Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Miguel Lopez
27074 Followers
Scenic Anemia
2644 Followers
NewsMeBack
6468 Followers
smartnetzone
3944 Followers
Russ Smith
18390 Followers
mosaddaque
1 Followers
dirtyfriesJun 22, 2011
Beautiful, the man always manages to make his point, and with comedy and facts.
First, a classy apology. And then a smathering of Fox News lies. At this point it's like dozens of Fox mistakes to his single mistake with Politifact.
Keep it up Jon. By acknowledging you Fox either lowers themselves to the level of being comedians (and they are), or raises you to the level of a journalist. It's win win for him.
sloppyjoes7Jun 22, 2011
Politifact:
"Health care reform is a government takeover of health care." - "lie of the year 2010"
"Health care bill includes death panels" - "lie of the year 2009"
This is why Politifact can't be taken seriously. The health care bill certainly did have "death panels," and the public option would have resulted in a government takeover of healthcare.
1) "Death Panels" are the government choosing who gets healthcare, as resources are limited. Some will be "chosen to die," because simply everyone can't get everything. Call it "triage," call it "N.I.C.E." (like England does), or call them "Death Panels," but whatever you call them, they exist under socialized medicine.
BUT, Politifact takes a single definition of "death panels," declares it to be false, and then thus mischaracterizes most conservatives who were NOT using that definition.
2) Meanwhile, the entire conservative position about the public option was that it would RESULT in a government takeover of healthcare. The public option was subsidized with tax money, unlike private options, so it would be cheaper. It would bankrupt private insurance companies by undercutting them (using TAX dollars), and take over most healthcare in the US.
BUT, Politifact notices that the law doesn't actually SAY it will "take over healthcare," and declares that "false." Conservatives never said the law CLAIMED to be a government takeover. We said it WOULD take over.
Politifact therefore is a master of mischaracterizing positions and taking things out of context.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
troggyJun 22, 2011
Those are opinions , not facts.
sloppyjoes7Jun 22, 2011
But Politifact claimed that it's a FACT that Obama's proposal wouldn't take over healthcare.
That's actually opinion - the opinion of the editors at Politifact. Certainly the proposed law didn't explicitly claim to eliminate private healthcare. But Politifact actually said anyone who says it would is lying. That's certainly a common opinion, but hardly a fact.
Maybe they should be Politopinion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
troggyJun 23, 2011
Sorry, but your opinions aren facts, doesn't matter how u try to spin it.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
Your post shows that you have no idea what anybody's talking about.
I SAID IT'S OPINION. Your reply, calling it opinion, shows you didn't even read what I wrote.
Politifact is the one calling it "fact." They're the ones mischaracterizing an opinion as "fact."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
direangelJun 23, 2011
@sloppyjoes7
Citation needed. I know spinning a straw man argument is convenient for you as you entreat the reader to do your fact checking for you, but you lose all your credibility.
Course than you might ruin the ambiance of having the name 'sloppy joes' right?
Don't feed the troll kids.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
I don't create straw man arguments, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
fragmaster01Jun 23, 2011
Except you can, I dunno, read the law? Where it says nothing of the sort, and in fact hands more power to private insurance? If it does nothing of the sort, then it's a fact that it does nothing of the sort, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
"Where it says nothing of the sort, and in fact hands more power to private insurance?"
That's funny. You're funny.
pdpgtiJun 23, 2011
Politifact didn't say anything was a fact. The point of the site is to simply outline whether a proposed "fact" on mainstream outlets is a fact or not.
Fox News said it was a FACT that obama's proposal would take over private healthcare.
Politifact simply showed that the proposal would not take over healthcare now, nor can you reasonably guess into the future and see whether it would take over healthcare then.
Fox News said it was a FACT. Politifact showed it was not a FACT. Fox News Lied
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
Politifact did not say that "it's not a fact."
Politifact called it the "lie of the year."
You can disagree with an economic outlook, but to call it a "lie," then you're interjecting your own opinion in the matter.
Like I said, Politopinion, not Politifact.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pdpgtiJun 23, 2011
Politifact didn't say anything was a fact. The point of the site is to simply outline whether a proposed "fact" on mainstream outlets is a fact or not.
Fox News said it was a FACT that obama's proposal would take over private healthcare.
Politifact simply showed that the proposal would not take over healthcare now, nor can you reasonably guess into the future and see whether it would take over healthcare then.
Fox News said it was a FACT. Politifact showed it was not a FACT. Fox News Lied
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
I think it's a FACT that obamacare's original design would take over and socialize healthcare.
But Politifact isn't supposed to say "This opinion is a LIE, and that's a FACT," like when they called that the "lie of the year."
They're taking someone's OPINION, and calling it FACT, and anybody who disagrees is spreading a LIE. That's objective? I think not.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shark72Jun 22, 2011
" and the public option would have resulted in a government takeover of healthcare."
And if the HCR package had passed with required mandatory poking of red-headed people with long pointed sticks, then my God, all those poor redheads!
HCR = redheads with puncture wounds!
Making stuff up is fun.
sloppyjoes7Jun 22, 2011
I explained specifically how it would work. My argument makes perfect sense. A cheaper option wins over a more expensive option. Do you deny that most people would elect to get the cheaper insurance?
Logic. Use it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joankJun 22, 2011
Equating that people would flock to cheap goods is simplistic.
How would you explain why people still willingly purchase luxury goods when there's so many cheaper goods that do just as well?
sloppyjoes7Jun 22, 2011
"Do you deny that MOST people would elect to get the cheaper insurance?"
Reading comprehension. Use it.
brsox2445Jun 22, 2011
Because it comes with a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic economics and business sense.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
Come on! Are you people really so stupid?
Okay, if I have two insurance plans, both roughly comparable, but one costs less, which will sell more?
The cheaper one. This is obvious to anyone with a fundamental understanding of the most basic economics.
Therefore, MOST people would go with the cheaper option, but for those who can afford it, (a select few), they'll get more expensive plans. Few people drive Lamborghinis. Few people own mansions. Few people buy high-end insurance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
radraze2kxJun 23, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUgTI0NVLpo
Just sayin..
effyochickenJun 23, 2011
Sloppy, to answer your question: Not EVERYBODY just buys liability car insurance, you realize this, right? Outside of bare-basic liability, there are huge differences between car insurance companies on varying issues... From how hard they fight to get you your money, how much your premium goes up for certain accidents, how broad a spectrum of coverage you get, etc.. A whole LOT of people want their cars fully protected so they don't have to drop a couple grand in repairs.
The same is true for health insurance companies. If company A costs 100 a month and offers extremely limited coverage, leading to upfront fees in the 200+ range, why not go for the 300 a month company B that includes those fees in their coverage?
People shop for what works for them, and when it comes to their HEALTH they actually don't tend to go for the cheapest option, they're more likely to spring for the better treatments.
You're making a common mistake and applying an economic rule to an extreme case, where free market in no way applies. If you need a surgery, you need the surgery. You don't get to shop around, and the insurance companies know it.
shark72Jun 23, 2011
The issue is, of course, that you inserted stuff into HCR that isn't there. Although I won't argue that many people would like to see it, there's no public option. It's not European-style (or Canadian style, for that matter) socialized medicine. It's a package of laws designed to regulate the health care industry. Government regulation is not the same as government takeover. The government regulates untold number of industries in an effort to maintain safety standards, protect consumers, protect the environment, and so on -- this has been going on for far longer than Obama has been in office. And, of course, before the HCR bill, the health care industry was *already* regulated -- in fact, the Bush administration saw several Republican-sponsored bills relating to health care and social security regulation. It's what governments do.
IF it had passed with a a public option, then it would approach something that one could call "government takeover of health care." There isn't; but this didn't stop Fox News from claiming it is anyway. Hence, the word "Lying" in the title of the article.
Vigorous debate is great, and I generally enjoy reading your posts, even though I don't often agree with them. But if you have to lie and misrepresent to make your point, you're doing it wrong.
Sure, Fox News does it -- but you can do better.
superkendallJun 23, 2011
Government regulation is the same as takeover if the regulation is designed to kill private industry and reduce private competition by handing favors to a handful of companies. A huge private company basically in league with the government is no better or different than a government run company - the same level of inefficiency dominates because they do not HAVE to compete as normal companies do.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spectecjrJun 23, 2011
@superkendall - you mean like the HMOs that Nixon brought in with Kaiser?
Also bear in mind that Medicare and Social Security run at about 96% efficiency. Private health insurers run at 75-80% efficiency - because they turn a profit.
shark72Jun 24, 2011
@supekendall -- your statement is correct in a general sense. Whenever you hear that a government wants to privatize something, watch your back. Look at who's going to get the business. Is it somebody who's donated to a politician's cause? All too often, it is.
However, it's not relevant to the discussion. We're talking about the health care reform package.
witnessxJun 23, 2011
My company offers this local network medical insurance for free. It also offers Kaiser insurance for cheap. The third offer is for Healthnet, which cost twice as much as Kaiser. Guess which insurance I chose?
Healthnet.
It wasn't all about the cost, but rather the physicians in the network, and proximity of medical offices.
Now that's just me, but here's the thing. If this cheaper insurance is offered to everyone, there will no doubt be a lot of subscribers. Some people with private insurance may actually switch. Does that mean the end of private insurance? No. It's about having a choice, especially if an individual or family already has difficulty paying for the insurance they already have.
So what if there's a cheaper alternative? Would you rather there be no cheaper alternative? Having a choice like this will only help to increase price competition, and ultimately the consumer wins - are you not a consumer?
To put it into perspective for you, you can look at the LCD HDTV market. If companies like Vizio didn't offer a very good display, and at a very competitive price, would Sony/Samsung/Mitsubishi ever drop their prices? Even as Vizio sold tons of HDTVs, Sony/Samsung/Mitsubishi et al are still here - selling HDTVs.
C'mon man.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
The public option was supposed to be competitive with your average insurance plan.
That's what everyone above is ignoring.
SPATIALGUYJun 23, 2011
Great... Death panels! Why let the government decide who gets healthcare when the private sector can, and makes a profit doing it.
I get all warm and fuzzy inside when somebody makes a easy buck off somebody's misfortune and bad health... Way to go Corporate America, love yeah!
hiropendragonJun 23, 2011
No one wants to admit that there already are death panels. They're called actuaries. They work for insurance companies to calculate how much money they'd have to spend to treat someone, and if it's just not possible, the company declares it "experimental treatment" and thus not covered. Or they drop coverage. Or they set maximum lifetime benefits.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
Here's the great irony.
If you point out that we already have "death panels," in the form of insurance companies, everyone agrees. But Politifact calls "death panels" the "lie of the year," and you agree with them.
You therefore completely and utterly contradict yourself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jun 23, 2011
The difference is that the "death panels" for a corporation would be much colder and inhumane as they work for greed.
A public "death panel" would do their best to keep a vote/taxpayer/etc alive for obvious reasons.
It's a classic case of greed vs compassion.
superkendallJun 23, 2011
@mlw: The only thing more inhumane than making choices based on economics is NOT making them based on economics. Why treat Republicans quite as well as other groups... or blacks, or latinos, or whatever.
At least a company has oversight. There is NO oversight of a government body doing what it does, no consequences if it screws up horribly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
effyochickenJun 23, 2011
They call the death panels in the HEALTHCARE OVERHAUL the lie of the year. Death panels in the *bill* that was being passed.
They said nothing of the death panels already in the system. You can't just quote the term "death panels" without the context of WHICH DEATH PANELS they were talking about.
You therefore completely and utterly made a fool of yourself by acting like you were making a valid point.
hiropendragonJun 23, 2011
@superkendall
RE: Oversight.
1. "no oversight of a government body" - There is, voters. Additionally, I strongly support OpenGov initiatives to give citizens better understanding of what our government spends money on and how things are administered.
2. "a company has oversight" - That is the essential core of the Healthcare reform bill. Because insurance companies want to do things like have maximum lifetime benefits, or drop people for pre-existing conditions. Government provides oversight because the industry itself doesn't do a good enough job of it.
