Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/9/07 09:02 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/9/07 09:00 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: No, Fox News is biased because they try to promote their own point of view. The evidence is overwhelming. Consider the ratio of conservatives to liberals in the network.

At least they actually give a list unlike the others.

Fox News is biased, regardless of the other media.

They're all biased you dumbass, which is my entire point. It's you who keeps picking and choosing.

This topic already gave examples of the other media bias, yet you claim "there isn't any...". Stop shitting yourself.

??? I don't claim there isn't any bias. Objective reporting is near impossible. I just think you're exaggerating the bias because of your own personal view of what is "unbiased". Which is natural, because someone who is more right-wing would naturally have a view of normal reporting being more right-wing.

There's some pretty nifty stuff in the U.S. Some places have better standards of living (scandinavia, canada) but on a world scale we're doing pretty well.

Ain't nothin' like going to Manhattan...

No, Fox News is biased because they try to promote their own point of view. The evidence is overwhelming. Consider the ratio of conservatives to liberals in the network.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fo x_News

Fox News is biased, regardless of the other media.

Come to think of it, whether the rest of the media is leftist depends on your own personal view of what is the "middle ground", and I suppose we have a different definition of what the "middle ground" is. From what I can see what is "middle ground" to you is quite bit farther to the right than mine.

I'll stick to my more merciful secular ethics, thanks.

Also, why is arson being punished more cruelly than murder?

Hopefully you guys will be more merciful someday...

I might write out a longer response later but I believe this deserves to be linked to:

http://www.jibjab.com/what_we_call_the_news

At 4/9/07 04:21 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Atheists, tell me how can the universe before and after the big bang exsist at all if there was nothing that created it? It doesnt take much effort to just say that reality has always exsisted and say it is logical to assume that.

Atheism, the lack of relligion, the lack of explanation of 'why', it is just too little of an Idea for my intellect to consider.

The vary concept of atheism destroys its credibility for its lack of explanation and low intelligence neaded to accept it.

If you look at theism from a scientific and logical point of view, what you'll find is that there is not adequate evidence to combat or to prove the existence of a God. It is entirely possible that there is a God. While religion is a manmade construct, the logical follies of religion do not disprove God as a concept. In regard to the "impossible to lift" paradox, you're thinking in human terms. Just because we have to follow the rules of logic and physics does not mean that there aren't possible higher beings who do not have to.

As for religion, when I look at it, many of them seem to say the same thing- "believe or you will suffer". And there doesn't seem to be much logical evidence to put one above the other in terms of which to believe.

So that's why I'm agnostic. :D

At 3/13/07 09:42 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Actually, this IS the 5th Uwe Boll movie! He directed DOOM.

No, Andrzej Bartkowiak did.

At 4/9/07 03:03 PM, The-Wrathchild wrote: Well, I think that the harder chemical drugs should be kept illegal.

Some of the lesser chemicals drugs, such as E, they should find a less harmfull alterenative to market.

Drugs like marijuanna should be legal without a doubt. Harmless when not abused. Kinda like alcohol and ciggarettes eh?

Even though there are some very dangerous drugs out there, that doesn't mean that making them illegal is the solution. It is more constructive to create help for people who need it, and if they hurt themselves under the influence of drugs then we gotta remember it was a personal choice, and that sending them to prison is even worse... People need to be aware of the REAL dangers, and by regulating and properly labeling drugs they can and will.

It will also eliminates what is the most dangerous factor in many drugs- the possibility of going to prison!

The bench pissed on the computer.

Nice.

G4TV would be better if they stopped trying to be SpikeTV and sticked to the technology programming. I like Spike and all but I don't need a second one. I want there to be a channel for technology if that's what I wanna watch too. At least X-Play is still there...

Happy Birthday, mate! Have a blasting good day, cheerio!

:D

At 4/9/07 02:32 PM, semigod wrote:

At 4/9/07 02:29 PM, navij11 wrote:

What? NO!

prove it what no doesnt make me believe it

best argument EVER.
I bet I can become President with that kind of message.

but what if they say

no thats not deny for that said what you saying

Guess we'll be pretty screwed then. :(

OH. I heard about this. Sounds like it could be pretty funny if they do it right. :)

have yall ever noticed that every operating system microsoft makes is based off someone elses operating system

sorry, couldn't resist

I play SC on battle.net. I've played some defense games but I've done a whole lot of World Diplomacy 1939 and Phantom. I like diplo, WWII and other games like that. :)

At 4/9/07 01:09 PM, JakeHero wrote: The dems are going to impeach Bush for not being a liberal. Though, they'll say it's for another reason.

