Religious double standards in schools

[Hawkeye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by makeupnewbie another interesting article http://www.fareedzakaria.com/article...ek/071805.html

I think I finally found someone who will do their homework

and not base their opinions on the crowd. You are one of the few who have when I challenged them. I'm very impressed. The people I usually debate usually take the articles I give them then give me their opinion and not try to change my mind with articles etc. So good job.

Now can you give me some more in more broader perspectives like CNN, BBC, NPR, etc?

Quote:

These kinds of events will continue. There should be much, much greater condemnation from mainstream Islam. Moderates must adopt a zero-tolerance policy on terrorism, regardless of what they think of Iraq, Palestine or any other policy issue. But those clamoring for such condemnations should bear in mind that this will not solve the problem. Even if the moderates win and overwhelm the extremists, there will always be some number of unconverted jihadists, who either out of depravity or conviction seek to do evil. If 99.99 percent of the Arab world rejects terrorism, that still leaves 20,000 people to worry about. If 99.9 percent of the Muslim world is against the terrorists, there's 1 million people out there who are dangerous. And the technologies of destruction ensure that they will, on occasion, be successful.

First bold- exactly what I've been saying this entire thread

2nd bold- That 1 million will not be hard to conquer and quell if they band together.

But as long as the Muslim faith is so divided it will not be able to stand and ignore the view thats coming from the west.The two "worlds" must come together in order to help their fellow man who are being brutally opressed.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Protest? Sure. Riot? Probably not...in fact, no. They wouldn't. The movie Dogma comes to mind. There were no killings or riotings over that, IIRC. Just saying. There's a difference between "Protest" and "Lets all lose our shit and start firebombing and blowing things and people up."

Ab. So. Lute. Ly.


MAJOR religious leaders called for people to be KILLED over those cartoons. People rioted in the streets calling for "Death to Denmark" over those cartoons. And those aren't hyperbolic words. They literally want to kill people over those cartoons.

Print an "offensive" picture of Jesus and you might have one or two nutbags making threats, but it won't be LEADERS of major Christian sects and you won't see massive, violent riots in the streets. Civilized people understand the power of boycotts and other means of getting your point across instead of threats of violents.

 

[GalleyGirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 Ab. So. Lute. Ly. MAJOR religious leaders called for people to be KILLED over those cartoons. People rioted in the streets calling for "Death to Denmark" over those cartoons. And those aren't hyperbolic words. They literally want to kill people over those cartoons. Print an "offensive" picture of Jesus and you might have one or two nutbags making threats, but it won't be LEADERS of major Christian sects and you won't see massive, violent riots in the streets. Civilized people understand the power of boycotts and other means of getting your point across instead of threats of violents.

 

[Beauty Mark]

Quote:

as for my sources in history - Civil Rights Movement -The Holocost -The American Revolutionary war and another that came to mind: Ghandi.

My source was based off of other people I know, various immigrants or first generation in US people. Not exactly the best source to prove something, but it's what I based my argument off of.

 

[Hawkeye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beauty Mark My source was based off of other people I know, various immigrants or first generation in US people. Not exactly the best source to prove something, but it's what I based my argument off of.

????????

I was referring to another above post that I made.

 

[user79]

FoxNews can never seriously be used as reliable news source, it is pretty much common knowledge that they are like a mouthpiece of the conservative right and support Bush in pretty much everything he does and says. Fox news is government proppaganda, not much more. It is astonishing some of the people they have on their programs...

Even CNN is very skewed.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Everyone is skewed. Left or right. Not one single news organization reports the "news" without an agenda, unfortunately. That's why I read as many different outlets as I can, to see if I can figure out what might actually be the truth.

 

[Hawkeye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissChievous FoxNews can never seriously be used as reliable news source, it is pretty much common knowledge that they are like a mouthpiece of the conservative right and support Bush in pretty much everything he does and says. Fox news is government proppaganda, not much more. It is astonishing some of the people they have on their programs... Even CNN is very skewed.

I gave you several outlets did I not?

Is it really common knowledge or is it something the Liberal Winged Media just doesn't like to report? Just curious on that one. Obviously they are pretty reliable or one of the mouthpieces: Shepard Smith would not be one of the most trusted anchors in the U.S. It seems to me that this common knowledge is nothing but regurgitation of what is heard in one newsource.
** That was from an article I read in People Magazine, and followed up with Newsweek about 2 or 3 years ago-the other two were Ted Koppel and Peter Jennings I believe. Or maybe it was Dan Rather (and we all know how that turned out).
But they listed the most trusted names in TV News (and I'm trying the find the article) like Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather (before he showed the fradulent papers on Bush Jr) Ted Koppel etc and among the names were Shepard Smith.

