Jump to content

h3llfish

Members
  • Posts

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by h3llfish

  1. You have yet to see that? You didn't watch the clip that I linked to in the first post of this thread then, where Dick Morris says on Fox "we are establishing literally a command center for terrorism at the 9/11 site". It's about 2:13 or so into the video, if you care to see it. I forget, how much did we bet on that? I'll expect it in the mail! No, Yahoo's John Cook did not get his information from John Stewart. He got it from Rupert Murdoch. Check out this quote: That fact was not in Stewart's segment. It was, however, reported in Rupert Murdock's own newspaper, the New York Post. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/short_on_3UhQftAjXfFZq1fNURK3BM You really got your facts wrong in your rush to bash Stewart. The fact is, Fox is at odds with itself here. On the one hand, they love Muslim money. On the other hand, they're in the business of demonizing Muslims, because their viewers like it. It's a problem for them.
  2. Let's examine this idea: nothing is powered without an intelligent source behind it. So if for human beings, that intelligent source is a supernatural being, then my question to you is, what is the intelligent source behind him? In a way, you've answered nothing by saying that the universe was intelligently designed, because that immediately raises the question of who designed the designer. You can say that you believe there is a god just because you believe it. Nothing wrong with that, and no one can prove you wrong. But you can't say that you have any evidence of the existence of god. Hawking, on the other hand, believes that he has scientific evidence that the universe could have come into being without any supernatural help. I'm not smart enough to understand his theories, to be quite honest. He's pretty good at explaining things in layman's terms, so you have some inkling what he's talking about, but really, when it comes to the math behind his theories, forget about it. I'm lost on page 1, and I suspect that's true for everyone in this forum. So arguing the science with him is for people other than me.
  3. I agree with the general consensus that it was a pretty good speech, but not great. He said what needed to be said... we're moving into a new phase, but it's not "over". He came across as confident and presidential. He didn't quite nail it the way that some of the better speakers who held the office might have. I'm not a huge Reagan fan, but he was great at these televised speeches.
  4. Here's a clip where Glenn Beck talks about Park51 for over 10 minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNGwZ0zfPhs His whole point is that Feisal Abdul Rauf (the main driving force behind the center) is a bad guy, because he's involved with bad organizations that are terrorist. Well, the 7% owner of Fox gave Feisal a half million bucks (at least, that's just what we know of), so they are part of Glenn's web of crazy too. So by Beck's logic, to watch Fox is to support terror.
  5. Oh man, Erin Grey! That reminds me of another woman I was into in the early 80's (when I was about 12): Suzanne Sommers
  6. I still remember how happy I was when my family got our first VCR. Our first movie? Star Wars, of course! I had seen it 2 or 3 times in the theater, but then didn't get to see it again until 83 or so. Wild. As far as cell phones, there's one thing I really don't miss about the old days. Remember when you agreed to meet someone someplace at some time, and they just plain didn't show? You were just left sitting there like a nincompoop. Nowadays, you call the person up, and they tell you what the heck happened. You adjust plans on the fly constantly. Back then... you were just in the wilderness. And the caller ID... oh man. Now I can tell if it's call I don't want to take. But, I do worry about the kids these days who grow up with a total lack of freedom. Their parents know where they are and what they are doing at all times. I used to just take the heck off at 10 AM on a summer morn, and my parents could expect to see me sometime before dark. It was sweet. It was also a lot cheaper to live. No cell phone means no cell phone bill. Same with cable TV. And medical expenses were a lot lower. You didn't go get some fancy MRI... there was no such thing. Now, there's just a lot more fancy and expensive stuff that I don't get to use. All in all, I'll take today. But "the day" did have some advantages, for sure...
  7. Oh man... this brings back some memories. I pretty much was those kids from about 1985-87. In those days, I did not have a great opinion of law enforcement. But a couple of years later, by the time high school was over, I realized that most cops were good people, who were doing their best in one of the world's most unforgiving jobs. I think that the proliferation of video cameras has been a good thing. It makes it a lot easier to expose the few bad apples. Fascinating that the cop brings up the kid's father so fast. I always suspected that the cops who seem to get off on pushing people around must have had an overly authoritarian father-figure... they learned that behavior somewhere. Too bad this officer couldn't work out his daddy issues on his own time.
  8. I think the issue is relevant, because several of the people interviewed at the Beck rally mentioned this issue. It's one of the most talked about issues on Foxnews right now. It shouldn't be. We face far larger problems. But this is the agenda that Beck and Foxnews have set. It's funny how so many conservatives have asked for "sensitivity" regarding the placement of the ground zero mosque, and yet when Beck was accused of insensitivity for the timing and placement of his rally, his reply was "I'll move down two steps". Sensitivity goes both ways, Mr. Beck. You have to give it to get it.
