From: Savageduck on
On 2010-04-10 11:19:39 -0700, Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> said:

> In article <2010041006424531729-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Commandment #9/8 (depending on version) "Thou shall not bear false
>> witness. " I give you the Salem Witch Trials, and Fox News.
>
> I was quite enjoying this outrageously off-topic post...
>
> ..but now I need a new keyboard!
>
> Witch trials and Fox News? Perfect pairing!

Well, I thought it was an apt analogy.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010041011005078840-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-04-10 08:55:07 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010041006424531729-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-04-09 23:35:17 -0700, AnOvercomer <ibclh(a)live.com> said:
>>>
>>
>> [ . . . ]
>>>>
>>>> The ten commandments are about loving God and your neighbor, they are
>>>> not unreasonable and this world would be a much better place if
>>>> everyone followed them but instead we have chaos.
>>>
>>> ...and just how many atheists are, or ever have been engaged in wars
>>> motivated by faith, or have advocated the annihilation of one religion,
>>> denomination, or sect by another?
>>>
>>> Let's see, we have the "Children of Israel" at war with those idol
>>> worshiping Philistines, (I guess that was an alibi for what was really a
>>> territorial war)
>>
>> And those "Children of Israel" are really for the most part children of
>> the
>> Khazars, who were not Semites, not from that part of the world, only
>> became
>> Jewish in the eighth century A.D. and have no relation whatever to the
>> children of Abraham -- if there ever really even was an Abraham, which is
>> now questioned by Israeli researchers.
>>
>>> Then we have the Crusades, and their motivation. There are the European
>>> religious wars, The Eighty Years War, The Thirty Years War, justifying
>>> the
>>> lust for political power through different interpretations of
>>> Christianity. That was never resolved, as those wars are still clearly
>>> being fought in one way or another by the Irish. Papists & "Orange men"
>>> indeed.
>>> Those "turn the other cheek" Christians, never seemed to perfect that
>>> philosophy.
>>> In modern times we have witnessed the genocide against the Armenians,
>>> Pogroms and the holocaust perpetrated by "good" God fearing, Ten
>>> Commandment following, Christians.
>>>
>>>
>>> We have followers of Islam pissed off at the World.
>>> The Ethnic and religious "cleansing" in the Balkans, by both sides.
>>> The Kurds don't seem to meet anybody's approval.
>>> Some loving god!
>>> The followers of Islam, regardless of prejudicial misunderstanding of
>>> their religion, have their share of responsibility for the past and
>>> current slaughter. Those Moguls did their thing on the Indian
>>> Sub-Continent, and we have the current conflict with radical Islamic
>>> groups.
>>>
>>> Let's just examine those 10 commandments and see just how relevant the
>>> actually are, and just how much they have been followed by the leaders
>>> and
>>> followers of the Judeo-Christian religions?
>>>
>>> First which version of these "Laws of Moses" were you proposing we
>>> follow
>>> on our journey out of chaos?
>>>
>>> To save too much confusion and interpretation let's just keep to the
>>> usual
>>> suspects.
>>> Commandments #1, #2, & #3, do nothing more than establish the alleged
>>> formulator of these laws as a monopolistic tyrant, who intends to hold
>>> its
>>> followers in total subjugation. You might not this ego maniac doesn't
>>> deny
>>> the possibility of the existence of other gods, just that those gods
>>> shouldn't get a share of the business. Makes you think about how the
>>> anti-trust laws might apply here.
>>>
>>
>> <several commandments skipped in the interests of saving space, with no
>> disagreement whatever>
>>
>>>
>>> Commandment #9/8 (depending on version) "Thou shall not bear false
>>> witness. " I give you the Salem Witch Trials, and Fox News.
>>>
>>> Commandment #9/10 This one covers all the "coveting" issues, wives,
>>> slaves, oxen, sheep, D3s, etc. I wonder how this works with things such
>>> as market share, Oil fields, vote.
>>
>> For the most part that's all well and truly said, though you certainly
>> fell
>> off the sidewalk with Fox News.
>
> I don't know about "falling off the sidewalk with Fox News." It is just
> there are certain individuals in the limelight at Fox who are not above
> twisting the truth to their very distorted ends. In some instances they
> pander to the ignorance of a very gullible audience,

Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately the Fox News evening shows, where all
their top-rated stars are, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and others, are
certainly not the best examples of news commentary and (to their small
credit) don't even pretend to be much about serious reportage. Their earlier
shows, while still partly devoted to commentary, are of much better quality
though they don't get the huge ratings. I hope that's just because evening
shows of this type generally do better at ratings.

I do sometimes watch O'Reilly because his guests are often very good, but
O'Reilly himself I regard as just a self-promoting blowhard.

> one such faithful Fox audience member (not you) is a frequent contributer
> to these NG's

Ah. That I wasn't aware of.

