![]() | |
This is a discussion on Oh fuck this ethical media shit... ATTACK! within the Media forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz Quote: Originally Posted by elvis who on cnn do you consider hard left? that retard they got to replace ...
| |||||||
| Media Media personalities, coverage, etc |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| Sponsored Links |
|
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free! |
| ||||
| That an organization has finally made it its mission to try to keep Fox honest by exposing its dishonesty.
__________________ A WORKING PERSON VOTING FOR A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS IS LIKE A CHICKEN VOTING FOR COLONEL SANDERS |
| ||||
| I do believe I can laugh at every 'media matters' link from now on with much more authority. Media Matters' war against Fox - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
__________________ A WORKING PERSON VOTING FOR A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS IS LIKE A CHICKEN VOTING FOR COLONEL SANDERS |
| ||||
| Hayek. Learn a little about history so we don't repeat the same mistakes, please.
__________________ A WORKING PERSON VOTING FOR A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS IS LIKE A CHICKEN VOTING FOR COLONEL SANDERS |
| ||||
| Ironically, they are indirectly verifying that Reagan was right. Enemies cannot be contained, the must be defeated. Media matters is threatened by the fact that alternative viewpoints are provided on the Fox News Network. See when the message of media matters and the message of conservatives is put next to each other. The people will in large parts reject the media matters message. Hence, you have to shut down the other points of view. It's an effort in futility. There are so many other forums to disperse the information that the message will never be contained nor defeated. MediaMatters wouldn't exist if it wasn't for FOX. Freedom of speech is a two-way street. MediaMatters is allowed to voice their freedom of speech too. |
| ||||
| The problem with you is that you do not want to see the truth. What's sad is that some people think, for example, the Germans were just inherently evil and that's the reason for Nazism. WRONG! They came to power because of central planning PROGRESSIVES! Learn your history, dude. It's not that hard and you won't come across as clueless. You see, I studied history at a real school, not the Glenn Beck College of History. There were many factors that led to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany. A staggering defeat in WWI that crippled Germany economically and publicly. Germans were ashamed of the standing of their country at the time, a country that had been run into the ground by incompetant and weak leadership for the decades before. The German Workers Party took advantage of this by focusing on nationalism - basically the idea that Germans were superior humans, and the only reason everything was going badly were outside influences of weaker peoples (Jews, and Western Europe in general). The Weimar Republic was financially broken by the Treaty of Versailles, and in general very corrupt, decadent, and ineffectual. Germany suffered from hyperinflation, open warfare between paramilitary organizations from the far right and the far left, and staggering financial problems from the Treaty, which had ordered reparations of around 153 billion marks. The NSDAP (commonly referred to as the Nazi Party) grew out of the aforementioned German Workers Party, and came into power in the early 1930s by election to the horribly corrupt Reichstag, eventually leading to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933. That, combined with Hitler and company's staggering ability to propagandize led to the rise of the Nazi Party. The NSDAP found a way to channel one of humanity's greatest emotions - hatred and fear - into a political philosophy. Not "progressives". The word "progressive" doesn't even mean anything.
__________________ A WORKING PERSON VOTING FOR A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS IS LIKE A CHICKEN VOTING FOR COLONEL SANDERS |
| ||||
| The problem with you is that you do not want to see the truth. What's sad is that some people think, for example, the Germans were just inherently evil and that's the reason for Nazism. WRONG! They came to power because of central planning PROGRESSIVES! Learn your history, dude. It's not that hard and you won't come across as clueless. You see, I studied history at a real school, not the Glenn Beck College of History. There were many factors that led to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany. A staggering defeat in WWI that crippled Germany economically and publicly. Germans were ashamed of the standing of their country at the time, a country that had been run into the ground by incompetant and weak leadership for the decades before. The German Workers Party took advantage of this by focusing on nationalism - basically the idea that Germans were superior humans, and the only reason everything was going badly were outside influences of weaker peoples (Jews, and Western Europe in general). The Weimar Republic was financially broken by the Treaty of Versailles, and in general very corrupt, decadent, and ineffectual. Germany suffered from hyperinflation, open warfare between paramilitary organizations from the far right and the far left, and staggering financial problems from the Treaty, which had ordered reparations of around 153 billion marks. The NSDAP (commonly referred to as the Nazi Party) grew out of the aforementioned German Workers Party, and came into power in the early 1930s by election to the horribly corrupt Reichstag, eventually leading to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933. That, combined with Hitler and company's staggering ability to propagandize led to the rise of the Nazi Party. The NSDAP found a way to channel one of humanity's greatest emotions - hatred and fear - into a political philosophy. Not "progressives". The word "progressive" doesn't even mean anything. |
| ||||
| Ironically, they are indirectly verifying that Reagan was right. Enemies cannot be contained, the must be defeated. Media matters is threatened by the fact that alternative viewpoints are provided on the Fox News Network. See when the message of media matters and the message of conservatives is put next to each other. The people will in large parts reject the media matters message. Hence, you have to shut down the other points of view. It's an effort in futility. There are so many other forums to disperse the information that the message will never be contained nor defeated. MediaMatters wouldn't exist if it wasn't for FOX. Freedom of speech is a two-way street. MediaMatters is allowed to voice their freedom of speech too. Puhleeze, peddle that bullshit to the farmer and quit trying to put a helping on my plate.