  9. Sorry, I must have missed that post. But obviously, I agree with your point there.
  10. Yeah, the Stewart video was in the link I provided, so it's hardly a secret. I guess you didn't look at my link. I never suggested that Fox should prevent anyone from investing. My point (and Stewart's), which you seem to have missed, was that the hysteria regarding the mosque is nonsense. Fox is promoting that hysteria, and it's irresponsible, and un-American.
  11. The stimulus package is sorta different from the bailouts. Let's talk bailouts for a second. Even most of the GOP supported the bailouts. It's insanity, really. If you've ever seen Michael Moore's "Capitalism: a love story", the main point of the movie is that we don't really have a capitalist society now. We have one where the wealthy make the profits when the big financial institutions do well, but the ordinary people take the losses, in the form of loaning these massive banks money interest-free. It's a perfect system for the wealthy - neither true capitalism nor communism. But the horrible choice that Bush and Obama both faced was to either bailout these entities, or go down in history as the chump who let another depression happen. As soon as the whole "too big to fail" notion became conventional wisdom, we guaranteed more failures. They're simply a very good deal for the banks. The problem with all of this is that we are incentivizing risk. Why shouldn't the banks take on a bunch of risky mortgages? If they fail, the government will just bail them out. In other words, the very same people who lost their homes will pay to rescue the company that gave them the sketchy loan in the first place, through their taxes. And people like me, who can't even afford a mortgage, pay as well. Insanity. I truly have to wonder if a second great depression wasn't actually the right thing to do. It would have been truly awful, and many innocent people would have suffered. But wouldn't we have emerged 10 years later as a stronger country, with balanced books? Maybe. It's a truly terrible thing to contemplate, and I don't envy Barry or Dubya for having the job. Your thoughts, Mr. Dragon?
  12. You're correct that the war in Iraq is not the biggest expenditure that we have. But to compare the war in Iraq with Medicare is preposterous in my view. Medicare is funded by FICA taxes. In other words, those payments are going to people who paid into the system for decades. They aren't getting free money. It's funny, but all of these Tea Party grandmothers who hate socialism and "Comrade Obama" so much are still taking advantage of Medicare, aren't they? Why doesn't the GOP stick to their free market principals and suggest that we repeal Medicare? The answer is simple: they'd lose the senior citizen vote in a hurry! So we have the current hypocrisy where medical care for a person who is working age is communism, but medical care for a senior is a god-given civil right. I have the same concerns about Medicare that you do (If I understand you correctly). What if I pay into this system my whole life, and then it goes bankrupt before I turn 65? It's a scary thought, without a doubt. We talk about class warfare sometimes in this forum, but we don't talk about generational warfare much. But there's a real clash coming, I think, over Medicare and Social Security. And it might get ugly.
  13. Interesting stuff. I appreciate getting your point of view. It sounds like you belong to a really nice church.
  14. Great comment. In my experience the critics are the ones who can't (or won't) differentiate between news and opinion. Commenting on the news is one thing. All the news outlets do that. But Beck and Fox take it a step further. They are not just commenting on the news. They are making news. That's why I think it was appropriate for Chris Mathews to comment on the event. As much as you guys all dislike Olbermann, he's not out there hosting massive rallies, is he?
  15. Was that rally sponsored by Fox, or was Fox affiliated with it in anyway, or was it just Beck's deal? If Fox is allowing Beck to talk about it nonstop on their network, then I'd say it was sponsored by Fox. That's a lot of free air time.
  16. You can be done with it, if you like. No one is forcing you to talk about anything, or read anything. I just thought I'd bring up this Saudi prince as a way of pointing out that a lot of the hysteria surrounding this building is pretty silly. If this guy is a good enough investor for Rupert, I think he must not be too bad.
  17. Yeah, there is something narcissistic about the media talking about itself. But when you start holding rallies, you're not analyzing the news anymore, you're making the news. Foxnews is not a news organization, it is a political organization.
  18. George W. Bush's policies. He was president for the 7 years right before this catastrophe, and his party ran congress for 6 of those 7. Are you suggesting that Obama should have magically fixed the biggest economic mess in a generation in less than 2 years? It took a lot more than 2 years to make the mess. It will take longer to dig out of it as well.
  19. So did you all catch this wacky bit of news? Fox has spent a lot of air time talking about the so-called ground zero mosque, and how it is funded by some shady people. It turns out, Fox has one of the very same investors. This fella by the name of Al-Waleed bin Talal ( a Saudi prince) has given over 300 grand to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the guy who is the principal architect of the mosque. This same prince Al-Waleed is also owner of 7 % of Fox (which makes him the number 2 shareholder). So if the new mosque is "funded by terror", then so is Fox. It's a complex web of money, but you can read about it here if you care to: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner That's the prince on the far left there, and then his good buddy and business partner Rupert Murdock in the middle. So are we supposed to be scared of the Muslims, or do business with them, Fox? What do you guys think?
