Study: Fox Is the Most Fair and Balanced Thus Far in Prez Campaign

[HAL 9000 96]

If that's what you want to believe. To be fair though, there was dronework (to be proud of) and there was mindless dronework (to not be proud of).

Sucks when you have nothing else to say, right?

pretty much, given what you got out of it. as for me, i was honored and proud to serve my nation.

Having critical thinking skills and the motivation to disagree with those that rule are not synonymous with being unpatriotic. In fact, encouraging the squashing of dissent is much more unpatriotic than you will ever know.

FWIW I always think of my past as honorable and I never regret any of my priors. It seems we share lots more in common that you care to *think*.

dissent has no place in the military. it's to protect democracy, not to practice it. nor does the military have "those that rule" in it.

Then I suppose there is no such thing as following orders... unless you're referring to the military in the US being subject to civilian control by way of the Commander in Chief, and this position being subject (in a democracy) to the will of the citizenry.

so if it's the military of a democracy, does that make someone a ruler? no, so why throw that term out there? furthermore, it's a volunteer service, no one forced you to join. now stop comparing the military to serfdom.

The comment regarding dissent, OTOH, had nothing to do with being in service. It has everything to do with the underlined above. Stop writing petty.

maybe you need to write more clearly?

Rule connotes domination, hierarchy, and order. Nothing in question about that, so what are you trying to disprove since we are both saying the same thing in essence?

And speaking of writing- my GREs in all areas came out high enough, and that means enough.

Edited March 17, 2008 by maviwaro

[kaydee457 13]

Kaydee, These people here are not interested in fair and balanced. They are more interested in the drive-by medias pot shots at the GOP. That is what they like.

this is what I was talking about earlier, Gary.

TV news is the information equivalent of a fast-food diet.

Number, you're just so full of $hit........The quality of news in print is as dismal and biased as tv news presentation, in fact, they draw on the same wire sources.

[Ban Hammer 14,638]

If that's what you want to believe. To be fair though, there was dronework (to be proud of) and there was mindless dronework (to not be proud of).

Sucks when you have nothing else to say, right?

pretty much, given what you got out of it. as for me, i was honored and proud to serve my nation.

Having critical thinking skills and the motivation to disagree with those that rule are not synonymous with being unpatriotic. In fact, encouraging the squashing of dissent is much more unpatriotic than you will ever know.

FWIW I always think of my past as honorable and I never regret any of my priors. It seems we share lots more in common that you care to *think*.

dissent has no place in the military. it's to protect democracy, not to practice it. nor does the military have "those that rule" in it.

Then I suppose there is no such thing as following orders... unless you're referring to the military in the US being subject to civilian control by way of the Commander in Chief, and this position being subject (in a democracy) to the will of the citizenry.

so if it's the military of a democracy, does that make someone a ruler? no, so why throw that term out there? furthermore, it's a volunteer service, no one forced you to join. now stop comparing the military to serfdom.

The comment regarding dissent, OTOH, had nothing to do with being in service. It has everything to do with the underlined above. Stop writing petty.

maybe you need to write more clearly?

Rule connotes domination, hierarchy, and order. Nothing in question about that, so what are you trying to disprove since we are both saying the same thing in essence?

And speaking of writing- my GREs in all areas came out high enough, and that means enough.

if rule = domination, hierarchy, and order, you must really dislike your any job. now you can portray things that way if you wish, but as those in a position over you were appointed to that position by congress or the military, it is a far cry from "those that rule" isn't it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Kaydee, These people here are not interested in fair and balanced. They are more interested in the drive-by medias pot shots at the GOP. That is what they like.

this is what I was talking about earlier, Gary.

TV news is the information equivalent of a fast-food diet.

Number, you're just so full of $hit........The quality of news in print is as dismal and biased as tv news presentation, in fact, they draw on the same wire sources.

It obviously depends on how many sources you consume doesn't it. The newspapers at least cover a wider variety of stories than the televised media.

[HAL 9000 96]

If that's what you want to believe. To be fair though, there was dronework (to be proud of) and there was mindless dronework (to not be proud of).

Sucks when you have nothing else to say, right?

pretty much, given what you got out of it. as for me, i was honored and proud to serve my nation.

