MrRain422 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 In order to lose, there has to be some sort of goal that we're failing to achieve. Since there isn't really a goal, it's impossible to win or lose. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 In order to lose, there has to be some sort of goal that we're failing to achieve. Since there isn't really a goal, it's impossible to win or lose. Well put! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 In order to lose, there has to be some sort of goal that we're failing to achieve. Since there isn't really a goal, it's impossible to win or lose.There's a goal - it's just lofty. The goal is to establish a stable, autonomous Iraqi government capable of maintaining civic order. Failing to do so will result in either a continued, open-ended U.S. presence or abandoning Iraq to civil war, Iranian domination and other things which will drive up oil prices and not look good on CNN. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 The goal was to create a completely free market for American contracters to dominate. The autonomous government thing is what's used as an excuse for staying, but the current administration doesn't really care of it becomes a reality and probably prefers that it doesn't because it would mean that the contractors would get kicked out. If that was the goal, they'd be working harder towards it and be putting more pressure on the Iraqi government than they are. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aricandover Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 MSNBC is pretty cool too Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 The goal was to create a completely free market for American contracters to dominate. The autonomous government thing is what's used as an excuse for staying, but the current administration doesn't really care of it becomes a reality and probably prefers that it doesn't because it would mean that the contractors would get kicked out. If that was the goal, they'd be working harder towards it and be putting more pressure on the Iraqi government than they are.yes, and they're calling it "bringing democracy to the middle east," a goal even a village idiot ought to be able to recognize as impossible, off the radar screen, and, to top it off, arrogant. since it's impossible, that goal ensures that we'll be there forever if this administration and its offspring have their way. mrrain422, i nominate you for obama's v.p.! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I loved it when Fox News identified Mark Foley as a democrat. I don't believe they corrected themselves on it either. The other one I always come back to is way back in 2002 there was a story on the BBC about Iraq rebuilding on the site of a former nuke weapons facility. The BBC, CNN & Reuters all reported it and added that inspectors said they woudl not know for sure what it was until they visited the site. Fox news reported it as "Iraq reuilds nuclear weapons facility" with no caveat about inspecting it. In the summer of 2003 it was reported that the new construction was an x-ray storage facility. Thhat station has zero credibility. If they tell me it's Tuesday I have to check my calendar to verify it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I have no way of proving it, but I would not be surprised if it, the Foley slip up, was intentional. Nor would I be surprised to learn that the other story was purposely reported in such a way as to be misleading. They should be required to run a scrolling disclaimer at all times informing their viewers that what they are viewing is more like a satirization of the news, than actual news. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 MSNBC is pretty cool too Yikes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Fox News is Fox News. If they didn't exist, where would all the anger on the left be focused (other than the bush administration...or talk radio)?. it's a theraputic punching bag. MSNBC is the biggest joke of a network on cable imo. talk about biased, holy hell do they have that cornered. and keith olbermann is the biggest douchebag on tv. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RaspberryJam Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 My in-laws play Fox News in a running loop all day. Then they wonder why I don't like going there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Fox News is Fox News. If they didn't exist, where would all the anger on the left be focused (other than the bush administration...or talk radio)?. it's a theraputic punching bag. MSNBC is the biggest joke of a network on cable imo. talk about biased, holy hell do they have that cornered. and keith olbermann is the biggest douchebag on tv. the liberal and/or conservative slant on what is supposed to be news...by ANY network...that is what is killing legitimate, intelligent discussion on real issues. opinions and punditry, by both sides of the fence, have replaced fact...neglecting the reality that real life is much more somehwere in the middle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted June 13, 2008 Author Share Posted June 13, 2008 Fox News is Fox News. If they didn't exist, where would all the anger on the left be focused (other than the bush administration...or talk radio)?. it's a theraputic punching bag. MSNBC is the biggest joke of a network on cable imo. talk about biased, holy hell do they have that cornered. and keith olbermann is the biggest douchebag on tv. dude. MSNB cant touch Faux News in terms of bullshit and/or bias and Keith Olberman could never come close to Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Bill O Reilly, and John Gibson in douchebagginess. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Other than Olbermann, NBC and MSNBC are pretty conservative, IMO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 the liberal and/or conservative slant on what is supposed to be news...by ANY network...that is what is killing legitimate, intelligent discussion on real issues. opinions and punditry, by both sides of the fence, have replaced fact...neglecting the reality that real life is much more somehwere in the middle. Sure, but do you think it is even possible to report "news" without a slant? Have you ever seen something happen with your own eyes and then read about in the paper the next day? I mean something newsworthy -- not a concert review or something like that. Things always get lost in translation and much of that is just the human element. The problem, in my eyes, is when networks intentionally slant their stories. Say what you will, but I just don't see the traditional "liberal" outlets doing that. The New York Times has said plenty of negative things about this Democratic Congress and just ask the Clintons -- they blame MSNBC and the Times. Now, they may be delusional about that, but I've never heard a candidate on the right blaming FoxNews for their loss. There is a difference in my mind. Of course, I say all this with a liberal slant of my own. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Fox News is Fox News. If they didn't exist, where would all the anger on the left be focused (other than the bush administration...or talk radio)?. it's a theraputic punching bag. MSNBC is the biggest joke of a network on cable imo. talk about biased, holy hell do they have that cornered. and keith olbermann is the biggest douchebag on tv. I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Sure, but do you think it is even possible to report "news" without a slant? Have you ever seen something happen with your own eyes and then read about in the paper the next day? I mean something newsworthy -- not a concert review or something like that. Things always get lost in translation and much of that is just the human element. The problem, in my eyes, is when networks intentionally slant their stories. Say what you will, but I just don't see the traditional "liberal" outlets doing that. The New York Times has said plenty of negative things about this Democratic Congress and just ask the Clintons -- they blame MSNBC and the Times. Now, they may be delusional about that, but I've never heard a candidate on the right blaming FoxNews for their loss. There is a difference in my mind. Of course, I say all this with a liberal slant of my own. i do think it's possible. is their job to report the news or create the news. meaning, for example, the immediate need to not only report when something goes wrong...but why it went wrong and who is to blame. the urge to speculate to satisfy the mcculture's need for insatnt gratification on closure, before having all of the facts. that said, to be clear, i'm referring more to the fact that people think they are watching legitimate news when they are viewing any sort of crossfire-eque show w/ the 'right-wing guy' and the 'left-wing guy'...the punditry based shows that offer absolutely no value other than the entertainement of allowing you to root for the guy who shares your opinions. it's pro-wrestling w/ words and suits. throw in the prognostication in things like the election coverage...we don't have actual results or facts yet, so let's at least have something to report via what we THINK may happen. 24-hour news networks are a fine concept in theory, but the way ALL of them end up kind of manufacturing some news to have stimulating enough content to keep people watching is fucked up. i'm not absolving FOX news at all, they certainly are blatant as fuck about it...but the entire 'business' is fucked up and has very little to do w/ actual news. just my opinion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 ...and i dock myself 5 points for overuse of the word fuck in the backhalf of that post. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 dude. MSNB cant touch Faux News in terms of bullshit and/or bias and Keith Olberman could never come close to Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Bill O Reilly, and John Gibson in douchebagginess. in your opinion. keith olbermann is the definition of an a-hole. those on fox are least laughable, keith seems to be inviting an ass kicking. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 The goal was to create a completely free market for American contracters to dominate. The autonomous government thing is what's used as an excuse for staying, but the current administration doesn't really care of it becomes a reality and probably prefers that it doesn't because it would mean that the contractors would get kicked out. If that was the goal, they'd be working harder towards it and be putting more pressure on the Iraqi government than they are.The goal I stated is the actual, this-is-what-we-should-shoot-for-if-we-really-want-this-to-work-out goal. I don't have personally or know of any actual proof that the "real" reason we went in is what you stated above, but I certainly would not put it past them. My personal theory tends more toward the "securing a chunk of the world's oil reserves ahead of the peak oil" scenario, but I may be giving the PTB too much credit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Impartiality is preferable, but I think a big part of the problem with the mainstream media today is that they are so concerned with looking balanced that they often present conflicting points of view as if they are equally valid, as if both sides are saying equally valid things, when in many instances one side is presenting distortions that the media is treating as simply another point of view. This is why we so often see pundits arguing completely different realities, only serving to confuse the public on the facts. Its possible to be impartial but still call someone out when they're full of shit -- sometimes the facts support one side more than the other and an impartial source will reflect that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 With that said, Fox News is the pinnacle, the commandant of this unfortunate trend. Mere trash peddlers passing off what is essentially conservative editorializing as journalism. It is no coincidence that Fox viewers are consistently less informed than folks who get their information elsewhere, from multiple sources. And though I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I remember seeing Obama and Osama used interchangeably on Fox News. And there was that whole madrassa mess CNN has joined in on the fun too: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 ... and let's not forget that these news outlets and newspapers are giving the people what they want. Or, what they think they want. If people demanded serious news, wouldn't the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer be more popular? Fact is, people want what they are being given. Can we really blame the media? The media is in the business of selling ads. No matter how you slice it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I think Faux News is pure comedy!I enjoy it with a few fine ales (6 or 7), chips and salsa..and a friend. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.