Obama is the presumptive democratic nominee

[Crotale]

Its indicative of the 'quality' of the rest of the crap on Fox News.

Says you. Just because 20 other people on a gaming website agree with you gives you little credence in the grand scheme of things. The reason Fox News is successful is NOT due to any alleged pandering to the right, but that it does provide some semblance of balance as related to the left-leaning news organizations that dominate the landscape.

Funny how bias is only indicated when it differs from a given individual's point of view.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

You are basing an entire news network on one guy on one show. Bill O'Reilly is NOT Fox News.

Hannity

The entire “Fox & Friends” (Morning show) crew.

Brit Hume

Neil Cavuto

Rupert Murdoch

You're right there is more to Fox News than Bill O'Reilly.

 

[gregori]

Says you. Just because 20 other people on a gaming website agree with you gives you little credence in the grand scheme of things. The reason Fox News is successful is NOT due to any alleged pandering to the right, but that it does provide some semblance of balance as related to the left-leaning news organizations that dominate the landscape.

Funny how bias is only indicated when it differs from a given individual's point of view.

Says the rest of the intelligent world...

 

[kiff]

I watch cnn, msnbc and fox. they all have their "bad apples", but I must say that I honestly feel I get more of the story from fox than the others. cnn isn't too bad, but if you guys are going to bag on o'reilly or hannity, then please start mentioning oberman (?) and his lovely friends. give me a break...

 

[hilo_]

Just remember that your holy book was redone by a king to fit personal likings rather than the church.

What exactly are you talking about?

Religion, no matter what branch or sect, has always killed and will always kill in the name of itself.

A religion is just a set of beliefs that centers around our nature as human beings, where we came from, and where we are going, etc etc. Most religions provide a set of standards by which one should live to be ethical. It's the choice of the individual to accept or reject those principles. It doesn't "kill" anything. People kill people.

 

[TWD]

I watch cnn, msnbc and fox. they all have their "bad apples", but I must say that I honestly feel I get more of the story from fox than the others. cnn isn't too bad, but if you guys are going to bag on o'reilly or hannity, then please start mentioning oberman (?) and his lovely friends. give me a break...

This is a great point. I find it interesting how people tend to point out Fox's conservative bias, but completely miss the fact that most of the other news networks lean left. Some networks like NBC don't even try to hide their bias anymore. It seems that objectivity is lacking only when the opinion is different from your own.

The media seems to think that their job is to give opinion instead of news. The fact of the matter is that if it wasn't for guys like Rush Limbaugh, or even Keith Olberman that America wouldn't be getting the whole story right now. So stop whining about how Fox's news doesn't fit in with your agenda. Be grateful that there is at least some variety in how the news is portrayed on television.

 

[Molgan]

What exactly are you talking about?

The original New Testament was compiled by the Bishop of Alexandria 367 A.D. He basically took the texts he saw fit and put it together. Not everyone agreed on it, so every sect, and there were many, had their own version of the bible. The bible we know today is the result of many cut and paste sessions mixing the different theologies. In the beginning of 1600 king James made a new interpretation of the old greek texts, and he made sure that the text would fit to the teaching of that time. They added and removed as they saw fit. The "word of God" is therefore just as valid as the wikipedia.

 

[Zur]

What exactly are you talking about?

He's talking about the King James adaptation.

 

[Crotale]

Says the rest of the intelligent world...

Who cares? I care only about what I feel is an appropriate delivery of the news. By your vision, the only "decent" news channel is one that leans to the left. I honestly have not seen any news channel that is completely unbiased in its entire programming lineup. Therefore, my choice being different from your choice is just that, MY CHOICE. If you dingbats want to bash me because I'm not some tree hugging, non-bathing, dope smoking, johnson sucking peacenik, then feel free to do so.

As much as a lot of you guys claim the right is a bunch on intolerant a-holes, I'm seeing more evidence of such intolerance right here by those who hate the right.

