<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 24 2008, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>O'Reilly took their shit and didn't get mad once. Usually a racist will explode when a black person insults them right?</div> Not necessarily. Probably even <u>less likely</u> if they are paid media employees on a major network. You are assuming that all racist people lack restraint. As we have seen, thier true feelings can come out when all the black people have left the room. Denny wrote: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I believe these on-air people and producers of the 24/7 cable news networks have to fill all those hours and are bound to make a mistake once in a while. While trying to be cute.</div> Yes, I'm sure that happens. To define racism, I draw from modern perspective. It's not necessarily about dictionary definition, as it's more complex than that. Overt stereotyping used in words and pictures can create this impression. Please take a look at this article by Hank Williams. It's much better than I can explain it: http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/07/2...-of-racism.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In 2008, racism is appeasing the evildoers. It is making jokes that no one finds funny, or even that a few misguided ones do. It is categorizing large swaths of people with words and language that hurt them, even if you have no idea why. It is questioning the morals of people when they stand up to defend themselves against language that seeks to further diminish an already weak social standing. In 2008, racism does not require a white hood, or a lynch mob. It does not require that you hate. Yes, the lack of such obvious indicia does not mean there is no racism. Indeed, I know racism when I see it, and I hope you do too.</div>
Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1 By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money. Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias. True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms. Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment." And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all. The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one. An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans . Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain. Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio. And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists. A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations. As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion: "Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left." The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked. In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public. As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors." It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though. One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias. A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table. The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama. What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain). Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there. Tate is a former journalist, now a novelist and the author of "A Time Like This: 2001-2008." This article first appeared on the American Thinker Web site. Link
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 24 2008, 11:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Not necessarily. Probably even less likely if they are paid media employees on a major network. You are assuming that all racist people lack restraint. As we have seen, thier true feelings can come out when all the black people have left the room.</div> Is Bill O'Reilly really known for his ability to restrain himself?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 11:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jul 24 2008, 08:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 11:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Contributor (not a staff person) Liz Trotta made a bad joke when Hillary brought up RFK's assassination while she was still in the race (it happened to RFK, it could happen to Obama is what she was accused of, remember?). She apologized on-air the next day, and has not appeared on Fox since.</div> I feel like taking this thread on a whole different tangent. IMO, unfortunately, it seems like if Obama was voted into presidency, there would be an extremely high chance of an assassination. I'm hoping to god that never happens, though. I just have a feeling that it's very likely.. </div> Colin Powell, military hero, refused to run for fear of something like this. To Obama's credit, he's running anyway with whatever threat there is in doing so. All it takes is one nut, sure, but I don't think there's a high chance of assassination. Rather, the republic survived both Bushes, Carter and Clinton. It'll survive Obama, too. </div> Ah, yes, Obama is a brave one. If he gets voted into office, I'll support him, sure. As long as he does a better job that George. And as for that interview - Bill O'Reilly was a total douche bag throughout the whole thing. Not only to the hip hop guys, but also to the teacher. I don't blame Cam and Dash for acting like douche bags right back, one bit
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 24 2008, 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 24 2008, 11:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Not necessarily. Probably even less likely if they are paid media employees on a major network. You are assuming that all racist people lack restraint. As we have seen, thier true feelings can come out when all the black people have left the room.</div> Is Bill O'Reilly really known for his ability to restrain himself? </div> If it involves losing his job, then yes. Priorities...
