The Smiley Smile Message Board

...just fox news.  That's all.   :-D

I don't watch a whole lot of news (negative and depressing and I feel helpless against the corruption and degenerate slobs who have my money)... but if I do, it's FoxNews.  When I flip over to the Old Democrat Media, they're talking about crap and spinning it -- acting like I don't know they're spinning it and like I don't have access to other more truthful reports.

God Bless Roger Ailes and FoxNews.

--------------

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/13/Ailes-Award
"Ailes noted Fox News Channel finished its 137th consecutive month in first place in cable news and said part of the reason for the network's success is that it relentlessly covers news stories like Benghazi "we know others will not."

Imagine that... journalism as "niche."

"We covered Benghazi when four Americans were killed, even though no other network would touch the story," Ailes said.

Well it mustn't have been newsworthy...


"It’s an important story because it involves two hundred years of our military ethos, which is: If we ask you to ... risk your life for America, we promise that we will backstop you... In Benghazi we did not do that."

Well, I'm sure there's a good reason...

Ailes and Fox News were ultimately vindicated when evidence came to light that the Benghazi attacks did not occur due to a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video.

Video?  Wait... who said -- why would anyone say it was a video?  And how does that equal NOT helping your guys on the ground??!!!

HOLD ON!!  It was caused by a video!!  Stand down!!!  I repeat - stand down!


Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both implied that an anti-Islam video was responsible for the attacks even though evidence now suggests they both clearly knew that was not the case.

Ok, what?  Wait... hold on.  I'm still not sure why videos = stand down.
But... why did they say it was a video?

Am I drunk?

John Stossel, Andrew Napolitano and Ben Swann are great.

Stossel and Napolitano are good to keep up with, but otherwise I can't stand the channel.

True.  Not much difference from other news outlets.  Same formula, pretty faces, dumbed-down reports, music intros.  But they at least cover news other outlets pretend to miss.

Stossel is awesome -- simpatico.  Napolitano.  Don't know Ben Swann.  Hannity's good and Van Susteren is decent at old school gumshoe journalism.

Glenn Beck -- scared the crackers out of me.  Really opened my eyes to the vast network of the Left -- all the tax-exempt shadow organizations that exist - masking as charities and community organizations.  All run by the same people!  I give him credit for giving "the folks" the stones to form the Tea Parties.  "You surround them."

Ben Swann is the Reality Check guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2psqUDTS9w

Glen Beck is a huckster, he saw the fear after Obama was elected and used it to become a millionaire.

I learned a lot from Beck -- the nature of our founding, about how organized and powerful and shadowy the Big Left has become.  Stuff I knew, but he put A LOT of it together.  The creeping "iron curtain."  Saul Alinsky.  Cloward and Piven.  More than I could stand.  But yes, he made his empire.

Hucksters?  Obama, Algore and the left... I see them as the hucksters.  They're the one's terrifying the townsfolk -- robbing them of their fortunes, selling magic beans and skipping town with a jalopy full of  Benjamins. 

As a left-leaner, I think all the cable news networks are big jokes. I just go with Stewart and Colbert for my cable news. :lol :lol :lol :lol When I want real, serious news, I'll go with the BBC. I'm sick of the blowhards, idiots, and pretty boys on the "news" channels. (This applies equally to O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Bob Novak, Lou Dobbs...). Why did Walter Cronkite's heyday have to be before I was ever conceived?

Jon Stewart.  Yep, a lot of people have migrated to Jon Stewart for their -- as I call it -- highly-sweetened, news "fiber" breakfast cereal.  Ironically, he is today's lefty Walter Cronkite (who was also a leftist).

The problem I have with Stewart is he's obviously just another Lefty.  His program exists to laugh at people like me, which is fine -- but it's frustrating because I could show him to be the buffoon quicker than his cue card guy could get his punchline cards in order.

Also -- I don't watch him enough to know if this applies to him -- but like most leftists, they pretend to NOT be leftists and instead masquerade as impartial "journalists" or "entertainers" or whatever.  I assume this applies to him too, right?

