Obama Flag, dis-respect to the max.

[keefy]

All news channels are just propaganda. Fox is a conservative channel and CNN is a liberal channel. The difference is John Stewart's world view coincides with CNN so he declares liberal media as fact and conservative media as propaganda. Every "news" channel just affirms your bias. So honestly back off with the faux shit cus whatever network you watch is the exact same thing. To prentend oterwise is simply childish. One of those links you provided, the think progress one. Incredibly liberal. Can you honestly believe this is uneditorialized facts, or just confirming your bias?

USA does news wrong then, no news should be ever considered propaganda.

LOL... and our British cousins don't get annoyed by stupid things AT ALL!!!

"Hey, that guy has an Irish/Welsh accent.... I automatically hate him!!"

Making fun of someone doesnt mean you hate them.

An Engish man Irish man Welshman and a Scotts man went into a bar...

[DayWalker]

USA does news wrong then

oh you have no idea...

[*goo]

USA does news wrong then, no news should be ever considered propaganda.

Making fun of someone doesnt mean you hate them.

An Engish man Irish man Welshman and a Scotts man went into a bar...

You mean Scotsman (or Scot). I'm so offended right now...

And what's 'Engish'?






Obligatory TapaTalk signature.

[-Kwesnoth-]

You mean Scotsman (or Scot). I'm so offended right now...

And what's 'Engish'?



Obligatory TapaTalk signature.

Me too, and I'm not even Scottish.

[Dave-The-Rave]

and the Irish man drinks the bar dry WAHEY !!

St Paddy's day tomorrow, hope everyone is getting wasted.

[keefy]

You mean Scotsman (or Scot). I'm so offended right now...

And what's 'Engish'?






Obligatory TapaTalk signature.

Oh no you are taking the piss you must hate me now.

I just burped and a bit of sick came up.

[*goo]

Oh no you are taking the piss you must hate me now.

I just burped and a bit of sick came up.

Lol!

I'm going to go ahead and file that last part under 'Sh*t I really didn't need to know'.


Obligatory TapaTalk signature.

[Dave-The-Rave]

I love how the related articles bit picks out Max and has a load of Max Payne 3 articles.

[wesmore24]

That's not the max. You can do things that are more disrespectful.

Yeah!, you could of had Bush on there instead...

[btbam]

Except that one news network factually and objectively has the most misinformed and misled viewers. One station factually and objectively lies the most to push a partisan political agenda.

If you want to pretend that everyone's on the same level, it's only yourself to delude. But the fact that you can't refute anything of what was said in those videos (or in fact do nothing more than defensive posturing under the guise of "well! everyone's kinda bad! so it's okay!") says volumes more than the weak attempt to defend the factually worst, most biased and agenda-pushing major "news" agency in this country above. If you want to actually defend that terrible news network as being on par with the rest, then you'll have to do more than the weak justification provided above. Because as far as I'm concerned, it does nothing to dismiss the fact that Faux news is (still, seven independent studies later) the WORST news network for misinformation and political bias in this country.

You can hand-wave away those facts via self-delusion, if you like. But they're actually based on fact. Not like your imaginary scenario where all news networks are equally bad and all pushing opposing agendas so it's okay, because it balances out in the end. Ultimately you can't really blame the viewers though; they're Fox viewers. Little things like reality, facts, and proof mean very little to that base compared to having their own rhetoric parroted back at them for the purpose of reaffirming their beliefs.



REALLY!? OMG YOU DON'T SAY. HOW WOULD ANYONE HAVE KNOWN THIS IF YOU HADN'T POINTED IT OUT!? I GUESS THAT MEANS THAT TOTALLY REVOKES THE WHOLE POINT OF THE INTENTIONAL PERMUTATION OF THE WORD!

