|
Svanja posted:This happened June 6th: Fox twit says Special Forces troops would have killed Bergdahl if they had found him: I take it since FOX invited those troops to come on air and basically accuse the guy of being a traitor without being challenged that the implication is Bergdahl's murder would have been reasonable, justifiable.
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah none of this matches "most media except NPR and PBS", thanks for playing. You're so deep in it you forgot what it smells like. Astonishing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:The "myth" isn't spitting on POW's, it's spitting on returning servicemen. The man who wrote the book claiming this is a myth also thinks PTSD was something invented by the government to garner sympathy for the war, that Veterans are simply making it up to garner sympathy for themselves. RE: John McCain and flip-flopping: "I never considered myself a maverick."
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 09:55
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:This has nothing to do with the utter lack of documented cases of this ever happening in reality. You'd think there would be at least one to support the premise. Is there one? In my entire life, before he died, I think my father mentioned maybe three things about his experiences as a Vietnam veteran. One of those things was that almost immediately on coming home, he was spit on and had a beer thrown in his face in a bar because of his association with the military. Is that proof? No, I wasn't there, it could be bullshit. I don't think it is. My father was flawed in a lot of ways, but a tendency toward telling fanciful stories about himself was not one of them. I absolutely believe that happened to him. Given the extraordinarily divisive nature of the subject at the time, and the number of young men we shipped off to Southeast Asia (close to 3.5 million, I believe), I think the idea that it didn't happen numerous times is way more ridiculous than the idea that it did. What documentation do you expect? Do you think camera crews followed around all the returning vets or something? I am sure if you sift through enough police reports and court transcripts, you can find at least a few incidents.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
My uncle was a chopper pilot, one of the little birds. He was shot down two or three times, dropped dead while gardening a few years ago. He liked to talk about the amazing things, like flying low to see tiger cubs out of curiosity only to have the mother lunge out of the underbrush to latch onto his landing gear. The beast nearly pulled him down, that would have been the end of him. He did talk of the days where he, the pilot, witnessed two prisoners being loaded into his helicopter. After interrogation, only one made it back to Earth (I guess he flew a Huey for such missions?). The way veterans were pissed on by the public is in some ways the ground work for bullshit like FOX news. It is very, very sad that so many veterans who were trashed when they came home would become cheerleaders for trashing other veterans on national television.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
Found this while looking around about spitting on vietnam vets. I bet this really happened and isn't part of some delusional metamorphosis fantasy playing out in this guys mind. http://www.dailypundit.com/?p=24230
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:Well, the guy who was filling in for Rush today was going on and on about how if Hitler came to power today The Liberals would just stand by and let him roughshod all over Europe, so this seems to be a fairly common theme coming from the right wing noise machine. I seem to recall the US standing by and letting Hitler run roughshod all over Europe. Like, that is a thing that actually happened. drat Liberals!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:You're so deep in it you forgot what it smells like. Astonishing. Suggesting other mainstream media sources are on par with Fox News as far as the scope and brazenness of propaganda spreading is way, way too kind to Fox News.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cni4ghHdwhg
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Wasn't the isolationist movement from c. 1917 up until 1941 very conservative, anyway? You'd figure Roosevelt would have had to bypass them in order to, you know, not let Hitler run roughshod over Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Wasn't the isolationist movement from c. 1917 up until 1941 very conservative, anyway? You'd figure Roosevelt would have had to bypass them in order to, you know, not let Hitler run roughshod over Europe. You're over thinking it. Remember, to them: Hitler = Bad Liberals = Bad Therefore, Liberals would be okay with Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Suggesting other mainstream media sources are on par with Fox News as far as the scope and brazenness of propaganda spreading is way, way too kind to Fox News. All the networks carry the same laugh tracks of "news," FOX is simply more flamboyant in its delivery of them. I said it before, but it was ABC, on the nightly national news, that said that to stop funding the Iraq invasion would, "leave the troops high and dry!" with no weapons, left behind to get beheaded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
how can anyone argue in good faith the other networks are as biased or horrible as a network that employs people like this ? I've noticed Fox News watchers really hate the channel's token liberals: Geraldo, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel. They're barely liberal and anytime they say something the Fox crowd wants them fired immediately. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GWOYETN30k turnip kid fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