Stewart's a quick, bright guy -- but the whole cloak of dishonesty is probably where I would start.  Square him up and out him.  It would take me 60 seconds to get "kicked off" his program.  Honesty is a powerful weapon!!   ;D

But, anyway... back to reality... I can get the leftist opinion on any issue by sticking my head in a blender -- so I don't really "need" Jon Stewart.  While Stewart's delivery is fresh to the left -- accustomed to sour professors and "serious" dan rathers-types -- his views are still antiquated and wrong.

The Daily Show is low-information entertainment for low-information people. Kind of like MSNBC and Fox News, y'know. :)

I think Daily Show is more than their entertainment.  I think it's their "fiber" too!   :lol  It's their news.  Their sarcastic, cultural sounding board.

That said... I'm just glad to see any Leftist with a sense of humor.

I watched bit of the Fox News channel round a friends a few weeks ago and was convinced it must be a parody as I couldn't quote believe what I was watching. I think it was a 'debate' along the lines of 'Obama will come into your house, rape your children, steal your medicne and give it the poor!'. I say debate - there were 6 people, 5 of whom where republicans, who just kept yelling at the 1 democrat guy. Is it always like this? What the hell do they have to talk about when there's a republican president?

*sigh* Welcome to America, Paulos.....

Oh yeah, I saw that episode!  Classic.

What actually happened was, some right-wing maniac named, Debbie Washerman Shlitz or something, bit the head off of a bat and redefined marriage - LIVE ON TV -- as a union between a basketball and wax paper.  It was nutz!!


Here she is... now...  Look at this crazy, right wing nut!!!

(http://images.politico.com/global/2012/09/120904_debbie_wasserman_schultz_dnc_ap_605.jpg)

I think the show ended with her proclamation that aliens should do Pilates with richard simons inside of dom deluise's butt.  It made nooooo sense!  I'm still deeply shivering.

When Bush was President they kissed his ass and told everyone to just blindly trust the government. After Obama took office, all of a sudden it was "government is bad, fight the evil liberal conspiracy", which is actually just a complete 360 back to how they were during the Clinton years. Doesn't matter if Clinton, Bush, and Obama all took the same stance on an issue, if Clinton or Obama push(ed) a particular policy, it was bad, but if Bush pushed the exact same thing, they'd gush over it.

Don't pretend that Fox News is more partisan than CNN or MSNBC. The latter two networks have found themselves loving the same sh*t Bush started and Obama continued merely because the latter has a (D) after his name and is an "oppressed minority". They have their heads so far up Obama's ass just like Fox News had their heads so far up Bush's ass.

Who are they?  It wasn't Conservatives.  It wasn't Libertarians.  It wasn't the Tea Party.  I'm not being flippant, that's a serious question.  They who?

Jeb Bush to award Hillary Clinton with 2013 Liberty Medal
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/jeb-bush-award-hillary-clinton-2013-liberty-medal/

Sorry, by "they" I meant Fox News.

I don't even bother with the cable news channels. Never have. Some days it seems like The Onion and Weekly World News are more reputable than the "real" news.

The only news show worth watching is the PBS Newshour with Gwen Ifill.  They're unbiased and they present the news with class.

Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are terrible, I do like Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow but even they're a little extreme sometimes.

But Bill O'Reilly, Fox & Friends, Chris Wallace, Joe Scarborough, Glen Beck... those guys are at the very bottom of television journalism. 

PBS, NPR, New York Times; that's where you should get your news.

(As for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, those guy are comedians, they've never tried to be serious journalists and while I'm a big fan of both of them, I would never get my news exclusively from them.  Though when they point out what's wrong with Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, you have to admit they are absolutely spot-on.)

You mean Jim Leher?

Unfortunately, those are just fake journalists spouting Left Wing Propaganda -- without the courage and human decency to admit they're Left Wingers spouting "raw-raw" Left Wing Propaganda.  That's a real character flaw in my book -- and at one time, a character flaw in every American Male's book.

I sincerely recommend Rush Limbaugh to balance out the bias and lack of manhood in your "news."  You would seriously benefit from it.  Plus he's honest about his positions, whereas the "news" organizations you mentioned pretend and lie about being impartial.  Pretty weenie when you think about it.  Plus Rush is witty and doesn't read from a prompter (Like Obama) with hackneyed propaganda written by some isolated, moronic college grad who "knows everything."  Rush just tells you what he thinks... like I do.  Like all honest men used to.

