Fuck Fox News, fuck them fuck them fuck them

Rukas

Capo Dei Capi
Staff member
#21
that doesn't prove they made it up. even in the video you posted the ass clown oberman even says that michelle malkin says the term was being used in posting on blogs by liberals. now if that was the topic of discussion (i dont' know i rarely watch network news and didn't watch this particular segment and the video posted is only showing the side of msnbc constant attack on another network that shits on them in the ratings department. not to mention that oberman has been proven time and time again to distort facts) or point being made by the talking head had to do liberal bloggers calling for attacks to stop on obama's baby mama then wouldn't that headline fit into the context of discussion? oberman says it is not true and that no such posting took place but what proof does he offer other than his word? this is a man is constantly is proven to distort facts and even gets called out by well known anchors such as tom brokaw.
Are you shitting me? You're justifying it because someone on the internet posted it as a comment to a blog post? So therefore they can use it as an official quote on Fox News?



i didn't say i can't see the difference between the two words. what i did say was that the two have been used in the same context in popular culture and been used to have the same meaning.
Fox News called Michelle Obama Barrack's Baby Mama. She is not, and the term is offensive. Fox News said that the Liberal party used the term themselves. They did not, perhaps some blogger on the internet did, but the Liberal Party did not. Fox News said the Obama's used some sort of terrorist fist. They did not.

There is no ifs or buts about it. The above is factual and can be checked by anyone, it is pretty black and white.
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#22
that's the funny thing abut Fox. puff, you mentioned that MSNBC is getting killed in the ratings by Fox, and i wouldn't doubt that, but if you actually think most people watching Fox are watching it for their stellar news coverage, you would be sadly mistaken. people watch things like Fox News and shows like O'Reilly's crap-o-rama for the same reason some people will watch a really bad movie: they want to see if it can get any worse, what kind of ridiculous crap will one of our anchors say today? i'm starting to believe that is the reason they do these things: the shock value of it. they know people pay attention to controversy, so they stir it up as much as they can.
i dont think people are watching it for the news coverage. i've never said anything of the sort. fox news has had the highest rating for about 80 months straight. o'reilly has had the top rated cable news show for about 6 years. night after night week after week fox programming holds 4 out of the top 5 for ratings. it usually goes o'reilly, hannity and combs, gretta, larry king, and bret hume. bret hume's show being the only one that actually reports news. all of those other shows, including king's are commentary. just talking heads and opinions. they don't claim to be "news" in any sort. although, people do often confuse the two and think that because they are on a news channel it is the news.

and you are probably right. controversy does sell. look at msnbc. while their ratings have been the lowest of the 3 big cable news networks it has started to grow a little bit in the past year. this can probably be summed up to that network constantly nitpicking at what people at fox news does and trying push the message of "you should hate this network because they are the worst people in the world". you almost can't turn on msnbc without seeing them take shots and bashing fox news.

a lot of that does comes to the fueds between big heads of the corporations like general electric and some at news corp.
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#23
Are you shitting me? You're justifying it because someone on the internet posted it as a comment to a blog post? So therefore they can use it as an official quote on Fox News?





Fox News called Michelle Obama Barrack's Baby Mama. She is not, and the term is offensive. Fox News said that the Liberal party used the term themselves. They did not, perhaps some blogger on the internet did, but the Liberal Party did not. Fox News said the Obama's used some sort of terrorist fist. They did not.

There is no ifs or buts about it. The above is factual and can be checked by anyone, it is pretty black and white.

i didn't justify anything. i asked a question. one that you don't want to even rationally try to answer. headlines have to due with the topic of discussion. if the topic of discussion is about liberal bloggers saying they want people to stop attack obama's baby mama, then does that not fit into the context of the discussion or even be relevant for headline?

and liberal party? huh? i guess you are confusing liberal party with the democratic party.

a person who is a liberal, an individual is not the democratic party as a whole. unless they are howard dean.

it is easy to conclude that it was the network itself calling michelle obama a baby mama, but like i said the headline had to do with the context of the point being made by the talking head (michelle malkin). she said that a liberal blogger (or bloggers, hard to really tell since the msnbc video is only giving you one side of everything) made a posting saying this. this had nothing to do with the democratic party saying this.

obviously a person who works for fox news represents the network but i think what she said more of a snide comment. what e.d. hill said was "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab?" it more represents her as a person than it does the network. she did apologize, the fox news quickly canned her show. what more do you want?
 