Having critical thinking skills and the motivation to disagree with those that rule are not synonymous with being unpatriotic. In fact, encouraging the squashing of dissent is much more unpatriotic than you will ever know.

FWIW I always think of my past as honorable and I never regret any of my priors. It seems we share lots more in common that you care to *think*.

dissent has no place in the military. it's to protect democracy, not to practice it. nor does the military have "those that rule" in it.

Then I suppose there is no such thing as following orders... unless you're referring to the military in the US being subject to civilian control by way of the Commander in Chief, and this position being subject (in a democracy) to the will of the citizenry.

so if it's the military of a democracy, does that make someone a ruler? no, so why throw that term out there? furthermore, it's a volunteer service, no one forced you to join. now stop comparing the military to serfdom.

The comment regarding dissent, OTOH, had nothing to do with being in service. It has everything to do with the underlined above. Stop writing petty.

maybe you need to write more clearly?

Rule connotes domination, hierarchy, and order. Nothing in question about that, so what are you trying to disprove since we are both saying the same thing in essence?

And speaking of writing- my GREs in all areas came out high enough, and that means enough.

if rule = domination, hierarchy, and order, you must really dislike your any job. now you can portray things that way if you wish, but as those in a position over you were appointed to that position by congress or the military, it is a far cry from "those that rule" isn't it?

As a matter of fact... I LOVE my job. I just took a wipe test for Beta radioactivity after an experiment I ran this morning. In a few minutes I'll see if some of the laughing fits I've had at the expense of some of the more childish posters here had any effect on radioactive droplets falling on the bench where I routinely use tritium.

As for your unfortunate bone to pick with semantics... well, all I can tell you is that if you want to critique my analylitcal skills as well as my efficiency at writing in the English language, then prepare yourself to look in the grammatical and semantic mirrors. If you care... but this ripples a big 'whatever' in my pond as I'm sure it does in yours.

How can rulers that were appointed by publicly elected officials be not subject to democratic ideals? I mean, they do defend democracy after all, and this includes being subject to its precepts. However, I will give you absolute doubt on this... its called knowing where in the pecking order of things you're looking at... and while we are in essence saying the same thing, it may be that I am missing something you said or tried to imply and you the same with my writing.

Whichever way, its grown pretty obviously off thread so we can leave this one at that if we agree on it and stop the popcorn gallery from getting any larger.

[kaydee457 13]

Kaydee, These people here are not interested in fair and balanced. They are more interested in the drive-by medias pot shots at the GOP. That is what they like.

this is what I was talking about earlier, Gary.

TV news is the information equivalent of a fast-food diet.

Number, you're just so full of $hit........The quality of news in print is as dismal and biased as tv news presentation, in fact, they draw on the same wire sources.

It obviously depends on how many sources you consume doesn't it. The newspapers at least cover a wider variety of stories than the televised media.

Why do you get to put this nonsense out there without saying what sources? Where are you getting this information?

Edited March 17, 2008 by kaydee457

[HAL 9000 96]

Its called critical thinking.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Kaydee, These people here are not interested in fair and balanced. They are more interested in the drive-by medias pot shots at the GOP. That is what they like.

this is what I was talking about earlier, Gary.

TV news is the information equivalent of a fast-food diet.

Number, you're just so full of $hit........The quality of news in print is as dismal and biased as tv news presentation, in fact, they draw on the same wire sources.

It obviously depends on how many sources you consume doesn't it. The newspapers at least cover a wider variety of stories than the televised media.

Why do you get to put this nonsense out there without siting sources? Where are you getting this information?

Well for one thing - simple common sense. Pick up a copy of the Times and count how many stories are in there compared to prime time network news.

How long do you think a TV news broadcast would be if the newscaster had to read the same amount of copy that's in an average newspaper?

Its called critical thinking.

Nah he's just messing with me because of that comment in the thread the other day. Unfortunately he picked a poor point in the thread to chip in with it.

[Ban Hammer 14,638]

If that's what you want to believe. To be fair though, there was dronework (to be proud of) and there was mindless dronework (to not be proud of).

Sucks when you have nothing else to say, right?

pretty much, given what you got out of it. as for me, i was honored and proud to serve my nation.

