KnivesOut? Since KnivesOut only had one word (promote) in his comment, I suppose you mean someone else, and since I used the dreaded f-word once in my comment, is my comment the "profane rant" to which you refer? Oh well... I would perhaps agree that it was snarky and in a mocking and sarcastic tone, and perhaps not very polite, but "Profane rant"? Hardly.

Anyway, I think you misunderstood the "why do you want us to burn in hell" question that the hosts in the video asked Mark, they werent complaining that he disagreed with them or that he didn't like their opinions, they are atheists, thats what you would expect from any believer. What they did was to ask an honest question: WHY? it wasnt a pleading whimpering "ooh please dont attack our precious,frail belief/disbelief!" Quite the contrary, they wanted him to elaborate and explain why.

Like them, I am not frightened or threatened in any way by the expression of beliefs contrary to my own, in fact I welcome it. But If I found them to be faulty in their reasoning. Like your rather arrogant claim that Mark, surely a dedicated Christian if there ever was one, had no idea what "true faith" was, and that you could tell us. If its all faith anyway, how is Mark, or anyone else supposed to know the difference? Its all based on arbitrary interpretations of mistranslated text, and a good chunk of wishful thinking. Your true faith is probably blasphemy to mark, who knows?

And deciding which one of you is right , is like using a third chicken to see which of the two first were kicking in the right direction.


Lastly, Please dont make the false comparison suggesting MSNBC is the "FOX news of the left". Its not. Its biased as hell, but its nothing like fox. It doesnt pretend to be balanced, it doesnt systematically lie and distort and its hosts are not insane conspiracy nuts. Compared to FOX, MSNBC is actually fair and balanced.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

KnivesOut - profane rants accomplish nothing in these kinds of discussions. Perhaps your passions run high and you feel your beliefs are 'under assault' merely because I presented a different perspective. But is not the argument of these atheists a condemnation of such broad-brushed insult/attack screeds? Is not their initial point, "Hey - why are you thinking bad things about us just because we believe something you don't?" I happen to agree with that.
So then, is it not innately hypocritical to claim immunity from such attacks but to then turn around and attack someone because they believe something you don't? If you agree with that message, then should you not practice it? Isn't that what atheists are always complaining about in regards to religious followers - that they don't practice what they preach? Why should we take any atheist seriously if they complain about Christians telling him he's 'going to hell', but then calls Christians a bunch of monsters?
It is the presentation of these intolerant positions that bugs me on both sides. Looking at the religious world, there is clearly a continuum of people who range from the truly admirable to the wicked scoundrel. That isn't God's fault. Likewise, in the "atheist world" there are people who are truly admirable and people who are wicked scoundrels. That isn't the Universe's fault. People are people, and in any population you are going to have both ends of the spectrum represented by respectively sized proportions.
It intellectually dishonest to get all "FOX News" or "MSNBC" and use the extremes to condemn the whole. There's some great things about religious faith. They do a lot of good things, and help a lot of people. And no - not all religious help "holds your sandwich hostage"; much of it is completely gratis. To throw the baby out with the bath water does not encourage people to take the atheist position seriously any more so than a Christian who says they love their neighbor while telling them they're going to hell. Both stand equally guilty in my view of rank hypocrisy.

In other news, FOX News will be changing it's motto from "Fair and Balanced" to "It's an honest mistake"

Our producers figured each statement was equally true.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Dan's rage is misplaced I would guess...though he is much closer to the issue than I, so I don't blame him.

How is it misplaced? The GOP is saying one thing and doing another, so it's full of shit and should be called on it like Dan is doing.


So she has to dance the GOP dance because of who her daddy is, sounds fair and balanced.

I think it upsets people to be reminded that Fox News is unabashedly politically biased while repeating the 'Fair and Balanced' trademark. On the other hand, if the next joke was at Boehner's expense...
>> ^ipfreely:

Why get yourself all workup about it? Think about what you are getting upset about.
That is why you liberals are so easy to rile up... This is exactly what Fox wants you to feel... They want to piss you off and get you upset. They are laughing at you for getting so upset.
Ignore it.

so you admit you're biased

All humans are biased. The way that I know that I'm not biased in a BAD way is that I always give credit where credit is due. I am able to recognize and acknoweldge fairness and balance where it exists. For example...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

I'm no fan of Stewart as a general rule of thumb. But of all the people commenting about the horrible events last week, he is about the only one who I give any degree of respect. His comments in this vid are some of the ONLY ones where the speaker didn't condemn 'angry rhetoric' out of one side of the mouth, while spewing MORE angry rhetoric out the other side. That's what makes all these pundits, sherriffs, and politicians so loathsome - their sheer, naked hypocrisy.