#24
maybe their popularity is going up because more and more people agree with them that Fox News is a joke. i don't see how MSNBC picking on Fox is controversial tho, especially since so many people already agree that Fox is a joke so i fail to see the correlation you're trying to draw here. but any way you want to cut it, Fox News is just about the most unprofessional news network i've ever seen. people watch it for the same reason they stop at a train wreck or a car crash, to see just how bad it is. plus i have a theory tha for some reason, people seem to be more interested in things that anger them than they are in things that please them for example, i know several people who watch The O'Reilly Factor regularly, but they hate the guy with a passion. they just want to see what retarded thing he's going to do next. i don't get it tho, if he pisses you off so much why watch it? that fucker will never be seen on my tv screen, that's for damn sure.
 

AmerikazMost

Well-Known Member
#25
Are we really debating whether or not Fox News is trying to advance the Republican agenda?

The headline was a premeditated act, not a slip of the tongue. Technicians don't just spontaneously post those kinds of headlines.

Fox News is very deliberate in everything they say and with everyone they allow on their network.
 
#26
Are we really debating whether or not Fox News is trying to advance the Republican agenda?

The headline was a premeditated act, not a slip of the tongue. Technicians don't just spontaneously post those kinds of headlines.

Fox News is very deliberate in everything they say and with everyone they allow on their network.
who's we? puff is the only one who seems to think differently about them.
 

EDouble

Will suck off black men for a dime
#27
Ive only read few posts dont know if its been mentioned but Fox channel not usually serious w/ head lines or names of pieces they get away shit lot of time have stories will have sex inindo's with the descriptions
 

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#28
Fox News should just call Barack Obama “boy” because, after all, his mother used to call him her boy.

"It was a term of affection. Fox was just thnking of him like a son."

--Michelle Malkin, co-signed by Puff
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#29
maybe their popularity is going up because more and more people agree with them that Fox News is a joke. i don't see how MSNBC picking on Fox is controversial tho, especially since so many people already agree that Fox is a joke so i fail to see the correlation you're trying to draw here.
for the most part you are probably correct with people being in agreement with their left slanted views and fox bashing. but their ratings have grown mainly due to what would be considered the "young voter" audience. not many self respecting adults over the age of 30 watch msnbc and take it seriously. the network pretty much caters itself to that young, want to be in the know, republicans are evil, crowd. msnbc's constant fox bashing may not be controversial in any tradictional sense but it helps out their ratings and it has been getting coverage in other areas of the press lately. one article even went deep enough to explore why oberman has such a hard on for oreily, which they think has to do with fueds between generel electric and news corp. it is also a bit weird to see networks take aim at each other like that.

when you say many people already agree that fox is a joke, those are usually like minded people that will rarely differ in opinions from their inner circles. that also includes young people. which are also the easy to be manipulated and brainwashed crowd (ready for my next obama supporter joke?)
 
#30
i dont think people are watching it for the news coverage. i've never said anything of the sort. fox news has had the highest rating for about 80 months straight. o'reilly has had the top rated cable news show for about 6 years. night after night week after week fox programming holds 4 out of the top 5 for ratings. it usually goes o'reilly, hannity and combs, gretta, larry king, and bret hume. bret hume's show being the only one that actually reports news. all of those other shows, including king's are commentary. just talking heads and opinions. they don't claim to be "news" in any sort. although, people do often confuse the two and think that because they are on a news channel it is the news.

and you are probably right. controversy does sell. look at msnbc. while their ratings have been the lowest of the 3 big cable news networks it has started to grow a little bit in the past year. this can probably be summed up to that network constantly nitpicking at what people at fox news does and trying push the message of "you should hate this network because they are the worst people in the world". you almost can't turn on msnbc without seeing them take shots and bashing fox news.

a lot of that does comes to the fueds between big heads of the corporations like general electric and some at news corp.
commentators who have their shows on news networks, and discuss news topics, are part of NEWS COVERAGE, i know they are not news in themselves and i never said they were. but O'Reilly's show and the shows you mentioned are a part of news coverage, since they cover and discuss news topics. i wasn't implying that you had said that people watch Fox for their great news coverage, i worded it wrong and should have said if people think instead of if you think. but you pointed out that MSNBC was getting their ass kicked in the ratings by Fox, and i just thought i'd bring up the idea of why that may be. it certainly isn't because they do such a stellar job of telling the truth. it's because they hire loudmouth idiots like O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes who know how to push people's buttons, and as i mentioned before, people strangely seem to enjoy having their buttons pushed.
 
