The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

You're still missing the point, Kaz. The fact that they are presenting the "news" in a one-sided manner, is designed to have the very effect it is having on you. Again, do you watch professional wrestling and say to yourself "Why is the referee allowing that?" The fix is in, bro. They make their money by playing one side against the other.

Actually, I'm surprised you're still with us. I thought your head would have exploded when Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Irn-Bru wrote:I honestly don't know how anyone can stand watching any of the 24/7 news channels. You can easily take stock of current events with less than a couple of hours of internet surfing a week. And if you just have to see the interviews, it's easy to find videos online that cut out the fluff and commericals. And as for the opinion-spouters and talk radio guys, I can't see the value in ever paying attention to what they are saying.

I find it much better to spend my time doing other things, but apparently I'm in the minority on this one.

I hardly ever watch news as I like to do something productive or entertaining with my time. BBCA is not a 24/7 news channel unlike the other cable news networks. I believe BBCA presents the news objectively not subjectively like the other stations. I still cannot get my dad to turn the station from Faux news as that is all he watches.

Deadskins wrote:You're still missing the point, Kaz. The fact that they are presenting the "news" in a one-sided manner, is designed to have the very effect it is having on you. Again, do you watch professional wrestling and say to yourself "Why is the referee allowing that?" The fix is in, bro. They make their money by playing one side against the other.

Fox makes me hate both parties?

So who bothers you so much, "Fox" is broad. And why do you hold them to a standard and not the rest of the Bush is the devil Obama is our virginal beloved savior to none?

Deadskins wrote:Actually, I'm surprised you're still with us. I thought your head would have exploded when Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize.

So Obama won the International Leftist Man of the Year award, aka the Nobel Appeasment Prize. How is that different then when Gore or Carter won it for hating America or they awarded it to a terrorist? Why now?

Irn-Bru wrote:I honestly don't know how anyone can stand watching any of the 24/7 news channels. You can easily take stock of current events with less than a couple of hours of internet surfing a week. And if you just have to see the interviews, it's easy to find videos online that cut out the fluff and commericals. And as for the opinion-spouters and talk radio guys, I can't see the value in ever paying attention to what they are saying.

I find it much better to spend my time doing other things, but apparently I'm in the minority on this one.

I'm not sure that because we know what they cover that implies how we generally spend our time. I almost never watch any News channel for the same reason as you. I was referring to the media in general, not just news. It's just that Deadskins brought up Fox. I may not watch them a lot, but I've seen enough to know the main players.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:You're still missing the point, Kaz. The fact that they are presenting the "news" in a one-sided manner, is designed to have the very effect it is having on you. Again, do you watch professional wrestling and say to yourself "Why is the referee allowing that?" The fix is in, bro. They make their money by playing one side against the other.

Fox makes me hate both parties?

So who bothers you so much, "Fox" is broad. And why do you hold them to a standard and not the rest of the Bush is the devil Obama is our virginal beloved savior to none?

Why did you assume I was referring solely to Fox? Reread what I wrote.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Actually, I'm surprised you're still with us. I thought your head would have exploded when Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize.

So Obama won the International Leftist Man of the Year award, aka the Nobel Appeasment Prize. How is that different then when Gore or Carter won it for hating America or they awarded it to a terrorist? Why now?

Did I say somewhere that he deserved it? You don't read the words, you read what you think the writer is going to say.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:You're still missing the point, Kaz. The fact that they are presenting the "news" in a one-sided manner, is designed to have the very effect it is having on you. Again, do you watch professional wrestling and say to yourself "Why is the referee allowing that?" The fix is in, bro. They make their money by playing one side against the other.

Fox makes me hate both parties?

So who bothers you so much, "Fox" is broad. And why do you hold them to a standard and not the rest of the Bush is the devil Obama is our virginal beloved savior to none?

Why did you assume I was referring solely to Fox? Reread what I wrote.

Why do you need to have been "soley" addressing Fox to answer who there is bothering you? You brought them up and bashed them twice more and that's what I'm asking about. What difference does it make what else you might have referred to? I'm asking about what you said about Fox.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Actually, I'm surprised you're still with us. I thought your head would have exploded when Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize.

So Obama won the International Leftist Man of the Year award, aka the Nobel Appeasment Prize. How is that different then when Gore or Carter won it for hating America or they awarded it to a terrorist? Why now?

Did I say somewhere that he deserved it? You don't read the words, you read what you think the writer is going to say.

Ironic you go into left field on what I said and then chastise me for not reading your post, something you clearly didn't with mine. You said you were surprised my head hadn't exploded because of Obama winning the award. I asked why now when liberal appeasers and terrorists have dominated the award and you said I was saying you thought Obama deserved it?

You are, my friend, a hoot. That's why I like these discussions with you. The question is never addressed and we may not go anywhere, but the path is filled with fun and antics.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:You're still missing the point, Kaz. The fact that they are presenting the "news" in a one-sided manner, is designed to have the very effect it is having on you. Again, do you watch professional wrestling and say to yourself "Why is the referee allowing that?" The fix is in, bro. They make their money by playing one side against the other.