RE: Economics
Health insurance companies are making substantial record profits while premiums are skyrocketing. Clearly economics are not the main factor in what's viable for keeping people alive.
deepskydiverJun 23, 2011
I agree with all of that except the Fox raising _anyone_ to the level of a journalist...
superkendallJun 23, 2011
I look forward to his special on the dynasty of Obama lies. Oh, I forgot, he only makes token attacks on his own side before taking "enemy" quotes out of context or cherry-picking gaffes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hiropendragonJun 23, 2011
What do you think Obama lies have been? I think you'll find Diggers are happy to debate peacefully as long as you cite sources.
troggyJun 24, 2011
dynasty implies a sequence of rulers of the same family.
as in bush 41 and 43 could be considered a dynasty, however it normally refers to dictatorships or monarchy's.
how bout you get an education before trying to seem smart and using big boy words
jdlechJun 25, 2011
Death Panels are already an integral part of ALL private insurance companies. They decide what will be covered and what will not. NO govt. agency would prevent you from having a procedure - you would just have to pay for it yourself. That is EXACTLY as it has been with private companies for decades.
If you fear and hate these "death panels", then why are you not whining and complaining about the private ones?
Hypocrite!
Closed AccountJun 29, 2011
The Daily Show is a comedy program on a comedy network hosted by a comedian. Yet the lefty loonies view it as their number one news source. That says all that needs to be said about the intelligence of the loonies. Their second favorite news source is the cartoon network.
slpknt24Jun 22, 2011
It just goes to show you how pathetic mainstream media is when people have to turn on comedy central to get thier news.
garryfieldsJun 23, 2011
But this very same segment says that viewers of the Daily Show/Colbert Report are just about the most consistently misinformed. So if you're turning on Jon or Colbert for news, then you're doing it wrong.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rgb86Jun 23, 2011
See, therein lies the rub! Stewart/Colbert viewers don't necessarily turn into their respective shows as a sole means of getting news. It's much more likely, rather, that their viewers get interested in certain topics because of those shows, but then seek out additional information on their own.
This is why, in tests of general or political knowledge, Stewart/Colbert viewers are consistently and often significantly more well-informed than Fox News viewers. (See the links in Politifact's article for sources on this claim: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/ )
juliochavezJun 23, 2011
Good point. Still.. buried for "therein lies the rub". The quote from Hamlet is "Aye, there's the rub". What you said doesn't make any sense. "Therein" what?
"And where the offence is let the great axe fall." ( the bury button )Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jun 23, 2011
His "therein" was referring to the friction your statement made (ie the argument). Technically he was correct in saying "therein lies the rub!"
Within your statement lies the object of friction (the statement itself).
rgb86Jun 23, 2011
True, but it wasn't julio's statement; it was garryfields', so be careful about throwing around "your."
rgb86Jun 23, 2011
It wasn't meant to be an exact quote of Hamlet, or else I would've grabbed my big book of Shakespeare to copy it verbatim. But I can't deny that it's what I had in mind.
However, what I said still makes sense. The "rub" is "an annoying experience or circumstance." It can be found *within* the claim that people turn to Stewart for news. A quick glance at a dictionary shows one definition of "therein" to be "in that matter, circumstance, etc." If you ask me, the two seem well-paired.
grammerpantsJun 22, 2011
Every news network you have in the States blows. It's horrible reporting, horrible new casting, and full of opinion. I want the news, nothing else, tell me whats happening in the world, then end it. That's all I care about.
News should be news, opinion should be opinion. No spin, just the god damn news.
Closed AccountJun 22, 2011
CNN Headline News is pretty straightforward.
slpknt24Jun 22, 2011
Sorry to inform you but CNN is puppet news and are just as bad as FOX
Closed AccountJun 22, 2011
So where do you get YOUR news?
troggyJun 22, 2011
BBC news
Closed AccountJun 22, 2011
Are you slpknt?
troggyJun 22, 2011
"Are you slpknt?"
?????? What??? English please
icwydJun 23, 2011
You have to be fluent in quirkease. In quirk's world there are all these sockpuppets. They are all out to get her. You must be a sockpuppet because you caught her trying to bulls**t. It goes on and on. Completely predictable. Most likely projection.
This is the way the old menopausal are. Especially when you have GPS as bad as quirk does.
doonceJun 23, 2011
slpknt.. slipknot?
Closed AccountJun 23, 2011
Oh icwyd ... I didn't even consider that.
Maybe Troggy is slpknt is what you are saying?
Faskinating!
effyochickenJun 23, 2011
Long acronyms and text-speak is so 2004... Seriously this is the internet and you have a FULL KEYBOARD, type out your words like an adult.
kasha34Jun 23, 2011
BBC? Did you know BBC recently had to publicly admit they were biased to the left?
"BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias in the past."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308215/Yes-BBC-biased-Mark-Thompson-admits-massive-lean-Left.html#ixzz1Q6BAuBoWComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waggy27Jun 23, 2011
@ kasha34 - For the sake of balance, please note that the link you posted is from a newspaper with a long history of extreme right-wing bias. Also please be aware that the comments are plucked from a longer interview for the purpose of giving a false context.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2011
Kasha is a renown fascist lunatic, simply bury and ignore.
Closed AccountJun 25, 2011
effyo - I am responding to posters with these names.
slpknt24Jun 23, 2011
I get my news from www.whatreallyhappened.com
adml_shakeJun 22, 2011
They have their moments, but Fox is on it's own level.
Closed AccountJun 22, 2011
I'll get buried but I agree with you on CNN. Sometimes their so straightforward they put me to sleep. Of course, I think news should be more like that than the sensationalist crap that's out there.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2011
See. You got dugg.
Odd, no?
Closed AccountJun 23, 2011
No, because I admit when I'm wrong. I'm not a right-winger that promotes the cause no matter how wrong I am. I don't promote anything but reason and you will stand your ground no matter how wrong you are.
Not odd at all.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2011
LOL. When was the last time you were on Digg admitting that you were wrong? HM?
Closed AccountJun 23, 2011
My god, quirk. You're a sexy beast and all but really, I'm getting tired of doing your research:
"*shrug* I got voted down for it and rightfully so."
Mar 3, 2011, Union Busting SB5 Rammed Through By Republican Plutarchy in Ohio
"Good point, I see what you're saying."
Feb 28, 2011, U.S. Citizenship Test Has Wrong Answers
And I'm willing to say right here and now that my thoughts on Weiner were wrong and I'm glad he resigned.
You should really find some teenager to check your assertions, Quirky. You've been handed your ass several times today. It's got to be embarrassing.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2011
there's your real American conservative christian in all her glory...
Quirk is a f**king disease.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2011
Better watch yourself, HotD, now she will start stalking you while screaming accusations about how you are constantly "attacking" her. She thinks "attacking" her is pointing out how every nonsensical handful of feces she throws at the forum is vulgar and a crazy thing to say.
jimshot1991Jun 22, 2011
I'd like you to give us an example of an unbiased non-U.S. network. Al Jeezera? The BBC? I probably couldn't name more than that so I'd appreciate help.
mrcapoJun 22, 2011
CBC, BBC World - most northern border states get CBC - in terms of global news and even objective U.S. news the Canucks are pretty solid.
Not that Michael Moore is exactly fair and balanced but he mentions this and has a very valid demonstration in Sicko and Bowling for Columbine (Canadian news that is)
mbommariJun 22, 2011
Yeah, but I wouldn't go about holding up the BBC and CBC of paragons of journalism. Perhaps compared to Fox and CNN they are, but they are still puppet empires that seek to control and influence public opinion in the same way as Fox and CNN. The only difference is that they don't spend as much money on production and don't go out of their way to sensationalize as much as the US media does.
Take the riots in Greece for example, even the BBC and non-US media pretty much only showed pictures of the riot which happened for one day (during a monthish long protest) by about 200 people (out of hundreds of thousands). By only showing these images and reporting on the one day of riots instead of also including the month long series of protests organizations such as the BBC demonstrate that they only wish to tell one side of a story. They sensationalize as well, but perhaps for a slightly more aware audience.
Thank God for the internet though and that we are able to do our own fact-checking without relying on the news organizations as the sole arbiters of information.
troggyJun 23, 2011
The great thing about the BBC is when they interview a politician, and said politician throes out an absurd mistruth, they get called on it regardless of their political ideology.
On fox I saw micheal Bachman, being interviewed by Chris Wallace I believe, and she claimed that Obama has nationalized 50% of the US economy and he just nodded and said uh huh.
kasha34Jun 23, 2011
Did she say "nationalized"? I thought she said "absorbed."
jimshot1991Jun 23, 2011
Haha I was like "What the hell is the CBC?..." It's Canadian. It's unlikely their viewer-ship is very high. I grouped the BBC into one group and as a whole I believe they're biased. BBC World might be more like CNN but I've seen some documentaries on BBC 2? I think it was and I lost all respect for the BBC.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Jun 23, 2011
BBC recently had to admit they were very biased to the left.
"BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias in the past."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308215/Yes-BBC-biased-Mark-Thompson-admits-massive-lean-Left.html#ixzz1Q6BAuBoW
Al Jazeera? Oh man.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelJun 23, 2011
You do realize Kascha that the dailymail is the British equivalent to the national enquirer or the daily sun?
sloppyjoes7Jun 22, 2011
Fox has been shown multiple times to be the least biased news station in the united states.
penglustJun 22, 2011
BBBBBBuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll SSSSSSSSSSSSS................
sloppyjoes7Jun 22, 2011
I'm sorry that you hate facts and data, and listen to a comedian instead.
llotzafunJun 22, 2011
Well, Fox news hasn't provided many facts or data since that Australian bought the parent company. mis-information and dis-information at its worst or uh, best? lol
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
Your post, besides being nearly illegible, makes no sense.
llotzafunJun 22, 2011
also, sorry to say, you likely do not know what the word data means as you used it incorrectly. Data is the raw form that information is derived from.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
I know what data are.
troggyJun 23, 2011
I'm sorry that u think fox news is the least biased....that's just sad.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
I actually bothered to do some research. You apparently have not. You just watch Comedy Central and consider yourself informed, while I took the effort to look up scientific studies on the subject.
That's what's actually sad - that you would consider Comedy Central a better source for information than researchers performing scientific studies.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
troggyJun 23, 2011
actually, i live outside of the USA, and watch a variety of news programs as my interests lie with the global situation not just one country.
I watch MSNBC nightly, cause i like to see odonnel yell ad rachel maddow is very well spoken.
I also watch fox news regularly, my dad is addicted to it, and we debate it all the time.(i have actually given up though, cause every fact he gives i have to check to make sure its correct cause i can't trust his source)
I also watch CBC, BBC and several other news programs.
I have been watching the daily show since it was hosted by craig kilborn for entertainment.
i don't need scientific research to show me what are lies and mistruths, i have several sources and using them i can see for myself that fox news has more misthruths and hatred towards people that don't share their views than any other news network on TV.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
"i don't need scientific research to show me what are lies and mistruths, i have several sources and using them i can see for myself that fox news has more misthruths and hatred towards people that don't share their views than any other news network on TV."
That proves you're so biased, you cannot recognize where the "center" is. You completely lack objectivity.
It's understandable. Most people lack objectivity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rgb86Jun 22, 2011
What, did you hear that on Fox News?
sloppyjoes7Jun 22, 2011
Every scientific study I have been able to find, (and there have been several) have shown Fox to be less biased than most other news stations.
But you hate science, I suppose. "Study" likewise sounds too formal. You prefer "comedy central" as the only source you'll believe.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rgb86Jun 22, 2011
Oh, there are *scientific* studies, eh? Care to share those, then? I could always use a laugh, and going by the definition of "science" used by most conservatives on Digg, this should be hilarious.
sloppyjoes7Jun 22, 2011
Okay. Challenge accepted. I only included scientific polls and scientific studies (no anecdotes). I did not exclude any poll I disagreed with. Here's what I found.
Scientific study results:
Least biased are ABC (Liberal bias), and Fox News (Conservative bias)
Most biased are CBS (Strong liberal bias), and NBC (Very strong liberal bias)
http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/groeling.pdf
Scientific study results:
Least biased are ABC (Liberal bias), and Fox News (Conservative bias)
Most biased are CBS and NBC (Strong liberal bias)
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_10_30_08.htm
Scientific study results:
Fox was unbiased in 2008 election.
ABC, CBS, NBC were biased towards Obama
http://cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf
Scientific study results:
Least biased outlets are FoxNews, Newshour, CNN NewsNight, and ABC Good Morning America.
