What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
325 Comments
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -14/+186Evidently some people at Fixed Nuts overdosed on stupid pills this morning.
FTA:
"The entirety of Fox’s claim is based on an e-mail posted on March 21, 2007 in National Review’s blog claiming that Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh — now an appointee to the State Department — had indicated that Sharia could apply in the U.S.
According to White House spokesman Reid Cherlin, the allegations contained in the e-mail are false. Moreover, in an article buried on its website, Fox conceded that that it has been unable to reach the author of the e-mail posted by National Review.
But that didn’t stop Fox from quoting from the e-mail’s account and claiming that the e-mail was a direct quote from Koh, and it didn’t stop Fox from making the absurd claim that the Obama administration is seeking to impose Sharia law upon the U.S." - redcolumbine, on 04/01/2009, -13/+134Wow. Just... wow. They've outdone themselves, which I didn't think was possible!
- phosphor112, on 04/01/2009, -7/+124This makes me rage, I'm not going to lie one bit. I will say that I am Muslim, but Sharia has no place in Islam. It pisses me off, it pisses my dad off, and it pisses my local Muslim scholar off. None of it makes sense. The main reason why it is "accepted" is because Saudi Arabia practices this *****. This is coming from a nation in which guards will beat you DURING THE PILGRIMAGE if you are praying like a Shia and not a Sunni.
I don't want to go into details, I have class, and just thinking about how dumb and misleaded most Muslims are these days just pisses me off so much. Islam means peace, not kill people for no ***** reason. >=[ - thejimmyo, on 04/01/2009, -16/+108This is so incredibly stupid. How can FOX dribble this propaganda? Don't they have any standards?
Rupert Murdoch's newspaper has made the same silly arguments:
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/03/ny_post_on_harold_k ... - Frankyfan3, on 04/01/2009, -9/+94Are you SURE this isn't an april fools?
- freedomjoe, on 04/01/2009, -13/+77You know things are bad with the GOP, et al, when we can't tell if this is a joke or not. their budget? A joke? or for real? this "news" cast? a joke or for "real"? they're so far off base that we literally don't know if this stuff is a SNL skit or real. And this is so bad, so bad, so unreal, so far out there...if it's not a joke, they need to be labeled properly as "comedy", not "news".
Now, that's called jumping the shark. - JenniferInMO, on 04/01/2009, -6/+66If it was an April Fools joke they would be reporting facts.
- thejimmyo, on 04/01/2009, -5/+57>>"Harold Coh"
It's "Koh."
>>"has made statements that seem to support Sharia law."
This is where the spin comes in. Under the United States judicial system, it's not uncommon to enforce judgments and laws from other countries. This frequently comes up in marriage law cases. However, it's not an unlimited concept, and it doesn't involve wholesale adoption of the foreign jurisdiction's laws. Rather, it's limited by "public policy." For example, if a foreign jurisdiction says that you can marry a three year old baby, or force your wife to have sex with you, or cut off your son's hands, we won't recognize that in the United States because it is against our public policy.
I can't be sure that this is what Koh was talking about at the Yale club, but I assume that it is (hence, Koh's accurate "in an appropriate case" statement ). I'm not entirely familiar with Sharia law, but I assume that it allows for regular marriages between adult men and women, punishes murder, condemns theft, etc. (all the normal stuff that pretty much every legal system entails). This stuff would be okay to enforce. However, the stuff about chopping off the hands of thieves and brutalizing women (the stuff that FOX strongly suggests is coming to America) would NEVER be brought here, and FOX has completely failed in their journalism to show that Koh ever supported such nonsense. It's simply propaganda and spin for FOX to suggest that this is the case.
>>"As usual, nothing put forth by thejoshuablog can even remotely be construed as truthful and be taken seriously by any other than the most delusional."
I think that Joshua did a fine job. Rather, I'd say to you: "Don't take what FOX (or the NY Post) says at face value." - voyetra8, on 04/01/2009, -5/+56This is a wonderful propaganda technique.
