Obama '08?

@parados,

parados wrote:

It is biased okie...
Quote:
As anti-government unrest continues to ripple across the Middle East, many in Israel are worried that changes in the Arab world could lead to renewed hostilities against them.

Please cite where in the article it provides any support for the opening paragraph. There is no support for it. In fact the statements that follow often provide the opposite viewpoint.

There is no "many in Israel" listed anywhere in the story. This is a perfect example of Fox starting with a vague statement about how "many" think or say something and then providing no support for that statement.

You doubt something as simple as that? That would be akin to doubting a statement by people in the Great Plains that a winter storm already affecting many of the western states might also affect them. Fox assumes that the readers can comprehend things beyond kindergarten level, parados. Some facts are just intuitively obvious. I see nothing unreasonable about that statement at all. In fact, it is backed up from a quote in the story as follows: "My sense is people in Israel are quite concerned, unsure that it's a good thing," said Robert Schadler, a senior fellow in public diplomacy at the American Foreign Policy Council and former State Department official in the Reagan administration.

So admit that you were wrong when you claimed otherwise. When Mr. Schadler said that people in Israel are quite concerned, it is obvious that the word "many" can be in front of "people."

If anything, your post amply demonstates that you are a niggler, as one of your fellow liberals said.

3 Replies

@parados,

Thanks, parados. I have no desire to watch a Fox blurb. The Fox style, including the manner of speech, is too upsetting. Besides, I see sufficient excerpts on The Daily SHow to fill my non-existent need to watch Fox.

0 Replies

@okie,

There was also this statement in the article, which is obviously true, which also supports the statement that you said was unsupported in the article, parados. Here it is:
"analysts say it remains to be seen whether the upheaval will threaten Israel and its pillars of security, including peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan."

1 Reply

@okie,

Your response to parados shows you do not understand the mechanics of composing a simple paragraph.

0 Replies

@okie,

If someone says "many people think something" I expect some evidence to support it.
While you may think that is the case okie, the story tends to contradict that opening statement.

Quote:

"I think in the immediate future, any kind of discord and chaos is good for Israel because if your regime is about to fall, you're not about to attack Israel," he said.

Quote:

"In regard to peace opportunities – once again we cannot pass a judgment right now whether it's good or not good, whether the situation is right or not, but the time that the Syrian government will decide that they're open to consider negotiating with us, we will be open," he said.

Quote:

"Israel will be affected by this race extremely well or extremely bad," he said. "The jury is still out."

The only thing I am seeing is there is uncertainty about how this will affect them.

Quote:

"My sense is people in Israel are quite concerned, unsure that it's a good thing,"

Unsure that it is a good thing, doesn't equate to "sure it is a bad thing so they are worried."

Concern is not worry that it will lead to hostilities.

Quote:

That would be akin to doubting a statement by people in the Great Plains that a winter storm already affecting many of the western states might also affect them.

Sorry okie. The better analogy is Fox is claiming people in the MANY midwest are worried that the storm will kill people when in fact they just have concerns about how it will affect them.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

There was also this statement in the article, which is obviously true, which also supports the statement that you said was unsupported in the article, parados. Here it is:
"analysts say it remains to be seen whether the upheaval will threaten Israel and its pillars of security, including peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan."

Based on that statement, do you think it would be accurate to say "Many in Isreal are worried that changes in the Arab world will create peace for them"

1 Reply

@parados,

I would say that "it remains to be seen" is a disclaimer. The experts do not know. However, the statement that "many is Israel" would have been fine if it had been followed by statements from a few citizens and a responsible poll, which I believe is the point you were trying to make to okie.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

FOX's agenda is to promote the American Right.

Somebody needs to speak for common sense, conservatism, and law abiding Americans.

3 Replies

@okie,

And you are so biased you will defend their lack of facts supporting a statement simply because you want to believe it.

1 Reply

@okie,

From my journalism classes a long time ago the rule was this.
The first paragraph should lay out the basic facts of the story. The rest of the piece should provide the support for that opening paragraph.

Fox makes a statement that is designed to get an emotional response and then doesn't support it in the rest of the piece.

Any piece that starts with "many people think" or "Many people say" had damn well better provide support for that statement or it is bad journalism and in this case biased because of the specific topic involved. It clearly evokes an image of "Arabs = BAD". You can't seem to see that okie because you have no objective standard.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
FOX's agenda is to promote the American Right.

Somebody needs to speak for common sense, conservatism, and law abiding Americans.

That someone clearly isn't you when it comes to the first and last items on your list. I would bet a few conservatives don't want you speaking for conservatism either because you certainly give it a bad name.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

And you are so biased you will defend their lack of facts supporting a statement simply because you want to believe it.

You do not think that the statement that many people in Israel fear their future security due to all the uprisings around the Middle East is true? I would have to say that if you do not, you are very uninformed if not delusional, parados. It would do you well to become more informed, one thing being the Foz article.

