NationStates Jolt Archive

One thing apologists for Fox News like to try to argue when others point out the bias of the network is that the most egregious offenders are commentators--Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and John Gibson are generally at the top of this list. Brit Hume flits about in this gray zone between anchor and commentary, so sometimes it's hard to see which hat he wears.

But today, it was a full-on anchor (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/kennedy-fox-hostile-enemy/) doing it, one of those people who are just supposed to be doing the news, no bias, no opinion, none of that stuff. And what happens?
GRETCHEN CARLSON: You talk about the hostile enemy, obviously being Iraq, but hostile enemies right here on the home front. Yesterday Senator Ted Kennedy, proposing that any kind of a troop surge should mean there should be congressional approval of that. A lot of democrats not coming to his side on this. But obviously this is not going to be an easy sell on Capitol Hill, even if it’s not an easy sell to the American Public.

BARTLETT: We don’t view Ted Kennedy as hostile enemy but we do view him to be an open and often critic of the war. He has been from the outset. I don’t think that’s anything new.
Wonder what today's memo to the news folks said that brought this on?

Dear Leader is making his Surge Speech tonight, Nazz, and the folks at Fox are just preparing the way for him.

I can't believe people still think fox is neutral. I guess whatever opinion is in agreement is the center for some people.

Dear Leader is making his Surge Speech tonight, Nazz, and the folks at Fox are just preparing the way for him.

Whenever I hear surge used in that way, I flash on the Beverly Hills Cop movies and that character played by Bronson Pinchot. I'd much rather deal with that Serge than this one.

Is it a bad sign that I can't get angry anymore? That I just think, "Well, duh." Have I gone dead inside? Have they finally just beaten me into a state of impotence?

Is it a bad sign that I can't get angry anymore? That I just think, "Well, duh." Have I gone dead inside? Have they finally just beaten me into a state of impotence?

Maybe its Zen. Oh and whats a Surge Speech?

One thing apologists for Fox News like to try to argue when others point out the bias of the network is that the most egregious offenders are commentators--Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and John Gibson are generally at the top of this list. Brit Hume flits about in this gray zone between anchor and commentary, so sometimes it's hard to see which hat he wears.

But today, it was a full-on anchor (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/kennedy-fox-hostile-enemy/) doing it, one of those people who are just supposed to be doing the news, no bias, no opinion, none of that stuff. And what happens?

Wonder what today's memo to the news folks said that brought this on?
Well maybe her choice of words was bad, but Teddy is anything but a friend of the Administration.

This may be the first real instance of bias that I've ever seen reported against a Fox News, not Opinion, program. Congratulations, you've found one of those boogey men that you are always looking for!

Whenever I hear surge used in that way, I flash on the Beverly Hills Cop movies and that character played by Bronson Pinchot. I'd much rather deal with that Serge than this one.
Ah, Serge, I haven't thought of him in ages. Actually, I almost always find little prurient thoughts flashing through my mind when I hear the word.

Is it a bad sign that I can't get angry anymore? That I just think, "Well, duh." Have I gone dead inside? Have they finally just beaten me into a state of impotence?
Yes, but that's they way They work, they just keep at you and keep at you until you finally give up. Go stick a finger in an electric outlet while repeating, "George Bush is President" over and over. You need to re-establish the connection between that man in the White House and physical pain.

Well maybe her choice of words was bad, but Teddy is anything but a friend of the Administration.

This may be the first real instance of bias that I've ever seen reported against a Fox News, not Opinion, program. Congratulations, you've found one of those boogey men that you are always looking for!

Not being a friend of the administration makes him a "hostile enemy"? Please.

Maybe its Zen. Oh and whats a Surge Speech?

the surge speech is where president Bush will make his proposal to increase the number of troops in Iraq, apparently a major theme of the speech will be sacrifice.

Is it a bad sign that I can't get angry anymore? That I just think, "Well, duh." Have I gone dead inside? Have they finally just beaten me into a state of impotence?

I look at it as a good sign--they're not even trying to play it straight anymore. They'll have all the credibility of al Jazeerah at this rate.

Not being a friend of the administration makes him a "hostile enemy"? Please.

That would make what, 70+ percent of the entire population "hostile enemies"?

Well maybe her choice of words was bad, but Teddy is anything but a friend of the Administration.

This may be the first real instance of bias that I've ever seen reported against a Fox News, not Opinion, program. Congratulations, you've found one of those boogey men that you are always looking for!
It's far from the first time it's happened, but it's usually a bit subtler than this.

At least fox news balances the far left media, we dont need the Communist News Network. CNN is the same program that showed terriorist propoganda and tried to jusitfy its reason for playing it. The left wing media loves Clinton as well as Carter. What has carter done anyways? People are upset that the fact that FOX news does not manipulate the facts in order to get thier point across. Talk about bias, the airwaves need fox in order to balance the extreme left wing media

At least fox news balances the far left media, we dont need the Communist News Network. CNN is the same program that showed terriorist propoganda and tried to jusitfy its reason for playing it. The left wing media loves Clinton as well as Carter. What has carter done anyways? People are upset that the fact that FOX news does not manipulate the facts in order to get thier point across. Talk about bias, the airwaves need fox in order to balance the extreme left wing media

Somehow your name makes your assertion even less plausible than it would normally be. How the fuck is an inherently capitalistic organization communist?

At least fox news balances the far left media, we dont need the Communist News Network. CNN is the same program that showed terriorist propoganda and tried to jusitfy its reason for playing it. The left wing media loves Clinton as well as Carter. What has carter done anyways? People are upset that the fact that FOX news does not manipulate the facts in order to get thier point across. Talk about bias, the airwaves need fox in order to balance the extreme left wing media

Can I tell you how happy it makes me to be on the opposite side of an issue from a person who chose KKK-Blacks as a nation-name? Do me a favor--never agree with me on anything, okay? ;)

Ted Kennedy is a hostile enemy of America right here at home? WOw, good thing the Fox news reporter broke this story before he did any real damage to our infrastructure or even invaded capitol hill with his democratic army of America haters.

oh here are some more examples if right-wing bias from Fox "news": http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

just ignore the Bill O'Rielly one and focus on the others.

Not being a friend of the administration makes him a "hostile enemy"? Please.
I did say her choice of words was bad. Bad for a reporter, but not for me. Teddy Kennedy is a hostile enemy of the American people. He has continually stood in the way of judicial appointments, lied to us on the Senate floor, and been a hindrance to any progress that doesn't directly benefit his ward-healer style politics in Massachusetts.

