Maddow hounds FAIR president

[elbe]

That aside, I think much of the underlining idea of the comment was that MSNBC and Fox News are just flip sides of the same coin. Meaning one is left wing, and one is right wing; but both engage in many of the same tactics.

I don't think MSNBC's talking heads started out like that, I think they used to be more sensible, but partisan bull sells and they have a market niche to fill.

Still, I still quite like Maddow. When she talked about Pi day (last year, I think), I got the impression she actually knew what that was. But just liking her is not the same as believing everything she says.

 

[Unabogie]

Nonsequitor. You are aware that the movie "White Men Can't Jump" is about two guys hustling bastketball by relying on the unfortunate nature of people to give more credence to stereotypes then they should by playing up the very apparent whiteness of Billy Hoyle (Woody Harrelson), right? It wasn't a movie about what blacks can do and whites can't, the whole angle of the hustle was that the streetballers always made the assumption on their own and that Billy didn't ever downplay his college-level skill.

If, similiarly, a movie was made called "Black Men Can't Swim" and it was about two guys, one of which is an olympic-level swimmer and happens to be black, hustling streetswimmers at the public swimming pool that would be a beast of an entirely differant nature. You're assuming that liberals in general are far more knee-jerky than you're giving them credit for. I know, I happen to be one.

I get the sense this poster never saw the movie and is only relying on Teabonic mythology for his analysis of the story. After all, and sorry if this blows the ending, Billy does dunk to win the game at the end. Hence, your take on the hustle angle is exactly spot on, and his is borne out of pure ignorance and ideological rigidness.

 

[johnny karate]

MadSow

Not to presume to tell you how to craft your clever insults, but don't you think MadCow works better?

That way, you still get your hateful misogynistic slur, and the implication that she has a degenerative neurological disease!

 

[DavidJames]

Is it my imagination but are the number of rational conservatives on this board dwindling to almost none.

 

[Cicero]

Is it my imagination but are the number of rational conservatives on this board dwindling to almost none.

You rely on your imagination for guidance in all JREF political posts. Why would this instance be different?

 

[Meed]

Not to presume to tell you how to craft your clever insults, but don't you think MadCow works better?

That way, you still get your hateful misogynistic slur, and the implication that she has a degenerative neurological disease!

Sounds too much like ManCow, otherwise I'd agree.

 

[Meed]

jakesteel, FAIR called the remarks of PAN's leader repugnant and announced they were cutting all ties to the group. Yet their own founder, in addition to other members, has made similar remarks. Who's being hypocritical?

 

[Cicero]

While I dont share the same brainwashed idea that fox is anymore biased or counterfactual than the BBC, its not my news of choice. I tend to watch the ticker on the google news component of my phone, and if I'm interested in a topic I go to a real PC and look it up on the net

According to funk de fino, the BBC's staunchest defender, the BBC is, and has always been, the paradigm of unbiased reporting.

Get a grip. Fox and MSNBC are a joke. The BBC would be thrown off the airwaves here for being that bias.

Since the BBC is State television operated not directly by the government, but by some nebulous clique, who exactly would be throwing them off the air?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Im pretty sure the BBC's definition of "youth" being "muslim of any age" is further afield than anything fox NEWS has ever reported. And I mean their news side not their talking heads

I'd be happy to be proven wrong though

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I don't think MSNBC's talking heads started out like that, I think they used to be more sensible, but partisan bull sells and they have a market niche to fill.

I agree. In fact I have seen a steady transformation over the years towards what they are today.

Still, I still quite like Maddow. When she talked about Pi day (last year, I think), I got the impression she actually knew what that was. But just liking her is not the same as believing everything she says.

Don't get me wrong. I may point out an interview and write that I do not agree with the tactics involved or the form of argumentation, but I do like Countdown and the Rachel Maddow Show.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is it my imagination but are the number of rational conservatives on this board dwindling to almost none.

You are asking a question about an oxymoron there.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Im pretty sure the BBC's definition of "youth" being "muslim of any age" is further afield than anything fox NEWS has ever reported. And I mean their news side not their talking heads

I'd be happy to be proven wrong though

How about you just prove yourself to be correct?

 

[Cicero]

You are asking a question about an oxymoron there.

You must mean the oxymoron that was posted back on April 13, 2010.

Summary of Thread so far:

Cicero claims that Maxine Waters is hypocritical, corrupt, left-wing nut.

Rational liberals fail to disagree

Isn't that an oxymoron?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5826394#post5826394

 

[NoScotsman]

Maddow sees a racist behind every corner. Glenn Beck sees a communist behind every corner.

Personally, I don't obsess about other people's secret motives. But then, I'm not a paranoiac. I'm a rationalist. I try to limit my intake of information to sources who are at least attempting to be honest.

 

[Cicero]

Maddow sees a racist behind every corner. Glenn Beck sees a communist behind every corner.

That may very well be their schtick. They, and others in the media, follow the dictum of docu-ganda.

Personally, I don't obsess about other people's secret motives. But then, I'm not a paranoiac. I'm a rationalist. I try to limit my intake of information to sources who are at least attempting to be honest.

Whom might these sources be?

 

[NoScotsman]

Whom might these sources be?

Myself, I prefer to read source material. Instead of being told what something says/means ... I just cut out the middleman. For example, the recent law in Arizona reads NOTHING like FOX/MSNBC says it does...

Maybe this strategy is tough-sledding for some. I understand not everyone is a legal scholar. And I consume biased sources as well ... for entertainment.

Speaking more generally, politics itself is merely a discussion of personal value assessments--politicians/pundits have an interest in rhetoric. Consequently, I treat political claims the same way as I treat claims of the paranormal; that is to say, skeptically.