Not to derail your argument here, but if you believe in intellectual honesty, isn't your signature a bit dishonest. Fox News did not make that donation. The parent company of Fox News made the donation. Its the same concept as a conservative pointing out Lincoln was a Republican. Now I'm not saying there isn't a slant on that station or any others, but saying the FoxNews Corporation made that donation is not intellectually honest.
not at all, the owner of the parent company made that decision, the same guy who owns and decides which direction fox news goes in (slant), i dont see any separation in philosophy at all, therefore its all relative. Also the signature is a copy from an AP article that I read. And your analogy is pretty bad as far as lincoln goes.
Rupert owns a lot of companies. He also threw a fund raiser for Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign, and is credited with influencing the NY Post endorsement of Barack Obama for President. Even though FOX does lean to the right, they did not donate money to fund republican governors. Newscorp did. And while they did not give as much to democrats, they did give to democrats also.
I laugh at dumbasses who give Fox News no credibilty. They beat up on all other cable news shows because they tell the truth. Most people realize that. Mastermind hates them because they don't kiss Obama's ass and LaSalle hates them because...well, LaSalle just does what he's told.
They tell the truth just as much as the government. Which isn't often. News Channels are nothing more than entertainment anymore.
So the AP article is intellectually dishonest, or you took what you wanted out of it to try and make a point. Either way, I know you're smarter than that based on most of your posts being well thought out. You just stated that you like people to be intellectually honest and yet you have a quote that is clearly a lie or has been taken out of context because the entire quote was not used. Either way, you're making a statement, passing it off as fact, when it has proven not to be fact, and using it to try and make your argument stronger. And I guess my analogy wouldn't be totally correct, since the person stating Lincoln was a republican is a fact, and your quote is not a fact. All I'm saying is maybe you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.
Like i said its all relative, Fox news is a spin machine for the republican party, there is a small amount of actual news that comes out of that medium. So when the owner of the parent company and fox news donates that kind of money to a partisan group, which aligns with what kind of product they put out. I dont call that fair and balanced, and I didnt create the tagline. Also, I changed the signature, see the connection now, since you couldnt earlier?
Your comment is really stupid, I didnt like Foxnews from their inception, since 2004, they have always been a republican spin machine. It has nothing to do with Obama they were shoveling shyt before Obama was a national name, you're obessed with Obama, not me, I bet you say his name at least 10 times a day. But when you have nothing else or wont tell the truth, you throw that at me as usual. Hey Okie, shouldnt calling someone a dumbass receive an infraction... oh nevermind... look who it is.
This is a HUGE deal! The US military defeated (for all practical purposes) a full-blown insurgency in the dead center of the Middle East. The worldwide terror network has been devastated because of what we did in Iraq. The fighters came from all over the world and set up shop in Iraq, and we beat them. And everyone knows that not everything was perfect. Rumsfeld and the Pentagon had just about no plan for what would happen after we took down Saddam's government, and they even rebuffed generals who raised the issue. After the Blackwater contractors were hanged and mutilated at the Brooklyn Bridge, Bush ordered the Marines to invade Fallujah in April 2004 against the advice of Marine commanders; the Marines later retreated from the city before finally taking it that November. And Bremer's call to disband the original Iraqi Army was one of the most catastrophic decisions of the war. But the US military was able to come up with an entirely new counterinsurgency strategy on the fly so that we didn't have a repeat of Vietnam, where we were driven out and defeated. I know plenty of people hate Bush and hate the reasons we went to war in Iraq, but give credit where credit is due. He could've withdrawn when just about every Democrat and some Republicans were screaming for us to quit during about, oh, 2004-2008. But he stuck with it, he appointed General Petraeus and let him do his thing, and with a few exceptions, Iraq is now largely peaceful. It may not be as democratic as the US, but like others have already said, that part of the world is different than ours. People over there still have the same basic, innate yearning to be free to live their own lives and raise their families, but the cultural differences make it so that they may not want American-style republicanism. I really hope Obama makes a big deal out of this, because it is a big deal. Can you imagine what the region would be like had we left the country when things were really bad there? He may make a speech on it when that August 31 date hits, but he's gonna lose the only cool points he has with me (national security) if he just lets this event pass by with barely any mention. I hope he parachutes onto an aircraft carrier with a knife in his teeth, towing a Mission Accomplished banner behind him. That's what Bush did that one time, right? The US military completed the major missions that were put before them. They defeated Saddam, they defeated the unexpected insurgency to near nothing, and they created a government, a police force, and a national army that is able to stand on its own without us having to hold their hands and wipe their arses. Hell yes this is a big deal.