I mean, what better way to attack someone? You are free to spout whatever random, unverifiable ***** you want, and by the time it gets outed as *****, the damage is already done.
In other news, I heard Fox News anchor Shephard Smith is a perderast and worships Satan. (See, anyone can do it.) - clvngodess, on 04/01/2009, -5/+55You know, I wonder how much their crack budget is over at Fox. With all that paranoia and goofy gabber going on by the strawberries and wingnutters, it's got to be large enough to keep the Mexican Cartels in guns.
- philosophyzombi, on 04/01/2009, -14/+60Faux News: defenders of progress! /s
- 10lbhammer, on 04/01/2009, -6/+52FTA: "DARWISH; Well, uh, I heard that he doesn’t mind referring to laws, foreign laws and integrating them into the U.S. legal system."
well, I, uh, *heard* that you're an idiot, but that doesn't necessarily make it true... - StoneTSR, on 04/01/2009, -5/+51The hot, steaming pile of anti-Obama ***** is growing rapidly...this bit from FOX has to be worth a few huge shovels full.
- Bhima, on 04/01/2009, -4/+49Doubtless this is a "April Fools Joke" on the part of Fox.
Actually I think it's pretty clever because for *months* rabid right wingers are going to be mailing this tidbit (or variations thereof) around in this wild reverberating circle jerk of frothing rage.
All the while responding to more reasoned adult minds: "It was a harmless April fools joke".
Fine. I'm going out to find an immoral woman and I'm going to stone her forward. I would encourage everyone else find some to do the same with them. - roloenusa, on 04/01/2009, -2/+46See, the keyword in the entire argument is "I heard that..." That means they can't sue for libel, as they're not passing it as fact.
The beauty of it, is that they don't even offer a context as to when or how it was said. Rather they go on to describe the "sharia law" in the best fear mongering style. I hate what media has become.. Why can't they just give the facts without any bias at all? - jeffbw, on 04/01/2009, -5/+46Some folks here are missing the point. No matter what parts of Sharia law "might" be applicable here, the point is both the Fox and Post propaganda pieces are based on a spurious email whose author nobody can seem to find.
"The entirety of Fox’s claim is based on an e-mail posted on March 21, 2007 in National Review’s blog claiming that Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh — now an appointee to the State Department — had indicated that Sharia could apply in the U.S.
According to White House spokesman Reid Cherlin, the allegations contained in the e-mail are false. Moreover, in an article buried on its website, Fox conceded that that it has been unable to reach the author of the e-mail posted by National Review.
But that didn’t stop Fox from quoting from the e-mail’s account and claiming that the e-mail was a direct quote from Koh, and it didn’t stop Fox from making the absurd claim that the Obama administration is seeking to impose Sharia law upon the U.S." - atomheartmother, on 04/01/2009, -2/+41Amen, brother.
- thejimmyo, on 04/01/2009, -3/+40>>"Thanks for the pettiness"
Thanks for the bitterness.
>>"I'll agree that it's not likely to happen in the US anytime in the near future, but one should never say never."
Okay.
>>"FOX didn't "fail," because it didn't attempt to "show that Koh ever supported such nonsense," so that point is moot"
Watching the video of that segment, I think it's safe to say that the FOX people were saying that Koh supported that nonsense. For example, the FOX anchor said, "he also has a history of supporting Sharia law - even here in the U.S." That's pretty crystal-clear. It seems that you're trying to charitably interpret what FOX is saying here (as if this is an innocent example of "We Report, You Decide"), but they point-blank said that he *supports* Sharia law, and supports bringing it to the United States. They then go on to describe it in gruesome detail, as if Koh supports making it "legal to kill a woman who commits apostasy or commits sexual crime."
Your attempt at interpreting all this charitably requires one to be willfully blind to what is going on here: FOX is trying to scare its viewers into believing that Obama is nominating a man who will bring radical Islam, with all these gruesome details, to the United States justice system. It's just not true.