lil mortimer posted:liberals: Geraldo, Juan Williams This isn't laboriously dragging the overton window to the right: this is picking the window up, dashing several hundred yards with it, and then setting it down totally unopposed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Yeah, that's my point. It's hilarious how bothered they are these guys can say a couple dumb things once in a while. When I see something involving Bob Beckel on Facebook, it's usually something like, "BOB BECKEL,HARDCORE DEMOCRAT, WANTS ANSWERS ON BENGHAZI!!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Yeah, Bob Beckel is the only true token Liberal you listed, and the Democratic party passed him by long ago. Juan Williams is better-described as a token sane person with an asterisk by anything having to do with Muslims. Geraldo is not a liberal of any stripe. He's in the same FYGM boat as Stossel. Also, you shouldn't put too much stock into what Fox News watchers say about the things they watch. A lot of them know it's way over the line most of the time, but they'll never admit to the catharsis they feel when they consume it. When you start probing them softly about different hosts individually they'll say they dislike most of them except for maybe Greta and Megyn Kelly. They'll claim they hate O'Reilly because he's a jerk. They'll claim to hate Hannity because he's smug and repeats himself way too often. They'll say all the things that make it seem like they're being reasonable, and that they don't standby everything that runs on Fox News. Meanwhile, all that poo poo is still basically appointment viewing for them, and it heavily influences their world view. Right wing media consumers love to believe they're informed voters, and that they get their news from multiple sources. When they start listing those news sources, though, it'll come down to a Mourdock owned newspaper along with the right-leaning news on the AM station that runs all the right wing talk along with Fox News.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Yeah, Bob Beckel is the only true token Liberal you listed True Liberal Bob Beckel posted:"I will repeat what I said before: No Muslim students coming here with visas. No more mosques being built here until you stand up and denounce what's happened in the name of your prophet." http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/muslim-visa-mosques-beckel/2013/09/25/id/527523/
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
The comments are precious. They truly believe bob beckel is mr liberal
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
For being such a Mexican hating racist, my mom would send care packages to the troops in Vietnam. Premixed Kool-Aid and sugar loaded in sandwich bags. She hated the war, protested it constantly but always supported the troops. Go figure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:For being such a Mexican hating racist, my mom would send care packages to the troops in Vietnam. Premixed Kool-Aid and sugar loaded in sandwich bags. She hated the war, protested it constantly but always supported the troops. I think a lot of us here are in the same mindset? gently caress our wars, gently caress the military-industrial complex, but I at least feel for the 18 year old boys who volunteer to do (what they believe is) the most right and noble thing possible. Louis C.K. touches on this in one of his specials. Support the troops. Bring them home!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
http://weaselzippers.us/188765-obama-chomps-on-gum-during-d-dad-anniversary-event/
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Right wing media consumers love to believe they're informed voters, and that they get their news from multiple sources. When they start listing those news sources, though, it'll come down to a Mourdock owned newspaper along with the right-leaning news on the AM station that runs all the right wing talk along with Fox News. Drudge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
lil mortimer posted:how can anyone argue in good faith the other networks are as biased or horrible as a network that employs people like this ? Bill O'Reilly believes there is no moral imperative to rescue captured American soldiers. I feel that's important to repeat every time he is mentioned from now on: Bill O'Reilly believes we should leave American soldiers in enemy hands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
lil mortimer posted:http://weaselzippers.us/188765-obama-chomps-on-gum-during-d-dad-anniversary-event/ The right-wing complaining about Obama not respecting THE FRENCH?! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:The right-wing complaining about Obama not respecting THE FRENCH?! Obama did a thing, therefore bad
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
I was watching Real Time yesterday, and oddly enough, Bill Maher had on Ralph Reed. He said two...interesting things during the interview: 1. It's okay to not obey to all the bad rules in the old testament (like stoning women who have sex out of wedlock) because the New Testament updated the rules. 2. Following the rules in Christianity isn't as important as your "personal relationship" with God. Really? I mean, REALLY?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I was watching Real Time yesterday, and oddly enough, Bill Maher had on Ralph Reed. He said two...interesting things during the interview: Isn't that first one pretty common Christian theology? The New Covenant explicitly supplanting the rules of the Old Testament?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I was watching Real Time yesterday, and oddly enough, Bill Maher had on Ralph Reed. He said two...interesting things during the interview: Yeah that's called the "New Covenant" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant Pretty much it's implied that when Christ had "The Last Supper", and the events that followed that? Pretty much the relationship that was between the Old Testament God and Mankind was no more. Christ himself exhibited these actions when he was hanging around with Prostitutes, Homosexuals, Lepers and Tax Cheats. Modern Day evangelicals have very little to do with ACTUAL Christian Theology. Most of the time it's just an excuse to hate on Gays, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Idran posted:Isn't that first one pretty common Christian theology? The New Covenant explicitly supplanting the rules of the Old Testament? FuzzySkinner posted:Yeah that's called the "New Covenant" I was going to explain the New Covenant but Skinner did it a lot better than I was going to. Though I should note that Jesus was hanging around with Tax Collectors, not Cheats. Even back in those days TAXES was a thing. It's also important to note that the establishment of the New Covenant existing at all says some very interesting things about God. The concept of a personal relationship with God is also something very common in Protestant theology, which stems (I believe) from opposition to the centralized Catholic model wherein God is defined by the Vatican. Protestants believe that it is very important for people to develop their own individual model of what God means to them, hence the personal relationship. You can see this in church music such as "My God and I".
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Idran posted:Isn't that first one pretty common Christian theology? The New Covenant explicitly supplanting the rules of the Old Testament? FuzzySkinner posted:Yeah that's called the "New Covenant" Redeye Flight posted:I was going to explain the New Covenant but Skinner did it a lot better than I was going to. Though I should note that Jesus was hanging around with Tax Collectors, not Cheats. Even back in those days TAXES was a thing. It's also important to note that the establishment of the New Covenant existing at all says some very interesting things about God. The hell? How does such a thing make sense? It's like what Maher said. If God is all infallible in such, why would you need a revision? I'll admit, I don't know much about the Bible, but I always figured the New Testament was just a continuation of...well, the Old Testament. I didn't know it actually had stuff that was supposed to supplant the previous stuff. quote:The concept of a personal relationship with God is also something very common in Protestant theology, which stems (I believe) from opposition to the centralized Catholic model wherein God is defined by the Vatican. Protestants believe that it is very important for people to develop their own individual model of what God means to them, hence the personal relationship. You can see this in church music such as "My God and I". I can sort of get that, but even then I'd think you'd still have to follow whatever rules/laws the Bible dictates. I mean, I'd figure if you go around committing adultery, but try and play that off by saying that you feel you and God are cool, I wouldn't think that would fly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:The hell? How does such a thing make sense? It's like what Maher said. If God is all infallible in such, why would you need a revision? Yeah, it's always important to remember that Christianity is not a monolithic block, but a huge, fractious mess of thousands of minor blocs, each of which differs from the other in some way in interpreting The Message. This can be as minor as "we want to read the translated text" or "we don't want to pay the Pope", or it can be as major as "we think Jesus established Utah as the true holy land for Christianity and sent this message to some random Pennsylvanian in the 1800s". So when I'm talking about the New Testament interpretation keep in mind I'm doing so from an Evangelical Lutheran standpoint, which is a pretty major denomination but doesn't speak for everyone. As I said, incidentally, the existence of the New Covenant does produce an interesting theological argument, at least as I can interpret it. If God was infallible, he would have gotten it right the first time, you'd think. You'd also think that if Man is made in God's image then Man would be perfect in every way too. But the human body is a horrifying bodge job (see also: the eye) and human history is basically a catalog of fuckups. So God may be omnipotent and omniscient, but the evidence is there to argue that God is not perfect. He can make mistakes, and since he's omniscient and omnipotent, his mistakes can wind up a LOT bigger than those made in his image. This is not a universally or even broadly accepted Protestant viewpoint, it's just mine. Going to put that out there. Anyway, most Protestant delegations will still teach the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments, since generally speaking the Ten Commandments can still be taken as good life metrics for any society, not just those that follow all the lunatic poo poo in, say, Deuteronomy. But it is broadly understood that things like not eating seafood or stoning people to death for crimes can be supplanted by a marginally more modern, forgiving understanding of things. Jesus' theology is all about forgiveness. There is forgiveness in spades, and for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
The Old Testament vs New Testament is one of the oldest debates in Christianity, and it has never really been settled. Some people take Jesus' line about not one jot or tittle passing from the law to mean it all applies. These people were the ones who effectively treated Christianity like a sect of Judaism and they were mostly killed or scattered by the Romans in AD 60 when after the jillionth Jewish Rebellion, the Romans said enough of this poo poo, burned the Temple, and exiled the Jews so they wouldn't have to deal with it anymore. Some people point out the parts of the Bible where Jesus says "use some common sense, don't refuse to save a someone's life on the Sabbath just because of the law against working", and follow Peter with his dream about God giving him BLTs so it's okay to eat bacon again; and Paul's argument that it's easier to convert the gentiles if you don't make them take scissors to their penises, and since saving souls is more important, stop