Is Fox News evil or stupid?

[-Carlos-]

Stewart, which national news station, in your view, is balanced? This I have to hear.

__

 

[chiangmaifalcon]

People from other countries populated America to have better lives for themselves and their families. Once they came to US they became Americans and then they were no longer the other countries of which I was referring.

 

[-Carlos-]

Maybe we should all conform to the Ayn Rand mentally. :lol:

[youtube]7ukJiBZ8_4k&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]pMTDaVpBPR0&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]zEruXzQZhNI&feature=related[/youtube]

__

 

[beer good]

Maybe we should all conform to the Ayn Rand mentally. :lol:

What - dead and decaying?

 

[Zolipara]

Five Ayn Rand fans on a train:

 

[Stewart]

Stewart, which national news station, in your view, is balanced?

BBC News 24. The BBC has a strict non-partisan obligation, so it can swing neither one way or another politcally, and therefore maintains neutrality. If we want the news, that's the way it should be delivered, and not with some political motive attached highlighting or suppressing pertinent details in order to make things more controversial to a person wanting something to conform to their worldview.

Fox News is not balanced because, aside from leaning to the right (without falling over, amazingly), it has commercial interests. Commercial interests, regardless of which way they swing, will hazard neutrality.

This I have to hear.

Now, you see, this is your problem. That is blatant and unnecessary sneering. It shows you are uninterested in what other people have to say or what they think. Of course, we all knew this already, because of your track record.

 

[chiangmaifalcon]

I cannot believe anyone would say BBC is not biased. I know British people who do not listen to it because it is so far to left. I was in Thailand during Bangkok demonstrations and BBC announcer would just make up stuff. Bangkok police chief said there were about 30,000 people in neighborhood of protest, but only 2-3,000 people actively protesting. One minute later, BBC anchorman, the old guy who is always out of breath, and who heard same report from chief, yells in an excited way, "30,00 redshirts are protesting against the government in Bangkok." Also, as far as being slanted, this poll is slanted. If not it would just say is Fox news stupid. Not derp derp, whatever that is, and Obama is CIA or Muslim, or whatever? I do not know if Obama is Muslim, but perhaps he is CIA, as both of them are incompetent.

 

[Polly Parrot]

I've asked Peder before and will ask you too: did you watch the video? If not, kindly refrain from commenting on how the poll is phrased. Thank you.

 

[Stewart]

I know British people who do not listen to it because it is so far to left.

Who are they, the Mosleys? There's a vast difference between British left/right and US left/right, in that the British central ground is probably nearer where the US left begins.

 

[Peder]

I've asked Peder before and will ask you too: did you watch the video? If not, kindly refrain from commenting on how the poll is phrased. Thank you.

Since when?

You are a pretty presumptuous person to suggest whether or not people are entitled to comment on anything they choose to on an open forum.

Are you a moderator? Yet? Or only a wannabe?

Your dogging my tracks and nipping at my heels wherever I go is getting tiresome.

 

[Polly Parrot]

Since when?

You are a pretty presumptuous person to suggest whether or not people are entitled to comment on anything they choose to on an open forum.

Are you a moderator? Yet? Or only a wannabe?

Your dogging my tracks and nipping at my heels wherever I go is getting tiresome.

Simply because it's getting rather tiresome to have people respond about things they haven't read or watched properly.

Nope, just expressing my annoyance as politely as I could muster myself to be.

You're not worth stalking, dear.

 

[Peder]

Peder you continue to drag religion into the matter even though it has nothing to do with what's being discussed on this thread. In my opinion any theme, even religion, can and should be discussed provided it is done in a civilized manner. Don't you agree?

And one person calling another an idiot hardly qualifies as raucous name-calling to me, but maybe that's just me.

Religion was one of the three ennumerated topics for discusssion in Mature Discussion as I recall. So I mention it while mention one of the other ennumerated topics.

As for always dragging in religion, I don't think so. It is true that I am the one person here who remarks on antireligious comments from time to time. I hope that is not too much for the atheist ears here.

I agree that any topic can be discussed in a civilized manner. When and whetehr it happens, however, seems to depend somewhat on the topic. Which was why I thought admission to the Mature Discussion forum required approval of a moderator, to assure the people were capable of civilized discussion.

As to what constitutes namecalling, raucous or otherwise, that is obviously set by the moderators, especially by their examples.

Any member calling another an idiot seems to me to be outside your guidelines the last time I looked at them, but you seem to disagree. So the level of discussion, as always, will decend to the level the moderators are comfortable with, guidelines or no.