I'm a fair-minded guy. So when someone on the right says or does something stupid, then I'm more than willing to say it was stupid. This is very different from a guy like Bill Maher. Maher routinely and regularly spews hateful rhetoric. And yet he had the gall and audacity to say that hateful rhetoric "only comes from the right" on Cooper's show yesterday. He refuses to see in himself the very demon that he sees so easily and instantly in others.

Sadly, many of you seem to be caught up in a similar degree of wilfull blindness. The left-wing is literally frothing over with rage, anger, foul rhetoric, threats, violent imagry, as well as actual acts of physical assault by left-wing nutballs. Yet many of you refuse to admit the anger exists, or you try to wave it away, or act like it is insignicant, or it is 'just a joke', or it is perfectly OK as long as it is about 'THAT' guy, or any number of utterly lame excuses. That's how I know you're biased in a BAD way compared to guys like me.

I'll give you a chance - right now - to prove you aren't a hopeless prisoner of your bias...

1. As a major political figure, Sarah Palin saying, "Don't retreat; Reload" is...
(A) Using inappropriate, provocative, & hostile rhetoric
(B) Using strong, but acceptable political speech
(C) Using normal campaign language to make a point

2. As a major political figure, Barak Obama saying, "They bring a knife; we bring a gun" is...
(A) Using inappropriate, provocative, & hostile rhetoric
(B) Using strong, but acceptable political speech
(C) Using normal campaign language to make a point

If your answers were 1. A and 2. C OR if they were 1. C and 2. A ... then you are hopelessly biased in a bad way. If your answers were BC to both - then you're OK. If you wholeheartedly believe Sarah Palin is a horrible hatemonger because her website uses crosshairs, but you couldn't care less the DLC uses bullseyes - then there really is no hope for you.

Sorry I am just now respondinng---I saw your reply buried in my "thousand emails" and I reply to all logical, respectful responders.

Well said btw. I see your points. I think corrupt actions has less to do with acountability than both sides upping the ante. The protestors want to be heard, so they yell louder. Some push the buttons--and law enforcement must respond. Law enforcement must be one echleon above the protestors, or else they lose all power (It is a seesaw effect.)

And so protestors respond in kind. Even the peaceful protests are affected by the bad apples. Then you have the "smart asses" who demean real authority...

Not only that, but when threatened with "stop protestors" or "lose job and family starve" I think most would chose the political route... So, the liabilty falls more on the city, county, state, nation leaders than cops.

sadly, both sides, to me, have lost the high ground. And that includes the side of the law... Sorry for spelling poorly, I am drunk. And thank you again.

>> ^Deano:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Deano:
You gotta love the cops. Do they have some sort of worldwide conference each year where they all get together and discuss how to be complete arseholes?

If most were, I would say yes. But since most do not act like assholes, then no. However, the douche cops, rare as they may be, those who plan on ruining it for the good guys, certainly do watch each other and learn.

That's very fair and balanced of you but in my experience as someone who's been on a couple of (very anodyne) protests and based on what we've seen in the last few years, there is clearly a collective mentality of thuggery embedded in the Met Police in the UK that rises to the surface on these occasions.
I bet in this case those coppers would ordinarily consider themselves great guys. But put them in this situation and they're quick to bare their teeth. It literally becomes an "us or them" situation and they stop policing. They start making stupid decisions. They'd rather kettle people (which is undoubtedly dangerous and now subject to legal challenges) or just whack people like Ian Tomlinson. And why not? There's no one to stop them. And again there were examples of the cops not wearing their numbers - AGAIN - and after the Police Commissioner had said post-G20 that this was NOT acceptable.
There have been so many examples of Police brutality documented over the last few years, not even counting the demonstrations, that I have to conclude there's a systemic problem and not just a case of a few bad eggs turning up each time. And the main reason for this is that the lack of accountability makes it easy, and tempting, to step out of line. You're unlikely to face charges so why not? And you can always claim it was in the heat of battle and thus you shouldn't have to face any comeback at all.
Oh and the latest development is that they want to use water cannon on protestors. Which will of course also include members of the public swept up in these confrontations. I think that when you need to use water cannons you can conclude that your society is a bit fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

