Fox News Makes You Stupid

“Oh yeah ... That's even better!”

“Spirit, a nice girl like you shouldn't be in a fuego like this.

(notice I didn't say "good girl")”

“yeah...your right...for somereason I dont have the little icon clicked off today LOL”

“

http://hardpressedstudios.com/shoxnews/photos.htm”

“This is dumb.”

“Universal Healthcare: the Jihadists' Secret Weapon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMu6wCqdeyQ&eurl=”

“A new low.”

“That was funny. Universal health care is wrong on so many levels.”

“Sure thing, I got mine.
Those poor schmucks can go pound sand.”

“...or they can go get theirs.”

“And if they can't afford it right here, right now?

Let 'em twist, eh?”

“hannity opens his mouth and the avg IQ of the US drops 5 points.”

“Tilty, Tilty......Hannity may be a stupid jerk but he's a pretty boy and America loves a pretty boy.”

“LOL...the thing I love is when health care companies start charging MORE for certain behaviors. Then the little whiney crowd starts the "I HAVE RIGHTS" line.

So all the Socialist Medicine crowd has no problem being told
How much you can drink (alchohol)or that you cannot eat transfats, or say that you will be drug and alchohol tested on a regular basis.....

I mean if we are going to underwrite your life the people paying the bill should be able to insure that you are taking the best care of yourself.

LOL. It all comes down to wanting rights without responsibility.”

“People will be responsible when they have nothing flammable, and therefore, have no need for firemen. That is what you're saying?”

“Those government firefighters are a bunch of socialists.

Banning transfats is a ban on the sale of a non-food product as a food. That is the job of the F.D.A. to see to food safety.......or do we want anarchy?

A person can eat dirt if they please its the sale of dirt as food that is banned.

Once again XL has it ass backwards.”

“Then again.... Sometimes I wonder if it's like al Qaida in Iraq: cause and effect are reversed, then the result feeds on itself.”

“Being an antisocialist socialist is ass backwards, how do you figure?”

“LOL..so what is next...sugar? I love how the libbies enjoy the frog in a pot process.”

“Sugar is a real food.

WTF are you talking about?”

“"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." - JFK

What ever happened to those Democrats?”

“Those dems all watched flocks news and line and sinker and......”

“They're still out there.

Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican Party after LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”

“KKK Byrd? Still a respected Democrat. [VBG]
last edited: 7/07/07 1:48:47 PM”

“You know bacpac, I was thinking exactly the same thing the other day.

A couple of leftist fools wrote in to the local lib-rag to say that there are absolutely no good arguments against government monopolized healthcare. So much for the “open-minded” leftists who somehow think only people who disagree with them see the world in black-and-white. Now we’re hearing that it’s our RIGHT to be provided with medical services. Holy fruit-bat! What’s next, socialized farming? These idiots will be saying it’s their RIGHT to have food provided by the government.




Stove isn't it amazing to still be correcting idiots who still think that Fox News is the only source of brainlessly biased news. Some folks don't have the sense God gave a rock. It’s both funny and sad to hear them prattle.

The propaganda of racist stereotyping is a gem of the sheep mentality perpetuated by the media.


This guy's got an interesting take:


The Long, Sad, Violent History of Democrats' Racial Hatred for Blacks
Perry Drake
May 2003


It has always seemed unnatural and unwise to me whenever I hear someone who's been slandered by a particularly egregious lie reply that they're not going to dignify that accusation with a response.

For it has always been crystal clear to me that whenever your honor, integrity and reputation are called into question that you should be quick, thorough and – when circumstances demand – quite loud in defense of them.

Otherwise, people will assume that the accusation must carry some weight and the falsity levied against you just might end up sticking.

That's what has happened to the political party that I belong to – the Republicans. For decades the Party of Lincoln has been under almost constant assault for being "racist" and "openly hostile" to blacks.

However, nothing could be further from the truth – but you would never know it by the party's spineless, practically nonexistent defense of its record on race and civil rights.

From the days of Lincoln until the present, blacks have had no better friend, party-wise, than the Republicans. Since its inception in the mid-19th century, the GOP has built an exemplary record on civil rights, particularly if you want to use the Democrat Party as a comparison.

The party's first president, Abraham Lincoln, issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, the height of the Civil War, squelching any chance that the European powers of the day would intervene in the conflict in favor of the Confederacy. With the stroke of his pen, Lincoln destroyed the last real hope the Confederacy had for a victory.

Soon after the war ended, it was a Republican-controlled Congress that rammed through the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution that, among other things, abolished slavery, guaranteed equal protection and due process and addressed blacks' right to vote.

In the late 19th century, Democrat governors and Democrat-controlled state legislatures in the South couldn't pass Jim Crow laws fast enough. Those Democrats created a nearly century-long, legal racial caste system that relegated blacks to the lowest educational, political, economic and social strata. I have family members who grew up under Jim Crow. To hear them tell it, it weren't no joke.

