Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous CRISIS MANAGMENT | HEROES Next »
RIP Walter Cronkite
A fierce liberal who kept hit opinions to himself and his coverage neutral as the best anchorman American ever had.
Take a hit, Fox. Cronkite is the gold standard.
(Walter Cronkite)
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: EWAdams via Advanced Lol Builder
 | Miss on Osombie |
 | Archer on How Far We Haven’t … |
| Archer on Spock Facepalm |
 | ExGeeEye on Suburban Problems |
 | Blue on Keeping the Internet Hone… |
| Blue on Keeping the Internet Hone… |
 | MrsQ of Philadelphia on THE FABRIC OF OUR LIVES |
| MrsQ of Philadelphia on THE FABRIC OF OUR LIVES |
| MrsQ of Philadelphia on Osombie |
 | Nad on THE FABRIC OF OUR LIVES |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
He kept his opinions to himself, but we know he was a fierce liberal…? Do I just need sleep or does this make no sense?
Makes perfect sense.
Bedtime for you.
This is just a way to take a shot at Fox News. That line didn’t need to make sense; it just needed to set up the last line.
Keeping his opinions to himself isn’t what made him the best, because he didn’t. He was the best because he focused on the news that was actually important. His coverage of Michael Jackson would have been “Michael Jackson died today of apparent heart failure. He was 50 years old.” Today’s news outlets devoted an entire week to him when there was a MASSIVE energy bill being debated in the house. Now that’s something EVERY news source should take note of. Then again, none of the members of the house read the bill so why should the media?
^ Win.
I second that ‘win’.
I third it, cause you could say the same line for any other media outlet at this time, liberal or conservative.
Ah-men.
Official Win.
yeppers.
Interestingly, Brit Hume was probably the anchor that came the closest to ole Walter’s standard in recent years.
That says more about the other anchors than it does about Hume, though.
John Galt, right on.
I voted on this lol and gave it a thumbs down. Too preachy.
Amen, LG. If someone needs to be preached at, it’s ABC–the Anything for Barack Company.
Why narrow down on Fox, when We can say the same for MSNBC, CNN, Every major and Minor off-air channel…. PBS
Declaring him a liberal just to bash something persevered conservative makes the attempt to make Walter Cronkite Win a Fail.
Nutral, this message is not
Generally speaking, the Fox bashers have rarely or never actually watched Fox, they’re just repeating what they’ve read from Media Smatters . . .
. . . or from Portland Mark who has dutifully cataloged every typo/mis-statement in the network’s entire history without providing similar analysis of the other networks for perspective (but hey, the guy has gotta have a hobby, right).
Also, the Fox bashers typically confuse the entertainment/commentary shows (Beck, Hannity, BOR), which are clearly delineated as such, with the straight news shows. To make a historically accurate analogy, that would be like confusing Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In with Cronkite’s Evening News.
As for Cronkite, he was openly liberal and frequently displayed bias, but compared to the majority of today’s news media who self-identify as liberal democrats, he looks like Lady Justice with her blindfold and scales.
Yeah, like when Fox says it’s fair and balanced, and goes on to be completely biased. If a network claims to be fair and balanced, how can it have shows like the O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity that are “clearly delineated” as conservative programs, and then have nothing to balance it out. This doesn’t make sense….
Liberal programs like Countdown with Keith Olbermann don’t have anyone to balance them out. Both sides are guilty of slanting things!
Bias everywhere, maybe – but unlike Fox, few outright lies. THAT is the difference. All media may have bias, but Fox’s complete lack of concern for the truth puts them in a class by themselves. They will lie about anything, distort everything, and do it with a grin. Fox News is destroying our country, and worst of all, they are doing it just to make an Australian billionaire even richer, and not for any worthier cause.
Just out of curiosity, what lies are you talking about? I know some news channels get things wrong from time to time but, rarely have I seen outright lies. And I really don’t see how a news channel can destroy a country. The government, yes; the news, uh..no.
fox is the only place you can go to get any news from a non democrat/ liberal controlled media, you have to take fox news and cnn news and find a medium. both sides are just as guilty.
The so-called “Liberal Media” is only as liberal as the CONSERVATIVE corporations that own them.
Yeah, FOX is evil. I don’t remember anyone at FOX ever getting chills down their leg after listening to a politician. FOX is the CLOSEST to fair and balanced. Yes, they are conservative, but they are closer to the center bar than the others.
Do you know what some members of the White House Pool said? (Now this isn’t a direct quote) I’m glad we have a president that we don’t have to watch dog. I’m sorry? Aren’t journalists supposed to be watchdogs!!!
Any one that praises CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC are brainwashed by them. (I don;t like any major news outlet, but then again, I have a brain.)
What about Al Jazeera? They’re consservative.
bleh *conservative
“he focused on the news that was actually important. His coverage of Michael Jackson would have been “Michael Jackson died today of apparent heart failure. He was 50 years old.” Today’s news outlets devoted an entire week to him when there was a MASSIVE energy bill being debated in the house.”
`
True enough. Unfortunately, any station that did that nowadays wouldn’t last a week on the air. The viewers would get bored with the boring old energy bill and change the channel to Jerry Springer or run off to the grocery store to read all the Michael Jackson gossip in the tabloids.
WIN!!11!1!!!
…because Jon Stewart fell face first into a cream pie while attempting to slog through it due to it being just so BORING.
why is it just, “take a hint, FOX”? is it because they are more conservative? why not , “take a hint news media”? CNN is just as opinionate as FOX; they just root for the other team.
*headdesk*
well, nice to see you use your head for SOMETHING, anyway…
Unlike you?
No my friend, apparently he uses his head for logic and intelligence. More than you would think, too.
Random attack is random.
He’s just jealous of your forehead.
NAH I premeditated it.
no it is “take a hint, Fox” because FOX is notorious for not bothering to check facts and not bothering to report accurately. too much fluff and nonsense and not enough substance.
Yes Walter would have simply reported the death of Michael Jackson and said autopsy results to follow and left it at that, HE would have covered the energy bill, as it was real news.
Right. Because it said “A fierce liberal who always checks his facts…Take a hint Fox.” If it was about bias, it would have said something like “A fierce liberal who kept his opinions to himself and his coverage neutral…” Wait… crap.
Snicker. CNN exceeds Fox in that regard… as does the New York Times, for that matter.
I was in shock. My Mom is in town and bought a Washington Post **shiver** and it actually had a critical article about Obama. I had to like take a few minutes to collect my thoughts…. it was a glorious day.
There is definitely some buyer’s remorse going on….
New York Times helped Osama bin Ladin, ya know.
And Ronald Reagan helped put Osama Bin Laden into power in Afghanistan in the first place.
*cough*Dan Rather*cough*
**hands jbug a Ricola** That better?
I would wildly guess that the captioner means something along the lines of “he kept his coverage neutral despite personally being fiercely liberal”?
Yeah, but it doesn’t sound as good that way.
Problem is, he didn’t. A lot of Vietnam vets are still mad at him for his biased reporting of Vietnam.
I’m sure.
“A lot” of Vietnam vets are also still mad at John Kerry for driving a Swift Boat. Or at George W for not learning from history. Or at Barry Sadler for glorifying that charley-foxtrot.
Take your pick; unquantified percentages don’t mean much.
Yep.
I can narrow it down a little for you…
‘A percentage of Vietnam vets which is slightly smaller than the percentage who want Jane Fonda Dead, hate Cronkite for showing bias in his reporting during the Vietnam War’.
I know it’s not specific, and it’s uncited, but still true. Maybe.
Yes, but Cronkite had the evening pulpit from which to sound his message to the nation that neither Kerry nor Bush ever had.
The point is that his words about Vietnam changed the perception of the nation. Whether you agree with the war or not, the point is that a true reporter should not show bias. He did. He abused what the media outlets now call a “sacred duty” to report the news, not push his version of it.
It wasn’t his words, it was the pictures. It was the first time Americans at home ever saw what war was really like, brought home on their tvs. It wasn’t glorious and brave and worthwhile and noble. This war was ugly and dirty and worst of all, pointless. THAT is what changed the perception of the nation. And Cronkite did not distort it or show bias – he just told the truth about a war, for the first time in history. How do I know? I know because I was there – I’m old enough to remember it all.
Oh, I didn’t know war was never brutal or deadly like that before Vietnam, because I’m sure all those who recalled the events and aftermath of the battlefield as a picnic like the country fair, or an Easter egg hunt. I don’t remember seeing all those photographs of the fields of dead on Civil War Battle fields. Nobody has *ever* seen the maimed survivors of past conflicts.
That’s just how war was, is now, and forever shall be. And yes, there was a point to the war, stopping communism from spreading by helping the good nation about to be destroyed by a corrupt system.
Wow where to start. The South Vietnamese government was far more corrupt than the North, in the end it didn’t make a difference that they became communist, and there were rarely images release of current combat and casualties.
He wasn’t fiercely liberal. He was merely sane.
DERP DERP
Or Fiercely liberal…
Unfortunately, while I respected Walter Cronkite immensely, he didn’t always keep his opinions to himself. His reporting on the Tet Offensive, in his own words, were speculative, personal, and subjective. In addition, it probably started the slow erosion of the MSM’s credibility.
-
Having said that, I always respected the man and his contributions will be missed but forever appreciated.
Yes but with Walter you ALWAYS knew when his reporting was based on his personal opinions unlike reporters today, he always told you it was personal or speculative etc. Today’s anchors inject the stories with there own personal opinions all the time and either don’t see it or don’t really care if it skews the story.
Wow – this one really takes the cake in total cluelessness of the creator.
Walter NEVER kept his liberalism out of his reporting, as evidenced by his declaring the Tet Offensive as proof the Vietnam War was lost, when the officensive had been an overwhelming military victory for the South. The North Vietnamese typically credit Cronkite for winning the war for them, from his total misrepresentation of what occurred in 1967 keeping them in the war, instead of sueing for peace, which is what some of them had been planning, until they saw how the US reacted to the supposedly unbiased Cronkite.
The blood of everyone who died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos from violence in 1968 until the fall of Pol Pot is firmly on the hands of Cronkite.
And, the fact he steadfastly went to Dan Rather’s defense over the BLATANTLY FORGED documents Rather used to try to defame GWB only served to destroy what credibility he’d built up from the coverage of the moonshots. If Rather had a real case, it would be understandable, but Cronkite continued supporting Rather even after Rather was caught trying to further his fraud.
I respected his earlier service, and his time in uniform and covering things other than politics (which when it comes down to it, that’s what Vietnam was – bad politics started by one Democratic president and carried further by both parties).
But the only “Gold Standard” Cronkite represented, when mentioning his impartiality in politics was FOOL’S GOLD.
Here here!
Where, where!?
There, there!!
…and once again I find myself singing “Oooh, sweet mystery of life”.
(The “here, here”-error always makes me think of the
“Werewolf!”
“There wolf!”
from Young Frankenstein. :p)
I almost did that quote too.
Mel Brooks FTW.
There Castle!
It’s Eye-gore, actually.
Well is it Froe-derick Frahnk-enstein? No… Its Fred-rick Frahnk-enstein.
Put! The candle! BACK!!
What hump?
What knockers!
Wasn’t it more like “Frohn-kohn-steeen”?
It’s a great movie, at any rate!
I believe you’re right.. I was trying to work it phonetically, but I think you got it perfectly. As for the movie, it’s one of my all time favorites. In fact I did a lol with Obama/Biden on the movie.. {http://cheezburger.com/view.aspx?ciid=4479953}
Absolutely perfect!
I’ve only made “Put. The candle. Back”-ones:
One
Two
LOL!!!
Super duper!
HA! Brilliant
You’re putting me on.
It’s “hear hear” numb nutz.
It’s “nuts,” numb nuts.
Numb nuts: it’s nuts!
In Soviet Union, nuts kick you.
That’s why they’re numb!!
Nah b/c it’s cold there.
Damn, I hate shrinkage.
If Cronkite in any way hastened or contributed to the righteous butt-kicking the US took from N. Vietnam, that only makes him more of a hero in my book.
Earbrass: Fvcktard Troll…. go home.
He hasn’t called anyone a name, and actually added something to the conversation. How does this make him a troll? Oh, right, you don’t agree with him, so he’s a troll.
Ivan: Come on that was 100% Troll thing to say, and you know it. Even if I agreed with it, I would call Troll. And you know I’ve called out conservative Trolls before as well. Anyone who glorifies the death of any soldiers in this way is a Troll.
Not so. In his opinion (and many people share that opinion!) we shouldn’t have been in Viet Nam in the first place. Remember Conscientious Objectors? Draft card burning? Moving to Canada? Berkley? 4 dead in O-hi-o?
I don’t see where he’s glorifying anyone’s death, though.
“righteous” butt-kicking isn’t glorifying it?
right·eous (rī’chəs)
adj.
1. Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.
2. In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
3. Morally justifiable: righteous anger.
“Justified” does not equal “glorified”.
Thank you. I felt that needed saying. Righteous isn’t a synonym for glorified.
Disagree… Virtuous is glorifying it.
Virtuous isn’t a synonym for glorified either.
So if I said the Californians virtuously defeated Prop 8, I wouldn’t be making it into a positive or making it seem like it was the right thing to do?
You could say that the result was “righteous”. That’s what the supporters of Prop 8 thought.
He didn’t even say virtuous.
virtuous synonym of righteous.
No- righteousness is in accordance with virtue.
Look at the definition- saying something is righteous does not necessarily glorify it, just that it was the morally correct path to take. You can fault him for his opinions, but you can’t say he’s glorifying it.
I disagree. Calling something righteous in a postitive tone is glorifying it. We’ll have to disagree on this. Using a positive adjective for something to me is glorifying it.
There’s a difference between not wanting us there, and hoping we lose. Isn’t it the liberals who jumped all over Rush as unpatriotic when he wanted Obama to fail (lose). However if Obama fails then it doesn’t cost that many more lives of Americans.
Don’t get me started on “Conscentious Objectors? Draft card burners, Moving to Canada, Berkly, Kent State.” Kent State is the only true tragedy, however the protestors were not necesarily being all peaceful. It’s hard to stand there and get pelted with bottles, rocks, etc and not have an urge to defend yourself. Draft card burners should be arrested and tried for AWOL. Those that moved to Canada hoepfully stayed there, don’t need people who skirt their responsibilities. Berkly what a waste of space in America, school is on the wrong side of pretty much everything in terms of America. Maybe we could take the school and move it to Europe.
“Berkly what a waste of space in America, school is on the wrong side of pretty much everything in terms of America. Maybe we could take the school and move it to Europe.”
Now that is a fine example of narrow-mindedness. Eliminate any academic philosphies which conflict with your own. Maybe we could move you to China.
suicide, he pretty much said it all with “Anyone who glorifies the death of any soldiers” and “However if Obama fails then it doesn’t cost that many more lives of Americans.”
Three million Vietnamese died, caught in the middle of a proxy war that should have been won – or abandoned – quickly. Instead it turned into a meat grinder, dragged out over years. But the only thing that matters to him is that 58,000 Americans died. And by some fantastic trick of logic, by trying to bring them home the protestors actually killed them and “glorified” their deaths.
John Donne was considerably wiser about the subject: “Any man’s death diminishes me… never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Ari: Yeah that’s what I said. Wrong again. We agree that it should have been won quicker, however individuals like Cronkite and Johnson dragged it out. Instead of fightin the war the way it should have been fought, they handcuffed our military. And where did I say the protestors killed them, however I would say spitting on soldiers and calling them baby killers was really looking our for their best interest. B/C everyone who was protesting the war was doing it as “Please save our soliders” History fail for you Ari.
As for Suicide I was being sarcastic about Berkly for the most part. But that school has some SERIOUS issues about truth. (I’m sure Ari will say the same about me).
How do you know that Berkeley (that’s how it’s spelled, btw) has SERIOUS issues about the truth?
We don’t agree – won OR abandoned is what I said. Only allowing a war to end if you “win” is how you wind up with a meat grinder.
It stretches the imagination to say that people protesting several years into a war are the reason it couldn’t be ended quickly.
I can’t speak for the protestors against the Vietnam War, but I can speak for myself as a protestor before we sent troops into Iraq for fictitious WMDs. The pundits, whether behind a news desk or behind a computer screen, were quick to make the exact same accusations you just made. And I can assure you that those accusations are completely false. I didn’t protest against sending troops into Iraq because I hated them or would call them horrid names, I protested because I didn’t want them, or millions of civilians, to die needlessly. Mindreading fail for you, ILPB.
And html fail for me.
Ari: Have you studied the protests for Vietnam. They started off as “Hooray for our side.” And then eventually turned into “Baby Killers” and spitting on returning soldiers. The sad is that become the norm not the rarity.
And actually it doesn’t stretch the truth. The Politicians are voted in by the people. If the people are unhappy someone new is voted in. The people were not happy about Vietnam, therefore the Politicians tried to fight a “clean” war, with limited civilian casualties, ie handcuffing the military. The VC were aware of this tactic and used it to their advantage, using villages as staging points, hiding in civilian population, attacking during a cease fire, etc…. So it’s not as far fetched as you think. Is it solely on their heads, HELL NO, it’s on Kennedy’s, Johnson’s and Nixon’s for not having the courage to either leave Nam or fight the fight that was in front of them.
I’ve never said it was unpatriotic to protest, actually quite a few LOLs back I’ve said that. Desent is patriotic, as I’m sure you would support my right to have Tea Parties I will support your right to protest the War (gotta love that 1st Amendment).
SB: The fact that a school that takes Federal Grant money will not allow Military Recruiters on it’s campus is kind of well Wrong!!! The policies from the school is usually to squash philosophical differences that point to a conservative side, however they invite suspected terrorists to speak on campus. I do not appreciate Berkeley, I visited the campus once when I was doing my AT in San Fran, wasn’t very friendly to those with “conservative” views, but touted “Free Speech”.
I am fully aware that returning soldiers experienced a lot of stigmatization, and that a lot of it came from extremist protestors. It was absolutely wrong of them to tar all soldiers, the overwhelming majority of whom were good and honorable people, with the same brush as the ones who committed massacres.
But you’re doing exactly the same thing to tar all protestors with the same brush as the idiots who abused soldiers. I have little doubt that the vast majority of them were motivated by wanting to bring the soldiers home alive. Not by hatred, as you impugned by saying “I would say spitting on soldiers and calling them baby killers was really looking our for their best interest. B/C everyone who was protesting the war was doing it as “Please save our soliders” History fail for you Ari.”
Ari: The sad thing is by the end of the war it was the norm NOT the exception to spit on and trash returning soliders. Yes there were some respectful detractors, I’m ok with them, but you seem to make it seem like only a few people were the bad apples. I would have to disagree, as would I’m sure many of the Nam vets. And my passages you cited, was in retort to your saying the protestors were mostly pro soldier. I never used a broad brush to say all protestors spit on troops, go back and reread what I wrote.
Ari wrote: “And by some fantastic trick of logic, by trying to bring them home the protestors actually killed them and “glorified” their deaths.” I was pointing the opposite that many of the protestors WERE not doing if for the soliders benefit, ”
I wrote: “however I would say spitting on soldiers and calling them baby killers was really looking our for their best interest. B/C everyone who was protesting the war was doing it as “Please save our soliders” History fail for you Ari.”
So once again you skirt around the issues. And you still haven’t answered my question about the Tea Parties.
You must have a very low view of the US Army to think that something like news channels reporting on the war could render them so impotent.
Umm the ones who moved to Canada tried to stay until the babbling bush came to power and started 2 wars, he needed to “set examples” so managed to convince the government (Harper – his pet puppy) to start sending the draft dodgers back to the US for court marshal
yet 4 years earlier, anyone who even criticized Bush was unpatriotic. The constant refrain was “if you don’t like it go live somewhere else” funny how that changes now.
If you don’t like it, go live somewhere else.
Yeah, like Alec Baldwin and Barbara Streisand..
Can we somehow convince Stephen Baldwin to go somewhere else?
He’ll move right after Alec does….
Hell, take the whole Baldwin clan..
They could cannabalize Danny-boy for at least a year if they went native somewhere.
The could, but they would probably end up buggering him instead.
Look at the bright side, Ivan, the 4 dead in Ohio didn’t have to go to Vietnam! 8D
I wholeheartedly agree.
The comment was disgusting and unnecessary, and in no way did it “add” something to this conversation. If anything, it subtracted something–namely, my respect for the poster.
^^^^
That.
So, you think he’s a hero b/c he made the US lose a war which not only makes the casualties all in vain, but also caused millions of innocent lives? There is something wrong with you.
Uhmmm, that’s an awful lot of power to attribute to a dude who never gave an order…
Not officially. He influenced the public to be against the war. The only reason Nixon ended it was b/c of the public.
And the media holds a lot of power. LOTS of power.
You said “he made the US lose a war.”
That sounds pretty damn official to me. Or hyperbolic.
He fixed it later, it’s fine now.
WTF?
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. It’s all good….
*headdesk*
Duh :rolleyes:
The American public are not sheep.. **bahh** I don’t **bahh** know what you’re talking abahhht.
Oh really?
BAHHHH….
You’re using revisionist history. Nixon ended the war because we were getting our asses handed to us, not because the public didn’t like it. It was an unpopular war from the onset.
Nixon actually made the comment “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost the American people”, or something along those lines. He knew that if he lost in the court of public opinion, he was through.
Following Cronkite’s editorial report, President Lyndon Johnson is reported to have said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” Several weeks later, Johnson announced he would not seek reelection.
(Wikipedia)
Thank you, I got the pres’s mixed up *blush*
I just happened to have read that passage about 30 minutes before I read your post, otherwise I certainly wouldn’t have had an idea.
odd- I was there and yet we were kicking the NV ass*s! We were defeated by our own government and media
If only they could have reigned Johnson in. He was our own worst enemy.
His rules of engagement killed a lot of our own people.
“Made” the US lose a war? Casualties in vain? We got the f*ck out when we did, thus saving tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in the process. That “casualties in vain” line is a load of crap. What do you do, just keep throwing men at the problem until there’s nothing left but women, children and old people? And rich white men?
The ninth century called, they want their values back.
There is such a thing as rich non-white people.
Maybe you should return your book to Barnes & Noble since it’s full of fail. The only reason the U.S. didn’t go in and kick ass is because of the ROE that Johnson put in place. Had it been managed correctly, Vietnam would not have turned into the clusterfsk that it was.
-
I believe there would be thousands of Vets that would like to righteously kick YOUR ass, starting with me. Fscking twit..
Eddie, can I watch from the fence post and eat popcorn when you do? (We all know you’re going to.)
Hell, I’ll even pop it for you and throw in free beer (good quality stuff too!)
Hrmmm…..
I’m not drinking until 24, Eddie. (Isolated college inebriation incidents excluded) I don’t want to touch the stuff ’till my brain stops growing.
Hrrmmm….. Quality beer… while watching fighting… so tempting.
Nah, I’ll just bring my own root beer
You can be in charge of handing it out then, ok?
-Nods and is excited for tips-
Don’t take tires off a truck in motion.
the error you concede is that reporting can now be biased as long as it is biased to your likes.
Regardless of your view of the war, you have now endorsed biased reporting. By doing so you endorse Fox as well as more liberal news outlets.
“The blood of everyone who died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos from violence in 1968 until the fall of Pol Pot is firmly on the hands of Cronkite.”
Hyperbole, you’re doing it over-the-top.
He learned by watching you, alright he learned by watching you!!!!
Okay, that made me LOL, but Czernobog is right. That was totally over the top.
If the war hadn’t ended and the US had continued on its bombing campain, then the US would have won and Pol Pot would not have gone into Cambodia.
The whole Vietnam war was done wrong. It was done too “nicely”, avoiding civillian casualties despite the fact that they were hiding the Vietcong. When Nixon finally had the courage to actually do some damage on N. Vietnam, he backed out b/c of public opinion, opinion influenced heavily by Walter Cronkite.
ok, uh… that is two points in a 60-some year career and if you paid attention, whenever he voiced an opinion, he *told* you it was his opinion and not ‘news’, which is more than I can say for anything coming out of ANY of the networks these days. (not just FOX- FOX is full of conservative opinions, all the other ones are full of liberal opinions… not a drop of news in the lot of them.)
Yes, he is the gold standard- for letting us know when he is voicing an opinion and not news.
Excellent points, which are reminiscent of a couple of lines from a song of that era:
“Singing songs and carrying signs,
Mostly say, ‘Hooray for our side.’”
Progress: Instead of it being “a thousand people in the street,” all you need are a few talking heads to yell at each other.
Well, come on generals, let’s move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get those reds —
The only good commie is the one who’s dead
And you know that peace can only be won
When we’ve blown ‘em all to kingdom come.
-
And it’s one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it’s five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we’re all gonna die.
-
I Feel Like I’m Fixin’ To Die Rag by Country Joe McDonald.
Which, iirc, also features the line: “Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box”.
`
Somebody had a REAL dark sense of humor there.
HU-ZAH!!!!
This still doesn’t mean he wasn’t the best damn reporter the United States had ever seen
Then that’s really says a lot about how low our media has slunk
Or skunk. Whatev.
Or stunk.
Spunk?
You heard it here! Cronkite had spunk all over him! Film at eleven!
Funk.
*dances around living room*
Well said.
Excellent!
“The blood of everyone who died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos from violence in 1968 until the fall of Pol Pot is firmly on the hands of Cronkite.”
Speaking of losing credibility…
“The blood of everyone who died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos from violence in 1968 until the fall of Pol Pot is firmly on the hands of Cronkite.”
Wow. Exaggerate much?
He never said the war was lost. he said it was “unwinable”. And before you say it’s the same thing, it’s not. He was saying we wouldn’t loose, but we couldn’t win. He did also state what was his opinion versus what was verifiable.
“The blood of everyone who died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos from violence in 1968 until the fall of Pol Pot is firmly on the hands of Cronkite.”
Mm yeah, Robert McNamara had nothing at all to do with any of it.
That useless shit McNamara died a few days before Cronkite
The documents may have been a forgery ( I suspect they were a plant by K. Rove {I am speculating here]) because the bushies knew that Rather had been investigating Bushes AWOLs and had contacted the secretary of Ws C.O. (his C.O. was dead). The secretary said that although Rather’s documents were forgeries, she had personally seen OFFICIAL documents that said the same thing. Bush was absent without leave. He chickened out on the fight to even defend Texas from Oklahoma. I wonder how many instances of Bush snorting up a mountain of coke his daddy had to silence for him, let alone his DUI.
Doesn’t MLD stand for Moderate Learning Difficulties?
Massive.
I think you’re over eaggerating your penis size Deep……. :-O
Nah…he’s a big dick alright.
He’s Biggus Dickus?
You must be Dick Fitzwell?
“He’s Biggus Dickus?”
`
Do you find this… wisible?
No… it was a rather bad way to make a point. He part of the liberal media machine but was man enough to control it when he was at the helm… unlike other fallen anchors….
… and how can you make a point of Fox on that? Because it’s the ONE station that does not have a liberal slant… meh, too easy… I give.
How can one make a point of Fox on that? Because they are the slantiest of the slanted. No matter how much one side slants, Fox will always slant a little more. And be completely erroneous while doing it.
Rattus: Let me guess you’re a liberal? Therefore you thought of a slant has that bias. To a conservative CNN and MSNBC have those slants. Why is it always a competition? Can’t we just say “int today’s world the media is biased, whether it’s Fox news for conservatives or CNN/ MSNBC for liberals. Choose your poison.”
FOX “slants” right, MSNBC “slants” left. I have no problem with that, watch what you want. But I DO have a problem with FOX trumpeting how “fair and balanced” they are, when it is painfully clear to anyone with half a brain that they are extremely right-wing biased. NOBODY would care that they are biased, if they didn’t keep denying it!
Don’t believe that FOX is hard right? Make a list of their pundits. Almost EVERY ONE has a conservative agenda. O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck… Yes, MSNBC’s pundits have a liberal agenda. But they AREN’T telling us they are “fair and balanced”. PLEASE stop pretending that they show both sides! Watch John Stewart once in awhile. (and NO, I’m not suggesting I watch The Daily Show for serious news. I’m fully aware that it’s entertainment) He LOVES to show when FOX has unfairly edited a clip to make a Democrat look bad. I may go look up a few of those clips…
Because the country assumes the MSM is unbalanced, they have been telling us that for years! It’s something we all have expected from our news sources, but they are letting us down.
It’s been a long time since the MSM has been truly unbiased. Hell, you could easily argue they’ve NEVER been unbiased. I *love* MSNBC, but I don’t even try to pretend it’s unbiased. It’s biased towards my beliefs and views, so I like it. That makes me human. I don’t HAVE to be unbiased. I’m not a reporter. But deep down the old journalism student winces every time they say something clearly biased. So as someone who was forced to study media ethics in college, I know where you’re coming from. But let’s face it, anyone who still believes the news is balanced on any given outlet is more gullible than Biden in that LOL from the other day.
(And just to show that I don’t favor all liberal news outlets, I despise the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a clearly liberal leaning newspaper that has some of the worst writing and half-assed publishing standards I’ve ever seen.)
Ivan: MSNBC Slogan “Fuller spectrum of News” to me implies inclusion of the entire story, not a slant.
CNN describing their own Website: “CNN.com delivers the latest breaking news and information on the latest top stories, weather, business, entertainment, politics, and more.” Since there is no adjective besides “top” then one could deduce they mean all the “Top Stories” not just the liberal leaning ones.
You forgot Colmes and Rivera (wait they’re Liberals). Where is MSNBC’s or CNN’s conservative?
I do try and watch Jon Stewart, but once again he’s gone from “Media Police” to “Fox/ conservative” basher. After 2004′s Election he slipped so far left I really can’t stand his craptacular implications.
Alan Colmes is the Crypt Keeper, only less entertaining. He did a mediocre job of presenting alternative perspectives to Hannity’s vitriolic sputtering. Also, he has left that show and isn’t being replaced.
Until the next time boils and ghouls, pleasant screams…
He has his own show now.
MSNBC has Joe Scarborough, whose show is three hours long. Where is Fox’s three-hour-long show hosted by a liberal? Hell, where is Fox’s show hosted by a liberal?
Colmes has two hours, Rivera has one or two hours.
It’s because Fox makes it too easy for The Daily Show. Please remember that Stewart does not work alone and has a whole team of writers and comedians working with him. Like I’ve said before, sometimes the jokes write themselves, and Fox does a great job of that.
Agreed. Fox makes the jokes so easy it requires the brainpower of punching a wall, at this point.
A wall made of idiot pundits.
Just Like CNN?
Yes, but that would only work if we were talking about a republican comedy show.
Fox is quite even with many of its shows. Yes, Hannity is totally slanted, but so is Alan Colmes. There’s slant for both sides on that network.
And obviously, you haven’t seen Shep Smith, as he keeps his opinions to himself. And Kieth Olberman, ringing and bells? That man is the “slantiest of hte slanted”.
And what about the guy that gets cold shivers up his legs when he sees Obama? Chris Matthews? Not too biased there.
Slic: It’s not a bias if it’s true……. what are you thinking?
Given half a chance, Chris Matthews would put on a blue dress and wait in the oval office hoping for a ‘Monica moment’.
There is one Fox. How do you explain all the other news sites?
Popularity?
Ignorance?
Avarice?
Reverence?
Relevance?
Boobies?!?!?
You like peanut butter boobies?
With chocolate sauce.
And a cherry. On the bottom.
What a happy ending!
.. to the thread.. I mean…
who wouldn’t?
I love happy endings.
“I think you pay extra for that Cotton.”
Uhhmmmm…. King of the Hill for $1,000?
You FRAIL!!!! Dodgeball for $2000….
While I agree that he was a great anchorman, I find it funny how the captioner fails to note that CNN and MSNBC spew their liberal vomit as freely as Fox does their conservative. But of course, that’s perfectly okay. *eyes rolling so hard they orbit*
NO SHIT REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
:monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:
“This is CNN: Not Even Pretending to be Fair and Balanced”
Not just FOX news, all “journalist” should take note. They have a long way to go before being this good.
The problem is of course not only fox..
“Celebrating Cronkite while ignoring what he did”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/18/cronkite/index.html
MLD, you said it correctly and once again it looks like the selective memory gene has struck again either that or more liberal changing of history. After all…. if you say it enough times it becomes the truth.
Fact of the matter is Walter, while one of the better liberal reporters, did NOT keep his liberalism out of his stories or public/media. Do a little research before popping off with crap like this.
Miss him, yeah, he was a fairly good reporter by today’s standards.
Why mention Fox? Because they are not ultra libs like MSNBC, ABC (ALL Barack Channel) and the others? Because they do not fawn over The One, Obama? Sorry, UR wrong. And why even put that in a tribute to someone? L
Maybe FOX was singled out because they the ultra republicans; the opposite of Cronkite. Where was your criticism when Fox was fawning over Bush and Cheney when they were in office? Pardon? Speak up?
The problem with criticizing a media outlet for being biased just shows your hypocrisy. Why not admit that there is a problem in journalism today in that all outlets can’t keep their opinions out of reporting?
Though I agree with your assessment all media is bias, you don’t have to attack someone for pointing that out. The reason the person brought Fox out was, WAIT FOR IT, Fox was specifically called out for in the LOL. So the person was pointing out, why not point out all medias and just not Fox (didn’t seem overly compalining just pointing out the facts), so if you truely agreed with your own assessment you too would have critiscized this LOL. But since that was lacking in your post, I would like you to meet Mr. Hypocrisy, I mena yourself.
The reason FOX keeps getting put in the barrel (so to speak) is that they pretend they are not right-biased. MSNBC doesn’t pretend to be “fair and balanced” and they don’t even hint that they are. That’s why we liberals watch it.
You people are all defending FOX like it’s your closest relative! Too funny!
I’m not defending Fox in any means. I’m just asking people to do what they keep saying Fox does, be fair and unbalanced. And Ivan, the other news agencies also allude if not outright say they too are unbiased. “All the News that’s fit to print?”
“I’m just asking people to do what they keep saying Fox does, be fair and unbalanced.”
I think you messed up that sentence. We claim FOX is NOT fair and balanced. Wait, you said fair and UNbalanced. Ok…well…shoot, STILL doesn’t make sense.
And, yes, my friend. You ARE defending FOX vociferously.
Nope just asking for equal due. If you’ve ever read my posts I don’t watch Fox, CNN, or MSNBC…. I don’t like the news anymore. It’s sensationalism at it’s best. If I said the Black Panter’s have a smuch right to free speech as the KKK, would I be defedning both groups, or asking for equality?
I don’t know, but is it too much to ask that you invest in a dictionary?
Firefox spell checks the posts. Maybe it’s time he switches. My posts don’t have near perfect spelling on their own, you know.
DAMNIT Eric! Our secret is out! I love the embedded spell checker in Firefox.
HAHAHA XD
No, the reason FOX keeps getting put in the barrel is that they keep lying to their audience and masquerading around as news with a straight face.
Sources? Or just made up? Have they forged any documents on Obama ? Come to think of it, he could use a good forged birth certificate…
(Liberal screaming commencing in 3..2..1..)
Personally, I criticize them all for being biased, but that’s just me.
The lol is weaksauce, there were at least a dozen better ones than this on the same subject.
But Basara, it’s endlessly amusing how you take ONE example of Cronkite stating an opinion – an opinion based on objective facts, offered not during the news but during a separate special program that CBS carefully segregated from the straight news – and turned that into something he ALWAYS did. You are, simply and plainly, dead bullshite wrong on this.
You cannot say he NEVER did something and then give exactly ONE example. At most you can say it isn’t true he was ALWAYS 100% objective. The truth is that in his news broadcasting he was 100% objective, that’s why he was trusted so absolutely and why he had such a strong position from which to give his evaluation of what he saw in Vietnam.
(And you seem to have bought into the initial government-issue reporting on the Tet offensive without even noticing the follow-up that showed the Army was lying about how it went down.)
Slan: Sorry got to disagree with you on that one. In the eyes of a military attack the Tet offensive was a disater to the VC and North Vietnamnese (which was pretty much destroyed). The American forces had an overwhelming victory there.
But thanks to Uncle Walt, the public relaitons of the Tet offensive worked better than planned. Though not as bad as Hanoi Jane, Uncle Walter helped the cause of the VC and North Vietnamnese by buying into the fact America lost Tet. Since Johnson had a pair of testicles the size of cherries, he worried that a counter assault at that time would worsen public opinion, so he balked. If Uncle Walt had stated the facts (VC were down to 50% Strength, and NVA were wiped out) and that the Tet was a sneak attack that was repelled almost brilliantly by our brave troops, then Johnson might have counter attacked and upped the intensity against the VC and NVA then America could have actually won the war. So Uncle Walter did not help the American cause, which sadly enough a lot of liberal journalists have done in the modern era.
Onto you other points, I agree, Uncle Walter wasn’t as biased as today’s journalists. The problem is he let his bias effect help the outcome of the war, and to me that’s shameful.
100% agreement!
Holy cow, someone who knows something about the Vietnam War!
Your continued reference to testicles does nothing to strengthen your arguments.
Alright insert “lack of courage” for “testicles the size of cherries”.
Alright. Reducing strategic decisions to matters of “courage” does nothing to strenghten your arguments.
Why? His actions were not of courage. If he had brought the troops home, it could be construed as courageous (going against the other grain for the “good” of the country), or if he actually did what was needed to win the war despite losing all politcial career (which he lost anyhows) would have been courageous. But trying to save his own job at the expense of lives (Vietnamnese or American) is cowardly.
Bullshit. He was a piece of crap.
More bold face lies from the libs.
As a conservative I would say Cronkite was one of the better at keeping the news unbiased. He had his moments, like all due. He certainly wasn’t like Dan Rathers who made up stories to make a conservative look bad.
Yeah this LOL would be better without throwing out Fox, and instead just saying news media in general. How sad is it that this person exploits Cronkites death in order to bash Fox News. And people say conservatives have little ot no heart.
You have got some seriously screwed up rightwing feckwits operating within your media. That Savage bloke is a total pillock, you conservatives are absolutely nuts!!
Thank feck I live in England!!
Michael Savage, yeah… he’s a clown. Well, most of them are clowns, honestly. Limbaugh was giving berth to the Birthers on the air yesterday. Weekly, Glenn Beck stops just short of inciting armed aggression against the government.
The Republican party needs to excise these radio-born cancers of hatred and fear from their body, or be destroyed by them.
When told he couldn’t come over here he started spouting about the first amendment, Moron this is the UK and your law doesn’t apply here.
We have a little thing in the country called “Freedom of Speech”. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? These guys don’t pretend to be unbiased, these are not news shows but opinion shows and there is nothing stopping anyone of the left from doing the same.
“there is nothing stopping anyone of the left from doing the same”
Uh. Where did Realdef say the left are threatened by them? Your post is posted as a reply to some other post, mayhap?
slic said nothing about a “threat” in this reply.
As for “there is nothing stopping anyone of the left from doing the same,” there’s actually legislation being put into place that will ALLOW them to do the same. This legislation will require radio stations to air equal amounts of time of both right and left radio shows, because the right shows are getting all the prime air time. Now, danbala, who’s feeling threatened enough to push something like THAT through their Congress?
I thought the main point in Realdef’s post was that it would be in the GOP‘s best interest to stop things said “in their name” when those things are too crazy.
The response of “Meh – the left can do the same!” seemed …. Ah, nevermind.
Well to me Real was trying to be superior “The Liberals don’t preach ‘hate’”. When he/she should see to her house, before peeping into other’s windows. (Same can be sad to the right as well).
No, Danbala has my point. If the GOP wants to be a national party again, continually stooping to this far right radio base isn’t the way to do it.
And no, no airs of superiority from me. The Left has their haters too. Maher and Moore come to mind, and you mentioned them below. I suppose they didn’t come to my mind directly because they’re not spouting their crazy for three hours a day, five days a week, on the free radiowaves.
The things they say aren’t necessarily GOP things, they are conservative things. There needs to be a conservative outlet for conservative ideas, and there currently isn’t much but radio.
Radiowaves ain’t free. The stations have to pay for the bandwidth. Just like a TV station does. I just find it entertaining that conservatives use Radio as their outlet, and one TV show, while the Liberal outlet (yawl tried Radio and failed miserably, except for NPR which is federally funded sadly enough) is 1/2 hour- 1 hour Comedic talk shows, and the three other major networks, and print. So Real yawl aren’t as silent as ou like to make it seem. The left has plenty of haters as does the right, our job as patriotic citizens of this country is to wade through the BS and pick out the truth. (And yes our truths can be different due to our ideals, it is allowed).
NPR is federally funded? Really ILPB? Perhaps you can tell us exactly how much funding NPR receives from the federal government.
Cite.
On Wiki it states that 2% comes directly from the government, another 23% from underwriting (which is like a commercial but isn’t governed by the FCC), member donations, and grants. They don’t say exactly what percentage comes in from those bids on government grants, though.
Thanks Froo.
I’ve linked the 2005 report from the Library of Congress which provides more detail.
Non-profit news outlets like NPR are a good thing; they are our best hope for unbiased journalism. Corporate conglomeration of the media over the last 20-30 years has decimated the integrity of most newpaper, magazine and television reporting.
If credible evidence of NPR’s bias in either direction can be provided, I’d like to see it.
Their news reporting is unbiased. Their punditry, OTOH, is so left wing that left is to the right of them
But that’s typical of all news shows, so I don’t hold them necessarily accountable for it.
Provide an example of biased punditry on NPR. Also, how often, if ever, do you listen?
I used to listen to them as I fell asleep at night because that was the only station I could pick up, lol. I love their classical music, their Saturday programming, and human interest stories. I haven’t listened frequently since I moved out of Mom’s house 5 years ago, but I catch them occasionally when I’m driving.
-
If you’ll listen to the Saturday shows such as “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me!”, “Car Talk”, and other non-news reporting shows, there is an obvious left-wing bias, especially on WWDTM and the answers they give. It’s a silly show, but the bias is clear (to me). Also, a lot of the human interest stories have a left-wing slant, as they tend to report only on the way that the Conservative policies of the last president cost this person a job, or this person good housing, or what have you. The actual NEWS REPORTING isn’t biased, but the peripheral stuff is.
Everyday in my carpool b/c that’s what the Van Driver picks. Except for Car Talk, NPR is pretty liberal.
WWDTM is just a funny quiz-show. I’m not even sure how “Car Talk,” a show where people call in and ask car-related questions, could be biased.
ILPB: studies looking for bias on NPR did not find any real evidence of such.
The comments made during pledge drives, during their “commercials”, during their talking to one another, have been extremely biased at times. Also, several interviews (non-news) with the brothers have outed them as extremely liberal. Which is ok, because they don’t report the news.
Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective (wiki).
So, it doesn’t really apply to the hosts of Car Talk, because their political ideology has nothing to do with providing impartial car advice.
SB: I was saying Car Talk isn’t biased. The reporting is. And a government funded (partially) is not going to get studied on having a bias, would look bad you know. Not everthing in this world needs to be cited. Listen to NPR, the tell me if you’ve ever heard a bias.
Independent studies have not found evidence of bias. Look it up.
That’s at least three times on this thread you’ve refused to cite, SB…
<>
Alright that didn’t work. If I link in my name the last cite I provided will be eliminated, so if you google “NPR bias” you’ll see the report from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, the link is called “How Public is Public Radio?”
I haven’t refused to cite anything as far as I know.
I think I’m forgetting one, but here are three:
- Right here: you’re still stonewalling. Title? Authors? Source? Bueller?
- 12:43, the NPR funding discussion: still no cite for the figures you’re asserting
- 12:49, media conglomeration: a blind contention backed up by another “do a google”
I counted ten instances of you asking others to cite. Tsk tsk…
1) source is listed in my post, FAIR (a national media watchdog group). I’ll try to post the link again here: {http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180}
2) {http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html}
3) cite provided.
SB Cite here:
{http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2003/col20031021.asp}
Thats right…hate things like…freedom of speech, less welfare…better healthcare…lower taxes…more accountablility…a future for our kids and grandkids…freedom…those damn hateful conservatives.
Ehh… What?
I was doing a poor job of replying to Realdefs comment “I suppose they didn’t come to my mind directly because they’re not spouting their crazy for three hours a day, five days a week, on the free radiowaves.” Hey..i’m on pacific time..have not had my coffee yet
I could not see a relation between his post and your response. I might possibly have had too much coffee in my system. Probably time to counteract it with red wine, or something.
Thats ok Blarg…I am sure the government will come up with an unbiased network solution much like the PBR that we the tax payers pay for. No worries lol
Ment NPR..my bad.
Damn…really need to go get that coffee now
Please provide a cite how much federal funding NPR receives. You might learn something by doing research.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, created in 1967, receives approximately 15% of its annual funding from federal appropriations. In turn, the CPB, acting as an
umbrella agency, is required to spend 89 percent of the appropriations in grants to members of Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), Public
Radio International (PRI), and other affiliated public television and radio broadcasters. The CPB has historically received two-year advanced appropriations. On June 9, 2005,
the subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies of the House Appropriations Committee considered the Labor ,Health and
Human Service and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2006 (H.R. 3010). The subcommittee voted to reduce CPB’s FY2006 appropriations (which had been passed
as part of the FY2004 appropriations) from $400 million to $300 million. In addition, the subcommittee voted to eliminate advanced federal appropriations for CPB by
FY2008. On June 16, 2005, the full House Appropriations Committee voted to restore $400 million in federal funding for CPB in FY2008; it also approved funding of $300
million for FY2006. (H.Rept. 109-143). This legislation will likely go to the floor of the House of Representatives either June 23 or June 24. This report will be updated as
events warrant.
So, to recap, NPR receives a minute portion of its funding from the federal government.
In Semper’s defense, he didn’t quantify how much they receive. He merely said they get government funding, unlike other news outlets.
He said that taxpayers pay for NPR, which is not a correct statement.
Yes, it is. I don’t care if I pay 1 trillionth of 1 percent.
I’m paying for it.
Chhaaaaaaannnnggeeee? -Prods Deep Thought- I just need some chaaaangeeee for the subway?
♫ California…. is super cool for the homeless… ♫
So does that mean you’ll donate 15% of your yearly gross income to a charity of your choosing? It’s a minute portion, after all…
NPR doesn’t receive 15% of its funding from the Fed, they get 2%.
I haven’t calculated what portion of my income I give to charity but it’s probably more than 2%.
Where are you getting that from?
Oh, I think I see — are you taking 11% of 15%? That’s not what that cite says.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting divides up the 15% of funding they receive from the Fed among a number of different public radio programs, of which NPR gets about 2%.
Again, where are you getting that from? I don’t see it in Deep Thought’s post. Can you cite?
Try again, SB.
You’re being overly simplistic: 2% of what, now?
You’d better deal with this before Anniee the economist sees it
Cite in my name.
This is a complicated report, but you’ll see that the 15% figure applies to the CPB, which then distributes that funding to a number of non-profit media outlets.
Froo cited the 2% figure above and I used it, I believe that comes from Wiki though so I should have qualified it first. I may be wrong about the 2%, but I’m not wrong that the figure is less than 15%.
“I’m not wrong that the figure is less than 15%”
SB, that’s what I’m asking you — yet again — to cite. Simply knowing that 15% of CBP’s funding is federal is insufficient.
On the other hand, if you think a five-page executive summary is a “complicated report”, I see why you might be having trouble here…
… so why not go to zero percent?
Because there is value in media which is not controlled by corporations.
Honestly, SB, the most unbiased reporting I’ve seen is from the BBC, not from any American-based news organizations.
Did you know that the BBC is paid for by taxpayers?
Overseas. That’s what makes it ok, LOL. They don’t have a vested interest either way.
Exactly – they don’t have a vested interested, which is key to avoiding bias. And you agree that the funding structure of the BBC leads to the most unbiased reporting you’ve seen, which is exactly my point.
The funding structure is not what makes them unbiased. You’re constructing a strawman here. What makes them unbiased is that what happens in America doesn’t impact them directly, which gives them a third party view. NPR, ABC, FOXNews, and the like all have a vested interest in how the country is going, and will skew their pundits to show that interest. It has nothing to do with funding, other than NPR should be the most unbiased of all. And isn’t, as far as peripheral shows go.
Sure they do — it’s just at a much larger level.
Didn’t the chief of the BBC get sacked around the time of the Iraq War for taking a political stand? A cynical person might argue that they saw more profit in tapping into public and political opinion than in merely remaining neutral.
I disgree. Having just studied the effects of corporate conglomeration on the media, evidence shows that funding has everything to do with bias. See: Rupert Murdock. Just do a google on corporate conglomeration of media and you’ll see what I mean. Follow the money.
Also, as an ally of the US, of course the UK has a vested interest in the news it provides on the US.
@ Dhoti – the funding for the BBC comes from the television license fees in the UK. The contribution is static, ratings aren’t required for funding so whether or not the public agrees or disagrees with programming doesn’t impact their funding.
SB, you should know by now that saying “do a google” doesn’t count as an argument here. Try again, please. If you just took a course, I’d imagine a high-level argument should be fresh in your mind.
Ah, yes, the television license. (For decades, the BBC has lied to the public about its TV detector vans — clearly they’re not above violating their principles when their principal source of funding is on the line.) That money doesn’t go directly to the BBC: it’s allocated by a government committee. (Follow the money, right?)
I’ve spent most of my time on this thread today trying to keep the conversation honest by challenging opinions phrased as facts. I’ve provided numerous links. There is so much material on the effects of corporate conglomeration on the media, it’s mind boggling. I don’t have my text book handy and I can’t quote from memory (that was three classes ago, my mind is filled with other information now). Anyway, I shouldn’t have to do all the work simply because others refuse to do it. Do a little research yourself, don’t take it from me.
Translation: “Citing is for other people.”
Surprise, surprise; more stonewalling. It’s even funnier because you’ve been running around here all day yelling “cite!” at anyone who disagrees with you.
Here you go: link on corporate media conglomeration.
h t t p : / / b o o k s . g o o g l e . c o m / b o o k s ? i d = N J u 2 7 P e y p x Y C & l p g = P P 7 & o t s = R A k e i e 5 m 1 T & d q = c o r p o r a t e % 2 0 c o n g l o m e r a t i o n % 2 0 o f % 2 0 m e d i a & l r = & p g = P P 1
“The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism” — sounds like a scholarly work. (It doesn’t appear to contain the word “sheeple”, which is something, I guess.)
SB, in what universe is “here’s a book, therefore I’m write” considered to be a sound argument? I’m sure you’re going to accuse me of “refusing to do my own research” again, but if you want to convince me of something, you actually have to advance an argument, okay? Hitting me over the head with your conclusions isn’t going to do it.
If this is something that you truly believe, and that you’ve studied, I’m frankly a bit stunned that you’re incapable of giving me even a brief, high-level argument of why this is so. Or even articulate *what* you’re trying to tell me — you seem to be stuck in a “corporations = evil, media = corporations, therefore corporate media = evil” loop.
err, make that “therefore I’m *right*”…
Hate to say it, but it also seems to be a “corporations = evil, health care = corporations, therefore corporate health care = evil” loop.
My spidey senses are tingling
DT, you’re leaving out part of the loop. Not agreeing or disagreeing here, but wouldn’t it be “Corporations= Evil, Healthcare= Corporations, therefore corporate healthcare= evil. Since corporate healthcare= evil, then all corporations must be evil.”
Never forget the part of the loop that actually loops back in on itself!
There’s no need to dumb down the conversation to “good vs. evil.”
Some nations can influence and control their media greatly. In addition, powerful corporations also have enormous influence on mainstream media.
In the United States, a very few major multinational corporations own the majority of media stations and outlets. Often, media institutions survive on advertising fees, which can lead to the media outlet being influenced by various corporate interests. Other times, the ownership interests may affect what is and is not covered. Stories can end up being biased or omitted so as not to offend advertisers or owners. The ability for citizens to make informed decisions is crucial for a free and functioning democracy but now becomes threatened by such concentration in ownership.
The idea of corporate media itself may not be a bad thing, because it can foster healthy competition and provide a check against governments. However, the concern is when there is a concentration of ownership due to the risk of increased economic and political influence that can itself be unaccountable.
@DT – my personal experience in the health care insurance industry has led me to believe that our current health care system is greatly lacking. It’s not a matter of good vs. evil, it’s a matter of corporations putting their shareholders interests before the interests of the general public, which, when it comes to a person’s health, can be devastating or deadly. If you disagree, that’s fine, but this is my perspective based on my involvement in the very business that I am criticizing.
@Dhoti – just because I don’t provide a link within moments of your post requesting one doesn’t mean I’m “stonewalling.” Like most people on this board, I post from work, popping on here when I have the time, and actually working during the rest of my day. Simmer down.
SB, falling back on the butthurt defense doesn’t exactly add to your reputation as a logician. Just sayin’.
And your conveniently busy job didn’t prevent you from repeatedly and loudly forcing others to cite, now, did it? Bit of a double standard, don’t you think?
Not surprisingly, my workflow varies throughout the day.
Butthurt? Not so much. Reputation as a logician? Um…if you say so. Double standard? Hardly. I provided all the requested cites. Do you need yoga? Clearly.
So, let me see if I have this right: in the middle of an extended discussion — which you obviously had time for, since you were posting continuously for a couple of hours — you were too busy to cite when repeatedly asked to do so, but not so busy to respond with “do your own research” and “do a google” or whatever else is code in your language for “I don’t have to follow the rules, for I am a special snowflake”.
Sorry, but that doesn’t fly. And you try to pretend that I’m doing yoga, hon. Sad, really…
Meh.
I’ve lost interest in attempting to have a thoughtful debate with you. You asked for cites, I provided them. When you start paying my salary, I’ll provide them on your schedule.
Fair enough — if all you’re going to do is stonewall and dodge and lie, you’re just wasting my time.
“the PBR that we the tax payers pay for.”
`
You’re treating us all to a round of beer? That’s a thoughtful thing to do in this hot weather.
College flashback…hey..it was the cheapest for beer bonging..not like you ever tasted it going down.
But you sure tasted it coming up…
Yup…really suxs when it comes up cold
Sort of like the leftists media as well. Saying in 1980 that the earth only had 30 years left due to Global Warming (1 year away, I’m looking forward ot it). Or perhaps the leftist media holding a commerical for the Health Care bill Obama’s going to have and lying about the price tag, and who and who will not get taxed. Or even better yet the leftist politician, let’s call him Obama, who siad he wouldn’t tax anyone making less than $250K a year, however with new legislature being passed he’ll tax pretty much everyone.
Real you really don’t think the left doesn’t have a Rush or Glenn? Hate to tell you but Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, Letterman, all of them preach fear and hatred of conservatives. Do you even smell the shit you’re shoveling?
Don’t forget Olberman, Matthews, Stephie . . .
“Kudos to the right for not having a Stephen Colbert or a Glenn Beck, quite frankly. Ignorance and incomplete information are more likely to lead to apathy than lead to good political policy.”
Fixed
Ouchie.
I don’t think you fixed your fix properly. Heh
“Kudos to the right for not having a Stephen Colbert or a Glenn Beck”
`
I believe the right does have a Glenn Beck.
Yes I have heard of it, but my point was none of your constitution applies to the law of this land as he was threatening.
Yeah only the Conservative Country USA has those pesky things called freedoms…
He wasn’t trying to change anything in your government, he was trying to pressure our government to do something about the list of people banned from England. From what I understand, I don’t listen to him much.
Apparently you don’t get Air America overseas. They tend to have a slight lean towards the liberal side.
Slight?
And the Great Wall of China is just a small partition.
Is Air America still around, I thought it went bankrupt like 4 weeks after going on air.
I agree, thank feck you live in England too…… at least we agree on that.
You get your peanut butter down yer neck lardy.
Man I agree with you and you get insulting. And not really all that whitty insulting. Where’s that British hurmor I see so much in Monty Python and BBC?!?!? I’m disappointed….
You wanker!!!
lardy???? You got naked pics of you posted on the internet you have not told us about ILPB?
Nah only in a speedo….. like Homer’s…
My sincere apologies, I misread your post and read it that you were takng the michael, I take it all back!! I do like the five fingered shuffle occasionally so shall not take offence at the wanker remark.
Nah you’re a wanker for reading wrong, but I’m as much a wanker for calling you a wanker..
So let’s go to the local pub and have a pint…. 
Mine’s a pint of Guiness!!
Mine’s a pint of “does it have alcohol in it? Is it piss water? No? Give it here.”
Another PBR convert…
Now bring the nachos, and quickly!
Fish and chips is what goes with Guiness, you tosser!
Fine. That’s just fine. I’ll just sit here, all alone, in the corner… with my nachos and pitcher of margaritas.
*sniffle*
No, it’s OK, I’m fine.
Really.
-Sits down with Tessie-
-Eats nachos-
-Grabs margaritas-
Hey, do you want these margaritas? I don’t.
*snuggles up to Tessie*
*bogarts nachos*
*swigs PBR*
Hey, babeh…
I said NOT piss water.
“This beer tastes like piss.”
“It’s b/c we piss in it.”
Sounds like a Family Guy/Pawtucket Pete ref. Is it?
Desperado.
Maybe they picked Fox because Fox claims to be fair and balanced, yet their conservative bias shows on a daily basis?
Just a thought from a newbie.
Yet they show stories and videos that somehow never seem to show up in the rest of the media? Like Edwards affair and love child while his wife is battling cancer ? Or any other Democratic scandal ? At least they don’t forge documents like CBS…..
Actually, I believe the Edwards love affair was first released by that notorious tabloid, the National Enquirer…
*hoping desperately that they don’t find out about my menage-oh-three with George Clooney and Batboy*
True.
TAKE A HINT FOX????!!!! Are you SERIOUS!!!???
How about take a hint NBC (national Barack channel) or CNN (communist news network) or ABC (ALL Barack Channel)!!!
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
Fox News holds the MOST unbiased news anchors. They ALWAYS give both sides. ALWAYS!
Not knowing all that much about the facts about this all, I must say your usage of capital letters and exclamation marks has totally convinced me about the correctness in anything you say.
lol
Thanks for the laugh. I needed that.
Seriously, you have GOT to be kidding me. Stop frothing and think for a minute. At least have the decency to admit that the news you love so much is clearly biased.
Aww dood. I spit coffee all over my screen. Good one!
I watch Fox News and I can say that they are biased, much like most major news outlets. They aren’t quite as biased as CNN, MSNBC, and the rest, but they are still biased.
Not quite as biased?
I’d say that if you watch FOX News frequently for entertainment, then you don’t have the authority to make that call. Just because you agree with them more doesn’t make the other side less right or more biased.
Have you watched Fox news to see what they say? I’ve watched all three major cable news networks. Let’s compare some of the crap that happened during this past election. Keith Olbermann believed that Trig was Bristol’s baby. Even with documentation that stated that Sarah was the real mother. When it comes to questioning Obama’s birth records, there were some anchors (yes, a few mind you) on Fox that said that issue needed to be dropped. I should probably reprase myself. Some anchors are more biased than others, no matter the network or which way they slant toward on the political spectrum.
At the time, Cronkite’s pronouncement added credibility and importance to all the network anchors. His was a stunning exercise of media power. But, in the perspective of history, the outcome of his pronouncement is not universally recognized as having been positive. He overtly and figuratively stepped out from behind the microphone to add his personal commentary to the news. We had not seen this before. By doing so, Cronkite issued an implicit license to his journalistic colleagues to interject personal opinions into their factual reporting of the news. The difference is that Cronkite clearly labeled it as personal opinion, while many MSM news personalities today weave their opinions into reporting. His sentiment registered with many, perhaps most, of his viewers that night. He changed opinions by offering his own. But in hindsight, his analysis was wrong – dead wrong for some. ….
“On April 30, 1977, Pol Pot’s troops launched a surprise attack on 13 villages in eight Vietnamese border provinces. Ba Chuc was the hardest hit. The massacre was at its fiercest during the 12 days of occupation, April 18-30, 1978, during which the intruders killed 3,157 villagers. The survivors fled and took refuge in the pagodas of Tam Buu and Phi Lai or in caves on Mount Tuong, but they were soon discovered. The raiders shot them, slit their throats or beat them to death with sticks. Babies were flung into the air and pierced with bayonets. Women were raped and left to die with stakes planted in their genitals.”
There were two survivors to the massacre.
Cronkite didn’t cover it on the CBS evening news.
What a crock of excrement! He declared the Vietnam War lost to the allies despite defeating the enemy’s sneak attack on Tet.
And more lies about Fox News being not fair and balanced. The truth of the matter is that Fox News is the most fair and balanced of all the MSM outlets (excluding the talking head opinion talk shows, of course). CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC are all faaaaaar leftists. They kiss Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy ass so hard, they are fused to their rectums.
If you are of the mind that Stalin/Obama is a “centrist”, then, yes, Fox News is ultra far right, but only because *your* POV is so screwed up.
And comparing Obama to Stalin obviously shows that you have the right POV on things. Obviously.
Hyperbole FTF!
Because conservatives are the ONLY people who are right about everything and liberals are all out to destroy your way of life because we’re all just so fvcking evil. Where do you people come from and what drugs are you taking?
Well duh Eric. Conservatives are right by definition…… man do I have to teach you politics. Conservatives are the RIGHT of center, and hence considered right wingers. Liberals are left of center, and therefore evil…..
I’m not even sure how the whole left wing/right wing thing got started. Who arbitrarily decided with way we are? Why aren’t we up and down? I know we’re also red and blue, but who decided that one too? I mean, I’m a leftie even if I were conservative.
Is it because the right brain hemisphere supposedly controls things like math and the left brain hemisphere supposedly controls things like poetry?
The donkey and elephant came from the same political cartoonist as our modern vision of Santa Claus. I think the name was Nash? But I don’t know about right/left or red/blue.
I do know that most European countries have enough political variants that our bimodal system is hysterically funny for them!
The artist (who produced some “serious” artwork in addition to his cartooning) was named Thomas Nast. He’s also credited with drawing the original Uncle Sam.
I actually think that might have a little to do with it. Not that I’m saying conservatives can’t be creative (my best friend is a rabid Republican and a great artist) but my entire family is Liberal and our talents gravitate more towards music and the arts, too. ALMOST every really “artsy” person I know it a liberal. Not to say that there aren’t exceptions, just most of the time, I guess.
But no artists actually do an honest day’s work, and all live off of welfare, so they have to be liberal to “morally”* support their own uselessness. Unless possibly if they have very rich parents who support them, then they can be conservatives.
*) Of course we all know liberals don’t have morals.
So your right hand is Saturday’s date then?
I have no idea how anything got started, could be two people disagreed, the liberal one was standing on the left….. how about I’ll say that, that’s how it started. I have the citation here… in my pants..
That’s NOT a citation!!
You’re missing it, to the left a little more….
*gropes around*
Oh, yeah, there it is… HEY!!
Oh that, that’s my roll of quarters…
From his self-constructed pedestal of moral superiority and ideological purity, thus spake Eric…
Okay, I lol’d at this. Sorry, Eric. The mental imagery was too good…
…picturing you as a toga-clad, laurel-sporting Etruscan magistrate, holding forth in the district square to supplicant hordes of shiny-eyed nymphettes chanting your name in unison…
…if by “nymphette” you mean “300-pound NASCAR enthusiast”…
300-pound NASCAR enthusiasts prefer Limbaugh.
…with a truck full of Oxycontin and three transgendered asian hookers…
That’s three transgendered asian MIDGET hookers…. GET IT RIGHT!!!
I hate to tell you, but those aren’t midgets.
Nice.
Damn those Garden Gnomes!!!!
Hey, don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.
*supports gnome/troll marriages*
Poke it where you want to, consenting adults!
Yeah, it’ll make the trolls stop throwing their goddamn gnome friends at me as bait while I’m trying to take a quick dragon nap.
‘cuz it’s all good fun until someone loses an eye.
Oh wooooooooow…
Can he reconcile his stereotypes? Or will his head explode from the effort?
Let’s watch…
*gets more coffee*…
Hey I’m only 250 lbs…. and don’t like NASCAR, however not a Rush fan either…. hmmm where was I going with this.. oh yeha Rattus is a wanker.. (I like that word now, has a better ring than fvcktard)
“supplicant hordes of shiny-eyed nymphettes chanting your name in unison”
`
But do Eric’s followers carry a gourd or a sandal?
Nope they carry pitchforks and torches…… “To the castle, burn the Troll!!”
Whatever, Dhoti. I’m just sick of people who think liberals are malevolently out to destroy the country and make everyone’s lives miserable. Just like conservatives, we have our ideas of what would make our country BETTER. Our ideas are just very different from conservatives. That doesn’t make us evil, just different. I’m sick of the attitude. And for the last fvcking time, we’re not trying to create a communist or socialist nation…it’s not practical.
Cue the waterworks — someone’s disagreeing with Eric on the internet again. Break out the flag and the ideology and the hackneyed “I’m sick of it” lines.
Sac up, you puss.
It’s fine to be sick of it. When you want some stupid claims to stop, you want it to stop.
It doesn’t make sense to rail at someone for commenting on a political issue, even if it includes “I’m tired/sick/bored of (insert problem here), and want it to stop.”
I get that, but when Eric does this it’s not about commenting (i.e. participating in the discussion), it’s about trying to passive-aggressively shout down people he disagrees with.
Notice it’s only the conservative trolls he goes after; the liberal ones, the ones who really drop the tone of the place, those he benignly ignores. And when you ask him why that is, he disappears faster than Severus Snape confronted with shampoo.
…a back scrubber, and Dumbledore in a banana hammock…
Dhoti, Eric and I smack the trolls of both sides. Remember “Again”?
He b*tch slaps both ways.
I remember. I also remember that he completely ignored the lefty troll who started the whole fracas in the first place. And I remember that when I called him on it, he weaseled out of responsibility then, too.
Dhoti.
Again WAS the one who started the fracas.
He got pwned.
The thread I remember, a lefty trolled Again, Again responded, and Eric jumped on.
No no, I mean the Girl Scouts one. I’m pretty sure the lefty did it because he saw the argument we had on the Girl Scouts/ Cookies LOL.
Stop trying to reason with it, Igor. He’s already decided on his version of reality. There’s no going back.
Igor, buddy, let’s not talk about me going both ways ever again, kthxbai.
-Winks and nods- N-O spells Y-E-S.
I’m kidding, of course.
Hooray! It’s backwards day!
Iggy’s so sexy he makes the girls go “pop!”
-Grumble Grumble-
-Mumbles something about Deep’s huge raging penis that all the girls want-
And I believe it’s only the ones that act like they’re somehow superior to liberals, more American, or like their opinion is the only right one that he goes after in long paragraphs. I don’t believe he actually considers the liber-trolls an interesting enough use of his time, so those are mostly just some of the greatest condensed insults ever.
And if they’re not acting that way, he forces it on them so he can. Saying “I’m sick of the attitude” is a great distraction, so great he uses a variant of it in practically all of his rants.
Uhm.
I don’t see how it distracts, so much as says “STOP DOING THIS YOU’RE BEING AN ANNOYING TROLL!”
Pfft. I see waaaaaay more conservatrolls than libertrolls. And it’s the Internet, for crying out loud. WE’RE ALL PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE HERE!! That’s the fvcking point!! And if I disappear, it’s because I HAVE SOMETHING TO DO, YOU ANAL WART!!! I have a life. I don’t always have time to respond to everything directed my way. I’m sorry if you’re all butthurt about me ignoring you in the past, but I’m a busy man.
You seem to have a nigh unlimited store of strawmen at your disposal. Too bad you can’t register them to vote, huh?
Just trying to counter your nonsense. Not that it’ll do any good against you, dicklick.
Eat it, jackass. I’m not in the mood for you to pick a fight with me. I was trying to explain my side without resorting to insults, but since you haven’t gotten your regular dose of ass whoopin’ I guess you want some. And I promised your mom I wouldn’t leave a bruise this time too, damn.
-hugs Eric- bitter troll loves you
Awwwwwww. And I love bitter troll too.
-starts to hump eric-in-STL’s leg- this be more ffective if bitter troll had sex organs
Uh, I don’t love you like that, dude.
“if bitter troll had sex organs”
`
No sex organs? No wonder bitter troll is bitter!
Walter Cronkite? Objective?
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!
(sniff)
Oh, goodness-this site is ALWAYS good for a good belly-laugh in the mornin’.
All irony aside, the only thing I liked about Unca Walter was his hosting of the New Year’s concert from Vienna every year. My husband and I never missed it. But, honestly-I liked Julie Andrews a lot more this year, because every time I saw this moron, I thought of Vietnam.
What a politically immature half-wit he was. That’s his reality-based epitaph.
Jesus. H. Christ.
I was planning on ignoring all the talk about Cronkite being “the reason we lost Vietnam,” but your beautiful ad hominem attack has made me decide to educate you all.
His comment was not “The war was lost, I’m a commie, please hate me forever,” but rather (and I paraphrase) “The U.S. Military had led us to believe that such a coordinated offensive maneuver by the North Vietnamese was impossible, but it’s clear that they were either wrong or lying to us, thus, we should not believe everything it tells us.”
It’s amazing how he is remembered by some as the reason we lost the war, instead of insufficient training, low morale among the conscripts, relatively high rates of insubordination, or blatant racism on the part of GI’s with disgusting interrogation tactics on those suspected of being Vietcong leading to lowering of common South Vietnamese support for America’s presence. Never mind the inability of U.S. Brass to rectify any of these problems or come up with valid counter-guerrilla tactics or training.
Yep, all Cronkite’s fault for saying we shouldn’t take official statements at face value, since they had been proved incorrect.
Good point, friend.
He also said “The war in Vietnam is now unwinnable”…. which didn’t help the war effort, considering it was the perfect time to counterstrike, but his opinion froze dumbass Johnson and his generals in their tracks. He didn’t necesarily intentionally help the NVA and VC (Like Hanoi Jane), but he certainly didn’t help the soldier on the front line.
Fortunately, in the interim, we’ve learned the appropriate response to someone in authority telling us that a war is unwinnable.
WWWWWH?
???
What would Wee Willie Winkie have?
Who, what, where, when, why, how.
Basic journalistic tenets.
When writing hard news, that’s about all you’re supposed to need.
You know what, you can’t blame Cronkite for Vietnam at all. He was a reporter, and thus should have had no influence on how the military works. If the war was going so well, then they should have blown off Cronkite, said we gotta do what we gotta do, and prove him wrong. Not say, “Oh this news anchor has made a fool of us, and now the North Koreans are kicking our asses.” Sounds like a copout to me.
I would agree with you if the American Public wasn’t and or aren’t sheep. Too bad people tend to believe the media too much. If it’s in writing or on the internet or said on the news IT MUST be TRUE, the media NEVER LIES!!!
“It is increasingly clear that the only rational way out will be to negotiate, not as victors but as an honorable people who lived up to the pledge to defend democracy.” (Cronkite’s famous quote after the disastrous North Vietnamese Tet Offensive, which many say was the turning point in the Vietnam Conflict. President Lyndon Johnson, upon hearing Cronkite pull his support for further military involvement, is quoted as saying, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.”
Thank you for the unintended correction. I said Nixon earlier, I forgot it was Johnson *blush* Sorry!
Ad-hominem? I’, merely repeating what John McCloy said about J. Robert Oppenheimer when defending him against anti-Commie hysteria; namely, that Oppenheimer shouldn’t be condemned for holding what, after all, were only “immature political beliefs”.
But you knew that already, being so well-read in American history and all….
A.D. Humminim?
At least it’s not hummus..
or haggis…
Huggus?
Babaganoush.
Gesundheit!
Auf Wiedersehen!
Frau Bucher!
*horses go apeshit in background*
Ovaltine?!
Yes!! [plays violin]
Man I miss that show!
I have it on DVD; traditional Halloween viewing at my house.
did he die ?
you keep telling yourself that. fox is the least right-leaning news source out there, right? fox is “fair and balanced” – so much so that they need to remind everyone of this, as opposed to other news sources where fair and balanced can be assumed
liberals never do anything right… not even embarrass the Right in national elections. never.
Not_you: Though J’s post is not entirely accurate, putting words in his mouth “fox is least right-leaning news source” which I can’t seem to see, invalidates your point.
The other news sources actually do not say the fair and balanced, but do hint at impartiality. However I must say the fact that News Anchors during a national election who start insulting republicans, should not be there. Or openningly cheering for the Democrat to win, to me I just don’t want to watch that. I don’t want to twatch someone cheering for the republican either. I want impartial news (either both sides or no bias) so I can make my own informed decision. I want to decide for myself not be a media sheep lead to the slaughter.
Be careful about embarrassing people in a national election, 2010 will be a hard year for Democrats since the nation the Congress approavl rating continues to decline with a pretty much fillibuster proof Senate. That does NOT bode well for democrats.
When you have multiple extremes of the left leaning media (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc) and one network that has even a hint of leaning right the rest of them, it seems even that much more extreme. Fox could be straight down the middle and just for the fact that the middle is more right than the rest of them people get up in arms.
Well the problem with that DiscoStu, is that compared to the rest of the world, the left is considered pretty far to the right.
Which tells me the world is FUBAR!!! And the antichrist will be coming soon.
Just checking in to make sure that folks who, you know, actually studied history put this lol in check. Well done.
The time seems to be coming when everyone can just make up their own history, regardless of things like facts, and no one will bother calling them on it. So the submitter has that going for him/her, which is nice.
Historical revisionism.
Yeah, because CNN and MSNBC are so neutral. The only thing positive that I can say about CNN and MSNBC is at least that they don’t pretend that they are “fair and balanced.”
Uh-hunh.
Let me just say here, because no one has, or will, comment on that:
FOX is not the only news channel to have bias. It’s a shame that no one has pointed that out yet.
And if anyone questions the veracity of this claim, let me add:
!!!!!!!
Don’t forget to mention that Walter Cronkite single-handedly lost the Vietnam War for the US. *I* think he was working for the North Vietnamese. ::nods frothingly::
Yes … I just hadn’t thought of any sufficiently hysterically emotional way to put it. There has to be something about blood, guts and mourning mothers in it or it just won’t cut it.
WALTER KRONKYTE IZ TEH WURST REPOTER EVAR!!!!!
Add that he used to eat kittens and you might be able to get a big crowd on your side with that.
no he ate aborted fetuses….. man you’re naive…
No. He ran ‘em through his Jack LeLanne Power juicer with an apple and a few carrots and drank ‘em down.
Get it right, PB boi…
I didn’t see him as a juice guy…. more like a scotch guy.
Ron Burgandesque in the early years, naturally, but one’s eventually gotta watch out for one’s health in one’s declining years…
But I thought he was like Dick Clark, truely a robot underneath… like Bender, he runs on alcohol…
Pickled dick!
*inner 13-year-old dances a jig*
Hardy har har har……. :-p
Seriously though, liberals get more credit to the arguement when they can admit their hypocrisies. Same goes for conservatives. This post would have been better if the reatard submitter had said Modern Media take note. Once again a post that starts of somewhat decent becomes invalid due to the polarization. There was no need to pull Fox into this. Another shameless attempt to make fun of the conservatives when the liberals do the same damn thing.
Oh. I am not trying to defend the caption. I am just seriously amazed at the fact that there are so many asshats who post the exact fecking post, thereby happily displaying a complete lack of the common courtesy that is “skimming through a discussion before you butt in”.
Yes, I know this isn’t the first thread to suffer this fate, but it’s lately one of the more astonishing ones in that there hasn’t even been time for more than a few other posts between the ones saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and … ARGH! I am stuck!
Are you the PK post police?
Who gave you the authority to ask that question?
Me. I’m the PK CIA…. :-O I get your point, but the defense needs to be there, b/c everytime someone posts, “What about CNN, NBC, etcc?” they get jumped by some liberals who try and defend it. This LOL is stupid, it coul dhave been better if instead of Fox it said “Modern Media”. Then we could almost all agree, it wouldn’t be trollish (at minimum polarizing) and we could sit around the campfire eating Smores.
The caption is a troll. People are still behaving asshatty.
Smore?
Which is precisely why the admins chose this one.
Can’t you hear them cackling in their basements?
“cackling” Are you calling PK witches…. I can just see them in a basement with a bubbling caldron citing the Act 4 Scene 1 of MacBeth…. “Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble. To annoy conservatives we be numb. Add a bit of Bush is bumb. To froth their filly lips, add some more Palin quips. To get their gander up, equate a Chrisian to a schlup. Now stir the pot, and let it heat. Conservaitves are fun to beat!!!”
Get thee to a trollery, why woulds’t thou be a breeder of rational men?
I have started to believe that people vote for troll captions just to get the discussions, too. Which I kinda like. ;p
That would actually require effort and forethought on the part of the great unwashed mindlessly clicking “Win.”
It’s the admins. Believe it.
Some days I am also very convinced that some of those lol-makers who make very anti-lib or anti-democrat lols are leftie libtards. I mean, no one could seriously be constructing those “Obama is a filthy <insert n-word> who should die, because he is <insert Godwin’s law-breaker> and Stalin, and he’s an ape too”?
(And vice versa for the other side of the argument, just not in the exact same manner.)
I totally agree. It’s Poe’s law in action!
Ah yes. That‘s what it’s called. I have heard about it here before, but forgot.
Oh. And looking through “upcoming” I would like to add also that I am convinced that people vote for nipples, too.
Now that’s a subject I could sink my teeth into….
*dons chestal armor*
You are under arrest. You have the right to remain stupid. You have the right to remain an asshat. Anything you say can and will annoy the shit out of us. You have the right to remain silent, yet I have a feeling you won’t.
I never do…
Pardon me Eric… but I believe that’s my line.
Mine is “You are under a giant dragon. You have the right to have the flesh melted from your face. If you so choose, I can burn your worthless troll genitals so you can eat them first. Anything you try to say from here on out won’t matter because I have burninated out your tongue. You have the right to remain silent until I finish frying the rest of you. You probably won’t. This is going to hurt.”
You like?
You’re welcome to it.
so gonna frisk me?
Yeah, this makes total sense. We all know MSNBC and CNN are completely unbiased…
Bullshit.
Yet another picture submitted on this website by a liberal moron.
But HOW do they continually get voted to the front page?
Perhaps EWAdams should take his own advice, or at least not single out one news source when so many are guilty of obvious bias. Isn’t that right NPR, CNN, etc?
A fish never notices the water and a liberal never sees media bias unless it is actually a fair coverage of the news.
actually, fish have a very clear idea they are in water, that’s why most species can surface to get air from time to time, or more impressively catch bugs.
Just as plenty of liberals and conservatives can see media bias and have given up on major news networks.
I think he meant a frog never notices the increase in water temperature and will eventually boil to death.
Well that’s only if you raise the temperature at a certain slow rate. Sort of like the liberalization of America.
bingo!
Yay liberalization! You freak out, but I’m lovin’ it!
Until the tax man commiths for you…… (he looks like the Grim Reaper but instead of a robe he wears a suit and tie, and instead of a scythe he carries a breifcase… oh and wears Doc Martins!!)
Somehow I read your last two words as Doc Martinis. Perhaps with an extra-astringent content?
I read ILPB’s last two words as written, but somehow the mental picture I got in my mind’s eye was of a tax man as drawn by Don Martin.
HMM Apple tinis…. “why would they have a straight drink here?”
I pay my taxes. Taxes are a part of life. If they’re going towards something good like health care, then cool. Take the damn taxes.
Do you really think the federal government will get Helath Care right? They can’t even get Social Security right, and that’s simply putting money away.
Social Security, otherwise known as the biggest Ponzi Scheme visited on man. The government was Madoff before Madoff was Madoff.
Also, Bob Dole was Bob Dole before Madoff was Madoff.
Frankly, I don’t see how it can get a whole lot worse.
(Leaving myself wide open for people to tell me how it can get a lot worse. *sigh* Why do I do that?)
atleast you dont have a parasite living behind your eyeball….you would never see that comeing…squirming and crawling, nibbleing on the sweet eye juices with its nasty lil bitey pinchy mouth, laying eggs in your nose hole
Dude he could be in cohoots with Kang and Kodos to overthrow the entire earth!!! I read it on the internet somewhere, I think the ghost of Cronkite wrote it.
It was recently reported to me that crawfish, put in the water while it’s heating up to boil them, will in fact crawl out and run away. Which I guess proves that crawfish are smarter than frogs.
But, are they smarter than Americans? I hope not…
I’m smarter than a 5th grader.
I’m,,, ooh,,,,,,,Never mind!
well i’m americain and can catch crawfish with a string a rock and a hotdog…so i don’t think they are that smart…then again they ellude those with all the “fancy” technology
“can catch crawfish with a string a rock and a hotdog…”
`
Those aren’t crawfish, they’re dorkfish. And whatever you do, don’t try to catch them with a corndog, or they’ll eat the stick, too.
Obviously every person “reporting” news these days has a biased opinion. I cannot stand watching any of the “main stream” media anymore.
20plus years of having one man’s perspective be THE WORD, led to the need for FOXNEWS. The incredibly biased Media has no one but itself to blame. The thing I love most about libs is how scarred they are of ANY divergent opinions. 3 broadcast networks, 5 cable news networks, PBS, NPR, Newspapers, TIME, NEWSWEEK, US NEWS, etc, etc, just APPARENTLY isn’t enough for them. FOX, talkradio and the new media is kicking ass cause a). it’s saying something different than the gov’t/mainstream media publicity machine. and b). everybody throws in their 2 cents, not just the elites and gov’t cronies.
Opinion scarring? Is that anal?
Anal scarring ? Ouch!
Well you know what they say about opinions and assholes…
You have to wipe them after every shite!?!?!
shizer!
“Opinion scarring? Is that anal?”
*dons hiney armor*
gonna get hot with all that armour on today
Instead should take a hint CNN and keep your liberal opions to yourself and just report the news then Fox News wouldn’t have a reason for existing.
No kidding, things have a way of balancing themselves out naturally in a free society. Let’s just hope it stays that way.
Fox?? What about MSN?
NO SHIT REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
::Yawn:: I thought these were supposed to be funny.
Nope, it’s a platform for holier-than-thou morons to compliment themselves and make the rest of us liberals look bad.
Yeah. I’m getting really sick of the preachy ones. And I’m sick of the ones that incite the conservatives because it brings out the conservative trolls too. Oy.
Makes you wonder what kind of people they have working as the admins who decide what makes the front page. Do they actually find these funny, or do they just want to start fights?
Excellent question.
I imagine that they crack up behind scenes, shouting “Muahaha! Foolish PK’ers! They do not know that WE have the answer to your trivial hyuu-man politics.”
Ahh, the joys of the imagination.
I though Pundit Kitchen was supposed to be about humor, not just taking shots at people (no matter how much they deserved it).
It’s a liberal soap box most of the time.
FOX? I think you meant CNN, MSNBC and the networks.
He was a screaming liberal who decided later in life to let his kimona fall open and show his true self.
Friggin’ socialists – you are ruining MY COUNTRY!
$$ doesn’t grow on trees – and you can only take from Peter to pay Pablo for so long before Peter quits.
Pay attention.
NO SHIT REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
:monkey:
Conservative troll is an asshat.
dis walter guy not dead, him and micheal jackson liveing with elvis and bigfoot
Actually money does grow on trees…. you just have to print it and cut it prior to usage.
I thought it was primarily cotton and silk, actually…
“who decided later in life to let his kimona fall open and show”
`
Now there’s a mental picture I could’ve done without $: – p
Cronkite means “sickness” in German. Oh the irony!
I’ll bet the person who made this caption didn’t know anything about Walter Cronkite before hearing the news that he died and then reading a Wikipedia article on him.
Exploiting Walter Cronkite’s death to take a shot at Fox News makes you lower than Fox News.
It will always get you the front page here, though.
And CNN, and MSNBC, and ABC, and the Associated Press….
FOX News is NICE to the liberals who decide to appear on one of its shows. I think Bill O’Reilly is interviewing Hillary Clinton in a few days (or maybe he already did–I’m not sure). The AP bashed McCain during his campaign and did everything but come up with new cheers for Obama.
Give it a rest.
NO SHIT REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
:monkey: :monkey:
Wait, what? O’Reilly, nice to liberals? Is that before or after he calls them pinheads and shuts off their mics?
After… I think…. he usually takes them out to dinner for stuffed baby seal as well.
Ivan FTW!
If they agree to come on his show, he’s fair when interviewing them. Some of the questions he asks are, in all fairness, a bit mean, but he does give them a fair chance to answer. He only calls liberals pinheads when they’re ACTING like pinheads, and why is it that it’s only liberals who get to be mean? A liberal comedian can mock Carl Rove TO HIS FACE at a fancy dinner, but Bill O’Reilly can’t make fun of Sean Penn? Hypocrisy much?
The statement said nothing about FAIR. The statement was about NICE. and Bill O’Reilly is NOT NICE.
But he’s not FAIR either. He ask the wife beating questions, then won’t let them respond. You know “Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no? JUST YES OR NO, PINHEAD!! Cut his mic, I’m done with him!”
I watch The O’Reilly Factor almost every day and I NEVER saw that. Usually, he’s only mean to people who are BEING pinheads.
Again, how come it’s only LIBERALS who are allowed to be mean? Answer THAT question without beating around the bush.
{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BAFb97L3KU}
{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrNl6-j9x5w}
Igor, you rock.
TwiLyght, you sparkling freak, go back to watching O’Reilly. You obviously missed something.
Need to change the word “mildly” in there, methinks.
Need to change the word “smarter” in there, methinks.
You’re right –”muchsmarter” will do nicely!
I bet you would not be upset if it was ” smarterthanawhiteman” would you?
So you were inferring Ivan change his name to “Ivanthemuchmoremildlyannoying”?
That just makes me tired.
No, it needs to be “SmarterThanNoone”.
I think every single Latina on the face of the planet is smarter than you. So your name is ultifail.
Breaking News: TwiLyght began using her username THREE YEARS before SMeyer penned the first word of that steaming pile of crap she calls a saga.
Stop calling me a sparkling freak because YOU obviously missed something.
Calm down, Bella: You KNOW Eddie wants to chow your box.
Oi! How come I’m being drug into this? I just want people off my lawn, not a damn orgy!
Uhm… Eddie.
I’m pretty sure he’s talking about Edward, just in case you didn’t get it >.>
You probably did though.
No, actually I didn’t (and to be honest, I still don’t). Who’s this Edward chump? I’ll kick his ever loving butt on general principles alone.
He’s a real douche. The guy from Twilight, the abusive one that all the girls fawn over? Yeah. That’s him.
Get ‘im, Eddie!
*facepalm*
Okay. Edward just wants to mow your lawn, prune your bush, and trim your hedge.
Satisfied?
Thanks, that’s better.. The first two are easily done, but I think I may need special equipment for the third.
he he he you said trim his hedge!!!!! **giggles like a little school girl**
Oh, yeah? Well, Bob Dole was referring to himself in the third person DECADES before TwiLyght!
Bob Dole says never fu(k with Bob Dole!!!!
Oh, is that who Chuck Norris got it from!
BOB DOLE says BOB DOLE!!!
Remember when Bob Dole was pimping Viagra? Remember that? Remember? I laughed and laughed. That was funny.
Ahh, good times.
Did you know that you can actually get pregnant just by beating around the bush?
The more you know…
I went to college with a gal who was literally born of a virgin–so, yes.
VG, at first glance I read “a gal who was literally born a virgin.”
My first reaction? “God I Hope So!”
Unnecessary Paris Hilton Joke:
I’m pretty sure Paris Hilton wasn’t.
“Yes dear, I was a virgin when you were born. I NEVER had sex. Haven’t had it since, either! And that’s why YOU shouldn’t have sex. Never, never never.”
Sexual jokes. How mature. [/sarcasm]
If I want a joke like that, I can just walk into my old high school and sit in the cafeteria for a while.
You go do that then.
If you don’t come to the site for jokes, no matter how childish or vague or explicit, or any range of things, then you’re here for no reason.
With your sparkly buddies?
I bet you guys don’t know that TwiLyght was nominated for multiple awards from her co-workers for the most mature sense of humor on the staff… and furthermore, that she was the youngest joke-teller ever promoted to supervisor!
`
(anyone who gets the reference wins a pasta salad)
At a naked picnic? *hopeful*
Not only is it a nekkid picnic, but there are no utensils, so everybody has to eat with their hands.
weeeeeeeee!
*steals pick-a-nick basket*
So…no one tells jokes in your NEW high school? That’s a shame! I think the bell rang for your next class. Off you go!
Seriously, when has he shut off peoples mics?
For every douchebag who has mindlessly used the word “liberal” as an insult, I would like to provide the following description of Liberalism.
Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term “liberal” and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for political liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual’s right to private property, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.
Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism. Instead, it founds itself on the assumption of the equal dignity and worth of individuals.
The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; based on the writings of English philosopher John Locke, who expressed that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. That to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Liberalism in its broadest sense is arguably the dominant ideology of the Western World, where mainstream political debate is held largely within the realm of accepted liberal principles such as government by consent, rationalism, freedom of speech etc, and these principles being accepted and prized by parties across the political spectrum.
Liberal definition of the word liberal ^^
You don’t like that one? I have more.
•a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution
•an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market
•Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.
•The quality of being liberal; Any political movement founded on the autonomy and personal freedom of the individual, progress and reform, and government by law with the consent of the governed; An economic theory in favour of laissez faire and the free market
•liberal – broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
•liberal – tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
•liberal – a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
SB: Thank you. Now please do one agains those who use conservative as an insult!!!
Sure. (Note: as that as of my last refresh, I counted 12 uses of Liberalism as a pejorative, and 2 uses of conservativism as a pejorative.)
Now, which form of conservativism would you like defined?
Liberal conservatism
Conservative liberalism
Libertarian conservatism
Fiscal conservatism
Green conservatism
Cultural conservatism
Religious conservatism
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm how about I do it. A True conservative believes in less government and individual rights. Don’t be fooled by the dumb asses who speak loudly for our side, and instead focus on those that are true conservatives. I’ve said it before, a conservative is like a sports spectator, they want the government to be the officiating, however when the game is done, they’d rather talk baout how good the game was than how piss poor and overbearing the officiating was.
How about you concede that making up your own definition of what a “true conservative” will, by default, only apply to your personal views?
No that’s actually the true definition of a conservative. It’s just been lost through the years. Read any Liberatarin book.
“A True conservative believes in less government and individual rights.”
Allow me to list a few examples of “less government and individual rights,” and then you can tell me how many of these you find to be “true conservative” values:
Less Government:
-less military (a large chunk of our federal budget)
-less police (typically a large chunk of municipal budgets)
Individual Rights:
-the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion
-the right of two consenting adults to get married, regardless of their gender
It’s an interesting question. Some of the self-described conservatives who post here seem articulate and well-informed. If we take ILPB at his/her word and “don’t be fooled by the dumb-asses who speak loudly for our side”, then I have to assume that at least SOME conservatives have a more nuanced viewpoint than, “All working-class people are lazy crooks” and/or “Let’s go invade some dark-skinned foreigners and take their oil”. That being the case, I’d be interested if e.g. froo, eddie, et. al. stated their position(s).
Bob Dole approves of this
penisposting!*knows they have before is just channeling Bob*
Can a brother get a cite?
Read any true Conservative book, mostly written by Libertarians, NOT Republicans.
Good book “10 Things You Can’t Say in America”
Nope, that’s not a cite. Please try again.
Meriams Dictionary: specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Funny, that’s EXACTLY what FOX likes to do; cherry pick what to show the public. THIS is what you didn’t paste from that same definition:
a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
WOW I didn’t post the part that wasn’t pertenant. I was giving specifics of what conservatives believe, which is what I was asked for. AWWW too bad so sad..
Here, have a coke, a smile, and STFU..
“Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.”
How do you have equality without taking away some sort of individual liberty.
“the term “liberal” and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for political liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual’s right to private property, and a transparent system of government.”
I dont see the currently run government abiding by any of the above.
How did you feel about the Bush administrations adherence (or lack of adherence, as the case may be) to those principles?
Bush wasn’t a liberal.
Are you or are you not in favor of the principles of freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual’s right to private property, and transparancy in government? If you are in favor, how well do you think the Bush administration upheld these principles?
But you’re espousing them as LIBERAL principles, to which Bush is not held accountable. If you want to argue whether he held to Conservative principles, then ok. But that’s not where this discussion started. Bush isn’t a liberal, therefore he can be held no more accountable for the liberal viewpoint than can a phillandering Dem who doesn’t preach on family values.
I’m not espousing anything, I merely cut and pasted the description of Liberalism.
Right, to which Bush and his administration can’t be held accountable for. So it’s a non-argument.
The Obama administration has been called “corporate centrist” so faulting liberalism for anything you don’t like about his policies is also a non-argument.
By whom, and who’s defining “corporate centrist?”
Peta, Greenpeace and Al Gore?
In related news, I have been called “the most brilliant mind of our age”, so criticizing me is also a non-argument.
Someone lied.
Wow, we’re you REALLY popular in high school too? *snicker*
Yeah, and I have a really cute boyfriend, but you don’t know him. He, um… he goes to another school… yeah, that’s the ticket.
Seth doesn’t count, LOL.
Obama ran as a Democrat, the bulk of which espouse Liberal principles as a default against Conservative ones. You can’t honestly call Nancy Pelosi a “non-Liberal”. Considering Obama’s previous record in Congress (where he was either the most liberal or the 7th most liberal senator), he’s firmly in the niche of being a liberal. His administration is the same. So therefore, they are held to liberal ideology. You’re still trying to drag non-arguments into this.
Not bashing you or anything froo, but I have to state how silly “either the most liberal or the 7th most liberal senator” sounds.
Imagine how confused liberal senators 2 through 6 must be.
It depends on what study you look at, lol. The one the Repubs like to cite has him as the most liberal based on his votes. The other one (I’m on my phone right now and can’t easily get a cite…remind me layer and I will) has him as the seventh most liberal based on votes, time in the senate, and a couple of other criteria. So it depends on where you look
either way, he’s a flaming liberal. Not as flaming as Barney Frank, but no one is that flaming 
SB: Cite please..
Here, from your favorite network;
{http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/02/27/obama-comes-centrist-closet/}
IVAN: Did you even read the article. It’s calling him anything BUT a centrist. I think the person was being sarcastic…
Heh. Sure doesn’t.
He just googled and linked the first site that popped, obviously.
That’s okay, here’s another one from your favorite network:
{http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/22/days-national-security-centrist-approach-angers-fans-pleases-critics/}
SB: Thats about his foreign policies, not corporate. You said he was corporate centrist. Still waiting **twiddles thumbs**
{http://centristvoice.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/opinion-obama-mccain-should-vote-for-the-bailout/}
{http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/nov/25/nation/chi-econ-team_tuenov25}
{http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/11/obama_the_centrist.php}
{http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Centrist-Cabinet}
I am in favor of those principles…that is why I am conservative and fight liberalism as it is practiced today….off to the bat mobile robin!!!!!!!
I am secure enough in my masculinity to make batman references lol…I even wore a pink tie once…paisley I belive…oh how I miss the 80′s
Did you have the Jackson glove?
Nope but I did have parachute pants
Which beats having Jackson pants (pun intended)
Only for Robin though?
Froo Bush was a liberal in terms of expanding the Government. The last true Conservative we had in office was Reagan, and Nixon before that.
Both Bush’s really weren’t true conservatives.
But he RAN as a Conservative, which keeps him from being judged on liberal principles.
Which then makes him even more an Epic Failure!!!!
Of course! I’m not disputing that in the slightest!
I believe that you have to lose some freedoms in order to be civil, help those that really do need help, and to protect the common good/country (I don’t need to know everything the CIA, NSA, FBI etc knows and am willing to allow them to take some of my freedoms away to protect me. I was not claiming that the past adminstration was perfect nor would I ever. I was mearly commenting on your definition of liberalism and how I think it does not apply to the left side of the aisle as I do not believe their actions have supported the definition you posted. If more democrats in congress could be acurately defined by your definition I think we would be better off….individual freedom, limited government, right to private property etc.
I’d like to see people stop equating left and liberal.
You’re a liberal. You haven’t left yet.
See? Easy peasy lemon squeezie!
I’m sure there are plenty of lefties who are conservative. Left-handed people I mean.
This is a non-argument, Semper. Bush isn’t a liberal, and therefore isn’t held to liberal policies or principles. If we were arguing about adhering to Conservative principles then SB would have a REALLY good leg to stand on.
He did *kind* of act like one, there at the end though…
Oh, for the last three years of his presidency he wasn’t a Conservative in any way, shape, form, or fashion. He made liberals nervous with the way he spent money. But, going back to the original statement, he himself and his administration can’t be held accountable for not following the definition of a liberal because they didn’t run as liberals, nor try to pretend to be them. They ran as Conservatives, bollocksed that up, and left office.
Agreed….but if the current left isn’t liberal by SB’s definition, then what are they? Socialist?…..Ducks and runs for cover
Eh. I wish. But a socialist government would never really fly here. At most, a tiny hint of it.
Agreed Eric…I believe in the true sense of the “socialism” definition even us conservatives believe that there must be some socialist run entities …ie..fire, police, military, public education..etc. Of course my definition could be totally off as I have been wrong before…fequently
Your wife tells you that too?
Which we already have….. which at times is too much……
You think it’s too much. I think it’s not enough. I’d like to see more, honestly, but I also know that this country is far too rooted in its ways for that big of a change.
Sorry born a capitalist…. always will be a capitalist. Believe there needs to be some federal stuff, but I think I can decide what is best for my family and I, not someone with different ideals. I don’t want Uncle Sam taking from me to give to someone else. Call my greedy, but frankly I’d rather the choice be mine.
As a bitter, Bible- and gun-clinging American, you can’t be trusted to make your own choices. Instead, an unaccountable board of overpaid bureaucrats will be empowered with making the appropriate choices for you.
…at least I think that’s a summary of Eric’ preferred style of governance (aka totalitarianism).
No, Dhoti, you’re the only one who can’t make his own decisions. Back to your room before they realize you’ve hijacked a computer again.
But can I make my own deciscions Mr. Eric? **puppy dog eyes**
True to form, Eric — I didn’t expect you to have the capacity, or the maturity, to actually explain yourself, like a civilized human being. That would take up valuable TV watching time, right?
I already told you, Dhoti. I’m done trying to be civil with you. Your little one-man anti-Eric squad last night pushed me over the edge on that one. I’m done pretending with you. Ass munch.
Yes, I disagree with you. No, I won’t shut up just because dissent makes you angry. Like I said before — sac up, you puss, and deal with it.
Or not. If you want to be a hypocritical troll — and validate my opinion of you in the process — go right ahead and rationalize away.
Dhoti, it’s obvious that Eric doesn’t want to discuss with you. Can you please stop baiting him into the discussion with insults? This is just turning stupid.
No, baiting with insults would be throwing out terms like “ass munch”.
Wannabe Internet bullies like Eric need to be put in their place — unless you don’t mind him turning on you someday, that is.
Oookay.
Yeah.
Problem- you insult Eric after another nest in which he says he doesn’t wish to talk to you anymore.
You can’t always expect people to turn the other cheek, Dhoti.
That might be what he says, but it’s not how he’s acting, is it? The way he’s started following me around, it’s like he just can’t let it go.
Why should I care if he turns the other cheek or not? He’s trying to act like a bully, he’s definitely acting like a troll, and he deserves to be called on his childish behavior.
Now, if he *actually* doesn’t want to talk, then he can just go away, like a mature person would.
I’m still awaiting permission to make my own deciscions. So Eric stop fvcking with Dhoti and give me my damn permission.
It’s not my definition of Liberalism, it’s the accepted definition. I didn’t write it, I merely posted it because I don’t think that most people who use the term as a pejorative even understand what it is they’re criticizing. The constant use of the words “conservative” and “liberal” as demeaning insults only reveals the lack of real, individual thought and analysis that takes place in today’s political arena.
Once people start using these terms as insults, any real debate is over.
The big problem is that people confuse classic liberalism (the definition you posted) with the modern liberalism. In practice, modern liberalism isn’t very liberal, it’s closer to being statist.
And here enters another issue with these labels – I have a feeling you talk about “modern liberalism” in the US, which is probably not exactly the same as “modern liberalism” anywhere else (while the classic definition is still … well, the classic definition).
Especially on the transparent government part. Obama has successfully flip flopped (according to Politifact) on both his promise to post all bills before they are voted on for a minimum of 5 days so the American People can read them, AND on his promise to have healthcare debates on C-SPAN. Neither has come close to happening, and should be very scary to people, especially with how quickly they’re trying to ram this bill through.
Scares the crap out of me.
It’s ok, he’s Obama, he knows whats best for us peonic Americans. Which is actually why I would rather of a “dumb” President, than an intellectual one who thinks he knows what’s best for me.
See but then there’s the part about how enough people like his idea of whats good for us, that he got elected.
Enough people were fooled into believing he had a completely different idea of what’s good for us than what he’s doing now. That’s how he got elected.
Actually no he got elected b/c the republican party got too big, too arrogant, and too corrupt, and screwed up too much. Once again the Dems could have thrown a Walrus into the frey against McCain and it would have won. (as long as it was a natural born US citizen and over 35.)
Hillary lost.
Yes, but to the Chicago Machine, not to McCain.
There is that…
I think he was talking about the Walrus, we named her Hillary.
)
Also, based on her party affiliation, we’re supposed to think she’s hot.
Uhm, ew, no. Did I say ew?
Just for emPHAsis, EW!
Besides, it takes a big-kinda-woman for the terrorists to hide a snuke in her snizz.
Freedom of thought and speech…..efforts in congress to try to limit right wing radio shows.
Limitation on the power of governments….GM, banking industry, health care.
rule of law..current supreme court justice pick. (this one is weak i know)
Individuals right to private property…increased taxes to “spread the wealth” decision by the supreme court on iminate domaine. (last administration)
transparent system of goverment….where did the tarp money go?
sneakily trying to take away our private health insurance…
As someone who works in the private health insurance industry, I would love to see an alternative. My core belief is that the overall health of the public should not be a for-profit industry. Even though I spend the majority of my time at work assisting people in navigating through the health care system, I can’t wait to get out of this industry, because it’s main purpose is not to take care of people, but to make profits for shareholders.
*rips off SB’s rose colored glasses*
Welcome to capitalism, baby!
Who’s wearing rose colored glasses?
I’m not a fan of this aspect of capitalism.
Naw, you’re wearing hypocrite-colored glasses… you are making profit on others’ healthcare, after all
That’s exactly why I’m getting my degree so I can get out of this industry. It makes my skin crawl.
I agree completely. Health care with the purpose of profit is just sickening and why our current system is a disgusting, cruel joke.
“Health care with the purpose of profit is just sickening” Why stop at health care? Food and water are more essential than health care. Why should anyone make a profit on those items? Why should anyone make a profit off of peoples lives? Without the profit factor what would be the incentive to take the risk of trying to create new drugs that make a better quality of life for someone? It is not an american right to be prosperous. That is something most people have to work at, Paris Hilton excluded. Without reward why try?
“Why stop at health care? Food and water are more essential than health care. Why should anyone make a profit on those items?”
Good point. Except that’s starting to lean towards communism, and I know you won’t like that. (Note that I said you, not me).
Why try? Because dying sucks.
On water tariffs:
“Almost all service providers in the world charge tariffs to recover part of their costs. According to estimates by the World Bank the average (mean) global water tariff is US$ 0.53 per cubic meter. In developed countries the average tariff is US$ 1.04, while it is only U$ 0.11 in the poorest developing countries. The lowest tariffs in developing countries are found in South Asia (mean of US$ 0.09/m3), while the highest are found in Latin America (US$ 0.41/m3).[3] Few utilities do recover all their costs. According to the same World Bank study only 30% of utilities globally, and only 50% of utilities in developed countries, generate sufficient revenue to cover operation, maintenance and partial capital costs.”
The differences between producing food for profit and making a profit on health care are myriad, but perhaps the most obvious difference is that food producers don’t make a profit by denying access to food, whereas health care insurance companies do make a profit by denying care to the sick.
“but perhaps the most obvious difference is that food producers don’t make a profit by denying access to food”
“Rice shortage? U.S. paid millions to farmers to not plant it”
By getting paid not to grow food I would consider that making a profit by denying access to food.
Right, who can forget the Great Rice Shortage, when thousands of Americans starved from, uh, lack of rice.
I believe plato warned us about this…i forgot which it leads to probably tyranny.
You obviously were.
Not so much. As a cancer survivor, I am only too aware of how the private health insurance sector works (there are four health insurance lobbyists for every member of congress, btw). I am unable to get individual insurance, despite the fact that I have been cancer-free for nearly 10 years. People shouldn’t be forced to stay in a job only because they can’t afford to go without healthcare.
By keeping the public afraid of a nationalized health care system, the health care and pharmaceutical industries retain control in the interests of making a profit, not providing care.
You can’t get comprehensive insurance, but you can most likely still get catastrophic insurance. (I have a couple of self-employed cancer survivors in the family that went that route.) No one’s arguing that’s how it should be, but that’s another story…
Rather than being manipulated by big government statists into assuming that nationalization is the only conceivable way to fix the system, you should reflect on when comprehensive insurance replaced catastrophic insurance, why it became necessary, and if there’s a lesson there.
Catastrophic insurance doesn’t cover the regular testing required to ensure that I remain cancer-free. It doesn’t cover any preventative care, which means I would have to pay out-of-pocket for those costs; if I could not afford those costs, there is a significant chance returning cancer could go unchecked until it became untreatable.
Exactly my point — when, and why, did commodity health care become so expensive as to become unaffordable without comprehensive insurance? My answer: once employer-sponsored health care became common, in effect deepening everyone’s pockets, health care costs ballooned to match.
Given this worldview, you can understand how I feel about having health care paid for out of the deepest pockets of all.
Okay, I do kinda see your point, Dhoti. A little. But your methods of fixing this are not likely. There’s NOT gonna be a way to fix the health care problem without significant government intervention. Even if we don’t go the nationalized health care route, someone is gonna have to regulate the insurance industry to get it under control. Personally, I can’t see another route besides FORCING the entire industry to change their ways.
Eric, I don’t believe I’ve mentioned my health care reform proposal on here before. (Truth be told, I haven’t completely figured it out myself.) But you seem to have a handle on it, so please enlighten me — what do I believe?
Yes, regrettably, some government intervention is necessary. I’m hoping it can be limited to the productive “kick in the a$$” kind of intervention rather than the “private gains, socialized losses” kind of intervention that has worked out so well for us recently.
Part of the problem, I think, is that we’re deciding that health care is a higher priority than it actually is in the market. (Case in point — take the 40 million or whatever that’s tossed around as the number of uninsured in the US. If that number was actually the number of people seeking insurance, and didn’t include people who don’t want or need it, I firmly believe someone would be working on that market. But, since it’s smaller than it seems, it’s not really touched yet.)
You believe in being a putrid puddle of diarrhea. There I answered your question.
h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = R m H T t e 8 j R L k
*sigh*
“Twas a joke, lass.
Ah sorry, I didn’t catch it.
But, but, what about the “liberal” free market?! If it’s so great it should be great for peoples health too. Let’s just fix what we already have.
…wait, alternative? That word implies a choice.
If health care reform goes through and federally sponsored health care is made available, then there will be a choice. Currently there is not an alternative to private health care (not counting programs like Medicaid, which are available to a limited segment of the population).
That’s disingenuous bullsh!t, and you know it. If the currently proposed plan goes through, the only “choice” you’ll have is the plan you currently have, and that’s only until the private insurer gets squeezed out by government controls.
Page 16, baby.
Back in the day, politicians had the decency to bury their poison pills deep within their bills. This, it’s not a poison pill, it’s poison frosting.
Link — a Kos Kid asking for the talking point to refute it.
Well show me the link then, I haven’t seen any proposals which eliminates private health care.
Also, a little healthy competition for the private system would be a good thing in my opinion.
Froo already did — page 16 of the House health reform bill. I don’t feel like wading through THOMAS (translation: the THOMAS link didn’t pop up in the first page of Google search results), but it should be easy to obtain.
Healthy competition, yes. Mandating prices — and acceptable profits! — isn’t competitive, it’s monopolistic.
Can I be the race car?
Yes. But if you touch my top hat, I will bleed you. Real quite like.
*crouches and cries on community chest*
Can I just stroke it a bit if I pay the luxury tax?
I call dibs on the shoe!
Oh great. I get to be the thimble again. Fvckers. House rules! Put a $500 on Free Parking!!
I’m the old boot, and call that I get to re-roll rolls I don’t like..
[Ahem] I clearly called dibs on the shoe, see above. I *might* consider trading the shoe for the iron (jeez, I’m SUCH a girl!), but you’d have to make it worth my while.
Oh, wait! There’s a win-win solution to this! Nobody’s called dibs on the scottie dog yet? I call dibs on the scottie dog!
*pleased*
I’m not getting a link in her name.
*sigh* I said I wasn’t going to, but I can see where this is going — you’re going to scream at me if I dare suggest you download your own copy of a specific, named public document, even though “do a google” has been your mantra today.
Link — scroll to page 16.
I didn’t link anything in my name. I just mentioned Page 16 of the health care bill, which basically states that if you change healthcare after (I think) Jan 1 of the year the bill becomes law, you no longer have the option to go into private healthcare, and have to choose the public option. Also, there is a provision in there that says if you try to opt out of having health insurance at all (you know, still a basic freedom NOT to have it), you will be penalized by the IRS, fined, and then FORCED to participate in a randomly selected public plan.
I will try to find a neutral cite for you.
WTF???? You CAN’T? Them’s fightin’ words, buckaroo! This is a deeemocracy, I tell’s you, you CAN’T tell me what to do with my money…
No, really?
The contents of page 16 of the House Health Reform Bill:
Sec. 102 – Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage
(a) Grandfathered health insurance coverage defined. Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for the purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term “grandfathered health insurance” means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following limitations are met:
1) Limitation of new enrollment –
(a) in general. – Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(b) Dependent coverage permitted. – Subparagraph (a) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent who is covered as of such first day.
2) Limitation on changes in terms or conditions. – Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the insurer does not change any of its terms and conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
——-end page 16——–
I don’t see how this says anything like what you and Froo are claiming it says.
Um, really? Are you serious?
Subparagraph (a) — existing plans can’t accept new members. Paragraph 2 — existing plans can’t change in any way.
If you don’t see how freezing private insurance doesn’t necessarily lead to the elimination of private insurance…
A counterpoint to your interpretation of this excerpt:
It does not outlaw individual private coverage – you can still buy the plan on the Exchange where they will compete with the public option, not be replaced by it. The advantage of the Exchange, is that the coverage no longer has one of the problems of individual coverage – skyrocketing premiums should you become ill.
“skyrocketing premiums” — is that from the bill, or your own assumption? Cite, please.
It’s certainly possible. But you’re neglecting all the other burdens of being an Exchange plan (and again, there goes another choice, since all plans must be government-certified Exchange plans) — the government has much more intrusive control over Exchange plans, not just in prices, but in *profits*. That clearly penalizes efficiency, with the end goal, I think, of squeezing private insurers out of business, should the government so choose.
That’s assuming, of course, that the government doesn’t just start closing the Exchange to private insurers in the first place, and the bill certainly gives them the power to do so.
I think SB put her rose colored glasses on again. The private sector can not fairly compete with a government subsidized program like what is being proposed. I know in a heart beat that my boss would drop the private insurance he provides if he could save a buck having the employees opt into a government run insurance.
So let me get this straight: government subsidized health care is horrible because health care will be “rationed”, because there will be long lines, because “post office employees will be working at hospitals”, etc., etc. Oh, and private insurance just can’t compete with that.
Right.
No b/c it’s pretty much against personal freedoms to choose your health care. And you really trust the government who can’t get Social Security right, with your health?
That’s his point. The government plan would not wipe out private healthcare. As far as I know, it’s perfectly within one’s personal freedoms to choose your health care. Which isn’t what you just stated.
And private, if the government is so bad with healthcare, will EASILY be able to compete, therefore the point is a waste of breath to argue and a contradiction in and of itself.
If you change your plan, or if the rates change, or if your employer decides to ditch offering private healthcare because now it’s more financially feasable to NOT offer healthcare, you no longer have the choice to opt out, or get your own plan. If you decide to opt out of healthcare entirely and pay out of pocket, you will be fined by the IRS, and forced into a randomly selected government plan. What this is going to end up doing is not create more competition (you’re telling me we need more competition when there are several thousand different types of healthcare insurance providers out there? Really?), it will force the private sector into bankruptcy, as it won’t be able to compete with the government, who doesn’t have to make a profit. How do you compete with an entity that just prints more money when it needs it?
-
I heard an interesting fix on the radio last night…..one of the reasons that healthcare insurance is so high is because state and federal mandates say that health insurance has to cover everything. You can’t taylor a plan for your needs based on age, health, pre-existing conditions, and the like. If we were able to do that, we’d have much lower costs, and it would be easier to get into a plan that serves your needs. Then government healthcare insurance would be unnecessary.
Froo: If that don’t scare anyone, I don’t think anything will. However it’s looking more and more like Healthcare will either a) Go Away or b) Be Obama’s downfall and solidify his one term status.
Igor/ Tyler: Umm if it’s cheaper, the companies will use it. Anywhere to save a buck.
“And you really trust the government who can’t get Social Security right, with your health?”
Well, my grandmother gets her Social Security check once a month. It’s always on time, and it never bounces. Actually, now that I think of it, she probably has direct-deposit by now, but the principle is the same.
And no, I wouldn’t be trusting the government with my health as no one is seriously suggesting we should nationalize our hospitals and doctors. But I would have no problem trusting the government with my health INSURANCE since private insurance companies are one of the few types of organizations I trust less than the government.
Subtle: I’m glad for your Grandmother, however you realize you’ll never see a Socail Security check. And do you think the government health plan won’t be covered in beauractric red tape. I was offered a federal job verbally 8 weeks ago, still awaitng the written offer. I’ll trust my private helath insurance we is really good. I trust companies more than the government, at least with companies there’s some semblance of compitition, and therefore bad service leads to less customers.
I agree with you SB that there needs to be changes to the current health care system that is available. I don’t think government control or throwing more money (tax dollars) at the problem is the solution. Privatising things and making a profit are not necessarily bad things as long as there is some sort of check and balances in place. The current school system is a good example of that I think. Private schools tend to give a higher quality education for less money per student and I would assume that these same institutions make some sort of profit. The public city schools, of which I am familiar with Memphis and Clark County (las vegas) ,two of the largest public school systems, spend much more per student and do a poor job of educating them. I went to public school btw.
Today, I’m helping a woman fight an insurance company who denied payment on the epidural she had when she delivered her baby on the grounds that it wasn’t pre-authorized.
Check out the link in my name.
By the way, the US ranks 37th in health care systems, just ahead of Slovenia.
In what category? I still haven’t heard about people leaving America in droves to get better healthcare. The problem is the cost, and that will only be fixed by tort reform, which our current president is firmly against.
Heh… funny how such statements (“537th! After Freedonia!”) never make any mention of the criteria on which the system was judged.
The World Health Organization ranked healthcare systems by the attainment of the following goals:
- health of the population
- responsiveness (access to coverage)
- fairness in financial contribution
- overall goal attainment
- health expenditure per capita in international dollars
- overall health system performance
I am seriously considering leaving America, mostly because my boyfriend is English, but also because it will afford me a better opportunity to choose my line of work without consideration of health care benefits, and also because like most European countries, paid time off for maternity leave starts at 6 months, vs. 6 weeks (so much for family values), there is no limitation on sick days, minimum of five weeks of vacation time per year, etc etc etc.
On Sunday I spoke to an Englishman who has been in the U.S. for 12 years. I asked him what he missed most about England, and he instantly said “nationalized health care.”
Isn’t it interesting how only one of those criteria actually relates to citizens’ health? It’s almost as if they weren’t concerned with efficiency when they were putting the survey together…
Good luck trying to navigate the European immigration process. (Just be glad you’re not Muslim.)
Ranked by life expectancy, the US ranks 30th.
I have a boyfriend who wants to marry me, immigration issues: solved.
Solved? Not quite. Google “green card marriage”, then remember that the US is open in comparison…
I’ve already done the research, and so has the bf.
It’s been done. See the movie “Green Card.”
Suicide, if he wants to marry you, thank god for immigration laws!
I don’t get it Igor.
Just a note: “the European immigration process” is still quite different from country to country.
The world health organization just ranked the US number one for cancer survivablility and treatment. I dont know about you but I want the option to be able to find and recieve care before I die from waiting to get approved to get the treatment the government decides I need when they decide I need it.
Being number one in cancer surviveability and treatment does not speak to access, which is a key factor in receiving said treatment.
In the UK and France, there is no government approval required for any kind of care.
But, in those cases, you’re looking at long waits to see specialists and other necessary care.
-
WE NEED TORT REFORM AND LOWER PRICES, not socialized medicine. If the trial lawyers weren’t allowed to run roughshod over the doctors, malpractice insurance woudln’t be so high, which woudln’t jack up the price of a doctor, which wouldn’t jack up the price of the care, which would then put paying out of pocket within reach of your normal average American. I’ve typed out a LOOOOOOOOONG post on why insurance companies and trial lawyers have managed to screw us all (using pet insurance as a basis for comparison), and I don’t feel like doing it again now. Suffice it to say that when the medical establishment figured out that the procedures would be paid for regardless of how much they cost, it was open season to jack up costs. Add to that the fact that we don’t have a “loser pays” provision in our legal system, and you’re asking for stitches to cost $1000 a pop.
tl/dr
The sad part about that Deep Thought, is that Froo is right. Tort reform is the only way to make healthcare work without having people on both sides be so frothy about it.
And you can freakin’ mark you calendar people :
One of us “Damn Liberals” just agreed with a conservative on issue, and best of all, the outcome is not socialism or communism.
No worries. I was just messing with her for this part:
I’ve typed out a LOOOOOOOOONG post on why insurance companies and trial lawyers have managed to screw us all (using pet insurance as a basis for comparison), and I don’t feel like doing it again now.
I’ve linked a summary describing a 2005 study that would argue against the importance of malpractice suits in raising the cost of medicine, though it’s a little light as a source. I’m not sure that tort reform would have a great effect, and I think the greed of insurance companies plays into the problem.
But you’re right in the need for lower prices, it’s just complicated getting there. There’s another article here:
{http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande}
focusing on what happens when doctors start putting their bottom lines WAY above patient care. Doctors will often prescribe tests and office visits that aren’t necessary if they think they can get insurance companies to pay for them.
And what about the patients? Some will totally ignore medical advice if they don’t like what they’re hearing. They won’t alter their lifestyles and be healthier, so what was a borderline/at-risk situation is now full-blown diabetes, hypertension, etc-much more serious and expensive. Or they act out of fear or arrogance, and start demanding things they don’t need, like antibiotics for a viral infection or unnecessary ER visits. All these things drive up cost.
It seems like you could lower cost by making more care available. Lots of med schools would like to expand, but don’t have the money for classroom space, practice supplies or other resources. There’s little incentive for people to go into nursing, and you always need more nurses. Systems of medical filing are practically medieval, and there’s no consistency between doctors and hospitals. You might order the same test on a patient that they just had three weeks ago because you can’t see the records from their previous visits and they don’t remember.
I think putting money toward those things is a more practical solution than tort reform or socialized medicine.
My aunt in Canada just got a masectomy. She had to wait 3 months after she was diagnosed before she could have surgery. If Canada and UK have such great care available, why do people with means leave those countries to come to the US for medical proceedures?
“My aunt in Canada just got a masectomy. She had to wait 3 months after she was diagnosed before she could have surgery.”
Did she die? Perhaps the surgery didn’t have to happen right away. I always hear critics of Canada’s system trot out the old “you have to wait a long time” line, but I’ve never heard of anyone who needed immediate life-saving surgery being told to wait. Meanwhile, here in the states my brother hurt his knee and had to wait three months before the doctor could do his surgery. It happens here, too.
“If Canada and UK have such great care available, why do people with means leave those countries to come to the US for medical proceedures?”
The populations of Canada and UK are roughly 30 million and 60 million, respectively. The population of the US is about 300 million. Based on the sheer numbers, there are going to be more options here. If you have a rare disease, you’re much more likely to find a specialist here than there. Look at it this way: visit a town with 30,000 people, one with 60,000 people, and a city with 300,000 people, and then tell me where you’re most likely to find more options.
Heh.
Yeah, I snapped my forearm clean in two, and waited four hours in the ER while a child with diarrhea went in ahead of me.
After that, I had to wait a week for a doctor to set it (no idea why), so they had to re-break it before they set it.
Igotr/ Tyler: As a father of a young child, diarrhea can be deadly to them. A young child can become dehydrated much faster than you or I, and not recover as well. Trust me the last thing you want to see is a young child with an IV in the arm.
I would gladly have set your arm for you.. **evil grin**
To Subtle: Population has little to do with it. It’s called competition. If you will make more money curing a disease, more money will be thrown at researching a cure or treatment. Simply put, it’s more benefitial for drug comapnies to work in a privatized helath care system, rather than a socialized one.
No she didn’t die, thank goodness; however, the survivablilty rate for cancer in the US is 16% higher than that in Canada. I do not have statistics if this is caused by waiting period or the limitations placed by the government on the types of treatments they make available.
“visit a town with 30,000 people, one with 60,000 people, and a city with 300,000 people, and then tell me where you’re most likely to find more options”
So by that rational, China should have the best and most options right?
In 1996, this country (Canada) had 2.1 practicing physicians per 1000 population, while of the comparison group only two (Japan and the UK) had a lower ratio: Australia (2.5), France (3.0), Germany (3.4), Japan (1.8), Sweden (3.1), Switzerland (3.2), UK (1.7) and U.S. (2.6). Thus, even in countries with lower per capita spending than Canada, there is greater access to physician services.
“To Subtle: Population has little to do with it. It’s called competition. If you will make more money curing a disease, more money will be thrown at researching a cure or treatment. Simply put, it’s more benefitial for drug comapnies to work in a privatized helath care system, rather than a socialized one.”
If there are more people, there are more researchers, and a cure is more likely to be found. If there’s more profit in treating a disease than curing it (which is usually the case), more effort will be put into researching treatment than a cure. If there’s more profit to be made in treating diseases than preventing them (which is almost invariably the case), more effort will be made in treatment. What’s most profitable is usually not what’s best for the patient.
“the survivablilty rate for cancer in the US is 16% higher than that in Canada. I do not have statistics if this is caused by waiting period or the limitations placed by the government on the types of treatments they make available.”
…or by a larger percentage of their population living in rural areas, or by the colder weather affecting Canadians’ immune systems, or by their strict diets of delicious Canadian beer and Canadian bacon…
The point is correlation does not equal causation.
“So by that rational, China should have the best and most options right?”
No. The standard of living in China is not comparable to the US, so the health care isn’t, either. Canada’s standard is very comparable to the US, so their health care is. To claim otherwise is silly.
“In 1996, this country (Canada) had 2.1 practicing physicians per 1000 population, while of the comparison group only two (Japan and the UK) had a lower ratio: Australia (2.5), France (3.0), Germany (3.4), Japan (1.8), Sweden (3.1), Switzerland (3.2), UK (1.7) and U.S. (2.6). Thus, even in countries with lower per capita spending than Canada, there is greater access to physician services.”
Your statistics contradict your point. All these countries listed (aside from the US) have some sort of socialized health care, whether it’s government-run hospitals in UK or government-run health insurance as in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, etc. But the amount of physicians per patient varies widely with some being more than the US and some being less. This alone proves that factors other than private vs. socialized are what determines this. That was my whole point. I was hypothesizing that population is one of those factors, and I’m sure there are many more.
Jesus. That’s your definition of success? “Did she die”? What an ass.
“BH says:
July 22, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Jesus. That’s your definition of success? “Did she die”? What an ass.”
Um, no.
The other poster used the example of his/her Canadian aunt who had to wait to have a mastectomy as a criticism of socialized health care. I’m not Canadian myself, but every Canadian I’ve talked to and practically everything I’ve read about the Canadian health care system says says that the doctors get to decide whether or not a person has surgery, and that people whose lives depend on a procedure are treated right away. It’s only the “non-life-threatening” procedures that have a waiting line. Similarly, my brother here in the states injured his knee and had to wait a couple months to have the surgery. Why? Because doctors are busy, regardless if the health insurance is socialized or not.
So the fact (according to the poster) that this poster’s aunt had to wait to have her mastectomy tells me that her doctor(s) determined it didn’t need to happen right away.
Meanwhile, there are people here in the US who are dying because they can’t afford health care. I have family members and friends who’ve put off medical treatment because they couldn’t afford it, and most of them had insurance! My stepfather had a nasty viral infection, but he refused to go to the doctor until he was practically on his deathbed because his employer-provided insurance had a deductible that was over $500 for a hospital visit, and he was worried they wouldn’t be able to pay the mortgage. Long story short: my mother dragged him to the hospital, and after several surgeries including quintuple-bypass (the swelling from the viral infection closed a chamber or something in his heart) they were stuck with over $50,000 in bills and would’ve lost their house if the state hadn’t stepped in and covered the difference.
My family was fortunate, but there are many more in the US who aren’t. And yes, I may be “an ass” about things sometimes, but in a country that claims to have the best health care in the world while people die from illnesses that could’ve been treated and/or cured had the patient not had the misfortune of not having insurance or having an insurance company run by bean counters whose job it is to find reasons to reject claims, I have no patience for people who try to tell me Canada is worse.
Everyone in Canada is covered. That alone makes it infinitely better than our system.
Subtle. Your. Awesomeness. Inserted here ^.
Subtle: Once again in Canada and England if you are over a certain age you are denied Kemo, b/c the odds are not in favor of survival anyhows. Sorry but to me that’s even more unnacceptable as “people all over the country are dying b/c they don’t have insurance”, b/c these people are supposed to be taken care of by the government. Or better yet how about I pay for everyone else’s insurance and my own. That must be my civic duty. B/C I obviously got where I was by the luck of the draw and not hard work, I owe the community my money. Sorry WRONG FREAKING ANSWER!! Yeah I may sound like a cold hearted ass, but you know what, I live in a capitalistic society. If you don’t like your helath benefits GET A NEW JOB with better benefits, if you can’t do that figure out a way. I’m tired of this, “I can’t, he can’t, we can’t” attitude. I’m sure everyone will jump on me for saying that, but really I’m just sick of it. I pay more than my share of taxes, I do more than my part with donations, I do not want the government to force me into some crappy Helath Care plan that’s worse than the one I have, and one that the proposers won’t even use. If you want free Health Care, move ot Canada.
PB, I have tried to find a cite that shows that elderly cancer patients in England or Canada are automatically denied chemotherapy based on their age. Can you provide a cite for this?
“Everyone in Canada is covered. That alone makes it infinitely better than our system.” That it typical government bullshat. So the quality of the care doesnt matter? So you are fine with the US government lowering the quality of medical care so it can say it covers all citizen and non citizen people in the US? There is this department that the US government runs call the VA…ever heard of it? The media, up until Obama proposed to save the healthcare industry, was all over the VA for the crappy job they did treating vets and how they were understaffed etc. Wake up and STF up.
BTW..Did your step father die? No? Guess he got the medical care he needed after all…and at tax payers expense.
Semper, our health care system is rated 37th in the world by the World Health Organization. In life expectancy, we rank 30th in developed countries. But there’s one area where we’re number 1: we spend more on our health system than any other country in the world.
I don’t really get why people are so hesitant to see changes implemented.
I hate it when I clear my cache and then I screw up my gravater thingamajigger.
In England and Wales, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) sets guidelines for medical practitioners as to how various conditions should be treated and whether or not a particular treatment should be funded. These guidelines are established by panels of medica experts who specialize in the area being reviewed
And if you’re over a certain age you are automatically turned down for kemo. AHHH wouldn’t socialized health care be wonderful to all those cancer patients over a certain age…. Nope Granny, you’re too old, you lived a good life, now go die in a very painful way.
Your interpretation of the purpose of the NICE guidelines doesn’t correpond to the information on their website.
{http://www.nice.org.uk/}
I posted to this earlier but now it is erased. SB, I went to the NICE website and there are several reports on the website showing changes to treatments based on the costs of the procedures..I didnt look at all of them but did look at the breast cancer report. I also found a website from the UK cancer organization that describes what NICE does which is picks treatment options that will or will not be available to patients.
BTW…that was not my interpretation of NICE…I got it from wowwiki so it was someone elses lol
Epidurals are elective. Them’s the breaks.
The epidural was part of her delivery plan. Also, it’s very difficult to pre-authorize a service when you’re in the middle of delivering a baby.
Oh no, I get that. It’s still elective, unless the mother needs a C-section.
The cost of anesthesia during delivery is a covered expense. Her health care provider is merely making it difficult on the member by unfairly denying the claim. It has taken me nearly a month to get it straightened out. For those who don’t have access to services like the ones my company provides for its clients, this task would probably have proved too difficult to resolve, and the member would have been made to pay for a service that should have been covered at the outset, without causing her any stress.
I understand. Epidurals, unlike bed linens, are an elective part of the birthing process, and that’s where the problem comes in.
“Privatising things and making a profit are not necessarily bad things as long as there is some sort of check and balances in place.”
Health care for profit is a very bad thing. Health care should exist to help people, not to make money. You might think the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but they are. Now, I’m not saying doctors and hospitals should work for nothing, that’s impractical. And I have no problem with doctors making a good living. Most of them earn it. But deciding who gets health care based on dollars and cents is sickening.
“But deciding who gets health care based on dollars and cents is sickening.” That is exactly what the government will decide if it runs the health care industry. If they deem a procudure or medication is too expensive then they will not allow it. That is another reason Canadians come down to the states for care.
Exactly! And, if they feel the available funds are better spent in other areas, even education or the arts because you might be elderly or terminal, then they will do that too.
They wouldn’t dare spend funds that are earmarked for a certain project on something else…look at social security…er..never mind
The only ones making huge profits are the insurance companies- the president of United just retired with a $800,000,000 retirement package. If hospitals were making so much money, why have so many closed in the last ten years? My wife is a Family Practice doctor and she’s looking for a new career- even Obama’s personal doctor in Chicago retired when he found he was taking home $22 an hour after taxes, malpractice etc… And Obama is dead set against Tort Reform- being a lawyer himself. See the video where he was loudly booed by the AMA when he refused to consider Tort Reform in his bill.
You know, as a member of the middle class I’m beginning to feel like the relative that just won the lotto, everyone wants a chunk of my paycheck.
Oh, there’s definitely an alternative. But whether it would better serve the public — never mind the cost — is very much up for debate. (Actually, it’s pretty clear what would happen, but people get mad when you tell them that.)
Thank you SO much…***breathes in fresh air***
conservativism is about the past. liberalism is about the future.
Ummm….. so explain the obsession with marketing Obama as Kennedy… then Lincoln…. then Roosevelt.
Liberalism is about the future because it refuses to learn any lessons from the past.
We learn plenty of lessons from the past. Here’s one:
Subjugating people because of their gender, race or any other reason whatsoever is f***ing stupid and should not ever be done.
How about you there Mr. Conservative?
Isn’t Affirmative action the same thing, just a different name?
No AA is giving a benefit based on a persons gender and race…. it’s clearly different.
We learned that if you make the population reliant on the government then eventually that government gains control over you. (See USSR, China, Cuba, etc)
This is the total opposite of the truth. I’m glad Cronkite is dead!!!!
whether or not he was a good reporter does not seriously earn him a hated position does he? Surely you do not believe that it is good a man died simply for the job he did. I have my issues with O’reilly and…well any other talking head on any network, that does not mean he deserves death.
He was 92. He earned it
Anyone that is glad when another person dies needs to have their genitalia removed and thrown into the Marianas Trench.
Is that a Jesse Jackson quote?
No, it originated with the Dalai Lama.
Very interesting that only Fox should be singled out for opinionated news…hmmm…gold standards like CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN would (insert heavy dose of sarcasm) NEVER dream of reporting opinion rather than, gee I don’t know…fact…
NO SHIT REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
:monkey: :monkey: :monkey:
Wild and crazy idea: The next time you hear a talking head go for more than five sentences without reporting a fact that can be easily verified or refuted, just turn the TV off instead of being alternately delighted when they agree with you and outraged when they don’t. Trying to “balance” how much ranting you listen to from any side is almost as much of a waste of time as typing up advice to random strangers on comment boards. ^_~
“The next time you hear a talking head” All I can think of is in Scrubs when you have “floating head doctor”
But for once we do agree….. scarey….. **twilight zone music**
take a FAIL
Tell you what, for a second when I was reading that I thought…”wow, someone actually got it right” then the fox news comment came in. Oh man I laughed hard. I absolutely guarantee the person who made this is under the age of 21 who had no clue exactly how liberal this guy was. He was the most irresponsible reporter alive during Vietnam.
Hey, regardless of politics, Walter Cronkite is dead and no longer cares what any of you think. Just a friendly reminder.
I bow before your insight.
Seriously, that’s something above posters need to keep in mind…
these arent against Cronkite, it’s against the people that think he was a “gold standard”
i lol every time someone says that theyre not “fighting” an opinion, but an actual group of people (who disagree with them)
I see some douche had to take a shot at Fox News (the top rated news network by the way).
I see you think the fact that it is top rated makes it valid reporting.
Not all Americans drink the Koolaid…
Hey, McDonald’s sells more burgers than anyone else. That must mean their burgers are the best.
Yeah they are… I would like a lil more saw dust though…
Heh.
Never mind Cronkite declared on national TV that we couldn’t win the war in Vietnam after crushing the Tet Offensive of ’68.
Yeah, that’s neutral. *rolls eyes*
NO SHIT REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
:monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:
The monkeys seem to be ill.
The Tet Offensive did *precisely* what it intended to do. Vo Nguyen Giap was a student of American culture and knew exactly what he needed to do: Kill as many American kids as possible no matter how many of your own guys die too. Then the news will faithfully report this nightmare Hell of death and violence and burnt bodies piled atop one another, and the public opinion in the US will turn against the war, and the US will GTFO and leave Saigon to the NVA. And that is precisely what happened.
Cronkite wasn’t editorializing; he was merely reporting the news – that the US was done with Vietnam. And we were.
Forge: Don’t you think he was part of the propaganda machine then. Feeding into our enemies, instead of reporting that the Tet was actually a disaster militarily for the VC and NVA?
The Tet Offensive was intended to turn South Vietnam public opinion over to the side of the NVA and Vietcong and have them rise up in a glorious communist revolution. It wasn’t originally intended to sway US public opinion, but thanks to the “expert” opinion of a person who had no formal training or experience in military tactics, it had this effect. He shouldn’t have said what he did. War is bloody and violent. That’s why it’s war. All he took out of it was the violence and assumed that things weren’t going the way they should have despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Insert massive idiotic conserva-wank here.
Cronkite was a lying, Marxist, propaganda spewing POS. Every subordinate hated his guts. His own children hated his guts. He told Playboy magazine “the news is what I say it is.” Good riddance to bad rubbish.
NO SHIT REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
:monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:
Clearly, a man who reads Playboy for the articles.
Right above your post:
“Insert massive idiotic conserva-wank here.”
And you did!! Good boy. Here’s a biscuit.
ROTFLMAO!!!
And what about Edward Murrow? As if Cronkite didn’t learn from Murrow to say it how it was? Murrow did a better job as I recall.
I liked this attack at Fox, especially when they are more neutral than you liberal douchebags are.
It could’ve easily been someone besides a liberal who wrote this.
It was an attack at fox because FOX is a good example of a news station that doesn’t report facts so much as their pundits’ opinions.
My great-gramma was a switchboard operator back in the day. She was interviewed by Cronkite, once.
Makes no sense.
It means there need to be people out there who can actually stand on one side of Republican vs. Democrat but still be acceptable of both sides and consider both facts and overall be neutral about it.
In a less serious tone, I believe that the following is completely obligatory:
Your FACE makes no sense! OOOOOH!!! X3
I’m sorry, I just had to say that.
Good grief! Just another pot shot at fox. They’re not perfect, but they’re not the only ones who need to take a hint! The other networks need it more!
…
Let’s continue just hating this idiot in our minds.
….
Oh, I wish there had been something there worthy of hatred, but since it was just the twentyeleventhsixtysecondthirtieth repost of the same thing as everyone else has written, all it sparked in my mind was … a …
If he had been a fierce conservative and everything else about him was the same, no one would’ve given a shit.
Yeah.
Okay.
Sure.
Right.
Absolutely.
Most definitely.
Indubitably.
I’m talking about the fact that your post is full of crap.
Prove me wrong.
Prove yourself right. Walter Cronkite is not a Republican, nor are Republicans held to higher journalistic standards.
Therefore the point is moot.
Mute!
This point is a thread-pollute?
It’s a hoot!
You just did. Republicans are held to lower standards cause no one gives a shit. Should there be a decent republican reporter that happens to die I doubt he’d get a eulogy on Pundit Kitchen.
Can you honestly tell me if some old fart conservative anchor happened to die that you’d give a shit?
If the Republican reporter gave factual, impartial news and held himself to the same journalistic standards as Cronkite? Yes.
Well that’s decent of you. That’s more than I can say for most the people on this site. Hats off to ya.
Most of the people here don’t hate conservatives- there are quite a few the regular democrats here get along with.
I mean, if Hannity, or O’Reilly died tomorrow, I’d feel bad that the poor guys died- but I wouldn’t want to eulogize them, let alone as a reporter- giving your political opinion and discussing what YOU interpret the facts as is not news. Giving the people the story and letting them work it out for themselves? That seems like a much better journalist to me.
However, I would still feel bad for them as people, you know, dying as all.
You’ll have to forgive me if I get the idea people here hate conservatives. Expecially given the content of the vast comments above. (Though I sure a number of those conservatives just bring it upon themselves.) I just think it’s disgustion how people are such pricks to eachother because of politcal belief. Of course some people may just be pricks in general but still.
Nah, but everyone hates frothing at the mouth trolls.
We’ve had some crazy, crazy leftie trolls in here too- this one guy, “again”, we had a field day on him. We try to beat on all trolls, regardless of their color.
Well to each his own.
I can honestly say I wouldn’t. Old farts die no matter what their political leanings. *shrug*
conservatives. Expecially given the content of the vast comments above. (Though I sure a number of those conservatives just bring it upon themselves.) I just think it’s disgustion how people are
Conservatives?
What’s an expecially?
How you sure?
What’s a disgustion?
And what the hell are you even talking about? I’m not a conservative by any means, but I have no idea what your post is a reply to?
It’s a copy-paste of a piece of one of Duh’s posts just a bit further up here.
I think gazetna just made an oopsie…
Lol, yeah… makin me wonder…. what the hell?
It was the “disgustion” that made me recognise it. Interesting word, it is.
Fox doesn’t put their opinions in the news. LOL!
Attention dimwits: Cronkite didn’t reveal his true opinions until after he retired. I meant “while he was on the air,” as should be obvious to persons of even the smallest understanding.
Wrong.. when he reported on Tet he indicated that it was personal opinion that the U.S. should negotiate.
Lord knows, CNN,MSNBC and the former big 3 are bastions of impartiality.
NO SHIT REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
:monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:
I ain’t seeing the monkeys any more, DT. It jsut says “:monkey:.”
They changed the smileys back, Eric. No more cuteness for me.
Isn’t it possible that maybe it’s not just fox that needs to take note, but also cnn? Keith Olbermann is just as biased as Bill O’Reily. But definitely agreed that Cronkite was a journalist like no other!
NO SHIT REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
:monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:
Repost to failblog?
Oh you mean the Fox that at least tries to present a balanced view of things by giving time to both liberals and conservatives, which ends up seeming way right wing to many people because they are so used to having liberal media crammed down their throats that anything different seems strange? The same Fox that, as a result of their efforts, obliterates everyone else in the ratings? It seems they actually don’t need to take any hints.
You are a waste of time.
Ratings =/= quality.
By the way, it’s reporting news without trying to give your opinion off as fact that is the point.
Not giving time to both sides, but letting people decide for themselves.
The real irony is that punditkitchen, which only posts left-leaning, anti-right pics, doesn’t follow the advice in this one.
“I think that being liberal, in the true sense, is being non-doctrinaire, non-dogmatic, non-comitted to a cause-but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it’s a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they’re not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen.” — Walter Cronkite
Hey.
We can pronounce nu-cle-ar.
failing on two out of three comments…
Yeah, cause CNN, MSNBC and the other news networks NEVER swing to the left in their broadcasts, EVER
NO SHIT REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
:monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:
You know what happens when we reach 12 monkeys, folks…
RUN!!
Flatout. Fecal. Flinging. Finale!!!!!
BURN THE WIIIIIITCHHHH!!!!!
bitter troll likes monkeys
We could train them to be monkey butlers.
you cant just single out Fox here, MSNBC is just as bad as Fox, only they bat for the other team.
Just like your mom!
And most of the girls I went out with in high school. *sigh*
NO SH!T REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
:monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:
:monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey :monkey:
Chant it with me, fu(knut!
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
*sh!tstorm ensues*
They can and they did. This is one of the dumbest lols ever. Not funny, not true – just a waste of f*cking time.
take a hint fox? what about most of the other tv shows and news stations that are leaning liberal? come on, shut up about conservatives and keep your liberal views to yourself.
NO SH!T REALLY!!!ELEBENTIES!!!11!!!
:monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:
:monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey :monkey:
Chant it with me, fu(knut!
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
CTRL-F: “Search: MSNBC… is my friend”
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
*sh!tstorm ESCALATES TO GALE FORCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
yes how dare you express your personal opinion in a open forum in a country of free speech…STONE HIM! BURN HIM! POKE HIM WITH A POINTY STICK
You think we need to shut up about conservatives? READ THE REST OF THIS THREAD. LOL.
There were so many other better ones. What is Pundit Kitchen doing? booooo
Ok, so we’re supposed to believe that Fox should take notes, but CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS are upholding the Cronkite standard?
You fail at life.
You do realize that 15 other people have already said almost the exact same thing, right?
Is it only 15? Feels like well over 50. :/
If you’ve got so much time on your hands that you read them all, go you. I work for a living.
Oh, bugger off back to work then. If you don’t have time to follow standard courtesy, you don’t have time to post at all. Asshat.
Don’t need your permission to post, jackass. But thanks anyway.
What!? Damn, I thought you did.
*Danabala secretly cues zombie army to attack BH*
How can I do it secretly if you go around telling everyone!?
He didn’t keep his opinions to himself. “In this reporters opinion we are losing the war in vietnam” doesn’t anyone remember that? guy was the first talking head (asshole).
The ENTIRE point of the thread above is that you can read it- here’s what has been the main point- Cronkite may have been opinionated, but he didn’t report it as FACT like many stations do. He gave the facts impartially, and stated his opinion about them later.
And was that reporter’s opinion correct?
Wow. So much time spent arguing and calling names with people none of you know and none of you can see. What to do something about your opinions? Try not spending endless time insulting strangers. Priorities, folks. Priorities.
Epic “defeating one’s own purpose fail” by judging everyone here with a stupid blanket statement. If you don’t like it, leave the comments board. Common sense, Amanda. Common sense.
How do you rationalise wasting those seconds writing that post? It should be obvious that quite a few people are enjoying insulting each other. Priorities, Amanda. Priorities.
And your opinion is validated how?
Just wait, this excuse has to be good.
DWN! I’ve become Trogdor, the Burninator!
and I bet it’s something along the lines of “I’m trying to help out ALL of you because this is just a stupid waste of life reading these comments and stuff because, like, totally, like, no one who is anybody in the real world rethinks their political opinion in a logical, reasoned debate.”
Oh wait, it will just be “STOP INSULTING EACH OTHERZZZZ!!! THIS IS TEH EBIL! WASTING YOUR TIME PEOPLE! IT’S NOT LIKE IT’S YOUR TIME TO WASTE!”
Hoihoihoi. People can be such oozing piles of taint cream sometimes, can’t they?
That last bit was a bit graphic. Sorry, I’ve been reading CWCki today.
Can’t say I am surprised though.
Hey, it was the first time I’ve seen it.
I felt bad for the poor man-child.
“And yes, I am aware of the irony of appearing on television in order to deplore it, so don’t bother pointing that out.” — Sideshow Bob
rita skeeter should take note too
That made me laugh harder than anything else today.
I take my hat off to you and declare this comment a win.
Kept his opinions to himself?….. OMG!!! What were you watching in the late 60′s?
… those are some rose-colored glasses there.
I agree Igor the vigorous all the shots at conservatives (I’m 13 and a conservative weird huh?) and Bush are cheap. get a life and think of something funny bias people. Actually watch o’reilly he’s balanced.
just because he says he’s fair and balanced every day, doesn’t mean he is.
TURN YOUR MIC OFF I DONT LIKE WHAT YOUR SAYING! YOUR DISAGREEING WITH ME HOW DARE YOU! ARE YOU A TERRORIST? YOUR A TERRORIST! CAUSE YOU DONT AGREE WITH ME! TURN HIS MIC OFF I DONT WANT ANOTHER WORD FROM YOU
Just be glad you *have* multi-slanting media. All we have up here is extremist right-wing, and right-wing that *pretends* to be liberal. Trying to get the truth out of our media is like pulling pig teeth, unless you get Indy papers (which are pretty hit & miss in terms of accuracy).
indiana jones was never hit and miss with his papers…sure bitter troll was annoyed with space aliens in last movie film, but you can trust indy…
Did you actually see Temple of Doom? It made the aliens seem brilliant in comparison.
Fox News needs to take a hint? That’s a laugh.
Wow. I can’t believe in 1,000 posts you’re the first person to say something about Fox News! What an original thinker you must be!!!
no no, bitter troll remember reading about that about 876 posts ago…about a o’rlly guy or something…smelly hooman
No, that was 654 posts ago. 876 posts ago was something about Baldwin brothers or something.
bitter troll remember
it was billy baldwin
he so dreamy
But Stephen is so totally the lovable loser of the bunch. You love to hate him. You hate yourself for loving him. And Alec is just always full of win.
bitter troll favorit movie starring hoomans
bio-dome!
Anything with Pauly Shore is bad. Period.
he was in that movie too?
This LOL was obviously created by someone who missed Cronkite’s newsfakery at the Khe Sanh airport.
he was the man though. to bad there are no reporters left with his integrity and caliber
Neutral? I suppose you also think CNN is “moderate”…
Typical liberal hypocrasy. Non-stop whining about the ONE SINGLE conservative tv show while all the rest are liberal slanted. Of course you don’t complain about the bias in MSNBC, CBS, etc right? No way, those are YOUR guys and they are biased towards YOUR opinion. So that makes it ok!
Angry troll is angry. Very, very angry. Loser.
He did NOT keep his opinions to himself, at least in regard to the Vietnam war, and he set a precedent that has ruined network and broadcast news to this day.
FOX news??? They’re the only news organization that does’nt have an orgazam every time obama opens his mouth.
right on. fox news sucks.
Really?!?! take a hint any and all liberal media outlets in America.
So all American new sucks?
hahahha good
Real: Or it’s that there are more liberals that visit this site, and think ridicule and mocking is funny, rather than true humor. Since really a lot of liberal posters on here don’t find many of the anti-Fox, anti-Palin LOLs that funny anymore. Apparently Bush is dumb will alwasy be around, like Clinton is a horn dog, or Biden’s an imp.
Or people who like the forum discussions have learned that the non-party, plain ole funny captions just are no fun to bicker about.
“Biden’s an imp”
`
Biden’s an imp? Are you sure he’s not a pixie, or possibly an underpants gnome?
“think ridicule and mocking is funny, rather than true humor. ”
`
Which, as we all know, consists of dick jokes and fart jokes.
But then we get good conversations… like giving each other smores…..
Those do seem to get the least comments…
There is that. I think we’re more a community of trolls nowadays than we are a community of humorists. That goes for both sides. And I’m not guiltless in this affair, either.
But, seeing that Pundits are more or less Professional Trolls, the Kitchen fits.
:p
With the amount of smores eaten here daily I would expect everyone to have rather large plump avitars soon
I’ll give you s’more, Danbala…
Well, after a couple of people have gone “Funny!”, “I agree!”, “Me too!”, there’s usually not much left apart from general group hugs or pun marathons.
Filthy innuendo is also sooper amusing…
If there was no comment section, only ratings, things might look very different. But the soap-boxyness of this place is what ensures there being something to froth about.
Some times, only some times, the two worlds of Funny and Provoking meet. Then angels dance, God takes a break in killing kittens and all that.
Yes, preferably for about two hundred posts straight.
…and soup is good food.
Provocative?
Yes, I like those angel dancing times…
Just ask Soup Nazi.
*perks ears for distant wang vibration*
Yeah, without those jerks we could still be fighting in Vietnam today! Unpatriotic bastards.
/sarcasm.
Did I say that? I was saying that we could have won the war without them. You do realize that we basically sat on our asses licking our wounds for a good three to four moths after Tet, rather than taking the fight to the VC and shell of NVA. That’s all I was getting at.
And please tell me you weren’t defending Hanoi Jane? Her actions were down right criminal in my eyes. She was not a patriot. To desent is partiotic, to sell out your country isn’t.
It’s because they hate freedom, you know. And they want the terrorists to win.
You’re just speculating, like pretty much everyone on this thread who thinks they know “what would have happened if…” It’s amazing how many prophets frequent the Pundit Kitchen. Everyone’s a historian.
I don’t know enough about Jane Fonda’s Vietnam-era activism to have an opinion about it.
What? They have calories?
Definitely not an underpants gnome — he’s been in government so long he doesn’t even know how to spell “profit”.
Not specualting. It’s a proven fact. The VC were below 50% strength, the NVA was all but wiped out after Tet. If you do not attack an enemy when they’re down, then you can not hope to win. Johnson, Cronkite, and other’s handcuffed out military, and instead of fighitng the VC and NVA our military was fighting the VC, NVA, and public opinion.
You should research what Jane Fonda did. It should make you sick.
We were fighting terrorists in Vietnam. Shit, someone shoulda told me that.
“It’s a proven fact.”
Cite.
I will likely not look into Jane Fonda’s Vietnam-era activism, as I have limited time to research issues I’m interested in, and I’m afraid this is one issue that falls near the bottom of my list.
You don’t have to look far. Even Wikipedia calls the campaign a “tactical failure” and describes the military aspect as a “dismal failure”.
To wit: “The horrendous losses inflicted on Viet Cong units struck into the heart of the irreplaceable infrastructure that had been built up for over a decade…”
While the U.S. was caught unprepared for Tet (as most strategists of the time didn’t think the NVA and VC would attack on a holiday), they still managed to hand their a$$es to them. All Johnson would have had to do is press a little more. And let’s not even get started on the limited ROE that the pilots were forced to adhere to. Talk about a complete joke!
-
As for Jane “I’m really not a traitor” Fonda, I refuse to this day to even watch anything she is in. I don’t hate many people, but honestly, she is the worst of the lot.
Especially what she did at the Hanoi Hilton. One prisoner slipped her a note listing all of the prisoners there and their ID numbers- and the B*tch turned around and gave it to the North Vietnamese jailors! Who then tortured everyone and even killed several for daring to give her the list. Way to go, Hanoi Jane. BTW- all of the urinals at the VFW have Hanoi Jane target pictures in them.
Read a book on the subject and get a little educated before you open your piehole.
borquardt:
Be more specific.
Dhoti: That’s poor fit… not profit.
Using civilians as a shield is terrorism, so sarcasm aside – yes, we were. One man’s “guerrilla warfare” is another’s terrorism.
But then again, war almost invariably degenerates to terrorism. It’s why no one who understands history would consider it anything but the last alternative.
It’s tomorrow at 6:30pm, right, Eric? Sorry- my invitation got stuck in the mail a little while.
No Wang Soup for you! Come Back… 1 YEAR!
Sorry, minor, I don’t want to be thrown in jail for letting kids into the orgy. Feel free to arrange your own.
Lol- Eric, I hope you know I’m legal.
Age of consent in MA is 16.
So, everything until now was you being civil? LOL!
But hey, whatever you want, that’s fine — you couldn’t shout me down with “civil” discussion, you couldn’t shout me down with BA crap, you won’t be able to shout me down with schoolyard insults, either.
Some enlightened liberal you are…
Come now, Eric, nobody believes that — you intolerant crusaders are all the same, so wrapped up in your beliefs and your inflated egos that you can’t possibly blow off any steam, because it’s all too *important*. I mean, look at you — you’re positively frothing at the mouth, so worked up that you can barely even pound out a coherent reply. I know I shouldn’t laugh at you, but I just can’t help myself.
One suggestion, though: hurry up and have that heart attack while you’re still on private insurance.
Aw, man, PK ate my response from this afternoon.
I like frothing. It’s fun. And you have made no attempt at being civil during this entire discussion. And your methods of discussing things are pretty much a clusterfvck, which makes it difficult to argue things normally. You accuse me of using strawmen, yet when cornered you throw them out there left and right. You’ve already decided on your perception of reality. And what’s more, you’re a zit on the inner butt cheek of society and need to be popped, because you’re too painful to ignore.
dont like soup anyways
Dick and fart jokes FTW!!!
Or that you’re dealing with completely insine people who refuse to listen to reason and don’t feel like waiting to get attacked first. I understand history, I understand war, I’m not glorifying war, however in the world there almost always will need to be war, b/c some humans are inherently violent. You really can’t combat violence with peace, it makes a GREAT after school special, but I can count on my hand the numbers of times it’s worked in history.
insine =insane.