Yeah, you definitely need some more "real manliness" in your news perspectives.  Those two men are wimpy turds.

O'Reilly's not bad.  He has an agenda, but he does great interviews.  Both he and Wallace are not afraid to ask the obvious, tough questions... which is probably something you're not used to.  Bill's famous interview with that fat sh-t Barney Frank is what journalism should be -- holding criminals accountable... again, not something you would be used to I suspect.

Serious?  No.  But they do pretend to be journalists.  And they're dishonest -- as are all leftists -- especially leftist pretending to be journalists.

Limbaugh's not a journalist. He's an opinion guy, more entertainer than informer.

Yeah, you definitely need some more "real manliness" in your news perspectives.  Those two men are wimpy turds.
[/quote]
I've never got the whole macho thing. Not you specifically, but just machismo and the whole "tough-guy" thing in general.

O'Reilly's not bad.  He has an agenda, but he does great interviews.  Both he and Wallace are not afraid to ask the obvious, tough questions... which is probably something you're not used to.  Bill's famous interview with that fat sh-t Barney Frank is what journalism should be -- holding criminals accountable... again, not something you would be used to I suspect.
[/quote]
Like Limbaugh, O'Reilly's a pundit, not a reporter. If you fall on his side of the fence, he's good for entertainment value; But I wouldn't call screaming at and berating his guests "holding them accountable". It's actually nothing more than plain old "yelling and screaming".

Serious?  No.  But they do pretend to be journalists.  And they're dishonest -- as are all leftists -- especially leftist pretending to be journalists.
[/quote]
Those guys are comedians. "Pretending" to be a journalist is part of their act, just as much as Limbaugh going on mean-spirited angry tirades over dumb non-issues is part of his act. The comedians and the pundits are both laughing all the way to the bank. The big difference is Stewart and Colbert's audiences are laughing with them, where Limbaugh and O'Reilly are laughing at their audiences for actually taking them seriously.

Talk radio hosts are about 5% news and 95% opinion. I listen to Michael Savage; I by no means take him for more than what he's worth - one guy giving an opinion on current affairs. Same goes for Rushed Limpballs, Sean "The Wallbanger" Hannity, Mark Levin, and all of these so-called "conservative" talk radio hosts.

Rachel Maddow is a huge joke. I never knew how bad she was really until 2010. During the midterms some scientist or professor from a west coast university was running as a republican for the house. I saw her "interview" takedown piece of him being passed around and I was really surprised what a smarmy little pos she was to him.

As a professor he had put out a newsletter for years. In one place, in the 80s or 90s, this guy had written a few paragraphs offhand in his newsletter saying basically, "the scientific community has more or less agreed the hiv causes aids. I feel as if political motivations have maybe led to this hypothesis being accepted more quickly than was prudent as recently these specific studies X, Y, and Z have raised some challenging questions for this hypothesis." I remember then the final line was something pretty close to "ultimately it will only take a single paper to settle the matter".

I was really disgusted how the last line was being deliberately misinterpreted, as if to say "and *this* is that paper", but it's clear he wasn't considering his newsletter to be a scientific paper, he was simply saying more research was needed. Which I don't care how politicized and tumultuous the aids issue is/has become, that's a fucking good thing. Period. It's what science should always be doing every day regarding every piece of information it believes it knows.

In this interview she just constantly interrupted him, and then when he complained about being interrupted, she actually had the gaul to start mocking him for not understanding satellite delay by saying he "didn't understand the speed of light" or something like that. Even taking that delay into account there's no question she was interrupting him though, and just being generally rude and dismissive.

This video was proliferated across the internet by smug, asshole liberal democrats, who patted themselves on the back and jerked one another off about how smart and progressive they all were, and how republicans were all so woefully regressive and bad.

...

I would say, that was the exact moment I consciously abandoned leftism and turned my back on the democrats for good.

I don't trust any journalism. I like al jazeera well enough for their fairly balanced coverage, but dislike the opinions of their editorial staff a lot. zerohedge is great. Hyperbolic, somewhat too eager, and not to be trusted (like all economic news) when it comes to concrete predictions certainly, but really perceptive and intelligent from a pure econ standpoint. I check drudge report sometimes as well, but in general there is no single news website I really trust or endorse.