And let us not forget that during the same period it was Democrats throughout the United States who organized and ran America's premier terrorist organization – the Ku Klux Klan.

And speaking of the Klan, remember the great Democrat President Woodrow Wilson? After a screening of D.W. Griffith's paean to the Ku Klux Klan, "Birth of a Nation," Wilson, turned-movie critic, said of the film: "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."

Needless to say, the NAACP had a different outlook. After its viewing, the civil rights organization was mortified to the point of launching a nationwide protest in 1915 against the film. The group was equally appalled by President Wilson's comments and it launched a public protest against him.

Before we move on, one more thing about President Wilson. He was the president who led our nation into WWI with the ringing declaration that it was to make the world "safe for democracy." In Woodrow's mind, though, "democracy" applied to everyone except those annoying little dark-skinned people in America who are always clamoring for civil rights. In 1913, Wilson introduced segregation into the federal government.

Yes, dear readers, the man who is worshipped as the utmost "progressive" (where and by who have you heard that term used lately?) of his time allowed federal officials to segregate "toilets, cafeterias and work" areas of various federal departments.

It was left to Wilson's successor, Republican Warren G. Harding to scrap the segregation policy. And Warren G. didn't stop there. In 1922, Harding delivered a bold speech in Birmingham, Ala., (A Democrat stronghold that was later known by blacks as "Bombingham") in which he called for black equality. Up to then, no U.S. president had ever spoken so forcefully about civil rights.

Harding was elected in 1920. Funny thing about the Republican Party platform that Harding ran under. It called for federal anti-lynching legislation. Guess which party didn't? If you said Democrat, go to the head of the line.

Moving on, in answer to the burgeoning civil rights movement in the '50s, it was Democrat governors and Democrat-controlled state legislatures in the South that placed the Confederate battle flag on their state capitol flags. It's an issue that continues to inflame racial passions even today.

In 1957, Orval Faubus, the governor of Arkansas, called out his state's National Guard to prevent the integration of Central High School in Little Rock. In response, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to the city to escort nine frightened black teens into the school past riotous mobs inflamed by Faubus' defiance of a federal court order. Faubus was a Democrat. Eisenhower was a Republican.

On June 11, 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to block its integration. Wallace was a Democrat. Now, I grant you, John F. Kennedy was the Democrat president who federalized the Alabama National Guard and ordered its units to the university to force its doors open to black students.

But it's not generally known that the then-Sen. Kennedy – with an eye on the Democrat presidential nomination for 1960 – voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the law that really got the ball rolling on federal civil rights legislation.

And it was Kennedy's brother, Robert, who in 1964 assisted the FBI's efforts to destroy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by approving the wiretapping of the man considered the heart and soul of the civil rights movement.

And to think at one time you could find in black homes across the nation what I used to call the Black Person's Trinity: chintzy, black-velvet portraits of JFK, RFK and Dr. King painted side by side.

As far as other important civil rights legislation, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would never have became law if not for Republican senators and congressmen whose overwhelming support offset extreme Democrat opposition.

Now honesty demands that I admit that I have never been in favor of affirmative action programs. As a black man I find them demeaning, and as an American, divisive. But that's an argument for another day. However, the fact remains that it was President Nixon who implemented the first affirmative action program with the Philadelphia Plan in the late 1960s. The plan required government contractors to set goals and timetables for hiring minorities. Nixon was a Republican.

Sure, some will say that it's all well and good to cite the historical record, but what about now? What have the Republicans done of late? I begin by pointing out that Democrats continue to demonstrate a curious affinity for standing in schoolhouse doors, especially when black children are involved.

But of late, Democrats are not trying to keep black children out, but in. In public opinion polls on school choice, blacks overwhelmingly favor vouchers to rescue their children from failing schools. No one knows better the damage that poor schools can do to their children's future and communities than blacks. Republicans are in favor of school choice. Democrats aren't.

Also in more contemporary times, President Bush appointed two blacks to the highest positions in government ever occupied by blacks in America. Today, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell are very powerful, influential members of the Bush administration. Powell, in fact, is fourth in the succession line for the presidency.

Oh, by the way, do you know who is third in line? Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Old "Sheets" himself. The same Byrd of the "white #&%!$s" comments on March 5, 2001, and who was a member of the KKK. And Sen. Byrd was not just any old member. No, sir. He was a "grand kleagle" – a recruiter!

Does anyone remember the late war with Iraq? It lasted about a minute but you may have had a chance to notice that the vice chief of operations at Central Command was a brotha – Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks.

And let's not let the "fair and free" press off the hook. Back when Jim Crow and segregation were "the law of the land" in the South, the press served as cheerleaders for all those kind, compassionate Democrats as they lovingly lynched black people by the hundreds on a yearly basis.