At least fox news balances the far left media, we dont need the Communist News Network. CNN is the same program that showed terriorist propoganda and tried to jusitfy its reason for playing it. The left wing media loves Clinton as well as Carter. What has carter done anyways? People are upset that the fact that FOX news does not manipulate the facts in order to get thier point across. Talk about bias, the airwaves need fox in order to balance the extreme left wing media

Pray tell, what exactly is this left-wing media you speak of? I've never seen it, nor has anyone I know.

One thing apologists for Fox News like to try to argue when others point out the bias of the network is that the most egregious offenders are commentators--Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and John Gibson are generally at the top of this list. Brit Hume flits about in this gray zone between anchor and commentary, so sometimes it's hard to see which hat he wears.

But today, it was a full-on anchor (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/kennedy-fox-hostile-enemy/) doing it, one of those people who are just supposed to be doing the news, no bias, no opinion, none of that stuff. And what happens?

Wonder what today's memo to the news folks said that brought this on?

Why do you hate America?

Why do you want America to lose the war?
Why do you think McDonald's hamburgers taste like masking tape?

People are upset that the fact that FOX news does not manipulate the facts in order to get thier point across.

Yes, I'm furious at Fox for not lying to me enough.


:rolleyes:

At least fox news balances the far left media, we dont need the Communist News Network. CNN is the same program that showed terriorist propoganda and tried to jusitfy its reason for playing it. The left wing media loves Clinton as well as Carter. What has carter done anyways? People are upset that the fact that FOX news does not manipulate the facts in order to get thier point across. Talk about bias, the airwaves need fox in order to balance the extreme left wing media
This post is both confusing and stupid, much like your name.

CNN is a very much right-wing news channel, and has no love whatsover for communism, or indeed anything left of centre.

FOX News doesn't need to manipulate facts to get their point across, you're right - they actually just skirt over them utterly, and try to mock them if at all possible.

And believe me - there is no extreme left media in the US. There's nothing even left of centre. There's not even any extreme left media in the EU ffs.

Pray tell, what exactly is this left-wing media you speak of? I've never seen it, nor has anyone I know.

Bill Moyers, on PBS, is certainly one example. Dan Rather, late of CBS, would be another. Then there is the New York Times and Jason Blair.

Of the three, Moyers still tries to slant real news, as opposed to making it up.

I did say her choice of words was bad. Bad for a reporter, but not for me. Teddy Kennedy is a hostile enemy of the American people. He has continually stood in the way of judicial appointments, lied to us on the Senate floor, and been a hindrance to any progress that doesn't directly benefit his ward-healer style politics in Massachusetts.

Wow. I bet you use the word 'patriot' several times a day....

Bill Moyers, on PBS, is certainly one example. Dan Rather, late of CBS, would be another. Then there is the New York Times and Jason Blair.

Of the three, Moyers still tries to slant real news, as opposed to making it up.

Dan Rather is left wing? Do you even know what left wing means?

I did say her choice of words was bad. Bad for a reporter, but not for me. Teddy Kennedy is a hostile enemy of the American people. He has continually stood in the way of judicial appointments, lied to us on the Senate floor, and been a hindrance to any progress that doesn't directly benefit his ward-healer style politics in Massachusetts.

So he's a politician, big deal. The Republicans in Congress blocked just as many judicial appointments during the Clinton Administration, Bush has lied from the White House, and from my point of view has not only been a hindrance to progress in this country but has set us back, damaged and divided the country to an extent not seen since the dark days of the Vietnam War.

I did say her choice of words was bad. Bad for a reporter, but not for me. Teddy Kennedy is a hostile enemy of the American people. He has continually stood in the way of judicial appointments,

You mean he only cast a vote for people he thought worthy of being voted for? You mean...his job?


lied to us on the Senate floor,

Source?

and been a hindrance to any progress that doesn't directly benefit his ward-healer style politics in Massachusetts.

So he acted in a mannor consistant with the political philosophy that the majority of voters in his district voted for? You mean....his job? And considering the people of massachussets keep electing him term after term after term in OVERWHELMING numbers, it suggests that they are quite happy with him. And at the end of the day he works for the people of massachussets, not for you, or for Washington, or texas, or New York or George W. Bush.

His job isn't to do what YOU think is best. His job is to do what the people of Massachussets think is best, and considering his popularity, I'd say he's doing his job just fine.

Your basic summary is "he's a traitor to america because he keeps doing what he was....elected to do"

hmmm a surge in troop strength...

i think its time for all the bush1 grandchildren to enlist and go to iraq. the twins, the little brown ones, there seem to be about 17 who could be sacrificed to this vital national effort.

the surge speech is where president Bush will make his proposal to increase the number of troops in Iraq, apparently a major theme of the speech will be sacrifice.

I am curious, what sacrifice has George W. Bush made in this war?

*snip*
Your basic summary is "he's a traitor to america because he keeps doing what he was....elected to do"

It's more like that and he had the temerity to disagree with Dear Leader publically, and to threaten the President of the United States with Congressional action that might prevent the President of the United States from carrying out his plans.

I am curious, what sacrifice has George W. Bush made in this war?

He sacrificed the popularity of the Republicans. I guess I should praise him for that one eh? :D :p

It's more like that and he had the temerity to disagree with Dear Leader publically, and to threaten the President of the United States with Congressional action that might prevent the President of the United States from carrying out his plans.

I agree. How dare he, a congressmen, act like he has some authority here? What does he think anyway, like he's part of an institution that's supposed to balance the power of the president and check his authority?

Honestly, does this traitorous scum believe that the founders didn't want the president to do whatever he wanted and instead intended for the powers of the government to be somehow seperated?

Stupid bastard.

I am curious, what sacrifice has George W. Bush made in this war?
Any kind of credibility that the US had internationally.

Any kind of credibility that the US had internationally.

The worst part of all this, if you think about it, is that after another 21,000 kids goes over there, and some number of them get killed, or maimed (the ratio of wounded to killed is 7 to 1 right now, by the way), and who knows how many more thousands of Iraqis die in the streets, after all that, come January of '09 That Man In The White House is going to ride off to Texas, smiling and waving, and people are going to fawn over him and treat him like an elder statesman, and they'll raise money to build a George W. Bush Presidential Library, and someday when he dies he'll get a state funeral ... Sorry, had to stop, I started grinding my teeth audibly.