I think people don't like Fox because they say things that may actually not follow the formula that whatever goes wrong anywhere in the world is George W. Bush's fault and actually covers different points of views that are not all liberally biased.

Now speaking of Skewed media outlets- let us think logically on this level-

CNN is skewed
BBC is skewed
Al-Jahzeera is Skewed
MSNBC is skewed
ABC is Skewed
FOX is Skewed (though I do find it to be more factual)
NPR is Skewed
The AP is Skewed

Everything follows an agenda. Every country. Every newsreport is following some agenda.

If one were to get their ideas stuck in one newsource (and I gave you plenty above so you can't say that I'm only using one) they would indeed be handicapped in getting the entire story, would they not?

So that is why I gave many news sources even one with a "conservative" bias so to speak.

As Ladybug indicated that she does- I will back up and say it is actually very very wise for her to do so and get her NEWS from all types of sources so she can come up with a fair and balanced perspective that is necessary to make decisions in both national and international affairs.

Prime example: This coming one regarding Iran and the British Soldiers.

If you listen strictly to the Iranian newstation they have accomplished a great task.

If you listen to strictly BBC news: This is a bad thing.

Where do you draw the line? Or is it so imparitive as it is for so many people to only listen to one thing and not ask questions?

even other newstations are beginning to see the sillyness of this:
Here is a newspaper article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...ation/45174222

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissChievous FoxNews can never seriously be used as reliable news source, it is pretty much common knowledge that they are like a mouthpiece of the conservative right and support Bush in pretty much everything he does and says. Fox news is government proppaganda, not much more. It is astonishing some of the people they have on their programs... Even CNN is very skewed.

But if they were consistently speaking against the conservative right would they be a reliable source?
Many of the sources who do speak against the conservative right, consistently, and act as a mouthpiece for the "liberal left" are lauded as true and correct, while Fox is maligned for being skewed.

 

[macslut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer But if they were consistently speaking against the conservative right would they be a reliable source? Many of the sources who do speak against the conservative right, consistently, and act as a mouthpiece for the "liberal left" are lauded as true and correct, while Fox is maligned for being skewed.

Fox is reliable. Those who say they are not (and these people are often invited as guests), can never give an example of the biased to the right. Usually these are people who never watch it. There are pundits who lean to the right...O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. But there are also the ones who lean to the left...Van Susturen (sp?), Colmes, etc. Alot of people get upset because they tend to blow everyone else out of the water. There is Fox and then everyone else. They also report news such as what is going well in Iraq and that upsets people because it doesn't match up with their views. CNNs pundits tend to lean to the left.

I have personally seen more heated debates on Fox than on any other news channel. I also know that they speak out against the administration on a regular basis.

 

[Beauty Mark]

I very rarely watched televised news, except local, because I find it all very sensationalized, unless you count The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. The flashy graphics that are mostly pointless annoy me; I just want to know what happened today. I don't like the idea of "personalities" and the idea of watching the news because so&so looks so hot. I cannot stand pundits of any party, and I hate those shows that have the "liberal" and "conservative" basically scream at each other.

The Wikipedia articles about the biases. I have other stuff to do tonight than look up other articles than on Wikipedia. I think all news is biased, but Fox bothers me more for the reasons listed on Wikipedia.

Fox
CNN
BBC
Al-jezeera
MSNBC

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by macslut Fox is reliable. Those who say they are not (and these people are often invited as guests), can never give an example of the biased to the right. Usually these are people who never watch it. There are pundits who lean to the right...O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. But there are also the ones who lean to the left...Van Susturen (sp?), Colmes, etc. Alot of people get upset because they tend to blow everyone else out of the water. There is Fox and then everyone else. They also report news such as what is going well in Iraq and that upsets people because it doesn't match up with their views. CNNs pundits tend to lean to the left. I have personally seen more heated debates on Fox than on any other news channel. I also know that they speak out against the administration on a regular basis.

I also often find that they report things that other news outlets never seem to mention. Today for example, I read that Hillary Clinton's campaign is going to pay for Tom Vilsack's campaign debt to the tune of $400,000. That's the same Tom Vilsack who just endorsed her. I didn't find that news story anywhere else and I read the news obsessively.

I find Fox to be reliable. I find most legit news orgs to be reliable. Reliable is different from slanted. I always read more than one source's take on the story to see if anything was left out in the reporting, but generally the major news sources are reliable. Unless it is the NY Times, who has serious egg on its face after this week, but that's a completely different story...

 

[Hawkeye]

One of the things that boortz did on his radio show (he's a talk show host): He BEGGED and I mean he pleaded with his listeners to give him ONE example of skewed news. Just one.

Nobody could come up with anything.

They called in and they gave him ideas but they were all opinions or viewpoints.

No news that was reported could be given that it was radically right winged or really even skewed to that.