And if the conservatives impeach Pelosi It'll be for not being a conservative. Though, they'll say it's for another reason.

At 4/9/07 01:08 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 4/9/07 12:01 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2 007/03/fox-news-at-its-finest.html

Right, a frickin' blog. The end all source.

The blog isn't, but the pictures are. You can look for more of Faux News's crap f you want, because obvious bias like that IS out there.

Hmmm.... maybe you should take a look at some of those. And if the media is so liberal, what's up with all the anti-drug ads and cover stories?

Probably because no one likes drugs. I don't remember they're being a heroine lobby. Anti-drug isn't a leftwing vs rightwing issue.

Usually the pro-medical marijuana supporters come from the left side of the aisle. The fact that even the majority of Democrats don't stand up for that and try to fight the other negative effects of the drug prohibition. And if noone likes drugs, how come so many people use them and there are entire factions devoted to legalizing them? I think you are pulling facts out of your ass there buddy. :)

Go look at some TV outside the U.S. (i.e. European) to see some actual liberal bias, because the United States media is considered quite conservative by the standards of most of the western world.

The media here is liberal, the media there is pretty fucking leftwing, probably on a scale of -8.23, -9.57. Besides, are you telling me the media here doesn't have a liberal tilt? If you actually believe this then I should warn you doing drugs can get you into trouble at your job.

Like I said to Memorize, go back and read the list of conservative outlets I posted.

They think of Fox News as basically the American equivalent of Hezbollah's al-Manar it's so biased.

They're also into scat fetishes. Who gives a damn about they're input? As I said, being a loony leftwinger over there is the status quo.

Because generalizing all Europeans into one group because of one kind of pornography that has a following there is a logical counter-argument.

It could be worse. But why don't you take a look at the ratio of conservative to liberal commentators on Fox News?

Right, jackass, because Fox News commentators represent the proportional of right to leftwing personalities on all other outlets.

Like I said to Memorize, go back and read the list of conservative outlets I posted.

Hannity and Colmes is a joke, Hannity is a hard-line right-winger, Colmes is barely center-left.

I watch the show frequently, and gotta say you have no damn idea what you're talking about. Colmes is for raising taxes for all brackets, partial birth abortion, government enforcing gay marriage and eminent domain. The funny thing is he usually makes more persuasive arguments than Hannity.

Have you ever watched the show or just watched it once and decided Colmes was moderate?

Aside from the taxes issue, that just means he has common sense. Colmes is not anywhere near as hardline as Hannity is. You've seen hardline in people like Begoner and real Democrats, I think you should know there's a difference.

Let's see, Rosie O'Donnell- celebrity, actor. Ann Coulter, prominent journalist

The only people that know about Ann Coulter are Fox News viewers and youtubers(not to say she isn't well-known).

on one of the most widely watched channels in the United States.

That's on basic cable. They're more watched news channels than Fox(BBC on satellite and digital cable).

Last time I checked more Americans had basic cable than digital cable, though perhaps it's grown enough that the numbers have grown dramatically. BBC has a wider audience in the world but in all likelihood Fox News has a wider audience here in the States.

Plus, Ann Coulter isn't a journalist for Fox News, she's a guess commentator. She is a writer for her own blog.

John Edwards, former vice presidential candidate and prominent politician.

John Edwars was a third rate politician before Kerry took him on as a runningmate, considering american's short-attention span, I bet most have already forgotten about him.

Seems like they're a bit more important in the scale of things..

You're fucking kidding me. There isn't a single american that has never seen or heard of Rosie O'Donnel either for her appearances on talkshows, movies, award ceremonies and voice acting. The fact you think Ann Coulter making an off-hand comment about a sexually ambiguous politician over an american figure head point-blank saying the American government murdered three thousands of its own people, proves how self-deluded you are.

Ann Coulter is a journalist, Rosie O'Donnel is not, what she says is not supposed to be regarded as news, nor is it claimed to be by any network.

if only the mainstream media covered more important things like that instead of covering poor Anna Nicole Smith and the latest diet 24/7.

Hollywood and the media are closely interwoven.

Yes, point being..?

I think Pat Robertson, who has his own little screwed-up TV show gets wider circulation than Randi Rhodes, who is only on radio... I don't even think we get Air America here... could be wrong though.

No. Pat Robertson hasn't been big since VHS and everyone already thinks he's senile. Whereas Randi Rhodes has hundred of thousands of listeners nationwide and millions of listeners over the internet.

Like I said to Memorize, go back and read the list of conservative outlets I posted. That includes a whole lot of radio and where I live it's hard to find anything but conservatives when looking for talk radio on the airwaves.

