Originally
posted by
Khavic25:
FOX News is just like every other "News" agency out there. All news agencies are out for ratings. Plain and simple the air what draws people to the broadcast. They all pick and choose their stories to feed their viewers what they want to see.
Al Qaeda were dancing in the streets when Obama was elected. You infer that the politician was talking about streets in the US.
Obama standing with Calderon and bashing the laws of a state is worse by far than anything any other politician could say. Saying openly in a speech that Mexican nationals in Arizona were going to be profiled. Nancy Pelosi saying that Republicans wanted to kill old people because they opposed the Obama health care plan. All fear mongering done by the libs.
I concur that both parties exaggerate their point of view. The libs piss me off because they seek to divide the populace and move the US toward a socialist society and I do not want that. The conservatives try to unite the populace and maintain individual rights.
i'm just quoting the parts i'm going to respond to, so forgive my selective quoting. i fully agree on fox. they're no different than msnbc, except that they're more successful at getting their message across. it's like the difference between a mastermind criminal or a bumbling idiot criminal. msnbc does a crappy job at getting a united message across for a variety of reasons. fox does a great job. they're both trying to do the same thing, but only one of them is really successful, and only one of them uses a tagline like "fair and balanced." between that and my liberal bias, i have less of a problem with msnbc (although i don't particularly like them either, because i still see them as part of the problem)
Al Qaeda is in far worse shape now than when Obama took office. the death of osama bin laden, the arab spring, and the fact that the current president is much harder for al qaeda to demonize all weaken their stance. i'm not claiming obama was the reason for the arab spring, of course, but al qaeda is not better off because obama was elected and to say what that politician said was implying that obama was basically going to aid or ignore the terrorists that were interested in attacking us. i had a similar discussion with a former colleague of mine concerning a catholic bishop comparing obama to hitler. there are certain comparisons that you can't make, later implying that nuance was expected there. when you liken someone to a terrorist or to hitler in any way, shape or form, you are intending to make that attack. no one says: "man, this guy is a great speaker, just like adolf hitler!" or "man, this guy's followers sure are devoted to him, just like osama bin laden!" nuance is okay if you're using a far less evil figure, but those comparisons are never appropriate to make unless you intend to stand behind the implications of the name you're bringing up.
i don't remember pelosi saying your quote, but i'll believe it, but don't pretend your side of the argument is innocent. fox news and many republican politicians made claims that the obama health care plan would institute death panels to decide whether old people got to live or die. that's exactly the same thing you're saying pelosi said.
lastly, the republicans try to divide just as much as the democrats do. much of what the bush/cheney administration did was a "you're either with us or you're helping the terrorists" type of attitude. also, it's been the republican party that has been the party of "no" recently, opting to obstruct every major issue that the president wanted to work on rather than work with him. also, the rhetoric of most of the presidential candidates and of notable figures like sarah palin are always about how obama is an extreme socialist or a muslim or a foreigner. this is divisive language just as much as anything that many of the democrats do.
neither party is trying to unite. neither party is trying to protect individual freedoms. individuals within the parties might be trying to unite (i would argue that pres. obama, although unsuccessful at doing so, has done virtually everything in his power to unite), and each party is trying to protect CERTAIN individual freedoms.
afterall, the ACLU, generally considered a very liberal organization, is entirely devoted to protecting individual freedoms, but i doubt they take a lot of gun control cases. meanwhile, republicans are all about the 2nd amendment, but the patriot act is hardly a defense of individual liberties, and that was primarily a republican-sponsored bill.