Most biased are Wall Street Journal, CBS Evening News, and New York Times.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Now for the other side: One CMPA study found bias against Obama and towards McCain:
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_2.htm
However, this was a reversal of earlier bias towards Obama, and the bias went back towards Obama afterwards:
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_8.htm
So, 3 sources:
1) University of California scientific study
2) CMPA at George Mason University scientific studies
3) UCLA scientific study
Your source:
1) A comedian.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rgb86Jun 23, 2011
I would throw the first study out, personally, since it just seems like an individual student's report and not a fully, legitimate study. Notwithstanding, the thing I take most issue with is your interpretation of the results. I obviously don't have the time (or more importantly, the motivation) to sift through every last page of every article, but it is clear right off the bat that you are stating conclusions that the authors of the studies never made, even if some of your points can be supported with some of their data.
And my source isn't a comedian, thank you very much (you assumptive jackass). They come from the studies referenced in the recent Politifact article against Stewart's claims (two of which I had read before this incident, just for the record):
February 2007 Political Knowledge Survey
http://people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/
Knowledge Levels By Source:
http://people-press.org/people-press/files/legacy/319-2.gif
Daily Show/Colbert: 54% high; 25% moderate; 21% low
NPR: 51% high; 57% mod; 22% low
CNN: 41% high; 30% mod; 29% low
Fox: 35% high; 30% mod; 35% low
April 2008 Media Survey
http://people-press.org/2008/08/17/news-interest-and-knowledge/
Knowledgeable News Audiences (% with High Knowledge)
http://people-press.org/files/legacy/444-61.gif
NPR: 44%
BBC: 34%
Daily Show: 30%
MSNBC: 25%
NBC: 21%
ABC: 19%
CNN: 19%
Fox: 19%
CBS: 10%
June 2010 Media Consumption Survey
http://people-press.org/2010/09/12/section-4-who-is-listening-watching-reading-and-why/
Knowledge of Politics and Current Events
http://people-press.org/files/legacy/652-63.png
"Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War" study, 2003
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
p.15
Average Rate per Misperception:
Fox: 45%
CBS: 36%
CNN: 31%
ABC: 30%
NBC: 30%
NPR/PBS: 11%
Misinformation and the 2010 Election, 2010
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf
p.21
Network rated lowest in misinformation:
Economists' estimates on stimulus legislation: MSNBC
Economists' estimates on effects of healthcare reform: NPR/PBS
TARP Initiator: MSNBC
US State of Economy: NPR/PBS
Stimulus inclusion of tax cuts: MSNBC
Chrysler/GM Bailout: MSNBC
Federal Income Taxes: MSNBC
Obama's Birthplace: NPR/PBS
Democrats' Votes on TARP: Fox News
Republicans' Votes on TARP: CNN
US Chamber of Commerce Spending Foreign Money on Republicans: Fox News
Scientists' Views on Climate Change: MSNBC & NPR/PBS
When it comes to general knowledge, Fox News viewers are on par with the average American, yet frequently significantly behind other networks. When it comes to political hot topics (which can be solidly proven true or false), they are the most ill-informed (with only a few exceptions).
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
rgb86,
Such flawed, flawed studies.
"There is no link between Al Qaida and Iraq - False."
Then they disagreed with the results of the 9/11 investigation.
"WMDs have been found - False"
They were found. Just in very small amounts.
You see, this is why you CANNOT have liberal biased researchers performing these studies. They screw up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantJun 23, 2011
Just dealing with the 2008 "FOX was the most fair in the election" "study" alone - utterly and completely flawed study with an entirely fallacious notion of what fairness in media looks like.
Actually unbiased media wouldn't be sticking their opinions into straight news stories AT ALL. (FOX does this, by the way, substantially more than any other media outlet. Opinion is "reported" in the "news" in 67% of their stories as opposed to 27% at the next runner-up MSNBC and 4% at CNN.)
Taking the opinions in each story (that shouldn't be there in the first place) and arbitrarily classifying each story as "positive" or "negative" coverage and then counting how many fall into each catagory is in no way, shape, or form useful in evaluating a network's overall performance.
Allow me to demonstrate:
STORY # 1 - "War hero and mavericky maverick John McCain has disapointed us by not being quite as conservative as we'd like. We wish he'd move a little further to the right. Did we mention that he's a war hero and a true American patriot!"
STORY # 2 - "Kenyan-born Barry Obama - or should we say 'Sotero' - who is almost certainly an America-hating muslim who pals around with terrorists is secretly conspiring with ACORN to steal the election so he can destroy America and turn it into a communist Hell hole!"
There. One "negative" story about McCain and one "negative" story about Obama. So those two stories are "Fair and Balanced," right?
tsuruchibrianJun 22, 2011
"Every scientific study I have been able to find, (and there have been several) have shown Fox to be less biased than most other news stations."
Please cite even 1.
I know you said you found several. That's ok. I just want to see 1. This should be quite easy for you to show since you claim there are several.
sloppyjoes7Jun 22, 2011
Okay. Challenge accepted. I only included scientific polls and scientific studies (no anecdotes). I did not exclude any poll I disagreed with. Here's what I found.
Scientific study results:
Least biased are ABC (Liberal bias), and Fox News (Conservative bias)
Most biased are CBS (Strong liberal bias), and NBC (Very strong liberal bias)
http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/groeling.pdf
Scientific study results:
Least biased are ABC (Liberal bias), and Fox News (Conservative bias)
Most biased are CBS and NBC (Strong liberal bias)
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_10_30_08.htm
Scientific study results:
Fox was unbiased in 2008 election.
ABC, CBS, NBC were biased towards Obama
http://cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf
Scientific study results:
Least biased outlets are FoxNews, Newshour, CNN NewsNight, and ABC Good Morning America.
Most biased are Wall Street Journal, CBS Evening News, and New York Times.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Now for the other side: One CMPA study found bias against Obama and towards McCain:
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_2.htm
However, this was a reversal of earlier bias towards Obama, and the bias went back towards Obama afterwards:
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_8.htm
So, 3 sources:
1) University of California scientific study
2) CMPA at George Mason University scientific studies
3) UCLA scientific study
Your source:
1) A comedian.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Jun 23, 2011
do your analysis go on just the actual news part of fox news, or take into account the whole network? or at least all the stuff the put out on their 24hour news channel?
also
CMPA : while self discribed as non-partiscan... doesn't really appear that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs
"The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor."
tsuruchibrianJun 23, 2011
@sloppyjones7
I don't know if you actually read all these studies. I don't really have time to do this now as I am at work, but just skimming through the first one...
I find this in the analysis section:
[in reference to the results]
Thus, extrapolation to each network’s programming as a whole should be
done with due caution, particularly in the case of Fox’s 24-hour programming, much of
which is explicitly opinionated.
This study was very limited in it's domain. It primarily measured differences in poll numbers for Bill Clinton and Bush Jr, across the 4 networks.
This is quite a different than the one that the "facts" reported by Fox News are false with a much higher frequency than other news sources.
I actually went to UCLA, and there is a certain level of intellectual rigor and honesty that I expect from it's publications. I just don't think this study (the only one I have read of the ones you cited), contradicts the claim that Fox News lies a lot.
I might review the other when I go home if I have time.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
countess666,
You quoted FAIR. From FAIR's website: "As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates"
So, they're a "progressive" group, AKA a liberal group. Your source admits to being biased, so their opinion on the CMPA must be recognized as biased.
tsuruchibrian
"This is quite a different than the one that the "facts" reported by Fox News are false with a much higher frequency than other news sources."
I have never seen data which support the assertion that Fox makes more errors than other networks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tsuruchibrianJun 23, 2011
@sloppyjoes7
"I have never seen data which support the assertion that Fox makes more errors than other networks."
I haven't either. I think it is really hard to quantify this kind of information in an objective way.
What I also have not seen is any scientific studies to show Fox News is relatively unbiased for, I suspect, the same reason.
I am skeptical of your claim that Fox News is less biased than other networks for 2 reasons.
1. After watching Fox News, it seems to be very biased to me relative to other networks.
2. More importantly, I think a judgement of a networks bias is inherently subjective.
I would be skeptical (although maybe a bit less) of a claim to scientific evidence that Fox News was more biased than other networks for the sane reason.
I don't think it is possible to objectively assess honesty. Lying is composed of 2 factors. incorrect information, and knowledge that the information is incorrect.
A "liar" that doesn't know he is spreading misinformation is not a liar, but simply incorrect.
Until we have a machine that can read people's minds, it is hard to prove that someone doesn't know something.
Even in the area of correctness of information, it is VERY hard to evaluate subjectively. We as humans are very susceptible to deception. Unless we personally witness an event, everything is simply accepted based on the faith in the testimony of others. Even if we witness an event ourselves, human memory is very fallible.
Any respectable scientific study will honestly list the limitations of what can be fairly concluded based on the study.
I will try to read these other studies, but I would be SHOCKED if I found any of them to claim to have conclusive data about the honesty of individual networks, and found them to be scientifically valid.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
The studies had different approaches.
tsuruchibrianJun 23, 2011
The CPMA study is talking only rating ratios of positive vs. negative comments made by the networks about presidential and vice presidential candidates. This is in my opinion not a scientifically valid way to judge media bias. Truly unbiased news would not be making any comments, they would just be reporting facts regardless of who they helped or hurt and in what ratio.
The next 2 seem to have the same general idea of judging news bias based on how closely the networks presented both major political parties as equally good or equally bad.
This view of bias has the fatal flaw that it assumes each party is equally good/bad. This is the only way such a measurement would yield any useful results.
Furthermore, bias between the 2 major political parties is not the only way a news network can be biased.
It is possible for a network to be unbiased between republicans and democrats, but biased for major political parties and against minor ones. Or simply biased for or against certain corporations or biased on non-partisan issues.
mkautzJun 23, 2011
So I've been paging through these 'studies' and while I've only been through 3 of them, so far 1 has even approached "Scientific" (Scientific studies have things like abstracts, research methods, etc. these are important because it's things like these that actually make them, you know, scientific.).
All of them use a single metric to determine 'fair'. The CMPA studies are pretty questionable as they seem to be a pretty big fan of citing anecdotes which should raise a red flag. Furthermore, their own data is subject to some interpretation, as the studies mentioned. Finally, all of these studies mention how difficult it is to actually quantify 'fairness'.
Here's what I think happened:
Someone on some forum put together a list of these 'studies' for people on the right to parrot, as if this is somehow proof that Fox isn't full of s**t. As the right is want to do, they didn't actually read through them, but wrote up 'conclusions' based on what they want them to read and then attached 'scientific' to them to make them sound official.
Now, every time someone says "Fox News is the home of people with double digit IQs", they can copy this list of links to somehow validate Fox's bulls**t, hoping that no one actually looks into these links to figure out what they are actually saying.
I mean, the CMPA study has only 4 stations in their study and 3 of them of liberal, so regardless of the actual content of Fox News, it will be the most balanced conservative station. These kind of details are hopefully glossed over though.
The end result is something we get to see every day: People on the right, incapable of actually doing their own research, hoping to find well-made copy pasta for them to parrot because developing an opinion or even checking up on the facts presented in someone else's opinion is simply too difficult because they have the critical thinking skills of a child with no education.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
"Someone on some forum put together a list of these 'studies' for people on the right to parrot..."
I put this list together, about a month ago or so. I read the reports.
In fact, the reason I linked PDFs is because these reports were all parroted in the media, and in news and opinion stories, but I actually bothered to track down and read the original reports for myself.
Now, you're free to question them. I applaud anybody who actually bothers to read them, because they'll see that I don't twist or distort their results.
And, reading your analysis of these, I can see that you're not terribly informed to begin with. Why only four stations? Because CBS, ABC, and NBC are, by far, the largest news stations. Then, they added in Fox for comparison, and Fox is the largest cable station, so it makes sense.
I doubt you read the reports very well, however. Either that, or your critical thinking skills are lacking, because your analyses are severely lacking.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
witnessxJun 23, 2011
I checked out CMPA, and I've got some questions about these "non-partisan" studies they conduct.
Why was this report so heavily focused on FOX?
http://cmpa.com/pdf/media_monitor_q1_2010.pdf
Why was this report for Bush had no mention of FOX?
http://www.cmpa.com/files/media_monitor/06spring.pdf
Suspect...
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
1) Fox is often focused on because of THINGS LIKE THIS THREAD. Isn't it obvious? Stewart just spent five minutes ripping into Fox, and then you question why a researcher might focus on accusations against Fox? It's because Fox is constantly accused of being biased!
