

[ALeperMessiah]

linky

Obama suggests Fox News is like 'talk radio'
By Eric Zimmermann - 10/22/09 10:08 AM ET

Fox News is "operating basically as talk radio," President Obama suggested in an interview airing today.

After weeks of public feuding between the cable news channel and the president's top aides, Obama seemed to agree with statements by his advisers that Fox is not a real "news station."

"I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes," Obama told NBC's Savannah Guthrie. "And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet that's another but it's not something I'm losing sleep over."

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod said this weekend that Fox is "not really a news station." That echoies similar comments made by White House Communications Director Anita Dunn and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

He's not losing sleep over them.....

He just can't shut up about them.

 

[D'ultimate]

Following White House communications director Anita Dunn's entirely justified criticisms of Fox News as an "arm" of the Republican Party, conservative media figures have attacked both Dunn and the Obama administration. But Media Matters for America has compiled a list of organized attacks that GOP leaders -- often aided by Fox News -- have conducted against media outlets based on groundless complaints of bias; those attacks have included boycotts or threatened boycotts of media outlets, efforts to revoke journalists' credentials or ban them from press planes, and even calls to have journalists prosecuted.

In 2001, DeLay reportedly boycotted CNN

In 2002, GOP leadership reportedly threatened or engaged in Crossfire boycott

In 2004, NY Times reporters were excluded from Air Force Two

In 2006, GOP House members sought punishment, possible prosecution of NY Times

In 2008, Bush counselor Gillespie attacked NBC

In 2008, McCain campaign repeatedly attacked press, banned or threatened to ban journalists from campaign plane and bus

In wake of Dunn comments, conservative media attack Dunn, White House

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210028

 

[pxleyes]

linky

He's not losing sleep over them.....

He just can't shut up about them.

he isn't wrong.

 

[ViperVisor]

He's not losing sleep over them.....

He just can't shut up about them.

 

[PantherLotus]

The conspiracy sub-thread going on is silly. I said that keeping people uninformed, misinformed, ignorant, or generally stupid (or allowing them to remain so) is beneficial in general for the powers that be. That does not mean there is a concerted effort in doing so, a conspiracy, that this is a conspiracy theory, or otherwise. It only means that there are powers in our nation that benefit from an uninformed electorate, not that anybody ever got into a room to hammer out a plan to keep people ignorant, only that the effort is presupposed in particular political circles, specifically Republicans (although Conservative Democrats and their Wall Street/Health Care buddies are just as guilty). This isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact.

FOXNEWS is at the heart of that. They distort the news with wild speculation, word twisting, and supposed "balanced" panels of ultra conservatives and regular conservatives. They have been implicit for at least 10 years in misinforming the public specifically to meet Republican agendas, using their "balanced" approach to beat the drums of unneccessary war, justify torture, de-legitimize the current President, and incite violence and riots against public officials. They are not a news organization and that is not up for debate. They are a 24-hour political operation, and our nation is worse off for it, not better.

 

[PantherLotus]

Also:

News doesn't require balance. Opinion requires balance.

One can argue that bias cannot be removed from the reporter, and that is probably true. However, FOXNEWS is hardly doing fact-based reporting, with or without the bias. They're doing panel-based interviews on a nugget of mistruth and using those panels to pretend a balance that wasn't needed in the first place.

 

[I <3 Memes]

Fox News' war on the WH from January 20 to date lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ

This video matches perfectly with the post I was going to make.

If MSNBC, CNN, and all the other "liberal media" are as bad as FOX news, as some people claim, then I'm sure people on the right will have no problem finding more examples of Bush being called a fascist or a dictator or any similar smears then we have seen directed at Obama. After all we are putting 8 years of Bush, and the entirety of the "liberal media", against just a few months of FOX news on Obama so it should be no contest right? What do you think Republicans? How do you think that will turn out?


And anybody who thinks what is happening today is anyway comparable to politics in the past is either very young and uninformed, or very naive. The behavior of the left in this country during the terms of Reagen and H.W. Bush, and then G.W. Bush in no way compared to the childish rants of the right during Clinton and Obama.

Unfortunately this goes far beyond childish rants and goes straight into fear and conspiracy driven hate. It was really bad during Clinton. I guess Joeboy wasn't paying attention when a guy strafed the Whitehouse with an assault rifle and had to be tackled by tourist when he reloaded or when a guy tried to hit the Whitehouse with a cesna during Clintons term. There were many more attempts to kill Clinton than there were to kill the last 3 Republican presidents combined. It seemed like you heard once a month about some new nut with a plan to kill Clinton getting arrested.

The right in this country has gone with this gameplan since the early 80's. If Democrats have power they are going to kill you. They are going to take your guns. They are going to take your freedom. They are going to turn the country into a communist country. They are going to turn America into a police state.

When Clinton was in office it was the mantra of "Clinton, Janet Reno, and their jack booted thugs" are coming for you. Over and over and the Republican party never stopped with that shit. Memberships in militias was at an all time high and eventually it led to the Oklahoma City bombing. They wont accept responsibility for it but it was their fault.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

That was a not very well known quote from Jefferson before the Oklahoma City bombing. When they arrested Timothy McVeigh it was on his shirt. Now you see it on signs at rally's across this country. Disgusting.

Unfortunately everything that I saw from the right in America during Clintons term has now been amplified under Obama. What I'm hearing today is so much worse, so much more poisonous, so much more vile then anything I ever heard during Clinton. It's feels like the rights behavior under Clinton x 100.

I wonder how it will turn out this time?

 

[mckmas8808]

linky




He's not losing sleep over them.....

He just can't shut up about them.

It's his right to keep talking about them. So how cares?

 

[DarienA]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

That was a not very well known quote from Jefferson before the Oklahoma City bombing.

Of course its very well known... it was used in XXX:State of the Union and lots of ppl saw that... err maybe not.

 

[TruHero]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

That was a not very well known quote from Jefferson before the Oklahoma City bombing. When they arrested Timothy McVeigh it was on his shirt. Now you see it on signs at rally's across this country. Disgusting.

UNARMED....THIS TIME

And conservatives libetarians wonder why some people are against guns. Not me, however. I've owned a Glock .40 for 6yrs now.

 

[PantherLotus]

It's his right to keep talking about them. So how cares?

More importantly, he's being directly asked about them. If he avoided the question they would paint it as some wild and inflammatory "THE WHITEHOUSE IS DIVIDED. WHAT'S NEXT? MILITARY COUP?"

Speaking of which, FOXNEWS really is pressing on that General McChrystal/President Obama Afghanistan troop support debate, aren't they? And today Cheney comes out and says that the President has to stop "dithering."

 

[140.85]

I'm convinced Obama hates himself at this point. Not sure what else could explain such consistent self-destructive and self-sabotaging behavior.