Shit Medicine

[lostsheep]

How the hell did this thread get turned into a discussion of Fox News?

Meanwhile, back to the topic of this thread....

I am trying some snake oil to see if it really reduces inflammation and lowers cholesterol as claimed by my friends. I have been monitoring my cholesterol for 3 years now, and it is consistently b/w 250 and 219. If this stuff works, I will let you all know.

[Smellyoldgit]

lostsheep wrote

How the hell did this thread get turned into a discussion of Fox News?

Our prodigal shit-stirrer returned at post 454.
The thread went downhill from there.

[nkb]

Lily wrote

What an illiterate you are! ABC linked to Drudge. Not me.

What a senile old bitch you are. You linked to Drudge. Yes, you.

Lily wrote

The looting of the WH happened, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Based on what? Because it was reported on FauxNews?
http://www.fair.org/activism/vandal-update.html

Lily wrote

What people laugh? How is this bias? Did the camera pan the room? I didn't see but a small bit of the room shown.. Maybe there were no people behind the camera man in whose direction the reporter was speaking. Maybe there was no one off to either side... I don't know and you don't know, either. Quit believing what others tell you.

After one guy tried to raise his hand (and his wife stopped him) for McCain, almost everyone raised their hand when he asked about Obama (granted, we can't see the 2 or 3 guys out of the camera's view). When the reporter announced that it was evenly split, you could hear the people in the diner laughing. Are you going deaf in your old age?

Lily wrote

Slate! Give me a break! It gives no examples and refers only to O'reilley who is not a newsman but an opinion show host.

What are you talking about? They have a direct quote from FauxNews' London bureau chief:

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly.

Lily wrote

Fair? 8 and 9 years old. Was it true then? I don't know. It isn't today from what I can see when I get a chance to watch one or the other of the opinion shows. But there is no real way to check easily on accusations this old. Couldn't you find something more recent?

You can't check on 8 or 9 year old stories? Really? Or you don't want to?

You asked me for one example of FauxNews' bias, and I provided multiple. Your apologetics were fully expected.

Lily wrote

Jonah Goldberg is as smart as they come. You quoted him quite selectively, however. Far more to the point than your snippet is this:

Look, I think liberals have reasonable gripes with Fox News. It does lean to the right, primarily in its opinion programming but also in its story selection (which is fine by me) and elsewhere. But it's worth remembering that Fox is less a bastion of ideological conservatism and more a populist, tabloidy network. It often does very good hard journalism, but it gets mixed up with a lot of other stuff, and the Fox-haters are hardly inclined to be discriminating viewers when it comes to separating the wheat from the pure, concentrated evil. And while few liberals have a problem with the editorializing of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, they think it's just plain wrong for conservatives to play that game.

Fox's biggest critics don't appreciate why Fox News exists in the first place. It was created because vast numbers of Americans - including many Democratic voters - saw the mainstream media as too liberal and too elitist.

The request was to show that FauxNews is biased, and I have done so. What possible difference does it make in this argument on who else is biased, or what people's perception of the mainstream media is?

You're going to have to help me out here: If you don't accept the word of the London bureau chief or that of a respected conservative columnist, what exactly would constitute evidence of FauxNews' bias, in your book?

nkb wrote

What a senile old bitch you are. You linked to Drudge. Yes, you.

ABC linked to Drudge. Did you look? What the hell is the matter with you?

You're going to have to help me out here: If you don't accept the word of the London bureau chief or that of a respected conservative columnist, what exactly would constitute evidence of FauxNews' bias, in your book?

An example of a story in which bias prevented a full airing of the facts or actual lies about the facts.

[nkb]

Lily wrote

ABC linked to Drudge. Did you look? What the hell is the matter with you?

I'm not denying that ABC linked to it, what does that have to do with anything?

I referred to your link to Drudge as more proof that you are a conservative sheep. Did you or did you not link to Drudge?

Lily wrote

An example of a story in which bias prevented a full airing of the facts or actual lies about the facts.

Well, that's easy, because it's already done.

Please refer to the White House and Air Force One vandalism and theft rumors, which were reported as substantiated by various FauxNews people (and pontificated on), but were debunked by official sources.

Thanks for playing.