2) That report focused on the "big three" broadcast stations. Those three stations are, by far, the biggest stations in the US. Unlike Fox and MSNBC, they are broadcast, so they have a very, very large audience. Combined, they're about 10 times as big as Fox.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
EpicBreakfastJun 22, 2011
I'm guessing chain email or Newsmax.
sloppyjoes7Jun 24, 2011
No, I didn't. I got it from multiple independent scientific studies and scientific polls.
EpicBreakfastJun 24, 2011
Yeah, and I read the replies to them. You may as well have gotten them from a chain email or Newsmax for as little value as they have to your argument.
sloppyjoes7Jun 24, 2011
"You may as well have gotten them from a chain email or Newsmax for as little value as they have to your argument."
This is why I say that liberals only like science and facts when they agree with their predetermined positions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
EpicBreakfastJun 24, 2011
And you are wrong in saying that for all the reasons that you've already rejected, so it is pointless for us to rehash them. You are clearly going to stonewall to protect your pre-determined position. So why bother?
sloppyjoes7Jun 25, 2011
I would change my position if the facts disagreed.
But anti-fox wingnuts are unconvinced by the body of evidence, because they like Jon Stewart.
EpicBreakfastJun 26, 2011
I find that as unbelievable as your arguments about the lack of bias in Fox News. You are utterly entrenched in your position and you and I both know it. Lying about it won't change my mind.
sloppyjoes7Jun 26, 2011
Every scientific study has shown that Fox has less bias than most news outlets.
I have no idea why believing in strong evidence is "unbelievable."
EpicBreakfastJun 26, 2011
Because what you call "strong evidence" appears to be nothing more than your misinterpretation of studies and/or your reliance on flawed, unscientific studies to support your own blatant personal bias.
llotzafunJun 22, 2011
and that study was done by News Corp, correct?
sloppyjoes7Jun 24, 2011
No, I got my info from multiple independent scientific studies and scientific polls.
llotzafunJun 25, 2011
Some of these studies look to have been done by college students and are not considered scholarly or peer reviewed.
sloppyjoes7Jun 25, 2011
See, that's your problem.
Every study has shown that Fox is very fair, and one of the fairest news stations. Every study. Doesn't matter who performed it.
But you'll nitpick this one, or that one, because they don't support your bias.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2011
Yeah, and North Korea is the happiest country on earth, right Sloppy? I always wondered who would not only be stupid enough to believe such utter bulls**t but also clueless enough not to be embarrassed by actually expressing it in public. I guess now I know...
sloppyjoes7Jun 24, 2011
"North Korea is the happiest country on earth, right Sloppy? "
No. Your ignorant sarcasm is noted, though. You clearly have never read scientific studies about how biased news outlets are, compared to one another.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eatthebrainJun 23, 2011
No citations? Wonder why...
sloppyjoes7Jun 24, 2011
Because there are two options:
1) I spoon feed you every scientific study I can find.
2) You actually bother to do research yourself, trying to find scientific studies.
Or, remain ignorant. Most will choose to do so, sadly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eatthebrainJun 24, 2011
"Spoon feeding" a scientific theory is giving us your biased opinion on it. Just give us a link to what theories your referring to.
When you submit an idea, it's up to you to prove it, not everyone else.
sloppyjoes7Jun 24, 2011
Here's why your post is nonsense:
YOU and STEWART submitted the idea that Fox lies and is biased.
Meanwhile, all scientific studies disagree.
Therefore, anyone who spreads that idea is stupid, ignorant, lying, or a combination of the above. Why would I have to prove my position when EVERY study I've ever seen or found supports that position? If you bothered to take two seconds, do a search for studies (NOT anecdotes or examples), you'd see I'm right.
But you'd rather be ignorant. It's easier that way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eatthebrainJun 25, 2011
Here's your nonsense, and why you're being dugg down.
I never said my opinion on the matter, or if I even agree with Stewart. However, the article shows plenty of citations from Politifact supporting that Fox has plenty of lies.
You keep saying there's plenty of evidence saying that Fox doesn't lie, yet you've supplied NONE of it. Stop wasting everyone's time asking them to do searches when you can easily just paste links to what you've read. Scientific world doesn't work like that, you have to prove your own hypothesis.
If you can't understand the basics of supporting your own idea, I think I'm wasting my time.
sloppyjoes7Jun 25, 2011
There is no evidence supporting the assertion that Fox lies more or makes more mistakes than any other station.
There is evidence that Fox is fairer than its competitors.
Why would I have to prove it? I have links. Several. I posted them elsewhere in this page.
But, I'm arguing that I shouldn't have to prove my position, when it's the only position supported by the facts. I'm pointing out that the left-wingers on Digg are so closed minded, they would never actually bother to do any research, and depend on anecdotes and comedians for their news.
eatthebrainJun 26, 2011
You could watch the video above where Stewart states many of their lies straight from Politifact. There's evidence right in front of you. I haven't read every single comment on here and I'd think you'd cite yourself the first time. Yes, you have to prove and defend your position, you're not special. Simply saying everything supports Fox doesn't make it fact.
"I have links. Several."
Why wouldn't you post them in the first place? Nobody is going to take something seriously unless it has evidence behind it, and your original post did not.
I'm not arguing whether Fox lies or not, I'm arguing that without evidence no one will take anything you say seriously. And you supplied no evidence, but arguing "I shouldn't have to prove my position" is not the right way to go.
bookantJun 23, 2011
No, it hasn't.
witnessxJun 23, 2011
Not biased? Do you mean like the way FOX:
[Edits out important parts of a vide clip to tell the full story?]
http://digg.com/news/story/Cut_from_re_air_What_Fox_News_doesn_t_want_you_too_see
[Aren't too discrete about their hate for Obama?]
http://digg.com/story/r/Fox_News_Jokes_About_Killing_Obama
[Childishly Photoshop photos?]
http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002
[Cut away from Obama's remarks to something irrelevant?]
http://digg.com/story/r/Fox_Makes_Up_Breaking_News_In_Order_to_Cut_Away_From_Obama
[Rigs their focus groups?]
http://digg.com/story/r/Fox_News_Caught_Rigging_Their_Focus_Groups_VIDEO_2
There's more stuff, but I've got to get back to work.
sloppyjoes7Jun 23, 2011
Examples prove absolutely nothing. I could literally find thousands of examples of other news stations doing bad things.
That's because people make errors.
So, only large scale studies can prove anything.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
witnessxJun 23, 2011
But most of these examples these are not "errors." These are deliberate moves.
Examples by itself may not prove anything, but a series of examples proves that there's a pattern which provides evidence.
These above examples show blatant bias in their reporting practices in anything that is not part of the Republican agenda.
What kind of large scale study would there be? I would bet all-in if there was a large scale study that concluded that FOX is biased AND that the majority of conservatives would cry foul while dismissing the organization running the study as liberals, therefore invalid.
sloppyjoes7Jun 24, 2011
You provided FIVE examples. Within one minute, I could easily find TENS OF THOUSANDS examples of liberal bias by the other stations.
But, as I said, examples don't prove anything, so you did not show "blatant bias."
There have been large scale studies on media bias. They consistently show that most news stations are slightly to strongly liberal, and Fox is conservative, but still more balanced than the others. In other words, Fox LEANS conservative, but most other stations are STRONGLY liberal.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
witnessxJun 24, 2011
Using just the major "liberal" outlets like NPR, or NBC, can you find me an example where they did anything similar to the examples I gave? Thing is, I haven't seen anything that would be characterized as strongly liberal in the same magnitude as I've seen on FOX.
If you saw the last TDS episode, the FOX guy (forgot who) interviewing Jon even said himself that FOX is not reporting to the true sense of the words "Fair and "Balanced". Check it out.
sloppyjoes7Jun 24, 2011
"can you find me an example where they did anything similar to the examples I gave?"
I could find tens of thousands. So can you. Just do some searches.
However, I reiterate, examples don't prove anything, so what would be the point? Your examples and my examples don't matter.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
witnessxJun 24, 2011
"However, I reiterate, examples don't prove anything, so what would be the point? Your examples and my examples don't matter."
They do matter. I don't know why you dismiss this concept. Examples of behavior provides supporting evidence of the truth. Are you telling me that if you had a manager you report to that has been caught:
-Photoshopping their coworker's photos to make them look tired/sickly in the newsletters.
-Chose his friends in the office to evaluate his performance.
-Makes a joke about wanting to, or wishing someone else would just kill the CEO.
-Changes the subject to something completely irrelevant during meetings when something more important is being discussed.
That if this guy exhibited these examples of behavior, that you will dismiss them, and still think he's a good guy? What would make you think he's complete jerk then, because short of this guy coming out and telling you that he did all those things in the past with malicious intent, you will never have an actual confirmation that he's a jerk. When you dismiss examples of behavioral patterns, your only acceptable form of confirmation is when the jerk comes out and says "hey, I'm a jerk." Thereby you create a condition that is extremely difficult to prove, short of admitting guilt. Why do you think there are "character witnesses" in court trials?
Really? Do you really dismiss examples like what I linked, and think it has no basis on the overwhelming consensus that FOX is biased? Because if you do, then it really begins to explain the gaping rift in all of these Digg discussions that are partisan charged.
The above is my central question to you. If you have the time, I still want some links from the tens of thousands of examples where "liberal" media has conducted themselves in the same manner as what I linked. Specifically, I'd like to see links related to NPR, because that's where I get the majority of my news - I really don't care about the others.
sloppyjoes7Jun 24, 2011
News corporations aren't just "a coworker" or "a manager." They are hundreds to thousands of workers, and they revolve over time, as people get hired or change positions. You're comparing a single guy to thousands of people.
Plus, news stations air for several hours a day, every day of the week, every week of the year, and have been for decades.
As a result, CNN, Fox, ABC, and all stations make huge errors, introduce massive bias, and do stupid things every now and then. All of them.
For example, YOU think your examples prove Fox is biased? Well then, AP must be a left wing fraud!
http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/
See, I can provide examples too! It's not hard. By your mindset, my examples have just proven that AP can never be trusted, because they falsify, stage, invent, lie, mischaracterize, and twisted information.
Want more? Here's 3000 examples.
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/archive.aspx
Want more? Here's over 20,000 examples, I believe:
http://newsbusters.org/archive
If anecdotes prove something, then I just utterly won this argument.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
witnessxJun 24, 2011
"As a result, CNN, Fox, ABC, and all stations make huge errors, introduce massive bias, and do stupid things every now and then. All of them."
I'm glad you added FOX to this list, because they too make huge errors, introduce massive bias, and do stupid things as the rest of them. It's just that FOX finds itself in this mess more often than the others. Y'know, things like FOX's involvement in that whole ACORN thing that was made up - just another example, but that was pretty big.It was made up, and now this organization doesn't exist, because it didn't survive the lie.
BTW, of course a coworker/manager isn't the same as a news corporation - I was illustrating a concept. Through examples in those examples, you'd have concluded that the guy was a jerk - I even used the FOX examples cited above to draw an easier to picture parallel. You didn't even answer that question either. I guess you still don't get it? The repeated behavior of an entity (individual, or a corporation) is a decent indication of their overall attitude.
I checked out your links. A couple were interesting, but these are blog entries. I don't read blogs to get to the bottom of things. I like seeing a video clip of what happened, not some guy telling me how it went down. You know - just show me the facts, and let me decide for myself. On NewsBusters, I found headlines like this:
--------------------------
ABC, NBC Starstruck by 'Patented Michelle (Obama) Power' - Don't care.
NY Times: Happy Father's Day, Sperm Donor - Wow, really don't care.
'Cars 2' Takes Hard Left Turn Pushing Alternative Energy - Really? It's a movie, just f**king enjoy it.
ABC, CBS Heap Praise on 'Baby Whisperer' Barack Obama and His 'Magic' Touch - Okay, this is just stupid fluff, but does show these networks fawning over him.
Juan Williams: Hannity Would Have Been Fired For Doing Amos and Andy Voice Like Stewart - He wouldn't if his show was also aired on COMEDY CENTRAL too. Note, people don't take Comedy Central too seriously for like news and stuff.
--------------------------
Anyways, this website would be like me citing Huff Post in supporting my position. I also looked at the AP photo thing. Although I can do without the dramatizing of photos, with the cloning and staging, it isn't anything like photoshopping someone's FACE to make them look uglier - c'mon, you know that's much different, and childish. When you find something like the AP pasting in a photo of Obama in a warzone that he wasn't in, then I'll be ready to seriously doubt that organization. Also, I asked for examples related to NPR, and you linked me to an entire website. I could've just cited Digg.com for my examples then. When you can find me something on say NPR/CNN/NBC/ABC/whatever where they were involved in something like ACORN, then I'll doubt those organizations. It's these type of bigger problems that FOX is involved in that causes a lot of people to just dismiss them.
Has there been a time with these "liberal" networks where you can produce a clip where Bush was discussing a bill he's signed, and the network cut away to a frickin' airplane where nothing happened for minutes? The can do picture-in-picture, but they chose to cut away. Can you show me a clip where Bush was addressing Congress, made a joke where people laughed, but the liberal news network spliced in sounds of crickets? Something. Give me something, and not a link to a whole website like YouTube.
I've pretty much determined what's what with this whole discussion, but I'm looking to you to give me something concrete, and factual to change my mind. I'm open to changing my position, so long as it's reasonable, logical, and backed by something that resembles fact. Dunno if you're open, or entrenched, but I am.
sloppyjoes7Jun 25, 2011
"It's just that FOX finds itself in this mess more often than the others."
No they don't. The only reason you believe this is because you watch Jon Stewart, and possibly other liberal or left-wing sources.
In fact, there is no study or poll or large-scale research which would support that assertion. Only liberal and left-wing hosts.
Listen, if Limbaugh says something about the "left-wing media", and I do some research, and find he's wrong, I'd admit I was wrong. Do yourself a favor, and do the same.
And stop asking for examples. You keep saying "Did liberal networks do this, that, or the other thing?"
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I can find examples. I gave you a very strong and specific one, and thousands of links to others.
BUT, why argue over specific examples? It's pointless! You must have a controlled apples-to-apples comparison. Not random examples. That's an utter waste of time.
witnessxJun 25, 2011
"The only reason you believe this is because you watch Jon Stewart, and possibly other liberal or left-wing sources."
I don't watch TDS often, and the only reason I believe that is because of video clips of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. If you don't accept these types of examples to sway your opinion, then there's no reason to continue discussing it with you. Video evidence is insufficient, so I don't know what you need. An admission from Rupert perhaps.
"In fact, there is no study or poll or large-scale research which would support that assertion. Only liberal and left-wing hosts."
Listen, I can provide a study, poll or research that would support FOX bias, and younwill not accept it. In fact, anything that supports that, you will say it's liberal slanted. Doesn't matter what it is. You have already been entrenched in your opinion, which is having a closed mind. I provided links, and I bet money you didn't even bother looking at them. That's how you operate.
"Listen, if Limbaugh says something about the "left-wing media", and I do some research, and find he's wrong, I'd admit I was wrong. Do yourself a favor, and do the same."
My entire conversation with you has been asking you to provide something as damning as what I found on FOX. There isn't a whole lot of this kind of behavior from the major "liberal" outlets, and I consume my news from NPR. I asked you to cite something specific to NPR, because I feel they are THE most non-partisan, so don't ask me about the others. I suppose you just your news from FOX, whom you defend so passionately.
"And stop asking for examples. You keep saying "Did liberal networks do this, that, or the other thing?"
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I can find examples. I gave you a very strong and specific one.....Not random examples. That's an utter waste of time."
You mean that AP one? Was that the strong one that proves how slanted liberal reporting is? I told you what I thought about that. How do you compare something like that with what happened to ACORN by FOX et al? See, that's the kind of bombshell I'm looking for. That's the kind of lying that f**ks people over. Do people get hurt by images of cloned smoke, or using an old woman to model for the photographer to give a bleak scene some context over and over, making a guy look appear brave, but was actually disgusted when holding a dead child? How does this even compare??
That's it for me. I'm not even sure you even read what I wrote, and I know you're not looking at the links. I thought you were different from all the other blathering idiots that shared your opinion, but you too aren't arguing to seek a deeper truth and understanding. Never wanting to bring the discussion to a smaller, more manageable point, but rather focus on the entire war topic. You just hold your position, and with blind loyalty. Never questioning it, as I do. See ya, it was mildly interesting for a while.
sloppyjoes7Jun 26, 2011
The ACORN incident actually happened. I have no idea why you say "I have video evidence that Fox lies and distorts," and then say "But I'll ignore the video evidence that ACORN did bad things."
Hypocrite. You claim that video evidence of Fox's bias should convince me, then ignore the video evidence damning ACORN.
"Listen, I can provide a study, poll or research that would support FOX bias, and younwill not accept it."
I'd be glad to hear of one, because I can't find one that exists.
"You just hold your position, and with blind loyalty. Never questioning it..."
I read links. I look into it. YOU are the one who said "Don't care, Not interested..." about my links. You ask me to prove NPR is liberal... That's like asking me to prove Limbaugh is conservative, or Maher is liberal. It's obvious. NPR probably isn't as liberal as MSNBC or the NY Times, but the bias is there. Why can't liberals recognize any bias except conservative bias? It's crazy. They lack objectivity to the extreme.
tmann619Jun 22, 2011
The News Hour on PBS is top notch.
odkinJun 23, 2011
Goodbye and good riddance to lefty hack Lehrer
sloppyjoes7Jun 24, 2011
News Hour on PBS is approximately as biased as Fox News.
In other words, both are relatively fair.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htmComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tmann619Jun 24, 2011
I don't agree.
sloppyjoes7Jun 24, 2011
You can disagree with facts. The facts don't care either way.
tmann619Jun 27, 2011
That report doesn't take into consideration may of the programs on Fox news, including Hannity, O'Reily, Beck, Fox & Friends etc.
zerosumJun 23, 2011
We invented Yellow Journalism! If you don't like it you can get out!
anyreturnJun 22, 2011
How John keeps himself calm in these interviews I'll never know.
dylstarksJun 22, 2011
I respect Politifact for what they do. They are an important website that is one of the few organizations out there that actually holds people accountable for what they say. It's not okay to lie to the masses anymore.
However, Jon Stewart wasn't wrong when he said that Fox news misinforms their viewers more than any other news organization. It seems like Politifact tried to take a general statement, and overanalyze it to prove that they are non-partisan. What Jon Stewart said was accurate. When Fox News has conjured two of the last "Lies of the Year" on Politifact's website, it is logical to say that they misinform their viewers at an exceedingly high rate. I am curious who has earned more "False" ratings on Politifact, between Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Jon Stewart, and Bill Maher. I'm guaranteeing that it is Fox News.
meta4manJun 22, 2011
Politifact truly did nitpick him, I believe I buried that article here, because they grabbed a poll from someone I'd never heard of and said, SEE JOHN, not EVERY Poll. Yeah, he answered with class, and then had some fun with his Fox pals
witnessxJun 23, 2011
I get my news from NPR.
Then I get my comedy from TDS.
If I got my news from FOX, the jokes on TDS wouldn't make any sense to me.
That's why right wing news viewers cannot see the comedy, the irony, or the sarcasm. It's because the clips replayed on TDS are facts to them.
jeff2178Jun 22, 2011
Fox can't be always wrong...they got Sarah Pa......oh wait....
rgb86Jun 22, 2011
Now, now. Even a blind squirrel gets a nut every once in a while.
jaxxbatJun 23, 2011
Did you buy gold at $600 an oz?
irrationalistJun 22, 2011
Took it like a man. Respect.
hotsauce126Jun 22, 2011
A lot of people commenting keep saying "oh its just a comedy show", but straight clips from Fox News make up half of the comedy in the show
troggyJun 22, 2011
I actually wondered what he was gonna do when bush left office, cause for 8 years bush gave him material night after night.
Turns out fox gives him even more
chukaobianozieJun 23, 2011
And that's why I don't watch their news. Their just full of lies. lol
crazedleperJun 23, 2011
Yeah, but when you try to specifically identify them, people shoot you down because *everybody knows* that kerosene from TWO planes could easily bring THREE of the largest buildings in NYC (provided they're all owned by the same Israeli national) down to the ground. Nothing left. Powder. Poof! A nation of idiots gets it's comeuppance--eventually.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mnementh2230Jun 23, 2011
Are you forgetting the rather massive impact of those planes themselves, and the damage such an impact would do? Have you looked at the absolutely colossal amount of kinetic energy that would have to be absorbed by the building during the crash, and have you considered what sort of horrific damage that would do to all the supporting superstructure in that area? Have you then done the structural calculations for a catastrophically damaged and heat-weakened superstructure's carrying capacity? Do you know enough about metallurgy to understand just how badly that impact and rapid temperature raise will warp and damage steel?
You know what? Forget it. I remember doing this with you once before, and the best you could come up with is a "peer reviewed" paper that wasn't actually peer reviewed at all, and a few pictures of some red metal dripping out of the side of one of the burning towers.
crazedleperJun 24, 2011
No, I'm not forgetting the impact that didn't knock down either building immediately. Neither am I forgetting the huge ball of fire *outside* of the building. I think that was jet fuel. I'm also not forgetting the documentary where the engineer who built the damned things explained that they factored in the potential for a jet impact where he stated "I believe it could sustain multiple jet impacts". I remember that the steel was rated by UL for 6hrs at 2500 degrees. I remember the color of the fire was orange-red. You know what that means, right science-boy? The color of the smoke indicated the temperature, too. I'll let you research that on your own.
I'm also not forgetting the testimony from the streams of people (including police, firemen, FBI agents and building maintenance) who came out of the buildings saying "explosionS"--plural. I remember seeing squibs as the towers imploded at free-fall speed. I recall hearing Larry Silverstein, who had invested only 15 MILLION investment in his 99-year lease of the whole complex only months earlier say "maybe we should just pull it...and they made that decision to pull". Good thing he had the foresight to specifically insure against acts of terror. He would later earn 7 BILLION on the policy by claiming that each plane constituted a separate act. Cui Bono?
I recall bone fragments recovered from nearby rooftops. I recall the PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH that found hard evidence for thermite in the dust. I recall that the "Mayor's bunker" in WTC 7 had blast proof windows and a separate air supply. You'd think they'd have known that a bunker should be at ground level, but no. 23rd floor. Great view of the towers from there. Mayor Guiliani wasn't in the bunker, though, on the day you'd think he'd have been most likely to need it. He's on video saying that they threw together a command center at 75 Barclay st. Really? How interesting.
I could go on but nobody has been listening from word 1. You're all totally enamored of and bonded to the monsters who did this. It took decades for the truth about the Kennedy assassination to come to light and still, some of you believe the lie. Pathetic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whateverhesaidJun 24, 2011
You Nutters sure are funny!
mnementh2230Jun 24, 2011
"No, I'm not forgetting the impact that didn't knock down either building immediately.:
That doesn't mean it didn't severely damage the infrastructure - which it surely did.
"Neither am I forgetting the huge ball of fire *outside* of the building. I think that was jet fuel."
Learn a little chemistry - it takes very little fuel to make a very large fireball. What made it outside the building was a fraction of what remained inside.
"I'm also not forgetting the documentary where the engineer who built the damned things explained that they factored in the potential for a jet impact where he stated "I believe it could sustain multiple jet impacts"."
It's not as though they had an opportunity to test their engineering, did they? Saying you built something to withstand a jet strike and actually testing to make sure that it would survive are very, VERY different situations. Real life is much more complicated than that.
"I remember that the steel was rated by UL for 6hrs at 2500 degrees. I remember the color of the fire was orange-red. You know what that means, right science-boy? The color of the smoke indicated the temperature, too. I'll let you research that on your own."
It wasn't just fuel that was burning in there - so what? We already knew that. It's a big step from saying "more than just the plane and its fuel was burning in the WTC" (what was stored on the floors that were hit?) to saying "it was an inside job". You seem to also be conveniently forgetting something that metal smiths have known for centuries - things burn hotter when you can funnel more air to them. That jet fuel burns at a particular temperature has no bearing on the cumulative effects of a massive amount of fuel + other material burning in a relatively small area. Simple thermodynamics: add heat to a system, and the total amount of heat increases.
"I'm also not forgetting the testimony from the streams of people (including police, firemen, FBI agents and building maintenance) who came out of the buildings saying "explosionS"--plural."
Did they see things exploding, or did they just feel shock waves from s**t collapsing inside the buildings? You don't know, and likely they didn't either. Stressful situation, someone feels a thud, calls it an explosion, and so it goes...
"I remember seeing squibs as the towers imploded..."