__________________ Account Closed 03-18-13 Admin, please delete account. |
| ||||
| Dude, I'm really not worried about coming across as clueless, since I do actually know what I'm talking about. You see, I studied history at a real school, not the Glenn Beck College of History. There were many factors that led to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany. A staggering defeat in WWI that crippled Germany economically and publicly. Germans were ashamed of the standing of their country at the time, a country that had been run into the ground by incompetant and weak leadership for the decades before. The German Workers Party took advantage of this by focusing on nationalism - basically the idea that Germans were superior humans, and the only reason everything was going badly were outside influences of weaker peoples (Jews, and Western Europe in general). The Weimar Republic was financially broken by the Treaty of Versailles, and in general very corrupt, decadent, and ineffectual. Germany suffered from hyperinflation, open warfare between paramilitary organizations from the far right and the far left, and staggering financial problems from the Treaty, which had ordered reparations of around 153 billion marks. The NSDAP (commonly referred to as the Nazi Party) grew out of the aforementioned German Workers Party, and came into power in the early 1930s by election to the horribly corrupt Reichstag, eventually leading to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933. That, combined with Hitler and company's staggering ability to propagandize led to the rise of the Nazi Party. The NSDAP found a way to channel one of humanity's greatest emotions - hatred and fear - into a political philosophy. Not "progressives". The word "progressive" doesn't even mean anything. In any case, your history lesson is sound. What you forgot to mention (and may not be aware of) is how, say, the Nazis were allowed to come to power in the first place. Fascism and socialism have common roots in central economic planning and the power of the state over the individual. That's what progressives believe. You see, they created the environment for the truly evil to come to power (like Hitler). It doesn't happen overnight and may take a generation to desensitize and prepare the general population for a takeover, but the inevitable outcome is nothing like what the progressives had hoped for. Look around. It's happening in the US now. May I suggest you read the works of Alexis de Tocqueville. We have history repeating itself and we are letting it happen. But you're completely wrong about your analysis. It did happen "overnight". The German people weren't "desensitized" to stronger government, they DEMANDED it. The Nazi Party took power based on the failures of the Weimar Republic, a small, non-statist, ineffectual government. |
| ||||
| The problem with you is that you do not want to see the truth. What's sad is that some people think, for example, the Germans were just inherently evil and that's the reason for Nazism. WRONG! They came to power because of central planning PROGRESSIVES! Learn your history, dude. It's not that hard and you won't come across as clueless. You see, I studied history at a real school, not the Glenn Beck College of History. There were many factors that led to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany. A staggering defeat in WWI that crippled Germany economically and publicly. Germans were ashamed of the standing of their country at the time, a country that had been run into the ground by incompetant and weak leadership for the decades before. The German Workers Party took advantage of this by focusing on nationalism - basically the idea that Germans were superior humans, and the only reason everything was going badly were outside influences of weaker peoples (Jews, and Western Europe in general). The Weimar Republic was financially broken by the Treaty of Versailles, and in general very corrupt, decadent, and ineffectual. Germany suffered from hyperinflation, open warfare between paramilitary organizations from the far right and the far left, and staggering financial problems from the Treaty, which had ordered reparations of around 153 billion marks. The NSDAP (commonly referred to as the Nazi Party) grew out of the aforementioned German Workers Party, and came into power in the early 1930s by election to the horribly corrupt Reichstag, eventually leading to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933. That, combined with Hitler and company's staggering ability to propagandize led to the rise of the Nazi Party. The NSDAP found a way to channel one of humanity's greatest emotions - hatred and fear - into a political philosophy. Not "progressives". The word "progressive" doesn't even mean anything. In any case, your history lesson is sound. What you forgot to mention (and may not be aware of) is how, say, the Nazis were allowed to come to power in the first place. Fascism and socialism have common roots in central economic planning and the power of the state over the individual. That's what progressives believe. You see, they created the environment for the truly evil to come to power (like Hitler). It doesn't happen overnight and may take a generation to desensitize and prepare the general population for a takeover, but the inevitable outcome is nothing like what the progressives had hoped for. Look around. It's happening in the US now. May I suggest you read the works of Alexis de Tocqueville. We have history repeating itself and we are letting it happen.
__________________ A WORKING PERSON VOTING FOR A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS IS LIKE A CHICKEN VOTING FOR COLONEL SANDERS |
| ||||
| The Avalon Project : Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV - Document No. 1708-PS While there are so-called "socialist" ideas on the list (in practice, it was corporatism), the focus was much more on Nationalism and blaming others for Germany's problems.
__________________ A WORKING PERSON VOTING FOR A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS IS LIKE A CHICKEN VOTING FOR COLONEL SANDERS |
| ||||
| Piers Morgan is political? Coulda fooled me. He's an excellent interviewer, with the same talent for asking the right questions to get the answers he wants. That's exactly what made Larry King great. Quote: Morgan was fired from the Mirror on 14 May 2004 after authorising the newspaper's publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.[19] Within days the photographs were shown to be crude fakes. Under the headline "SORRY.. WE WERE HOAXED", the Mirror responded that it had fallen victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and apologised for the publication of the photographs.[20] Nooooo... he's perfectly innocent and unbiased. So was Marla Mapes and Valerie Plame. Remind me. Was George Stuffitupyourass a member of Clinton's staff? Oh that's right... he was. Do you expect me to believe people like that become non-partisan too when they spent a life as political hacks?A regular British Dan Rather.
__________________ Account Closed 03-18-13 Admin, please delete account. Last edited by Big Fitz; 03-28-2011 at 11:17 AM. |
| The Following User Says Thank You to Big Fitz For This Useful Post: | ||
logical4u (03-28-2011) | ||
| ||||
| meh............they have like 17 employees............. nobody cares............
__________________ "The sword is an emblem of Islam. But Islam was born in an environment where the sword was, and still remains, the supreme law." ~Gandhi I drive a flex-fuel vehicle: burns rubber AND gas!!! |
| ||||
| Piers Morgan is political? Coulda fooled me. He's an excellent interviewer, with the same talent for asking the right questions to get the answers he wants. That's exactly what made Larry King great. Quote: Morgan was fired from the Mirror on 14 May 2004 after authorising the newspaper's publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.[19] Within days the photographs were shown to be crude fakes. Under the headline "SORRY.. WE WERE HOAXED", the Mirror responded that it had fallen victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and apologised for the publication of the photographs.[20] Nooooo... he's perfectly innocent and unbiased. So was Marla Mapes and Valerie Plame. Remind me. Was George Stuffitupyourass a member of Clinton's staff? Oh that's right... he was. Do you expect me to believe people like that become non-partisan too when they spent a life as political hacks?A regular British Dan Rather. I'd still suggest that Morgan is probably less biased than, say, Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, possible presidential candidates, who have been given their own shows on Fox. And George Stephanopoulos was replaced by Bill Clinton with <drumroll please> David Gergen, whom I believe was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan. Any other "comparisons" you'd like to make?
__________________ A WORKING PERSON VOTING FOR A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS IS LIKE A CHICKEN VOTING FOR COLONEL SANDERS |
| ||||
| Quote: Morgan was fired from the Mirror on 14 May 2004 after authorising the newspaper's publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.[19] Within days the photographs were shown to be crude fakes. Under the headline "SORRY.. WE WERE HOAXED", the Mirror responded that it had fallen victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and apologised for the publication of the photographs.[20] Nooooo... he's perfectly innocent and unbiased. So was Marla Mapes and Valerie Plame. Remind me. Was George Stuffitupyourass a member of Clinton's staff? Oh that's right... he was. Do you expect me to believe people like that become non-partisan too when they spent a life as political hacks?A regular British Dan Rather. I'd still suggest that Morgan is probably less biased than, say, Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, possible presidential candidates, who have been given their own shows on Fox. And George Stephanopoulos was replaced by Bill Clinton with <drumroll please> David Gergen, whom I believe was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan. Any other "comparisons" you'd like to make? Who on fox has been fired for perpetrating a hoax on another major paper or news outlet?
__________________ Account Closed 03-18-13 Admin, please delete account. |
![]() |
Lower Navigation
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|