Time to Rally the Troops at MSNBC

[Faldur]

I have admitted many of times of MSNBC extreme leftist views as is the case with Fox. News stations that had a more central view would probably been boring and would have lower ratings and thus less advertising revenue. After all they are still businesses that have to turn a profit first and foremost.

I agree Silcc, you shoot straight.

[Cuchulain]

The more you speak the more you make our case for us. At least the conservatives on this board have a clear vision of what biases are out there. FOX news leans right? You bet your sweet ass, and the people who watch it know full well of that fact. Its why we watch, and as far a I can tell its a choice we can make freely no matter who doesn't like it.

The PROGS on this board have become so blinded by there hatred they cant see the forest from the trees. At least we have a clear picture of the playing field, and admit openly the biases. Something people of your beliefs have a great deal of difficulty with.

Really? Looks to me like you just made MY case. You spin that FOX and MSNBC are just two sides of the same coin. They're not. It doesn't matter how much you and the kneeler stamp your little feet and hold your breath, they never will be. MSNBC has an ideology, FOX has an agenda. There's a big difference...one you'll never admit too.

Hatred? Well, if you're talking about the BIG CONs, the ones who fund the think tanks and set the repubs anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-consumer, anti-American Dream agenda - like Roger Ailes and the Kochers - then yep, they're the enemy. I fucking hate them.

[hippifried]

I have admitted many of times of MSNBC extreme leftist views as is the case with Fox. News stations that had a more central view would probably been boring and would have lower ratings and thus less advertising revenue. After all they are still businesses that have to turn a profit first and foremost.

Yeah, well that's a relatively new phenomenon. Broadcast news has never made money. The first news related programming to ever turn a profit was 60 Minutes. Cable programming is cheaper because it's all studio. In the '80s, there was CNN & SNC. Turner bought out SNC & turned it into CNN-HLN. Nobody paid any attention to CNN at all until their coverage of the Gulf War in '91. FOX was still a bunch of shitty UHF stations around the country who's only claim to fame was "Married with Children". Huntly/Brinkley never made a profit. Cronkite never made a profit. Nightline came close, but I don't believe they ever actually turned a profit. I have to wonder just how much profit cable news makes. CNN is owned by Time Warner. TW makes mega bucks, but has anyone seen an audit that tells you how much of that is from CNN? MSNBC & CNBC are owned by General Electric (unless they sold off NBC while I wasn't looking), & MSNBC is a joint venture with Microsoft. I wonder what percentage of revenue they generate. The FOX cable news channel is a very small part of FOX Entertainment Group, who owns production studios, networks, broadcasters, & newspapers worldwide. Dollars to donuts says that ol' Rupert makes more money off of sports coverage. We keep hearing about ratings, but compared to what? If you took all 5 major cable "news" networks combined, they probably wouldn't come close to ESPN or TNT in viewership. Television news has always been considered a public service instead of a profit making venture.

[Faldur]

MSNBC has an ideology, FOX has an agenda.

You continue to make my point, i rest my case.

you're talking about the BIG CONs, the ones who fund the think tanks and set the repubs anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-consumer, anti-American Dream agenda - like Roger Ailes and the Kochers - then yep, they're the enemy. I fucking hate them.

Speaks for itself..

[onmyknees]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnb...g-slut-remark/


Apparently there are some standards over there at Obama Central. I'm bound by no such restraints, or contractual morals clauses...

Ed Schultz is a disgusting fat slob liberal misogynistic condom cleaner. My only hope is his over eating eventually gets the better of him and he forgets to take his Lipator for several days clogging his fat filled arteries. Fuck off you fat pig....you've been degrading women for years. How's that for civility? LMAO

[Cuchulain]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnb...g-slut-remark/


Apparently there are some standards over there at Obama Central. I'm bound by no such restraints, or contractual morals clauses...

Ed Schultz is a disgusting fat slob liberal misogynistic condom cleaner. My only hope is his over eating eventually gets the better of him and he forgets to take his Lipator for several days clogging his fat filled arteries. Fuck off you fat pig....you've been degrading women for years. How's that for civility? LMAO

LOL. I knew someone would jump on the Schultz remark. Big Ed's only mistake (other than apologizing) was calling her a slut. Slut has such nasty connotations, suggesting that there's something wrong with a woman enjoying her sexuality. He SHOULD have just called Laura a corporate whore, along with most repub politicians and the rest of their 'media' lapdogs.

The very fact that MSNBC got upset over his statement demonstrates that they are not in the same cesspool with the FOX goons...and the kneeler's rant proves that I'm not the only one with anger and hatred in my heart. On the other hand, MY anger and hatred are justified

[Faldur]

The very fact that MSNBC got upset over his statement demonstrates that they are not in the same cesspool with the FOX goons...

How many commentators at FOX have called liberal talk show hosts "sluts"? It would seem FOX displays a better sense of journalistic decency.

[Cuchulain]

How many commentators at FOX have called liberal talk show hosts "sluts"? It would seem FOX displays a better sense of journalistic decency.

Sluts? Not that I know of, but I could spend weeks looking up all the outrageous insults the gang at FOX has thrown around over the years. 'Terrorist fist bump' comes to mind or Glenn Beck calling 911 families and Katrina survivors 'scumbags'. Has Roger Ailes ever disciplined any of his people for those type of comments? Of course not. My turn to say case closed.

[Silcc69]

I'm just sayin though



Get CommonDreams.org in your mailbox






Most Popular This Week

• Most Viewed
• Most Emailed

1. Osama bin Laden’s Death: There is Much More to Say
2. Apocalypse Not Now: The Rapture Fails to Materialize
3. Fukushima's Apocalyptic Threat Demands Immediate Global Action
4. This Is What A Police State Looks Like
5. A Link Between Climate Change and Joplin Tornadoes? Never!

More...







Today's Top News

House Wrestles Over Indefinite Expansion of War on Terror

Slash and Burn: Brazil Shreds Laws Protecting Its Rainforests

New Leak Feared at Fukushima Nuclear Plant

Ratko Mladic Arrested: Bosnia War Crimes Suspect Held

Europe Sowing the Seeds of Hunger


More News...




Donate

Find us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

• E-mail
• Print
• Share
  

resize:+ - reset

01.03.11 - 7:36 PM
Dear Dr. Laura, Why Can't I Own Canadians As Slaves?


by Abby Zimet


Today was the first day for Dr. Laura Schlessinger and her "no-nonsense" advice on satellite radio. In her radio show, Dr. Laura has said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. An enquiry into other Bibilical admonitions raises some key questions. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura from James M. Kauffman, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual "uncleanliness" - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia.
PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)
Ed's Note: There's some debate about precisely who authored this piece. Whoever: It's great.

[trish]

On a literal reading Leviticus doesn't ban homosexually but simply places restrictions on the sexual positions in which Levite bisexuals are allowed to engage. In particular Lev 20:13 says,

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Clearly if you use the missionary position with a woman, then you should use some other position, say "doggie," with a man. Moreover, a careful and literal reading reveals these are the rules God proscribes for Levites. It's not made clear what His proscriptions would be for other nations. So all you Levites out there who want to go to Heaven, make you don't bang as man the same way you would bang a woman.