Hannity

The entire “Fox & Friends” (Morning show) crew.

Brit Hume

Neil Cavuto

Rupert Murdoch

You're right there is more to Fox News than Bill O'Reilly.

Again, who cares? You would deny an entire group of demographics just because you happen to disagree with FNC's formats? By the way, CNN and MSNBC have financial programming as well, so that means they pander to the right-wing conservative rich f*cks and want to further bring down the poor in this country?

 

[hilo_]

The original New Testament was compiled by the Bishop of Alexandria 367 A.D. He basically took the texts he saw fit and put it together. Not everyone agreed on it, so every sect, and there were many, had their own version of the bible. The bible we know today is the result of many cut and paste sessions mixing the different theologies. In the beginning of 1600 king James made a new interpretation of the old greek texts, and he made sure that the text would fit to the teaching of that time. They added and removed as they saw fit. The "word of God" is therefore just as valid as the wikipedia.

You're talking about the development of the NT canon. It's not mixing different theologies, just different books. King James didn't make a new interpretation of the greek texts; his version was based on the textus receptus. See below

He's talking about the King James adaptation.

The NT portion of the KJV was based primarily on the textus receptus. Most modern textual scholars ahere to an eclectic approach, which basically means consulting many different manuscripts, giving more weight to those which are older, and usually Alexandrian in character. The textus receptus is not considered reliable and is not used as a basis for modern translations of the NT.

 

[Sirius]

Who cares? I care only about what I feel is an appropriate delivery of the news. By your vision, the only "decent" news channel is one that leans to the left. I honestly have not seen any news channel that is completely unbiased in its entire programming lineup. Therefore, my choice being different from your choice is just that, MY CHOICE. If you dingbats want to bash me because I'm not some tree hugging, non-bathing, dope smoking, johnson sucking peacenik, then feel free to do so.

As much as a lot of you guys claim the right is a bunch on intolerant a-holes, I'm seeing more evidence of such intolerance right here by those who hate the right.

Again, who cares? You would deny an entire group of demographics just because you happen to disagree with FNC's formats? By the way, CNN and MSNBC have financial programming as well, so that means they pander to the right-wing conservative rich f*cks and want to further bring down the poor in this country?

QFT.

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

Again, who cares? You would deny an entire group of demographics just because you happen to disagree with FNC's formats? By the way, CNN and MSNBC have financial programming as well, so that means they pander to the right-wing conservative rich f*cks and want to further bring down the poor in this country?

All those I listed do more than "financial programming". In fact, I didn't even consider their "financial programming", I was refering to the righ-wing "talking points" (aka propaganda)
that they parrot regularly.

By the way, the rich don't want to "further bring down the poor", they want to get richer, and if it's at the expense of the poor, then so be it.

 

[Crotale]

All those I listed do more than "financial programming". In fact, I didn't even consider their "financial programming", I was refering to the righ-wing "talking points" (aka propaganda)
that they parrot regularly.

So what if they do that? It's their news channel and they can run it any way they like. If they get the viewership, and they do, it is serving a purpose. Same goes for CNN and all the other mainstream national news networks.

By the way, the rich don't want to "further bring down the poor", they want to get richer, and if it's at the expense of the poor, then so be it.

Sounds like capitalism at its finest. If you're saying the rich don't care if they stick to the poor, you might be surprised at how many extremely wealthy persons in this country are Democrats.

Seems to be a lot on misconceptions going on here.

 

[Jonathan]

The original New Testament was compiled by the Bishop of Alexandria 367 A.D. He basically took the texts he saw fit and put it together. Not everyone agreed on it, so every sect, and there were many, had their own version of the bible. The bible we know today is the result of many cut and paste sessions mixing the different theologies. In the beginning of 1600 king James made a new interpretation of the old greek texts, and he made sure that the text would fit to the teaching of that time. They added and removed as they saw fit. The "word of God" is therefore just as valid as the wikipedia.