If you hate propaganda, don't watch any news. Don't listen to anyone who has a belief. They ALL shape what they say. Al Jazzera is anti-american, it's just plain obvious. This video is proof. Look at the "fair and balanced" list of guests he has. He's pushing the idea that the american military controls hollywood. He doesn't allow for anything other than his view. That's propaganda. Just because Al Jazzera has the opposite view of Fox News doesn't make them any better.

maybe cute.
what isn't cute is that "those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it" to believe things that are demonstrably untrue.

So much for "fair and balanced."


>> ^KnivesOut:

I just think its cute that Fox thinks its news.
Adorable.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Deano:
You gotta love the cops. Do they have some sort of worldwide conference each year where they all get together and discuss how to be complete arseholes?

If most were, I would say yes. But since most do not act like assholes, then no. However, the douche cops, rare as they may be, those who plan on ruining it for the good guys, certainly do watch each other and learn.


That's very fair and balanced of you but in my experience as someone who's been on a couple of (very anodyne) protests and based on what we've seen in the last few years, there is clearly a collective mentality of thuggery embedded in the Met Police in the UK that rises to the surface on these occasions.

I bet in this case those coppers would ordinarily consider themselves great guys. But put them in this situation and they're quick to bare their teeth. It literally becomes an "us or them" situation and they stop policing. They start making stupid decisions. They'd rather kettle people (which is undoubtedly dangerous and now subject to legal challenges) or just whack people like Ian Tomlinson. And why not? There's no one to stop them. And again there were examples of the cops not wearing their numbers - AGAIN - and after the Police Commissioner had said post-G20 that this was NOT acceptable.

There have been so many examples of Police brutality documented over the last few years, not even counting the demonstrations, that I have to conclude there's a systemic problem and not just a case of a few bad eggs turning up each time. And the main reason for this is that the lack of accountability makes it easy, and tempting, to step out of line. You're unlikely to face charges so why not? And you can always claim it was in the heat of battle and thus you shouldn't have to face any comeback at all.

Oh and the latest development is that they want to use water cannon on protestors. Which will of course also include members of the public swept up in these confrontations. I think that when you need to use water cannons you can conclude that your society is a bit fucked up.

Are any of us still under the impression that fox news is "fair and balanced"? I know they still say that; but it's a joke. No, it is literally their joke. They don't believe it, their audience doesn't believe it, no one does. The idea that any of their reporting is impartial or unbiased has been disproven continuously for the last decade. We can easily keep doing it, but it's stopped being an interesting observation.

Oh sure...all that time spent trying to justify the assault on the victim...that's certainly fair and balanced. In precisely the same sense that everything else you see on Fox News is fair and balanced.

Delicately and responsibly handled again by Fox. Coulda used a few more sexy shots, but otherwise Fair and Balanced.

I love the speech at the end about America no longer torturing people with the big scary "OBAMA TORTURES AMERICAN SOLDIERS" written in blood letters on the screen. Where can I find more of this fair and balanced coverage?

>> ^Psychologic:

Republicans didn't do anything wrong here. Why should they refuse donations?
Newscorp is also free to donate money to whoever they want, but it is a bit funny that they own a major political "news" channel which tends to go easy on the same political party their parent company is donating money to, all while operating under the banner of being "Fair and Balanced".
There's no major revelation here, but it does make Fox's claims of neutrality ever so slightly more humorous.

What are you talking about? The parent companies of NBC, CBS and ABC all do the same thing. The only difference is they're happily lying to your face about it.

Republicans didn't do anything wrong here. Why should they refuse donations?

Newscorp is also free to donate money to whoever they want, but it is a bit funny that they own a major political "news" channel which tends to go easy on the same political party their parent company is donating money to, all while operating under the banner of being "Fair and Balanced".

There's no major revelation here, but it does make Fox's claims of neutrality ever so slightly more humorous.