>
>> But then it slipped my mind that you are a
>> leftist-"liberal" -- you show such good sense in other areas it's hard
>> for
>> me to keep that in mind.
>
> I consider myself to be a centrist, I lean to the left on social issues,
> to the right on fiscal issues, and I have seen the best and worst of crime
> & Law enforcement, leading me to be fair and mostly unbiased as an
> investigator.
> ...and I was brought up with guns, which I feel have been unfairly blamed
> for the actions of criminals. I can only agree that some degree of control
> needs to be implemented, but not the unreasonable knee jerk reaction we
> see from those with little understanding of our gun culture.

Then we're eye to eye on that. For some reason I thought you considered
yourself a "liberal" (in the odd way that term is used nowadays in this
country). My apologies.

>
>>
>> How you can not like a network with Megyn Kelly, Carl Cameron, Steve
>> Doocy,
>> Margaret Hoover, Martha McCollum, Jane Skinner, et al., is more than I
>> can
>> understand. (I'll grant you a couple of the more prominent guys there are
>> annoying, but I suppose that's "fair and balanced" for you.)
>
> Regardless of the Murdockian claims of "fair & balanced." I find the
> actual tilt to the right to be unashamedly unbalanced to the point they
> maintain a circular trajectory.

Depends on whom you're watching. Hannity of course is 100% biased in favor
of the right and is an excellent source of hot air, if anyone needs that.
O'Reilly is somewhat unpredictable but generally on the right, I think
really devoted more to his own importance than to any political ideology.
Beck I very rarely watch because I can't stand his perpetual mugging, but
apparently he's way over on the right.

Those who are on earlier in the day, Neil Cavuto, Carl Cameron, etc., and a
few Fox News daytime regulars that sometimes appear on O'Reilly, such as
Megyn Kelly and Jane Skinner, I think are very fair, very sharp and worth
watching. Now I think they ARE conservative, maybe all of them are (some
don't openly take any political stance), but not far-right types. Since I am
mainly conservative (but emphatically not neocon), I like them. I think you
probably would too.


From: Neil Harrington on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:lI-dneny1OMWvVzWnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2010041011005078840-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-04-10 08:55:07 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:

[ . . . ]

>>
>> I consider myself to be a centrist, I lean to the left on social issues,
>> to the right on fiscal issues, and I have seen the best and worst of
>> crime & Law enforcement, leading me to be fair and mostly unbiased as an
>> investigator.
>> ...and I was brought up with guns, which I feel have been unfairly blamed
>> for the actions of criminals. I can only agree that some degree of
>> control needs to be implemented, but not the unreasonable knee jerk
>> reaction we see from those with little understanding of our gun culture.
>
> Then we're eye to eye on that. For some reason I thought you considered
> yourself a "liberal" (in the odd way that term is used nowadays in this
> country). My apologies.

I should have added that I realize, of course, your position on guns is
reasonable. And that's an issue which has its share of nuts on both sides.

In one forum several years ago I was strongly, nay, passionately criticized
for favoring the outlawing of such cheap junk as the TEC-9 (which you may
recall was the sort-of pistol used in the Columbine shootings), on the
grounds that such a weapon had no obvious legitimate use. That got me called
"as bad as Charlie Schumer or Sarah Brady." Me, an NRA Life Member since
about 1970 (since then, upgraded to Endowment Member). Some people are just
screwballs, even when they're on the generally right side of an argument.


From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:zvOdndeIttnCAl3WnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> For the most part that's all well and truly said, though you certainly
> fell off the sidewalk with Fox News. But then it slipped my mind that you
> are a leftist-"liberal" -- you show such good sense in other areas it's
> hard for me to keep that in mind.
>
> How you can not like a network with Megyn Kelly, Carl Cameron, Steve
> Doocy, Margaret Hoover, Martha McCollum, Jane Skinner, et al., is more
> than I can understand. (I'll grant you a couple of the more prominent guys
> there are annoying, but I suppose that's "fair and balanced" for you.)
>
>

Yes, but there is more logic in what these guys say than there is in
anything ever said by Brian Williams and Katie Kurick. Savageduck is using
his, "Kill the messenger" method of disparaging the facts, since he can't
logically refute what they say.

From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010041011005078840-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> said:

> I consider myself to be a centrist, I lean to the left on social issues,
> to the right on fiscal issues, and I have seen the best and worst of crime
> & Law enforcement, leading me to be fair and mostly unbiased as an
> investigator.
> ...and I was brought up with guns, which I feel have been unfairly blamed
> for the actions of criminals. I can only agree that some degree of control
> needs to be implemented, but not the unreasonable knee jerk reaction we
> see from those with little understanding of our gun culture.

But you still insist on interpreting the Constitution only to suit your own
purposes. You like the second amendment, but you want to take away a
bartenders right to operate his bar for smokers, and refuse to allow him to
put a sign on his door saying that there is second hand smoke going on
inside, and please go down the block to some other bar if you don't like it.

If I insist on misusing guns, and endangering myself and others by shooting
them in inappropriate places, that's my fault, and not the fault of the guns
or the other people who own and use them, but if I insist on going into
someone else's bar and breathing second hand smoke, then it's the fault of
the establishment's owner, and not my own stupidity......How can you resolve
these two different positions?

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres
Next: iPad practical jokes