The worst part of all this, if you think about it, is that after another 21,000 kids goes over there, and some number of them get killed, or maimed (the ratio of wounded to killed is 7 to 1 right now, by the way), and who knows how many more thousands of Iraqis die in the streets, after all that, come January of '09 That Man In The White House is going to ride off to Texas, smiling and waving, and people are going to fawn over him and treat him like an elder statesman, and they'll raise money to build a George W. Bush Presidential Library, and someday when he dies he'll get a state funeral ... Sorry, had to stop, I started grinding my teeth audibly.
Hopefully they just chuck him out of a ground-floor window (so that he doesn't die or anything, but just for the giggles of it) and tell him never to come back.

The worst part of all this, if you think about it, is that after another 21,000 kids goes over there, and some number of them get killed, or maimed (the ratio of wounded to killed is 7 to 1 right now, by the way), and who knows how many more thousands of Iraqis die in the streets, after all that, come January of '09 That Man In The White House is going to ride off to Texas, ....

Leaving the shithole behind him, forcing the next President to grit their teeth, withdraw and be accused of cowardness and weakness for quitting.

Smart policy for him personally when you think about it- and probably the only one he would want to choose.

I can't believe people still think fox is neutral. I guess whatever opinion is in agreement is the center for some people.

Fox News certainly isn't neutral, but I can't believe people think CBS, CNN, or the NYT are neutral.

Fox News certainly isn't neutral, but I can't believe people think CBS, CNN, or the NYT are neutral.

They aren't neutral. They just sure as hell aren't left-wing.

Fox News certainly isn't neutral, but I can't believe people think CBS, CNN, or the NYT are neutral.

They're not--they're corporate, which means they do whatever gets them the best ratings or sells the most papers. The difference between them and Fox is that Rupert Murdoch doesn't care whether or not he loses money--he's an idealogue. Look what he's done with the NY Post--run a money losing operation year after year simply because it gives him a right-wing presence in New York.

But corporate does not equal liberal either. There is no major media outlet that can legitimately be called liberal--and no, The Nation does not qualify as a major media outlet.

Ted Kennedy is a hostile enemy of America right here at home? WOw, good thing the Fox news reporter broke this story before he did any real damage to our infrastructure or even invaded capitol hill with his democratic army of America haters.

Ted Kennedy does more damage to our infrastructure (Chappaquiddick bridges notwithstanding) by drinking his body weight and reducing our nation's strategic reserve of booze than he ever will as a senator. Sorry, but he's had his day, as have Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd.

The worst part of all this, if you think about it, is that after another 21,000 kids goes over there, and some number of them get killed, or maimed (the ratio of wounded to killed is 7 to 1 right now, by the way), and who knows how many more thousands of Iraqis die in the streets, after all that, come January of '09 That Man In The White House is going to ride off to Texas, smiling and waving, and people are going to fawn over him and treat him like an elder statesman, and they'll raise money to build a George W. Bush Presidential Library, and someday when he dies he'll get a state funeral ... Sorry, had to stop, I started grinding my teeth audibly.

cant you just wait for his book? a learned tome of 1000ish pages outlining his thoughts and dreams for the future of the US. subtly chastising the then current administration for not understanding the issues. using examples from his own time in the whitehouse to illustrate how we should be dealing with north korea, the middle east, the energy crisis, etc.

It always amazes me when people start screaming "omg th left wing liberal media", where exactly aer they? From what I've seen of US tv and print media there isn't ANY left wing media.

cant you just wait for his book? a learned tome of 1000ish pages outlining his thoughts and dreams for the future of the US. subtly chastising the then current administration for not understanding the issues. using examples from his own time in the whitehouse to illustrate how we should be dealing with north korea, the middle east, the energy crisis, etc.

I bet it'll have lots of pictures.

Hopefully they just chuck him out of a ground-floor window (so that he doesn't die or anything, but just for the giggles of it) and tell him never to come back.
:p

Leaving the shithole behind him, forcing the next President to grit their teeth, withdraw and be accused of cowardness and weakness for quitting.

Smart policy for him personally when you think about it- and probably the only one he would want to choose.

He's already said that Iraq is something the next President will have to solve. :rolleyes: I can see the retrospectives now, and I can hear Limbaugh and O'Reilly and their ilk pontificating over what a wonderful (though sometimes trying) eight years it was and blah, blah, blah ... Of course, if a Democrat succeeds W, they'll also be predicting the end of civilization as we know it, too.

I bet it'll have lots of pictures.

it'll come with a free box of crayons.

cant you just wait for his book? a learned tome of 1000ish pages outlining his thoughts and dreams for the future of the US. subtly chastising the then current administration for not understanding the issues. using examples from his own time in the whitehouse to illustrate how we should be dealing with north korea, the middle east, the energy crisis, etc.
This is the type of a GW Bush book....

George and friends.

http://www.immunize.cpha.ca/english/poster/cb/cb1.gif

it'll come with a free box of crayons.

And they'll be giving copies away with Ann Coulter action figures, too.

Bill Moyers, on PBS, is certainly one example. Dan Rather, late of CBS, would be another. Then there is the New York Times and Jason Blair.

Of the three, Moyers still tries to slant real news, as opposed to making it up.

Examples? Citations? Proof of any kind?

Dan Rather hasn't been at CBS for some months now, Jayson Blair was a plagiarist who was fired when his crime was discovered (you gonna indict Forbes magazine for Stephen Glass' perjury, too?), Bill Moyers has more integrity in the things he leaves in his toilet than Bill O'Reilly has ever had.

A-to-the-D-to the hominem, see?

They're not--they're corporate, which means they do whatever gets them the best ratings or sells the most papers. The difference between them and Fox is that Rupert Murdoch doesn't care whether or not he loses money--he's an idealogue. Look what he's done with the NY Post--run a money losing operation year after year simply because it gives him a right-wing presence in New York.

But corporate does not equal liberal either. There is no major media outlet that can legitimately be called liberal--and no, The Nation does not qualify as a major media outlet.
Murdoch is no different from the Editors at the NYT. If you can't come forward and say the NYT has a leftist agenda, then you aren't in a place to claim that Fox News is conservative. To be honest, you have to call out both sides here. It's called intellectual honesty and if someone of your profession better be able to show such honesty of they are worthless at their job.

Another day, another serving of verbal excrement from the blowhards at fox news.

I bet it'll have lots of pictures.

it'll come with a free box of crayons.

This is the type of a GW Bush book....

George and friends.

http://www.immunize.cpha.ca/english/poster/cb/cb1.gif

And they'll be giving copies away with Ann Coulter action figures, too.

its good to have a "straight man" on the forum isnt it.