insisting converts get circumcised. Obviously, since Paul was doing the converting of the gentiles that eventually made Christianity a major religion, most Christians accept his view to some degree because their sects historically took this view and also they like bacon, but still pull out the Old Testament when it means lynching gays. In short, it's an interesting debate, but most people who say the have to discriminate because Leviticus are this guy: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:The hell? How does such a thing make sense? It's like what Maher said. If God is all infallible in such, why would you need a revision? If you are a biblical literalist or firm on your belief in biblical inerrancy, you might have to do some mental gymnastics to make that (and a few other things) work out. Not all Christians are, though a lot of the noisiest ones at least find it convenient to claim to be. I can only speak for myself, but my personal belief, as a Christian who is not a literalist, is that the Bible is the story of how people have related with and tried to understand the nature of God through history. As our understanding has evolved, so have the rules. quote:I'll admit, I don't know much about the Bible, but I always figured the New Testament was just a continuation of...well, the Old Testament. I didn't know it actually had stuff that was supposed to supplant the previous stuff. It still works out. Jesus himself wasn't into scriptural inerrancy: Matthew 22:36-40 posted:
That's the test for right and wrong. The old rules say you should stone an adulteress, but that's not loving to God or to your neighbor. That rule is unjust. We even have a story about Jesus interceding to prevent a stoning, even though the literal and inerrant word of scripture would have required him to take part. Cheating on your wife is wrong because it hurts her. Stomping on the poor is wrong because it's not loving to your neighbors. Denying gays rights is wrong because it's spiteful. Giving to charity and supporting social safety nets are good acts because they show love to those in need. Supporting gun control is right because it's loving to want to keep people safe. Supporting protecting the environment is right because trashing it is a poor way to show love for the future or for respecting the creator's gift. The GOP as it exists today is not the party of Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:The hell? How does such a thing make sense? It's like what Maher said. If God is all infallible in such, why would you need a revision? One of the central concepts of Christian faith, both Catholics and Protestants (though they differ on how it happens) is the redemption from sin is freely given by God if you ask for it with a genuine heart. So no it actually doesn't matter if you go around committing adultery if you, you know, stop, and ask for forgiveness. That's what they mean by personal relationship, it's not 'welp hosed my wife's sister but me and God are cool better go for round two', it's 'I hosed my wife's sister, that was bad, I understand that, have no intent of doing it again, and with my relationship with god I'll ask for forgiveness to purify my soul'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
So the "perfect" God changed his mind, went from being a complete sociopath to being kind and loving. And because I'm an atheist my moral character and veracity are suspect by default. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:So the "perfect" God changed his mind, went from being a complete sociopath to being kind and loving. And because I'm an atheist my moral character and veracity are suspect by default. Cool. Thanks Reddit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Thanks Reddit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
It's worth noting that 99% of the people who use "my connection with Christ" an an excuse are far from genuinely sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Svanja posted:This happened June 6th: Fox twit says Special Forces troops would have killed Bergdahl if they had found him: I would also like to go on Fox News to call for the death of American soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:Has there been any new word on the Bundy situation, out of curiosity?  Oh you mean Cliven Bundy.  Well, he apparently owes more fees to feds than all other U.S. ranchers combined, totaling more than $1,000,000, as opposed to the combined total of $237,000 owed by the 458 other ranchers.  Jerry Manderbilt posted:Wasn't the isolationist movement from c. 1917 up until 1941 very conservative, anyway? You'd figure Roosevelt would have had to bypass them in order to, you know, not let Hitler run roughshod over Europe. Also:   70 loving years later, and these Seuss cartoons are just as relevant today. 
fade5 fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 00:43
|
|