Having critical thinking skills and the motivation to disagree with those that rule are not synonymous with being unpatriotic. In fact, encouraging the squashing of dissent is much more unpatriotic than you will ever know.

FWIW I always think of my past as honorable and I never regret any of my priors. It seems we share lots more in common that you care to *think*.

dissent has no place in the military. it's to protect democracy, not to practice it. nor does the military have "those that rule" in it.

Then I suppose there is no such thing as following orders... unless you're referring to the military in the US being subject to civilian control by way of the Commander in Chief, and this position being subject (in a democracy) to the will of the citizenry.

so if it's the military of a democracy, does that make someone a ruler? no, so why throw that term out there? furthermore, it's a volunteer service, no one forced you to join. now stop comparing the military to serfdom.

The comment regarding dissent, OTOH, had nothing to do with being in service. It has everything to do with the underlined above. Stop writing petty.

maybe you need to write more clearly?

Rule connotes domination, hierarchy, and order. Nothing in question about that, so what are you trying to disprove since we are both saying the same thing in essence?

And speaking of writing- my GREs in all areas came out high enough, and that means enough.

if rule = domination, hierarchy, and order, you must really dislike your any job. now you can portray things that way if you wish, but as those in a position over you were appointed to that position by congress or the military, it is a far cry from "those that rule" isn't it?

As a matter of fact... I LOVE my job. I just took a wipe test for Beta radioactivity after an experiment I ran this morning. In a few minutes I'll see if some of the laughing fits I've had at the expense of some of the more childish posters here had any effect on radioactive droplets falling on the bench where I routinely use tritium.

As for your unfortunate bone to pick with semantics... well, all I can tell you is that if you want to critique my analylitcal skills as well as my efficiency at writing in the English language, then prepare yourself to look in the grammatical and semantic mirrors. If you care... but this ripples a big 'whatever' in my pond as I'm sure it does in yours.

How can rulers that were appointed by publicly elected officials be not subject to democratic ideals? I mean, they do defend democracy after all, and this includes being subject to its precepts. However, I will give you absolute doubt on this... its called knowing where in the pecking order of things you're looking at... and while we are in essence saying the same thing, it may be that I am missing something you said or tried to imply and you the same with my writing.

Whichever way, its grown pretty obviously off thread so we can leave this one at that if we agree on it and stop the popcorn gallery from getting any larger.

i'm guessing you don't work with much supervision then at your current job, and that may have been a reason why you didn't care much for the military.

i'm still having a difficult time with how someone appointed over you is instantly turned into a ruler though. after all, pretty much every one of them was previously in the position of being lower on the totem pole at some point. i do find it offensive to use the term "ruler" when referring to the us military. it's not like the british army of old, where one was appointed to a position based on their station in society.

[kaydee457 13]

Kaydee, These people here are not interested in fair and balanced. They are more interested in the drive-by medias pot shots at the GOP. That is what they like.

this is what I was talking about earlier, Gary.

TV news is the information equivalent of a fast-food diet.

Number, you're just so full of $hit........The quality of news in print is as dismal and biased as tv news presentation, in fact, they draw on the same wire sources.

It obviously depends on how many sources you consume doesn't it. The newspapers at least cover a wider variety of stories than the televised media.

Why do you get to put this nonsense out there without siting sources? Where are you getting this information?

Well for one thing - simple common sense. Pick up a copy of the Times and count how many stories are in there compared to prime time network news.

How long do you think a TV news broadcast would be if the newscaster had to read the same amount of copy that's in an average newspaper?

Its called critical thinking.

Nah he's just messing with me because of that comment in the thread the other day. Unfortunately he picked a poor point in the thread to chip in with it.

Quantity does not equal quality..... More common sense......Should I count the funnies too? Cable news networks broadcast 24 hours a day and aren't constrained by deadlines to go to print.

The NY Times by the way is under attack for having an unabashed liberal agenda in an attempt to capture some of its lost credibility and lost readership.

There's lots of stories out there predicting the "old gray lady" demise in the near term.

Edited March 17, 2008 by kaydee457

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Kaydee, These people here are not interested in fair and balanced. They are more interested in the drive-by medias pot shots at the GOP. That is what they like.

this is what I was talking about earlier, Gary.