ROTR Exactly the point I made. Dilution of the meaning of the term. It's now like porn - YOU know it when YOU see it, whether anyone else does or not. Neo-nazis are racists. David Duke is a racist. There are old dixiecrats who served until recently or still serve who are racists. There are republicans in the deep south who are racists. They actually believe black people are inferior (they're obviously not). Don Imus is not a racist. What he said was demeaning, crude, insulting, and in poor taste. His shtick has always been insulting all kinds of people, tho. I see no evidence he thinks poorly of black people (for real). See the difference?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>All it takes is one nut, sure, but I don't think there's a high chance of assassination. Rather, the republic survived both Bushes, Carter and Clinton. It'll survive Obama, too.</div> One of the hijacked planes on 911 was heading for the White House....Some crazy guy tried to fly a small plane into the White House when Clinton was president. Some crazy guy shot Reagan, but failed to kill him.... "The Republic". Makes me think of Star Wars.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 24 2008, 11:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 24 2008, 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 24 2008, 11:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Not necessarily. Probably even less likely if they are paid media employees on a major network. You are assuming that all racist people lack restraint. As we have seen, thier true feelings can come out when all the black people have left the room.</div> Is Bill O'Reilly really known for his ability to restrain himself? </div> If it involves losing his job, then yes. Priorities... </div> People who fly off the handle aren't usually thinking of losing anything when they do it, which is part of the reason why they express regret later. When Bill Maher said that the people who drove the planes into the towers weren't cowards, he wasn't thinking that he was going to lose his show because of it, but he did lose sponsors and his show ended as a result. When Michael Savage told a caller on his MSNBC TV show to get AIDS and die, I'm sure he wasn't thinking of keeping his TV show. We all know what happened with Don Imus. If O'Reilly was a racist, it would have been clear on the air after 12 years of the O'Reilly Factor on TV.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 24 2008, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 24 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If he was really a racist he wouldn't have them on to begin with.</div> That's all your own opinion, but is not necessarily true. They are speaking racism, and tolerant of having black guests on their show. At the end of the day, they are racist. </div> Define "racism." </div> Treating people different based on their race. Usually in our society it refers to treating a race negatively, and usually that race is a different than the racist's race. (I know you weren`t really asking) But anyway, there can be different levels of racism. Everyone is in someway probably biased, racist (treating people of different races differently in some ways), favoritists, sexist, agist, to some extent. Hitler would be an extreme examples. While there are much lesser examples of those isms.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 24 2008, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 24 2008, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 24 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If he was really a racist he wouldn't have them on to begin with.</div> That's all your own opinion, but is not necessarily true. They are speaking racism, and tolerant of having black guests on their show. At the end of the day, they are racist. </div> Define "racism." </div> Treating people different based on their race. Usually in our society it refers to treating a race negatively, and usually that race is a different than the racist's race. (I know you weren`t really asking) But anyway, there can be different levels of racism. Everyone is in someway probably biased, racist (treating people of different races differently in some ways), favoritists, sexist, agist, to some extent. Hitler would be an extreme examples. While there are much lesser examples of those isms. </div> You defined "bias." Well, except for the Hitler bit (which one doesn't belong?) To quote Hillary, "words have meaning." The law treats people differently and for good reason. There's nothing wrong with bias, per se. Example is the 14th amendment has been interpreted to include "covered groups" (I think I got the right phrase), which includes black people but does not include gay people (for historical reasons).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 10:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't feel bad for Hill. Whenever she was on Fox, I'd change the channel. Annoying as all hell. For ROTR, people like to throw around the term "racist" and dilute its meaning in doing so. There's a significant element of superiority of one race over another (or all others) in the meaning of the term. It's hard to see actual racism in a commentator who talks up Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice and puts down Obama or a rapper or whoever. "Demeaning" is the right word, if the rhetoric puts someone down. For the record, I have no issue with Mrs. Obama; she seems like a fine lady. My take is she has a great education, but isn't all that great in front of a crowd. Something true of most people, I think. I'd have voted for Sharpton in the general election if he were the nominee - I'm a big fan, but the LIBERAL media unfairly made him out to be some sort of clown. I have no issue with Reverend Wright, and have posted that continually in this forum. On Fox, I don't think they're doing McCain any favors. Their coverage is on the order of 70-30 in favor of Obama (and ignoring McCain), tho McCain does get interviewed on Fox from time to time (unlike the other networks, shame on them). They've had numerous guests on who are republicans who say they won't vote for McCain, oddly enough, Ann Coulter being one of them. *shrug* I'm with huevonkiller on this. I used to watch MSNBC for 90% of my news, and generally flipped over to CNN or Fox to see what they were talking about from time to time. I do like Special Report with Britt Hume and Fox Report with Shepard Smith and take the rest with a grain of salt. I like Hardball and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC and AC360 and Wolf Blitzer's shows and others on CNN.