Murdoch is no different from the Editors at the NYT. If you can't come forward and say the NYT has a leftist agenda, then you aren't in a place to claim that Fox News is conservative. To be honest, you have to call out both sides here. It's called intellectual honesty and if someone of your profession better be able to show such honesty of they are worthless at their job.
Spare me. If the NY Times had a leftist agenda, then why the fuck were they the ones who were cheerleading the Iraq War? Remember Judith Miller, their star reporter, who was wrong on every fucking thing she wrote? That's the "liberal" NY Times for you. And it predates that as well. They were the leaders in that jokefest called Whitewater reporting, and in the Wen Ho Lee debacle. A "liberal" paper surely would have left Clinton alone while simultaneously cleaning Bush's clock, right? But that hasn't happened.

So this is intellectual honesty, IDF--the NY Times is a corporate entity that makes decisions based on what will make it money. That does not make it liberal--if anything, its recent history shows that it is anything but liberal. Inaccurate at times, but not liberal.

Another day, another serving of verbal excrement from the blowhards at fox news.

I'm looking forward to the O'Reilly/Colbert show host exchange. That ought to be highly entertaining.

And they'll be giving copies away with Ann Coulter action figures, too.No; stick figures! Drawn by Mr. Shrubbery himself using the previously mentioned crayons.

its good to have a "straight man" on the forum isnt it.

It certainly is. :D

I'm looking forward to the O'Reilly/Colbert show host exchange. That ought to be highly entertaining.

Is that like that "Wife Swap" horror on ABC? I might watch Colbert over on Fox ...

At least fox news balances the far left media, we dont need the Communist News Network. CNN is the same program that showed terriorist propoganda and tried to jusitfy its reason for playing it. The left wing media loves Clinton as well as Carter. What has carter done anyways? People are upset that the fact that FOX news does not manipulate the facts in order to get thier point across. Talk about bias, the airwaves need fox in order to balance the extreme left wing media


Come back when you make sense :)

Is that like that "Wife Swap" horror on ABC? I might watch Colbert over on Fox ...

Yeah, I think it's January 18th. O'Reilly will host the Report and Colbert will do O'Reilly Factor.

Looking for link...

Found one: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2782006

Yeah, I think it's January 18th. O'Reilly will host the Report and Colbert will do O'Reilly Factor.

Looking for link...

Found one: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2782006


I dont know how to feel about this *worry*

I dont know how to feel about this *worry*

It will depend on who they get for guests. I think I'd like to see Jon Stewart on the Report ;)

It will depend on who they get for guests. I think I'd like to see Jon Stewart on the Report ;)

True - that would be nice. I hope O'Lielly can be a good sport about it all.

It certainly is. :D

oh come on far since when have you ever worried about straight men?

It will depend on who they get for guests. I think I'd like to see Jon Stewart on the Report ;)The way I read it, I thought O'Reilly would appear on Colbert's show and vice-versa, not that they would trade shows for a night.

The way I read it, I thought O'Reilly would appear on Colbert's show and vice-versa, not that they would trade shows for a night.

Yes, you're right. Hmm. That's not quite as exciting then.

The way I read it, I thought O'Reilly would appear on Colbert's show and vice-versa, not that they would trade shows for a night.

That would make more sense and gives me a bit of relief. I can't see the writers creating anything Bill would agree with doing.

That would make more sense and gives me a bit of relief. I can't see the writers creating anything Bill would agree with doing.Think O'Reilly will cut Colbert's mike?

oh come on far since when have you ever worried about straight men?

Okay, not in ... gee, 30 ... no, 32 years. And never really worried about 'em anyway. :D Perhaps one might have said, a la RuleCaucasia, having a confederate available to participate in creating the situation necessary for the delivery of the humorous last line of a jest is always agreeable.

The way I read it, I thought O'Reilly would appear on Colbert's show and vice-versa, not that they would trade shows for a night.

Didn't O'Reilly already appear on the Colbert Report? Or was that the Daily Show....

Think O'Reilly will cut Colbert's mike?

Possible. Not sure I have ever seen O'Rielly show a sense of humor.
If his mic does get cut, I'm hoping that O'Rielly will make Colberts list.

Bears and then Papa Bear right under.

Possible. Not sure I have ever seen O'Rielly show a sense of humor.
If his mic does get cut, I'm hoping that O'Rielly will make Colberts list.

Bears and then Papa Bear right under.

It seems natural that at some point Colbert would cut O'Reilly's, however. It's a joke that writes itself.

I imagine O'Reilly will play along--he's a blowhard and he knows it, but he's also got this persona where he acts like he isn't, like he's above it all, above everything anyone can throw at him, especially on his own show. It's a "humor" of condescension. But it backfires at times, when people show him up and he can't control them, like when Al Franken pwned him at the Miami book fair a couple of years ago, and when Jeremy Glick did the same on his show.

It seems natural that at some point Colbert would cut O'Reilly's, however. It's a joke that writes itself.

I imagine O'Reilly will play along--he's a blowhard and he knows it, but he's also got this persona where he acts like he isn't, like he's above it all, above everything anyone can throw at him, especially on his own show. It's a "humor" of condescension. But it backfires at times, when people show him up and he can't control them, like when Al Franken pwned him at the Miami book fair a couple of years ago, and when Jeremy Glick did the same on his show.

I remember both of those! OH man, the way that Al Franken recounted that book fair thing had me in stitches!

I remember both of those! OH man, the way that Al Franken recounted that book fair thing had me in stitches!

I saw it on C-SPAN more than once--it was a thing of beauty to watch the splotchy one melt down like that. And then the lawsuit where the judge said Fox would have a hard time defending their copyright on "fair and balanced" was terrific.

I love YouTube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=5sZPxxyo7BQ).

I agree Ted "drive off a bridge and kill a woman" the drunk POS Kennedy should be targeted as a terrorist and taken out. IMO

I agree Ted "drive off a bridge and kill a woman" the drunk POS Kennedy should be targeted as a terrorist and taken out. IMO

yes yes yes, go back to your hole.

I guess it is ok for a Dumbocrat to get drunk kill a person and not even bother to report it for a day.....Kennedy is a Drunkard and a POS

I guess it is ok for a Dumbocrat to get drunk kill a person and not even bother to report it for a day.....Kennedy is a Drunkard and a POS

that's neither yours nor my decision to make. That is an issue for the legal system, and the legal system involved has made their decision.

LOL your joking right...The legal system and the Kennedys those people think and are above the law, and they can get away with anything...Try this Google Ted Kennedy as well as the Kennedy family and see what you get, lots of things sweep under the table because they are kennedys.