Fox makes me hate both parties?

So who bothers you so much, "Fox" is broad. And why do you hold them to a standard and not the rest of the Bush is the devil Obama is our virginal beloved savior to none?

Why did you assume I was referring solely to Fox? Reread what I wrote.

Why do you need to have been "soley" addressing Fox to answer who there is bothering you? You brought them up and bashed them twice more and that's what I'm asking about. What difference does it make what else you might have referred to? I'm asking about what you said about Fox.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Actually, I'm surprised you're still with us. I thought your head would have exploded when Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize.

So Obama won the International Leftist Man of the Year award, aka the Nobel Appeasment Prize. How is that different then when Gore or Carter won it for hating America or they awarded it to a terrorist? Why now?

Did I say somewhere that he deserved it? You don't read the words, you read what you think the writer is going to say.

Ironic you go into left field on what I said and then chastise me for not reading your post, something you clearly didn't with mine. You said you were surprised my head hadn't exploded because of Obama winning the award. I asked why now when liberal appeasers and terrorists have dominated the award and you said I was saying you thought Obama deserved it?

You are, my friend, a hoot. That's why I like these discussions with you. The question is never addressed and we may not go anywhere, but the path is filled with fun and antics.

Just for the record, I've only mentioned Fox twice, not three times, as you stated. I brought up Fox originally because your rant about liberal indoctrination in the schools was one of your verbatim quotes from any of the talking heads at that network. I then laughed at your defense of them, but proceed to lump them in with the rest of the corporate media (the part of my post you didn't comprehend). Personally, I don't watch any network or cable news programs, but I did happen to have just caught a rerun of a Daily Show episode where they had spliced together about 10-15 Fox personalities giving that exact same talking point about schools indoctrinating kids. I though it was humorously ironic that you were ragging on the "liberal media" again, while using talking points directly pulled from the least liberal of the media outlets. But in the post you quoted, I made no mention of Fox in particular, but condemned the entire media, and was, in fact, talking about those "news" organizations you say are liberal and present only one side. I was pointing out to you that they do that on purpose, to get the very reaction from you that they are getting. I compared it to professional wrestling so you could better follow the argument. You see, when the "heel" hits your favorite wrestler over the head with a folding chair, he's not really trying to hurt your guy, he's stirring your emotions so you will be more invested in the fight. But it's all fake. I'm sorry to spoil the illusion for you, but they are in it together for their mutual benefit.

As for the Nobel, what do you want from me? No I don't think Obama deserved the award, any more than did Arafat, or Gore. I think Carter deserved it, but that's not to say I think Carter is without flaws. I'm not sure what your point is anyway. I was just making a joke which obviously went way, way over your head.

Deadskins wrote:As for the Nobel, what do you want from me? No I don't think Obama deserved the award, any more than did Arafat, or Gore. I think Carter deserved it, but that's not to say I think Carter is without flaws. I'm not sure what your point is anyway. I was just making a joke which obviously went way, way over your head.

You are a hoot, my friend. I know I keep saying that but these things crack me up so much. You're building this into something it isn't.

You "joked" my head exploded when Obama won. I just asked you why my head would explode now specifically when the award has long been owned by champions of appeasement on the left and has even gone to a terrorist. Why would Obama make any difference when he's MOS? The Nobel committee has long shown what it is and they repeatedly love American liberals who weaken America, it's exactly the same as it has been. So I was asking why my head would explode now when it didn't before. Wow, the Redskins lost this week, my head is going to explode! Wouldn't it explode if something bad and ... wait for it ... actually unexpected happened?

You keep go to that your shallow joke went over my head and that I'm saying you supported Obama and completely missing the point of my simple response to your simple joke. Dude, it's not that complicated. But keep dancing and hooting my freind. You are a riot!

Deadskins wrote:Just for the record, I've only mentioned Fox twice, not three times, as you stated. I brought up Fox originally because your rant about liberal indoctrination in the schools was one of your verbatim quotes from any of the talking heads at that network. I then laughed at your defense of them, but proceed to lump them in with the rest of the corporate media (the part of my post you didn't comprehend). Personally, I don't watch any network or cable news programs, but I did happen to have just caught a rerun of a Daily Show episode where they had spliced together about 10-15 Fox personalities giving that exact same talking point about schools indoctrinating kids. I though it was humorously ironic that you were ragging on the "liberal media" again, while using talking points directly pulled from the least liberal of the media outlets. But in the post you quoted, I made no mention of Fox in particular, but condemned the entire media, and was, in fact, talking about those "news" organizations you say are liberal and present only one side. I was pointing out to you that they do that on purpose, to get the very reaction from you that they are getting. I compared it to professional wrestling so you could better follow the argument. You see, when the "heel" hits your favorite wrestler over the head with a folding chair, he's not really trying to hurt your guy, he's stirring your emotions so you will be more invested in the fight. But it's all fake. I'm sorry to spoil the illusion for you, but they are in it together for their mutual benefit

I don't say or not say anything because of what you think talking heads say. All I can tell you is to spend more time actually in schools instead of learning about the world on TV and you'll realize what I'm talking about. Or don't and you won't. Your choice.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I'm saying you supported Obama

When exactly did I do that?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:All I can tell you is to spend more time actually in schools instead of learning about the world on TV and you'll realize what I'm talking about.

Funny stuff, Kaz. Oh, the irony.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I'm saying you supported Obama

When exactly did I do that?

That was so clever, well done.

kaz wrote:You keep go to that your shallow joke went over my head and that I'm saying you supported Obama and completely missing the point of my simple response to your simple joke. Dude, it's not that complicated. But keep dancing and hooting my freind. You are a riot!

I won't dare to cross swords with Deadskins again!

Any Republican who is not a libertarian is a closet Democrat.

It's OK to subsidize an agricultural conglomerate but not a poor person who needs medical attention.

My brother teaches courses at a private school with names like Prayer and Old Testament. Even he says requiring a class on the bible in public school is an absurd idea.

I teach math, physics, and astronomy and there is nothing leftiist in my teaching at all.

The original post in this thread reminded me of Homer Simpson in the gun episode when he said "When I held that gun in my hand, I felt a surge of power - like God must feel when he's holding a gun."

Good Lord!

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:I teach math, physics, and astronomy and there is nothing leftiist in my teaching at all

Well, unfortunately science isn't devoid of political or religious ideology as it should be. The Right obviously on creationism, but the Left is as religious on evolution as well simply fitting the data that comes in to their pre-conceived views rather then evaluating the scientific data for what it is. There's nothing scientific at all about the liberal religion's politically motivated views on global warming and that it can be solved through socialism.

Does this include the Satanic bible? If not the Devil worshippers would never go for this.

I think that by definition, a liberal is someone who thinks we should apply government liberally when dealing with society's problems while a conservative thinks we should use the governement very conservatively. (I dare say most conservatives and liberals are not consistent with this and therefore the labels can often be useless). Thus, the suggestion posited by this thread is actually extremely liberal.

DarthMonk

KazooSkinsFan wrote:If you look at all the problems we're having in this country. We're being attacked by Islamic Terrorists who are being defended by Godless Liberals, could there be a better idea then to create a bible class in school? Think about it, it could really help this country. One thing liberals ignore is the original rise of public schools was actually driven by Christians who wanted their kids to be able to read the bible for themselves.

Now I realize the first Amendment's a hurdle, but I have a way around that. If we teach the Bible as a historical class that could be a pretty good way around it. Students could read and memorize passages and learn about Jesus's love without directly worshiping or praying to a Christian God.

Also, the Founding Fathers were actually trying to prevent State religions and they constantly referred to God in their writings and documents, they never had any intent of preventing government from having general religion. One perversion of history was that Thomas Jefferson in saying the phrase "separation of church and State" was guaranteeing government be free from religion, it was actually the reverse. He was assuring a group of ministers in Danbury, Connecticut that government would not interfere in their religion.

Anyway, teaching our kids Christian values even from a historical sense could have a great impact on this country and it would surely start to rub off. Then the kids take it home to their parents. Foreign born parents take it back to their families. We could just run around the war by the Muslims into a Christian conquest of Christian love over them.

What do you think?

DarthMonk wrote:I think that by definition, a liberal is someone who thinks we should apply government liberally when dealing with society's problems while a conservative thinks we should use the governement very conservatively. (I dare say most conservatives and liberals are not consistent with this and therefore the labels can often be useless). Thus, the suggestion posited by this thread is actually extremely liberal.

Good points.

BTW, I was kidding on proposing this.

This country was BUILT on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Persecuted in Europe, people flooded this continent to start new lives and WORSHIP GOD and study the Bible.

Yup, that's how it all started and now the country is going to "hell" in a handbag...just the way radical muslim would like it to.

Republicans, Dem, Liberals, Conservatives....they are ALL contributing to the demise of this country. Throw in some radical muslims, and VIOLA..........trouble is abrewing......!!!

tribeofjudah wrote:This country was BUILT on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Persecuted in Europe, people flooded this continent to start new lives and WORSHIP GOD and study the Bible.

... which is one reason slavery was rampant. I especially like the way certain Quakers were flayed for their reading of "Holy Scripture."

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:This country was BUILT on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Persecuted in Europe, people flooded this continent to start new lives and WORSHIP GOD and study the Bible.

... which is one reason slavery was rampant. I especially like the way certain Quakers were flayed for their reading of "Holy Scripture."

DarthMonk

Dude, that made no sense.

Boston. Massachusetts Bay colony. Hanged Quakers. The "Established Order" in Massachusetts was close to Calvinism. The Quakers were far from Calvin. The authorities saw Quakers as a threat to peace, order, and proper religion.

Same grounds by which the Bay Colony expelled Anne Hutchinson to the wilderness in dead winter, and did the same to Roger Williams.

Loyalists tried to used "puritan bigotry" against Massachusetts in 1774, after Britain closed the port of Boston. At the Continental Congress, Samuel Adams asked an Anglican priest to give the opening benediction just to head off attempts to split Anglicans and "puritans".