Do you like Fox News?

[rogue06]

Liberal, socialist, commie = anything to the left of Genghis Khan.

</PSA for TWeb newbs>

Exactly what was Genghis Khan's political philosophy?

[lao tzu]

Exactly what was Genghis Khan's political philosophy?

It's okay, rogue. He'd have figured the New York Times was leftist too. No need to cast him out ... yet.

[themuzicman]

Don't you know that the role of the media is to act as a filter that allows only liberal-approved Politically Correct information to be passed on to the unwashed masses out in fly-over country?

Back in 2002 New York Times columnist Paul Krugman complained about how, “Talk radio and Fox News let the hard right gets its message out to its supporters.” Excuse me. Let? “Let” the message get out? It appears that to Krugman the purpose of the news is to screen the public from exposure to conservative opinion.

Similarly, John Nichols of “The Nation,” has expressed concern that Fox News Channel “limits” and “narrows political discourse” by presenting conservative viewpoints. Unfortunately Nichols never explained how decades of one-sided liberal TV news represented political diversity, and how a conservative alternative marks a narrowing in the spectrum of opinion.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[rogue06]

It's okay, rogue. He'd have figured the New York Times was leftist too. No need to cast him out ... yet.

No seriously - what was Genghis Khan's political philosophy? Why is he (or Attila the Hun) used in this manner (i.e., "anything to the left of Genghis Khan")? Why is it assumed by some that he was on the "right" when it comes to modern political philosophy? I mean was he against high taxes, an expansive central government? Did he favor local government control and free trade? Did he want to promote public morality and traditional family values?

Or is it just empty-headed rhetoric employed by the left without any regard for reality but is used any way because it sounds good?

[lao tzu]

No seriously ... is it just empty-headed rhetoric employed by the left without any regard for reality but is used any way because it sounds good?

Liberal, socialist, commie = anything to the left of rogue06.

</PSA for TWeb newbs>

Better?

A stance on the far right isn't a meaningful place to be making comments about the "left." The "empty-headed" rhetoric of Fox news supporters doesn't make the New York Times a leftist publication any more than the "empty-headed" rhetoric of Mother Jones supporters makes the NYT a shill for the plutocracy.

And no, the center is not to the right of itself, either.

[rogue06]

Better

A stance on the far right isn't a meaningful place to be making comments about the "left." The "empty-headed" rhetoric of Fox news supporters doesn't make the New York Times a leftist publication any more than the "empty-headed" rhetoric of Mother Jones supporters makes the NYT a shill for the plutocracy.

And no, the center is not to the right of itself, either.

When you get off the soapbox perhaps you could address my questions.

[Ladybug823]

Well thank you very much Rogue, I love the welcoming committee here it is very hospitable

[lao tzu]

When you get off the soapbox perhaps you could address my questions.

I live for unwitting irony.

[rogue06]

I live for unwitting irony.

Which question have I been avoiding lao? You went off on a tangent that had little or nothing to do with what I wrote so I'm offering you yet again a chance to actually address it.

[Pilgrim]

No seriously - what was Genghis Khan's political philosophy? Why is he (or Attila the Hun) used in this manner (i.e., "anything to the left of Genghis Khan")? Why is it assumed by some that he was on the "right" when it comes to modern political philosophy? I mean was he against high taxes, an expansive central government? Did he favor local government control and free trade? Did he want to promote public morality and traditional family values?

Or is it just empty-headed rhetoric employed by the left without any regard for reality but is used any way because it sounds good?

I'd say the latter. Sort of like when certain folks equate Obama and anyone to the left of them to Hitler and the Nazi's.

[rogue06]

I'd say the latter. Sort of like when certain folks equate Obama and anyone to the left of them to Hitler and the Nazi's.

Or when any politician is equated to Hitler since it didn't start with Obama

[Soyeong]

I'd say the latter. Sort of like when certain folks equate Obama and anyone to the left of them to Hitler and the Nazi's.

Obama has nothing on Hitler, but when he's not doing his job, whining about Republicans, making threats, and lying through his teeth, it's reasonable to say he's incompetent and untrustworthy.

[Oolon Colluphid]

No I don't like Fox News.

In fact I'll cast the net a little wider and say I don't like News Corp.

Any reader from the UK will readily understand why.

Readers in the US will find out soon enough - the contagion is spreading. The story will break over there soon enough. Of course, there'll be a long line of apologists making sorry excuses for Murdoch, and probably quite a few on here.



Those on the right are bound to like Fox - it's their network. It can do no wrong. Not even this:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...es-hacked.html

[shunyadragon]

Obama has nothing on Hitler, but when he's not doing his job, whining about Republicans, making threats, and lying through his teeth, it's reasonable to say he's incompetent and untrustworthy.

Considering the evidence it sounds more like your describing Republicans.

[Darth Executor]

herp derp herp derp

I can't think of a more objective individual when it comes to accurately identifying the centre than a far left lunatic like you