Funny how Pat Robertson, the devout Christian is talking about KILLING people is okay while <sarcasm>RADICAL LEFT-WING DIRTY LIBERAL SECULAR ATHEIST JEW MAN</sarcasm> is supposed to be a shock.

Funny how the media thinks it's more important to cover a story about some old guy saying we should assassinate a foreign dictator, than an old crabby cunt saying we should assassinate the leader of our own nation.

The fact you're still apologetic for the media informs what a leftwing asswimp you are.

Who CARES what these douchebags say?

"Or the time every news media covered Bill O'Reilly's phonesex scandal more than the beheading of an American contractor in Iraq at the hands of crazy-ass muhammedans"

What are you talking about? Everybody heard about Nick Berg.

It was the headlines CNN.com forwhile. I gave the wrong instance. What I meant to say was the media covered the story of a few soldiers committing fraturnity-level hazing on terrorist than the beheadings and captures of numerous american civilian. Infact, The New York Times ran over a hundred stories on Gitmo.

That's because while we know that war crimes are to be expected from the assholes we're fighting, perhaps we should not be stooping to their level. If you actually researched the interrogation techniques while they do not klll the inmate they are very, very demeaning. And I seriously wonder what kind of fraternities you've been in. The Guantanamo Bay stories are important because they investigate our OWN Army, they are about American interests, they are about whether or not we have stooped to the level of the people we're fighting.

Maybe they're not just as spinning it to make them look good, or reporting it (but lying about certain points) as Faux News is.

Keep playing the apologist for your bolshevik media, drone. :)

If I'm such a drone then why would I be disagreeing with what you call the "left-wing" media at all? I'm not a pure liberal, I'm not a pure conservative, I'm somewhat of a centrist but more of a libertarian on many social issues. I have a deal of "liberal" influence but I also have my fair share of "conservative' influence as well (being pro second amendment rights meaning I do NOT think guns should be illegal). In addition to that I have my own take on foreign policy, and while I was opposed to the Iraq War that doesn't mean I think all we should do is just leave. I am not anti-Israel, and I certainly don't support the insurgents that kill U.S. and coalition troops. I am not a communist or a fascist.

At 4/9/07 10:00 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/9/07 02:48 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

I was not defending them, I was simply stating that you should not count them as part of the liberal media.

And yet you conceded to his point that no one, other than FOX, reported on it.

He was trying to use that to say that the media has a liberal bias, when really it's probably more just a matter of ratings, and whether people would care more about a current offical in the Bush administration than a former head of the ACLU.

They "defend" anyone who is an idiot (in which most of those cases are... liberals!). "We're going to sue the school because this parent complained about God, but we're going to push for the historical teaching of the Islamic religion so as to teach tolerance", Yippie!

I think there's a difference between telling people that what's in the Bible is fact and forcing kids to pray and teaching historically without any bias towards Islam so they can understand the religion better? Should we remove any sort of theology from colleges?

Who are you calling pathetic? You're trying to win your debate by calling me an idiot, a dipshit, pitiful, and a waste of life. I've seen you do this in other threads. Other people remain civil around you and you get angry when someone proves you're wrong and you try to undermine us by calling us names and having a tantrum.

Prove me wrong? I've yet to see that. So far it's all been speculation.

It is also speculation to say that they hired Rosie to say that 9/11 was a conspiracy. That's more detrimental to their ratings than anything else, because I highly doubt most Americans actually believe that kind of shit.

So far most people here have been pretty nice to me, but when I try to bring up a political view that is different from yours you say terrible things about me in an attempt to dismiss everything I say.

Because you tried to counter the topic starter's points when every one of them is actually true. There should be no excuse for hiring Rosie in which people would actually watch as "news" when she's going on about the evils of the US and how 9/11 was planned by the government.

If the people watch The View as news they're already pretty low on the IQ scale. Some people might watch MTV as political news but that doesn't mean it's the network's fault they're stupid.

No one reports on the "Bush should die" claims. They might give a view of the economy, but even if the economy improves they always like to word it as "rises not as greatly as expected".

Libby was put on trial and convicted for "not remembering" when there is a man running around who used to work for Clinton who stole and shredded documents. Why is this man still running around and why was there less coverage on him than Libby?

Instead of criticizing my points you criticize me, and it removes any sort of semblance of a constructive debate.

bla bla bla...

Why don't you go cool off for a while

I'am cool. It's fun to have people go off on a rant.

Sure, you've succeded in ticking me off a little. But you haven't made me think about you, or change my views. You've made me discredit your own. All you're doing is metaphorically shooting yourself in the foot.

Are you saying I should take the internet seriously?