LOL your joking right...The legal system and the Kennedys those people think and are above the law, and they can get away with anything...Try this Google Ted Kennedy as well as the Kennedy family and see what you get, lots of things sweep under the table because they are kennedys.

once again, that is still neither your choice, nor mine to make.

LOL your joking right...The legal system and the Kennedys those people think and are above the law, and they can get away with anything...Try this Google Ted Kennedy as well as the Kennedy family and see what you get, lots of things sweep under the table because they are kennedys.
Do the same for the Bush family. Money has its privileges, and party affiliation doesn't change that.

Spare me. If the NY Times had a leftist agenda, then why the fuck were they the ones who were cheerleading the Iraq War? Remember Judith Miller, their star reporter, who was wrong on every fucking thing she wrote? That's the "liberal" NY Times for you. And it predates that as well. They were the leaders in that jokefest called Whitewater reporting, and in the Wen Ho Lee debacle. A "liberal" paper surely would have left Clinton alone while simultaneously cleaning Bush's clock, right? But that hasn't happened.

So this is intellectual honesty, IDF--the NY Times is a corporate entity that makes decisions based on what will make it money. That does not make it liberal--if anything, its recent history shows that it is anything but liberal. Inaccurate at times, but not liberal.
By your standards Fox News can't be conservative because they were the ones who broke the Bush DUI story.

A few rare examples of releasing stories against the side they usually support doesn't change the fact that the NYT is a VERY liberal paper.

If they don't have a liberal agenda, then why haven't they endorsed a Republican for President since Ike? Why is it their editorials are nothing but Bush bashing? Why do they print columns of people like Maureen Dowd and not Cal Thomas?

The NYT like Fox News, is a corporate entity, but the NYT has a leftist bias. To say otherwise is foolish and dishonest. If you don't see the NYT as liberal, then I seriously question your reasoning skills.

One thing apologists for Fox News like to try to argue when others point out the bias of the network is that the most egregious offenders are commentators--Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and John Gibson are generally at the top of this list. Brit Hume flits about in this gray zone between anchor and commentary, so sometimes it's hard to see which hat he wears.

But today, it was a full-on anchor (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/kennedy-fox-hostile-enemy/) doing it, one of those people who are just supposed to be doing the news, no bias, no opinion, none of that stuff. And what happens?

Wonder what today's memo to the news folks said that brought this on?

Wow!!! Guess someone either got up on the wrong side of the bed or forgot what their job was!

Hopefully her next memo will be a P45....but more likely a promotion in Murdochs empire.

She might end up on Star commenting on how state sponsored executions in China are good for America, Americans and the American Way of Life....

/nods

By your standards Fox News can't be conservative because they were the ones who broke the Bush DUI story.

A few rare examples of releasing stories against the side they usually support doesn't change the fact that the NYT is a VERY liberal paper.

If they don't have a liberal agenda, then why haven't they endorsed a Republican for President since Ike? Why is it their editorials are nothing but Bush bashing? Why do they print columns of people like Maureen Dowd and not Cal Thomas?

The NYT like Fox News, is a corporate entity, but the NYT has a leftist bias. To say otherwise is foolish and dishonest. If you don't see the NYT as liberal, then I seriously question your reasoning skills.

Ike? Because Eisenhower was the last proper conservative/Republican President. All the others...including Raygun were nothing more than spend thrift wannabe Great Leaders.

hrmph!

If they don't have a liberal agenda, then why haven't they endorsed a Republican for President since Ike? Why is it their editorials are nothing but Bush bashing? Why do they print columns of people like Maureen Dowd and not Cal Thomas?

The NYT like Fox News, is a corporate entity, but the NYT has a leftist bias. To say otherwise is foolish and dishonest. If you don't see the NYT as liberal, then I seriously question your reasoning skills.

Ummm. Bill Safire was a long time resident of the NY Times editorial page, and still writes for the Sunday magazine and it's harder to find someone more conservative than he is. David Brooks is a rock-ribbed conservative. And until very recently they also had John Tierney as a columnist. So the idea that the NY Times Op-Ed pages are a liberal haven can only be held by someone who doesn't actually read those pages. And let's just say that I'm not worried about your challenging of my reasoning skills. I know which of us commands more respect among those who know our writings.

Ummm. Bill Safire was a long time resident of the NY Times editorial page, and still writes for the Sunday magazine and it's harder to find someone more conservative than he is. David Brooks is a rock-ribbed conservative. And until very recently they also had John Tierney as a columnist. So the idea that the NY Times Op-Ed pages are a liberal haven can only be held by someone who doesn't actually read those pages. And let's just say that I'm not worried about your challenging of my reasoning skills. I know which of us commands more respect among those who know our writings.

Conservative columnists at the times are outnumbed 3:1. Many of the columnists join the editors on the editorial board. That means the editorials will be liberal as a paper's editorial position is decided by a vote among the editorial board (which is decidedly liberal).

I can't believe how you can argue the NYT isn't biased. Most conservatives have the reasoning skills and the honesty to admit FNC is a conservative source. You seem to lack the ability to call out sources on your side. That lack of honesty is disturbing. Your inability to try to see this from a neutral point of view is dangerous. I may be a conservative, but I can see FNC isn't a neutral source. How are you allowed to teach impressionable minds?

http://www.timeswatch.org/

Whenever I hear surge used in that way, I flash on the Beverly Hills Cop movies and that character played by Bronson Pinchot. I'd much rather deal with that Serge than this one.
'Beverly Hills Cop'?
ohhhh...showing your age there Nazz.

I guess it is ok for a Dumbocrat to get drunk kill a person and not even bother to report it for a day.....Kennedy is a Drunkard and a POS

1969 called, they want their story back. He was a drunkard almost 40 years ago, get with the times. I don't agree with Kennedy on a lot of things but hounding him with a 40 year old scandal is ridiculous.

LOL your joking right...The legal system and the Kennedys those people think and are above the law, and they can get away with anything...Try this Google Ted Kennedy as well as the Kennedy family and see what you get, lots of things sweep under the table because they are kennedys.

yeah, unlike any other extremely rich family. Anyone with that kind of money and power is pretty much above the law.

Dan Rather is left wing? Do you even know what left wing means?
In Myr's mind, anyone who disagrees with GWB is left-wing.
Do it twice, and you're a godless communist.

In Myr's mind, anyone who disagrees with GWB is left-wing.
Do it twice, and you're a godless communist.

they say things come in threes..... ;)

I am curious, what sacrifice has George W. Bush made in this war?
It's certainly interfered with his vacation time.

I just want to remind everyone that there are many biased news organizations- like the BBC.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3319064,00.html
http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20684585-7583,00.html

I did say her choice of words was bad. Bad for a reporter, but not for me. Teddy Kennedy is a hostile enemy of the American people. He has continually stood in the way of judicial appointments, lied to us on the Senate floor, and been a hindrance to any progress that doesn't directly benefit his ward-healer style politics in Massachusetts.

You work for FOX news don't you?

I look at it as a good sign--they're not even trying to play it straight anymore. They'll have all the credibility of al Jazeerah at this rate.

You're confusing me; are you saying fox news credibility is increasing?
'Cos Al Jazeera sure has a whole load more credibility than fox
or for that matter, cnn, abc, cbs, nbc.

Its about on a par with BBC but that may be being a bit hard on Jazeera
but I think some bias must be assumed without detailed evidence proving otherwise, so I will stick with it being on a par, for best results watch both obviously.

I just want to remind everyone that there are many biased news organizations- like the BBC.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3319064,00.html
http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20684585-7583,00.html

Without using google or another search engine...in other words based on your current knowledge...

What is the BBC's function

How is it funded?

Who is it accountable to?

What services does it provide?

What is the role of the Board of Governors? The Government?

What guidelines are provided to prevent bias?

What are the broadcasting guidelines?

By your standards Fox News can't be conservative because they were the ones who broke the Bush DUI story.

A few rare examples of releasing stories against the side they usually support doesn't change the fact that the NYT is a VERY liberal paper.

If they don't have a liberal agenda, then why haven't they endorsed a Republican for President since Ike? Why is it their editorials are nothing but Bush bashing? Why do they print columns of people like Maureen Dowd and not Cal Thomas?

The NYT like Fox News, is a corporate entity, but the NYT has a leftist bias. To say otherwise is foolish and dishonest. If you don't see the NYT as liberal, then I seriously question your reasoning skills.

AHHHHH
It all becomes clear.

Your problem is you think the democrats count as left wing or liberal.
The democratic party is a right wing party they do not become left wing by default just because the republican party is further right wing.

For an example you may find helpful think of a motorway.
There can be lots of lanes on one side but ALL going the same direction.
Some drivers go slower and are more courteous but on that one side EVERYONE is going the same direction.

For those who find it hard to know what left wing is, rest assured
if you ever get a major left wing party or if any of your major news media
show any bias other than right of centre, I'll post a thread telling you.
Although it will be major international news anyway so perhaps just keep the BBC world service tuned in.

Although I suppose you could reasonably argue that the bias that NYT has is neither left nor right but
rather aligned to the interests of major corporations.

You guys should listen. We're a backwards super-right wing nation. Our fundamentalist idiocy is probably the reason we're not the worlds only super-power.

I just want to remind everyone that there are many biased news organizations- like the BBC.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3319064,00.html
http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20684585-7583,00.html
Here's a tip for you:
When trying to prove your position, don't just google "BBC biased" and copy & paste the first things you see.
Take the time to read and review what you're posting, for a start.
Take the time to develop a little thing called 'research skills'. It will help you in later life, believe me.

The Daily Mail is more right-wing than FOX (if such a thing is possible). That story loudly decries the fact the Beeb wants to be (oh horrors!) mult-cultural. Filthy communists.
The Australian basically just rewords and reprints the same article.
Posting the same reference twice doesn't make it twice as important you know.

The www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com site. Hmmm....a blog. hmmmm.....a site that proudly proclaims it's sole purpose in it's site address.
gee - do you think they're got an agenda?

Read the first comparision on that site, that apparently 'proves' BBC is biased:
The TIMES reported it thus:
Britons held in Somali clash
Several British terror suspects have been captured during the fighting in Somalia, it was claimed yesterday.

At least seven Britons are said to have been picked up as they fled with fighters from the Islamic movement when they were forced out of the capital, Mogadishu. The men, all carrying British passports and including one said to have been badly wounded, are reportedly being held by Ethiopian troops.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said last night that it was still waiting to check the identities of the men and establish what the Ethiopian authorities intend to do with them.

Beeb reported it thus:
Britons may be hurt in US strikes

Reports that seven Britons have been hurt in US air strikes on suspected Islamist fighters in Somalia are being investigated by the Foreign Office.

A spokeswoman said the FO was aware of the reports that "British nationals had been injured and detained".

But she added: "We do not have British officials on the ground there or actual evidence that they are British."

The US attacks come amid claims by the Somali deputy PM that some of the Islamists' support came from Britain.

The Times says nowhere how they know the injured Britons are terror suspects, yet apparently the Beeb is 'biased' because they don't mention it!
Nasty biased Beeb just reports that no-one, including the Foreign Office, has the faintest idea who or what these people are.
Dammit! Why can't they just make shit up like the Times, call them terrorists and be done with it?

Here's a tip for you:
When trying to prove your position, don't just google "BBC biased" and copy & paste the first things you see.
Take the time to read and review what you're posting, for a start.
Take the time to develop a little thing called 'research skills'. It will help you in later life, believe me.
[quote]
The Daily Mail is more right-wing than FOX (if such a thing is possible). That story loudly decries the fact the Beeb wants to be (oh horrors!) mult-cultural. Filthy communists.
Right on! Attacking the source instead of the validity of their claim is obviously the best tactic.
The Australian basically just rewords and reprints the same article.
Posting the same reference twice doesn't make it twice as important you know.
Gee, you don't think it's because I thought the first source might just need support?


The www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com site. Hmmm....a blog. hmmmm.....a site that proudly proclaims it's sole purpose in it's site address.
gee - do you think they're got an agenda?
Once again, ignoring the claims is best.
Read the first comparision on that site, that apparently 'proves' BBC is biased:

The TIMES reported it thus:


Beeb reported it thus:


The Times says nowhere how they know the injured Britons are terror suspects, yet apparently the Beeb is 'biased' because they don't mention it!
Nasty biased Beeb just reports that no-one, including the Foreign Office, has the faintest idea who or what these people are.
Dammit! Why can't they just make shit up like the Times, call them terrorists
and be done with it?
Obviously, the Time made it up. "amid claims by the Somali deputy PM that some of the Islamists' support came from Britain"

Just like that quote.

Fox news, predictable as always.


*Trollin Trollin Trolling* Another one I'm Ignorin...

Right on! Attacking the source instead of the validity of their claim is obviously the best tactic.
Not attacking it. Merely pointing out that the Daily Mail, since you seem blissfully unaware is extreme right-wing and thus has an agenda of it's own. It openly dislikes the Beeb and has made it it's policy to attack the Beeb at every opportunity. Even on pointless things like ur article that the Beeb prefers to be 'multi-cultural'.

Gee, you don't think it's because I thought the first source might just need support?
Gee, how is repeating yourself showing supoport?
Why didn't you just repost the Daily Mail article twice?
The Aus article basically just reprints the Daily Mail article.
Saying something twice DOES NOT make it twice as correct.


Once again, ignoring the claims is best.
Obviously, the Time made it up. "amid claims by the Somali deputy PM that some of the Islamists' support came from Britain"
Just like that quote.
Try reading what you're posting.
'amid claims that some of the support came from Britain'
What claims?
How were they verified?
What support does the Somali deputy PM have for his statements?
What does he mean by 'support'?
Moral, Financial, Physical?
How is 'support' for Islamists = to terrorist? that's a mighty big jump in inference there by The Times, as well as your good self.

Personally I prefer to listen to what the Foreign Office had to say.
To wit, “We do not have British officials on the ground there or actual evidence that they are British....We are in constant touch with the Ethiopian and Somalian governments, but we have not yet been given any documentation or the names of those allegedly involved.”
In simple words, no-one knows who they are, where they're from or what they were doing there.
Yet The Times somehow manages to spin this into 'Terrorists from Britain'.
I guess the British Foreign Office is too Liberal for your liking as well, is it?

Again, try developing research skills first.
Also, forming an opinion then looking for support isn't the best way to do things.
Most of us like to research (that word again!) before coming to a conclusion. Not the other way around.
It's a more rational way of living.

Not attacking it. Merely pointing out that the Daily Mail, since you seem blissfully unaware is extreme right-wing and thus has an agenda of it's own. It openly dislikes the Beeb and has made it it's policy to attack the Beeb at every opportunity. Even on pointless things like ur article that the Beeb prefers to be 'multi-cultural'.
Which is why I posted the Aus report. It is a more credible source.
Gee, how is repeating yourself showing supoport? The Aus article basically just reprints the Daily Mail article.
Your claiming one of those is not credible. The other one is, at least, moreso. And the same claims just means that those are probably verifiably true.


Try reading what you're posting.
'amid claims that some of the support came from Britain'What claims?
How were they verified?
What support does the Somali deputy PM have for his statements?
What does he mean by 'support'?
Moral, Financial, Physical?
How is 'support' for Islamists = to terrorist? that's a mighty big jump in inference there by The Times, as well as your good self.
What claims? Claims made by a Somali government official. And just because he doesn't cite his sources doesn't mean his information is correct. The U.S. is likely to have better intelligence. And anyone with 1/2 of a brain can make the connection between Islamists and terrorists.
Personally I prefer to listen to what the Foreign Office had to say.
Good. You have more trust in your government than I do.
To wit,
In simple words, no-one knows who they are, where they're from or what they were doing there.
Yet The Times somehow manages to spin this into 'Terrorists from Britain'.
I guess the British Foreign Office is too Liberal for your liking as well, is it?
To wit, you're the only one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Again, try developing research skills first.
Also, forming an opinion then looking for support isn't the best way to do things.
Neither is making blind assumptions about your opponents.
Most of us like to research (that word again!) before coming to a conclusion. Not the other way around.
It's a more rational way of living.
I can't figure out why you haven't tried it.

I am curious, what sacrifice has George W. Bush made in this war?
A 60% drop in the polls? :p

Dear Leader is making his Surge Speech tonight, Nazz, and the folks at Fox are just preparing the way for him.

Just wait till MSNBC broadcasts our brave comrades rebuttal! Hail mother America!

Semi-retarded major news network generalizations aside, I have a question. Erm was this Gretchens personal opinion maybe?

Just wanted to say one thing on the Defense of Fox since that vast majority like to constantly bicker about them. (You'd think one would eventually get tired of the constant bashing, oh well)

Thank God we FNC.

Okay continue your Fox Bash fest.

... The U.S. is likely to have better intelligence. ...

Oh man I'm nearly sick from laughing

Semi-retarded major news network generalizations aside, I have a question. Erm was this Gretchens personal opinion maybe?

News anchors aren't paid to voice their opinions.

One thing apologists for Fox News like to try to argue when others point out the bias of the network is that the most egregious offenders are commentators--Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and John Gibson are generally at the top of this list. Brit Hume flits about in this gray zone between anchor and commentary, so sometimes it's hard to see which hat he wears.

But today, it was a full-on anchor (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/kennedy-fox-hostile-enemy/) doing it, one of those people who are just supposed to be doing the news, no bias, no opinion, none of that stuff. And what happens?

Wonder what today's memo to the news folks said that brought this on?

Can't agree with you. That chick is one of the anchors of Fox & Friends, the channels morning program which is just a toned tone O’Reilly Factor. She is a mix of O'Reilly and Jon Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Scott). You should see one of her co-hosts, Brian Kilmeade. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kilmeade) He is a snivelling little Republican pissant if there ever was one. Always dishes on the Democrats any chance he gets and always gets right behind every conservative cause. Sometimes one of the hosts will take a different stance, but it is still anything but fair & balanced.

Speaking of Fox, on the Hannity & Colmes episode half an hour after Bush's speech today, Hannity brought up this little clock starting with 30-something minutes counting what he said was how long the Democrats were going to take to release their plans for Iraq, implying they don't have any. And down the bottom of the screen the headline read Bush releases plan for Iraq etc: "Where are the Democrats?" All of this even though literally a few minutes after Bush's speech there was a Democratic response about why they don't agree with Bush's plans and what they would do. And ten minutes after that the Democratic leaders released another statement with their intentions. How reasonable.

Thank God we FNC.

I'm still trying to figure out what this means exactly. Anyone? Thank god we fuck nose cunts? I'm stuck.

I'm still trying to figure out what this means exactly. Anyone? Thank god we fuck nose cunts? I'm stuck.

Fox News Channel, which transcends all grammatical boundaries, becoming a noun, a verb, and an adjective.

News anchors aren't paid to voice their opinions.

Hmm, so she was an anchor... Does she draft her material?

Fox News Channel, which transcends all grammatical boundaries, becoming a noun, a verb, and an adjective.

I nearly had juice coming out my nose with that one. You amusing bastard.

Oy, what happened to the day when Republicans were... republicans? You know, actual conservatives... who were conservative. You know... conservative. I would say that Fox doesn't have a Conservative bias because they don't support an actually conservative administration. Infact, it's been a while since we had a conservative Pres(Neo-con=/Conservative).

But oh well, that's a bit of a tangent.