That was just from his listeners though.

 

[Hawkeye]

The thing with Wikipedia is you have to take it with a grain of salt because anybody can go in there and put whatever information they deem important.

It's good to get a general idea but its not necessarily the best to rely on for a good understanding.

That being put out of the way-
I looked through that and it bascially is just saying what everyone else says.

I will be very upfront and saying- I hate Bill O'Reilly. He's horrible. He is opinion.
I hate Hannity and Colmes. They bore me. They are opinion.
Boortz (not FOX) I love him- he is opinion

And a lot of the things on wikipedia seems to be calling out the opinions and not the actual news and with the actual news it seems to be regurgitating even more what the democrats and anyone else who happens to disagree with their opinion paint it.

 

[Shimmer]

The good thing about wikipedia is the links provided at the end of the actual article in the citations.

 

[Beauty Mark]

And if you don't like what they're saying and have proof otherwise, you can go in there and change it.

To me, the pundits are a huge influence on how people view the news. A lot of people get their arguments and information from them. That's why I have a problem with pundits, when they blatantly manipulate facts or skew things so that people bend their way.

If Fox wanted to be the "conservative" take on the news and would own up it, just like how the New York Times or MSNBC (I think they're more liberal than CNN) should just own up to being the liberal take, it would be fine by me. As long as they print just the facts, I don't think it would be so bad if a station would come out and say that their news is going to have a focus on criticisms of the Bush admin, from a conservative or liberal point of view.

 

[Hawkeye]

Hey- I just found out I can remove and add thanks. Heh. New trick. Yes, I'm easily amused, I just thanked, removed thanks,thanked and removed thanks and then rethanked Shimmer. LOL That's fun. lol

Random thought of the day.
Quote:

If Fox wanted to be the "conservative" take on the news and would own up it, just like how the New York Times or MSNBC (I think they're more liberal than CNN) should just own up to being the liberal take, it would be fine by me. As long as they print just the facts, I don't think it would be so bad if a station would come out and say that their news is going to have a focus on criticisms of the Bush admin, from a conservative or liberal point of view.

That- I will agree on

 

[jerseygirl005]

this is why i'm anti-religion.

and fox news sucks

 

[user79]

Here are some facts on Fox News, to those crediting it as a reliable source. This information is from Wikipedia.
Quote:

CNN's Larry King said in a Jan. 17, 2007 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, "They're a Republican brand. They're an extension of the Republican Party with some exceptions, [like] Greta van Susteren. But I don't begrudge them that. [Fox CEO] Roger Ailes is an old friend. They've been nice to me. They've said some very nice things about me. Not [Bill] O'Reilly, but I don't watch him."[28] These issues and others are addressed in the 2004 documentary, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, by the self-described progressive political organization MoveOn.org. This documentary looks into the allegations of bias in Fox News reporting. In 2007, MSNBC Countdown anchor Keith Olbermann mocked them by first renaming the channel "Fox Nothing Channel", saying that they have nothing, then renamed it the next day as "Fox Noise Channel", in which he has used ever since. Writing for the Los Angeles Times, Republican and conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg admitted his belief that Fox News was biased: "Look, I think liberals have reasonable gripes with Fox News. It does lean to the right, primarily in its opinion programming but also in its story selection (which is fine by me) and elsewhere. But it's worth remembering that Fox is less a bastion of ideological conservatism and more a populist, tabloidy network."[29] On April 29, 2002, The New York Times ran an article entitled "At Fox News, the Colonel Who Wasn't" by Jim Rutenberg,[30] revealing that Joseph A. Cafasso, whom Fox had employed for four months as a Military and Counterterrorism Editor, had bogus military credentials. As with many news sources, Fox News executives exert a degree of editorial control over the content of their daily reporting. In the case of Fox News, some of this control comes in the form of daily memos issued by Fox News' Vice President of News, John Moody. Critics of Fox News cite these memos as evidence of a conservative bias in Fox News reporting, and claim that information in these memos duplicates Republican talking points.[31]

News programs should not have a blatant political agenda, and while - yes - many news outlets do have a bias, Fox's is quite blatant. I have seen many exerpts of Fox newsshows and they are, most of the time, blatant brainwashing tactics. It's good to have a lot of different sources, but when a whole news channel is so closely connected to a political party, that can hardly make for fair and neutral reporting.

I actually enjoy watching Fox news for entertainment value, it's crazy some of the stuff they come up with. Especially with regular appearances by that crazy bitch Ann Coulter, who they just seem to love.

 

[*Stargazer*]

While the Cafasso incident is problematic when dealing with a credibility issue, it isn't isolated to Fox. Hell, the Times themselves did something seriously questionable this past week by printing an article that they KNEW had a false source and then took a week to print a correction.