[Roanoke]

There I was, bored and nothin' decent on Sky TV (Men 'n' Motors being an afternoon channel) when I decided to what see was on Fox News, you know, just for a laugh, fully expecting so see some over the top, right wing political tom-foolery

This dude was interviewing a lady who would give her son a "time out" whenever he tried to play being solider, prenting to use a stick as a gun, using tennis balls as grenades:
So he's like "
Don't you think that's a little unreasonable ?"
(fair question)
And she's like
"I believe it to be inappropiate" (uh huh)
So he goes
"When he graduates, would you stop him from joining the army ?"
After a little cohersion, she goes
"I would give him all the information so he could make an informed decision" (seemed fair enough to me)

(this is where it really starts)

This obviusly wasn't enough for the dude so he opens up on her
"Do you consider yourself a patriot ?" he asks
"Yes, I do" she says
"But you won't fight for you're freedom ? C'mon, they're fighting for our freedom here", he says
"We're in a war on terror here" (just to really rem home the point. Cue shots of Guys firing M60s from Humvies)
A little flustered, she says
"I don't believe the war in Irag is about my freedom"
(who can argue with that ?)
So he goes
"We're in a war against Al'Quaida here"(he mentions the Twin Towers attack round about here. He does quicky say it's nothing to do with Iraq, to be fair)
"Would you have volunteered to fight in World War 2 ?" he asks her (like that has anything to do with Iraq or "the war on terror")
plainly a little shocked, she's like
"I hadn't really thought about it"
(this is where it gets freaky)
"You see that's the problem. You haven't really thought about it. The New York Times is trying to undermine the military" he says
(like the military, any military, needs any help doing that)
"The new York Times is using people like you"

And that was pretty much it. We went from a slightly overzealous Mother, throgh WW2 to the New York Times.
I was so shocked, I decided to sit in front of a PC and spend 10 minutes recounting all this to you chaps.

[Night Hammer]

yeah well on sean hannity's show the other day they had the founder of some antitroop organization on("Forsake the Troops") and they nicely tore him a new one

[redmenace]

He was wrong to criticize her since parents are have a right to raise their children as they want without interference by the state, save abuse.

[vyper]

What worries me is that by being so specific in your reply, you agree with him on the new york times.

[DeepSpace9er]

You cant argue with the fact that the New York Times' reporting is slanted to the left. I honestly dont have a problem with that, they can report however they want. When they present it as objective news and deny any left slant is what is wrong with them.

[vyper]

Seeing as I don't even read the damned thing I can't comment. However, it seems as though any left-slant is seen as unpatriotic.

[achtung]

I always thought fox leaned a bit to the right.

[pyro-manic]

Unsurprising, but still leaves me agape.

And the NY Times being slightly left-leaning is hardly a crime. Bearing in mind that Fox and News International is massively, overwhelmingly right-wing...

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Swantz
I always thought fox leaned a bit to the right.

That's like saying that the Leaning Tower of Piza could be straighter

[redmenace]

Originally posted by vyper
What worries me is that by being so specific in your reply, you agree with him on the new york times.

What does the NYT have to do with all this. The exert didn't explain much?

[Scuddie]

NYT Doesn't slant to the left.  It just happens to be less slanted to the right.

[Ford Prefect]

Bill O'Reilly is a pompous windbag who suffers from the sad delusion that he can make political arguments and still be "above the fray".

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Bill O'Reilly is a pompous windbag who suffers from the sad delusion that he can make political arguments and still be "above the fray".

yes.
wouldn't call him a conserveitive though, if you catch him in the right mood and you present the right argument you can change his mind about stuff, and he doesn't just read conservitive talking points (though he does sometimes come up with a few).

O'Reilly was the only guy to even come close to convince me to vote for kerry.

[BlackDove]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

[Mefustae]

Good one BlackDove, i was waiting for someone to bring in the voice of reason that is Maddox to this arguement...

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by redmenace
What does the NYT have to do with all this. The exert didn't explain much?

That's kinda my point. It has nothing to do with this. He just threw it in there just for the hell of it (kinda like The Twin Tower Attack and WW2).

Not exactly a balanced debate was it ?
Apposing the Goverment and Apposing the People in Government aren't the same thing.

[Janos]

Facts have an anti-GOP agenda.

[Liberator]

Facts are typically anti-everyone's agenda though.  And to be fair here, there is very little actual fact reporting anymore, sure they report what's going on, but then they spend days and weeks on commentary...so much that even I grow weary of it.

[Kamikaze]

There's nothing wrong with opposing the government, although the people in power will try to make you think that.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
There's nothing wrong with opposing the government, although the people in power will try to make you think that.

A certain Vice President of s certain country said it was "unpatriotic to critisize the president".


Although the Clinton administration never said anything like that.....