Oy, what happened to the day when Republicans were... republicans? You know, actual conservatives... who were conservative. You know... conservative. I would say that Fox doesn't have a Conservative bias because they don't support an actually conservative administration. Infact, it's been a while since we had a conservative Pres(Neo-con=/Conservative).

But oh well, that's a bit of a tangent.
They started to turn when Nixon pulled out the southern strategy. They got gamy under Reagan when the evangelicals discovered they had some real stroke. They went fully rotten in the time since. Maybe something good will come out of the compost pile they've turned the party into, but it's going to take some time.

Oy, what happened to the day when Republicans were... republicans? You know, actual conservatives... who were conservative. You know... conservative. I would say that Fox doesn't have a Conservative bias because they don't support an actually conservative administration. Infact, it's been a while since we had a conservative Pres(Neo-con=/Conservative).

But oh well, that's a bit of a tangent.
Butt, butt.......Bush is a "compassionate conservative". :D

President Promotes Compassionate Conservatism (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430-5.html)

Now mind you, this speech was almost a year before the "compassionate" invasion of Iraq. :rolleyes: Or was that the "passionate" invasion of Iraq?

Butt, butt.......Bush is a "compassionate conservative". :D

President Promotes Compassionate Conservatism (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430-5.html)

Now mind you, this speech was almost a year before the "compassionate" invasion of Iraq. :rolleyes: Or was that the "passionate" invasion of Iraq?

In other words... not conservativism, and not actually 'compassionate'.

Seriously, although more liberal than most, I can agree that there are many good points to conservatism. However, this administration is pretty much anti-Consertive, and actually gives a bad name to conservatism...

Ah well.

Only two more years until someone actually tries to face the problems that this idiot started.

Oh where to start, where to start where to start..
Which is why I posted the Aus report. It is a more credible source.
Your claiming one of those is not credible. The other one is, at least, moreso. And the same claims just means that those are probably verifiably true.
How can a repeat of an uncredible source be more credible than it's predecessor?
Mind telling me that?
Also, you really should read that article, and while you're at it search these forums for the thread made of if in which it's torn to shreds.

What claims? Claims made by a Somali government official. And just because he doesn't cite his sources doesn't mean his information is correct. The U.S. is likely to have better intelligence. And anyone with 1/2 of a brain can make the connection between Islamists and terrorists.
Anyone with 1/2 a brain indeed.
Anyone with an entire brain and is without an irrational hatred of Islam that's come from watching too much Fox would not make the Islamist=terrorists connection when reading the statement, 'support for Islamists'.
If the Somalian meant terrorists, and meant funding for or actively engaging in terrorist activities, why didn't he say so?
And the US has never accidently bombed/killed anyone before, have they?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1220750,00.html
:rolleyes:
Incidently, in addition to trying 'research', you should try proof-reading. You actually say the Somalian official isn't correct.

Good. You have more trust in your government than I do.
One, they're not my govt.
Two, Why shouldn't I trust an official who says they don't know because they don't have any information and are trying to find out?
To me that's a very reasonable and honest statement to make. Apparently to you it isn't and you would prefer to have them scream 'OMG!! TERRORIST BABYKILLER!!!' just because a Somalian said so.

Incidently, anyone else see the irony here that this simpleton is castigating me for accepting British Foreign Office statement (that no-one knows anything yet) but is quite happy to believe someone from the Somalian govt?
Which do you think has more credibility?
Though of course, if all you go looking for is 'proof' that 'Islamists' are terrorists, then that's all you're going to find...

To wit,
In simple words, no-one knows who they are, where they're from or what they were doing there.

To wit, you're the only one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Mind explaining that to me. I quote the British Foreign Office saying that they haven't a friggin' clue as to what's going on, and in your feverish wee mind, I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
You do?
You have information about who those ppl are that the British Foreign Office doesn't? If so, you should get in contact with them asap and tell them what you know. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

I give you an F-
It would be lower but the grading system doesn't allow for less.

Ted Kennedy may not be a hostile enemy...but he's a murder...so he should still be in jail.

Ted Kennedy may not be a hostile enemy...but he's a murder...so he should still be in jail.

I believe your definition of murder is lacking.

News anchors aren't paid to voice their opinions.

Welcome to the media, friend. No station is "fair and balanced." Fox should own up to being conservative media, just as CNN should own up to being left-leaning, and NBC should own up to being liberal. This ideal of inpartial news is ridiculous. Other nations, such as Spain, have specific networks for specific groups of people: conservative, liberal, and socialist in my Spanish example.

I believe your definition of murder is lacking.

I think Mary Jo Kopechne would disagree with you...

I think Mary Jo Kopechne would disagree with you...

I was unaware she was a legislator or a judge.

I was unaware she was a legislator or a judge.

Ya...that's cause she's dead...thanks to Chappaquiddick Ted

Ya...that's cause she's dead...thanks to Chappaquiddick Ted
...

And we all watch as the point goes wizzing by overhead.

Ya...that's cause she's dead...thanks to Chappaquiddick Ted
And that has what to do with using words incorrectly?

...

And we all watch as the point goes wizzing by overhead.

Because, naturally I didn't understand what Arthais101 was trying to say... /sarcasm

And that has what to do with using words incorrectly?

...such as?

...such as?

Murder ...

Because, naturally I didn't understand what Arthais101 was trying to say... /sarcasm
Perhaps you might be better served looking up the legal terms murder and manslaughter. It might just provide that ray of light.

Because, naturally I didn't understand what Arthais101 was trying to say... /sarcasm

Ah so it was being purposefully obtuse rather then accidentally

Perhaps you might be better served looking up the legal terms murder and manslaughter. It might just provide that ray of light.

Oh for christ's sake...

Fine...I make my apology. Chappaquiddick Ted is a manslaughter...er, not a murderer. Either way, he's a criminal, and should be in jail, not in the Senate.

OJ "wasn't guilty" as well...

I nearly had juice coming out my nose with that one. You amusing bastard.

hey, me too!
and i'm not even drinking juice...

Oh for christ's sake...

Fine...I make my apology. Chappaquiddick Ted is a manslaughter...er, not a murderer. Either way, he's a criminal, and should be in jail, not in the Senate.

OJ "wasn't guilty" as well...

He is not a criminal either at least not in his current state ...

Now I am not saying that he should not be a criminal or anything of the sort but throwing around emotive language thats incorrect ya better be expected to be called out

Either way it is 38 years after the incident ... with current sentencing guidelines it is an awful good chance that he would be well out by now (the average for complete 1st degree manslaughter is 120 months)

So your "Should be in jail" statement does not really reflect reality