>>"And yet you're here asserting that by posting the misinformed article at hand, "Joshua did a fine job." That's really laughable"
Joshua didn't write the article with the FOX clip and transcript. He simply submitted it, so that we could view it for ourselves. I think that he did a "fine job" by bringing this to our attention, and I don't see what's so laughable about that. [I also think that he's completely right to describe this as "paranoia and insanity," as I've just explained.]
>>"I know, I know... it's not nearly as credible as 'TheJoshuaBlog,' "
Thanks for the sarcasm.
>>"transnational legal process"
If this were merely a sane critique of the transnational legal process, that would be fine. I wouldn't complain about that at all. But let's not pretend that Obama is trying to subvert our legal system and transform it by supplanting our own laws with that awful Sharia law, when nobody is actually doing that.
Also, just to add a little context, this is the same FOX News that falsely claimed that Obama was raised at a radical Islamic madrassa, and spent his early life "in training for a radical overthrow of the government."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBvmnDk947U - novenator, on 04/01/2009, -5/+40Rupert Murdoch would make Joeseph Goebbels proud.
- Seminarian, on 04/01/2009, -6/+37FTA: There’s no question about Fox’s agenda here: they are trying to fan the flames of hysterical anger against the Obama administration for their own partisan purposes.
But there is a real question about why the rest of the media refuses to criticize Fox for its extremist propaganda.
Fox has no problem attacking CNN or MSNBC, yet other than Keith Olbermann, nobody in the broadcast media has had the courage to take on Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.
Why is that? - apastafarian, on 04/01/2009, -5/+36Great choice for and "expert" Fox! Where's you find here, the entrance to the local Walmart?
- coheedcollapse, on 04/01/2009, -2/+33Yeah, but he supports civil unions and equality. He also opposes a constitutional ban on it. Most people who voted for him knew that already.
Oh wait, were you trying to convert people with random tidbits of half-information? I see. You guys are all the same. - Insightful, on 04/01/2009, -5/+33I thought Obama was trying to impose European Socialism? Or was it New England Elitism? Or California Eco-arugulaism? Now Islamic Sharia lawism?
Or in a conservative's mind - all of the above - you are confusing them President Obama! - richirwin, on 04/01/2009, -3/+31My favorite on Fox...
Steve Doofus said "Obama has been getting beaten up in the press lately. The headline on Drudge said ..."
Funny funny funny. - burningplants, on 04/01/2009, -6/+32"...because Sharia is totally at odds with our bill of rights, and our Constitution."
Ha, as if that stopped Fox from touting the Patriot Act as the greatest thing since sliced bread... - pintomp3, on 04/02/2009, -7/+31Except Bush is an evangelical who started a war because God told him to, refused to fund embryonic stem cell research because he thinks a clump of cells is a person, and tried keep Terri Schiavo alive as vegetable.
- coheedcollapse, on 04/01/2009, -5/+29So the fact that people on your camp are re-reporting it like mad don't mean anything?
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/oba ...
http://www.thefoxnation.com/justice/2009/04/01/sha ...
http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2009/03/31/oba ...
I'm sure you'd be happy as hell if any of those three sources hit the front page though, right?
***** sick of you people. Go back to the conservative forum that you all wandered over from or evolve your commenting skills past "random inflammatory remark deriding 'democraps' and pretending that I really know exactly what is going on in the country because I'm still bitter about the lost election".
I wouldn't mind the right-wing presence on Digg if the people touting it weren't such idiots. Seriously. - Rapter09, on 04/01/2009, -3/+25Good gosh, somebody pull the plug on Fox already.
- JoeParanoid, on 04/01/2009, -4/+26And now you will be hearing this nonsense on the Republican echo machine for decades to come. Sigh.
- homercles337, on 04/01/2009, -1/+21Now if you could only tell that to millions simultaneously, you may have the same level of influence as the Corporate Media at spreading the GOP talking points.
- xRand0mx, on 04/02/2009, -1/+21What I think is even more funny is that Fox were the ones calling out Mrs. Obama for wearing sleeveless dresses.
- swrostmore, on 04/01/2009, -3/+23Blackwater/Xe actually tried to use this as a legal strategy in 2006. The more you know...