  20. Only the left calls him a douch which he isn't. Well, I'm certainly not on the left, and I agree with the sentiment. Like I've said before, he plays on people's fears and paranoias and tells half-truths to make his points. He's like the right's version of Michael Moore. That's a pretty good comparison, I think. They're both pretty smug, and they both love to push emotional buttons. They also are both at their best when they don't take themselves too seriously.
  21. That's a pretty BOLD statement to make and pretty absurd to make in the first place. You assume to KNOW exactly what MLK would think if alive still today? Pleeeeez! It's bold to say that a man who stood for peace every day of his life would continue to stand for peace? No. All I've done is assume that he would continue to be the same man he was. Can you present even a shred of evidence that he would have changed his entire philosophy and supported the war in Iraq? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez! Given the history of violence by Islamic terrorist since MLK was assassinated, I don't think it's such a foregone conclusion as you'd like to think it is. Not to mention your little remark about how he wouldn't have anything to do with the Tea Party. You tossed in an awful lot of assumptions there, and yet you only come back at me about Iraq? PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!! ZZ ZZ!! There, I said it louder and BIGGER! What's that got to do with him not having anything to do with the Tea Party? The war in Iraq is not a Republican thing, it was a resounding YES vote from the majority of Washington. It's still going on under Obama and so I fail to see all these dots you're trying to connect to Republicans that would make your case for MLK not being one today if alive? I'm not even going to address this silly notion that the war in Iraq is not a Republican thing. As for the Tea Party, you ignored my comment that King was in Memphis to support striking sanitation workers. He had extensive ties to the unions. So that's compatible with the Tea Party to you? That's compatible with the modern Republican party?
  22. If it pays that kind of money, I will turn on BET right now and go buy all the newest rap CD's I can find! Gotta do research for the job. @smilepunch@ Yeah, but the downside is, you have to wear ridiculously baggy clothes and lots of tacky "bling" to the interview, or you have no chance of getting hired. But you would get to write those off on your taxes...
  23. Do you have a list of who voted for and agaisnt it, so we can match up what states they represented, to confirm this claim of yours? I do not have a complete list, and if you can find one, I'd be interested in seeing it. My claim is based on this table from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-10 It's not clear what the source of the table is, however. There is this quote from an article on congresslink.org: http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm And then there's a quote in this article that has LBJ (not LeBron James, the original) saying "We've only got 150 Democrats; the rest of them are southerners." http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act-2.html So in other words, I think I've got pretty solid evidence that it was only the Southern Dems who were against the bill. What I don't have is any proof that only Southern Republicans also opposed it - we just know that there were a few Republicans who voted against it. But it's clear that the record of Democrats on civil rights before 1964 was bad. Democrats changed their minds on the issue once it became clear that the American public had changed their minds. But isn't that how it's supposed to be? We elect them to represent us, and enforce our will. That's a pretty BOLD statement to make and pretty absurd to make in the first place. You assume to KNOW exactly what MLK would think if alive still today? Pleeeeez! It's bold to say that a man who stood for peace every day of his life would continue to stand for peace? No. All I've done is assume that he would continue to be the same man he was. Can you present even a shred of evidence that he would have changed his entire philosophy and supported the war in Iraq? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez! I doubt it. "Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time." "Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." "Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." - Martin Luther King, Jr. So you're telling me, with a straight face, that the guy who said the quotes above would have supported a unilateral war of aggression? Are you joking? Seriously, even you can't believe that is true. He was a man of peace.
  24. Kind of a different scenario bucko. 9/11 was an attack on our country by a terrorist organization based outside of the US. This was one citizen who allegedly targeted another citizen because of his faith. Congratulations on entirely missing my point, bucko. Were they not both crimes that featured religion as the primary motivating factor? Were they not both murders against total strangers for no other reason than to cause fear amongst a population? Obviously, the scale was vastly different, but that's not what we're talking about here. I'm not defending any terrorists. I'm asking this question: if the 9/11 hijackers are in a special category of crime, then why does this kid not also belong in that category? Because in his case, it was a Muslim getting attacked? In other words, what I'm asking is, isn't this drunken kid a terrorist? Why or why not, bucko?
  25. You know, it's funny how people value one crime above another. To many Americans, if not most, 9/11 was no ordinary crime. It goes in a special category, because it wasn't just an act of murder against thousands of people, but also a declaration of war against the whole US. People who support hate crime laws are essentially making the same argument. They would argue that by making it clear that he was stabbing this person because he was a Muslim, this kid was committing an act of terror against the whole Muslim community. My opinion is that you can't have it both ways. Either a crime is a crime, and only the results matter, and not the motives, or else we must consider the larger motives in all crimes. Anyone else see a little hypocrisy there?
×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE