Jon Stewart rips apart Fox News, Bush and Kerry!!
Smart Ape supports http://shatnerhasbeen.com - in stores October 5
And Bill O'Reilly is such a douchebag. You should have just held Bush's hand throughout that
interview.
DAMN YOU SMART PEOPLE!!
--
--- "Damn dirty fleas..."
--- "Ever notice that at the start of a cartoon, Casper has no friends, and at the end, he has
some? Yet, in the next cartoon, he's friendless again. I think Casper is a
soul-sucking-vampire-ghost."
--- RSPW's #1 Simian and one half of the 2004's crop of rookies to be eye catchers
Sean Walsh
wrote:
> God, he just showed us why Kerry is gonna get eaten alive by Bush.
> And Bill O'Reilly is such a douchebag. You should have just held
Bush's hand throughout that
> interview.
> DAMN YOU SMART PEOPLE!!
I dunno...........the fact that a comedy news show gets more acclaim
than the real serious ones kinda says something about our society these
days, don't it?
--
Sean
Butters
"Sean Walsh" <mad...@comicboards.com> wrote in message
news:1096547799....@h37g2000oda.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, it says that "real" news networks need to quit pushing their agendas.
Fox has one, CNN has one, Rather has one, O' Reilly has one, etc. The news
networks are shills. If you want real news, use the various sources on the
net.
Krusty
> Yeah, it says that "real" news networks need to quit pushing their
> agendas.
> Fox has one, CNN has one, Rather has one, O' Reilly has one, etc. The news
> networks are shills. If you want real news, use the various sources on the
> net.
Rubbish. Changing the medium doesn't change the bias.
Lord Hatred
"Krusty" <rspwk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not at all. There are outlets in all media that are less controlled than
the major channels (n. tv) but they are rare and usually don't last as
long.
Krusty
> Not at all. There are outlets in all media that are less controlled than
> the major channels (n. tv) but they are rare and usually don't last as
> long.
I don't understand what this sentence means.
Lord Hatred
"Krusty" <rspwk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Little Engines that could report without corporate and/or government
bias usually can't for very long. This can be radio, newspaper,
magazine, tv -- whatever channel that could be used.
the Bede
"Krusty" <rspwk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cjh9de$3n13$1...@news3.infoave.net...
eliminate the existence of bias in general. the secret is to pay attention
to multiple and differing sources, so you can learn to tune the biases out.
If all you do is pay attention to people who parrot each other (FauxSnooze +
Rush, for example), that's when you start to mistake Bias for Reality.
the Bede
/:-)>
strokes it to Kristi Paul on CNNHN every morning
Krusty
> "Krusty" <rspwk...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>> "Butters" <but...@butters.com> wrote
>> > Yeah, it says that "real" news networks need to quit pushing their
>> > agendas.
>> > Fox has one, CNN has one, Rather has one, O' Reilly has one, etc. The
> news
>> > networks are shills. If you want real news, use the various sources on
> the
>> > net.
>>
>> Rubbish. Changing the medium doesn't change the bias.
>>
> to be more accurate, it does change the specific biases, but it doesn't
> eliminate the existence of bias in general. the secret is to pay
> attention
> to multiple and differing sources, so you can learn to tune the biases
> out.
> If all you do is pay attention to people who parrot each other (FauxSnooze
> +
> Rush, for example), that's when you start to mistake Bias for Reality.
What does that mean, "it does change the specific biases, but it doesn't
eliminate the existence of bias in general"? That makes no sense either.
What I'm simply saying is, if you say to yourself, "TV is biased and they
all have agendas, so I'm going to avoid that by reading the net" you're
borderline retarded. Just because it's not TV doesn't mean it's not JUST as
biased if not MORE biased with even MORE of an agenda. What, you're going to
get your arab news from the al-jazeera website instead of fox news? You
think that an aggregate news source (news.google.com) is somehow magically
less biased because it's just "more news"? It's just a collection of varied
agendas collected under similar subject matter. That's all. You can google
news search for "George Bush" and find whatever you *want* to find. You can
find articles saying he's the greatest thing since sliced bread or you can
find articles saying he's the antichrist incarnate. Somehow attaching more
credibility to something and operating under the assumption that there's
somehow "less agenda pushing" when you simply switch from one medium to
another is just patently ridiculous.
DaveNOSPAM
> Yeah, it says that "real" news networks need to quit pushing their agendas.
> Fox has one, CNN has one, Rather has one, O' Reilly has one, etc. The news
> networks are shills. If you want real news, use the various sources on the
> net.
YGBFKM.**
**You Gotta Be Fuckin Kiddin' Me
Dave
Araxen
> And Bill O'Reilly is such a douchebag. You should have just held Bush's hand throughout that
> interview.
> DAMN YOU SMART PEOPLE!!
I was kind of surprised at O'Reilly(Yeah, I'm an idiot). For all the
bitching O'Reilly has done about the illegal immigrants he basically got
on his knee's and shined Bush's knob.
Krusty
> Little Engines that could report without corporate and/or government
> bias usually can't for very long. This can be radio, newspaper,
> magazine, tv -- whatever channel that could be used.
Wait...so there's Engines? I'm lost. What's this thread about again?
Lord Hatred
"Krusty" <rspwkrusty_spamblock@.yahoo.com> wrote:
Porn. What else?