- ezrastiles, on 04/01/2009, -1/+21yeah, but i heard that it is!
- Jandels, on 04/01/2009, -1/+20Bravo for taking the time to speak out against your 'fellow' Muslims. If more religious people stood up and said "fundamentalism is wrong and has no place in our society", we'd all be a lot better off.
- JenniferInMO, on 04/01/2009, -9/+28You gotta give the GOP one thing Faux News and hate radio does is keep a good chunk of the population stoked up on fear and hate. The people who buy into that propaganda are hopeless.
- mrsteveman1, on 04/01/2009, -1/+20For April fools you do things that are out of character, or unexpected.
I expect this ***** from fox, they haven't fooled anyone. - DonAlfred, on 04/01/2009, -4/+22BAHAHAHA
At Fox it's April the 1st, everyday. - voyetra8, on 04/01/2009, -2/+20Aren't the GOP's talking points just the inverse of whatever the Dems happen to be doing?
- teebird, on 04/02/2009, -1/+19@atomheartmother
Read the transcript again. You missed the part where the two "reporters" are discussing this as if it were a fact, not a second-hand allegation. The only thing that makes that two-year-old e-mail worth mentioning on air is that Fox could spin it to make it look as if one of Obama's appointees was in favor of Sharia in the US and had Obama's support. The only purpose is to inflame the "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama isn't a citizen" wingnuts in the audience.
CAMEROTA (Fox):Okay now very quickly, since the Obama Administration surely knows Harold Koh’s position on this, why would they be tagging him as the State Department nominee?
DARWISH: Perhaps he is trying to appease Muslim countries, but this is the wrong kind of policy because we’re standing against progress in the Muslim world. The Muslim world has a lot of reformers who are trying to progress because the laws of Sharia support Jihad. Supports Jihad against non-Muslims. It is the duty of a Muslim head of state to do Jihad, and by Jihad, the definition of Jihad according to mainstream Sharia books is a war with non-Muslims to establish the religion. - dreamofspirals, on 04/01/2009, -4/+22Fox IS an April Fools joke
...and a January joke, and a February joke, and so on and so on - sigmaman2, on 04/01/2009, -2/+19Yes, Fox News has very high ratings, and for two very good reasons:
1. Conservatives watch Fox News because, to them, it's news.
2. Liberals watch Fox News because, to them, it's ENTERTAINMENT!
Liberals are not pissy about Fox News at all. If Fox News went away tomorrow, you'd have nothing to learn from, and I'd have nothing to laugh at. - TheZorch, on 04/01/2009, -5/+22Ok Fox, first you claim Obama is a Socialst, then he's a Communist, and now you say he's an Islamic. Please, is this all you can come up with? Clearly the quality of your fake news writing staff has been degrading of late.
- Disgod, on 04/01/2009, -4/+20"Don't they have any standards?"
No - novenator, on 04/01/2009, -2/+18you're absolutely right. They have a habit of spreading falsehoods, then once they start getting debunked, quietly backing off. By that time, the damage has already been done, and the myth gets entrenched in the mass mindset.
- JenniferInMO, on 04/01/2009, -2/+18Good question. Probably because Faux is wildly popular. A good portion of the American public is addicted to fear and hate.
- Swivelstick, on 04/01/2009, -2/+17It isn't though as their rapid followers would swallow it whole therefore it is a very dangerous "prank".
- novenator, on 04/01/2009, -5/+20It does sound like the perfect APF prank.
- Nephrastar, on 04/01/2009, -6/+21I accuse Fox News of being terrorists.
No I'm serious. - CaptOblivious, on 04/01/2009, -3/+18I think that the clear implication there is that FOX is the terrorist organization in this case
They are after all using fear to achieve political ends, is that not the very definition of a terrorist organization?
Their actions do appear to be (to quote Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act)
"for the purpose of influencing a government policy by intimidation or coercion". - rpgmakr, on 04/02/2009, -1/+16Fox News is a joke every month of the year.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 327 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is