What you saw were not squibs - first of all, how could they have gotten squibs in to EVERY SINGLE FLOOR OF BOTH BUILDING without someone noticing? Secondly, you saw things blowing out - you assumed they were squibs, but once again you don't know. Thirdly, this has already been explained by the pancaking of the floors themselves and the pressure wave of air blowing out windows below the immediate collapse.
"I recall hearing Larry Silverstein, who had invested only 15 MILLION investment in his 99-year lease of the whole complex only months earlier say "maybe we should just pull it...and they made that decision to pull"."
And do you have any idea what he was talking about, specifically? Your confirmation bias is once again making you jump to conclusions.
"I recall bone fragments recovered from nearby rooftops."
Irrelevant.
"I recall the PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH that found hard evidence for thermite in the dust."
That wasn't peer reviewed - that was bulls**t. We've already been over that - it was never published, it was reviewed by a hand full of people who didn't even have the correct credentials to give the paper a proper review. Further still, there were CIA offices in the towers. Do you know how the CIA destroys its sensitive papers and hard drives? Thermite.
"You'd think they'd have known that a bunker should be at ground level..."
Nothing is perfect. If you're going to talk about a perfect "bunker", it should be underground with nothing on top of it.
"Mayor Guiliani wasn't in the bunker, though, on the day you'd think he'd have been most likely to need it. He's on video saying that they threw together a command center at 75 Barclay st. Really? How interesting."
Emergency happens, you go where you're needed to help. This isn't interesting, it's human-f**king-nature.
"I could go on but nobody has been listening from word 1."
Because you've really got nothing to listen to. You've convinced yourself that you're correct based on no real evidence, and therefore no real evidence will ever convince you that you're wrong. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to.
"It took decades for the truth about the Kennedy assassination to come to light and still, some of you believe the lie."
The "truth" you're talking about exists nowhere but in your head. Once again, I'll ask - where's your evidence?
crazedleperJun 24, 2011
@mnementh2230 said
That doesn't mean it didn't severely damage the infrastructure - which it surely did.
I didn't say "no damage was done" but the damage possible under the circumstances was inconsistent with what later followed. It was an engineered illusion; a fact which you will always be happy to have escape you.
-------------
"Learn a little chemistry - it takes very little fuel to make a very large fireball. What made it outside the building was a fraction of what remained inside."
Prove that....and don't say "because the building is gone". Your assertion is utterly ridiculous. That second event clearly impacted the corner of the building. There was an obvious cloud of spray which subsequently ignited. On the basis of what do you assert that "chemistry" would be responsible for, what, attracting the fuel into the building where you need it to be? The *total* collapse of both buildings was not a likely or even possible outcome from the impact of a single jet. Aerial surveys of the area showed a hole where one of the towers was. A hole. I'm not buying it.
-------------
"...you built something to withstand a jet strike and actually testing to make sure that it would survive are very, VERY different situations. Real life is much more complicated than that."
It's not like they *could* test it while people are filling their buildings with explosives. I'm sure, in any other case, you'd side with the guy with a lab coat and a degree.
-------------
"It wasn't just fuel that was burning in there -... It's a big step from saying "more than just the plane and its fuel was burning in the WTC"... to saying "it was an inside job"."
Yes, that's true. There are many, many other factors that led me to conclude that, in fact, that 9/11 was the work of the MilitAry indusTRIal compleX. The quick and illegal disposal of the materials. The guilty behavior of GWB when someone whispered "America is under attack" in his ear during his televised alibi. He didn't look disturbed to me. In fact, if you were willing to see it, you could tell from his reaction that he was expecting to be told that--that's why he continued to sit there and read that book His job as frontman was to make himself look "good" and that's exactly what he did. The way 9/11 was parlayed into a rationale to go to war with the same guy his daddy failed to kill 10 years earlier. The put options on the very Airlines from which planes were "hijacked". I suppose you're going to blame that on Bin Laden, too.
Let's not forget the Anthrax which was traced back to the US Military. Coincidence? Sure! Why not? I could go on for hours and still forget stuff. It was the most corrupt day in US History and it was the Pentagon's 60th birthday. Another coincidence!! Don't get me started on the Pentagon. Too late. It trust you are aware of the $2.3 TRILLION "missing" dollars? Are you also aware of the announcement that was made at a press conference only one day earlier? ANOTHER COINCIDENCE!? WOW! There must be a factory producing these things.
-------------
"You seem to also be conveniently forgetting something that ... - things burn hotter when you can funnel more air to them....Simple thermodynamics: add heat to a system, and the total amount of heat increases."
Fine theory but what's up with the unburned people who were photographed--including hair and clothing--standing in the impact holes? WHERE'S YOUR HOT NOW!? The beams are melting but hair and clothing are unaffected. Sure. Maybe you, @apok and @whatever can sing that to me in a 3-part harmony. If you're going to be ridiculous and wrong, you may as well at least sound good.
-------------
"Did they see things exploding, or did they just feel shock waves from s**t collapsing inside the buildings? ....Stressful situation, someone feels a thud, calls it an explosion, and so it goes..."
Police and firemen (need I say "trained") said "there are bombs in the buildings". You can go to YouTube [insert ridicule here] at anytime and see the footage. Footage that will *never* be allowed to be shown on TV. If you look enough, should be able to find the video where the guy with a video camera on the other side of the river caught the sounds of NINE massive explosions from the sublevels of the towers just before the coup de grâce. Either that or I imagined the sounds coming from his camera...that he posted to YouTube. GO TO YOUTUBE AND SEE THE VIDEOS FOR YOURSELF!!
-------------
"What you saw were not squibs...how could they have gotten squibs in to EVERY SINGLE FLOOR OF BOTH BUILDING without someone noticing?"
It depends upon who "they" are. The buildings were there for 40 years. There was ample time to put anything, anywhere without raising the slightest bit of suspicion--if you owned it or were in charge of "security". Speaking of, do you know who was in charge of security at the WTC? Marvin b b b B B B U S H. Another coincidence!
-------------
"Secondly, you saw things blowing out - you assumed they were squibs, but once again you don't know. "
I saw a sequence of several, identical jets of debris synchronously ejected from of both sides of each tower. Most were well-timed but a few of the squibs were 40 (or so) floors below the blast wave. You're not going to convince me that I was seeing anything but explosions remotely triggered from the "Mayor's bunker".
-------------
"Thirdly, this has already been explained by the pancaking of the floors themselves and the pressure wave of air blowing out windows below the immediate collapse."
Bulls**t. A pancake collapse is characterized BY PANCAKES! Do a Google image search of "building collapse" and "pancake collapse" and see what a *real* structural failure looks like.
-------------
"And do you have any idea what he was talking about, specifically? Your confirmation bias is once again making you jump to conclusions."
Well, he *could* have been talking about the pantyhose market but, since the whole discussion was in the context of the towers that he owned and he said "we watched the buildings collapse", I'm just going to go ahead and assume that he was referring to the buildings that he owned...and destroyed...for profit.
Seriously, how many men in the world would sell out a whole city for SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS? None? Not a single one!? Every millionaire (or wanna be millionaire) in the world is too principled? You can believe that if you want to but I know better. Everything that we *can* do, we eventually *will* do.
-------------
cont'd...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crazedleperJun 24, 2011
cont'd..
"That wasn't peer reviewed... it was reviewed by a hand full of people who didn't even have the correct credentials to give the paper a proper review. "
So you say, but it's available online to be viewed by anyone who wants to. Anyone who isn't afraid for his job, his pension, his life or just too much of a coward to face the ridicule of idiots. There is also a coalition of architects and engineers who went "crazy" and created a website detailing their professional opinions that the event was faked. Don't look at it--you might go "crazy", too.
-------------
"Further still, there were CIA offices in the towers. Do you know how the CIA destroys its sensitive papers and hard drives? Thermite."
I guess your fact checkers are on vacation. The offices in question were in WTC7 --along with the SEC files on the Worldcom and Enron cases. Do you know how the SEC destroys its sensitive papers? Thermite.
-------------
"Nothing is perfect. If you're going to talk about a perfect "bunker", it should be underground with nothing on top of it."
Don't even try it. Seriously, that's your greatest insult, so far. You're not seriously going to brush this aside with "nobody's perfect"!? They had no choice but to put a "bunker" on the 23rd floor?! And so if the building's power went out, what, the mayor would CLIMB 23 FLIGHTS OF STAIRS!? I know you're problem--it's those damned trees again. They don't *want* you to see the forest.
-------------
"Emergency happens, you go where you're needed to help. This isn't interesting, it's human-f**king-nature."
You'd think that the foresight that resulted in a "bunker" (in the sky) would have included means to "help". If, in fact, "helping" was anyone's intent. Giuliani didn't look surprised to me, either. He looked like he expected it, too.
-------------
"Because you've really got nothing to listen to...You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to."
No, you were shocked and awed into it, as was I--at first. I, however, am among the minority who were able to reason myself out from under that emotional baggage to look the ugly truth right in the face: the control freaks have won.
-------------
"The "truth" you're talking about exists nowhere but in your head. Once again, I'll ask - where's your evidence?"
I saw the Zapruder film. Kennedy was shot from the front. I saw the Secret Service called off the car. I know that everyone in a position to kill the president on that day, Bush, Nixon and Johnson, went on to become presidents, themselves. In fact, it worked so well that Bush tried to do it again by having Reagan shot by John Hinckley, brother of family friend, Robert Hinckley. He didn't die though; can't win 'em all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdawg123Jun 25, 2011
Give it up, junior. The grown ups have spent more than enough time debunking all of your paranoid "9/11 was an inside job" bulls**t. Just because you can't let go of your fantasy-based obsessions doesn't mean others need to further waste their time trying to convince you otherwise.
Why don't you spend some more time on your anti-evolution rant?
No? How about the "man is only 6000 years old" nonsense?
Or how about my personal favorite, "man never went to the moon" idiocy.
Nobody takes you seriously because you are a f**king loon. Get a clue.
whateverhesaidJun 25, 2011
@bdawg
Don't forget the planned extinction of the african race!
bdawg123Jun 25, 2011
LOL! I didn't know about that one but it comes as no surprise. How much you want to bet he's a flat-earther as well? There's no end to the crazy! That must take a whole team of voices in your head to keep track of that many conspiracy theories.
crazedleperJun 25, 2011
The MATRIX is an artificial world. Everything seen therein, however contiguous, is false.
mnementh2230Jun 27, 2011
I'm just going to let Apok handle this - he's got more free time and a better understanding of your particular brand of crazy than I do.
Have fun denying basic physics, though. Keep in mind that hot metal really does lose most of its strength, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5foRzbHP3gM - take special note of how easily he is able to bend some of this very thick iron when it is hot. Then think about your tower, with all its insulation being stripped away by the plane's impact, sitting there in an inferno of burning fuel, building material and abundantly supplied air. Support girders around the crash site get much, much weaker, and can no longer hold up the weight of the floors above. Floors above come down, the accumulated weight smashing down on to the next floor below the fires. It collapses from all that kinetic energy, adding its mass to the falling portion, repeating this cycle on the next floor down, down, down...
mnementh2230Jun 23, 2011
Are you forgetting the rather massive impact of those planes themselves, and the damage such an impact would do? Have you looked at the absolutely colossal amount of kinetic energy that would have to be absorbed by the building during the crash, and have you considered what sort of horrific damage that would do to all the supporting superstructure in that area? Have you then done the structural calculations for a catastrophically damaged and heat-weakened superstructure's carrying capacity? Do you know enough about metallurgy to understand just how badly that impact and rapid temperature raise will warp and damage steel?
You know what? Forget it. I remember doing this with you once before, and the best you could come up with is a "peer reviewed" paper that wasn't actually peer reviewed at all, and a few pictures of some red metal dripping out of the side of one of the burning towers.
mnementh2230Jun 23, 2011
Apologies for double-post.
apokalypsenowJun 24, 2011
The temperature at which jet fuel burns is hot enough to make steel lose most of its strength, a fact which you consistently forget... but we all know that you have little use for facts when you can instead use vague assertions and menacing insinuations.
crazedleperJun 24, 2011
Bulls**t. Not in an hour. People heard explosions. I saw squibs. The building should have tipped over not crumble into the path of *most* resistance. The lower floor should have remained. The entire place should not have crumbled to dust...especially the upper floors. Nothing was left but beams. According to one fireman: "You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was a part of a keypad." Total destruction from "pancaking"? WHERE ARE THE PANCAKES!!?? The building sublimated directly from concrete to dust in midair as we all watched. You can see dust pouring from the building in the earliest moments of collapse. This is significant because the pulverized matter could not *also* have been precipitating a "pancake" collapse. It's a huge lie and you're never going to stop believing it.