While most of these internets are not serious, it would seriously help if you would seriously not be a dick to us because it makes you look like an ignorant little twit who can't do anything but call other people names.

Go chill out and when you're ready to debate civilly come back and talk to me and maybe we can become a bit more educated about the world instead of just immaturely taking petty potshots at each other.

I'll sum up this thread. If you can't see the media putting their bias against the president or taking a left-wing stance, then apparently you haven't been paying any attention to Vietnam, or you would see a trend

The media from the 60s and 70s is not the same as the one today, and I will not disagree with you that some of what the media did in Vietnam was detrimental (because that was a war we probably could have won) to the war. But should we give up all of our civil liberties for that? No, because that makes any war we fight for freedom pointless. Vietnam is a vastly different situation from Iraq. In Vietnam we had two parts of the country at war with each other and we took a side, in Iraq, everybody hates us. Not the same thing when the enemy is much more invisible.

To be fair I wrote my last posts at nearly 3:00 AM (which i'll try not to do from now on) and they're probably a little incoherent and a bit extreme.

However while you say the majority of the media is liberal, you're forgetting about all the media that is conservative. Go up and read the list by Maddox I posted, most of what he said is correct. There is plenty of media that is conservative, especially the radio. I haven't heard a single liberal talk show host that wasn't on NPR on the radio in a looong time.

At 4/9/07 04:00 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/9/07 12:01 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Go look at some TV outside the U.S. (i.e. European) to see some actual liberal bias, because the United States media is considered quite conservative by the standards of most of the western world.

Why the hell would Americans care what Europeans think first of all?

And second of all, Europe is so damn statist, why should we tilt our scales of left and right to conform to their reality? That is stupid. Why not they tilt for us?

Not saying they should. They have their own distortions as well, I was just saying that compared to other venues of news our mainstream media is not really THAT liberal.

One of the words was earballs. Good night everyone.

Wade, because it would be funny for a second but then he would change back... because he is a shapeshifter. Like Ted Koppel.

Don't listen to the people who are being mean; addiction is a real mental disorder and it can be tough to combat it. I'm not an expert, but it sounds like a gradual process of recovery is the way to go. Don't give up! :)

At 4/9/07 03:12 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

At 4/8/07 09:15 PM, MiNdLeSsInDuLgEnCe wrote: Gay people are born that way for the most part

Where did you learn that? Genetic theory school?

Brick: And where did you get your suit from? The... toilet.. store?

At 4/9/07 03:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/9/07 03:17 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Mr. Pibb is good, but the soda I really miss is...

Sprite Remix.

They don't have that anymore? I can swear I just saw it in the store a week ago or so.

I've been thinking Seattle might be a nice place to move to. :)

I heard that Commodore 64s are some pretty fast gaming machines AND they've gone down in price! :D

Really though, since Macs can run both Windows and OS X, they're good for security AND for gaming.

But if you really want a machine that's just built to game and only game, you're probably gonna want to get a custom-built PC... those can be pretty insane from what I heard.

But really, OS X is good, you should try it.. you don't have to worry about malware and it's pretty! <3

Mr. Pibb is good, but the soda I really miss is...

Sprite Remix.

I don't know much about Kevin Rudd, but from what you said it just looks like he knows how to manipulate the populace in order for him to win an election. Whether he's that much like Hilter depends on his personal policies.

At 4/8/07 07:25 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: Oh my god. Cartoons telling kids that they should accept people who are born different from them. This atrocity must be prevented.

+1 proper use of sarcasm

But why should this be a major issue? Transforms was never really about heterosexuality, so why should it be about homosexuality? The main point is that if love is a topic in kids' shows, if heterosexual love is allowed than it would be messed up not to allow homosexual love. It's not really a problem if a character has a gay boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband or whatever. But relationships usually aren't the subject of kids' cartoons, so go figure.

At 4/9/07 02:17 AM, JakeHero wrote:

At 4/8/07 11:53 PM, TheSnakeSkull wrote: In ten years China or Japan will have a big power because of their tehnology.

China is decades behind in military technology and Japan is utterly reliant on the US for defense. So perhaps you shouldn't to be so quick to shoot off your mouth.

I don't think he was necessarily talking about a large power militarily, but economically. Power does not have to be military power, it could be more described as global influence. Having the leading technology or a large population/ amount of production facilities, military or not gives your nation prominence in world politics.

At 4/9/07 02:08 AM, Memorize wrote:

...My fucking point was that they're hypocritical. Both are in violation yet it is atheists who are for one and against the other despite both being against school policy.

In a publicly-funded institution like the school, perhaps it is worth considering that maybe the regulations should follow first-amendment rights since people are required by law to end and it is funded by the government itself.