Small wonder that the press behaved as badly as it did, though. The people who ran those papers, which proudly featured the brutalized and desecrated bodies of black lynching victims on their front pages quite frequently, were all Democrats.

Today, whenever a Republican says anything that can be twisted by Democrats and race hustlers to smack the least bit of racism, the press is quick to pounce on him like Jesse Jackson on a bag of stolen federal dollars.

The hypocrisy of the press on matters of race is appalling. Just take a walk into your average newsroom and tell me what you see? Wait, I'll save you the trip – a sea of white faces and sprinkled here and there, a black face or two. Or better still, tune in to any one of the numerous weekly Sunday news shows and what you'll find is overwhelming white.

Now here's a homework assignment – what political party do you think most of the members of the press belong to? Here's a hint – Democrat.

I need not end here. I could go on all day citing example after example on this matter (Does the name Bull Connor ring a bell, for instance? A Democrat. Hah!). But it would be heartening indeed if the next time accusations of racism are hurled against them, that Republicans would grow a spine and quickly, thoroughly and – when circumstances demand – quite loudly defend their honor, integrity and reputation.



http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/pcism/sad_history.htm
last edited: 7/07/07 10:32:59 PM”

“QED.”

“This is a thread for idiot leftists to babble and rationalize that they don't have to admit to stupidly biased leftist media outlets, Tilt.

It's not a discussion on quantum electrodynamics.

But we all appreciate your inquisitive mind.”

“tsk tsk.”

“'Can't we all just get aloan'? Hey, rocketeers how come Ron Paul received more campaign money than 'George W McCain'last quarter?”

“EXCELLENT...We had a letter to the editor about McCain's Igor....Lindsay Grahmnesty....hes gone at the end of this term...(LOL)”

“Cool opinion isn't it, XL?




Uncliff, your loan comment reminds me of something funny that happened last weekend.


Last week, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper calling for an open mind with regards to the healthcare debate. Two leftists had written letters saying that there were no good arguments against socialized medicine (universal healthcare) except to make a few greedy people rich (Haven’t we heard enough of that tripe from leftists?).

I listed Friedman and Hayek as two Nobel Prize winning economists who had written well-researched arguments against socialized medicine. My letter never said that the leftist writers were wrong and that I was right in my views. The whole gist of my letter was that we should listen to all viewpoints before making an informed decision.


Early Saturday morning I was having a discussion with a friend of mine who’s a psychiatrist. He fancies himself an intellectual. He’s socialist in his views.

I was telling him that I didn’t believe in collectivism and that I thought it was akin to slavery. Mockingly he said, “Oh my, we should all read Ayn Rand.”

The only thing is, like most Rand detractors, he hasn’t.

About six months ago I gave him The Fountainhead because it’s one of my favorite pieces of fiction. He told me he read 50 pages before determining that Rand’s philosophy was so “sick” that he wouldn’t read any more. At the time I couldn’t believe that a person who considers himself progressively “open-minded” would come to this conclusion after reading only 50 pages of a piece of fiction. After all, Rand’s philosophy took many books, papers, and lectures to fully explain.

So, after his mocking comment, I reminded him of what he had done and said, with regards to The Fountainhead, in front of the group. I mockingly told everyone that this is what he considers “open-minded” thinking.

It obviously ate his lunch because later on, twice, he sarcastically mentioned that now he would have to read the book. I told him, “Don’t do it for my sake.”

I saw him again on Sunday. The newspaper had printed my letter on Saturday but I hadn’t seen it before our discussion the day before. I brought a copy of the paper to show him (and others) because: 1. it’s always nice to see your name in print and 2. I thought it was relevant to the previous day’s discussion.

He read my letter with a very serious face and then proceeded to write on my paper. Without reading what he had written, I asked him what he thought of my letter about keeping an open mind while listening to opposing viewpoints.

Now here’s where it got both funny and sad. Here’s where I saw the typical leftist pattern repeat itself like I have so many times before.

With a very serious face he said that the world was full of too many opinions, that people were sensitive creatures whose feelings were hurt by opinions, and that opinions only served to alienate people.

I said, “That’s very interesting” and had to excuse myself. I had to leave the room because I knew that laughing in his face was REALLY going to hurt his feelings.

That ranks as one of the most jaw-dropping rationalizations I’ve ever heard. With those premises, his logic conclusion would be: If we want to live in harmony with each other we shouldn’t discuss our opinions.

As I was absorbing the absurdity of his statements, I decide to read what he had written on my paper.

He had written an anecdote about a friend who had experienced both the U.S. and Canadian healthcare systems. This friend had a good experience with the Canadian system for one particular problem. He said this was proof that he was right about socialized medicine.


Holy fruitbat! The guy’s a friend of mine. He has some very wonderful qualities. I don’t expect my friends to be perfect because I’m so far from perfect that would be hypocritical. But how many dysfunctions in his thinking can you count?