Furthermore, don't sell me that "losing it's strength" crap. You admit that kerosene couldn't melt steel so you have to revert to the fall-back position that the steel was merely "weakened" by the heat but that's bulls**t, too. Tons upon tons of MOLTEN STEEL were found in the basements of all 3 buildings and it took weeks to extinguish. HOW DID MOLTEN STEEL JUMP 500 ft TO BUILDING 7?! Answer: it didn't. Building 7 had its own thermite charges. Look at the thermal satellite images. They clearly show 3 distinct incidents.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mnementh2230Jun 25, 2011
"People heard explosions."
People heard what they thought were explosions.
"I saw squibs"
And you're *SUCH* an expert on demolitions...
"The building should have tipped over not crumble into the path of *most* resistance."
You're *such* a structural engineer you know exactly how a building should collapse... (never mind that we've seen buildings do exactly what we saw in the WTC, no explosives required, in other situations - especially fires).
"The lower floor should have remained."
Not when the upper floors fell on to them. You're basing a lot of this on things you simply don't understand.
"Total destruction from "pancaking"?"
Yeah - you get several hundred thousand tons of debris colliding and as it falls dozens of stories, and let's see how much actually remains intact. Oh wait, we saw exactly that - nothing much survives.
"WHERE ARE THE PANCAKES!!?"
Crunched to a chunky mess by the huge fall. Yes, yes, I'm sure you'll draw parallels to some building that pancaked elsewhere in the world, made of entirely different material and not nearly as high - that's not a valid comparison.
"The building sublimated directly from concrete to dust in midair as we all watched."
Incorrect - there was a lot of dust, but not nearly enough to account for what you want it to account for - what your paranoid delusions NEED it to account for.
"HOW DID MOLTEN STEEL JUMP 500 ft TO BUILDING 7?! "
You didn't see the huge chunk of fuel-bearing wing strike that building as well?
You're still forgetting the forge-effect of fuel and a rapid air supply.
crazedleperJun 25, 2011
@mnementh2230 said:
"And you're *SUCH* an expert on demolitions..."
Well, if you'll only have the word of an "expert", here is a 3 part interview with a demolitions expert who has nothing to fear from American terrorists. Watch has he goes "crazy". C'mon watch it. I DARE YOU.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&playnext=1&list=PL8AC58F2FD45E219B
---------
"People heard what they thought were explosions."
I like how the trained experts know better than me when you need them to and are merely confused when you need them to be.
Why don't you tell me what you hear? C'mon watch it. I DARE YOU.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM
While you're making up an explanation for that, don't forget to make up an explanation for the clouds of smoke rising from the bottom of the building. C'mon watch it. I DARE YOU.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWT_iggVL5Q
---------
"You're *such* a structural engineer you know exactly how a building should collapse...
Do me a favor, don't play the "expertise" card with me. You lost that privilege. Why don't you listen to these experts? C'mon, watch it--I DARE YOU!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcg8hMEmTVE&NR=1
--------
"(never mind that we've seen buildings do exactly what we saw in the WTC, no explosives required, in other situations - especially fires)."
LIAR!! NO STEEL-FRAMED BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE! NEVER!! LIAR!
---------
"Not when the upper floors fell on to them.
If the upper floors "fell on them" then both the upper floors and the lower floors should have been present--not a damned hole.
--------
"You're basing a lot of this on things you simply don't understand."
You like dismissing me on the basis of my "understanding" but it's merely a convenience for you. How do you "understand" this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlFXQKdN3M0&feature=related
C'mon watch it. I DARE YOU.
--------
"Yeah - you get several hundred thousand tons of debris colliding and as it falls dozens of stories, and let's see how much actually remains intact. Oh wait, we saw exactly that - nothing much survives."
-------
"Crunched to a chunky mess by the huge fall. "
Exactly. A big chunky mess of concrete--which is exactly what we DIDN'T see at the WTC. All the concrete magically converted to dust in MID AIR and you can see it form a pyroclastic flow all throughout the streets. You have offered no explanation for this phenomenon.
--------
"Yes, yes, I'm sure you'll draw parallels to some building that pancaked elsewhere in the world, made of entirely different material and not nearly as high - that's not a valid comparison."
How do you know my comparison would not be valid when I haven't made one? Because you already decided that I'm wrong because I'm me--or, more accurately, because I'm not you.
This is a pancake collapse:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_T66Zcma3eso/RsMfAJOnhzI/AAAAAAAAAdU/PViOpx-BKO4/s1600-h/4_pancake150.jpg
Note how you can still count the floors because the concrete is still, largely, intact. Granted, there would have been more momentum if the floors had traveled 105 stories but there would still have been *some* pancakes. There isn't one. How can anyone, therefore, justify calling it a "pancake collapse"?
----------
"Incorrect - there was a lot of dust, but not nearly enough to account for what you want it to account for - what your paranoid delusions NEED it to account for."
The insanity defense will not be accepted. Here, why don't' you watch this nutter's paranoid delusion. Watch her and her british companion discuss the "fact" that WTC7 has collapsed while it's in plain view in the window behind her. They clearly had foreknowledge but were stymied by the time difference. This effectively extends the conspiracy to the UK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo&feature=related
--------
"You didn't see the huge chunk of fuel-bearing wing strike that building as well?"
No, and neither did anyone else. Even so, it wouldn't have been enough to cause a TOTAL collapse of the building seven hours later. You believe this crap because you want to.
If you would look at the evidence instead of cooking up scenarios in your head that make the gov't story "true" (and then calling *me* "delusional") , you'd see that, at the very least, the government's story has some insurmountable problems. But you cannot because you are not objective or open minded. You are stuck fast to the social construct which gives you your identity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mnementh2230Jun 27, 2011
Yeah, I'm just going to let Apok handle this - he's got a better handle on this particular flavor of crazy than I do.
crazedleperJun 28, 2011
Yes, you coward. Play the "crazy" card and excuse yourself from having to hold on to your government propaganda in the face of all this evidence that I presented.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mnementh2230Jun 29, 2011
This has nothing to do with "cowardice" and everything to do with a lack of time. Apok knows your particular brand of crazy much better than I do, and has more free time than I do. I'll let him keep refuting your usual unevidenced and misrepresented bulls**t with evidence, as he's quite good at it, but you go ahead and keep fuming in impotence if it makes you feel special.
apokalypsenowJun 25, 2011
"Bulls**t. Not in an hour."
It takes way less than an hour, especially when a plane impact just knocked away all your heat insulation. In case you didn't notice, the towers were very much on fire. Maybe someone needs a little course in metallurgy?
"People heard explosions."
When large objects collide, it sounds like explosions, much as cars backfiring can sound like gunshots to someone not familiar with the report of a handgun or rifle. Large concrete slabs slamming into each other, no wonder.
"I saw squibs."
No you didn't. You saw windows blowing out from the air pressure of pancaking concrete slabs (a half-million cubic feet of air per floor suddenly being compressed will do that). You'll also note that you didn't *hear* any squibs or other demolition explosives going off, and they do make a very distinct and organized series of sounds. Go watch a building demolition video, then watch the towers fall, and see the difference in speed and sounds. You will, of course, not do this, because you're not interested in the truth, you just want to believe in another boogeyman conspiracy. Go go confirmation bias.
Controlled demolition explosives also leave identifiable remnants in the debris pile, none of which were found at the WTC.
"The building should have tipped over..."
BZZT! Sorry, it would only tip over if there was sufficient delta-v in a particular direction to cause that.
"The lower floor should have remained."
Not when the entire building slammed into it all at once.
"The entire place should not have crumbled to dust..."
That's what happens when concrete gets pulverized, especially when exposed to extreme heat: it crumbles. Now, how could that have happened... oh wait, I know! Maybe the giant f**king burning building collapse did it
"Nothing was left but beams."
Next time you find office furniture rated to survive a several-hundred foot drop and having a burning building dropped on it, let me know.
"WHERE ARE THE PANCAKES!!??"
Broken into pieces by the fall and hauled off to wherever they took the debris.
"The building sublimated directly from concrete to dust in midair as we all watched."
You haven't watched many building demolitions, have you?
"This is significant because the pulverized matter could not *also* have been precipitating a "pancake" collapse."
Number one, not all the concrete was pulverized. Number two, not everything that was pouring out was concrete dust. Number three, you showing your ignorance of physics - whether solid or pulverized, the mass remains the same.
"It's a huge lie and you're never going to stop believing it."
No, in your ignorance, you've just convinced yourself that you know something special, and you won't accept anything that shows you to be wrong. Hey, just like with your mythology concerning this "god" character.
"Furthermore, don't sell me that 'losing it's strength' crap."
I'm not selling it, it is the truth. Hot metal is weaker. This is why blacksmiths don't pound on cold iron or steel, they use their forges to heat it up first. Learn some basic metallurgy.
"You admit that kerosene couldn't melt steel..."
It didn't have to melt it to bring the buildings down... and you're ignoring the fact that a lot of aluminum was present as well,
"Tons upon tons of MOLTEN STEEL were found in the basements of all 3 buildings and it took weeks to extinguish."
Um, no. Whenever you have water coming into contact with liquid metal, the result is a steam explosion, which would spray said liquid metal everywhere, creating severe risks for burns and creating a fire hazard. The firefighters were spraying water on the site for weeks upon weeks. Even if you want to claim that they didn't spray the liquid metal (which they wouldn't, as they are not stupid), the rains on Sept. 14th and afterwards would not be as discriminating. No steam explosions were reported.
"HOW DID MOLTEN STEEL JUMP 500 ft TO BUILDING 7?! Answer: it didn't."
Correct, it didn't, but not for the reasons you want to believe.
crazedleperJun 25, 2011
@apokalypsenow said:
"It takes way less than an hour, especially when a plane impact just knocked away all your heat insulation. "
The steel was tested by UL and rated for SIX HOURS at TWO THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED DEGREES. If they performed that test with insulation, they would have been TESTING THE INSULATION. You're making up "facts" to fit your story.
----------
"In case you didn't notice, the towers were very much on fire. Maybe someone needs a little course in metallurgy?"
Yes, please educate me...or, perhaps I should say: "play the education card" because that's all you're doing. If, in fact, you're qualified to "educate" me, you should know that the claims of weakening steel conflict with the presence of LIVING, UNBURNED PEOPLE with HAIR and CLOTHING standing in the very area where you claim heat is "weakening" steel.
--------
"When large objects collide, it sounds like explosions, much as cars backfiring can sound like gunshots to someone not familiar with the report of a handgun or rifle. Large concrete slabs slamming into each other, no wonder."
You are utterly ridiculous.
---------
"...You saw windows blowing out from the air pressure of pancaking concrete slabs (a half-million cubic feet of air per floor suddenly being compressed will do that). "
I saw squibs. Here they are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4dpBzDm5MU
My favorite part was when the lower one formed several seconds before the higher one. Did you like that part?
------------
"You'll also note that you didn't *hear* any squibs or other demolition explosives going off, and they do make a very distinct and organized series of sounds."
Ridiculous. With all the ambient noise from the rest of the building collapsing, I *should* have been able to distinguish the sounds of individual squibs? You're getting desperate.
---------
"Go watch a building demolition video, then watch the towers fall, and see the difference in speed and sounds. "
Already did.
----------
"You will, of course, not do this, because you're not interested in the truth, you just want to believe in another boogeyman conspiracy. Go go confirmation bias."
The worst part about having a "confirmation bias" is that I have something in common with you.
---------
"Controlled demolition explosives also leave identifiable remnants in the debris pile, none of which were found at the WTC."
Well, I guess we'll never know what would have been found in the debris had it not been so quickly exported to China and melted down. I'll tell you what we do have, though: dust. And there is thermite in it.
--------
"BZZT! Sorry, it would only tip over if there was sufficient delta-v in a particular direction to cause that. "
Which there was, until, mysteriously, the foundation for the building fell out from underneath it, stopping the tilting of the upper section (of the south tower) and proceeding to fall straight down. Here "explain" (read: 'explain away') this particularly damning video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&feature=related
-----------
"Not when the entire building slammed into it all at once."
Then the upper floors should have remained.