#31
for the most part you are probably correct with people being in agreement with their left slanted views and fox bashing. but their ratings have grown mainly due to what would be considered the "young voter" audience. not many self respecting adults over the age of 30 watch msnbc and take it seriously. the network pretty much caters itself to that young, want to be in the know, republicans are evil, crowd. msnbc's constant fox bashing may not be controversial in any tradictional sense but it helps out their ratings and it has been getting coverage in other areas of the press lately. one article even went deep enough to explore why oberman has such a hard on for oreily, which they think has to do with fueds between generel electric and news corp. it is also a bit weird to see networks take aim at each other like that.

when you say many people already agree that fox is a joke, those are usually like minded people that will rarely differ in opinions from their inner circles. that also includes young people. which are also the easy to be manipulated and brainwashed crowd (ready for my next obama supporter joke?)
well then there must be a lot of people like me around, because i haven't met anyone, inside my circle or outside of it, who see Fox News as anything but a joke. they have zero credibility with most people who have any common sense. especially since they've been the lapdogs of the Bush Administration and the republican agenda for so long. the main reason people watch, like i said, is so they have something to yell at. too bad the name CNN was already taken, otherwise i'd suggest they change the name to the Controversy News Network, since they seem to excel in creating it. and from what i can tell, the only people who don't see Fox News as a joke are conservative republicans. democrats and people who don't consider themselves on either side of the fence like myself know better. MSNBC caters to the young crowd, Fox News caters to the conservative republican crowd. what's the difference really? as far as i'm concerned, none of the news networks are good for anything except pushing their own agendas, which they all have.
 

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#32
I actually love Fox. Fox is good at reporting the news which is why I watch it almost exclusively when it comes to news. I just don't pay attention or take the commentary seriously. But when I want to know what's happening, the latest school shooting or see an Obama speech or a McCain Townhall meeting (or pretty foxes reading the news), I'll turn to Fox. They've got a great news set-up with connections everywhere and that's what I like. I see no one else as good in that respect.
 

roaches

Well-Known Member
#33
Tangent: I used to like Keith Olbermann, but now he's become a blowhard. I think the only news sources I can stand on TV nowadays is the local nightly news and the Daily Show/Colbert Report. I guess I could watch Bill Moyers or something but I don't even know what channel PBS is:

Anyway, the problem isn't just Fox:

Media Matters - "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser

When Fox News anchor E. D. Hill suggested that Barack and Michelle Obama may have engaged in a "terrorist fist jab" at a recent campaign event, condemnation (and mockery) of Hill's comments was swift, and forced her to offer an on-air quasi-apology.

While Hill's apology was unusual (though not unprecedented -- just a few weeks ago, a Fox analyst apologized for joking about assassinating Obama), her original comments were sadly typical of the media's treatment of Obama. Since he began running for president, news reports have relentlessly suggested that Obama is different; that he isn't like you; that he isn't on your side.

Sometimes, like Hill's "terrorist fist jab" comment, those suggestions have been obvious, and clearly offensive. Other times, they have been comparatively subtle and seemingly pointless -- Chris Matthews' deep concern with Barack Obama's decision to order orange juice in a diner and what it says about his ability to connect with "regular people," for example. But they have two things in common: They portray Obama as weird -- un-American, even -- and they do so based on little more than the fevered imaginations of some journalists and the vicious lies of right-wing partisans.

Rush Limbaugh says Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden are "on the same page." Other conservative commentators have suggested an affinity between Obama and Hamas -- despite Obama's denunciations of the organization, and its description of Obama's policy positions as "hostile to us." Conservative columnist Mark Steyn has described Michelle Obama as "Kim Jong-Il dressed up with a bit of Oprah Winfrey dressing."

Michael Savage claims to "doubt" that Obama "would take our side" after a terrorist attack, adding that Obama would "march thousands of us into the hands of the enemy in order to gain what they would think would be a long-term peace. I think that they would gladly take the guns of the American military and turn them first on the American patriot, rather than turning the guns of the American patriot on the enemy within." Savage also asks, "Why are there no queries being provoked about Saddam Hussein -- I mean, Barack Hussein Obama?" Tucker Carlson has compared Obama's campaign to the Khmer Rouge, the brutal Cambodian regime that led to the deaths of nearly a quarter of that nation's people.

Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman responded to a question referencing the possibility of "Osama blowing up the Sears Tower" by writing, "How about Obama blowing up the Sears Tower! I never liked that building anyway." Weisman did add, "Just kidding, folks." Another washingtonpost.com reader later followed up: "Um, did you really just joke about Obama blowing up the Sears Tower, or were you thinking Osama, but wrote Obama? Either way, not funny."

Weisman wasn't the first reporter to use the "just kidding" defense after inappropriately and baselessly linking Obama to a controversial figure. CNN commentator Jeff Greenfield (now with CBS) compared Obama's tendency to wear shirts with open collars to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's preferred style of dress. When criticized by, among others, Columbia Journalism Review, Greenfield claimed he had been kidding, that he meant the commentary as a "patently absurd parody of muddled political thinking" and lashed out at his critics.

But humor (if you can call it that) doesn't excuse making comments like this -- indeed, it makes it more likely that the public will remember and internalize the comparisons, and that the caricatures will take hold.

Media figures also often portray Obama as un-American or unpatriotic. Dick Morris says that "the question that plagues Obama is ... Is he pro-American?" and that the presidential election hinges on whether "we believe" Obama is "sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system." Investor's Business Daily asks, "Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests?" On Fox & Friends, host Steve Doocy says Obama has "patriotism problems." MSNBC's Chris Matthews thinks "it's a hard thing for someone like Barack Obama" to express a "gut sense of Americanism" and describes Obama as "almost Third World in his sort of presentation." Jonah Goldberg falsely claims Obama "dodg the word and concept of patriotism." And countless news reports -- not just in the right-wing media -- have obsessed over the fact that Obama often does not wear a flag pin (Fox News' Sean Hannity particularly loves this line of attack -- despite the fact that Hannity himself often appears on television without such a pin) or have passed along ridiculous claims about Obama and the Pledge of Allegiance, as CBS News and The Washington Post (among others) have done.

Countless news reports have directly suggested Obama is secretly a Muslim, while others uncritically report the allegation without bothering to make clear that it is false. As is often the case, Michael Savage takes things a bit further, falsely claiming that "we have an unknown stealth candidate who went to a madrassas in Indonesia and, in fact, was a Muslim," and stating, "We have a right to know if he's a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teaching."

Gratuitously invoking Obama's middle name -- Hussein -- is a favorite tactic used by conservative media figures such as Ann Coulter to associate Obama with Saddam Hussein. (Coulter claims that she does it not out of malice but "because I think it's funny.") For some, Obama's actual name isn't enough: Right-wing radio host Bill Cunningham referred to Obama as "Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama." (Just a few weeks later, Cunningham was chosen to warm up the crowd at one of Sen. John McCain's campaign rallies.)

MSNBC's Matthews has explained the problem with these gratuitous references to Obama's name:

ven that little seemingly neutral information gets into some older people's heads, and they go, "We got a problem here."



lder people -- and I can tell stories in the millions about politicians playing to older voters. They play on the past. They play on fear. They play on confusion. They play on suggestion. You know how it's done with older voters.

But Matthews himself was the first person -- media figure or political operative -- to invoke Obama's middle name in a political context in any news report available in Nexis. Way back in November of 2006, Matthews noted: "You know, it's interesting that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. That will be interesting down the road, won't it?" And now Matthews says that the mention of Obama's middle name plays on "fear" and "confusion" and "suggestion" with "older voters." So why did he introduce the name into the national conversation?

Matthews frequently claims that Obama is not a "regular" person -- and that his supporters aren't "regular people," either, as I explained last week:

Matthews' election-night portrayal of Obama as out of touch with "most Americans" was striking in its intensity, but it was not a new theme. MSNBC personnel, particularly Matthews, have been trying out this anti-Obama theme for months. Matthews has attacked Obama for shooting pool ("t's not what most people play. People with money play pool these days.") and obsessed over what he claims is Obama's inability to connect with "regular people" in "a dinette." And Matthews and David Shuster mocked Obama for the grievous sin of ordering orange juice in a diner.

Matthews has said of Obama, "his gets very ethnic, but the fact that he's good at basketball doesn't surprise anybody, but the fact that he's that terrible at bowling does make you wonder." On another occasion, Matthews suggested that Obama's lack of bowling prowess "tells you something about the Democratic Party." Matthews has contrasted "regular people" with "people who come from the African-American community." He has suggested Obama should pick a Jewish running mate because he "need some ethnic balance." Matthews has said Obama "seems a little foreign" and that he and Jeremiah Wright are "different faces of the same guy."