As I’ve seen so many progressive leftists do: He won’t listen to opposing viewpoints. He gets his feelings hurt listening to opposing viewpoints. But it is vitally important that he express his own viewpoint to let everyone know his conclusions are right. I have observed that denial, rationalization, hypocrisy, and the need to have conclusions validated occupy much thinking in our world today.



I would enjoy meeting Marko, Tilt, Y2, violin, and all the other people on this site with whom I’ve had spirited disagreements. I have very little doubt that I would get along with all of them.

Just because we disagree doesn’t mean we can’t get along.
last edited: 7/10/07 7:01:07 AM”

“Good morning, Your Wordiness!”

“Good one arc..you ever notice how the libbies tell us we cannot comment on something until we see it or read it (read that as PAY MONEY) but they are free to comment all day long on crap they have no knowledge of?

Oh and as for meeting them....normally I leave politics at the trailhead. I usually find it is cool to learn new tricks of the trade or compare equipment...LOL or talk about old hikes when I am out there.”

“but they are free to comment all day long on crap they have no knowledge of?


Isn't this your daily M.O.?”

“"Oh and as for meeting them....normally I leave politics at the trailhead. I usually find it is cool to learn new tricks of the trade or compare equipment...LOL or talk about old hikes when I am out there."
XL

That's a good idea.

And when has anyone told you you can't comment?”

“Not you guys MarkO but it has happened in other conversations. The sad thing is I think both parties are falling apart. It is now just a power struggle like Pigs at a feeding trough.”

“Let's turn off the slop tap.”

“Both parties are falling apart, because they are the walls of a country that has run out of purpose. It's not easy to loose sight of the prize when you're struggling to prove you're still a 'super power'and nothing else matters.”

“1. it’s always nice to see your name in print

yeah, just ask Sen. David "John" Vitter (R)-LA”

“Yo, Marko, the rule for letters-to-the-editor at my local paper is 300 words or less.

Can you imagine me trying to describe a blank white wall in less than 300 words?

I revised my letter about three times and I had one hell of a time. They still edited it and some of my ideas were lost. That's OK. Sound-bite ADHD has replaced attention span in today's society. I have a looooooooooong attention span hence I tend to be VERBOSE when I write. Long ago, I got used to the fact that I ain’t normal anyway.




Check this: one of the guys I mentioned in my letter-to-the-editor wrote me a postcard that came to my house yesterday. He must have guessed at my address through the phone book. Gainesville isn't very big.

I busted out laughing because of my experience with my psychiatrist friend.

He thinks I should see Sicko by Michael Moore. He's convinced that will explain the healthcare debate for me. I swear, all my letter-to-the-editor tried to say was, "Let's keep an open mind and inform ourselves on the issues."

I own Roger and Me on DVD. I have Stupid White Men on my bookshelf and read the whole thing. I saw Bowling for Columbine.

After two movies and a book, I can safely say that I’ve been open-minded enough to expose myself to Michael Moore. I am as likely to continue to do so as I am to visit skinhead websites in order to expose myself to their views.

Michael Moore is a half-witted bigot. By this time, people should know what to expect when they go to see his political propaganda.

In my letter-to-the-editor, I suggested that the guy read Friedman and Hayek for two viewpoints on socialized medicine. He’s getting the better bargain if we both follow each other’s suggestion: He gets exposed to the research of two Nobel Prize winning economists. I only get to see the emotional propaganda of a half-wit movie director.
last edited: 7/11/07 5:53:45 AM”

“Okay I will go with Bigot...but to call him Half witted...Arc that is really insulting to the Half Wits in the country.



CAMPAIGN ADVISOR TO JOHN MCCAIN COMPLAINS>”

“http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/7016/hahaohmandb1.png

Two thumbs up?

Violin, where you watching when this was on?”

“Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

Summary: During a segment in which Fox & Friends co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade labeled New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe "attack dogs," Fox News featured photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered -- the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe's hair moved further back on his head.





http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002”

“LOL”

“Media Matters is a Soros Funded Leftie site, so got another source?”

“Nigal, I think you have been had by Media Matters. That segment was a bit from Fox and Friends morning show.

Those alterations were subsequently followed by placing them on the bodies of poodles. Of course it was intended as humor, and of course partisan hacks who hate Fox News will try to spin it as an attempt to foist doctored photos on the public.
Since neither of the subjects are currently running the streets of Manhattan looking for a handy fire hydrant to relieve themselves upon, I would have to say the doctoring part should have been blatantly obvious.”

“The media matters page says that Stove:

"After putting up the photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe, Fox & Friends also featured a photograph of Steinberg's face superimposed over that of a poodle, while Reddicliffe's face was superimposed over that of the man holding the poodle's leash."”