But I do think I am allowed to remark upon comments outside the guidelines -- especially if they are offensive to me -- am I not? At least one moderator seems to think I am not. What about you?

 

[Libra]

but what has any other country, except UK, ever done for America? It is still the greatest country in the world, and in fact Thai people think so too.

Along with Stewart's answer,I will add: Made it rich by cheap labor.Buying things for 1 cent from other countries and selling it in the US for 50 dollars.
The American Dream.



Anybody can give their opinion on any topic.Even a moderator can't tell a member to refrain if they are stating an opinion or point of view in a civil matter.

Could the name calling stop and the discussion continue?

 

[Peder]

Of course I don't. As you know. :flowers: :flowers: I just don't think that one single instance of name-calling (well, two or three if you include Aquablue's comments earlier) should be enough to exile any discussion. That would make it far too easy to sabotage intelligent discussion and derail it all into a long and pointless discussion of tone rather than content.

Beer Good, It seems to me that hypothetical sabotage is a needless worry. Witting moderators would presumably exercise their power to moderate, to prevent such perversion of open discussion from taking place. And wouldn't their method be to prevent name-calling in the first place? Or at least admonish it. Rather than to automatically exile the discussion in question? That would make more sense to me.

 

[sparkchaser]

The whole point of the thread was to watch the video, have a laugh, and vote. Of course, one is welcome to participate in the thread without watching the video but then any participation in relation to the thread topic is done in ignorance.

 

[sparkchaser]

Beer Good, It seems to me that hypothetical sabotage is a needless worry. Witting moderators would presumably exercise their power to moderate, to prevent such perversion of open discussion from taking place. And wouldn't their method be to prevent name-calling in the first place? Or at least admonish it. Rather than to automatically exile the discussion in question? That would make more sense to me.

Moderators don't have crystal balls and can't prevent name calling.

The offending post was removed.

Can we now move on and comment about the video?

 

[Peder]

Simply because it's getting rather tiresome to have people respond about things they haven't read or watched properly.
Nope, just expressing my annoyance as politely as I could muster myself to be.

You're not worth stalking, dear.

It happens all the time, Polly, (and i won't reciprocate and call you "dearie").

But ooooo I love that word "properly" in an open discussion. Open means open, not proper.

And referring to me or anyone condescendingly as "dear" is an automatic signal that your politeness could use improving, even though you are already trying as hard as you can. Please be advised I am not your dear and comport yourself accordingly.

As to not worth it, that is your opinion -- which you apparently feel to be a polite remark. I'm tired of your politeness.

 

[Peder]

Moderators don't have crystal balls and can't prevent name calling.

The offending post was removed.

Can we now move on and comment about the video?

Yes, Sparky. Trying to move on. I hope you can enlist others.

 

[sparkchaser]

Yes, Sparky. Trying to move on. I hope you can enlist others.

Who has watched the video?

 

[Landslide]

Religion was one of the three ennumerated topics for discusssion in Mature Discussion as I recall. So I mention it while mention one of the other ennumerated topics.

Ok, but this particular thread is about a news channel, right? And whilst it's fairly obvious there are politics involved, I still don't see why that's become the central point of this thread.

As for always dragging in religion, I don't think so. It is true that I am the one person here who remarks on antireligious comments from time to time. I hope that is not too much for the atheist ears here.

Not at all. And yes, you seem to be the only one who remarks on "antireligious" comments even though there are other religious people on the forum. The only explanation I can see for this is that you lack sense of humour when it comes to religion. No one else seems to be offended...

I agree that any topic can be discussed in a civilized manner. When and whetehr it happens, however, seems to depend somewhat on the topic. Which was why I thought admission to the Mature Discussion forum required approval of a moderator, to assure the people were capable of civilized discussion.

As to what constitutes namecalling, raucous or otherwise, that is obviously set by the moderators, especially by their examples.

Any member calling another an idiot seems to me to be outside your guidelines the last time I looked at them, but you seem to disagree. So the level of discussion, as always, will decend to the level the moderators are comfortable with, guidelines or no.

Not at all, which is why I deleted that same post.

But I do think I am allowed to remark upon comments outside the guidelines -- especially if they are offensive to me -- am I not? At least one moderator seems to think I am not. What about you?

Of course you are. But I do think you should try to keep it one offense at a time and not keep carrying so much resentments, that cannot be good for you.