/facepalm

You can't just eat up the information your news networks provide for you, you have to dig deeper. Look at how knowledge is produced, for what purpose and how it's presented. You also must look at what is not said. Only then can you really critically look at sources. I wasn't justifying Fox by saying everything is awful, I said everything has a point of view. You happen to disagree with that point of view, and as a result you'd rather degrade the inherent value of the source rather than the content of the source. I didn't bother watching those John Stewart videos because I can already guess the content. He is a clown, a funny man. He isn't credible and never will be. He can act the politically savvy talking head, but he will never be a good source of information. He is a very good source for a point of view thouh.

[TRF]

It's perfectly acceptable, I just find it loltacular that someone would even put his face on an American flag.

[DayWalker]

You can't just eat up the information your news networks provide for you, you have to dig deeper. Look at how knowledge is produced, for what purpose and how it's presented. You also must look at what is not said. Only then can you really critically look at sources. I wasn't justifying Fox by saying everything is awful, I said everything has a point of view. You happen to disagree with that point of view, and as a result you'd rather degrade the inherent value of the source rather than the content of the source. I didn't bother watching those John Stewart videos because I can already guess the content. He is a clown, a funny man. He isn't credible and never will be. He can act the politically savvy talking head, but he will never be a good source of information. He is a very good source for a point of view thouh.

you're half right... Stewart doesn't report news however... he mocks it... and politicians.... left and right.

it just so happened that he became super popular during the Bush admin, so all the righties think he's heavily bias

[Sufi]

Stewart is the best form of news I've ever seen!

[btbam]

you're half right... Stewart doesn't report news however... he mocks it... and politicians.... left and right.

it just so happened that he became super popular during the Bush admin, so all the righties think he's heavily bias

Fair enough DW. But I think he is inclined to mock the right before the left

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

[Sufi]

It's pretty obvious that Stewart is a lefty but whatever he says, is not bullshit.

[squirrelbo1]

I wonder what would happen if someone blew up a picture of the Queen and drew a mustache on her....

I can honestly tell you that nobody would give a flying Fuck. I doubt even the queen would care.

I know right, they actually inform on stuff done by Obama. Its horrible having a News network that reports on the right side instead of the left like all the other networks.

It's mote to do with the fact they just don't report the news. Multiple studies have found that fox viewers are the least informed.

LOL.... attack the source rather than discuss the actual story... I remember there was someone here a while back that got banned a number of times and that person used the same exact tactics!

You should always attack the source. Hitlers interpretations of eugenics technically work. Should we adopt them ? So do his economic policies as well come to think of it.

LOL... and our British cousins don't get annoyed by stupid things AT ALL!!!

"Hey, that guy has an Irish/Welsh accent.... I automatically hate him!!"

Not true at all. We give each other stick and get competitive in rugby and other sports, we don't automatically hate each other.

Well, giving the fact that I am from Northern Ireland and living in England atm I can tell you that no one here hates me..in fact quite the opposite.

Besides that has nothing to do with flag loving, I fail to see the connection.

Thanks.


On topic. I really don't see the issue here, but then again this is in a country that makes its kids swear allegiance to said flag every day at school.


Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

[Blacksite]

Only an egomaniac would be content with putting their face on the flag. Some kids growing up don't even know how the United States of America came to be. But yeah, god forbid someone cares, right?

Yeah!, you could of had Bush on there instead...

That's not what he was getting at.

And how much do you know of President Bush? I just want to make sure you aren't parroting the whole low IQ angle as you're fairly young.

[weskurtz81]

You should always attack the source. Hitlers interpretations of eugenics technically work. Should we adopt them ? So do his economic policies as well come to think of it.

When someone simply attacks the source while completely ignoring the message/argument, that means they (in most cases) have no defense of his/her position.

As far as Hitler is concerned, were his interpretations of Eugenics wrong simply because they came from him, or are they just wrong in general regardless of what the source is? See, if the position/argument/belief is wrong, the source should make ABSOLUTELY no difference...

Like I said, you only resort to attacking the source when you have no other intelligent defense/argument.

[MjW]

I don't know what the fuzz is with the "Obama flag".