----------
"That's what happens when concrete gets pulverized, especially when exposed to extreme heat: it crumbles. Now, how could that have happened... oh wait, I know! Maybe the giant f**king burning building collapse did it"
Nope. Thermite. You see, if it *weren't* thermite, there wouldn't be thermite in the dust but there is, so it was.
---------
"Next time you find office furniture rated to survive a several-hundred foot drop and having a burning building dropped on it, let me know."
Should still have been some...from the upper floors.
----------
"Broken into pieces by the fall and hauled off to wherever they took the debris."
They took it to China. China.
--------
"You haven't watched many building demolitions, have you?"
Just the 3.
-----------
"Number one, not all the concrete was pulverized."
Then where'd it go?
------------
"Number two, not everything that was pouring out was concrete dust."
Yeah, some of it was molten steel which was a lot brighter than the fire that was right next to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
---------
"Number three, you showing your ignorance of physics - whether solid or pulverized, the mass remains the same."
Now *you're* showing ignorance of physics. Pulverized concrete flows over and past materials--it does not force them out of the way.
-----
"No, in your ignorance, you've just convinced yourself that you know something special, and you won't accept anything that shows you to be wrong."
Looks like we have something *else* in common
------------
"Hey, just like with your mythology concerning this "god" character."
At least my "mythology" is complete enough to explain us. Your explanation for how life started is? [crickets]
---------
"I'm not selling it, it is the truth. "
No, it's not; you're selling it like it was sold to you.
-----------
"Hot metal is weaker."
Duh. Where'd the MOLTEN steel come from? LIQUID! POOLS OF IT! IT TOOK MONTHS TO EXTINGUISH!! YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR AND YOU'RE MAKING UP CRAP TO FILL IN THE HOLES IN YOUR STORY! EXPLAIN THE MOLTEN STEEL. "MOLTEN", NOT "WEAKENED"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XA0Rv1Ng8
----------
"This is why blacksmiths don't pound on cold iron or steel, they use their forges to heat it up first. Learn some basic metallurgy."
A pompous lying ass is what you are. Explain the temperatures that MELTED the steel. Kerosene isn't up to it...if you know any physics but only thermite is...and thermite was found.
----------
"It didn't have to melt it to bring the buildings down... and you're ignoring the fact that a lot of aluminum was present as well, "
No, not a "lot" of aluminum. A little aluminum. The aluminum that forms the skin of an aircraft is no thicker than a beer can. It would have been outweiged by 10,000 fold by the steel that the buildings was made from.
-------
"Um, no. Whenever you have water coming into contact with liquid metal, the result is a steam explosion, which would spray said liquid metal everywhere, creating severe risks for burns and creating a fire hazard. "
WTF are you talking about?! THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY LIQUID METAL! NONE AT ALL! Only thermite could have created it and there shouldn't have been any of that, either--but there was: Don't take it from me, take it from this "educated' physicist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vs__4PGd1g
-------------
"The firefighters were spraying water on the site for weeks upon weeks. Even if you want to claim that they didn't spray the liquid metal (which they wouldn't, as they are not stupid), the rains on Sept. 14th and afterwards would not be as discriminating. No steam explosions were reported."
You're making stuff up and I know this because you're proving my point inadvertently.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalypsenowJun 26, 2011
"The steel was tested by UL and rated for SIX HOURS at TWO THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED DEGREES."
Yeah, that's the melting point, but again, steel loses the majority of its strength well below that strength. Try to keep up.
"You're making up "facts" to fit your story."
No, you're selectively ignoring the facts to fit yours.
"...the presence of LIVING, UNBURNED PEOPLE with HAIR and CLOTHING standing in the very area where you claim heat is 'weakening' steel."
These people were living, and unburned, after being hit by a plane? Try to get your stories straight.
"You are utterly ridiculous."
Argument from incredulity - just because you cannot accept the truth does not make it any less the truth.
"I saw squibs."
No. As I stated, you saw windows blowing out from the air pressure of pancaking concrete slabs. This air travelled down from floor to floor like a syringe, eventually blowing out at the point of least resistance.
"My favorite part was when the lower one formed several seconds before the higher one."
Only because you think it shows something that it does not. Again, path of least resistance for the compression of a half-million cubic feet of air per floor being forced out. In that case, said path was lower down at that point in time, perhaps from earlier damage. As the building continued to crumble, the higher areas sustained successively more damage, allowing escape of that large volume of air closer to its point of origin.
"Ridiculous."
Argument from incredulity - just because you cannot accept the truth does not make it any less the truth.
"With all the ambient noise from the rest of the building collapsing, I *should* have been able to distinguish the sounds of individual squibs?"
Yes, just as in every other building collapse ever recorded on film. You'll also note that in real demolitions, you hear the explosvies, THEN the building collapses. They are not simultaneous events.
"Already did."
Try paying attention next time instead of just seeing what you want to see.
"The worst part about having a 'confirmation bias' is that I have something in common with you."
I rely on an objective examination of the facts to minimize any biases I have in favor of that shown only be the evidence. You, on the other hand, have a long history of, well, just making s**t up.
"Well, I guess we'll never know what would have been found in the debris..."
The cleanup crews had many members who had been involved in numerous controlled demolition cleanups. They'd know demolition remnants if they saw them, and not one person reported anything of the sort. Just how big is this imagined conspiracy theory of yours?
"And there is thermite in it."
No there isn't. Oh please, cite that paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal in response and claim that it has somehow been "peer reviewed"...
Oh, and it should also be mentioned that thermite has never once been used in a controlled building demolition. Ever.
"Which there was..."
O RLY? And where, praytell, did this come from? Or are you just making s**t up again?
"Here 'explain' (read: 'explain away') this particularly damning video:"
Simple: he's ignoring the fact that the air from the floor-by-floor compression had an easy way of getting to the lower floors ahead of the collapse itself: the stairwells and elevator shafts.
"Then the upper floors should have remained."
Basic physics calling, the same impact that crushed the lower floors was caused by the upper floors hitting them. Both floors receive the same impact energy, destroying both.
"Nope. Thermite."
...except there was no thermite.
"You see, if it *weren't* thermite, there wouldn't be thermite in the dust..."
...but since there was no thermite, there's no problem.
"Should still have been some...from the upper floors."
Again, next time you find office furniture rated to survive a thousand-foot fall inside a burning building of equal height, let me know... and remember what we talked about regarding the basic physics lesson just a moment ago.
"Just the 3."
So, given your erroneous beliefs about them... zero. Yeah, you should go watch an actual controlled demolition and see the differences, HEAR the differences. Totally different experiences.
"Then where'd it go?"
Impacted with the next floors down, etc. Pancakes.
"Yeah, some of it was molten steel..."
No. There was no molten steel. Some molten aluminum (like from the giant f**king aircraft that just hit the building, as shown in your video link), sure, but not steel.
"Pulverized concrete flows over and past materials--it does not force them out of the way."
Some of it does, sure, as we saw with the jets coming out of the windows that you insist are explosive squibs. The rest, however, impacts and sits. If you'd like to see how this works, take a cup of flour and drop it rapidly on your counter. Observe that some of it puffs up and flies away, but the rest lands and rests where it hit.
"At least my 'mythology' is complete enough to explain us."
It doesn't explain us, it just says something happened. That's not an explanation, that's an excuse for a lack of an explanation, and it isn't backed up by any evidence whatsoever.
"Your explanation for how life started is? [crickets]"
The current best explanation is abiogenesis, but this is not yet a scientific theory, it is still a hypothesis with a great deal of supporting evidence.
"No, it's not; you're selling it like it was sold to you."
I'm selling nothing, just telling you the facts. You, however, prefer vague, menacing insinuations instead, as they better fit your preferred model of things. To you, the facts are an inconvenience.
"Duh. Where'd the MOLTEN steel come from?"
You keep making the claim that molten steel was present. I'm just going to skip the rest of your ranting for a moment (and also ignore the fact that thermite produces iron, not steel) and move further down to address this...
"WTF are you talking about?! THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY LIQUID METAL! NONE AT ALL!"
The whole point I was making regarding the steam explosions was that there was no liquid metal in the first place. You keep claiming that there were pools of it so numerous and so vast that it took months to cool down. However, there was so much water being sprayed in, to say nothing of the rain, that if there were any it would have hit these pools and causeds steam explosions. Since there were no steam explosions, that means that there was either no water, or no liquid metal. Since we know that there was plenty of water, that rules out your liquid metal.
"A pompous lying ass is what you are."
I'm not lying here - blacksmiths really do heat up their metal to work with it. This is why we have these wonderful inventions called "forges", designed for this purpose.
"No, not a "lot" of aluminum. A little aluminum. The aluminum that forms the skin of an aircraft is no thicker than a beer can."
You're ignoring the aluminum facade of the building itself... but that's not really important.
"Don't take it from me, take it from this 'educated' physicist."
Ah, good old Steve Jones... to say that his microspheres work points to thermite use is to ignore all the alternate sources that could have produced such iron-rich particles. In addition, it should be noted that the chain of custody, in addition to the authenticity, of the samples he used is highly questionable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qROovaGUEI#t=2m06s
"You're making stuff up..."
Nope. Just the facts.
apokalyps2547Jun 27, 2011
Powder? You think those buildings turned to powder? "Nothing left"?
It's pretty easy to dismiss your wild conspiracy theories when you you replace obvious fact with magical fiction.
iseegreyhoundsJun 24, 2011
I understand, but I do watch Fox several hours a week so that I know, first hand, how much they manipulate and deceive their audience.
sublime333Jun 22, 2011
thats why this is on comedy central and not CNN. keep it up jon
markcalvinoJun 22, 2011
Jon always pwns, but unmasking Faux News lies and propaganda is getting too easy these days...
jaxxbatJun 23, 2011
Can you tell me 2 of these lies?
ea143Jun 23, 2011
haha. lie of the year 2009 and 2010!
joe7845Jun 23, 2011
I read the PolitiFact article. It's interesting that The Daily Show and Colbert typically score quite high in knowledge surveys. Notably, John didn't brag about that.
Another take-away is that Fox viewers are certainly the most misinformed about specific events, e.g. the war in Iraq.
brokenjarscoJun 23, 2011
THIS. IS. AWESOME!
theonekenJun 23, 2011
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
jaxxbatJun 23, 2011
They prefer to watch it and cry
3_Dead_TrollsJun 24, 2011
FOX news slogan should be...for the dumb...by the dumb :)
iseegreyhoundsJun 24, 2011
How about 'for the dumb' by the manipulative.?
larssonk22Jun 23, 2011
I'm sure they could have gone on and on, but the point has been made
jayhawk05Jun 23, 2011
And in further news, water is wet.
johnnysoftwareJun 23, 2011
I don't remember hearing about this Politifact web site before. Thanks to it being one of the things featured in this clip, I tracked down its web site and on it the announcement of its iPhone app that will be available in a few days (Android version already out).
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/22/announcing-politifact-app-iphone-android-and-more/
if you like FactCheck.org they have a mobile version of their www.factcheck.org site:
http://m.factcheck.org/
skeptictankJun 23, 2011
Full Disclosure: I am a fan of Jon Stewart, even more so when he does non TDS related candid interviews. No matter what your political ideology no one that saw Jon Stewart the humanist or Jon Stewart the the free thinker or Jon Stewart the everyday guy with a "one of a kind mind" could honestly disparage him... really. I will not use the word patriot because of what has been done to that word it but no one I've seen in 40 years has put as much effort into supporting the welfare of the common man and promoting enlightenment, on air and off as Mr. Stewart. You guys can have your pundits... the jester is the only one that can speak truth to power.
sanfelice4Jun 23, 2011
someone else on digg to the original politifacts article pointed out that the surveys politifacts used to come to their conclusions on this were asking things like who is the PM of Britain or which party controls the US house of representatives. These surveys just pointed which viewers were most INformed vs UNinformed, Stewart was making the claim that foxnews viewers are misinformed. The poster goes on to say that fox doesn't lie about who the speaker of the house is or who was president during WWI, etc.
I wish I could find the post and give the person credit, bc they really do make a good point.
xcJun 22, 2011
In today's world its hard to know what the truth is you really have to check and double check the facts before making a decision.
wtheonewJun 23, 2011
Out of everything he talked about on his show Digg is focused on his part about Fox News and NOT the huge ATF scandal?
sghemail4uJun 23, 2011
lovin' it!
lmdrockstar17Jun 22, 2011
hilarious
xwxmanxJun 23, 2011
I love his take on some things.