Matthews' portrayal of Obama as unlike "regular people" is catching on. The New York Times' David Brooks recently said Obama wouldn't seem to "fit in naturally" at an Applebee's salad bar. (Turns out that, by Brooks' logic, it is Brooks himself who is out of touch with "regular people"; Applebee's doesn't have a salad bar.) And on MSNBC on Tuesday, columnist Margaret Carlson said of Obama: "Don't you want to say to him, 'Eat the taco. A funnel cake won't kill you.' " Carlson then asserted that Obama needs to get "a little bit more down with the people."

Other examples of the media portraying Obama as strange or dangerous abound. Coulter suggests Obama is "a Manchurian candidate." Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan compares Obama's speeches to Hitler's. Slate.com teases an article with the line "Why Obama is Like a Serial Killer." Tucker Carlson says Obama "sounds like a pothead to me" and "seems like kind of a wuss," while MSNBC colleague Joe Scarborough suggests Obama is not a "real man."

And the media don't stop at portraying Obama as abnormal; his supporters have received similar treatment. Brooks, Time's Joe Klein, ABC's Jake Tapper, and other media figures have called Obama supporters "creepy" and "cult-like" and compared them to followers of Charles Manson.

Obviously there is a difference between calling Barack Obama a terrorist or suggesting he might not "take our side" in the event of a terrorist attack and saying his lack of bowling prowess prevents him from understanding and connecting with "regular people." But both storylines portray Obama as out of the mainstream; they each prime audiences to be more receptive to the other (and the more extreme comments coming from the likes of Michael Savage and Fox News have the pernicious effect of making Chris Matthews' absurd claims about Obama and "regular people" seem reasonable by comparison) -- and neither has any basis in reality. After all, polls show Obama beating McCain, so he must not be doing too badly among "regular people."

Yesterday, Barack Obama's campaign unveiled a website dedicated to rebutting false rumors. On MSNBC Live, Andrea Mitchell and Time's Jay Carney discussed the need for the new site:

MITCHELL: was being asked by reporters about things that are completely unprovable, and the way this stuff circulates, it's so viral that a reporter asks him a question, it gets picked up, and then that ratifies the rumor, which we're not even going to be talking about because, you know, there's no proof about a lot of this stuff. So --

CARNEY: You know, the one, Andrea -- there's one in particular that they talk about where Michelle is alleged in a rumor to have referred to white Americans as whitey in a speech at, of course, the Trinity church, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church. There's no evidence at all that this is true. This rumor started circulating among conservative bloggers and then was picked up and just repeated as a rumor by Rush Limbaugh, of course, the widely listened-to conservative talk radio host. Now over -- driving over to the studio just half an hour ago I heard Rush Limbaugh's show, and he's talking about this non-stop, talking about how it's not -- you know, he's not to blame, he was just reporting a rumor. But of course, he spent half --

MITCHELL: But reporting a rumor, Jay --

CARNEY: But he spent half an hour at least when I was listening to him re-circulating the very rumor without shooting it down, so that's the effect of these things.

MITCHELL: Well, let's put it to rest right now. This didn't happen. It hasn't happened, it's not gonna happen. But the Obama campaign has felt concerned enough clearly about all of this --

CARNEY: Exactly.

MITCHELL: -- and our own NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows this resistance to him by, you know, white men, with McCain having a 20-point lead in -- among white men and still problems with suburban women, which is kind of more understandable coming out of a primary election between him and Hillary Clinton. This is something he's going to have to fix.

CARNEY: Right. It's out there and they just have to -- the goal of circulating these rumors from Obama opponents is basically to create an atmosphere of doubt about the candidate -- about his patriotism, about his background, his religion.

Journalists like Andrea Mitchell and Jay Carney understand that the repetition of baseless rumors "ratifies the rumors," as Mitchell put it. And they understand the intent behind the rumors -- creating "an atmosphere of doubt about the candidate," as Carney said.