LOL, and when and how long have you been studying textual criticism?

The school of Alexandria was under Origin. They did not produce the Bible, but some (not-so-good) manuscripts flowed from their school. However, the corpus of the New Testament manuscripts are all similar, and this is testified, by history. The manuscripts of Alexandria were adopted by Fenton John Anthony Hort, and Mr. Westcott, Tischendor, and several others in the 1800s, and is the bedrock of the newer translations.

The King James Version, and a few other translations, use the Textus Receptus family of Greek texts. The subject of textual criticism is a very deep and interesting study, but it's not to be "studied" with just a cursory attitude, else you start making a lot of pedantic remarks.

King James had nothing to do with the translation, and rather, he would often get into arguments with the translators, as the translators were mainly Puritans, and the Puritans preached against "Kings" of the sort that King James was.

The King James Version wasn't a "new interpretation" of the "old Greek texts," as the translators used Stephanus 1550, Beza's, etc. Greek texts among other sources helpful in lower criticism.

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=69

As for myself, I began studying Koine Greek at the age of 17, so I often read the New Testament in Greek quite clearly. Just in case you think I'm lying. . .

 

[Jonathan]

All those I listed do more than "financial programming". In fact, I didn't even consider their "financial programming", I was refering to the righ-wing "talking points" (aka propaganda)
that they parrot regularly.

By the way, the rich don't want to "further bring down the poor", they want to get richer, and if it's at the expense of the poor, then so be it.

While it is so that a lot of rich people care nothing for those who are less fortunate, several rich people are very generous in giving.

One example would be Peter Lynch, who funds a some Catholic charities IIRC (he's a devout catholic, and a good investor ).

However, it is not for the government to decide how a wealthy person spends their money. It's good to give to help the needy, but if a government forces you to do it, well, you're not doing it out of love, and it's only because you have to.

When I go vote this year, I'll just be voting against Obama, and therefore, that means I'll be voting for McCain, as he's the "lesser of two evils."

As for news programs (I don't watch much TV), it's usually CNBC for investing, Fox for news, and then of course, Man vs. Wild (not news but it's cool).

 

[N1ghtmare]

If you think that any spokesperson tells the whole story, well then lol. Most of the news corporations have news segments, all of which tend to be similar and somewhat unbiased. But other than that they have other talk shows and more biased entertainment. These shows will define which way the corporation generally leans, for most of the "news" segments of the channel are unbiased. So to say that the "other shows" don't matter is wrong.

Now if you think for one second that all those shows Lizard of Oz posted are unbaised and tell the "whole story," then you are kidding yourself.

Im not saying that Kieth Olberman or other Liberal talkshow hosts give the whole story either. When Obama goes and says something in a speech, it is impossible to see the full story because the other candidates are there to contest him. Same goes for all Candidates.

With that being said, the talkshow hosts of Fox News have generally tended to agree with conservative points of view. Of course to those who agree with them it seems like the "whole story," but it really isn't. When I watch a liberal or democrat speak, It appears to me to be the whole story, but I know that there are missing parts.

[Enter N1ghtmare's bais zone-he actually admits that he may be spinning]
I generally see that Fox news portrays heavy conservative bias and indeed does not give the whole story of most items discussed in talk show.
[End N1ghtmare's view of Fox News]

 

[Defeat]

I miss George Washington ;[ He didn't want political parties.

 

[T2A`]

I miss Thomas Jefferson. He didn't want a central bank f**king up our economy... just like the Federal* Reserve is doing now. Our government cannot even print and control its own money. FAIL.

*Federal in this case means privately owned and in no way a federal entity.

 

[Jonathan]

I miss George Washington ;[ He didn't want political parties.

I miss public servants. Now all we have is lifetime politicians.

 

[Crotale]

I just think it's funny that some dudes on a video game fan site are dissing me for what news channel I may watch. You don't like that or me, well then, that's too bad. Deal with it.