To try to explain the obvious even more, apparently you did not read all of the Fox article either, which also contained this:
"Sooner or later, the Arab revolt will reach (the Palestinians)," wrote columnist Ari Shavit in the Haaretz newspaper. He said the Palestinians were influenced by "the trauma of Hamas' rise in the Gaza Strip, relative prosperity in the West Bank" and the expectation of statehood materializing within months. If that expectation is disappointed, "a political tsunami" will result, he predicted.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

"a political tsunami"

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "political" okie.
Or do you see politics as being only at the point of a gun against other nations?

0 Replies

@parados,

I don't equate conservatism with common sense. I never have. Nor do I equate conservatism with ethical behavior or decorum. Certainly, scott walker is anything but law-abiding!

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

pom, It's not the party that is the problem; it's the people who run it and belong to it. There's nothing wrong with "living within your means." Smaller government, and less government intrusion into private lives are rational goals.

Unfortunately, when the current conservatives get an idea into their heads such as cutting government spending, they're doing with a axe instead of a scalpel. It's the wrong time to cut all social programs in this economic climate; all they are doing is cutting jobs and income tax revenue that is sorely needed to support most social services and maintain our infrastructure. They are on the road to the destruction of this country.

The conservatives/tea party are not capable of negotiating for the benefit of all Americans; they are only interested in satisfying the very wealthy in this country by cutting their taxes. It's not rational.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I decry conservatism itself, no matter who practices it. While there are elements of being conservative that are positive -- I have been an environmentalist all of my life, and, environmentalism is conservatism in its purist form -- there is so much abuse in the name of conservatism that it is frightening.

At the present time, the right has become a sort of fifth column insofaras the right really is attempting to control every aspect of life while using the mantra of limited government.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

I decry conservatism itself, no matter who practices it. While there are elements of being conservative that are positive -- I have been an environmentalist all of my life, and, environmentalism is conservatism in its purist form -- there is so much abuse in the name of conservatism that it is frightening.

At the present time, the right has become a sort of fifth column insofaras the right really is attempting to control every aspect of life while using the mantra of limited government.

Do you live your life liberally, such as do you spend yourself into oblivion, pom? Do you try to run a business with no experience? Do you tell your neighbors what to do? Do you demand they pay for your irresponsibility? If they make more money than you, do you demand they give it all to you?

My point is - most people live their lives conservatively. So why should the government govern liberally? After all, conservatism works and liberalism does not. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are conservative, not liberal.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Do you live your life liberally, such as do you spend yourself into oblivion, pom?

That has nothing to do with liberalism and you know it. You are being disingenuous which makes your grasp on reality appear more tenuous than it is.

Quote:

Do you try to run a business with no experience?

The biggest problem with running a business is the lack of common sense on the part of the owner/manager. During the 50s and 60s when retail
establishments were generally run by their owners who were almost always without formal education, Main Street flourished.

The "Los Angelization" of America (that is a sociological term that was in widespread use once) and the increase in auto ownership and the removal of services from Main Street to the mall changed business and not for the better.

However, your second disingenuous question worsens your image more than the first and does not deserve the essay I could write as an answer. BTW, your unworthiness is a reason why you are often ignored. And ignored is correct. The issue is never being unable to answer.

Quote:

Do you tell your neighbors what to do?

Now, you've gone from disingenuous to snide and smug.

You see, the governors of WI, MI and ME are all telling their neighbors what to do, in ways that violate the Constitution. Don't correct me. I majored in political science; I've written legal briefs for a class on First AMendment rights and I was a legal journalist. If it smells like a fascist, it probably is a fascist.

People like Henry Hyde tell others what to do.

Quote:

Do you demand they pay for your irresponsibility?

AH, now, you have left snide and smug behind and are in full git mode. There is a propaganda tool which involves accusing the other side of your sin. Another version of that same tool is claiming the virtue of the other side for yourself. You and the rest of the American right do the former: claim personal responsibility for yourself.

BTW, some woman is suing me now. As she "friended" Jesus on FB and is following Susan Boyle and covers her page with disturbingly sentimental bad clip art, I assume both her arms are on the right side of her body.

Quote:

If they make more money than you, do you demand they give it all to you?

You certainly are confusing me with the top 1%, the robber barons!

Quote:

My point is - most people live their lives conservatively.

No wonder you like Fox News. You make the same rhetorical errors they do. You know nothing about conservatism nor about liberality. You surely must think most people are lying hypocrites with knives poised at their neighbors backs if you think most live conservatively.

Quote:

So why should the government govern liberally?

A good example of living liberally is to live as a Quaker which involves not living beyond one's means, testifying for peace and against racism. To be a liberal is to be all those things.

Quote:

After all, conservatism works and liberalism does not

We have never had liberalism in America. A few presidents had liberal moments, including both Roosevelts, Carter and Lincoln. Before you put your foot in your mouth, stop. I know what I am writing. Clinton had a few as well but he had some right wing moments and was essentially centrist.

Quote:

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are conservative, not liberal.

This has been explained to you several times, but you are hopeless.

1 Reply

@revelette,

Actually, I think US schools have something called 'winter break', or something of the sort. If they really have to make a pilgrimage to some shrine in the middle east, they can do it after graduation, same as Moslims.

1 Reply

@roger,

But the religious point is that it must be done during holy month.

Or are you arguing that Christian should celebrate Christmas in July and not get "winter break"?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know