[Kate]

[Philboid Studge]

ubs wrote

My econ professor, on lecture about monopolies (in which he used the AMA as an example) said "If economists were smart they would certify the practice of economics and then make up a dirty word for people that were interested in money but lacked the certification - like, say, quack.

Does your econ prof suckle off all of Milton Friedman's idiotic theories or just the one? (MF first proposed that the AMA was the Illuminati of the medical world.)



No economist has done more harm in the world than that miserable M.F.

[Philboid Studge]

This is some excellent shit medicine because after you've taken it, you can't smell shit.

nkb wrote

I'm not denying that ABC linked to it, what does that have to do with anything?

I referred to your link to Drudge as more proof that you are a conservative sheep. Did you or did you not link to Drudge?

I linked to Drudge from the ABC story. That enabled me to copy the url so that I could paste it here for mindless drones to ignore. I wouldn't baaaa too loudly, Lambchop.

Please refer to the White House and Air Force One vandalism and theft rumors, which were reported as substantiated by various FauxNews people (and pontificated on), but were debunked by official sources.

No, they were not debunked. The most outlandish bits reported in the blogosphere may not have been true (I can't remember everything that was claimed) but they were substantially true. You don't knowthis because a Clinton a--kissing press didn't report it. It was good practice for burying all criticism of King Hussein, as it turns out.

It should give you and your mindless ilk pause that I and many more like me are reading British and Canadian papers to get the news we won't get from our press. It won't though. Baaaaaa!

[ubs]

Philboid Studge wrote

Does your econ prof suckle off all of Milton Friedman's idiotic theories or just the one? (MF first proposed that the AMA was the Illuminati of the medical world.)



No economist has done more harm in the world than that miserable M.F.

He was a Nobel Laureate and it wasn't that long ago. *smug grin here*

Do you have anything good to add the money discussion? Do you believe there is a PPT? Make a call on the state of the US for 2010. C'mon man theism is dull and politics is stupid. What ya got?

[nkb]

Lily wrote

I linked to Drudge from the ABC story. That enabled me to copy the url so that I could paste it here for mindless drones to ignore. I wouldn't baaaa too loudly, Lambchop.

Oh, for fuck's sake, are you really that dense?

You linked the Drudge report, I said that you linked the Drudge report, then you said you didn't link the Drudge report, but that ABC did.

I read it the first time, so what? I get it, the GOP wants to be involved so that they can criticize the president's plan, and ABC doesn't want them to (for whatever reason they think is valid).

Tell me, did the Bush administration have any special reports in the media, that didn't include the Democrats?

Why don't you fucking wait for the actual report before passing judgement? Is that really so hard to do?
Afterwards, if you have a problem with how ABC presented it, at least you'll be arguing with some substance, and you might not look like a complete right-wing nutter, knee-jerk, douchenozzle (no guarantees, of course).

Lily wrote

No, they were not debunked.

Yes, they were.

Lily wrote

The most outlandish bits reported in the blogosphere may not have been true (I can't remember everything that was claimed) but they were substantially true.

The majority turned out to be false. Yes, there was some vandalism, as there appears to be every time the White House changes hands:

New York Times wrote

The accounting office said similar pranks were reported in prior transitions, including the one from Mr. Bush's father to Mr. Clinton in 1993. ''We were unable to conclude,'' it said, ''whether the 2001 transition was worse than previous ones.''

From here.

Lily wrote

You don't knowthis because a Clinton a--kissing press didn't report it. It was good practice for burying all criticism of King Hussein, as it turns out.

You're so cute when you complain about the media.

Lily wrote

It should give you and your mindless ilk pause that I and many more like me are reading British and Canadian papers to get the news we won't get from our press. It won't though. Baaaaaa!

Why would that give me pause? You think this makes you special or something? I read the foreign press too. Whoop-de-fucking-do!

[Node18]

Lily wrote

It won't though. Baaaaaa!

Cows don't bleat, get it right you fucking whore.

[Kate]

She's not a whore; slut, maybe; cownt, definitely. But nobody, nobody would pay to tap that.

Well, not with cash, anyways. I suppose one would be paying for years should he/she/it dabble in this heifer.

[dogpet]

Oh, she is the original whore of babylon by extension.

[Kate]