But journalists need to do more than understand the intent and effect of false rumors pushed by the right. They need to understand how their own reporting and commentary have similar effects, regardless of their intent. They need to understand that they have a responsibility that goes beyond being careful not to spread (intentionally or otherwise) these bogus right-wing themes; they also have a responsibility to aggressively report the truth. There is a broad smear campaign being waged against Barack Obama, and it is long past time for the media to expose and debunk those smears, not play into them
 

Rukas

Capo Dei Capi
Staff member
#35
i didn't justify anything. i asked a question. one that you don't want to even rationally try to answer. headlines have to due with the topic of discussion. if the topic of discussion is about liberal bloggers saying they want people to stop attack obama's baby mama, then does that not fit into the context of the discussion or even be relevant for headline?
The headline wasnt about bloggers. It was a poor choice, it was like one blog comment and Fox ran with it like it is a general opinion.

Im dont discussing this with you to be honest you seem very set in your mind even though Im proving that it is derogatory, tasteless and not accurate at all.

and liberal party? huh? i guess you are confusing liberal party with the democratic party.
Sorry it was late, Liberal Party slipped off of my fingers as I was at a party early discussing Australian Politics and our Liberal and Labor Parties.


it is easy to conclude that it was the network itself calling michelle obama a baby mama, but like i said the headline had to do with the context of the point being made by the talking head (michelle malkin). she said that a liberal blogger (or bloggers, hard to really tell since the msnbc video is only giving you one side of everything) made a posting saying this. this had nothing to do with the democratic party saying this.
How many bloggers have posted that Bush is a retard. But you dont see headlines on Fox reading "Liberals say Bush is retarded."
 

Rukas

Capo Dei Capi
Staff member
#36
^are you serious? there is no way in hell anyone is gonna read all of that
I just did. Do you have trouble reading or are you just too lazy to do it? Serious question.

Anyway roaches, that is a great post thanks for finding it.

From what I see around the world where we are not exposed to the US news coverage as much, Obama seems to be the clear favorite over McCain and was over Clinton. I wonder how the media will effect the US opinion. Its a great experiment, it is just a shame so much hangs on it.

I personally think McCain will win, which is sad, but it could have been worse, it could have been Hillary.
 

roaches

Well-Known Member
#37
I personally think McCain will win, which is sad, but it could have been worse, it could have been Hillary.
Hillary is an unlikeable hag who ran a nasty campaign but she would've made a much better president than Senator McCain could. The old man sold his soul to turn himself into someone who could win the nomination and the reputation he had as a maverick eight years ago describes a completely different person (not that it wasn't overstated to begin with, anyway). The GOP is one of the most disgusting groups of gangsters in the world.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#38
That was an interesting read, roaches. I think everyone outside of the US is very surprised and appalled by the way the media often plays into these things.
 
#39
great read roaches. i've been saying this for a while now, but of course people like puff always try to refute it. but i've noticed this for a while now, the media seems determined to turn the public against Obama and they continuously chip away at him like this, saying he's not like regular people, oh, he's a muslim! see everyone, can we really trust a muslim in the white house? and he doesn't even wear a flag pin!??!? what kind of un-American monster would be seen in public campaigning for President without one? look, he can't bowl, he's not down with the people, he's an elitist. and it goes on and on and on. it's enough to make me sick.

the flag pin thing is what really gets me though. how does Barack not wearing a flag pin make him a better or worse candidate? what difference is a pin going to make in how he would be able to run the country? apparently a lot if you believe the media. i think it's a symptom of so much of the blind patriotism in America. it has literally gotten to the point that if you say anything critical about America, even if what you're saying is true, you're un-American. and now they judge presidential candidates based on if they wear a flag pin or not. give me a fucking break. you know who else is an extreme patriot? George W. Bush, and we all know how great a job he did. maybe America doesn't need anymore blind patriotism, maybe they need some truth about their country. you can never fix what's wrong with the country if no one in power will acknowledge that there's anything wrong in the first place.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#40
What strikes me as the most "unnerving" is that, apparently, the wearing or not-wearing of a flagpin is what seems to be on the minds of the American public and media. I mean, there are all these kinds of silly things about the candidates being highlighted and blown up, whereas no one seems to give a hoot about whether they'll make a capable leader or not.

I mean, everything is dug out and up. What their wife likes to cook, how their kids did in school, i mean what the fuck?

Is this how the biggest democracy on the planet, the self-proclaimed leader of the free world, choses it's leaders? :confused:

It worries me. I knew "the public" is stupid. That goes for all countries. But it almost seems the Americans (alright, "some" Americans) try to go one better...
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top