People are probably better off reading/watching/listening to the major networks, the smaller internet sites, and talk radio and then figuring sh*t out for themselves from there. Neither side is going to give a 100% unbiased report.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying with two exceptions. For one, I disagree with your conflation of leftism with democrats. Democrats, as far as I am concerned, are far from leftists. Second, while I am skeptical of most journalism, I wouldn't say that I "don't trust any journalism." Some journalism is more trustworthy than others. I think we should be far more skeptical of journalism that is organized by elite interests than journalism that works to present an alternative to the mainstream point of view.

I wouldn't even go so far as to include the major networks in that. As someone who followed the Paul campaign last time around it was an eye opening experience to see exactly what game they were playing painted in such a revealing light. Maybe there's a host here or there who will run a piece every once in a while of some substance, but in general I'm no longer able to really even trust them for coverage on anything anymore.

I agree with a lot of this too. Actually, I would say that looking at the mainstream news is crucial, not because it is particularly accurate but because it probably unintentionally reveals the truth more than any other area of journalism. Hence:

I'm not conflating them really. I see the democratic party as the primary instrument of leftism in the united states. And the democratic party as an entity controls leftists and distorts the sentiment and agenda they share, subjugating them to its own aims. I had given leftism a pass up until that point *because* of the nice face the mainstream gave it. When I rejected the democratic party and dissociated myself from the popular leftists I was no longer able to excuse anything.

I've read Kolakowski's "Main Currents of Marxism", as well as the "Black Book of Communism", and believe me, I am beyond sympathy for leftism. I studied econ undergrad at Uchicago and I simply do not respect Marx as an economic thinker. My primary intellectual interests today are with German Idealism. I'm very interested in Herder, the true founder of the social sciences, and have studied the dismantling by Kant of his proto-Marxist student with a lot of interest. I also think Schiller's Aesthetic Education preempts and frankly annihilates Marxist revolutionary sentiment.

I'm just not a leftist, and it's honestly not simply a matter of me not understanding things well enough.  

I'm somewhere between you and Fish on the mainstream media; it's just one piece of the puzzle and inevitably is a sort of backhanded way of getting the actual story.

Alex - seriously, I never said Limbaugh was a journalist. I was recommending him to Rocky Raccoon as a good place to start, since all his supposed "journalist" were weeny liars, pretending to be journalists.  My point was that Limbaugh was man enough to admit who he is, i.e.; not a journalist. Rocky's folks cowardly pretend they are journalists so as to benefit from the cloak of objectivity that being a journalist affords.

The same goes for the John Stewarts and Steven Colberts.  Except they insulate themselves with the cloak of "I'm just a comedian, so the joke's on you if you took me seriously!". As everyone said, you really should get info from multiple sources and get some perspective. That was my recommendation to Rocky.

I've slowly noticed Jon Stewart becoming gradually more jaded. His coverage of Paul and his somewhat hostile interview with Maddow were pretty refreshing but I really get the impression from stuff like that that things have...started to become less funny for him...

Not surprising, I do disagree with some of this. I will go through this rather systematically.


As far as I understand “left” and “right” as value judgements, they are largely related to basic economic principles. Left and right largely comes down to where one stands on the issue of ownership of means of production. If we are to really reduce the political spectrum, I think we could correctly say, as reductive as this might be, that the left is largely a space occupied by those who believe that the means of production should be commonly shared and the various ways that could happen, while the right is a space for those who are in favor of various flavors of private control. We could nuance this further and suggest that a more moderate left wing position or center-left position is one commonly understood as a “social democrat” which is largely labor-oriented and politically represented as such in various places, such as Canada with its NDP party. Even this moderate position is unrepresented in the United States.

For the most part, the Democratic party (especially since the onslaught of neo-liberal reform in the 1970s) have largely, like the Republican party, represented the interests of big business and private industry. This is why Big Business can just as easily support the Democrats, and have. In the 2008 election, for example, private industry significantly supported Barack Obama, just as they historically supported Clinton. The Democrat support for Big Business has been reflected in policy as Democratic presidents since Carter have largely succeeded in pushing for massive deregulation and the destruction of labor groups and overseeing the growth of the gap between the rich and poor as a result. Carter may very well have been the “dove” of American politics in the 70s but if that’s the case, it truly shows just how constrained political ideology was in the United States at the time, given that it was Carter’s administration that oversaw the radical slashing of social welfare programs and expansion of the US military. Furthermore, Democratic policies like NAFTA, GATT, Obama’s 2008 rescue of the business world whilst largely ignoring the needs of the population, reinforce what is perfectly obvious, that the party is mainly interested in serving the interests of the wealthy elite who control the country. The Democrats then, like the Republicans, have mostly been the primary instrument of the corporate world and work primarily to oppose leftist values and beliefs.


Well, again, this is a value judgement but I find both books you mention to be fairly appalling works of scholarship. Take the Black Book of Communism, for example, which uses almost exclusively non-Communist examples in its tally of deaths that it attributes to communism. Take, for example, the Soviet Union, which is one of the most egregious examples. The Soviet Union was, of course, neither communist nor Marxist. In fact, on the contrary, the Bolsheviks who took leadership after the revolution took the position of being anti-Marxists and were stridently opposed by the mainstream Marxists of the era. So great was Lenin’s loathing for the leftist position that he even wrote a whole book on the subject, wherein he referred to leftism as an infantile disorder. Just like you, Lenin was openly “beyond sympathy for leftism” both in words and in practice, the latter being shown in his immediate destruction of workers’ councils upon taking power. The fact that Soviet power is still associated with Marxism and communism is a real tribute to the propaganda systems of both Russia and the United States – a propaganda system that is perpetuated by the texts you mention above.


There is a lot that I disagree with Marx too (and I would never call myself a Marxist) but this is somewhat beside the point. The point that I disagreed with had nothing to do with your feelings about Marx but with your conflation of the Democratic party and leftism.

Make no mistake, I by no means believe that it should be the only source of information that one goes to. I just mean to say that the mainstream media may be the best source for the truth, not because they tell you the truth, but because they unintentionally reveal so well the intentions of the people who own the country, given the way they present stories, the basic assumptions to truth they make, etc. To be honest, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Fish and I are in agreement when it comes to mainstream media so it may be difficult to occupy a space between us. As an actress said to the bishop.

I would guess it's based on the increasing credibility he's received as a "serious" venue for politicians to appear on.  But... as I see that all Leftists are simply angry people at their core, I believe he's going to struggle with this.

To continue my cynical rant... I believe this was the point all along.  Yes, there is a studio audience, jokes, laughs and an "applause sign"... but that was never the crux of it.  I saw the Daily show show as the replacement of the Left's "ole' stiffs."  The Peter Jennings, Dan Rathers, Tom Brokaws -- the so called "serious journalists."  Their audience is dying off so enter Jon Stewart.


Basically, I think Limbaugh transformed political discussion and the role of "anchorman" by making it entertaining.  So now the Left is trying it with Stewart.  Of course "the Left" has had cultural and political messages planted throughout all of their news, films, TV, music and entertainment for decades... but they've really got a lot riding on Jon Stewart as playing anchorman.

...and then there's political campaigns.  The media actually dug up a story on how Romney left his dog on his roof or something?  I'm still not over that.  Yet no one was interested in Obama's horrific record as President, much less the fact that he was associated with some creepy leftist in Chicago, or that his college records are sealed, etc. etc. etc.

We learned that Rick Perry once visited a ranch or club or whatever, that back in the 1970s had some racial graffiti or something painted on a rock?!  WHAT?!?!  :lol  But no one could be bothered to see if Obama's parents/grandparents were Communists?   :wall

And what about George Stephanoplousolusuous's infamous Obama Campaign-planted question to Romney in the debate "Do you think we women should have the right to birth control pills?"  ???  A week later, Obama Campaign begins their WAR ON WOMEN campaign.  Smoooooth.
(http://abcallaccess.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SHOW_ART_NEWS_THIS_WEEK.jpg)
HACK ALERT! HACK ALERT! HACK ALERT!

That's one of the reasons we should be so scared of the NSA spying thing.  Sure, none of us may have political aspirations... but what about our nephews, friends and/or grand daughters?  If they were to EVER run against the establishment... don't think for a second that they won't dig up private phone records or emails or whatever.

(http://abcallaccess.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SHOW_ART_NEWS_THIS_WEEK.jpg)
I, George Stephanaopploiushousous, will see to it that you NEVER take our power away.

Check out this pic... no surprise that it's "Faux News"... LOL  >:D

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2010/04/over100percent.jpg)

Rush Limbaugh is the worst example, everything out of his mouth is hate speech.  I'm a feminist and I don't take misogynists seriously.

try it for two weeks.

l love that term, "hate speech".

Rushed Limpballs is entertainment and should be taken as seriously as such. He's paid to be a jackass and people buy the game.

I don't care what he is, the way he treated Sandra Fluke should have gotten him fired.

His advertisers didn't leave in great enough numbers to necessitate such a reaction. For the record, I did not agree with him on Fluke as far as the "slut" message. Otherwise, she needed to do like every other American - pay for her own birth control.

She wasn't making a case for herself personally, she was making a case for all women.  Birth control isn't just used to avoid pregnancy, there are women who need it for other health reasons.  You don't think they deserve to have their insurance cover that?

this is why i created the sep. of church n' state thread...

 ;)

I don't think birth control has that much to do with separation of church and state.  I mean, if people don't believe in birth control for religious reasons, that's fine.  Guess what?  Nobody's forcing them to use it.  It's that simple.

It depends on the insurance company. It's not a matter of what is "deserved", either. Health care isn't a right.

Edit: I apologize, Bean Bag.

It should be though.  I think we can all agree on that.

I'm usually against handouts but I'd rather pay towards stopping an unwanted child being conceived than having to pay towards it's upkeep for the next 18 years.

I don't agree. A right does not require property to be forcibly deprived from one so it can be given to another. Health care is no different.

Which is why our country needs a more socialized welfare to begin with.

All right. How do you pay for it?

I don't get it, she has the money to attend a $60,000 a year law school but expects other to pay her tab so she can continue to slag around??

Seriously?  I'm pretty sure Obama was forcing the Catholic church to provide it.  I wonder if he would force Muslims to eat pork.

I don't think pork has any medical benefits so that's a stupid analogy.

If the church was obligated to provide birth control, I'm saying that not every member of that church would have to accept it.  Only the women who ask for it.

No person should be forced to do anything they don't want to.  But a church isn't a person, it's an organization and it should be made accessible to every person who is a member of it.

I can say with absolute confidence that there are Catholic women who use birth control.  Religion is flexible.  No single person believes in the same thing, even if they belong to the same religion.  That's just silly to think that.  You mention the church as if it were a singular person who only listens to one set of rules.

Hey Rock, thanks for your reply.  But my analogy was not stupid -- your reply was.  With all due respect and no offense to you personally of course.  But your reply is mental.  I said nothing about individual Catholics!   ???  Individual Catholics are not prisoners of the Catholic church.   :-D  I'm talking about the Catholic church or any religion that doesn't believe in something -- being made to provide funding for it.  With all due respect, who do you think you are?  The Pope!?!?  :lol

Hey Muslims... According to Rocky's personal Religion -- which is, government first -- or Progressive Government Elitism -- you have to provide funding for pork farms, but individual Muslims don't have to eat the pork of course.  Ya see?  He's "fair" like that.   :lol :lol :lol

 :smokin

I'm not supporting government, I'm supporting common sense.  Birth control is a necessity for many women, plenty of other employers in the country cover it in their insurance plans.  Why should one organization be above that?  Let me ask you, where in the bible does it say that birth control is immoral?  What sort of religious beliefs are being stepped on?  The Catholic religion is NOT against birth control or abortion, it's the people who run the churches.

Hey, hey... you run the Catholic church now, Pope Raccoon!  So you tell me!  :lol

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said I had any authority over churches, I'm just stating an opinion, one that supports the health of real living people rather than defend the trainwreck that is organized religion.

Your last sentence is incorrect. Many Catholics do not follow or tow the line when it comes to birth control or (less so with) abortion, but the Pope and the Cardinals who do run the church, are the one's who issue church edict. They are against both. The real problem is, is that Catholic hospitals don't just cater to Catholic patients. They cater to everyone and receive some funding from federal agencies who are forcing them to comply or lose the funding. It's a real conundrum. The government is forcing the church to change what they believe in as a religion. We'll see how tough the Catholic Church really is; will they stick to their beliefs or will they change them for "filthy lucre"?

I know you don't have authority over churches -- you want it.  So I called you Pope!

The administration is forcing its authority over churches, was the point.


Organized religion is well-organized, this thread is the trainwreck.   ;D

You're putting words in my mouth.  When did I ever say I want any authority over the Catholic church?  I'm Jewish, I don't give a shit about a Catholic church.  I give a shit about the people, some who are my friends, who belong to it and have problems with it.  I'm trying to have a constructive argument with you.  If you're not interested in such a thing and you're going to continue with your immature attitude, then you don't have to reply.

You're Jewish?  Well, then.  Is there anything I, a gentile, can recommend that the Jewish religion change?

Hey, I'm not saying Judaism doesn't have its flaws either.  All religions have flaws.  But just because I'm one religion doesn't mean I can't critique another.  Keep in mind that I'm not criticizing people who follow religion, I'm not even really criticizing religion.  I just have a problem with how one particular organization chooses to deal with birth control.

I agree.  It's fair and just to be able to criticize, question, or be at odds with... anything that one doesn't agree with.  That's not what I'm talking about.  I'm saying... it doesn't thus award anyone a throne of authority to make them bow or change their ways.  If we're solely talking about "Federal Funding" then, yes... the Feds can choose to not fund.

But, the Catholic Church doesn't want to support/promote or provide birth control.  What many see as "reproductive rights" (never understood that!) or "health issues" -- the Church's gotta strong religious opposition to the practice and shouldn't be put in a position to fck themselves in the azz.

What if eating pork is seen as having GREAT benefits to women's ... eh hem "reproductive rights."  Or ham is found to greatly enhance male performance.  Or... pigs, in general, just promote good health.  I wouldn't strong arm them with Governmental power to change their ways or lose whatever economic benefits they enjoy (funding, tax exemption or whatever).  I wouldn't do that.  Well... unless I had some deep hate for the religion... which is what I'm talking about.

 :afro

My favorite “Faux News” story was Nov. 2010 when the talking idiots spent several days discussing how Obama’s trip to India would costs the taxpayers “$200 million a day”.  LOL Faux News consistently gets the facts wrong because, 1.) Fox does not believe in science and 2.) They have to bend their “phacts” to suit their tin hat wearing pinheaded audience.  You’d have to do a lot of digging at either CNN or MSNBC to see if those news organizations get their facts wrong as egregiously and as stupidly as Faux News does LOL

When MSNBC or CNN gets facts wrong, it’s because they are boneheaded or StuPeed.  When Faux News gets it wrong it because they are taking orders from their CORPORATE MASTERS.

 :3d

Fox News is just a liberal plant designed to make the left look good. Case in point; News Corporation gives WAY more to Democrats than Republicans. All of the major American news networks are corporate entities.

From the lefty-favored interweb news media...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/news-corp-pac-donates-to-more-democrats_n_2775997.html

The Huffington Post can be just as bad as Fox News at times.  Some of the news stories are legit but otherwise the website is a glorified tabloid.  I especially hate how they let advocates for homeopathy like Dana Ullman write articles for it, that alone should throw their credibility out the window.  I rarely read it anymore unless a friend sends me a link to a story.

I'm just generally sick of the "News Cycle."  I know it all, or whatever.  I know what the Left will say.  I know what the Republicans won't say.  No one says what I think.  It's like that movie, Groundhog day.  I feel like Bill Murray.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

(http://screencrave.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/top-time-travel-movies-groundhog-day-la-9-25-12.jpg)

I only watch Fox News if I watch news.  Usually I don't watch news, though, because it's very depressing.  The main reason I watch Fox News is because all the women are really hot.  Megyn Kelly is probably the hottest woman that ever lived.  

To clarify, i'm not joking, or trying to be funny.  I dont' watch news... but if I do watch news, dammit, I want the women to be hot.  Megyn Kelly can talk about anything she wants, and i'm going to believe it and be interested in it because she's very hot.

Now, a lot of guys might act like they're not like that... it's been my experience, though, that most guys are like that.  They're deluding themselves if they say otherwise.  

One has to be interesting to look at to work in the Face-industry.  With "hot" certainly falling into that category.

Are the newsbabes on other networks, not "hot?"  I thought that was a prereq for TV.

I guess you've got two-types of TV News folk.  The "cue card readers" and "the ones who aren't there for their looks."