Fox News is not a news organization

[Teresa]

GW, Tootise et al:

You are all too gracious. I personally am sick of the rhetorical magic tricks of the Fox News and the Palin fringe of the republican party.

Uh oh- the dem candidate is really smart. I know. Let's call him liberal elite.

He is charasmatic and inspires many. Let's call him a celebrity.

This isn't working. We need to scare people. Let's call him a socialist and use some swastikas. Let's start a movement protesting taxes- nevermind that they aren't very high or that most got a tax break.

Just so tired of disengenous discourse. But it won't stop because it is so effective at rallying real Americans.

I definitely get it Geo. If it is getting under your skin too much, back off and find some intelligent programming. I'm not talking about being too narrow in your news/program sources. I'm talking about making good choices for yourself.

 

[skinnergy]

FoxNews.com edits out applause during Obama?s West Point speech.


Think Progress ? FoxNews.com edits out applause during Obama’s West Point speech.

 

[Geo]

I won't speculate as to why. But I can say without a doubt that the audio was dropped and that the editing seems pretty irregular.

That said, I don't take issue with it, however...

 

[Teresa]

I won't speculate as to why. But I can say without a doubt that the audio was dropped and that the editing seems pretty irregular.

That said, I don't take issue with it, however...

what would be the point? its like professional wrestling or reality TV. at its very best. and people do love those and pretty much buy into the act.

 

[skinnergy]

I won't speculate as to why. But I can say without a doubt that the audio was dropped and that the editing seems pretty irregular.

That said, I don't take issue with it, however...

Not sure what you mean by "..don't take issue with it..."

Do you not take issue with Fox News intentionally dropping the audio or do you not take issue with the report about Fox dropping the audio?

 

[Geo]

I have cited many grievances with Fox. I believe their reporting causes much harm to this country. That said, compared to what I see overtly reported on the network on a daily basis, this isn't a huge crime. It's a parking infraction for a chronic drunk driver...

 

[Geo]

Elitists tend to think they have the moral authority to make choices for others - hence, I don't feel they make good representitives and should not be elected to political office.

But I have only heard lefties called elitists. And I can think of more examples of ideologies from the far right which seek to make choices for others based on a moral authority. no?

 

[30ashopper]

But I have only heard lefties called elitists. And I can think of more examples of ideologies from the far right which seek to make choices for others based on a moral authority. no?

I'm not sure what your asking here, are you defending "elitists" in the democrat party because you see the same on the right? Or are you questioning my definition?

I believe the right-leaning side to this is often referred to as the "moral majority". I'm not sure they're "elitists" by my definition, since they are motivated by something other than a perception of higher intellect.

I think there is one key difference you're skipping over though. The elitist position, which revolves around treating the masses like children (or cattle if you prefer) is an unabashed belief engrained in liberal ideology. On the right-leaning side of things, a strong belief in individual freedom tempers the drive for control, except in the case of moral issues driven by religious beliefs.

I would place both groups in the same basket however, neither should be elected to office.

 

[30ashopper]

This is why people (for good reason) get so paranoid about socialism, which is elitism, run amuck.

 

[Geo]

I'm not sure what your asking here, are you defending "elitists" in the democrat party because you see the same on the right? Or are you questioning my definition?

I believe the right-leaning side to this is often referred to as the "moral majority". I'm not sure they're "elitists" by my definition, since they are motivated by something other than a perception of higher intellect.

I think there is one key difference you're skipping over though. The elitist position, which revolves around treating the masses like children (or cattle if you prefer) is an unabashed belief engrained in liberal ideology. On the right-leaning side of things, a strong belief in individual freedom tempers the drive for control, except in the case of moral issues driven by religious beliefs.

I would place both groups in the same basket however, neither should be elected to office.

I'm saying-

In recent times it is the lefties who are called the elites, not those on the right. Your definition of elitist brings into play making decisions for others based on moral authority. But I don't see lefties making decisions for masses based on moral authority. I do however see righties making decisions based on moral authority. So something isn't jiving for me here.

I do acknowledge that a liberal ideology can include making decisions for masses based on a perception of intellectual authority.

I personally prefer elected officials to use smarts for a compass over morals- especially when those morals are really just one brand of organized religion.