</div> Oh lol you don't feel for Hill? I just said that about her cause I'm a sensitive guy on the subject of getting fired.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 24 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Huh? I thought "Treating people different based on their race." was essentially what racism is.</div> Not at all. Affirmative Action isn't racist (it might be unfair, tho). Believing slavery is OK because black people are subhuman beasts is racist (which was the thinking back then). I talk from time to time about institutionalized racism. Do you think a law forbidding shoe shining on public corners in D.C. is racist? I do; it was passed in a time when there were enough people to pass it who were racists and for racist reasons.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 25 2008, 12:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 24 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Huh? I thought "Treating people different based on their race." was essentially what racism is.</div> Not at all. Affirmative Action isn't racist (it might be unfair, tho). Believing slavery is OK because black people are subhuman beasts is racist (which was the thinking back then). I talk from time to time about institutionalized racism. Do you think a law forbidding shoe shining on public corners in D.C. is racist? I do; it was passed in a time when there were enough people to pass it who were racists and for racist reasons. </div> Shoe shining on corners, I have no idea, it probably was. Affirmative action is essentially racist, as it is a policy soley based on the color of a person's skin. If the program was to help young people with less money and give them education opportunities, then that would make the most sense. Whatever race they happen to be, give them the opportunities.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 24 2008, 09:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 25 2008, 12:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 24 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Huh? I thought "Treating people different based on their race." was essentially what racism is.</div> Not at all. Affirmative Action isn't racist (it might be unfair, tho). Believing slavery is OK because black people are subhuman beasts is racist (which was the thinking back then). I talk from time to time about institutionalized racism. Do you think a law forbidding shoe shining on public corners in D.C. is racist? I do; it was passed in a time when there were enough people to pass it who were racists and for racist reasons. </div> Shoe shining on corners, I have no idea, it probably was. Affirmative action is essentially racist, as it is a policy soley based on the color of a person's skin. If the program was to help young people with less money and give them education opportunities, then that would make the most sense. Whatever race they happen to be, give them the opportunities. </div> AA isn't based solely upon skin color, it's a bit more complex than that. It's partly a numbers game. You might have 100 open spots for incoming students at a university. The population in the area might be 10% black but you get 1000 white students apply and 100 black ones. There's a good statistical chance, just based upon looking at test results and so on, that no black candidate gets in. The vast majority of the non-black candidates don't get in either. Heck, given how states divert school funding from inner city schools to others where people are rich enough to make campaign donations, you might not get the 100 out of 1000 applicants being black at all. There's also a difference between "Racist" and "Racial" - the latter involves race or skin color, but has nothing to do with racism. Another instance of institutionalized racism. In Chicago, Richard J. Daley Sr. built public housing called Cabrini-Green and the Robert Taylor Homes. Bright shiny new buildings; he invited black people to move in. Then he built freeways around them to keep the people segregated, and then neglected the properties so they ran down so bad the elevators didn't work, paint peeled off the walls, etc. Northern city, too. And Chicago isn't the only place. ROTR might tell us how East Palo Alto is some of the most prime real estate in the heart of Silicon Valley, yet it's population is black, there were stories that the police dept. shut down at 9PM when I lived near there, and there's strategically the 101 freeway separating it from one of the most affluent cities in the world (Palo Alto). Note: I was there for a lot of the Cabrini-Green/Robert Taylor Homes goings on; East Palo Alto was the way it was by the time I moved to California. Note #2: I cannot think of any worse insult to black people than naming those neglected properties after Robert Taylor. He should have been honored by the city, not disgraced like that. An arguable instance of institutionalized racism is the idea of taxi medallions, like they have in NYC. They cost vast sums of money, so they're out of reach of poor/black people. Yet, running a single taxi for a living is an honorable living, and all you technically need to do the job is a car and a map (you can strike a deal for $x to go to the airport or wherever).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 24 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 24 2008, 09:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>[sarcasm] Nas is a true patriot for going after the right wing Fox Noise channel. Bill O'Reilly's such a racist even though he's had Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al, Malik Shabazz, Juan Williams, Cam'ron, Dame Dash, and DJ Star on his show. All hail Nas [/sarcasm]</div> Having Jackson, Sharpton, or most of those dudes on his program doesn't indicate a lack of racism. It just shows that he wants a token black foil against which he can make broad, unwarranted generalizations. </div> It gives those guys a megaphone and a large audience. </div> B.S. dude. Just to take the Cam'ron show as an example, O'Reilly started that program hoping to paint hip hop as some sort of evil menace. He went out and found the dumbest, most ignorant rapper he could find (of course, his audience wouldn't know that) and told him to defend his entire genre. Of course Bill ended up looking better, because the move was calculated and designed to make his argument look more valid without even putting it to the test. That's what O'Reilly does though. He brings in people who bring in the air of legitimate debate, but that he knows will only bolster his own argument. If it doesn't work out that way, he start yelling like a retard. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real)</div><div class='quotemain'>O'Reilly took their shit and didn't get mad once. Usually a racist will explode when a black person insults them right?</div> I'm not saying he's racist (I do think he's an asshole and an ignorant douche), but this type of argument makes no sense to me. It's essentially the same thing as the dude who claims that "I'm not racist, because I have black friends." O'Reilly brings in black guests so he can make broad generalizations about black people and get away with it. It doesn't prove that he's not racist. And besides, Sharpton and Jackson are racist themselves.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 25 2008, 07:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 24 2008, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 24 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 24 2008, 09:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>[sarcasm] Nas is a true patriot for going after the right wing Fox Noise channel. Bill O'Reilly's such a racist even though he's had Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al, Malik Shabazz, Juan Williams, Cam'ron, Dame Dash, and DJ Star on his show. All hail Nas [/sarcasm]</div> Having Jackson, Sharpton, or most of those dudes on his program doesn't indicate a lack of racism. It just shows that he wants a token black foil against which he can make broad, unwarranted generalizations. </div> It gives those guys a megaphone and a large audience. </div> B.S. dude. Just to take the Cam'ron show as an example, O'Reilly started that program hoping to paint hip hop as some sort of evil menace. He went out and found the dumbest, most ignorant rapper he could find (of course, his audience wouldn't know that) and told him to defend his entire genre. Of course Bill ended up looking better, because the move was calculated and designed to make his argument look more valid without even putting it to the test. That's what O'Reilly does though. He brings in people who bring in the air of legitimate debate, but that he knows will only bolster his own argument. If it doesn't work out that way, he start yelling like a retard. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real)</div><div class='quotemain'>O'Reilly took their shit and didn't get mad once. Usually a racist will explode when a black person insults them right?</div> I'm not saying he's racist (I do think he's an asshole and an ignorant douche), but this type of argument makes no sense to me. It's essentially the same thing as the dude who claims that "I'm not racist, because I have black friends." O'Reilly brings in black guests so he can make broad generalizations about black people and get away with it. It doesn't prove that he's not racist. And besides, Sharpton and Jackson are racist themselves. </div> Cam'ron is not the dumbest, most ignorant rapper. There are other contenders for that trophy. He also had on that show Damon Dash, who is far from dumb or ignorant. The fact that he gives guys like Rev. Al and Jackson a platform is not B.S. I hate to bring it up but look at the Olbermann model again, he doesn't bring people who don't share his views on because he doesn't want to give them a platform to dissent. We know what O'Reilly stands for and we know his politics. Like I said, if he were racist it would have been clear after years of being on the air.
This is epic. I used to like Nas, but what a moron. It is proven fact that Fox News is the most unbiased major news network on right now. George Mason did a study on it and that is exactly what their finding was. I think the problem is that Fox News does not have a political agenda and therefore show alot that liberals disagree with. Is it really their fault if Barack and Michelle are making themselves look like idiots and they run it? I don't really think that Bill O'Reilly is racist, however his opinion is that "violent rap music" is a part of the problem with young people today. I disagree with him emphatically on that issue however I can see where he is coming from. And about "cutting people off" (supposedly when he doesn't agree with their point of view) the only recent time I can remember him doing that was with Jeremiah Wright, and it was more than warranted. Wright was blatantly dodging the question trying to talk about "Thelosian theory" or some such crap and was spending all his time asking O'Reilly if he had read the work of someone who had wrote extensively on the subject. He was trying to say that if he understood Thelosian theory then somehow saying "God Damn America" and "Aids is a conspiracy to bring the Black man Down" would be justified. Denny, I didn't take the time to read how this came up, but I was shocked to hear you say AA isn't racist, being as how you seem to be well informed on everything you post, I was wondering if you could explain the reasons behind that stance?