TV news is the information equivalent of a fast-food diet.

Number, you're just so full of $hit........The quality of news in print is as dismal and biased as tv news presentation, in fact, they draw on the same wire sources.

It obviously depends on how many sources you consume doesn't it. The newspapers at least cover a wider variety of stories than the televised media.

Why do you get to put this nonsense out there without siting sources? Where are you getting this information?

Well for one thing - simple common sense. Pick up a copy of the Times and count how many stories are in there compared to prime time network news.

How long do you think a TV news broadcast would be if the newscaster had to read the same amount of copy that's in an average newspaper?

Its called critical thinking.

Nah he's just messing with me because of that comment in the thread the other day. Unfortunately he picked a poor point in the thread to chip in with it.

Quantity does not equal quality..... More common sense......Should I count the funnies too? Cable news networks broadcast 24 hours a day and aren't constrained by deadlines to go to print.

The NY Times by the way is under attack for having an unabashed liberal agenda in an attempt to capture some of its lost credibility and lost readership.

There's lots of stories out there predicting the "old gray lady" demise in the near term.

Of course it doesn't - that's why I preceded my comment with "for one thing". Kinda hard to research media trends while you're at work isn't it

[HAL 9000 96]

Now we understand each other Charles.

There is nothing wrong in the word ruler per se... unless of course we're using it in a purposefully derogatory manner that implies that the lower you are on the totem pole, the worse it is on a quality scale. Far from it... some folks love to be in those positions, and yes... those that rise trough the ranks usually do so out of merit and thusly earn respect for their efforts.

My job is quite a gem actually... there is plenty of oversight but its not rubbed in your face like, ironically, the military chain of command. More so when my PI is himself British. All in the lab, independent of academic position, have equal capacity to contribute. Not all scientific labs are this way, so I guess we are lucky to have created the environment we currently enjoy.

Kaydee, These people here are not interested in fair and balanced. They are more interested in the drive-by medias pot shots at the GOP. That is what they like.

this is what I was talking about earlier, Gary.

TV news is the information equivalent of a fast-food diet.

Number, you're just so full of $hit........The quality of news in print is as dismal and biased as tv news presentation, in fact, they draw on the same wire sources.

It obviously depends on how many sources you consume doesn't it. The newspapers at least cover a wider variety of stories than the televised media.

Why do you get to put this nonsense out there without siting sources? Where are you getting this information?

Well for one thing - simple common sense. Pick up a copy of the Times and count how many stories are in there compared to prime time network news.

How long do you think a TV news broadcast would be if the newscaster had to read the same amount of copy that's in an average newspaper?

Its called critical thinking.

Nah he's just messing with me because of that comment in the thread the other day. Unfortunately he picked a poor point in the thread to chip in with it.

Quantity does not equal quality..... More common sense......Should I count the funnies too? Cable news networks broadcast 24 hours a day and aren't constrained by deadlines to go to print.

The NY Times by the way is under attack for having an unabashed liberal agenda in an attempt to capture some of its lost credibility and lost readership.

There's lots of stories out there predicting the "old gray lady" demise in the near term.

Of course it doesn't - that's why I preceded my comment with "for one thing". Kinda hard to research media trends while you're at work isn't it

Difficult- yes...

Its not impossible, however, to use one's noodle instead of letting trends to the talking for us. Sometimes even the wackiest of the bunch get things right by logical standards.

[GaryC 7]

Its called critical thinking.

Thats what you call it. It's critical only in the sense of being critical of things you don't like or agree with.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its called critical thinking.

Thats what you call it. It's critical only in the sense of being critical of things you don't like or agree with.

What. That TV news isn't #######?

[HAL 9000 96]

Its called critical thinking.

Thats what you call it. It's critical only in the sense of being critical of things you don't like or agree with.

Well for those of us that think critically to reach conclusions, it usually implies that we went through that thought process to agree to support one particular flavor of Ice Cream.

Criticizing what we don't agree with is natural in that sense, is it not? I think that plenty of examples abound here in this thread of understanding how to think and analyze critically versus making a fool of oneself.

So yeah, that's what I call it.