Yes, I find it disrespectful. But I also find disrespectful using a nation's flag - which people have died for - in bikinis to cover silicone implanted breasts and butt-holes.

[*goo]

I wonder what would happen if someone blew up a picture of the Queen and drew a mustache on her....

The joke is on you, Freddie Mercury already had a moustache.

[squirrelbo1]

You can elect not to.

fair enough

When someone simply attacks the source while completely ignoring the message/argument, that means they (in most cases) have no defense of his/her position.

As far as Hitler is concerned, were his interpretations of Eugenics wrong simply because they came from him, or are they just wrong in general regardless of what the source is? See, if the position/argument/belief is wrong, the source should make ABSOLUTELY no difference...

Like I said, you only resort to attacking the source when you have no other intelligent defense/argument.

I'm a history student. I spend my entire day attacking peoples sources. Arguments can be completely correct, but if the source of the information is wrong, then you are fucked.

Hitlers interpretation of eugenics isnt wrong. How he would have implemented it would have been eugenics in its purest form. I mean eugenics doesnt really work because of environment etc, but his method would be the most complete way to see if it actually did. It's not moral, well its barbaric and atrocious but never the less.

[weskurtz81]

I'm a history student. I spend my entire day attacking peoples sources. Arguments can be completely correct, but if the source of the information is wrong, then you are fucked.

Hitlers interpretation of eugenics isnt wrong. How he would have implemented it would have been eugenics in its purest form. I mean eugenics doesnt really work because of environment etc, but his method would be the most complete way to see if it actually did. It's not moral, well its barbaric and atrocious but never the less.

Good stuff on being a history student, not really sure how it's relevant to debate, unless you guys do a lot of debating in history.

Attacking the source of the information rather than the information itself is a weak way to debate, it might work with people that don't have much experience or mental fortitude, but it's generally used when you have no other options.

Now, one thing you did say "if the source of the information is wrong", sure if you use the wrong source to find your info, but that has absolutely no relevance to what I was pointing out or what engage was doing. He was attacking the source of the information simply because he doesn't like that source, not because it was somehow "wrong". What he did is what's referred to as an ad hominem attack, plain and simple...

[btbam]

Good stuff on being a history student, not really sure how it's relevant to debate, unless you guys do a lot of debating in history.

Attacking the source of the information rather than the information itself is a weak way to debate, it might work with people that don't have much experience or mental fortitude, but it's generally used when you have no other options.

Now, one thing you did say "if the source of the information is wrong", sure if you use the wrong source to find your info, but that has absolutely no relevance to what I was pointing out or what engage was doing. He was attacking the source of the information simply because he doesn't like that source, not because it was somehow "wrong". What he did is what's referred to as an ad hominem attack, plain and simple...

There is a part of history called historiography where you basically look at everything everyone else has said on a particular subject and explain why they are wrong and you are right. I don't see it as more of debating the sources but vetting them. Attacking the source is weak and not what a historian is supposed to do, but they can vet the value and accuracy of the source.

[weskurtz81]

There is a part of history called historiography where you basically look at everything everyone else has said on a particular subject and explain why they are wrong and you are right. I don't see it as more of debating the sources but vetting them. Attacking the source is weak and not what a historian is supposed to do, but they can vet the value and accuracy of the source.

Yes, you can absolutely vet the source, for instance, if you are quoting what an expert in residential construction said about proper wing size of an airplane. Without further vetting, the construction experts knowledge on avionic engineering is unknown and definitely questionable.

In this case though, simply attacking the source of the information because you don't like the source, and then not being able to comprehend why that's a weak stance... that's what I don't get.

[squirrelbo1]

well yeah essentially thats what I was trying to say. But you also have to remember that everything has an agenda, so one must take that into account. who is telling you what or who is choosing to report what is vital. two historians can interpret information in completely different ways. see goldhagen and browning on reserve police battalion 101. I'm not claiming to assert any kind of motive on any of these historians, but just trying to show that what is deemed important varies between people.